Tag Archive for: energy

Comer Unveils Bank Records Showing Joe Biden Received $40,000 Of ‘Laundered’ Chinese Money

/in , , , , , , , /by

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer released bank records Wednesday showing President Joe Biden previously took a $40,000 check from his family members soon after they received the money from Chinese business associates.

Comer posted a video on X outlining bank records which show how various Biden family members took money from Chinese business associates and wired it to Joe Biden shortly thereafter.

“Well, not only did he lie about his son Hunter making money in China, but it also turns out that $40,000 in laundered China money landed in Joe Biden’s bank account in the form of a personal check,” Comer says in the video. “First, Northern International Capital, a Chinese company associated with CEFC, wired $5,000,000 to Hudson West III, a joint venture established by Hunter Biden and a CEFC associate.”

“Then, Hudson West III sent $400,000 to an entity owned and controlled by Hunter Biden. Next, Hunter Biden wired $150,000 to Lion Hall Group, a company owned by Joe Biden’s brother James and sister-in-law Sara Biden. Sara Biden then withdrew $50,000 in cash from Lion Hall Group,” Comer continues.

“Later the same day, she deposited it into her and James Biden’s personal checking account. A few days later, Sara Biden cut a check to Joe Biden for $40,000. The memo line of the check said, ‘loan repayment.’”

The Oversight Committee released a memo containing bank records of the transactions between the Biden family and its Chinese business associates which resulted in Joe Biden taking $40,000 of Chinese money in September 2017. Hunter Biden told his office manager he was “office mates” with Joe Biden and CEFC in late September 2017, around the time Joe Biden received a $40,000 check from money originating in China.

READ THE MEMO:

The bank records indicate Hunter Biden wired $400,000 to his Owasco account on Aug. 8, 2017, the same day Hudson West III was sent $5 million. He sent $130,000 from Owasco to his Rosemont Seneca Advisors LLC account, an LLC he previously used to purchase his Porsche.

Hunter Biden wired $150,000 from Owasco to James and Sara Biden’s Lion Hall Group on Aug. 17, 2017, the bank records show. Lion Hall’s balance was reduced to $115,822 because of purchases made between Aug. 14 and Aug. 25, 2017, after the funds came in from Hunter Biden.

Sara Biden wired $50,000 from Lion Hall on Aug. 28, 2017, and $50,000 was deposited into her personal account with her husband on the same day. Sara and James Biden’s personal account had a $46.88 balance prior to the $50,000 deposit, bank records show. She sent the check to Joe Biden on Sept. 3, 2017, for a “loan repayment” less than a month after James Biden’s business relationship with Hudson West III began.

James Biden’s Lion Hall Group took payments directly from Hudson West III throughout 2018 for a total of more than $76,000, the bank records show.

The memo lays out the Biden family’s relationship with CEFC, which began when Joe Biden was vice president, according to an FBI FD-302 summarizing an interview with Hunter Biden’s former business associate, Tony Bobulinski.

“CEFC had used its relationship with HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN – and the influence attached to the BIDEN name – to advance CEFC’s interests abroad. HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN did not receive any monetary compensation for their assistance in these projects. HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN did not receive any compensation because JOSEPH BIDEN was still VPOTUS during this time period,” the document reads.

Bobulinski provided the FBI with a hard drive full of communications with Hunter Biden, and told the FBI the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop reporting was real, the FD-302 form states.

The New York Post first reported on the contents of Biden’s abandoned laptop in October 2020, ahead of the presidential election. One email thread shared by the New York Post included an email from Hunter Biden’s business associate James Gilliar in which he floated giving Joe Biden a 10% equity stake in a business deal.

“10 held by H for the big guy?” Gilliar asked Hunter Biden, Bobulinski and former business associate Rob Walker. The $40,000 Joe Biden received appears to be a 10% cut of the $400,000 Hunter Biden wired to himself from the Hudson West III business in August 2017.

In the email thread, Gilliar appeared to be referring to a proposed $10 million joint venture with CEFC called “sinohawk,” and Bobulinski said he spoke about the deal with Joe Biden at a Beverly Hills, California, hotel in May 2017.

“BOBULINSKI stated that he was in possession of multiple texts from HUNTER BIDEN and JAMES BIDEN asking BOBULINSKI to leave JOSEPH BIDEN out of any written communications,” the FD-302 form reads. The texts Bobulinski spoke about were shared by the Oversight Committee.

“Further, BOBULINSKI met with JOSEPH BIDEN inperson on May 2, 2017 at approximately 10:30 PM at the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel bar in Beverly Hills, California where they discussed SINOHAWK. On the following day, May 3, 2017, BOBULINSKI was JOSEPH BIDEN’s guest at the Milken Institute conference, where JOSEPH BIDEN was a speaker. After his speech, BOBULINSKI met with JOSEPH BIDEN for about fifteen minutes backstage,” the form adds.

A page on the Milken Institute’s website confirms Joe Biden’s speech delivered in May 2017 after his vice presidency had concluded. Republican South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace went through the details of Bobulinski’s FD-302 form at the first impeachment hearing into President Biden. (RELATED: FBI, DOJ Officials Were ‘Openly Mocking’ Congressional Inquiries Into Hunter Biden Investigation, Memo Alleges)

In addition, the bank records memo cites an FBI interview with Walker in which he described a meeting Joe Biden allegedly attended with CEFC associates after his vice presidency. Walker agreed with his FBI interviewer who characterized Joe Biden’s presence as a move by Hunter Biden to secure a deal with CEFC, according to a transcript of his interview.

Walker also indicated that he golfed with Joe Biden up to a dozen times, typically at Hunter Biden’s invitation, the transcript shows. Walker recalled a golf outing with then-Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and the late Beau Biden at the Bulle Rock golf course in Havre de Grace, Maryland, which an email from Hunter Biden’s laptop archive appears to confirm.

Walker received $3 million from Chinese firm State Energy HK, an account described by the FBI as a CEFC cutout on an FBI FD-302 summarizing Walker’s interview. Bank records released in March by the Oversight Committee show Walker sent roughly $1 million of the State Energy HK money to the Biden family. The Oversight Committee has requested Walker appear for an interview before the Committee.

Hunter Biden and James Biden entered into a business arrangement with CEFC called Hudson West III in August 2017, according to the Oversight Committee. Hunter Biden admitted in court to the business arrangement with CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming, a Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-linked businessman who was arrested by Chinese authorities on bribery charges.

James Biden told FBI and IRS investigators during an interview that Hunter Biden compared Jianming to CCP leader Xi Jinping to promote CEFC, according to an internal memo released by the Ways and Means Committee. He also told investigators he was only paid by Hudson West through Hunter Biden’s Owasco account, a claim contradicted by the Oversight Committee’s bank records, according to the bank records memo. (RELATED: FBI Received ‘Criminal Information’ On Joe And Hunter Biden From Over 40 Confidential Sources, Sen Grassley Finds)

Hunter Biden’s failed guilty plea with the Department of Justice (DOJ) says he made just under $1 million in 2017 from Hudson West III. He also made more than $600,000 from CEFC in the same year, including and a $100,000 payment Hunter Biden received a day after he sent a boastful text to a CEFC associate.

“The Biden’s [sic] are the best I know at doing exactly what the Chairman wants,” Hunter Biden wrote Aug. 3, 2017, the Oversight Committee revealed in June. The next day, CEFC sent $100,000 to Hunter Biden’s Owasco P.C. shell company.

A few days earlier, Hunter Biden sent a Chinese business associate a threatening text invoking his father’s presence in the room, IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley disclosed when he testified to the Ways and Means Committee in May. The transcript of Shapley’s testimony was publicized in late June.

“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,” Hunter Biden texted, according to Shapley.

“And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father,” Biden added, Shapley testified.

Images from Hunter Biden’s laptop archive show he was with his father on the day he allegedly sent the threatening text, The Washington Free Beacon reported.

Hunter Biden received two payments from Chinese business associates with Joe Biden’s Delaware residence listed as the beneficiary address, the Oversight Committee disclosed in September.

One of those payments was a $250,000 loan in August 2019 from Chinese business associate Jonathan Li, who Joe Biden got coffee with in Beijing and whose daughter secured a college recommendation letter from then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer testified to the Oversight Committee in July.

Hunter Biden was living in California and recovering from addiction at the time of the payments from China featuring Joe Biden’s residence as the beneficiary address, his failed guilty plea indicates. Hunter Biden’s purported financial benefactor, Kevin Morris, later assumed the loan debt, according to the Oversight Committee. Morris was previously identified as the donor who paid roughly $2 million of Hunter Biden’s overdue taxes.

James Biden told investigators he thanked Morris “on behalf of the family” for assisting Hunter Biden, while denying any knowledge of Morris’ relationship with the younger Biden, the IRS memo shows. Morris is reportedly helping Hunter Biden pay his mounting legal bills and advising him to take an aggressive legal stance against his political opponents.

Joe Biden was running for the Democratic presidential nomination at the time of Li’s payment. Ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden falsely claimed his son did not make any money from China during a debate against then-incumbent President Donald Trump.

The White House responded to the payments by downplaying the significance of Chinese business associates using Joe Biden’s residence as the beneficiary address.

The Oversight Committee subpoenaed Hunter Biden and James Biden’s bank records in September, after the first impeachment inquiry hearing. Comer previously revealed on X a $200,000 payment James Biden sent to Joe Biden on the same day James Biden took on a $200,000 loan from distressed healthcare firm Americore.

James Biden signaled to Americore his last name would “open doors” and promised the company a significant investment from the Middle East, bankruptcy court filings show. The White House defended James Biden’s payment by pointing out that his check classifies the $200,000 as a “loan repayment,” a claim Comer says was not substantiated by the bank records in his possession.

“We previously exposed a $200,000 payment James made to his brother Joe that came from funds provided by a now bankrupt health care company called Americore. Like the payment to Joe from Americore funds, it’s certainly plausible that this payment where James and Sara used funds from China was indeed a loan repayment to Joe,” Comer says in his latest X video.

“But even if this $40,000 check was a loan repayment from James Biden, it still shows how Joe benefited from his family cashing in on his name – with money from China no less. Without his family peddling his name and his son threatening a CEFC associate with consequences that he said Joe Biden knew about, James wouldn’t have had the money to write the $40,000 check to his brother Joe,” he adds.

The House Ways and Means Committee released the FBI documents in September alongside a trove of documents supporting the testimony of IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. Both whistleblowers have accused the DOJ of giving Hunter Biden special treatment during its ongoing investigation into his taxes and firearms possession.

Ziegler confirmed the payments from State Energy HK when he testified publicly in July. He also said the Hudson West III business arrangement brought in $3.7 million for all parties involved.

Hunter Biden is suing the IRS because of what his legal team believes are illegal disclosures by the whistleblowers in their testimony and media appearances. He was indicted in September on three federal gun charges, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

The Biden family and its business associates brought in more than $24 million from Ukraine, Russia, China, Romania and Kazakhstan from 2014-19, according to a House memo publicized prior to the first impeachment inquiry hearing.

The $24 million figure came from suspicious activity reports sent to the Treasury Department by financial services providers, Comer said during the hearing.

The White House in June said Joe Biden was “not in business” with his son upon the release of Shapley’s testimony.

“Comer’s lies and conspiracy theories are getting more desperate by the day,” White House spokesman Ian Sams said on X when the bank records were released. “This has been widely debunked for more than a week now.”

Henry Rodgers contributed to this report.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32.

RELATED TWEETS ON X:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s All The Evidence Connecting Joe Biden To Hunter Biden’s Foreign Business Dealings

FBI Knew New York Post’s Hunter Biden Laptop Story Was Real Ahead Of 2020 Election, FBI Form Shows

Second Biden-Appointed Prosecutor Confirms He Refused To Cooperate On Hunter Biden Case

FBI Headquarters Stonewalled Investigative Activity On Hunter Biden Ties To Ukraine, Former Prosecutor Testifies

Prosecutor Ignored Apparent ‘Campaign Finance Criminal Violations’ Flagged By IRS Whistleblower, Memo Shows

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Outsmarting Wind & Solar Lobbyists

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Most people know that lobbyists are paid shills (for a product, industry, or cause). However, few citizens are aware that almost all state and federal laws are written by lobbyists. That said, this commentary is just on one subject area: wind and solar energy. Since lobbyists’ objectives (e.g., their client’s financial gain) are in direct conflict with what is in the best interests of citizens, this is a deplorable situation.

This travesty will continue until lawsuits expose how such laws contradict other statutes on the books. For example, most states require that state utility boards approve energy projects based on two paramount criteria: cost and reliability.

But wind and solar projects are high cost and low reliability — so how could any of them ever be approved? Because: 1) of the undue influence of lobbyists, 2) state utility boards are acting to support political agendas (instead of their own statutes), and 3) no one is suing them for their lack of adherence to state laws, etc..

One way around this has been citizens getting their community to impose reasonable (science-based) rules and regulations on local wind or solar projects (e.g., regarding setbacks, etc.). Of course, lobbyists and political virtue signalers find that citizens restricting non-sensical industrialization in their own community, to be unacceptable.

In response lobbyists got state legislators to pass state laws that limited what local legislators could do regarding the regulation of such projects in their community. For example, local communities are not allowed to make setbacks more than a “state approved” amount — regardless of what scientific information they have.

A major problem here is that in some cases, these new state restrictions are a violation of Home Rule rights. See here for a basic definition of what this means, and the numerous states that have Home Rule. Again, they get away with this extraction of citizens’ rights, because no one is properly suing them for this infringement.

The choice for citizens here is very simple: a) roll over and continue to be beaten down, or b) decide that they have had enough and then take meaningful action.

The good news is: if citizens are finally ready to pay hardball, they have several effective options. I’ve mentioned one already: sue state agencies for not complying with their statutory obligations. The most powerful lawsuit is to sue state agency members individually using the Federal 1983 Statute. This is to sue them personally for violating your civil rights, but it requires a sympathetic, aggressive attorney.

Note: I am not an attorney, so I am not giving legal advice here. Instead, I am simply letting you know some options available. Consult with a competent lawyer.

Another effective strategy against lobbyist influence is to outsmart them. For example, state laws that restrict how communities can regulate wind and solar are almost always about not allowing stricter setbacks, etc. than the state specifies. (Of course, the state has no scientific basis for the setbacks they allow — and, again, a proper lawsuit would expose that major deficiency.)

To effectively fight lobbyists it is essential to know the key factors needed to be properly regulated for industrial wind projects or solar projects. A clever way to outsmart them is to pass local regulations that are not specifically identified (limited) in a state law.

For example, pass a Property Value Guarantee. My energy website has a document about PVG, which also shows the scientific justification for it. PVGs are also incorporated into our model local wind and solar ordinances.

Some other clever tactics are:

  1. Pass zoning laws that limit where wind or solar projects are allowed,
  2. Pass an ordinance prohibiting any wind energy-related PILOT program,
  3. Assess wind or solar projects at their FULL value,
  4. Pass a General Zoning Ordinance listing a wide variety of things (including industrial wind energy) that would be inconsistent with your Town’s character, objectives, etc. [e.g., what the Town of Dryden did, which was upheld in court],
  5. Require that the wind or solar facility developer not impose any confidentiality clauses on any landowners, in their lease or easement agreements, and
  6. Declare your community to be a Sanctuary Community (opting out of certain regulations imposed on it by the State). [Note: to date, this has been done regarding immigration, gun laws, etc., so no good reason why not a renewable sanctuary!]

The bottom line is that if citizens are determined and creative (i.e., use critical thinking), they can outsmart lobbyists and lapdog politicians.

Here is a 100% guarantee: if you don’t properly defend your rights, they will take more of them away!

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Auto execs are coming clean: EVs aren’t working

Lawsuit: ‘Green Greed’ Behind Lahaina Deaths

/in , , , , , , /by

News Release from Bottini & Bottini Inc. (bottinilaw.com)

On September 11, 2023, BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. and TAMASHIRO SOGI & BONNER filed the first lawsuit seeking to hold the Board of Directors of Hawaiian Electric liable for the tragic loss of life and property due to the Maui Fire on August 8, 2023.

The case — Rice v. Celeste A. Connors et al., Case No. 1CCV-23-0001181, is pending in Honolulu, Hawaii in the First Circuit court.

The new complaint alleges that between 2019 and 2022, Hawaiian Electric invested less than $245,000 on wildfire-specific projects on the island. Instead of spending necessary funds to prevent fires caused by its equipment, Hawaiian Electric instead spent millions of dollars towards efforts to achieve a 100 percent renewable energy goal, which earned the Company bonuses that the Company’s executives used to increase their own compensation. Defendant Seu, CEO of the Company, was paid 32 times the median compensation of all employees in 2022.

The members of Hawaiian Electric’s Board of Directors were also well aware of the need to adopt and implement a power-shutoff system, as San Diego Gas & Electric and PG&E had done years before, but failed to do so. Darren Pai, a spokesperson for Hawaiian Electric, admitted that the Company did not have a formal power shutoff plan at the time of the Maui fire. The complaint also alleges that the Defendants new about the connection between passing hurricanes and wildfires. In 2020, researchers from the University of Hawaii and the East-West Center established a causal relationship between fires on Maui and O‘ahu to winds from Hurricane Lane.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Hawaiian Electric to haul away fallen poles, power lines, transformers, conductors and other equipment from near a Lahaina substation starting around Aug. 12, 2023, before investigators from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) arrived on scene. One of the attorneys for the shareholders, Addison Bonner of Tamashiro Sogi & Bonner, said: “The Defendants’ actions may have violated national guidelines on how utilities should handle and preserve evidence after a wildfire and deprived investigators the opportunity to view any poles or downed lines in an undisturbed condition before or after the fire started.”

Frank A. Bottini, of Bottini & Bottini, a co-counsel for the shareholders, said: “Rather than spend its customer’s money to improve infrastructure maintenance and safety, the Board of Directors of Hawaiian Electric funneled ratepayers’ money to boost their own profits and compensation. This pattern and practice of favoring profits over safety left Hawaiian Electric vulnerable to an increased risk of a catastrophic event such as the Maui fire, which was the worst natural disaster in Hawaii’s history and the deadliest U.S. fire in over a century.”

The complete complaint can be downloaded from the link below.

PDF: (2023-09-11) Conformed Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint.pdf

SA: HEI board accused of skimping on safety

NOTE: If PUC finds HECO management negligent, ratepayers cannot be made to foot bill for rebuild.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lahaina: “I will rebuild on my land”

‘Toxic Ash’ is excuse to keep residents away from burned homes

“How ’bout give the people their homes back.”

Rebuild? Give More Rights to Lahaina Property Owners

EDITORS NOTE: This Hawaii Free Press column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why America Must Go Nuclear—Power That Is!

/in , , , , , , /by

We keep hearing about the need to dramatically “reduce carbon” in our atmosphere from environmentalists. This means reducing the use of fossil fuels.

So, what is the most effective way to reduce carbon? Why go nuclear.

Let us explain.

According to the Energy Information Administration in 2020 here is where Americans get their power, electricity, from:

  1. Natural Gas – 39.8%
  2. Coal – 19.5%
  3. Nuclear – 18.2%
  4. Wind – 10.2%
  5. Hydro – 6.3%
  6. Solar – 3.4%
  7. Biomass – 1.3%
  8. Petroleum – 0.9%
  9. Geothermal – 0.4%

Americans get 60.2% of their power, electricity, from fossil fuels.

The problem with renewables, particularly solar and wind, is that they aren’t cheap and reliable sources of power, electricity. The wind stops and the sun always goes down. When they do the backup power for these so called “renewables” comes from other sources primarily from fossil fuel driven power plants.

Biomass, geothermal and hydro power make up 8% of our power, electricity. While these sources are reliable they can’t fill the bill to power all homes, businesses with cheap and reliable power, electricity.

But there is one power source that can, if we just take the steps needed, provide us with all the clean power we will ever need.

America Must Go Nuclear

Nuclear energy provides nearly one-fifth of U.S. electricity.

What if all of America’s energy, electricity, came from nuclear power plants?

According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission we currently have 95 nuclear power plants licensed to operate.

The USNRC reports, “An operating nuclear power reactor is designed to produce heat for electric generation. Power reactors are distinguished from nonpower reactors which are reactors used for research, training, and test purposes, and for the production of radioisotopes for medical, industrial, and academic uses.”

The Columbia Climate School’s on November 23rd, 2020 wrote,

Nuclear power is the second largest source of clean energy after hydropower. The energy to mine and refine the uranium that fuels nuclear power and manufacture the concrete and metal to build nuclear power plants is usually supplied by fossil fuels, resulting in CO2 emissions; however, nuclear plants do not emit any CO2 or air pollution as they operate. And despite their fossil fuel consumption, their carbon footprints are almost as low as those of renewable energy. One study calculated that a kilowatt hour of nuclear-generated electricity has a carbon footprint of 4 grams of CO2 equivalent, compared to 4 grams for wind and 6 grams for solar energy — versus 109 grams for coal, even with carbon capture and storage.

In the last 50 years, nuclear energy has precluded the creation of 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide, according to the International Energy Agency. Without nuclear energy, the power it generated would have been supplied by fossil fuels, which would have increased carbon emissions and resulted in air pollution that could have caused millions more deaths each year.

Around the world, 440 nuclear reactors currently provide over 10 percent of global electricity. In the U.S., nuclear power plants have generated almost 20 percent of electricity for the last 20 years.

Read full article.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) in May 2023 reported,

    • Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with about 60 reactors under construction.
    • Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia.
    • Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
    • Plant lifetime extension programmes are maintaining capacity, particularly in the USA.

Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe. In 2021 these provided 2653 TWh, about 10% of the world’s electricity.

The Bottom Line

America must get on the nuclear power bandwagon.

The WNA reported, “Many countries with existing nuclear power programmes either have plans to, or are building, new power reactors. Every country worldwide that has operating nuclear power plants, or plants under construction, has a dedicated country profile in the Information Library. About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes (see information page on Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries).”

The USA is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity, according to the WNA.

Time to build back better with more and more nuclear power plants until the United States gets 100% of its electricity from nuclear power plants.

This will allow the U.S. to become a world exporter of oil, natural gas and coal.

In addition, America will become independent of all foreign sources of energy.

This must be the goal of every administration—energy independence.

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ESG-compliant firms cause more carbon emissions, says report

The push-back against Net Zero

Unit 3 at Georgia Nuclear Plant Reaches 100% Power Output

Finland’s New Reactor is Already Lowering Electricity Prices

Does Nuclear slow down the scale-up of Wind and Solar? France and Germany can’t agree

Green Cars, Red Ink: Ford Set to Lose $4.5 Billion on Electric Vehicles This Year

House Passes Republicans’ Signature Energy Reform Bill

/in , , , , , , , /by

The House of Representatives passed Republicans’ signature energy package, the Lower Energy Costs Act, in a mostly party-line vote Thursday.

The legislation, introduced by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, includes permitting reform and rolls back several executive orders that limit domestic energy production. Democratic Texas Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, Maine Rep. Jared Golden, and Washington Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez voted with 221 Republicans in supporting the package. Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick was the only Republican to oppose it.

“What a great day this is for American families who have been struggling for too long under the weight of high prices, record-high inflation, all of the problems that President Biden has created, and especially for those people that have been frustrated to so long that President Biden has gone after American energy but yet gone all around the world and begged foreign dictators to get our energy from them,” Scalise said at a press conference held after the bill passed. “This has never been a question of whether or not we have oil or natural gas in the U.S. The question is, ‘where do we get it?’”

The Lower Energy Costs Act, which is not expected to pass the Senate, would resume construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which Biden blocked on his first day in office. It also includes reforms of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act initially proposed by Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin in the 117th Congress that would speed up permitting for various projects.

The legislation would also prohibit foreign companies from mining on U.S. soil if those companies have documented histories of human rights violation. That provision is targeted at Chinese entities, many of which employ Uyghur slave labor.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Will Democrats Screw Over Joe Manchin?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The case for nuclear power

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Despite its lethal past, nuclear energy is the clean and cost-effective power source we need.

In the fall 2022 issue of the technology-and-society journal The New Atlantis, authors Thomas and Nate Hochman examine the pros and cons of building new nuclear power plants in the United States.  The case of nuclear power is fraught with political issues that are inextricably tied up with technical issues, but the Hochmans do a good job of laying out the problems facing nuclear power and some possible solutions.

If nuclear power had not been invented until 2010, say, it would probably be welcomed as the keystone in our society’s answer to climate change.  Imagine a source of the most fungible type of energy — electricity — that takes teaspoons of nuclear fuel compared to carloads or pipelines full of fossil fuels, emits zero greenhouse gases, and when properly engineered runs more reliably than wind, solar, hydro, or sometimes even natural gas, as the misadventure of Texas’s Great Freeze of February 2021 showed.  What’s to oppose?  Well, a lot, as the Hochmans admit.

Deadly history

It is perhaps unfortunate that the first major use of nuclear technology was in the closing days of World War II, when the US became the only nation so far to employ nuclear weapons in wartime, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese with bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The long shadow of nuclear war has cast a darkness over the technology of nuclear power ever since, despite optimistic but misguided attempts to promote peaceful uses in the 1950s.

The Hochmans describe the golden era of US nuclear power plant construction, which ran roughly from 1967 to 1987, as a period in which the two major US manufacturers — General Electric and Westinghouse — offered “turn-key” plants that were priced competitively with coal-fired units.  The utilities snapped them up, and the vast majority of existing plants were built in those two decades.

The turn-key pricing turned out to be a big mistake, however.  Manufacturers expected the cost per plant to decline as economies of scale kicked in, but for a variety of reasons both technical and regulatory, the hoped-for economies never materialised.  The particular pressurised-water technology that was used was adapted from early nuclear submarines, and in retrospect may not have been the best choice for domestic power plants.  By the time the companies realised their mistake and switched to cost-plus contracts, they had lost a billion dollars, and utilities became much less enthusiastic when they had to pay the true costs of building the plants.

In the meantime, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1970, making it much harder to obtain permits to build complicated things like nuclear plants.  In the pre-Act days, permitting a plant sometimes took less than a year, but once NEPA passed, such speediness (and the resulting economies of fast construction) was a thing of the past.

Then came the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl plant fire and disaster in 1986, further blackening the reputation of nuclear power in the public mind.  Add to that the not-in-my-back-yard problems faced by attempts to find permanent storage locations for nuclear waste, and by 1990 the US nuclear industry was in a kind of coma from which it has not yet recovered.

The Hochmans point to France as a counterexample of a nation that made a conscious decision to go primarily nuclear for its electric power, and even today about 70% of France’s power is nuclear.  But even France is having problems maintaining their aging plants, and French nuclear promoters face the same sorts of political headwinds that prevail in the US.

Viable option

Now that climate change is an urgent priority for millions of people and dozens of governments, the strictly technical appeal of nuclear power is still valid. It really does make zero greenhouse gases in operation, and when properly engineered, it can be the most reliable form of power, providing the essential base-load capacity that is needed to stabilise grids that will draw an increasing amount of energy from highly intermittent solar and wind sources in the future. Eventually, energy-storage technology may make it possible to store enough energy to smooth out the fluctuations of renewables, but we simply don’t have that now, and it may not come for years or decades.

In the meantime, there are plans on drawing boards for so-called “modular” plants.  If every single automobile was a custom design from the ground up, including a from-scratch engine and body, only the likes of Elon Musk could afford to drive.  But that was how nuclear plants were made back in the day:  each design was customised to the particular site and customer specifications.

If manufacturers had the prospects of sales and freedom to develop a modular one-size-fits-all design, they could turn the process into something similar to the way mobile homes are made today:  in factories, and then shipped out in pieces to be simply assembled on site.  And newer designs favouring gravity feeds over powered pumps can be made much safer so that if anything goes wrong, the operators simply walk away and the plant safely shuts itself down.

Standing in the way of these innovations are (1) the prevailing negative political winds against nuclear power, enforced with more emotion than logic by environmental groups and major political parties, and (2) the need to change regulations to allow such technical innovations, which currently are all but blocked by existing laws and rules.

In the Hochmans’ best-case scenario, the US begins importing modular plants from countries where an existing base of nuclear know-how allows efficient manufacturing, which these days means places like China.  Even if the US nuclear industry turned on full-speed today, it would take a decade or more to recover the expertise base that was lost a generation ago when the industry collapsed.  Regulations and regulatory agencies would change from merely obstructing progress to reasoned cooperation with nuclear-plant manufacturing and installation.  And we would derive an increasing proportion of our energy from a source that has always made a lot of technical sense.

On the other hand, things may just go on as they are now, with old plants closing and no new ones to take their place. That would be bad for a number of reasons, but reason hasn’t been the only consideration in the history of nuclear energy up to now.

This article has been republished from the author’s blog, Engineering Ethics, with permission.

AUTHOR

Karl D. Stephan

Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… More by Karl D. Stephan

RELATED ARTICLE: In Europe, the nuclear “comeback”

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Watch as AOC Confuses Natural Gas For Oil In Video Explaining Why Pipelines Are Bad

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confused a number of facts about fossil fuels in a video to her followers explaining why pipelines are bad for the country.

The congresswoman mistakenly asserted that the Keystone XL and Line 3 pipelines were proposed to increase U.S. natural gas exports in the video she posted on her Instagram account Saturday. The two pipelines would transport crude oil, not natural gas, from Canada into the U.S. as an import, according to their operators.

“When you look at Keystone XL, and when you look at a lot of these other pipelines, people say, ‘Oh, this is for energy, you know, independence in the United States,’” Ocasio-Cortez stated during the video which has garnered more than 180,000 views. “We actually already produce enough to power our own country, whether you agree with it or not.”

“A lot of these pipelines are being built so that the United States can export and sell natural gas abroad,” she continued. “And, you know, people make geopolitical arguments as to why that should be the case.”

Line 3 has transported crude oil into the U.S. through Minnesota since the 1960s. Enbridge, the company that operates the pipeline, is currently constructing a $2.9 billion Line 3 replacement, but the company has faced intense resistance from environmental activists.

Ocasio-Cortez said that she believes Line 3 “should not exist.”

WATCH:

The Keystone XL pipeline would have similarly taken crude oil into the U.S. from western Canada. However, the pipeline — proposed as an extension to an already existing line that stretches from North Dakota to Texas — was canceled by its operator TC Energy after President Joe Biden revoked its federal permit.

More than 20 states have accused the president of overstepping his constitutional authority in an ongoing federal lawsuit challenging the permit revocation.

“The President has certain prerogatives to act on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs,” the lawsuit stated. “But as far as domestic law is concerned, the President must work with and abide by the limits set by Congress—whether he likes them or not.”

Republicans and fossil fuel industry advocates have argued that ensuring the U.S. has a steady, reliable supply of oil and natural gas protects national security. They also argue that the U.S. should leverage its own natural resources to be a net exporter of oil and gas rather than rely on foreign powers for energy.

But the Biden administration has hamstrung the U.S. fossil fuel industry, canceling pipelines, abandoning large drilling projects and introducing sweeping regulations, while asking Middle Eastern countries for more oil and Russia for more gas.

COLUMN BY

THOMAS CATENACCI

Energy and environment reporter. Follow Thomas on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Blocks Oil, Gas Leases In Large New Mexico Region At Request Of Native American Tribes

Granholm Says Biden Is ‘All Over’ Gas Prices, Can’t List Any Policies To Lower Prices

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

/in , /by

Three brief overviews about the US elections, so far:

  1. Due likely to God’s intercession, Republicans did FAR better than the media and  pollsters were projecting,
  2. Since the US voting public did not sufficiently cooperate with the plans of the Left, there appears to be a significant amount of shenanigans to keep the President from being reelected, and
  3. It’s now mostly in the hands of lawyers and judges.

If you’ve witnessed election fraud or manipulation, fill out this report

If you’ve witnessed election fraud or manipulation, call these numbers

We have one objective regarding the 2020 US election:

that every legal vote, and only legal votes, are counted.

Here is a cross-section of sample articles that explain some of the details of what is going on:

US National Elections (General):

Statement from the President

The Fight is Now

9 Constructive Things to do Regarding the Election

A Nation Counting on Integrity

A Prayer for the United States

Call in the Quants

Updated: Election Day!

The Ascendancy Of The Basket Cases — 2020 Edition

True The Vote Organization

US National Elections (Politics):

The Horrors That Await if They Get Away With Stealing the Election

Dennis Prager video: The Election – A Divided Nation

The Triumph and Tragedy of Trump

Taking a Closer Look at ‘Fact-Free Journalism’

America is at a tipping point!

Scholars and Writers for Trump

There are myriad reasons why I voted for Donald Trump

A Plea to My Evangelical Friends Supporting Biden

Senior ABC News Reporter Reveals Bosses Spikes Important News

The Fall of the House of Pelosi

Harris accused of promoting Marxism with video on ‘equality vs. equity’

Short video: Do You Understand the Electoral College?

US National Elections — Likely Corruption (General):

Trump’s legal team responds after race is called for Biden

Fractional Magick

Intelligence Expert Claims 2020 Election was a ‘Sophisticated Sting Operation’

How the most important election in our lifetime was rigged

Democrats are to Blame for Post-Election Hanky-Panky

Video: Sidney Powell re Voter Fraud

And you thought elections were decided by The People?

Votes Changed in Pre-Election Counting Connected to Hammer and Scorecard?

Short video: Steve Bannon “Trump Won the Election”

Short video: Voter Fraud Exposed — Computer Program Hacking

Video: Election Fraud Is a ‘Time-Honored Tradition’ in Dem Cities

Did a Computer Glitch Switch 2.3 million Trump Votes to Biden?

US National Elections — Likely Corruption (State Specific):

America or “Banana Republic”?

USA 2020: Looks like a coup, smells like a coup…

Why Does Biden Have Many More Votes Than Democrat Senators In Swing States?

Two Statistical Curiosities that Allowed Biden to Pull Ahead in PA

Stealing Pennsylvania

Yes, Democrats Are Trying to Steal the Election In Michigan, Wisc, and PA

Wisconsin Voter Irregularity = Likely Fraud

Massive Voter Fraud in Wisconsin

Five Milwaukee wards report 89% turnout in 2020 presidential vote

‘Vertical’ Vote Counts In Michigan, Wisconsin

Math Proves Trump Won

Dems collude with CIA to launch operation that alters voting results in swing states

As we’ve recommended before, please continue to pray about this election, as God can fix anything.

Thank you for your interest in, and support of, the principles of America.

PS — We are currently examining the Pennsylvania voting result for statistical anomalies (and have found considerable evidence for that (e.g. see here).

Additionally, the President’s team needs attorneys willing to help with Pennsylvania lawsuits (and likely other key swing states: AZ, WI, MI, GA, NV). If you’d like to assist with either of those actions, or how someone who would, please let me know.

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles, we’ve put together detailed archives — where you can search by year, or over the ten plus years of the Newsletter. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, read this. Please email me for a free subscription

Copyright © 2020; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org)

Carbon Dioxide is the ‘Elixir of Life’

/in , , , /by

Kevin Mooney in his column “Group Defends Carbon Dioxide as ‘Elixir of Life’ in Climate Change Debate” reports:

Forget everything government officials, many media outlets, and “activist scientists” have warned about the damaging effects of carbon dioxide, because in reality there’s no cause for alarm, a group called the CO2 Coalition urges.

Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts who are part of the nonprofit organization turned out in force Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, outside Washington.

“Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,” Craig Idso, a science adviser to the CO2 Coalition, said during a panel discussion at CPAC exploring the benefits attached to higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The CO2 Coalition, founded in 2015, describes its mission as “educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.”

[ … ]

“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere enhances plant water use efficiency,” he said.

Increased levels of carbon dioxide could boost plant growth and make plants more resistant to droughts, he said. This could lead to increased food production, which in turn could offset projected food shortages.

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore testified before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on February 25, 2014. During his statement for the record Dr. Moore said:

‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

‘Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.’

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore also stated that oil is the ‘most important source of energy to support our civilization.’ Dr. Moore said, “If it is the aim of ‘environmentalists’ to stop fossil fuel production and use, end fracking, end coal mining, end use of oil, then they are promoting a policy that would have disastrous consequences for human civilization & the environment. If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish & there wouldn’t be a tree left on planet within a year, as people struggled to find enough energy to stay alive…”

The New American (TNA) interviewed Princeton University Professor William Happer on the notion that CO2 is a pollutant and is the cause of climate change, formally known as global warming. TNA reports:

Physics Professor William Happer discredits the negative effects of CO2 on the planet and whether or not climate change is man-made. He also goes into detail of why the United Nation’s models are incorrect despite their overwhelming confidence that significant warming is taking place due to human activity.

John Casey, author and former NASA rocket scientist, has taught me three facts about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. The changes are cyclical.
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.

As John notes the only thing that mankind can do is prepare for these changes using good science and the best climate prediction tools to warn us of the coming changes.

End of story. Let the real science begin!

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson versus Bill Nye (Feb. 27, 2017).

Media falsely spins Trump’s NYT climate comments

/in , , , /by

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change  & Trump on climate change in major U-turn

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trump’s meeting: “This is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as “retreating from campaign promises.” But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.” The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate report featuring 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.

Trump’s climate science view that there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, “There is some, something. It depends on how much.”

Trump’s views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.

Scientists at the UN climate summit in Marrakech commended Trump’s climate views. See: Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’

Trump also told resident NYT warmist Tom Friedman: ‘A lot of smart people disagree with you’ on climate change. (Note: Friedman has some wacky views: Flashback 2009: NYT’s Tom Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’)

Once again, Trump was 100% accurate as very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called climate “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Trump correctly cited the  Climategate scandal: “They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.” See: Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed

Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: “My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.” (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

It is also worth noting that Trump’s often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of “climate change” was “created” by China.

The media have created a cartoon-version view of Trump’s climate views.  If he says anything short of global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, then the media claims Trump flip-flopped.

And in what has been described as “fake news”, the publisher of NYT tried to sell CO2-induced storms to Trump; but Trump refused to accept the claim.
NYT’s Arthur Sulzberger: ‘We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.’

Trump countered: ‘We’ve had storms always, Arthur.’

Trump is accurately citing the latest climate science by noting that extreme weather is not getting worse. See: 2016 ‘State of the Climate Report’

  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

Trump’s claim to have an “open mind” on U.S. climate policy and his comment that “I’m going to take a look at” withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.

(Climate Depot Note: UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!)

http://www.thegwpf.com/donald-trump-on-climategate-the-paris-agrement/

Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview

President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape. (Note: Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’)

[laughter]

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note: EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s)

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate …

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

Related Links: 

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit – Full Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down Skeptics

Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – Clexit ‘will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’ – ‘So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’

 ‘The Trump Taboo’ at UN climate summit: He is ‘omnipresent…even though nobody is saying his name’ – ‘There is a taboo word at this year’s 22nd UN climate change summit: Trump. The president-elect is omnipresent in Marrakesh. You can feel him lurking behind talks on low-carbon economies and in the cracks between climate-induced loss and damage. He’s never directly addressed, but he’s always in the room. You can tell from the anxiety in people’s voices and their disapproving headshakes, heavy with concern for what the future for action on climate change holds.’

Trump casts HUGE shadow over UN climate summit

RELATED VIDEO: Energy Summit 2016

A ‘Carbon Tax’ Is a Utopian Fix that Can’t Survive Contact with Political Reality by Diana Furchtgott-Roth

/in , , , , /by

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, suggests that Americans should pick a president who favors a carbon tax. But not even Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have proposed a carbon tax as part of their tax plans. All candidates have put forward detailed tax plans, and a carbon tax is not included in any of these plans.

What is a carbon tax? Why do so many academics and columnists love it? And why will Congress be unable to enact such a tax effectively?

No matter that only 16 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by America, and that by many measures global temperatures have not increased over the past decade. No matter than unless China and India reduce their carbon emissions, U.S. unilateral efforts will have no practical effect on global temperature. China has stated that it will reduce emissions in 2030, but has not made any definite commitment.

The carbon tax is a favorite of many academic economists for restructuring the tax system. Proponents include a bipartisan group of professors such as Tuft University’s Gilbert Metcalf, now Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the Department of the Treasury; Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein, Edward Glaeser, and Gregory Mankiw; and Columbia University’s Joseph Stiglitz.

However, as tax practitioners know, a carbon tax is complex to set up. It requires adjustments to make sure that the tax is not unduly regressive and does not encourage consumption of imports relative to domestic production.

But, as we saw from the passage of many tax and budget bills over the years, Congress does not think deeply before it passes major tax bills.

Rather, political expediency always triumphs over academic elegance. Congress is incapable of thoughtful tax solutions, no matter how many are offered by well-intentioned professors. Despite years of notice that the Bush tax rates were due to expire, Congress passed permanent tax laws at the last moment, without reading the bill.

Many academics see a carbon tax as an alternative to an individual income tax, a corporate income tax, or a European-style cap-and-trade system. But a quickly-passed carbon tax in the hands of Congress would be just another add-on levy, with exemptions for friends and punishments for enemies.

A carbon tax raises the price of energy and so discourages consumption without regulation. Carbon tax rates could be calibrated to be revenue neutral or to yield a net rise in federal tax receipts, with the increment possibly dedicated to reducing deficits.

What are the problems with a carbon tax?

Everyone would want to spend the revenue. Some people would want to use it to reduce the deficit. Others would want to use carbon tax revenues to lower other taxes, such as income taxes. And since high income tax rates reduce incentives to work, this could conceivably add to economic efficiency.

Carbon taxes are regressive. Since low-income people use more energy as a percent of their income than high-income people, a switch to a carbon tax would have to be accompanied by transfers to low-income groups.

Some academics suggest that offsets be returned to taxpayers through lower income taxes, perhaps with the proceeds going chiefly to low-income households (individuals and families), which are disproportionately hurt by what is in essence an energy consumption tax.

This could theoretically be done by adjustments to the income tax. However, low-income earners are not required to file returns, and they would have to do so in order to be identified and compensated. That means extra work for them, and for the Internal Revenue Service — which will already be overworked calculating and collecting penalties from Obamacare violators.

Energy-intensive sectors lose under a carbon tax. The prices of energy-intensive goods in America would increase relative to imports from countries without carbon taxes. So Americans will prefer to buy imports, and American firms will lose business. Proponents of the tax suggest putting tariffs on imports in proportion to their carbon content so that American companies will not be at a disadvantage. But the precise quantities are complex to calculate, and tariffs might be illegal under World Trade Organization regulations.

The shale oil and gas that are attracting energy-intensive manufacturing back to America would be taxed, to the detriment of these new industries — and their employees. Some industries, such as coal, would be big losers. Politicians from coal-producing regions are influential in Congress, and they would demand a share of revenues.

So for a carbon tax to make our tax system more efficient, its revenues would have to be used to offset other taxes in the economy. Its negative effects on low-income Americans and on energy-intensive regions would have to be ameliorated. Some border adjustments would have to be made so that domestic goods were not disfavored.

But our disfunctional Congress is incapable of crafting a carbon tax with these attributes. Any tax on carbon would be an additional tax, without the offsets that make it so attractive to university professors. It would hurt the poor and raise domestic prices relative to prices of imports.

None of the front-running presidential candidates have proposed a carbon tax as part of their tax plans, because they know it is unpopular and will not pass Congress. To lower global emissions, the large emitters of carbon such as China and India need to move to nuclear power or natural gas. That would indeed make a difference.

This post first appeared at Economics21.org.

Diana Furchtgott-RothDiana Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is director of Economics 21 and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Calls for Fracking Bans Ignore Sound Science

Taxpayers Are Footing Bill for Solar Project That Doesn’t Work

President Obama Wants You to Pay More for Oil

/in , , , , /by

Apparently oil prices are too low, so President Barack Obama thinks it’s a good idea to slap on a $10 per barrel oil tax. Politico reports:

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

Based on current prices, this would be a roughly 30% tax on a barrel of oil.

It’s disturbing that the president’s reaction to an industry slashing jobs and cutting investments in a tough business environment is to place a massive tax on the product they produce.

It’s also troubling to see that President Obama thinks of the tax as a quid pro quo for ending the oil export ban. (Something he opposed.)

“You’re allowed to export, but we’re also saying is that we’re going to impose a tax on a barrel of oil,”President Obama said at a press conference.

Thankfully this tax is already “dead on arrival” in Congress, said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

President Obama knows this, but doesn’t care. As Politico notes, “It’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation.” And it falls squarely with his mission to end fossil fuel use in the United States.

“It’s really about taxing the energy they don’t like to make President Obama’s favored energy sources,” said Institute for Energy Research President Thomas Pyle.

The president acknowledged this. When questioned by reporters, President Obama said if imposed, the tax “will have further weaned our economy off dirty fuels.”

But his sweeping plan runs straight up against reality. Americans will be using oil and other fossil fuels for decades to come. Until economically viable alternatives are developed that offer the same benefits (convenience, reliability, energy density), fossil fuels will be needed to keep America’s economy moving.

There’s no question we need more revenue to fix America’s broken roads and bridges, but the oil tax covers over the real intention behind the proposal: The radical transformation of America’s energy economy.

MORE ARTICLES ON: ENERGY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Obama is by photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Bloomberg for President?

/in , , , , /by

Amid reports that the FBI is close to recommending that the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified materials, and that FBI Director James Comey and other agency personnel investigating Clinton may resign if the DOJ refuses to do so, sources close to Michael Bloomberg say the billionaire former mayor of New York City may run for president if Clinton appears unable to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.

CBS New York reports, “[t]hey say Bloomberg would strongly consider running if the general election looked like it would be a contest between Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.” Bloomberg, who has let on that he would be willing to spend 1 billion dollars on a campaign, is expected to make his decision by March. Four states are holding their presidential primaries and caucuses in February, and another 14 will do so on Super Tuesday, March 1st.

Appearing unfazed by her troubles, Clinton insists “nothing that I did was wrong” and said of the Bloomberg news, “the way I read what he said was if I didn’t get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I’m going to relieve him of that and get the nomination, so he doesn’t have to.”

Unfortunately, from Clinton’s perspective, that may be a fairly big “if.” Polls show her being trounced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire and also losing Iowa, where the country’s first presidential primaries and caucuses will be held, and that her national figures are dropping. Other polls show that more Americans view her unfavorably than favorably.

Fox News reports, “[t]he FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.” Fox followed up on the story on Tuesday, saying, “The security investigation is now part and parcel with the criminal [public corruption] investigation.”

Bloomberg must theorize that he could appeal to voters on the basis of his success as a businessman and his time as the mayor of the nation’s most populous city. But he faces a difficult “if” of his own. Clinton been casting herself as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history, a distinction Bloomberg would certainly want to challenge if he threw his hat into the ring. Also, and perhaps for the same reason, a Morning Consult poll released this week found Bloomberg at 13% in a hypothetical three-way race against Donald Trump and Clinton, 11% when the Republican candidate is Sen. Ted Cruz, and down to 10% when the Republican is Sen. Marco Rubio.

Bloomberg might be able to bump those numbers up among Democrats a bit, if he promised to pardon Clinton on the first day of his presidency. That would not only endear him to Clinton’s most fanatical supporters, it would wipe the slate clean, at least legally-speaking, for someone who shares his deep antipathy for guns. With public opinion trending steadily against gun control, a President Bloomberg couldn’t afford to have one of his strongest anti-gun allies in court or in prison.

How We Can Get the Candidates Talking About America’s Energy Opportunity

/in , , , /by

America has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to combine American innovation, American resources, and American freedom to create American energy abundance and become the world’s energy superpower, overtaking Russia and the Middle East.

In 20 seconds, you can tell our politicians, including the candidates that are completely ignoring this issue in the debates–this time to discuss Trump’s feud with Megyn Kelly–that you will only vote for candidates who will seize America’s Energy Opportunity.

Please do so at AmericasEnergyOpportunity.com.

For Energy Industry Employees

America’s Energy Opportunity affects all of us, but you most directly, along with the millions of people who work directly and indirectly with your industry.

Therefore, please tell your colleagues about this campaign. Here is a letter you can send.

Dear ______,

I would like to ask you to take three minutes to stand up for this industry in the upcoming elections.

As you know, last year was a difficult year for our industry, with many bankruptcies and massive job losses.

Unfortunately, Washington is considering many proposals to make it even harder for our industry to produce, move, and sell our product–proposals to tax hydrocarbons, stop hydraulic fracturing projects, and limit exports to our customers. That will mean more job losses, bankruptcies, and damage to our economy. And so far our industry has had no voice in the 2016 debates.

But a movement called America’s Energy Opportunity is fighting back.

At AmericasEnergyOpportunity.com there is a petition to our politicians to leave our industry free to create amazing prosperity for this country. If millions of people sign this petition we will prove to the candidates that we cannot be ignored this election.

Please take 3 minutes to read the petition and sign it–for the sake of your jobs, your families, and this country’s future.

Sincerely,

________

8 Speeches in 2 Days

Last week, I gave 10 speeches–including 8 speeches in 2 days. The 8 were all at one company. Those of you who signed up for this list, welcome.

Lately in my speeches I have been emphasizing, even more than I used to, that clear thinking and communication about energy issues requires the right starting framework. If in our thinking and communication we start with a framework based on human well-being and big-picture thinking, we come to the right conclusions and can explain them convincingly. If we don’t, our thinking is a mess and/or our communication is a mess.

For more on framing conversations the right way, see How to Talk to Anyone About Energy.

Thanks to everyone who came to my presentations last week, and the organizations in Mississippi who sponsored them. I met a lot of bright, motivated people whom I expect to become great energy champions.

New Blog Post by David Biederman: Fossil Fuels Make the Planet More Productive

From the latest blog entry:

“The fact is that when it comes to satisfying humanity’s basic needs, almost nothing is given, as almost everything must be created and produced. The arrangements of elements that make up the planet are not organized by natural processes to optimally support human life. Instead, work is required to transform the planet from an environment of scarcity to one rich with food, clothing, and shelter. The ability to do this work is made possible primarily by the fossil fuel industries?coal, oil and natural gas.”

Keep reading.

This Week’s Power Hour: Amanda Maxham on the Virtues of GMOs

On this week’s episode of Power Hour I talk with Dr. Amanda Maxham, Research Associate at the Ayn Rand Institute, about the incredible advances in genetic modification–and why our society is responding to them with fear and coercion rather than enthusiasm and freedom.

Listen to this episode.

Power Hour: Michael Lynch on Recent Oil Prices

On this episode of Power Hour, I talk to Mike Lynch, President of Strategic Energy & Economic Research, about the recent decline in oil prices.

Tune in.

As always, if you’d like to suggest a new guest for Power Hour, or have me appear on your show, you can send me an email at support@industrialprogress.net, or just reply to this one.

What Trump and Sanders Said about Oil Prices 4 Years Ago by Daniel Bier

/in , , , , /by

Remember when complaining about the price of gas was all the rage? The public discourse was awash in pseudo-psychology, hand-wringing about “peak oil,” and an array of conspiracy theories to explain why oil cost so much.

There was much ado about corporate “greed” (the cause of all life’s problems), hissing about “speculators,” nationalist chest-thumping about OPEC, self-proclaimed experts warning that Earth was out of oil, and many inarticulate suspicions about George Bush and Barack Obama.

Economists were pretty sure that the price of oil was related to supply and demand, but what did they know? One cantankerous socialist knew the truth:

Pump prices spiked 5% in the past month… Crude oil prices stood at $108 on Friday, up from only double digits at the beginning of the month. …

What’s the cause? Forget what you may have read about the laws of supply and demand. Oil and gas prices have almost nothing to do with economic fundamentals.

Fortunately, when he wrote that in 2012, Sen. Bernie Sanders was ahead of the game, having never read anything about supply and demand at all. Unencumbered by basic economics, he was able to see that Big Oil “gouging” and Wall Street “speculators” were to blame.

Remarkably, right around the time of the fracking revolution, the price of oil and gas started tumbling. I guess Wall Street’s heart grew three sizes that day.

But Sanders didn’t have the only theory. One super smart billionaire figured out that Saudi Arabia was the real problem:

Look at what’s going on with your gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, “Fellas, it’s time. It’s over. You’re not going to do it anymore.”

When Donald Trump diagnosed this problem in 2011, his solution wasn’t just to “call Saudi Arabia” and tell them “you’re not going to raise that f***ing price!” No, he had a practical measure: seize Iraq’s oil fields. “To the victor belong the spoils. You go in. You win the war and you take it.”

It’s worth remembering this mass hysteria, although the situation today is somewhat different. The price of oil is below $30 a barrel. The International Energy Agency has warned that the world is now “drowning” in oil.

This week, the price for a particularly low-quality type of oil briefly dipped to negative fifty cents a barrel. That is, producers actually had to pay the refinery to take their oil. Has greed been abolished from the land? Maybe. But there’s also a sensible explanation: the high-sulfur oil is expensive to transport and refine, but the producers still had to get rid of it somehow.

But just a few years ago, it would have been almost unthinkable for refineries to actively discourage oil production. At $140 a barrel, almost any kind of oil is worth refining. And here’s the upshot: it was precisely those high prices that prompted the massive investment in production, exploration, and innovation that led to fracking, the shale revolution, and today’s tumbling prices. It was greedy, profit-seeking oil companies who drove the price of oil down over 80% from its peak in 2008.

It’s important to grasp these lessons now, because at some point, the price of oil — or some other commodity — will rise again, and we will be greeted by the same parade of doomsayers, conspiracy theorists, and would-be regulators that we endured for the last decade.

They’re not gone, they’re not even hiding — they’re leading the race for president.

Bonus economics of gas story: On Monday, local news in Michigan reported that a bidding war between a couple of gas stations briefly resulted in prices below 50 cents a gallon. To understand just how weird this is, the wholesale price of gasoline is about $1.

Is this another sign of irrational generosity sweeping the petroleum industry? No. Gasoline is retailed at razor thin margins; gas is typically about 70% of a station’s revenue, but only 30% of its profit. Gas stations actually make most of their money selling food, cigarettes, and bottled water inside.

Occasionally, gasoline is used as a loss leader: stations will sell gas for cheap (even at a loss) to bring people to the pump, where they can then make more money selling high-margin items like bottled drinks and tobacco.

Daniel BierDaniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.