Electric Cars Still Need Energy

In the rush to go green, people have lost sight of common sense.

Investors.com: Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars

It's a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

"If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country's electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely

Sorry to spoil the party.

China, India Scoff at Emissions Cuts

The G8 leaders made a bizarre promise to limit the global temperature increase to within two degrees by 2050. (Hey, I'm going to the beach Saturday, I'm hoping for sunny, 25C. Can you help me on that?) To do this, they plan drastic emissions cuts. Once again, though, they forgot to sign on major polluters China and India:

L’AQUILA, Italy — The world’s biggest developing nations, led by China and India, refused Wednesday to commit to specific goals for slashing heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting the drive to build a global consensus by the end of this year to reverse the threat of climate change.

As President Obama arrived for three days of talks with other leaders of the Group of 8 nations, negotiators for 17 leading polluters abandoned targets in a draft agreement for the meetings here. But negotiators embraced a goal of preventing temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and developing nations agreed to make “meaningful” if unspecified reductions in emissions.

For the good of the world they have to stop all these summits where statesmen grandstand and try to make historic deals.

The article explains why the developing countries are balking at the deal:

But the impasse over the 2050 targets demonstrated again the most vexing problem in reaching a consensus on climate change: the longstanding divisions between developed countries like the United States, Europe and Japan on one side, and developing nations like China, India, Brazil and Mexico on the other.

While the richest countries have produced the bulk of the pollution blamed for climate change, developing countries are producing increasing volumes of gases. But developing countries say their climb out of poverty should not be halted to fix damage done by industrial countries.

It's very simple. It costs too much money. They know it and we know it. Only over here they tell people that these cuts will actually make us wealthier and create endless green collar jobs.

When the money runs out in western countries, and China and India are the new superpowers we can point to folly like this as one of the causes.

Green Policy Fantasy

Czech President Vaclav Klaus once again proves that he is the voice of reason amoung western statesmen. Here is his op-ed: Green policies = economic decline

So I am amazed to see people going along with the currently fashionable political argument that policies like cap-and-trade, government mandates, and subsidies for renewable energy can actually benefit an economy. It is claimed that government, working together with business, will create "a new energy economy," that the businesses involved will profit, and that everyone will be better off.

This is a fantasy. Cap-and-trade can only work by raising energy prices. Consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for energy will have less money to spend on other things. While the individual companies that provide the higher-priced "green" energy might do well, the net economic effect will be negative.

Exactly. I would have a lot more respect for environmentalists who will come out and say: "It will hurt growth, but that is the price we have to pay." Fair enough. Then we can decide if we want to make that trade off. But please don't say it will create more growth and make the economy better. If it did, then nobody would oppose it. Lying to advance your argument will not work and is ruinous to your credibility.

Hat tip: Pat

Green Collar Jobs Bust

I've said on this site many times that politicians and environmentalists are full of it when they tout all the "green collar jobs" boom that are going to come with new environmental regulations. The results will end up being the opposite. Bloomberg news has a case study with Spain:

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic
energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.

“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics.

The environmentalists have to be honest with this debate. I would have much more respect for them if they came clean and said, 'we want a cleaner environment, but it's going to cost us.' Instead they say the opposite.

Any layman knows that cheap energy fuels industry.

On a semi-related note: Dennis Miller made a good point on his radio show when he was interviewing Global Warming skeptic Steven Milloy this week. To paraphrase: Al Gore has invested his very life, and self-esteem into this issue. No matter what evidence is given, he simply can't give in because his entire life would crumble.

He's right. The madness will be going on for a long time, because it's more than just an issue to people, their essence of being depends on it. Like a religion. Try to point out inconsistencies in the Bible to religious people? It's pointless. They won't hear it.

Politically Incorrect Garbage

The old magazines were building up. I didn't feel like recycling them, as well as the wine bottle and beer cans. Straight into the dumpster with this kitchen catcher. That's the great thing about private garbage collection.

50 Days In, People Noticing Obama Hasn't Saved the World

You know that expectations were far too high for Obama coming into the presidency. He hadn't done anything yet, and people were hailing him as the new FDR. So far, things haven't been going so well, and the glow is starting to recede. Here's an op-ed from the Daily Telegraph. Perhaps he can't fix it...

Instead he has been trying, on a broad front, to fulfil the reformist ideal that informed his election campaign. Rather like a would-be government in Britain that talked of “sharing the proceeds of growth”, the candidate who wanted to redistribute wealth now, as President, has no wealth to redistribute. A $3.6 trillion budget showed little sign of addressing the problem of stimulating demand. Both big corporations and small businesses feel overtaxed, their competitiveness hampered, and incapable of creating jobs at a time when they are desperately needed. Mr Obama’s green agenda, which was also a significant part of his election promises, entailed higher taxation that will retard the economy just when it needs to grow. His greatest ambition – of starting a national health service – seems impossible in the present climate. As he seeks to move forward on this broad front Warren Buffett himself has attacked him, saying that his first three priorities should all be the economy. Paralysed by inexperience and a Blairish desire to be liked, and hampered by inadequate senior staff, he is now finding that even some of his own party in Congress feel he has gone too far in the socialist experiment. Mrs Pelosi admitted at the weekend that a second stimulus package – which leftist Democrats are calling for, to the horror of much of the rest of America – was not yet on the cards.

As somebody right of centre, Obama was never my champion. However, I was willing to give him a shot. When he had his faux State of the Union speech a few weeks ago, I was not impressed that he droned on about green technology and health care. I predicted the markets would tank, and they went on a long losing streak.

To quote the old Clinton slogan: It's the economy stupid! The honeymoon is over.

"Green Collar Jobs" Myth Exposed in California

The Wall Street Journal had a great article on Saturday about how the Kindergarten Cop brought in tough environmental measures to California and it's hurting the economy. (read)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 -- in anticipation of the new mandates -- California has led the nation in job losses.

The regulations created a cap-and-trade system, similar to proposed federal global-warming measures, by limiting the CO2 that utilities, trucking companies and other businesses can emit, and imposed steep new taxes on companies that exceed the caps. Since energy is an input in everything that's produced, this will raise the cost of production inside California's borders.

(...)

The green lobby has lectured us for years that global warming is all about the sanctity of science. Those who question the "scientific consensus" on catastrophic atmospheric changes are belittled as "deniers." Now, in assessing the costs, the greens readily cook the books and throw good science out the window. "To most of the most strident supporters of this legislation," says Mr. Niello, "the economic costs don't really matter anyway, because we are supposedly facing an environmental apocalypse."

Mr. Schwarzenegger fits into that camp. He recently declared: "I recommend very strongly that we move forward . . . . You will always have people saying this will lose jobs."

Meanwhile, the state is losing jobs, a lot of them. California's unemployment rate hit 9.3% in December, up from 4.9% in December 2006...

Expensive regulation comes in, and businesses move out. Supposedly, Arnie was a free marketer and you would have thought he could forsee this. Sir, you are no Ronald Reagan.

Coming to Britain: The Food Police

At first I thought this was some kind of prank, but it's not April Fools day today, and it looks like it checks out. From the Daily Telegraph:

Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand "best before" dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.

The door-to-door campaign, which starts tomorrow, will be funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a Government agency charged with reducing household waste. The officials will be called "food champions". However, they were dismissed last night as "food police" by critics who called the scheme an example of "excessive government nannying".

In an initial seven-week trial, eight officials will call at 24,500 homes, dishing out advice and recipes. The officials, each of whom has received a day's training, will paid up to £8.49 an hour, with a bonus for working on Saturdays.

The pilot scheme, which will cost £30,000, could be extended nationwide if it is seen as a success. If all 25 million households in the UK were visited in the same way, 8,000 officials would be required at a cost of tens of millions of pounds.

The main reason behind it is for environmental considerations. This must be what they mean by "green collar" jobs.

The project is part of WRAP's "Love Food Hate Waste" campaign, which has so far cost £4 million. The organisation says food waste has a significant environmental impact, in terms of the carbon generated to grow, transport and package items and the cost of having to dispose of them. It has calculated that stopping food waste could reduce the annual emission of carbon dioxide by 18 million tonnes - the same effect as taking one in five cars off the roads.

This is beyond satire. These are the same people who toughed out the Nazi Blitz? Another sign that Western Civilization is circling down the eco-friendly toilet.

All Those 'Green Collar" Jobs

It seems the last few elections there's always a Liberal or NDPer in Canada or Democrat in the US who tout up all those "green collar" jobs that are going to be created by alternative energy. What they didn't mention was that those jobs would come directly from subsidies because the business is not profitable. Already the industry is asking for hand outs on top of the subsidies they're already getting:

They argue that the economic downturn has limited the effectiveness of a tax credit that supports the wind and solar industries. They want to change the credit to a refund in the economic stimulus package. Credits help investors minimize their tax liability. Refunds act more like a direct payment.

The economic downturn, which has hit the financial sector particularly hard, has meant far fewer profits to offset with the help of a tax credit. That means interest in funding solar and wind projects is drying up.

There are merits to trying to wean off oil, but let's be honest about this and say it's a drain on the economy, not a boon to it.