Voice For Liberty

Tag: Climate change

  • Cap-and-trade harmful to Kansas

    An op-ed in the Wichita Eagle (Amy J. Blankenbiller: Cap-and-trade would be harmful to Kansans) makes the case that some cures for global warming may cause more harm than good.

    The author warns that “we could be heading toward ‘solutions’ that are much more harmful to Kansas consumers and businesses than the environmental benefits they aim to provide.”

    Specifically, prices for the forms of energy that most Americans use — electricity, natural gas, and gasoline — would rise rapidly. If we need any evidence that increases in energy prices are harmful, consider the reaction to a proposal to increase electricity rates in Wichita by a relatively modest amount. (See Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.)

    The important questions: “With Kansas accountable for only 0.25 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions, the real questions become: What impact did we have on global climate change? And at what cost?”

  • Kansas electric rates increase because of wind power generation

    Electric rates may be increasing for many Kansas consumers. Why? To pay for a new coal-fired plant?

    According to Notice of Public Hearings & Comment Period available at the Kansas Corporation Commission, the reasons Westar Energy cites as creating the need for a rate increase are repair costs from a recent ice storm, investments in new natural gas plants, and investments in wind energy.

    It turns out that electricity generated by wind is expensive, even though the federal government pays producers $.015 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by wind. (This payment, made through a tax credit, is set to expire at the end of this year unless the United States Congress extends it.)

    In the Wichita Eagle article Residents bash Westar rate plan, we learn that people are angry over the proposed rate increase. Some are suffering a hardship with present rates. According to Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, presently running for the Kansas Senate, “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.” A rate increase won’t help these people.

    As our state, under the leadership of Governor Kathleen Sebelius, moves towards using even more wind power plus other expensive forms of energy, rates will have to increase further. At that time I would not be surprised to see programs put in place where taxpayers subsidize expensive energy costs for low-income households.

  • Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet: Not an Example of Sarah Palin’s Transparent Government

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work seeking to understand the role of The Center for Climate Strategies in Alaska.

    (The Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet plays the same role there that the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) plays here.)

    In his excellent and informative post Palin, Alaska’s Climate Commission, and (Lack of) Transparency, Paul traces the formation of the climate change panel in Alaska by Governor Sarah Palin and CCS’s involvement in that. At the same time, he illustrates the frustration that those making records requests of government agencies often experience.

    You can also read about CCS’s appointment recommendations. Did CCS also make these recommendations in Kansas? I’d like to know. But as Paul’s article shows, sometimes finding the answer to these questions is difficult and time-consuming.

  • Wind Power: Why Special Tax Treatment?

    A recent article in USA Today (Renewable energy firms clamor for tax breaks) reports on the uncertainty of whether the U.S. Congress will extend the tax credits that subsidize solar and wind power investment. From the article:

    Some $500 million in investment and production tax credits will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them. Without that help, solar and wind power companies say they will reverse planned expansions and, in many cases, cut payrolls and capital investment.

    Commenting on this article, The Foundation for Economic Education wondered “If they need special tax treatment to survive, what does that tell you?”

    It tells me that wind and solar power are not economically viable at the moment. The only way to induce people to invest in these forms of power generation is to give them money.

    To learn more about the economics of wind and other forms of power generation, I suggest these articles: Wind Production Tax Credits Aren’t Free of Cost, Mandating Renewable Energy: It’s Not Easy Being Green, Hot Air and Wind, and Energy Independence Isn’t Very Green.

  • Analysis of Kansas Wind Power Prospects

    In the post Is Sebelius’ call for more wind-power all hot air? Kansas Liberty reporter Holly Smith provides excellent analysis of the current situation regarding additional wind power generation in Kansas.

    Some important findings:

    With more wind power, electricity bills will be higher. Wind power generation is costly, and costs are rising rapidly.

    There aren’t enough transmission lines from where the wind farms are located.

    There is no scientific basis for associating emissions with public health risks.

    T. Boone Pickens says “I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly.”

    The Wall Street Journal editorial Wind Jammers sums up part of the problem: “In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.”

  • Kansas Can’t Do Much Locally To Counter Global Greenhouse Gas Emitters

    A recent op-ed piece in the Wichita Eagle (Reader View: Give up on Climate Efforts?) makes the case that it is still important to fight climate change at the local level, here in Kansas. “When millions of people act, even in small ways, it has a cumulative effect on the planet.”

    The problem is that most people can act in only very small ways, and even these have a high cost that many won’t bear. The popular resistance to a reduction in the speed limit is such an example.

    The stark fact of the arithmetic is that greenhouse gas emissions are rising so quickly worldwide that anything we can do locally is like a drop in the ocean. That’s not much of an exaggeration. If Kansans were to stop all emissions of greenhouse gases from all sources, our sacrifice would be negated by China’s emissions growth in about 16 months.

    As it turns out, the cost of making even small reductions in greenhouse gases is quite large. To fully implement goals like the Stern Commission’s would largely mean the end of capitalism as we know it, and of our present standard of living.

    The writer also uses anthropomorphism — the “strange groaning of the ice” making him believe the earth is calling out for help — as an argument. This is similar to the radical environmentalist group Earthjustice and its motto: “Because the earth needs a good lawyer.” These appeals to emotion are a common tactic of the radical left.

  • Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group: Its Heritage

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work looking into the background and affiliations of the Center for Climate Strategies. This is important because CCS is the radical environmentalist group that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is using to run the activities of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.

    The blog post announcing this work is Center for Climate Strategies in Black & White. The work is ongoing.

  • Kansas Climate Change Mitigation Will Be Costly

    A recent presentation in Kansas revealed that fighting global warming in Kansas will be quite costly, and will harm lower-income families most.

    The Wichita Eagle article Business leaders hear climate talk reports that The National Association of Manufacturers calculated that cap-and-trade proposals before Congress would cost the average Kansas family $304 per month in the form of higher prices for energy. That’s a very large penalty for Kansas families, especially low-income families, to pay to mitigate something that not all scientists agree is a problem.

    Then, even if you agree that global warming is a problem, there’s very little that Kansans can do in light of global factors outside our control. As reported in KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, the rate of growth of carbon emissions in China and other countries is so large that it overwhelms any attempt by Kansans to reduce their emissions. Even a complete cessation of carbon emissions by Kansans would quickly be negated by China’s growth. And, China is not willing to take steps to mitigate their output.

    $304 per month, or $3,648 per year, would be a crushing blow to the budgets of many Kansas families. This burden would be on top of many thousands of jobs lost. As reported in Kansas companies put out of business by high fuel costs, the high cost of diesel fuel has caused some trucking companies in Kansas to close, and others have reduced the number of trucks they operate. Those who think that these extra fuel and energy costs can be absorbed by families and the economy with no adverse effects are not being realistic.

    For more information, view the slide presentation here. The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis is an easy-to-read analysis of the cap-and-trade proposal.

  • Pickens’s Slim Economics

    An article from the Foundation for Economic Education warns us to be cautious when considering the plans of oilman T. Boone Pickens:

    Pickens’s commercial no doubt causes FEE readers’ classical-liberal antennae to stand at attention. The word “plan” alone rightly provokes worries of coercive schemes. The notion of being independent of energy or any other commodity from foreign countries goes against the teachings of Smith, Bastiat, and others who recognize the gains from specialization and division of labor. Nor will readers knowledgeable about rent-seeking be surprised that media reports describe Pickens as “heavily invested in natural gas and wind power.” And when Pickens states in his commercials that “this plan will work but it needs your help,” readers familiar with Public Choice rightly suspect that the sort of help Pickens has in mind is tax dollars.

    The full article is Pickens’s Slim Economics.