Jim Inhofe Archives - Shopfloor

Circumnetting Energy, Drilling, the EPA, Administrator Jackson

By | Energy, Global Warming, Regulations | No Comments

Washington Post, “EPA chief Lisa Jackson perpetually on Capitol Hill hot seat“:

Republicans say that studies such as one by two manufacturers’ groups projected that 7 million jobs would be lost in the decade beginning in 2020 if their client organizations are forced to pay up to $1 trillion to meet the EPA’s ozone standards, said Alicia Meads, director of energy and resource policy for the National Association of Manufacturers. Meads also cited a study by the Council for Industrial Boiler Owners that said 16,000 jobs would be lost for every $1 billion spent to comply with EPA boiler regulations.

“We consider it an overreach,” Meads said. “This administration has been extremely aggressive in environmental regulations, and it’s very hard for our members to keep up with them.”

Wall Street Journal, “EPA Tangles with New Critic: Labor“:

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration’s environmental agenda, long a target of American business, is beginning to take fire from some of the Democratic Party’s most reliable supporters: Labor unions.

Several unions with strong influence in key states are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency soften new regulations aimed at pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Their contention: Roughly half a dozen rules expected to roll out within the next two years could put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and damage the party’s 2012 election prospects.

House Energy and Commerce news release, March 8, “Upton, Inhofe Question Process for Reconsidering EPA’s Ozone Standards“: Read More

On the Answering Machine at Home…Biz Markie?

By | Energy, Global Warming | No Comments

Left during the day, a message from Biz Markie inviting your blogger to the Repower America rally on Capitol Hill today, featuring EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., President of the Hip Hop Caucus. Repower America is former Vice President Gore’s organization that supports a radical restructuring of society and the economy to stop global warming.

Here’s the audio, promoting the last stop on the Hip Hop Clean Energy Now! tour. We’ll be interested in how they power the public address system.

Administrator Lisa Jackson was one of the subjects of discussion this morning on the Andy and Grandy local radio show (WMAL) during an interview with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, which held a budget hearing on the EPA on Tuesday. The Senator was complimentary toward Jackson, suggesting she didn’t really believe that the science on anthropogenic global warming was beyond dispute, and she was just toeing the Administration line.

At the EPW hearing, Inhofe released a new report about the forced consensus community, “‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy,” covering the the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

In his committee statement, Inhofe said:

EPA’s endangerment finding rests on bad science. The EPW minority report provides further proof that EPA needs to scrap the endangerment finding and start over again.

But that’s not what EPA is doing. It wants $43.5 million in new funding to regulate greenhouse gases. This is seed money for the most economically destructive regulatory initiative in this nation’s history. The nation is mired in an unemployment crisis; people need jobs. Yet once this effort commences, those fortunate to work will be out of work, and those looking for jobs won’t find them.

And yet the Hip Hop Caucus claims to be rallying for jobs. They should invite Sen. Inhofe to their event.

Debased Climate Science and EPA Endangerment Findings

By | Energy, General, Global Warming, Regulations | No Comments

Kim Strassel’s “Potomac Watch” column in today’s Wall Street Journal is based on an interview with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, reacting to the climate science e-mail controversy. It’s Inhofe who gives Strassel’s column its title, “‘Cap and Trade Is Dead’,” arguing that politics and the now the scientific scandal from East Anglia makes climate-control legislation impossible. That’s Congress, but …

There’s still the EPA, which is preparing an “endangerment finding” that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions.

Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. “The president knows how punitive this will be; he’s never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that’s all on him.” The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. “The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We’ll do the same thing.”

An EPA endangerment finding and implementation of CO2 emission limits through a “tailoring rule” is legally suspect, to be sure, as an attempt by the Executive Branch to rewrite the Clean Air Act. Still, all the statements from the EPA and Administrator Lisa Jackson have pointed in that direction.

Studies and Slurs on More Government Control over Emissions

By | Energy, Global Warming, Health Care, Regulations | 3 Comments

Washington Post, “Economics of climate change in forefront,” reporting on conflicting analyses of the Kerry-Boxer bill.

Margo Thorning, chief economist at the conservative American Council for Capital Formation, criticized the June prediction for using a static economic model rather than a macroeconomic one, which would show how higher energy prices reverberate throughout the economy. She added that the assumption embedded in the EPA analysis that Boxer cited — a 150 percent increase in the number of nuclear plants by 2050 — was unrealistic.

But studies projecting large job losses are similarly based on data that have not been established. One by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers found that up to 2.4 million jobs could be lost by 2030 in part because it assumed that only half as many carbon offsets would be available to keep energy prices lower. Another, by the Charles River Associates for the National Black Chamber of Commerce predicted a 2.2 million job loss by 2030 because of plugging in higher cost estimates for nuclear and geothermal energy projects. “There’s never a single, precise answer,” said Ken Ostrowski, a director at McKinsey and Co. who helped write the firm’s reports on the cost of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency.

“You have to deal with uncertainties like the speed at which the technology could be implemented.”

The NAM/ACCF study of the Waxman-Markey bill is here.

Analyses aside, one should also apply the test of common-sense to Kerry-Boxer/Waxman-Markey: Proponents wants to create scores of new federal government programs and regulatory regimes, including the establishment of an expansive and intrusive system of “cap and trade” to make energy more expensive. And that’s supposed to create jobs AND substantively address GLOBAL warming?

Elsewhere in the Post, columnist Dana Milbank maligns Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) for challenging the scientific consensus of global warming, which too often looks like an imposed political consensus. From “A senator in a hostile climate“:

It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, committed climate-change denier, found himself in just such a position Tuesday morning as the Senate environment committee, on which he is the ranking Republican, took up legislation on global warming.

That’s just a slur, two slurs, in fact. “Flat-earther” is the equivalent of calling the Senator deluded and dumb. “Clime-change denier” is worse, tantamount to calling the Senator evil. Denier is the preferred term of those who want to stop informed debate of the science of global warming, an especially ugly choice of words because of its parallels to “Holocaust denier.”

The goal of this rhetoric is to delegitimize the speech involved in acknowledging the scientific and policy implications of the now decade-long temperature plateau. Or to bully into silence the increasing number of the public who doubt that global warming is man-made. These citizens, voters, taxpayers are either stupid or evil, so they better shut up.

Bad atmosphere in which to make good policy. Good atmosphere in which to make bad policy.

We find Senator Inhofe’s media webpage and especially his EPW Press Blog to be centers of intelligent policy discussions, informed by a healthy skepticism of analyses, claims and wild promises. Too bad some in the media prefer slurs to skepticism and squelching to speech.

Energy Policy, Refusing to Limit Opportunity

By | Energy, General, Media Relations | One Comment

Following up on yesterday’s Senate EPW hearing on energy policy and the states, where North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven called for a comprehensive national energy strategy (see post), the good people at Energy in Depth pass on an exchange the governor had with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK):

Key Excerpts From Yesterday’s U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Hearing
Dialogue starts at 101:50.
Click HERE to view.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK):  “Governor Hoeven, the thing I was going to bring up is there’s a lot of discussion, when you talk about your offset capabilities there, and what you’re doing, that’s great. We’re doing somewhat the same thing, although most of ours is marginal production. But there is a, I’d suggest to you, the use of hydraulic fracturing is necessary in your state to be able to explore, to retrieve all these oil capabilities.”

Gov. John Hoeven (R-ND):  “It’s absolutely vital. You know, you mention some of these new formations. They are not, uh, the oil isn’t connected. You’ve got to go underground. And you’re talking two miles underground. And make a fracture in order to get the oil to flow. That’s vitally important.”

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK):  “I wanted to get that into the record, because there are some efforts to do away with hydraulic fracturing, and it would be devastating.”

Just so. Energy in Depth has been a strong voice defending hydrofracturing technology, in which pressurized water is pumped in subterranean strata to make the oil or natural gas accessible via drilling. Without hydrofrac, development of the Bakken Formation oil as well as our vast natural gas resources in Texas (Barnett Shale) and Pennsylvania/New York/Ohio (Marcellus Shale) would be prohibitively expensive.

The activist group, ProPublica, has been leading a bizarre campaign against the widely accepted technology, and by offering its agenda-driven reporting for free has been successful in getting newspapers to publish the articles. Apparently if it’s gratis, editing is optional.

This is a telling observation from an Energy in Depth rebuttal, which explains why we refer to ProPublica as an activist outlet, not a journalistic venture, “Separating Fiction from Invention in ProPublica’s Latest Anti-HF Attack Piece“:

Earlier this week, ProPublica author Abrahm Lustgarten released the latest installment in his series of advocacy pieces attacking the commonly used energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing. Instead of simply running on the ProPublica blog and website, however, the article was co-published with Politico and appeared in the paper’s news section (a letter to the editor from Energy In Depth policy director Lee Fuller will appear in the paper this Tuesday).

It wasn’t the first time that a mainstream news outlet provided ProPublica with a platform for this kind of product – although, for papers such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the determination has been made that ProPublica articles, when run, are more appropriately filed on its “opinion/perspectives” page than as part of its straight-news reporting.

Prior to its release, Energy In Depth spoke at length with Mr. Lustgarten about the direction of the (presumably already written) piece and the myriad mistakes he was making in issuing a blanket indictment of recent government and third-party reports finding that EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing would cost Americans jobs, revenues and future security.  

Regrettably, none of those explanations made it into his final piece.

 And regrettably, ProPublica appears to be a model for future journalistic ventures.

As previously noted, this blogger once worked for Gov. John Hoeven. But it’s been eight years now.