Home > Federal, National > Obama’s bogus Clean Air Act study; The House is currently debating the Energy Tax Prevention Act on the floor; New report – Ten Reasons Why Natural Gas Will Fuel the Future, and more

Obama’s bogus Clean Air Act study; The House is currently debating the Energy Tax Prevention Act on the floor; New report – Ten Reasons Why Natural Gas Will Fuel the Future, and more

April 6, 2011

Manhattan Institute: NEW REPORT!

“Ten Reasons Why Natural Gas Will Fuel the Future,” by Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment, was released on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at a conference hosted by the Manhattan Institute which explored America’s energy future. In his new report, Bryce argues that the shale gas revolution will change the global energy picture for the better.
PRESS RELEASE >>

BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL

Politics from the Nation’s Capital

Obama’s bogus Clean Air Act study

By: Conn Carroll 04/06/11 2:02 PM
Associate Editor Of Commentary

The House of Representatives is currently debating the Energy Tax Prevention Act on the House floor. The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power to regulate greenhouse gasses pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Late last night, the Obama administration issued a formal veto threat of the legislation:
 

The CAA gives EPA the necessary tools to protect our families from a wide variety of harmful pollutants that cause asthma and lung disease – especially in children. Weakening these standards would allow more pollution in the air we breathe and threaten the health of Americans across the country. A recent report by EPA shows how important this landmark law has been in protecting public health.

 Democrat after Democrat has cited this report. One problem: report  is completely bogus. In 1999 the Clinton White House conducted a similar study and found that the economic benefits of the CAA were $170 billion. The Obama White House figure? $2 trillion. In other words, the Obama White House wants you to believe the CAA got 1000% better in just 10 years. The Heritage Foundation’s Diane Katz explains how Obama pulled this off:

Long before the original CAA was enacted in 1963, industrial emissions were declining as a result of technological advances and efficiency improvements. And both factors, as well as others, will continue to drive environmental improvements regardless of regulation.

The research design is only one of myriad flaws underlying the EPA’s claims. In fact, 14 elements of the study that bear directly on the valuation of regulatory benefits are unreliable and constitute “major uncertainties” – i.e., differences in benefit estimates of $100 billion or more, according to the authors of the report.

Previous Heritage research found that EPA greenhouse gas regulation would destroy 800,000 jobs a year for several years due to high energy prices. And who do those high energy prices hit the hardest? the poorest Americans. A study released by the The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity found that the “27 million lower-income households earning between $10,000 and $30,000, representing 23% of U.S. households, will allocate 23% of their 2011 after-tax income to energy, more than twice the national average of 11%.”

The rich are simply not burdened by high energy costs the same way lower-income households are. In 2009, Dallas Burtraw of Resources for the Future told the House Ways and Means Committee: “[M]y analysis shows that households in the bottom decile spend about 24 percent of their disposable income on direct energy purchases (electricity, personal transportation, home heating),  while their counterparts in the top decile only spend 3.6 percent.”

Previous Heritage research found that EPA greenhouse gas regulation would destroy 800,000 jobs a year for several years due to high energy prices. And who do those high energy prices hit the hardest? the poorest Americans. A study released by the The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity found that the “27 million lower-income households earning between $10,000 and $30,000, representing 23% of U.S. households, will allocate 23% of their 2011 after-tax income to energy, more than twice the national average of 11%.”

Is Obama’s Energy Plan Good for the U.S.?  (NO!)
This Is No Time to Discourage U.S. Oil and Gas Production, Robert Bryce, The Wall Street Journal

 

Barack Obama Sells Energy Gimmicks, Not Policy
Robert Bryce, Politico, 04-01-11

President Barack Obama, during his speech at Georgetown University on Wednesday, condemned politicians for using what he called “slogans and gimmicks” on energy policy.

Advice for Mr. Obama On Energy
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, RealClearMarkets.com, 03-17-11

With Japan’s nuclear disaster and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocking the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, prospects for approving more U.S. nuclear power plants are dimming. But what about oil and natural gas?

NY Times’ Coverage of Pennsylvania Environmental Regulation is a “Fraud”
Robert Bryce, EnergyTribune.com, 03-14-11

John Hanger’s most recent job, as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, gave him a front-row seat on the shale gas boom that is changing the Keystone State.

The Week Ahead: The Budget Battle And The Effects Of The Oil Moratorium

Host Frank McCaffrey speaks with ALG Communications Director Rick Manning about the budget battle on Capitol Hill as well as a proposal by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to cut spending. Plus, hear from Louisiana Representative John Fleming on the oil permit freeze in [Read More]

FLASHBACK: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy
Unsung Cheap Energy
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, RealClearMarkets.com, 03-24-11

Pity coal. Although it’s in plentiful supply and produces 45% of U.S. electricity, the coal industry is in the crosshairs of the Obama administration, under attack simultaneously from both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Labor Department.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: