Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts

Friday, June 20, 2014

Germany, of all places, is holding back the EU’s emissions deal — and France wants to follow suit for some reason

Germany,ofallplaces,isholdingbackthe

Germany, of all places, is holding back the EU’s emissions deal — and France wants to follow suit for some reason

posted at 3:21 pm on June 20, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

That’s gotta’ hurt. The Germans’ ambitious Energiewende plan to cut down on nuclear while subsidizing wind and solar was supposed to land them at the head of the Europeans’ green-energy cool-kids table, but their subsequently skyrocketing energy prices cutting into their competitiveness and their reversion to coal-fired power plants has the European Union worried that the Germans might mess up the whole arrangement. Via Bloomberg:

The European Union’s attempt to cap greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 16 years is threatened again as rising pollution from the bloc’s biggest economies shows even developed nations want to burn cheap coal.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, boosted consumption of the fuel by 13 percent in the past four years, while use in Britain, No. 3 in the region economically, rose 22 percent, statistics from oil company BP Plc show. While Germany pledged to cut heat-trapping gases 55 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, it’s managed 25 percent so far and is moving in the wrong direction, according to the European Environment Agency.

The EU is seeking to craft a deal in October that would cut greenhouse gases 40 percent by 2030 in the world’s biggest effort to combat global warming since the Kyoto climate treaty of 1997.

Reverting to coal is what happens, of course, when you 1) resist natural-gas drilling innovations on purely ideological grounds; 2) pour a bunch of public money into price-inefficient wind and solar technology when your weather consistently provides neither of these things; and 3) start shuttering nuclear power plants based on nothing other than anti-nuclear sentimentalism. In terms of the European Union’s Kyoto-ish internal scheme, Germany is still doing better with its emissions than others (like Poland, which uses coal to generate 80 percent of its electricity and wants assurance that it won’t be penalized for being a poorer country before it signs onto the arrangement), but Germany was supposed to be leading the charge here and is instead lagging behind their own targets.

But here’s the really facepalm-worthy part about all of this: France — over-taxed, over-regulated, GDP-growth-challenged France — has some of the lowest energy prices in Europe thanks to their own heavy share of nuke plants. It’s been one of their few economic saving graces, but the Socialist government for some reason wants to follow in Germany’s nuke-drawdown footsteps despite their coal-heavy results, via the Financial Times:

A so-called energy transition law, unveiled by the Socialist government on Wednesday, reiterated an election pledge by President François Hollande to cut the share of nuclear power in French electricity generation to 50 per cent by 2025 from about 75 per cent today, the highest level among developed economies.

Critics say the government is compromising a vital strategic asset that has allowed France to charge among the lowest prices in Europe for electricity.

But, under pressure from the left and its Green party allies, the government insists the country needs to rebalance its energy mix to boost its lagging performance in non-nuclear renewables and meet ambitious environmental targets.

“We are not exiting nuclear, but its part [in the mix] must fall,” said Ségolène Royal, energy minister. “It is thanks to nuclear that we can make a secure energy transition.”

So, even though you have clean nuclear power, you want to “invest” in wind and solar… just for the sake of wind and solar? …Because you have so much money to spare, and everything?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Grimes reneges on promise to stand up to Harry Reid for coal

Grimesrenegesonpromisetostandupto

Grimes reneges on promise to stand up to Harry Reid for coal

posted at 2:01 pm on June 10, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Did Alison Lundergan Grimes have “strong words” for Harry Reid over the new EPA rules that will cripple Kentucky’s coal industry? After promising to stand up for Kentucky at a key fundraiser, Grimes instead completely ignored the coal issue at the splashy DC event, according to Politico’s Manu Raju and Burgess Everett. Instead, she promised to promote the Democratic Party agenda:

Alison Lundergan Grimes’ campaign insisted last week that she’d use a high-dollar fundraiser with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a forum to promote Kentucky’s coal industry and demand action to protect the use of fossil fuel.

That didn’t happen, according to an audio recording of the 45-minute affair obtained by POLITICO through a source at the event.

Instead, when the Kentucky Democrat spoke at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill last Thursday, she stuck to a partisan script, railing against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s record on jobs, the minimum wage and women’s issues.

The one word she didn’t say during her 11-minute speech: “coal.”

“Make no mistake, the hill that we are climbing … it is steep, but I will continue to run circles in my heels around Mitch McConnell,” Grimes told the donors, who paid as much as $2,600 a plate to attend. “It is going to take a nation to help Kentucky rise up to do this, and Alison’s army. And as I look out today, amongst the quality that is here, Leader Reid, I know this is the army that will help to get it done.”

The hometown Herald-Leader took notice of the omission, too:

In an audio recording of the speech obtained by Politico, Grimes instead criticized Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s record on jobs, the minimum wage and women’s issues, prompting McConnell’s campaign to accuse Grimes of misleading Kentucky voters.

“Alison Lundergan Grimes just did exactly what every Kentuckian knew she would — tell them one thing and do another with Harry Reid,” McConnell campaign spokeswoman Allison Moore said. “If there was any question about what she would do as a senator, this tape erased all doubt.”

Grimes later said she raised the objection to Reid in “a private conversation,” but Reid arrived late and left early. They later specified that the conversation took place by phone after the fundraiser was over. Even if that’s the case, what happened to Grimes’ pledge to publicly push back against the Obama administration’s attack on Kentucky’s coal industry?

CNN’s John King was less than impressed with Grimes’ backbone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnvYRYufIss

Once again, this raises the problem of authenticity for Grimes, which came up in a more comical manner with her ad featuring a European model posed as a Kentucky coal miner. Needless to say, Barack Obama is not a popular figure in Kentucky, and Harry Reid is probably even less well liked. Voters in this midterm election aren’t looking for a rubber stamp for Obama and someone to wrap her arms around “Leader Reid”; they want someone who will stand up to both to protect Kentucky jobs rather than Beltway agendas. That would be a long shot for even the most talented Democratic politicians, to pull off a Joe Manchin-like campaign as a way to win under those circumstances. Clearly, Alison Lundergan Grimes does not possess Manchin-like talent.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, June 6, 2014

New KY campaign theme is … Coal Miner’s Model?

NewKYcampaignthemeis…CoalMiner’s

New KY campaign theme is … Coal Miner’s Model?

posted at 2:01 pm on June 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

If the news in politics and war has become too grim this week, let’s remember why we love politics in the first place … absurdity. In Kentucky, where one of its most famous daughters produced the anthem Coal Miner’s Daughter, the coal industry is key to both the economy and identity of the state. After the Obama administration went after the coal industry with new EPA regulations, Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes produced an ad promoting coal in order to distance herself from Obama and establish her bona fides as an authentic daughter of Kentucky.

There was only one problem with the ad:

President Barack Obama’s new EPA rules on carbon emissions are politically toxic in Kentucky, so it’s no surprise that the Democrat challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to distance herself. Her campaign blasted out an ad on Monday afternoon that says, “President Obama and Washington Don’t Get It … Alison Grimes Does.”

Accompanying that message is a large picture of a man in a hard hat with a sooty face holding out a piece of coal toward the camera. It was taken by Ukrainian photographerVictor Gladkov and is for sale on the photo website Shutterstock.

Also available there are pictures of the same model dressed as a doctor, engineer, soldier, student, carpenter and painter. He is also shown making an obscene gesture toward the camera in one image.

Republicans leaped all over the photo choice, of course. That prompted the Grimes campaign to point out three stock-photo mismatches on Mitch McConnell’s site, but that misses the point of Grimes’ strategy. McConnell has been around long enough to not have to worry about his own authenticity, especially in the context of the Obama administration and EPA restrictions on coal. Replacing an Obama opponent with an Obama supporter in the US Senate does nothing to protect Kentucky’s native industry, which is why Grimes has to paint herself as a Kentuckian first and a Democrat second. Using a European male model rather than an actual Kentucky coal miner for a website picture makes Grimes look much less like an authentic Kentuckian and more like a poseur.

How difficult would it have been to send a staffer to a coal mine for a snapshot? There has to be at least one actual coal miner supporting Grimes … right?

This is an absurd little teapot-in-a-tempest scandal, but it points out a much larger problem for Grimes and other Democrats like her in the midterms. Josh Kraushaar wonders if Obama even cares about Senate races any longer with his unilateral declaration of war on coal:

Does President Obama care about keeping the Senate?

The president reportedly has told his close allies that losing the Senate would be “unbearable,” but his administration is doing everything possible to make things difficult for his party’s most vulnerable senators. On energy issues alone, the administration’s decisions to impose new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired plants and indefinitely delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline could help burnish his long-term environmental legacy, but at the expense of losing complete control of Congress. …

To understand the disconnect between the White House and Congress’s views of energy politics, just look at the disparate results from 2010 and 2012 in the energy-producing battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Obama won all three states in 2012, even though Mitt Romney attacked him over his administration’s environmentally minded policies throughout the campaign. But in the previous midterm election, when blue-collar workers made up a larger share of the electorate, Republicans picked up a whopping 13 (out of 28) Democratic-held House seats in those states, with Rob Portman and Pat Toomey scoring huge Senate victories. Most of the successful Republican challengers in those states campaigned against the Democratic cap-and-trade legislation, which didn’t become law, but nonetheless served as a rallying cry for the GOP. Obama won despite his liberal environmental policies, but when he wasn’t on the ballot, his party lost nearly half of its members in those crucial battleground states.

In other words, it’s a weird time to remind these voters of the damage that Democrats can do in their own back yards.

Republicans weren’t alone in laughing at Grimes. Mika Brzezinski noted that she had a problem with “optics,” and the panel on MSNBC’s Morning Joe found it quite amusing:


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Is Germany finally ready to keep the green dream alive by fracking?

IsGermanyfinallyreadytokeepthegreen

Is Germany finally ready to keep the green dream alive by fracking?

posted at 8:01 pm on June 5, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Germany’s once promising Energiewende ambitions, which included virtually ridding the country of nuclear power while heavily subsidizing wind and solar with the eventual goal of transitioning electricity production to 60 percent renewables by 2050, hasn’t worked out too well. The country’s rising energy prices have hurt consumers and ruined their manufacturing competitiveness, while the costliness and unreliability of wind and solar has prompted energy producers to turn back to the coal-powered plants in droves — resulting in a net increase in carbon emissions.

Germany has already started to back down from the ideological precipice onto which it hoisted itself in all of its noble eagerness to serve as the world’s environmentalist pioneer in energy-sector central planning, and in perhaps an even bigger acknowledgement that it’s time to step away from that ledge, Angela Merkel’s government looks like it’s finally ready to give shale drilling its due. Via the Financial Times:

Germany is set to lift its ban on fracking as early as next year, after caving in to business demands that it should reduce its dependency on Russian energy and boost competitiveness with US manufacturers.

Applications to carry out the controversial process for extracting the country’s estimated 2.3tn cubic metres shale gas reserves will be subject to an environmental impact assessment under new legislation to be discussed by the cabinet before the summer recess. …

Details of the new regulations emerged in a letter from Sigmar Gabriel, German economy minister, to the head of the Bundestag’s budget committee. In the letter, Mr Gabriel wrote that permission to carry out fracking would be subject to approval from regional water authorities and that “further requirements for the fracking permit process are still being considered”. …

Germany’s estimated reserves of shale gas are significantly smaller than those of Poland and France, which have the biggest recoverable reserves in Europe. However, German shale gas, which is concentrated in its northern states, still has the potential to provide a long-term domestic supply.

Bowing to environmentalist demands, Germany has had an unofficial moratorium on fracking, a.k.a. the innovative technologies that have unlocked the United States’ shale reserves, for the past couple of years. The resulting upswing in cleaner-burning natural gas here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. has provided an incredible boom to our economy while reducing our carbon emissions at the same time — and with Russia having lately exploded Europe’s concept of energy security, it looks like Germany is finally ready to get on board.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, June 2, 2014

Labor unions none too happy with the Obama administration’s new emissions regulations

LaborunionsnonetoohappywiththeObama

Labor unions none too happy with the Obama administration’s new emissions regulations

posted at 8:01 pm on June 2, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration knew that it wasn’t going to get applause from all of its fellow Democrats on the regulations released by the Environmental Protection Agency this morning — and not only did officials not expect any, they even gave Congressional Democrats their implicit blessing on the issue. Via Reuters:

Democrats in Republican-leaning states have a simple strategy for dealing with President Barack Obama’s upcoming power plant restrictions before the mid-term elections: Fight them, with the White House’s blessing.

The new rules, popular with the Democratic Party’s base, are one of Obama’s highest domestic priorities for his second term. …

So, the White House is turning a blind eye to attacks from within the party, despite the importance of the regulations to Obama’s agenda and post-presidential legacy.

“We understand that there are going to be Democrats in these states that oppose it and are perfectly prepared that that’s going to happen,” one White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“We don’t agree, but we don’t have a problem with it.”

The White House’s apparent political nonchalance about the divisive regulations don’t make them any more welcome for the not-so-merry band of vulnerable Congressional Democrats, several of whom tried to convince the EPA to delay them for a few more cltuch months — and less welcome still, I imagine, are the monetary losses they might sustain from some of their biggest traditional campaign donors. Via the WFB:

United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) president Cecil Roberts blasted the proposal, saying it would leave tens of thousands of the union’s members unemployed.

“The proposed rule … will lead to long-term and irreversible job losses for thousands of coal miners, electrical workers, utility workers, boilermakers, railroad workers and others without achieving any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions,” Roberts said in a statement.

According to a UMWA analysis, Roberts said, the rule will cause 75,000 job losses in the coal sector by 2020, rising to 152,000 by 2035.

“When a U.S. government economic multiplier used to calculate the impact of job losses is applied to the entire economy, we estimate that the total impact will be about 485,000 permanent jobs lost,” Roberts said. …

The regulations also drew fire on Monday from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which warned they “focus solely on the environmental aspect of public policy at the expense of balancing our nation’s economic and energy needs.”

Perhaps the White House is hoping that the major demonstration of Climate Change Seriousness they can now offer to the environmentalist lobby will make the juice worth the squeeze, and perhaps individual Democrats are hoping that they can demonstrate enough anti-Obama/regulations sentiments that they’ll still get their donations from labor unions, but it’s no wonder these guys are upset. As the EPA states in their own language, the goal of these regulations is to completely do away with at least a handful of the country’s coal-fired power plants — which means a forced and accelerated market transition that will definitely result in job losses.

Here’s a key paragraph from the agency’s regulatory analysis released Monday alongside the rule: “Relative to the base case, about 30 to 49 GW of coal-fired capacity is projected to be uneconomic to maintain (about 12 percent to 19 percent of all coal-fired capacity projected to be in service in the base case) by 2020 under the range of scenarios analyzed.”

And here’s a key forecast in the rule itself: “EPA projects coal production for use by the power sector, a large component of total coal production, will decline by roughly 25 to 27 percent in 2020 from base case levels. The use of coal by the power sector will decrease roughly 30 to 32 percent in 2030.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030

NewEPAruleslooktocutcarbonemissions

New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030

posted at 1:21 pm on June 2, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

In what enthusiastic progressives are heralding as “one of the boldest acts of his presidency,” environmentalist groups are hailing as “the centerpiece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan,” embattled red-state Democrats are warning are “disastrous new rules,” and industry representatives are branding a clear move “designed to materially damage the ability of conventional energy sources to provide reliable and affordable power,” the Obama administration has finally revealed the emissions regulations on existing power plants for which they have long been prepping. Via the AP:

The 645-page rule, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama’s plans to tackle climate change and aims to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year. Under the plan, carbon emissions would be reduced 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, putting in motion one of the most significant U.S. actions on global warming.

The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency, then submit those plans for approval.

“The glue that holds this plan together — and the key to making it work — is that each state’s goal is tailored to its own circumstances, and states have the flexibility to reach their goal in whatever works best for them,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said as she formally announced the proposal.

The regulations are going to require individual emissions-cutting plans from each state to add up to a national 30 percent reduction, with different state-specific requirements based on how much electricity they get from coal and how much they have already done to reduce their emissions in recent years. The Obama administration doesn’t want to seem like it’s unfairly coming down too hard on state economies that happen to rely more on coal for their electricity needs (West Virginia, for instance, is going to get walloped, with 95 percent of their electricity currently coming from coal, while Idaho actually gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric power and exactly none of it from coal), and in that vein, the EPA claims that the regulations will offer plenty of “flexibility” for states to adjust to the changes:

Many states that rely heavily on coal will be spared from cutting a full 30 percent. West Virginia, for example, must cut 23 percent by 2030 compared to what the state was emitting in 2012. Ohio’s target is 28 percent, while Kentucky and Wyoming will have to find ways to make an 18 percent and 19 percent cut.

On the other extreme, New York has a 44 percent target, EPA figures show. New York has already joined with other Northeast states to curb carbon dioxide from power plants, reducing the baseline figure from which cuts must be made. But states like New York can get credit for actions they’ve already taken, lest they be punished for taking early action on climate change.

The fact that they chose 2005 as a baseline is also meant to be a mitigating factor, since our natural-gas boom along with increased fuel efficiency have already taken us part of the way there. Nevertheless, President Obama wants the EPA to finalize the rules by June 2015, and states are supposed to start submitting their implementation plans by June 2016 (with room to push their deadlines into 2018, depending on how they choose to approach the regulations) so that the rule can start having an impact before he leaves office — in theory. The legal challenges from states with a larger proportion of older coal plants are going to come hard and fast, not to mention some staunch lobbying efforts and less-than-uniform support from put-upon Democrats.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, June 1, 2014

EPA diving into uncharted legal waters with new regulations for existing power plants

EPAdivingintounchartedlegalwaterswithnew

EPA diving into uncharted legal waters with new regulations for existing power plants

posted at 2:01 pm on June 1, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Leave it to the Obama Environmental Protection Agency to plumb the heretofore untested depths of regulatory legerdemain to justify their environmentalist central planning.

The Obama administration’s forthcoming regulations on existing power plants — i.e., the main course of their proffered climate-change menu, set for release this week — were always going to spark a whole host of legal challenges no matter what provisions they used for their justification. The negative economic impact the new rules will have on a bunch of states and industries is certainly going to make it worth their while, and part of the EPA’s task in devising the rules was to find the best way possible to protect them from these challenges.

Evidently, they think they’ve found it. Via the WSJ:

The expected legal battle over the Obama administration’s coming limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants could provide a rarity for environmental litigation: a case for which there is scant court precedent.

The Environmental Protection Agency is turning to a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act for its new rules, because carbon dioxide isn’t regulated under major Clean Air Act programs that address air pollutants. The EPA says it has only used the section, called 111(d), to regulate five sources of pollutants since the provision was enacted in 1970—and none on the scale of CO2, a major greenhouse gas.

Because the provision has been invoked so rarely, courts have had little opportunity to weigh in on it, creating the unusual circumstance in which potential challengers to the carbon rules would be litigating largely on a blank slate against the EPA. The Clean Air Act provision gives the agency authority to regulate pollutants emitted by facilities already in operation, but the expected lawsuits from states and industry could test how far a president can go in using the long-standing air-pollution law to try to address climate change.

Unfortunately, the EPA has been on something of a legal winning streak lately, and the eco-radical lobby is in a tizzy of excitement over these latest and greatest regulations. The Obama administration has been in preemptive defense mode, and we can all look forward to a whole lot more of this over the coming days:


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, May 23, 2014

45 senators, including vulnerable Dems, are asking the EPA to delay incoming emissions regulations

45senators,includingvulnerableDems,areaskingthe

45 senators, including vulnerable Dems, are asking the EPA to delay incoming emissions regulations

posted at 5:21 pm on May 23, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

It’s only a small matter of time until the Obama administration finally, rapturously releases what its hopes will be the crown jewel of its rise-of-the-oceans-slowing climate-change agenda: Regulations capping the emissions from existing power plants, a.k.a., stamping out coal plants across the country. This set of regs is going to be even more complicated and controversial than the regulations for only new power plants the administration released last year, and as the AP obliquely explains, we’re likely to start seeing those “necessarily skyrocketing” energy prices Obama once mentioned pretty quickly here:

Electricity prices are probably on their way up across much of the U.S. as coal-fired plants, the dominant source of cheap power, shut down in response to environmental regulations and economic forces.

New and tighter pollution rules and tough competition from cleaner sources such as natural gas, wind and solar will lead to the closings of dozens of coal-burning plants across 20 states over the next three years. And many of those that stay open will need expensive retrofits.

Because of these and other factors, the Energy Department predicts retail power prices will rise 4 percent on average this year, the biggest increase since 2008. By 2020, prices are expected to climb an additional 13 percent, a forecast that does not include the costs of coming environmental rules.

The Obama administration, state governments and industry are struggling to balance this push for a cleaner environment with the need to keep the grid reliable and prevent prices from rocketing too much higher.

“Tough competition” from wind and solar? …That’s cute. Our egregiously subsidized wind and solar industries account for about 4 percent of our electricity generation and are terribly unreliable (just ask Germany, which has lately had to bring more coal plants online to make up for their faulty renewables), while coal still provides around 40 percent of our electricity and is the most reliable mass source we have. Natural gas is great with its cleaner-burning emissions, coming in with the really stiff competition at around 30 percent, but it has some infrastructural issues that are currently keeping it at second place in terms of reliability. Make no mistake — the Obama administration swooping in with major regs that deeply affect 40 percent of our electricity generation is going to take its economic toll, and 45 senators  — Democrats and Republicans included — would like the Obama administration to step back for a second a perhaps more deeply consider that toll. Via The Hill:

Forty-five senators are pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to delay new rules on limiting carbon emissions from power plants. …

The senators are pressuring the EPA to set a 120-day comment period rather than the standard 60-day comment period. That would double the normal allotted for industry, consumers, businesses, and states to give their two cents on the rule.

Fifteen Democrats signed the letter, including the four seen as most vulnerable in the midterm elections: Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Warner (Va), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Mark Begich (Alaska). …

“Affordable, reliable, and redundant sources of electricity are essential to the economic well-being of our states and the quality of life of our constituents,” the letter to EPA chief Gina McCarthy said.

“While we all agree that clean air is vitally important, EPA has an obligation to understand the impacts that regulations have on all segments of society,” it said.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Oh, rapture: Obama administration to release regs on existing power plants next month

Oh,rapture:Obamaadministrationtoreleaseregson

Oh, rapture: Obama administration to release regs on existing power plants next month

posted at 7:01 pm on May 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The steady trickle of irksomely fustian yet relatively measly climate-change-related regulations, executive orders, grandiose speeches, and frightening studies the Obama administration has been releasing in recent months to quell environmentalist anger have all been leading up to this: The big one.

The EPA will launch the most dramatic anti-pollution regulation in a generation early next month, a sweeping crackdown on carbon that offers President Barack Obama his last real shot at a legacy on climate change — while causing significant political peril for red-state Democrats.

The move could produce a dramatic makeover of the power industry, shifting it away from coal-burning plants toward natural gas, solar and wind. While this is the big move environmentalists have been yearning for, it also has major political implications in November for a president already under fire for what the GOP is branding a job-killing “War on Coal,” and promises to be an election issue in energy-producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.

The EPA’s proposed rule is aimed at scaling back carbon emissions from existing power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases. It’s scheduled for a public rollout June 2, after months of efforts by the administration to publicize the mounting scientific evidence that rising seas, melting glaciers and worsening storms pose a danger to human society.

“This rule is the most significant climate action this administration will take,” said Kyle Aarons at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, one of a host of groups awaiting the rule’s release.

As Politico notes, the timing of this long-planned release isn’t liable to be very helpful for a slew of vulnerable red-state Democrats, and they along with Republicans are going to be touting the shuttered power plants, lost jobs, economic shrinkage, and expensive (some might say, “necessarily skyrocketing“) energy prices that are likely to come from this move for all they’re worth.

And while the Obama administration is looking to this crackdown on existing coal plants as the highest achievement of its climate-change legacy, never fear, greenies: Administration officials are going to keep eagerly occupying themselves with churning out more of those little economically damaging yet, global-warming-wise, ineffectual show maneuvers until the clock runs out, oh joy:

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are racing to churn out new regulations before the clock runs out on President Obama’s term.

The activity is evidence that Obama’s push to combat global warming with regulation has entered a critical phase, with officials hammering out the details of rules that carry major implications for the environment and the economy. …

The power plants rule has attracted more attention that perhaps any other Obama administration regulation. Industry and green groups have flocked to the White House in hopes of shaping the proposal, slated to be unveiled early next month.

Meanwhile, the administration has convened meetings on agency proposals for regulations involving oil refineries, the renewable fuel standard and a final rule revising regulations for the disposal of solid waste.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Germany’s version of The Daily Show lampoons their failed green-energy transition

Germany’sversionofTheDailyShowlampoonstheir

Germany’s version of The Daily Show lampoons their failed green-energy transition

posted at 7:01 pm on May 10, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Via James Delingpole at Breitbart and the folks at the American Interest, this is a few weeks old by now but certainly worth a [joyless] chuckle or two. A few years ago, Germany decided to phase themselves off of nuclear energy while transitioning to a more wind-and-solar-centric energy grid — a so-called Energiewende that was supposed to set a pioneering green example for the rest of the world. Germans have now invested quite a bit of money into that endeavor through subsidies and state-mandated scheming, but all they have to show for it is an increased reliance on coal and higher energy prices hindering their economic opportunities. The jokes practically write themselves (language warning):


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, April 4, 2014

Video: Russia raises gas prices 80% for Ukraine

Video:Russiaraisesgasprices80%forUkraine

Video: Russia raises gas prices 80% for Ukraine

posted at 10:41 am on April 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

As CNN says, Ukraine “should have seen this one coming,” and they almost certainly did anticipate that the next phase of the war would be economic. In fact, the new government in Kyiv may have assumed that raising prices on Russian energy imports would be the first phase of the conflict, not the seizure and annexation of Crimea. Over the last few days, though, Gazprom has raised gas prices by 80% to Ukraine as Russian troops still gather on their common border:

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk affirmed that Kyiv expected this all along:

Russia raised the gas price for Ukraine on Thursday for the second time this week, almost doubling it in three days and piling pressure on a neighbor on the brink of bankruptcy in the crisis over Crimea.

The increase, announced in Moscow by Russian natural gas producer Gazprom, means Ukraine will pay 80 percent more for its gas than before the initial increase on Monday.

Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said the latest move, two weeks after Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region, was unacceptable and warned that he expected Russia to increase pressure on Kiev by limiting supply to his country.

“There is no reason why Russia would raise the gas price for Ukraine … other than one – politics,” Yatseniuk told Reuters in an interview in the Ukrainian capital Kiev.

“We expect Russia to go further in terms of pressure on the gas front, including limiting gas supplies to Ukraine.”

This isn’t just a message to Kyiv, though. It’s a message to eastern Europe as well, especially NATO partners who have begun to mobilize their own forces in response to a newly-acquisitive Russian state. Vladimir Putin wants to play hardball on economics at the least, and insists on assigning a price to a refusal to accept his new hegemony in the region.

Ukraine will start looking elsewhere for its energy — and its coal deposits are one obvious choice:

Energy Minister Yuriy Prodan called Russia’s new price “political” and vowed to explore solutions that included a heavier reliance on coal — a polluting source of energy whose consumption has imperilled the air quality of nations such as China.

“We are now reviewing our electricity and fuel balance for 2014 with a view of using as much domestic coal as possible at the expense of natural gas,” Prodan told a cabinet meeting in comments posted on the government website.

Ukraine has relied on coal throughout much of the past century despite efforts by global institutions such as the World Bank to help Kiev phase out its use following independence from Moscow.

The International Energy Agency estimates that coal accounts for about 30 percent of Ukraine’s total energy supply compared to the 40 percent of the balance assumed by natural gas.

That will no doubt alarm environmentalists, and again not just because of Ukraine. This same choice faces all of Europe, which had relied on cheap Russian imports rather than extract their own natural gas and even coal. Those days may be gone, and Europe will have to take another look at tracking to stand off the Russians at their own game of economic war. The US can help with exports of liquid natural gas (LNG), but that would take years to accomplish, and it still leaves Europe dependent on outside resources rather than their own.

Putin’s latest move shows once again just how badly the West calculated his intentions. They assumed that the Russian energy trade would bring Moscow into tighter integration, but Putin saw it as a lever for geopolitical power. Bloomberg asked Chuck Hagel whether the Obama administration miscalculated on Putin, which Hagel denies … and almost in the same breath admits that they don’t understand his motives:

Hagel cites the invasion of Georgia in 2008 as an example of how the Obama administration didn’t misjudge Putin, but what was the Obama administration’s response to it? They undid the Bush administration’s diplomatic policies in response to that, complete with the ludicrous “reset button” from Hillary Clinton that declared all of the US-Russian difficulties the fault of Barack Obama’s predecessor. They then dismantled the missile-shield system and pledged more “flexibility” to Putin after the 2012 elections on that point. The response from Putin has been to seize on that show of weakness. What’s not to understand?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair