Jack Conway said this week that he agreed with a controversial global warming measure called Cap and Trade. Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo opposes it saying it will hurt the coal and manufacturing sectors.
Here's Pat Crowley:
"Conway's stance jibes with the Obama Administration, which is pushing cap and trade and. Washington-based political publications have reported that national Democrats favor Conway for the seat."
Source: Ky Enquirer
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Environmentalists Go Batty Over WV Windmill Project
It's a good time to be a San Francisco mouse or a West Virginia bat. Both have stgrong allies in Congress and the latter's even prevailing in a liberal civil war over the need to have alternative energy. The Charleston (WV) Gazette has the story.
A snip:
Environmental and animal rights groups want to stop further construction on a West Virginia wind farm until a judge can determine whether the project is harmful to the endangered Indiana bat.
The Animal Welfare Institute and Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy filed a motion for a preliminary injunction Friday in U.S. District Court in Maryland against developer Beech Ridge Energy LLC of Rockville, Md.
See the full story here: http://www.wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/200907100418
A snip:
Environmental and animal rights groups want to stop further construction on a West Virginia wind farm until a judge can determine whether the project is harmful to the endangered Indiana bat.
The Animal Welfare Institute and Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy filed a motion for a preliminary injunction Friday in U.S. District Court in Maryland against developer Beech Ridge Energy LLC of Rockville, Md.
See the full story here: http://www.wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/200907100418
Cato Lecturer Makes the Case for Doing Nothing
This article should be read by everyone in America. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions on liquidity. I think there the Federal Reserve had to step in, but perhaps in a manner that didn't insure-or create the impression they were going to insure- toxic assetts. Nonetheless, I think the rest of the piece is a spot on analysis and denunciation of the policies we've pursued over the past few months.
There's also this analysis of what brought us to this mess:
The first thing to note about the financial crisis is that the federal government never had any business intervening in the personal decision of whether you want to own a home. There is no rational economic argument, or any argument I know of, that says the market of buying and selling homes is imperfect in some way, requiring government action. Construction firms have plenty of incentive to build homes and sell them. People who have the wherewithal have plenty of incentive to buy homes if they so choose. For the government to intrude into homeownership was an off-budget, nontransparent, backdoor attempt at redistributing income. And when the policy became a way of transferring income to people who couldn't afford those homes, it was doomed to failure.
This provision of risky debt to low-income homeowners was exacerbated by a second misguided federal policy: the longstanding practice of bailing out private risk taking. Although this has gone on for decades in the U.S. and other countries, the Federal Reserve played a special role during the tenure of former chief Alan Greenspan. The Fed's implicit and almost explicit policy before the housing crash was to say to the financial markets: "Don't worry about the fact that there's a bubble. We'll lower interest rates and keep them low enough to prevent a collapse in asset prices." This logic, broadly applied, was commonly called the Greenspan Put. The Federal Reserve was basically selling the market an option for getting out comparatively unscathed when things turned bad. The result has been a widely held assumption that market actors would not have to bear the full losses from their own risky behavior.
When people try to pin the blame for the financial crisis on the introduction of derivatives, or the increase in securitization, or the failure of ratings agencies, it's important to remember that the magnitude of both boom and bust was increased exponentially because of the notion in the back of everyone's mind that if things went badly, the government would bail us out. And in fact, that is what the federal government has done.
Link: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/10/the_case_for_doing_nothing_97382.html
There's also this analysis of what brought us to this mess:
The first thing to note about the financial crisis is that the federal government never had any business intervening in the personal decision of whether you want to own a home. There is no rational economic argument, or any argument I know of, that says the market of buying and selling homes is imperfect in some way, requiring government action. Construction firms have plenty of incentive to build homes and sell them. People who have the wherewithal have plenty of incentive to buy homes if they so choose. For the government to intrude into homeownership was an off-budget, nontransparent, backdoor attempt at redistributing income. And when the policy became a way of transferring income to people who couldn't afford those homes, it was doomed to failure.
This provision of risky debt to low-income homeowners was exacerbated by a second misguided federal policy: the longstanding practice of bailing out private risk taking. Although this has gone on for decades in the U.S. and other countries, the Federal Reserve played a special role during the tenure of former chief Alan Greenspan. The Fed's implicit and almost explicit policy before the housing crash was to say to the financial markets: "Don't worry about the fact that there's a bubble. We'll lower interest rates and keep them low enough to prevent a collapse in asset prices." This logic, broadly applied, was commonly called the Greenspan Put. The Federal Reserve was basically selling the market an option for getting out comparatively unscathed when things turned bad. The result has been a widely held assumption that market actors would not have to bear the full losses from their own risky behavior.
When people try to pin the blame for the financial crisis on the introduction of derivatives, or the increase in securitization, or the failure of ratings agencies, it's important to remember that the magnitude of both boom and bust was increased exponentially because of the notion in the back of everyone's mind that if things went badly, the government would bail us out. And in fact, that is what the federal government has done.
Link: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/10/the_case_for_doing_nothing_97382.html
Opposing View: Boucher Says Cap and Trade Not Death Knell for Coal
Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA), who represents a coal district in southwest VA, is in an unusual spot: he supports cap and trade and the coal industry. From Coal Tattoo:
Approximately 80 percent of the electricity in the district that I represent is coal-generated. Coal production is one of our region’s major industries, and it is a major employer of our constituents. Not surprisingly, my focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal, which accounts for fully 51 percent of America’s electricity generation. Both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today.
The Environmental Protection Agency projects that by 2020, the usage of coal in our economy will grow as compared to today’s usage. Now, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, so let me repeat that: the EPA projects that by 2020, coal usage in America, under the terms of this bill, will actually grow.
As transportation electrifies and the demand for electricity increases, coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand. The claims of opponents that the CO2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use, causing an overreliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the Nation are also simply wrong.
Boucher's betting the farm on his interpretation of the outcomes of a very complex piece of legislation. His interpretation that this bill is actually good for coal seems puts him in a small minority. Nonetheless, his support for the industry and his astute remarks about CO2 and the EPA make his theories worth at least considering. After all, if this boondoggle ultimately passes, Boucher's view may be our last best hope. (Aside from those millions of tourists, that is.)
See here for more:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/06/30/boucher-climate-bill-is-good-for-coal/
Approximately 80 percent of the electricity in the district that I represent is coal-generated. Coal production is one of our region’s major industries, and it is a major employer of our constituents. Not surprisingly, my focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal, which accounts for fully 51 percent of America’s electricity generation. Both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today.
The Environmental Protection Agency projects that by 2020, the usage of coal in our economy will grow as compared to today’s usage. Now, that may seem somewhat counterintuitive in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, so let me repeat that: the EPA projects that by 2020, coal usage in America, under the terms of this bill, will actually grow.
As transportation electrifies and the demand for electricity increases, coal, our most abundant fuel, will still be the fuel of choice to meet that rising demand. The claims of opponents that the CO2 controls under the bill will force utilities to surrender coal use, causing an overreliance on natural gas with attendant broad economic harm to the Nation are also simply wrong.
Boucher's betting the farm on his interpretation of the outcomes of a very complex piece of legislation. His interpretation that this bill is actually good for coal seems puts him in a small minority. Nonetheless, his support for the industry and his astute remarks about CO2 and the EPA make his theories worth at least considering. After all, if this boondoggle ultimately passes, Boucher's view may be our last best hope. (Aside from those millions of tourists, that is.)
See here for more:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/06/30/boucher-climate-bill-is-good-for-coal/
Engineer Casts Doubt on TVA Ash Spill Theories
Utility and mining companies recently sanctioned a report on the cause of the recent TVA fly ash silt pond failure. According to the independent study the disaster was caused by excess water pressure rather than the complex array of factors claimed as the culprit by the TVA's own report.
At issue in the dueling theories is whether dams like the TVA one should be allowed on coal property.
The AP's story by Duncan Mansfield that covered the independent study seemingly cherry picked the report for bad grammar. You read the AP story only and you may come away less than impressed with engineer Barry Thacker's theory. But read his report and you'll come away impressed by his expertise and knowledge.
The bottom line is this: environmentalists and their allies in the press like to sit back and say "we should ban this or that", but the economics, science and engineering are too often ignored in their rush for "justice."
Report: http://www.geoe.com/TVA%20study/BKTslidesWeb.pdf
At issue in the dueling theories is whether dams like the TVA one should be allowed on coal property.
The AP's story by Duncan Mansfield that covered the independent study seemingly cherry picked the report for bad grammar. You read the AP story only and you may come away less than impressed with engineer Barry Thacker's theory. But read his report and you'll come away impressed by his expertise and knowledge.
The bottom line is this: environmentalists and their allies in the press like to sit back and say "we should ban this or that", but the economics, science and engineering are too often ignored in their rush for "justice."
Report: http://www.geoe.com/TVA%20study/BKTslidesWeb.pdf
Recession Squeezes Plaintiff's Bar in EKY
Interesting tidbit: I recently spoke to a prominent EKY workers comp lawyer about energy deal flow in the region, specifically for small coal operations. Not only is that kind of activity down but so are workers' comp claims. It seems that many miners are holding on to their jobs in spite of injuries in this negative economy. "Jobs are precious commodoties these days", my friend said.
Friday, July 10, 2009
WV Meets Cap and Trade Debate Head On, Why Not KY?
WV is abuzz over the global warming bill:
A group calling itself West Virginians Against Cap and Trade is holding Charleston rallies to fight the plan. These opponents are mostly conservatives, but they include a state labor leader who fears that China won't curb carbon pollution, and more American manufacturing jobs will migrate to China.
But the bill would pour billions into "clean coal" research designed to end coal's pollution. UMW official Phil Smith told reporter Ken Ward Jr.: "The amount of money dedicated to coal in this bill is remarkable, and the future of coal will be intact."
All of West Virginia's House members voted against the global warming bill. In the Senate, aides to Jay Rockefeller and Robert C. Byrd imply they also will vote no. But nationwide Democratic support might be strong enough to quash a Republican filibuster and pass the historic measure.
Or perhaps the reform will fail. The struggle is neck and neck.
[...]
Such a national repudiation of carbon pollution would have strong effect on West Virginia's coal and gas industries - until the unknown day when technology breakthroughs finally enable fossil fuels to be burned cleanly.
America might be on the brink of a major economic change. West Virginia, perhaps more than any other state, has a lot riding on Washington's decision. Action against carbon emissions might be inevitable, as national and world pressure grows. On Thursday, President Obama announced a 17-nation agreement on carbon reduction at a summit in Italy. The compromise taking shape in Congress might be the most workable, reasonable outcome attainable under the circumstances.
This bill has been called both a jobs killer and the means by which a new, green economy will be built. Why is there no hullabaloo in KY over it?
A group calling itself West Virginians Against Cap and Trade is holding Charleston rallies to fight the plan. These opponents are mostly conservatives, but they include a state labor leader who fears that China won't curb carbon pollution, and more American manufacturing jobs will migrate to China.
But the bill would pour billions into "clean coal" research designed to end coal's pollution. UMW official Phil Smith told reporter Ken Ward Jr.: "The amount of money dedicated to coal in this bill is remarkable, and the future of coal will be intact."
All of West Virginia's House members voted against the global warming bill. In the Senate, aides to Jay Rockefeller and Robert C. Byrd imply they also will vote no. But nationwide Democratic support might be strong enough to quash a Republican filibuster and pass the historic measure.
Or perhaps the reform will fail. The struggle is neck and neck.
[...]
Such a national repudiation of carbon pollution would have strong effect on West Virginia's coal and gas industries - until the unknown day when technology breakthroughs finally enable fossil fuels to be burned cleanly.
America might be on the brink of a major economic change. West Virginia, perhaps more than any other state, has a lot riding on Washington's decision. Action against carbon emissions might be inevitable, as national and world pressure grows. On Thursday, President Obama announced a 17-nation agreement on carbon reduction at a summit in Italy. The compromise taking shape in Congress might be the most workable, reasonable outcome attainable under the circumstances.
This bill has been called both a jobs killer and the means by which a new, green economy will be built. Why is there no hullabaloo in KY over it?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Pendulum Shifting for Team Obama?
Bad news for the economy means really bad news for the Obama administration, as a read of the day's top stories will show.
First, the NY Times points out that this is now Obama’s economy:
Mr. Obama has bought time by casting the struggling economy as the legacy of President George W. Bush, but as time passes it increasingly becomes his problem and his party’s.
Administration officials had predicted that the stimulus program would save or create 600,000 jobs by summer. But the economy has lost more than two million jobs since Mr. Obama took office, and officials now estimate that the program has saved only about 150,000 jobs.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Stanfor Prof Edward Lazear makes the case that proponents for a second stimulus forget that the first stimulus wasn’t really intended to be stimulating:
It may be the case that the country wants more government, that Americans now believe the European model of big government is best. That is a decision that society must make. But it should do so with no illusions: The current stimulus and calls for a future one are primarily government growth policies, not strategies to shorten the current recession.
Mark Penn says the administration has to make some tough choices as they face the politically challenging metric of 10% national unemployment:
Unless some tough decisions are made soon, rising jobless figures will most likely hit what could be a public opinion and political tripwire: 10 percent unemployment.
If and when the country crosses that line, it will be the No. 1 news story for days, recent stock market gains could recede, and consumer confidence will fall. And whether or not the economic crisis is coming to an end, such a high unemployment level has the potential to undermine the hard-won confidence enjoyed by the Obama administration. The Republicans will quickly claim all we have is more debt and fewer jobs.
What are those choices? In a nutshell, another stimulus, sending out the President’s economic team to make the argument that the economy is improving even if the job market is lagging, or staying on course as the administration is currently doing.
Michael Barone makes the case that public is “recoiling” from the idea of more and bigger government.
Marie Cocco of the Washington Post compares the economy to a cancer ridden patient and the administration to a “cacophony of voices promoting different or contradictory cures”.
Politico has a piece about indie voters deserting the President:
In a potentially alarming trend for the White House, independent voters are deserting President Barack Obama nationally and especially in key swing states, recent polls suggest…. a source of the shift appears to be independent voters, who seem to be responding to Republican complaints of excessive spending and government control.
Joe Klein claims that President Obama is wonderful, is a “small c-Conservative”, and that he may be “blowing a major opportunity” by letting Congress “pulverize” his measures.
These are the first six stories on Real Clear Politics and we didn’t even bother telling you that Karl Rove thinks Obama’s a liar or mention Drudge’s headlines about Warren Buffet calling the first stimulus “a viagra candy” combo, or his gleeful reporting of the fact that the President’s approval rating are going in the “wrong direction.”
All in all, a tough week for Hope and Change.
First, the NY Times points out that this is now Obama’s economy:
Mr. Obama has bought time by casting the struggling economy as the legacy of President George W. Bush, but as time passes it increasingly becomes his problem and his party’s.
Administration officials had predicted that the stimulus program would save or create 600,000 jobs by summer. But the economy has lost more than two million jobs since Mr. Obama took office, and officials now estimate that the program has saved only about 150,000 jobs.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Stanfor Prof Edward Lazear makes the case that proponents for a second stimulus forget that the first stimulus wasn’t really intended to be stimulating:
It may be the case that the country wants more government, that Americans now believe the European model of big government is best. That is a decision that society must make. But it should do so with no illusions: The current stimulus and calls for a future one are primarily government growth policies, not strategies to shorten the current recession.
Mark Penn says the administration has to make some tough choices as they face the politically challenging metric of 10% national unemployment:
Unless some tough decisions are made soon, rising jobless figures will most likely hit what could be a public opinion and political tripwire: 10 percent unemployment.
If and when the country crosses that line, it will be the No. 1 news story for days, recent stock market gains could recede, and consumer confidence will fall. And whether or not the economic crisis is coming to an end, such a high unemployment level has the potential to undermine the hard-won confidence enjoyed by the Obama administration. The Republicans will quickly claim all we have is more debt and fewer jobs.
What are those choices? In a nutshell, another stimulus, sending out the President’s economic team to make the argument that the economy is improving even if the job market is lagging, or staying on course as the administration is currently doing.
Michael Barone makes the case that public is “recoiling” from the idea of more and bigger government.
Marie Cocco of the Washington Post compares the economy to a cancer ridden patient and the administration to a “cacophony of voices promoting different or contradictory cures”.
Politico has a piece about indie voters deserting the President:
In a potentially alarming trend for the White House, independent voters are deserting President Barack Obama nationally and especially in key swing states, recent polls suggest…. a source of the shift appears to be independent voters, who seem to be responding to Republican complaints of excessive spending and government control.
Joe Klein claims that President Obama is wonderful, is a “small c-Conservative”, and that he may be “blowing a major opportunity” by letting Congress “pulverize” his measures.
These are the first six stories on Real Clear Politics and we didn’t even bother telling you that Karl Rove thinks Obama’s a liar or mention Drudge’s headlines about Warren Buffet calling the first stimulus “a viagra candy” combo, or his gleeful reporting of the fact that the President’s approval rating are going in the “wrong direction.”
All in all, a tough week for Hope and Change.
Senate Dems Mull Removing Cap and Trade Protections for U.S. Manufacturers
Here’s an example of why the Carbon Cap and Trade bill winding it’s way through Congress is becoming such a boondoggle:
Senior Democrat senators said on Wednesday they would change a provision that imposes carbon taxes on imports following warnings that the clause in the House’s cap-and-trade bill could spark a global trade war.
The House’s bill contained tough provisions to impose carbon tariffs, aimed at protecting American companies’ competitiveness against imports from countries without equivalent carbon emission controls to those in the US.
Senator John Kerry, who is helping to write the senate’s version of the bill, said in ... “We have already come to the conclusion in working on the Senate bill that we’re going to try and change that provision . . . we haven’t landed yet completely on where we come out”.
So now we’re back to putting the burden on American manufacturers and giving Chinese makers a competitive advantage?
Senior Democrat senators said on Wednesday they would change a provision that imposes carbon taxes on imports following warnings that the clause in the House’s cap-and-trade bill could spark a global trade war.
The House’s bill contained tough provisions to impose carbon tariffs, aimed at protecting American companies’ competitiveness against imports from countries without equivalent carbon emission controls to those in the US.
Senator John Kerry, who is helping to write the senate’s version of the bill, said in ... “We have already come to the conclusion in working on the Senate bill that we’re going to try and change that provision . . . we haven’t landed yet completely on where we come out”.
So now we’re back to putting the burden on American manufacturers and giving Chinese makers a competitive advantage?
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Future of Coal Could Hinge on CCS
From Coal Tattoo:
[T]he idea of an intact coal industry relies on scientists perfecting and the industry deploying CCS technology on a grand scale.
[...]
Coal industry supports don’t want the public in the coalfields to even consider this “potential valley of death” as a possibility … but suppose just for the sake of argument that it is … then what’s the plan for coal communities and the people who live there? Anybody know?
Where are those danged tourists when you need them most?
[T]he idea of an intact coal industry relies on scientists perfecting and the industry deploying CCS technology on a grand scale.
[...]
Coal industry supports don’t want the public in the coalfields to even consider this “potential valley of death” as a possibility … but suppose just for the sake of argument that it is … then what’s the plan for coal communities and the people who live there? Anybody know?
Where are those danged tourists when you need them most?
Barone Believes Senate Battle Could Come up Short for Global Warming Bill
Some very good region, by region analysis by Michael Barone on the House vote for the Climate bill as well as the upcoming Senate vote. Some snips:
The Interior South (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, TX, WV). Here is the heartland of opposition to the House bill; representatives from these 9 states voted 16-60 against the bill. The AL, LA, OK and WV delegations were unanimously against, with 7 Democrats among the 44 who opposed the House bill. AR and WV both have 2 Democratic senators, whose support for a House-like bill cannot be taken for granted; Mary Landrieu (LA) seems like a sure opponent, as do the 13 Republican senators from these states.
As I have gone down the list, I have stopped trying to tabulate the number of likely Senate votes for a House-like bill, but attentive readers will see that the number is clearly short of 50, much less the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. This doesn’t mean the fight is over. Senate Democratic and Obama administration vote counters are looking at the same numbers and trying to figure out how to modify the House approach to get the votes needed.
A couple more statistical exercises. The population increases from 2000 to 2008 in the regions favoring the House bill, according to Census Bureau estimates, was 5.9%; the population increase in that period in the regions opposing the House bill was 9.2%. As a result, according to projections by Polidata, the states whose delegations voted for the House bill will lose a net 5 House seats in the reapportionment following the 2010 Census, and the states who delegations voted against the House bill will gain a net 5 House seats. If you assume those five seats would represent a shift in votes on the House bill, it would have lost by a 214-217 margin. Of course, that’s just an arithmetical exercise, and I expect that if the House Democratic leaders had actually faced such a counterfactual they would have switched a couple more votes and would have won. But it does suggest that cap-and-trade is not necessarily the wave of the future.
The Interior South (AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, TX, WV). Here is the heartland of opposition to the House bill; representatives from these 9 states voted 16-60 against the bill. The AL, LA, OK and WV delegations were unanimously against, with 7 Democrats among the 44 who opposed the House bill. AR and WV both have 2 Democratic senators, whose support for a House-like bill cannot be taken for granted; Mary Landrieu (LA) seems like a sure opponent, as do the 13 Republican senators from these states.
As I have gone down the list, I have stopped trying to tabulate the number of likely Senate votes for a House-like bill, but attentive readers will see that the number is clearly short of 50, much less the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. This doesn’t mean the fight is over. Senate Democratic and Obama administration vote counters are looking at the same numbers and trying to figure out how to modify the House approach to get the votes needed.
A couple more statistical exercises. The population increases from 2000 to 2008 in the regions favoring the House bill, according to Census Bureau estimates, was 5.9%; the population increase in that period in the regions opposing the House bill was 9.2%. As a result, according to projections by Polidata, the states whose delegations voted for the House bill will lose a net 5 House seats in the reapportionment following the 2010 Census, and the states who delegations voted against the House bill will gain a net 5 House seats. If you assume those five seats would represent a shift in votes on the House bill, it would have lost by a 214-217 margin. Of course, that’s just an arithmetical exercise, and I expect that if the House Democratic leaders had actually faced such a counterfactual they would have switched a couple more votes and would have won. But it does suggest that cap-and-trade is not necessarily the wave of the future.
Rockefeller on Fence on Global Warming Bill but Leaning Against It
From the Charleston Daily Mail:
Jessica Tice, Rockefeller's state press secretary, said the senator "followed the process in the House on the climate change legislation very closely" and "continues to have serious concerns about the House bill."
If Sen. Rockefeller ultimately went for the bill he would be the only member of WV's federal delegation to do so. All of the state's Congressional delegation voted against it and Senator Byrd has already come out swinging against it.
Jessica Tice, Rockefeller's state press secretary, said the senator "followed the process in the House on the climate change legislation very closely" and "continues to have serious concerns about the House bill."
If Sen. Rockefeller ultimately went for the bill he would be the only member of WV's federal delegation to do so. All of the state's Congressional delegation voted against it and Senator Byrd has already come out swinging against it.
Byrd Set to Oppose Cap and Trade
From the Wheeling News Register:
"I cannot support the House bill in its present form...I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."
Will Rockefeller follow?
"I cannot support the House bill in its present form...I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."
Will Rockefeller follow?
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
A View from the UK: The Progressive's [i.e. Liberal's] Dilemna
Great article about the dilemna liberals face. A snip:
Even with President Obama’s widely doubted promises to cut the deficit in half, the CBO estimates a yearly shortfall of more than $1 trillion ten years from now. Even worse, there is precious little in the administration’s plans – including its grandiose claims about “green jobs” – that will create the growth necessary to carry such debt in the future. In fact many of the administration’s proposals – from its healthcare program to its auto company ownership and a more heavily regulated financial sector – could serve more to curb growth than encourage it. In addition, increased taxes on “the rich” will hit small businesses most grievously, the most plausible engine for growth.
It appears the administration seems intent on following Labour’s folly of mortgaging the future. Without addressing the issue of how to unleash the entrepreneurial energies of the young generation, it’s hard to see how America will avoid falling into the morass in which its British cousins are now so perilously trapped.
Of course the corralary to the liberals' dilemna is the conservatives opporutnity. The welfare state is just too expensive and cumbersome to work. The opportunity state is what conservatives should offer instead. That is, a state that prepares people for basic opportunities and then gets the heck out of the way aside from a few continuation opportunity programs (lifelong learning). Plenty of space for libertarians and main street cons to disagree still, but this should be the focus of our debate.
Even with President Obama’s widely doubted promises to cut the deficit in half, the CBO estimates a yearly shortfall of more than $1 trillion ten years from now. Even worse, there is precious little in the administration’s plans – including its grandiose claims about “green jobs” – that will create the growth necessary to carry such debt in the future. In fact many of the administration’s proposals – from its healthcare program to its auto company ownership and a more heavily regulated financial sector – could serve more to curb growth than encourage it. In addition, increased taxes on “the rich” will hit small businesses most grievously, the most plausible engine for growth.
It appears the administration seems intent on following Labour’s folly of mortgaging the future. Without addressing the issue of how to unleash the entrepreneurial energies of the young generation, it’s hard to see how America will avoid falling into the morass in which its British cousins are now so perilously trapped.
Of course the corralary to the liberals' dilemna is the conservatives opporutnity. The welfare state is just too expensive and cumbersome to work. The opportunity state is what conservatives should offer instead. That is, a state that prepares people for basic opportunities and then gets the heck out of the way aside from a few continuation opportunity programs (lifelong learning). Plenty of space for libertarians and main street cons to disagree still, but this should be the focus of our debate.
Monday, July 06, 2009
America Needs a Clean Energy Production Bill
Tom Friedman often goes off the deep end in his column, following half logic to illogical conclusions. But then there are his streaks of brilliance, like this from his op-ed yesterday:
In a world that is adding one billion people every 15 years or so — more and more of whom will be able to live high-energy-consuming lifestyles — the demands for energy and natural resources are going to go through the roof. Therefore, E.T. — energy technologies that produce clean power and energy efficiency — is going to be the next great global industry…
The question now is this: how can the federal government nudge this revolution. Their answer thus far- the boondoggle that is the global warming bill instead of an energy production bill- is an inauspicious start. But Friedman’s right about the need.
In a world that is adding one billion people every 15 years or so — more and more of whom will be able to live high-energy-consuming lifestyles — the demands for energy and natural resources are going to go through the roof. Therefore, E.T. — energy technologies that produce clean power and energy efficiency — is going to be the next great global industry…
The question now is this: how can the federal government nudge this revolution. Their answer thus far- the boondoggle that is the global warming bill instead of an energy production bill- is an inauspicious start. But Friedman’s right about the need.
KY Conservatives Opposed to Waxman Global Warming Bill
In an open letter to Ben Chandler Leland Conway, Conservative Edge co-founder and host of the Pulse on 630 WLAP, takes on the global warming bill:
The bill … gives more carbon credits to the northeastern and west coast states, whose representatives wrote it, than they will need under the plan. It gives less than would be needed to the heartland and southern states. While the New England and west coast states are more populated and pollute more, they import our energy. Since they will have more carbon credits, they can continue importing our energy at lower prices while we pay the government to keep producing. This amounts to the effective colonization of the heartland states by the coastal urban states…
This bill will not allow Americans to sell their homes until they receive an “energy permit” from the government, forcing many low and middle income homeowners to pay thousands of dollars to update their homes before they can sell. It will falsely inflate the cost of housing, empty out American bank accounts and put the American dream of homeownership out of reach for many would be first time home buyers…
[…]
President Obama is openly hostile to the coal industry and now has a blank check to destroy it…. Even Governor Beshear told me on my radio show last week that he “would have voted no as it is currently written.”
The bill … gives more carbon credits to the northeastern and west coast states, whose representatives wrote it, than they will need under the plan. It gives less than would be needed to the heartland and southern states. While the New England and west coast states are more populated and pollute more, they import our energy. Since they will have more carbon credits, they can continue importing our energy at lower prices while we pay the government to keep producing. This amounts to the effective colonization of the heartland states by the coastal urban states…
This bill will not allow Americans to sell their homes until they receive an “energy permit” from the government, forcing many low and middle income homeowners to pay thousands of dollars to update their homes before they can sell. It will falsely inflate the cost of housing, empty out American bank accounts and put the American dream of homeownership out of reach for many would be first time home buyers…
[…]
President Obama is openly hostile to the coal industry and now has a blank check to destroy it…. Even Governor Beshear told me on my radio show last week that he “would have voted no as it is currently written.”
Are Green Shoots Withering?
Are the green shoots withering?
From yesterday:
Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration "misread" the economy, and that now the unemployment rate is "much too high."
"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there," Biden said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "There was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't -- I'm not -- it's now our responsibility."
"We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package," Biden said. "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money."
Biden refused to rule out a second stimulus bill, which some economists have called for in order to stem job losses and spur the economy once again.
From yesterday:
Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration "misread" the economy, and that now the unemployment rate is "much too high."
"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there," Biden said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "There was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't -- I'm not -- it's now our responsibility."
"We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package," Biden said. "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money."
Biden refused to rule out a second stimulus bill, which some economists have called for in order to stem job losses and spur the economy once again.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Paper Trade Wars Show Pitfalls of Subsidies
This is a must read piece from the Wall Street Journal on subsidies and trade wars. Too often we lose sight of the fact that when you subsidize an industry it only benefits a few parties, and most of them are usually big Wall Street firms. And too often we lose sight of the fact that rather than using federal appropriations like a scalpel (something that might make folks like me more in favor of them) their efforts usually have the finesse of a sledgehammer.
Consider:
This story begins with Congress's 2005 highway bill. It included a subsidy to encourage businesses to power their motor vehicles with "alternative fuels" such as ethanol, rather than fossil fuels such as diesel. Congress said businesses could receive a 50-cent tax credit for every gallon of gasoline if they used a blend of a traditional fossil fuel and an alternative fuel.
Then in 2007, Congress extended this largesse beyond highway vehicles to a wider range of alternative fuel users. Enter "black liquor," a carbon-rich substance the paper industry has used for decades to power its mills. It also qualifies as an alternative fuel. All the paper industry had to do was blend some fossil fuel in with their alternative fuel and -- voila! -- billions of dollars in federal subsidies were within reach. So they did.
Of course the story didn’t end there. Canada, which also has a booming paper industry, took notice. Or rather their paper lobbies did, which in turn meant their pols, who are apparently as craven in their attempts to promote specific industries as their Anglo cousins down south, did too. The result: subsides for their paper manufacturers. That’ll show those Yankee scoundrels!
Now we have both countries subsidizing their paper industries at taxpayer expense.
Anyone know how I can get in the paper business?
Consider:
This story begins with Congress's 2005 highway bill. It included a subsidy to encourage businesses to power their motor vehicles with "alternative fuels" such as ethanol, rather than fossil fuels such as diesel. Congress said businesses could receive a 50-cent tax credit for every gallon of gasoline if they used a blend of a traditional fossil fuel and an alternative fuel.
Then in 2007, Congress extended this largesse beyond highway vehicles to a wider range of alternative fuel users. Enter "black liquor," a carbon-rich substance the paper industry has used for decades to power its mills. It also qualifies as an alternative fuel. All the paper industry had to do was blend some fossil fuel in with their alternative fuel and -- voila! -- billions of dollars in federal subsidies were within reach. So they did.
Of course the story didn’t end there. Canada, which also has a booming paper industry, took notice. Or rather their paper lobbies did, which in turn meant their pols, who are apparently as craven in their attempts to promote specific industries as their Anglo cousins down south, did too. The result: subsides for their paper manufacturers. That’ll show those Yankee scoundrels!
Now we have both countries subsidizing their paper industries at taxpayer expense.
Anyone know how I can get in the paper business?
Stimulus Not So Stimulating
While I was probably in the distinct minority among fellow bloggers, I've always felt that some sort of timely, targeted economic stimulus was a wise idea. But seeing what Congress did with it- which was basically to take a liberal wish list and graft it onto the idea of stimulus- made me sour on the entire process. Now, some anecdotal evidence that the stimulus, despite projects like the one we just mentioned, is not having the timely effect Congress sought. I also said then that the credit crunch was the key to the revival of the economy.
Consider this exchange in the Herald Leader from one of the world's leading suppliers of construction equipment, Link-Belt:
Q: How has or will economic stimulus legislation affect your business. When?
A: The Associated General Contractors of America recently reported stimulus dollars hitting the ground and putting construction crews back to work. That's encouraging, but we haven't seen it hit our business yet.
More critical to us than the stimulus package is the credit situation. Builders are still having a difficult time securing financing to move construction projects forward.
As to when we see improvements, we're hoping late this year, but that is far from certain.
In other words, the stimulus isn't as stimulating as it should be and the credit crunch is a far bigger problem. More evidence that the majority let us down.
Consider this exchange in the Herald Leader from one of the world's leading suppliers of construction equipment, Link-Belt:
Q: How has or will economic stimulus legislation affect your business. When?
A: The Associated General Contractors of America recently reported stimulus dollars hitting the ground and putting construction crews back to work. That's encouraging, but we haven't seen it hit our business yet.
More critical to us than the stimulus package is the credit situation. Builders are still having a difficult time securing financing to move construction projects forward.
As to when we see improvements, we're hoping late this year, but that is far from certain.
In other words, the stimulus isn't as stimulating as it should be and the credit crunch is a far bigger problem. More evidence that the majority let us down.
WKY Lands Bio-Mass Electricity Stimulus Project
Western KY Start has the story:
A western Kentucky county has landed $1 million in seed money in federal stimulus funds for planning, designing and starting up a biofuels facility that would turn wood into electricty.
U.S. Forest Service regional forester Elizabeth Agpaoa says the Trigg County project is among 30 wood-to-energy and biomass projects in 14 states receiving a total in $57 million in funding.
Trigg County Judge-Executive Stan Humphries told the Paducah Sun he anticipates supplementing the electrical supply to Trigg County Hospital with the wood-to-energy project. Land Between the Lakes spokeswoman Kathryn Harper says the envisioned biofuels plant likely would use waste and low-valued wood from throughout the area or region, with a large amount coming from the recreation area.
A western Kentucky county has landed $1 million in seed money in federal stimulus funds for planning, designing and starting up a biofuels facility that would turn wood into electricty.
U.S. Forest Service regional forester Elizabeth Agpaoa says the Trigg County project is among 30 wood-to-energy and biomass projects in 14 states receiving a total in $57 million in funding.
Trigg County Judge-Executive Stan Humphries told the Paducah Sun he anticipates supplementing the electrical supply to Trigg County Hospital with the wood-to-energy project. Land Between the Lakes spokeswoman Kathryn Harper says the envisioned biofuels plant likely would use waste and low-valued wood from throughout the area or region, with a large amount coming from the recreation area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
