Rupert Darwall’s new book “Global Warming: A Short History” will be published next year. He’ll give us an encapsualted history of the history of international climate talks-and why they have failed. We got a sneak peak, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, this morning: A Mexican Stand-Off in Cancun
Hello
Archives for Energy
Why Cancun Global Warming Conference Will Fail
category: Blog Posts, Climate Change, Commentaries, Energy, Environment, Kim Crockett, Renewable Portfolio Standards
Al Gore Admits Ethanol Is a Bad Idea:Federal Subsidy Expires December 31 Unless Lame Duck Congress Acts
Al Gore admitted at a green energy conference in Athens, Greece that ethanol and ethanol subsidies were a bad idea-and candidly admitted that he was motivated by a desire to be elected.
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee,” he said, “and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
He also admitted it would be tough to get rid of the subsidies-which total at least $7.7 billion.
The issue of subsidies is expected to be taken up by the lame duck Congress because the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), is set to expire on December 31, 2010.
The best article we found on the issue is in Reason Magazine, which points out that ethanol is not “green” at all and that the subsidized industry has created obnoxious externalities (increased corn/food prices hurting the poor and livestock farmers and deforestation/pollution) while failing to acheive its goals: http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/16/congress-let-ethanol-subsidies
Even the so-called “green” community has cooled toward ethanol, though its enthusiasm for “Renewable Portfolio Standards” or “RPS” remains strong. Minnesota passed a “25 by 25″ law in 2007 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0004.1.html&session=ls85 ) that requires 25% of energy to come from so-called “renewable” or “clean” sources such as ethanol or wind. It seems clear that the “25×25″ commitment needs to be reviewed and repealed here in Minnesota and around the nation. Once government interferes with a market by offering our tax dollars as subsidies, it is difficult to rid ourselves of that tax even if the policy behind the decision is widely viewed as flawed.
You can read more about Gore’s mea culpa here:
http://www.energyboom.com/policy/gore-gaffe-corn-ethanol-subsidies-put-votes-ahead-environment
Here is an article from Fort Wayne, Indiana
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101129/EDITORIAL/11290334
And here is commentary from Rachel Marsden in the Wall Street Journal. Ms. Marsden is an international political and communications strategist and writer who teaches at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris:
“Mr. Gore’s “mistake” wasn’t an error. It was, by his own admission, a calculated decision that no longer benefits him. The problem is that by taking so long to correct himself, he has already done astronomical damage: Corn is scarcer for those who really need it. Investors who believed the hype now might lose money. Taxpayers have been bilked for billions. The farmers who saw their product subsidized and overvalued risk the fallout of a bubble burst. Even Lexus had to recall 214,500 vehicles last year when their pipes couldn’t take certain ethanol blends.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704638304575636363396169460.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
category: Blog Posts, Climate Change, Commentaries, Energy, Environment, Kim Crockett, Renewable Portfolio Standards
Follow Us!
Update on “Is there a Conflict: Wild Rice and Mining in Northern Minnesota?” Chamber, Poly Met File Suit Against MN Pollution Control Agency
Update: According to the Star Tribune, the Chamber of Commerce filed suit on Friday against the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in hopes of speeding up the process of getting clarity on 1973 Sulfate standards.
Josephine Marcotty from the Star Tribune has published an excellent piece (she reported the story without apparent bias) about the conflict between environmentalists and the Chippewa tribes and the proposed Polymet mine near Hoyt Lakes: Mining Debate Flows Into Wild Rice Stands.
We need good reporters so we understand the facts, and we need good scientists who can sort out the facts from fiction and emotion. The question here is whether wild rice is affected by the sulfates (mineral salts) emitted by mining, and if so, how much is too much?
The credibility of science and scientists have taken a self-inflicted hit because of dubious global warming claims (which morphed into “climate change” when it became apparent that the globe was not warming as claimed). Like science, we need journalism to take itself seriously and to go with the facts, wherever they may lead.
After conducting an environmental review of the Polymet proposal, the Minnesota Pollution Control agency was criticised by the EPA for not enforcing its own 1973 sulfate standard; so the state is conducting a second review, perhaps because it never had confidence in the 1973 standard and perhaps because we really need the Polymet mine. The EPA, which has also taken a self-inflicted credibility hit, will have to sign off on the Polymet mine.
The Polymet copper-nickel mine is expected to create 400 jobs. The Chippewa are right to be concerned about protecting their own interests. Let’s hope the various players are able to reach an outcome based on good science and good economics that works for all concerned.