You are on page 1of 5

6 February 2015

In the News
Top Ten Most Ridiculous Stunts Pulled by “Ban Fracking” Activists
Dave Quest, Energy in Depth, 6 February 2015
My Kid Is Going To Be Eight Feel Tall!
David Kreutzer, The Daily Signal, 5 February 2015
How Green and Peaceful Really Is Greenpeace?
Andrew Montford, The Spectator, 5 February 2015
What Would Environmentalists Do If They Owned ANWR?
Shawn Regan, Reason, 5 February 2015
Gasoline vs. Electric Cars: Energy Usage and Cost
Stanislaw Jakuba, Master Resource, 4 February 2015
Obama to States: Shut Down Coal Plants or Else
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 3 February 2015
Russia’s War on Fracking
Tom Rogan, National Review, 3 February 2015
Expert Says EPA Plan Will Kill Mississippians
Emily Le Coz, Clarion-Ledger, 2 February 2015
Sierra Club: Saudi Arabia ‘Our Best Ally’ in Keystone Fight
Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 2 February 2015
Biofuels: “A Net Detriment to the World”
Denver Post editorial, 1 February 2015

News You Can Use
War on Coal Costs Tens of Thousands of Jobs
A report by the American Action Forum found that under the Obama administration coal mines shed
3,702 jobs from 2008 to 2013 and power plants shed 39,684 jobs.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

Obama Budget Requests More Money for Climate Programs
President Barack Obama submitted his Fiscal Year 2016 budget requests to Congress on Monday, 2nd
February. The White House summary, available here, includes some major tax changes. The President’s
budget proposes to make renewable electricity production and investment tax credits permanent and
refundable. The estimated cost over the next decade would be $31.5 billion. On the other hand, the
President wants to take away all tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry, including $44 billion in tax
breaks using the standard Section 199 deduction which all domestic manufacturing can claim.
According to Jeremy P. Jacobs writing in Energy and Environment PM (subscription required), the budget
for EPA requests $52.4 million for six legal support offices, which is an increase of $10 million over
current funding. This would allow EPA to hire more lawyers to defend its “Clean Power Plan,” the
proposed regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Jacobs quotes
EPA’s explanation: “EPA has identified an urgent need to provide critical legal counsel in support of the
EPA's Clean Power Plan."
The Environmental Protection Agency would also get $4 billion for a new “Clean Power State Incentive
Fund” to help States that want to make steeper reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from power
plants than required by the EPA’s proposed regulations. The rest of EPA’s budget would increase by
$452 million or approximately 6% to $8.6 billion.
President Obama also requests that the Congress appropriate $500 million for the UN Green Climate
Fund. This is the first payment towards fulfilling the President’s pledge of $3 billion over four years to
the GCF. At the UN global warming conference in Copenhagen in 2009, President Obama proposed that
the developed countries provide $100 billion a year to the GCF starting in 2020. The U. S. share might
be roughly $30 to 40 billion. It looks unlikely that the 114th Congress will appropriate the $500 million
requested for this year.

Obama’s National Security Strategy Focuses on Climate Threats
President Barack Obama this week released his administration’s official National Security Strategy. It
identifies climate change as a major threat and lays out actions to deal with it through national action to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and international leadership on a new UN climate treaty.
On page 12, the document states: “Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national
security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources
like food and water. The present day effects of climate change are being felt from the Arctic to the
Midwest. Increased sea levels and storm surges threaten coastal regions, infrastructure, and property. In
turn, the global economy suffers, compounding the growing costs of preparing and restoring
infrastructure.” In addition to the President’s climate agreement with Chinese President Xi and progress

in negotiations on the forthcoming Paris accord, “The substantial contribution we have pledged to the
Climate Fund will help the most vulnerable developing nations deal with climate change, reduce their
carbon pollution, and invest in clean energy.” The President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request to
Congress this week includes $500 million for the Green Climate Fund.

EPA Challenges Bottom-Line Conclusion of State Department
Keystone XL Pipeline Analysis
Marlo Lewis
The State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL
Pipeline vexes environmentalists. While acknowledging that petroleum made from Canadian oil sands
emits 17% more CO2 than other types of heavy crude, State concluded that roughly the same quantity
of Canadian oil would be shipped to U.S. refiners whether the pipeline is approved or denied.
The oil would just come by alternate modes of delivery, principally trains but also smaller pipelines and
barges. Those other routes are not only more costly but also less energy efficient. According to State,
compared to the KXL, the alternate routes would emit 28% to 42% more CO2 [FEIS ES-34]. Implication: If
you're really worried about global warming, then you should support the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In a letter earlier this week, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Cynthia Giles disputes State’s bottom-line assessment. State estimated that as long as crude
oil sells for $75 per barrel or higher, "revenues to oil sands producers are likely to remain above the
long-run supply costs of most projects responsible for expected levels of oil sands production growth"
[FEIS, 1.4-8]. Producers would still earn profits notwithstanding the extra cost of $8 per barrel to ship
the oil by rail rather than through a big new pipeline.
Times have changed, says Giles. State published its FSEIS in January 2014, when West Texas
Intermediate (WTI) crude sold at about $94 per barrel. WTI crude now sells for about $50 per
barrel. Giles quotes State's conclusion that at sustained oil prices of $65 to $75 per barrel the higher
transportation costs of shipment by rail "could have a substantial impact on oil sands production levels - possibly in excess of the capacity of the proposed project." Indeed, State goes on to say that “Prices
below this range would challenge the supply costs of many projects, regardless of pipeline constraints,
but higher transport costs could further curtail production” [FSEIS, ES-12].
Giles concludes: “In other words, the Final SEIS found that at sustained oil prices within this [$65-$75]
range, construction of the pipeline is projected to change the economics of oil sands development and
result in increased oil sands production, and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, over what
would otherwise occur.” She recommends that State should give “additional weight” to the “low price
scenario” in the FSEIS “due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially

Permit me to translate. The future of Canada’s oil sands industry looked bright a year ago. Today its fate
is uncertain. Maybe a sustained period of low prices will force a large contraction and throw tens of
thousands of people out of work. So let’s kick ‘em while they’re down! Let’s prevent oil companies from
investing their own capital to improve the economics of their industry.
To opponents, the Keystone XL Pipeline is objectionable precisely because it will improve the efficiency
of an industry they believe should not exist. They may be right that blocking Keystone will decrease
rather than increase CO2 emissions. It doesn’t matter. It’s climatologically irrelevant.
Even if we make the unrealistic assumption that the KXL will always run at full capacity (830,000 barrels
per day) and each barrel will be additional oil in the global supply that would otherwise remain in the
ground, EPA's own climate model projects a warming contribution of 0.01ºC by century's end – an
“inconsequential and unmeasurable impact,” observes Cato Institute scientist Chip Knappenberger.
Let’s cut to the chase. A for-profit business will not produce what it cannot sell. And if you can’t sell, you
go out of business. EPA knows that. So do its environmentalist allies. That’s why they seek to block the
KXL, oppose lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, and oppose construction of export
terminals for coal and liquefied natural gas.
The day cannot come too soon when we have an administration that does not view its mission as
crippling and bankrupting major industries of the U.S. economy.

Around the World
Myron Ebell

UNFCCC: Total Transformation of the Global Economy Directed by the
Leading global warming alarmists often claim that saving the world from global warming will be
easy. Research reports from universities and environmental groups are regularly published that show
the costs will be minimal and the costs of not doing it will be astronomical. As former Vice President Al
Gore, Nobel Prize and Oscar winner, puts it, how can it be costly to replace dirty, expensive energy from
coal, oil, and natural gas with clean, free energy from wind and solar?
But every year or two, a leading alarmist lets the cat out of the bag. At a press conference in Brussels on
3rd February, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, said that completely transforming the global economy in a few decades “is probably the most
difficult task we [the UN? Mankind?] have ever given ourselves.”
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for
at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.

Executive Secretary Figueres is apparently unaware that Communism in the Soviet Union beginning in
1917 and in Maoist China in 1949 intentionally tried to fundamentally transform their economies
according to a new model. The results were widely judged to be not altogether successful. Perhaps the
United Nations will do better.