Energy & Environment

How bad does it have to be?

H. Sterling Bennett’s column Wednesday (“More Hype than Harm”) claims the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t that bad. He says the environmental movement “is in absence of good evidence” when we call this BP oil disaster a massive catastrophe and horrible tragedy. 

Eleven men died. Millions of gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. Vast quantities of untested chemical dispersants have been dumped into the sea. Tens of millions of dollars in tourism and fishing revenues are gone. Thousands of fishing industry workers have lost their livelihoods.

So, how bad does it have to be?


Creating a customer-first electricity transmission policy

Utilities across the nation are investing billions of dollars to produce more electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal.

They support the move toward a cleaner energy future because the benefits — including lower greenhouse gas emissions, more green jobs and improved energy security — are clear.

What's less clear is how utilities will get new supplies of clean electricity to customers. And most importantly, who will pay for the major transmission investments needed to move the energy?


Lessons from the Horizon blowout: More hype than harm

Only two weeks after BP began capping the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blowout, people have begun to ask, “Where’s the oil?” The fact that skimmer ships sent out to clean the water of oil are unable to find oil to clean is leading the mainstream media to question whether  environmentalists tried to exploit this unfortunate event by making it seem worse than it really was for political reasons.


Gulf Coast can't afford another disaster (Rep. Bill Cassidy)

Two man-made disasters have hit the Gulf Coast: the BP oil spill and the president’s moratorium on energy production. A third disaster is scheduled for a vote in the House today.

Two hundred twenty-six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig collapsed, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act was introduced in the House. A repackaged version is now being sold as a response to the BP oil spill.

This bill has much less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production and destroying jobs.


The economics of U.S. ethanol policy: A rebuttal

In his July 27 blog posting “The economics of U.S. ethanol policy” Professor Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University reports the results of new research suggesting that allowing the current 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol blender’s tax credit (Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, or VEETC) and 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff to expire on Dec. 31, 2010 would have little or no adverse impact on the domestic ethanol industry.

That’s true only if you take a “Field of Dreams” view of the ethanol industry: If we mandate that Americans use more ethanol, then someone, somewhere will produce that ethanol.


The fading call of the wild

They are cultural icons as symbols of strength, agility, speed and grace.  They hold special places in music, art, theater and film.  Phrases that Americans use every day illustrate their ubiquity; we know what people mean when something is described as 'fast as a cheetah,' 'proud as a lion' or 'hungry as a wolf.'  They are regarded as important touchstones in this country despite the fact that many Americans have never seen one of them in the wild.

Yet many species of wild cats and canids remain perilously close to extinction. 


The economics of U.S. ethanol policy

With the economy still not creating nearly enough jobs, U.S. ethanol producers are warning that ending the government subsidies and import restrictions that benefit their industry could eliminate some 112,000 to 160,000 jobs.

An unlikely collection of environmentalists, taxpayer groups and meat producers, meanwhile, argue that America no longer needs and can’t afford the current policies.


Improving the environment and cutting the deficit: Here's how

We can cut the deficit and help the environment at the same time. The two biggest challenges facing Congress right now are not mutually exclusive; we can do both. How? By cutting subsidies to industries that don’t need them and only encourage environmental damage.  By updating our energy and farming policies to reflect the realities of today’s economy. And by stopping just some of the infrastructure projects members of Congress insert into spending bills as political pork. This is the message of a recent Green Scissors report by Environment America, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen and Taxpayers for Common Sense and released with Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Mike Castle (R-Del.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tom Petri (R-Wis.).


Republicans on the wrong side of history by opposing energy reform (Sen. Harry Reid)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made the following remarks at a media availability today following a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss energy legislation in the Senate. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

We have a responsibility — both to our constituents and our children — to take on America’s energy challenge. Many of us want to do that through a comprehensive bill that creates jobs, breaks our addiction to oil and curbs pollution. Unfortunately, at this time not one Republican wants to join us in achieving this goal. That isn’t just disappointing. It’s dangerous.


Moratorium could be more devastating than spill itself (Sen. David Vitter)

Recent studies have estimated that the Obama administration’s latest offshore drilling moratorium could destroy more than 100,000 jobs along the Gulf Coast while costing billions of dollars in lost wages.  In just six months, it could end up doing more damage to our economy than the oil spill itself.

And the damage is not limited just to oil rigs; it would also hurt the thousands of workers employed in industries that support drilling and exploration, and the millions of dollars in lost revenues from taxes and lease sales directed to coastal restoration would eventually affect every Gulf Coast resident.