Planetary Ruin

Whining about the way in which the media covers climate change stories is probably absolutely a waste of time, but many mainstream media outlets seem to consistently misinterpret (intentionally or unintentionally) the skeptical position on climate change.

This is to be expected from organizations who are well-established as being on the other side of the fence (I will call them climate hawks, which I believe is a neutral term), but one would like to think that the allegedly objective media would make an effort to at least accurately express the views of those they write about (the U.S. is, admittedly, better than many things I’ve read from Europe):

I don’t know every small detail regarding Heartland’s attitude towards climate change, but I’ll work off of Joe Bast’s recent comments to the WSJ.

Where do we start?

**

The San Francisco Chronicle

Peter Gleick, a MacArthur Foundation fellow and co-founder and president of Oakland’s Pacific Institute, admitted Monday that he had posed as someone else and obtained confidential internal papers from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian group that has questioned the reality of human-caused global warming.

Heartland officials claim at least one of the memos that Gleick fed to bloggers and Internet sites is phony and they are accusing him of theft.

When Heartland is framed as “questioning the reality,” it quickly instructs S.F. readers to toss H.I. into the “crazy reality-denying community” and subsequently align themselves with the reality based community. In the video linked to above, Bast describes Heartland’s position on climate change as generally accepting that the earth has warmed in the past century, but more skeptical towards the rate and costs/benefits of future warming.

I think it would be significantly more charitable to describe that along the lines of “questioning the severity and consequences of climate change” rather than merely stating that H.I. opposes reality. To indulge their personal beliefs, the reporter could even throw in a line that the H.I.’s stance towards the severity and costs/benefits of future climate change is markedly in opposition to professional group x, y, and z.

**

The New York Times:

While the documents offer a rare glimpse of the internal thinking motivating the campaign against climate science, defenders of science education were preparing for battle even before the leak. Efforts to undermine climate-science instruction are beginning to spread across the country, they said, and they fear a long fight similar to that over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

…

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.

This was written prior to Peter Gleick admitting that he impersonated a board member in order to obtain H.I. documents. Nonetheless, it is still misleading.

First, we see that H.I. is allegedly waging a campaign against climate change. Again, completely uncharitable, for the same reasons discussed above. If you’re still unconvinced, check out the conferences that the Heartland Institute sponsored in 2011 and years past, including a number of prominent voices who spoke at the conference in favor of significant carbon reductions (check the talks given by Robert Mendelson, and the debate between Scott Denning and Roy Spencer).

You might believe that the H.I. is completely in the wrong with respect to the severity and costs of future climate change (and policy desires), but is it really fair to ascribe their motivations as launching a campaign against climate science when their own conferences invite scientists and economists who disagree with them, especially in what is supposed to be an objective media outlet?

You can also read the “climate strategy memo,” which a strong majority of analysts who oppose H.I.’s climate views believe are fake. I haven’t seen any credible analysts from the climate hawk camp dispute the likelihood of the strategy memo being fake. The content might match what the H.I. is doing, but the tone is different, and the faked memo is specifically worded in a way to make the Heartland Institute look bad, via language that does not align with how the H.I. publicly represents their intentions. The Times asserts that they are one in the same.

From the fake document:

His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

A campaign to dissuade teachers from teaching science sounds significantly more pernicious than designing a curriculum in order to provide what H.I. believes is a more balanced approach to the state of climate change science. Now obviously those who are firmly entrenched in the climate-hawk camp, they are one in the same, but is markedly different from the H.I.’s intentions.

**

An E&E article($):

The conservative Chicago think tank is an active funder of efforts to shed doubt on man-made climate change. It sponsors an annual anti-climate science conference and maintains an active communications operation that, among other things, has promoted the 2009 “Climategate” event, which involves the theft of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

“anti-climate science,” no need to say more.

**

The Guardian:

However, the statement from Heartland communications director, Jim Lakely, identifies only one of the eight documents posted online on Tuesday night by the DeSmogBlog website as a “total fake”. That document, two pages headlined “Confidential Memo: Heartland Climate Strategy”, largely duplicates information contained in the other documents.

Those documents – containing details on future projects such as a $100,000 campaign to “dissuade teachers from teaching science“, as well as fundraising efforts – have been confirmed, in part, by Heartland itself, corporate donors such as Microsoft, and climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts, who hoped to benefit from Heartland fundraising this year.

Again, the distinction mentioned above is important, which they leave out to paint a narrative of some evil non-profit group trying to fill your child’s head with lies. The fake document stated that H.I. wanted to “dissuade teachers from teaching science” which is not what the project was about, it was providing a summary of the science as the H.I. sees it. Possibly a wrong view, but certainly not an attempt to keep all talk of climate change out of the conversation.

**

It is frustrating when allegedly objective media outlets create a nice little David v. Goliath story of heroic climate scientists under siege from evil-think-tank doing the bidding of evil oil companies, while tossing in a dose of “they’re trying to manipulate your children” as an added touch. The media’s siding with the “climate hawks” here is quite similar to the Climategate event of years past, where the media quickly aligned with the “move along, nothing to see here” narrative, which again, seems flatly incorrect (read extensive details, with citations, by Stephen McIntyre on the revelations from Climategate e-mails.)

Brad Plumer of The Washington Post has a more even-handed take on the release of the Heartland Institute documents. A writer for the Post’s Post-Partisan blog has a much less even-handed take (though note that this is from an  opinion/editorial section).

The recent acquisition of Heartland documents (apparently along with a fraudulent “strategy” document) has created a minor journalist firestorm.  I’ll comment on the particulars of this incident but the broader implication is but one battle in the war to drive the market from the marketplace of ideas.  More on this but first let me summarize the facts as they now appear.

Peter Gleick, a climate scientist, claimed to be a board member and thus requested that Heartland re-forward him the materials sent out for a forthcoming Board meeting.  The staffer did so and Mr. Gleick then emailed “the” documents to interested parties, and they were originally posted on DeSmogBlog. I put the in quotes because it now appears that amongst the purloined documents was also enclosed a “strategy” document that outlined ideas to advance a more balanced understanding of the global warming policy area.  Serious doubts about the authenticity of this strategy document have since been raised. Not surprisingly, the global warming alarmists view this entire imbroglio as “proof” that skeptics are “only doing it for the money!”  I wonder whether they’ve ever done a comparison of salaries in right-of-center and left-of-center NGOs?

Ignored in all this is, however, a larger and even more serious issue – the growing effort to drive the market (and market-friendly voices) from the marketplace of ideas.  The left has found that their statist alliances – trial lawyers and environmentalists, unionists and consumer groups – have been powerful in advancing their agenda.  They’re not eager to see economic liberals do the same.

Note their systematic ideological-cleansing program:  no one with any business links serving on a government policy advisory group; no one with a business background to serving in government; pejorative labeling in academic journals of any business funded research; banning academics funding by business; passing stockholder resolutions against companies assisting pro-market policy allies; providing financial aid to our groups or of even interacting cooperatively with us (e.g. the Heartland crime).

If these efforts succeed, then the only legitimate voices in the policy debates will be crony capitalists and statist intellectuals. A serious threat and one that the Heartland incident should alert us to.

House Passes Energy Bill That Includes ANWR and Keystone Pipeline

The House of Representatives voted on Thursday evening, 16th February, for a package of four energy bills that if enacted will greatly expand U. S. oil and natural gas production on federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf plus permit the Keystone XL pipeline. The omnibus energy bill, H. R. 3408, passed by a vote of 237 to 187.  Twenty-one Democrats voted yes, and twenty-one Republicans voted no.

The most significant provision would require the Department of the Interior to open a small portion of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska’s North Slope to oil and gas exploration.  Producing oil in ANWR has been an issue since Congress enlarged the Refuge in 1980 and allowed oil production in the coastal plain subject to a report from the Department of the Interior that it could be done without compromising the Refuge’s purpose of protecting wildlife.  That report was issued in 1986.  The Congress passed legislation in 1995 to open ANWR, but President Bill Clinton vetoed it.  The House and Senate passed different bills opening ANWR in 2005, but couldn’t agree on the same bill.

The U. S. Geological Survey estimates that the coastal plain contains over ten billion barrels of economically recoverable reserves.  If exploration wells hit oil, production could begin within a few years.  This is important because production in Prudhoe Bay is declining and the Trans Alaska Pipeline is now running at less than half full.  As production continues to decline, at some point the oil will stop flowing in the pipeline.  Producing significant amounts of oil from offshore leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas is quite a few years away because of permitting delays, serial lawsuits filed by environmental pressure groups, and the physical challenges involved in building the necessary offshore infrastructure in the Arctic Ocean.

Another important provision takes the decision to permit the 1700-mile Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries out of the President’s hands and essentially orders the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue the permit within thirty days.  President Obama’s decision in mid-January that he was not going to issue the permit because he couldn’t determine whether it was in the national interest has caused a flurry of activity in Canada to start permitting an alternative pipeline from the oil sands to a port on the British Columbia coast, where the oil would be loaded on tankers bound for China and other Asian countries.

Another title in the bill would require the Administration to lease large Outer Continental Shelf tracts for oil and gas exploration off the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf coasts that have the highest potential.  The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish production goals in the 2012-17 OCS plan and provides 37.5% of the federal oil royalties to the States where the oil is being produced offshore.  The fourth title would require the Administration to set rules to begin the development of oil shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming.

Senator Inhofe Files Resolution To Block Utility MACT Rule

The Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register its long-delayed Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (or MACT) Rule on Thursday, 16th February.  The Utility MACT Rule sets limits on emissions of mercury, lead, and other heavy metals.  As my CEI colleague William Yeatman has pointed out (more than once), the rule is preposterous.  It has huge costs and no health benefits.

Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) immediately announced that he was filing a resolution of disapproval of the Utility MACT Rule under the Congressional Review Act (or CRA).  The CRA provides for straight up-or-down votes in the Senate that require only a simple majority to pass, rather than the 60 votes now customary for taking up any controversial bill on the Senate floor.  Moreover, the resolution can be brought to the floor over the objections of the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.).   If the Senate and the House both vote in favor of the CRA resolution, then it would be sent to President Obama for his signature or, more likely, veto.

Updated February 18, 12:34 a.m.

Earlier this week, the climate hysterics at DeSmog Blog and ThinkProgress tried (but failed) to manufacture a scandal by posting board-meeting and fund-raising documents stolen under false pretenses from the Heartland Institute, the Illinois-based free-market think tank. You can read Heartland’s response to the document heist here.

In the climate debate, Heartland is perhaps best known as organizer and host of six international climate conferences and as publisher of Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The Heartland conferences transformed the disparate ranks of climate-alarm skeptics into a confident, energized, networked movement. The NIPCC report and related publications not only debunk Al Gore’s “planetary emergency” but also provide the only comprehensive, fully-documented alternative to the alleged “scientific consensus” represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So it’s not hard to understand why eco-bloggers are desperate to sully Heartland’s good name and damage the Institute’s funding. But, it turns out, one of the documents is a fake, one of the facts headlined in the exposé is an error, and all that the documents show is what everybody already knows: Heartland seeks financial support from like-minded individuals, foundations, and corporations to combat climate alarmist propaganda, and, to its credit, generously seeks to help fund other worthy organizations to build the larger movement of which it is a part.

DeSmog at first tried to make hay out of the supposed revelation that Heartland received a $200,000 donation from Koch Industries. This is scandalous only if you subscribe to the following ‘logic’: Oil is evil, therefore Koch is evil, therefore anyone who gets Koch donations is evil (or at least tainted). If the DeSmoggers really feel this way, then I would ask that they please stop driving vehicles that run on hypocrisy.

In any event, the $200,000 figure is wildly inaccurate, casting grave doubt on the authenticity of the document, titled “Confidential Memo: Heartland 2012 Climate Strategy,” in which it appears. As DeSmog now acknowledges, Koch gave Heartland $25,000 in 2011, not $200,000, and the donation was for Heartland’s health care program, not its climate science program. Extra, extra read all about it, Koch funds 0.5% of Heartland’s $4.6 million budget!

Heartland says the strategy memo is a forgery. Megan McCardle of The Atlantic reports that electronic analysis of the document indicates it was created by someone living in the Pacific time zone, unlike the other documents (aside from the IRS 1099 form), which were created in the Central time zone, where Heartland is headquartered.

The same faux strategy memo also has Heartland stating that “it is important to keep opposing voices out” of Forbes magazine. DeSmog accuses Heartland of rank hypocrisy:

Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

But there’s no there, there if, as Heartland avows and evidence suggests, the strategy memo is a fake. Besides, the supposedly incriminating statement makes no sense. How in the world could Heartland keep opposing views out of Forbes? Is Heartland the think-tank tail that wags the financial-empire dog? The fake memo implies that when Heartland President Joe Bast says “jump,” Steve Forbes says “How high?” If the DeSmoggers believe that, then I’ve got some carbon offsets I’d like to sell them.

Citing one of the genuine documents, DeSmog Blog spotlights the monthly stipends Heartland paid to Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter — author/editors of the 800-page NIPCC report and the 400-page interim (follow up) report. Why are these payments anybody else’s business? And how exactly are they the stuff of scandal? Here in America, people don’t usually work for free. IPCC-affiliated scientists also get paid. The difference is that IPCC scientists are funded via coerced contributions (taxes) whereas NIPCC scientists are funded via private voluntary donations. That makes NIPCC funding morally superior.

Finally, DeSmog Blog and ThinkProgress accuse Heartland of hypocrisy because the organization, which applauded the leak of the climategate emails, now decries as criminal and despicable the theft and publication of its internal documents.

If I catch the gist of this criticism, DeSmog and ThinkProgress think government-funded researchers have a right to practice secret science whereas privately-funded organizations have no right to privacy.

In any event, here’s the obvious fact that DeSmog and ThinkProgress ignore. Government-funded research is subject to freedom of information laws; the internal deliberations of privately-funded research and advocacy groups are not. As we know from the climategate emails, Phil Jones and the gang at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) stonewalled FOIA requests for years to prevent independent researchers from checking their data and methodologies. That was a bona fide scandal.

Leaking the CRU emails — whistle blowing — was the only way to (a) produce documents responsive to valid FOIA requests, and (b) expose CRU’s willful evasion of FOIA.

There is no analogy between climategate and the theft of the Heartland documents because (1) Heartland has no legal obligation to share its internal deliberations with the public, and (2), unlike collusion to evade FOIA, strategizing about fund raising is not a crime!

Within 48 hours of giving a decidedly populist State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama shilled for the Billionaire’s Bailout. At the time, I thought this was situational irony of the worst sort. Unfortunately, it gets worse.

As was noted this afternoon by my colleague David Bier, the President’s budget, which was proposed this week, actually increases the regressive green vehicle tax credit financed by all taxpayers, but enjoyed only by the upper crust—i.e., the only kinds of people with enough spare cash to buy an eco-statement like the $100k+ Tesla roadster. People like Brad Pitt. According to political pundits, the President’s budget isn’t a serious proposal; rather, it is meant to galvanize his base. If this is true, then the EV tax credit is a regressive component of a progressive budget. Sort of like a black fly, in your chardonnay. Or a death row pardon, two minutes too late. Or, myriad spoons, when you only need a knife.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register the ridiculous Mercury and Air Toxics rule. It’s one of the most expensive regulations, ever, and its purpose is to protect America’s supposed population of pregnant, subsistence fisherwomen who consume more than 300 pounds of self-caught fish annually, from the 99th percentile most polluted fresh, inland water bodies. EPA never actually identified any such “victim”; instead, these voracious fisherwomen-cum-child were modeled to exist. In a series of posts on “EPA’s Big Mercury Lie,” I question whether it is reasonable to simply assume, as EPA has done, that there are, in fact, Americans who every year eat more than 300 pounds of fish, caught exclusively from the foulest water.

How did we get here? Below is a bare-bones timeline of the Mercury and Air Toxics rule’s development:

• 1990: The Congress amended the Clean Air Act to beef up Hazardous Air Pollutants section 112, which sets the most stringent emissions controls. However, the Congress exempted coal fired power plants. Why? Because the same amendments to the Clean Air Act included a major new regulatory regime for coal-fired power plants: namely, a new sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program to fight acid rain. Before it subjected the electricity industry to the most onerous provision of the Clean Air Act, in addition to the public health regulations to which generators and utilities already were beholden, Members of Congress first wanted to understand how the sulfur dioxide program would affect emissions of hazardous air pollutants. So, the Congress ordered EPA to conduct a study to determine the public health threat of toxic air pollution from coal fired power plants, after the implementation of the sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade. EPA could regulate coal-fired power plants under the Hazardous Air Pollutants section 112 of the Clean Air Act only after considering the results of this study, and then making a determination that doing so is “necessary” and “appropriate.”

• 1998: EPA published the report, “Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units—Final Report to Congress.”  The study identifies mercury as the hazardous air pollutant of most concern from coal-fired power plants. Direct mercury emissions aren’t the problem; rather, mercury emissions settle upon water bodies, and are then incorporated into the food chain. There is evidence that ingested mercury could cause developmental disorders in fetuses. This is why pregnant women are advised to cut back on sushi. However, this mercury risk must be placed in context. In 1998, when EPA released the study, global mercury emissions were about 5,000 tons, of which 2,000 were anthropogenic. U.S. coal-fired power plants accounted for about 50 tons. In light of this tiny contribution to a global phenomenon, it is difficult to isolate and measure the deleterious public health impacts caused by U.S. power plants, if any. Ultimately, EPA’s study punted on whether it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the power sector. It stated,

At this time, the available information, on balance, indicates that utility mercury emissions are of sufficient potential concern for public health to merit further research and monitoring. The EPA recognizes that there are substantial uncertainties that make it difficult to quantify the magnitude of the risks due to utility mercury emissions, and that further research and/or evaluation would be needed to reduce these uncertainties.

• 1998-2009: U.S. power sector mercury emissions fall from 50 tons to 29 tons. Global anthropogenic mercury emissions rise, due to coal-powered economic growth in Asia.

• January 2009: Barack Obama sworn in as President. During his campaign, he told the San Francisco editorial board that his policies would “bankrupt” coal.

• December 2011: EPA finalizesd Mercury and Air Toxics rule. The Agency explains that it is “necessary and appropriate” to subject power plants to the ultra-onerous Hazardous Air Pollutants section of the Clean Air Act, in order to protect women super-anglers living along the most polluted fresh, inland bodies of water, who ignore the state and federal warning against eating any self-caught fish, and instead eat 300 pounds of self caught fish a year, while pregnant.

EPA estimates the regulation would cost $10 billion per year. Industry estimates are much higher. At a minimum, it’s one of the most expensive regulations, ever. Ralph L. Roberson, President of RMB Consulting & Research, Inc last week testified before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, “In essence, EPA has adopted standards that prevent the country from building new coal-fueled units.”

Already the regulation has led to job losses and increased electricity prices caused by power plant closures. As I explain here, we don’t know whether the rule will shutter enough generation to turn out the lights, but we do know that EPA’s reliability analysis is unreliable.

Simply put, the Mercury and Air Toxics rule is all pain and no gain. It costs billions, kills jobs, raises energy prices, and threatens blackouts, all to protect a population that exists only in EPA’s computers. As such, good-government proponents like me were heartened this morning when Sen. James Inhofe filed a joint resolution of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional Review Act that would effectively repeal this nonsensical regulation.

Sen. Inhofe’s press release succinctly explains how the Congressional Review Act works:

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) provides for an expedited Senate floor procedure to overturn executive agency rules by a simple majority vote.  If passed by both chambers and signed into law, the joint resolution would effectively send the rule back to EPA to be rewritten in conformance with Congressional direction.

Contrary to claims, disapproved rules don’t necessarily require statutory reauthorization before further agency action can occur.   Rather, an agency’s ability to issue a new rule depends on the nature of its regulatory authority and the specific objections raised by Congress to the disapproved rule.

EPA has broad authority and discretion to regulate hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  As such, in the event the Utility MACT rule and its “Franken MACT” approach were disapproved, it would not be barred from seeking achievable, cost effective emissions reductions from power plants.

To be sure, I applaud and agree with Sen. Inhofe’s intent, but I disagree with the strategy. It would be much better if the majority party in the House first passed a CRA repeal of the mercury regulation, before such an effort was undertaken by the minority party in the Senate. This would lend Big Mo to the CRA resolution, and make it much likelier to succeed in the upper chamber.

The president’s phony green economy is collapsing, drip by drip. While the rest of country is frantically trying to turn off the tap, it’s like the president has turned up his environmental music so loud he can no longer hear the coming cascade.

Consider the president’s clean car initiative, which has already funneled $5 billion into the electric car industry. Ener1—an electric car manufacturer who received $118 million from the Obama Department of Energy—went bankrupt two weeks ago. Fisker Automotive is downsizing and firing workers because the stimulus money that supported their green jobs ran out. Its battery supplier and fellow stimulus recipient A123 will also be down-and-out if Fisker goes. Even while the industry continues to receive tax credits for electric car sales, electric car manufacturers Aptera and Think both went bankrupt this month.

Enter the Obama 2012 budget, which fulfills his promise to “double-down” on clean energy investments. The budget not only continues the failed clean car fiasco, but actually escalates it, raising the $7,500 tax credit by $2,500 to $10,000 and broadening eligibility, in what sure looks like another industry bailout. Didn’t the president say something about bailouts in his State of the Union Address? Oh right, “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom,” he claimed. “No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.” Except for my green energy allies, he apparently forgot to add.

The budget also calls for one million electric cars “on the road” by 2015—no matter how long, or how much it takes. So let’s do the math: $10,000 X 1,000,000 cars = $10,000,000,000: $10 billion to make 1/234th of the total light duty vehicles on the road electric, and to reduce oil consumption by less than 1 percent.  If only 10,000 are sold next year, which would be low, it’ll cost taxpayers $100 million. As Iain Murray and I pointed out in a Washington Examiner op-ed last month, these are subsidies for the rich: “The Volt sells for about $40,000, while the Fisker Karma sells for $100,000—well above most Americans’ price range. That means that the federal government is again working to benefit the rich so they can drive cars that ease their environmental conscience.”

“We can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” the president told the nation in his State of the Union Address. But consider the demographics of average electric car buyers who will receive the benefits from all these subsidies. According GM CEO Dan Akerson, average incomes for Chevy Volt owners are $170,000/year, only Mercedes-Benz drivers earn more, but just barely.  Nissan Leaf owners average $140,000/year.

How is this fair to the average American or those who cannot afford a car? Is it fair to place the tax burden for the rich on the poor? Is everyone really “playing by the same set of rules” here? President Obama’s budget and rhetoric simply do not mix. He may have buried these subsidies for failed capitalists and wealthy environmentally-conscious car buyers at the back of his budget, but he can’t hide the fact that he’s no champion of the 99 percent any longer.

File this one under “be careful what you wish for.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) must have thought he was being very clever. At a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting on legislation to authorize construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, Markey introduced an amendment banning U.S. exports of petroleum products made from Keystone crude.

For Markey, the amendment was never a serious legislative proposal. For one thing, as explained on this site and MasterResource.Org, an export ban would violate U.S. treaty obligations under both the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In addition, Markey knew Republicans could not support the ban without jeopardizing the long-term supply contracts that pipeline builder-operator TransCanada Corp. had negotiated with Gulf Coast refiners — contracts on which the project’s commercial viability depends.

In fact, Markey was counting on Republicans to vote against the ban, as that allegedly would expose them as duplicitous shills who care only about oil industry profits, not about reducing dependence on OPEC or alleviating pain at the pump. As also explained in the previous columns, Markey’s exposé is itself bogus, because (1) Keystone crude would displace OPEC crude whether the associated refined products were sold domestically or overseas, and (2) much of the refined product would likely be sold in the USA.

This just in: What Markey introduced as a rhetorical prop may be sprouting legislative wings in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where it could win votes to overturn President Obama’s rejection of Keystone XL. Yesterday in National Journal (subscription required), energy reporter Amy Harder wrote:

Now, liberal Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has drafted a bill to ban exports of both Keystone-shipped oil and refined petroleum products made from that oil. The effort by Wyden, in line to chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year if Democrats hold the Senate, makes environmentalists nervous, because it could conceivably get enough Democratic support to move a bill mandating approval of the pipeline out of the Senate. Such a measure would be certain to pass in the Republican-controlled House.

In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said late last month that he may support the pipeline if the oil stayed here. His staff has been in contact with Wyden’s office on the export-ban proposal. Wyden’s involvement has thus elevated an environmental talking point to a seeming legislative possibility.

Pythagoras would have been proud of the math muscles The League of Conservation Voters flexed in the calculations for their annual National Environmental Scorecard, which was released last week. For the House of Representatives, more than 20 environmentalist organizations chose 35 votes that were scored for 435 Members.  This week, the Cooler Heads Coalition issued our first ever scorecard, albeit with a relatively simple methodology: 100 – LCV score.  So cue the graduation music as the Cooler Heads Coalition recognizes the members of the House who earned a perfect score as honorary Defenders of Economic Liberty:

Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia,

Rep. Mark Amodei and Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, and

Rep. Bob Turner of New York

Green energy spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the Stimulus, a.k.a., the Porkulus, has notched another failure: Energy Conversion Devices, a manufacturer of solar rooftop panel components and recipient of $13 million in Stimulus money, yesterday announced it is going bankrupt.

This blog repeatedly has warned that stimulus spending is a green albatross burdening the President. Indeed, I argue that the green jobs component of the Porkulus—about $60 billion in taxpayer giveaways—was doomed to failure. For starters, the whole idea of the Stimulus was to defibrillate the economy by spending a trillion dollars as fast as possible, and this is a recipe for waste. By way of example, the Energy Department received roughly double its normal budget, and was basically ordered to have the money out the door within two years and ten months. This was an overwhelming mandate. DOE had neither the time nor the manpower to properly vet outlays.

More fundamentally, government is terrible at picking horses. It’s nice to think of disinterested civil servants doing their best to safeguard taxpayer investments, but in reality, powerful political forces are doing everything in their power to influence how this money is spent. When Members of Congress aren’t pushing for pet projects in their respective districts, crony capitalists in the administration are guiding taxpayer money to their portfolios. The headline of an excellent Washington Post story from today says it all: “Venture capitalists play key role in Obama’s Energy Department.” Of course, political expediency and crony capitalism are poor investment strategies. As a result, green energy Stimulus spending is prone to embarrassment.

Solyndra is only the most spectacular failure. Nary a week passes without a politically favored green energy company hitting the skids. See: Amonix, Evergreen Solar, local reporting of “green jobs” training failures, Beacon Power, the ongoing Solyndra saga, underperforming electric vehicle sales, Ener1, Fisker Automotive…and now Energy Conversion Devices.

Mr. President, are you still sure that you want to “double down” on green energy giveaways?