Congressman Markey’s comments on this week’s question are hardly surprising. He is, after all, co-author of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that passed the House last year. Almost all objective analyses of his legislation concluded that it would do far more harm than good by imposing energy scarcity and other impractical mandates.

Markey’s characterization of skeptics and deniers, whoever they are, is a straw man to challenge the motives and integrity of anyone who raises serious questions about climate orthodoxy. For example, where is the increase in atmospheric water vapor that is needed for positive climate feedback or how can he be sure that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is not a major driver in cloud formation which might explain most warming and cooling over the past century?

Demonizing and polarizing is hardly a way to move lawmakers to common ground on mitigating the risks of climate change or, for that matter, any other contentious issue. Wouldn’t the public be better served by identifying some steps that would enjoy broad su

Climate changes because that is what it always does. The climate system is chaotic, and one season’s weather or even that of several years is not a sufficient basis for another round of Chicken Little like panic. However, it would be a triumph of hope over experience to expect that this summer’s extremes will not lead for renewed calls to implement radical policies to severely restrict human emissions of CO2. Almost anything America does will have a trivial affect on atmospheric concentrations, because the developing world is increasingly the major source of those emissions. And it is a fact that they will continue to grow.

Recent extreme heat waves do not prove the existence of serious climate change caused by humans any more than last winter’s snowstorms disproved it. While there is no serious dispute that human activities associated with using fossil fuel and land use changes are affecting climate, the evidence for drawing definitive conclusions must come from long-term trends rather than individual events.

During the on-going climate change deb

The administration’s carbon capture task force acts as a reminder of Ronald Reagan’s observation that “government doesn’t solve problems, it subsidizes them.” Its report really said that clean coal technology is not commercially competitive and making it competitive involves making other energy sources more expensive. Carbon capture and storage is one way to mitigate emissions from burning coal but it is nowhere near ready for widespread use. Indeed, it may turn out to never be commercially viable. Additional time and R&D -- not taxpayer funded subsides -- will provide the ultimate answer.

Since the 1970s, there have been repeated efforts to achieve breakthroughs in clean coal technology. While progress has been made, none has achieved broad use. For example, fluidized bed combustion and coal gasification technologies have been worked on for decades; yet, both are still too expensive. Instead of seeking ways to push carbon capture and storage or some other clean coal technology, the government should pro

It would be shortsighted and irresponsible to deny approval for the new 1,000+ mile Keystone Mainline pipeline. Canada ranks as one of our most important trading partners and the primary supplier of crude oil imports. The environmental impact of extraction is none of our business. It’s the responsibility of the Canadian government. For EPA or any other US agency to get involved in a Canadian government internal matter represents the height of hubris.

If we don’t import this additional 500,000 barrels oil from Canada, we will import it from some other -- probably more unstable and unreliable -- source. And Canada will export its oil to some other nation. It will not go unproduced. More likely than not, the country importing the oil that we refuse to import would be less efficient in its use than us, so carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere could be greater. Whatever environmental impact that Canadian oil sands production is going to have is going to take place whether we approve the pipeline or not. Denying approval would punish US consumers and offend ou

The “race” to develop “clean energy” however it might be defined is in fact not a race but a policy challenge to spur technology and knowledge development. Defining it a race creates a faulty image that could encourage the wrong policies. Developing the next generation of energy systems should be viewed as a decades-long policy process with the end result being very expensive. Consequences of pursuing radically new energy systems must be fully understood because they could be economically stifling if the focus is primarily on the near term and achieving emission levels of some past period.

While other countries may be deploying so called “clean energies”, the US remains the leader in the development of advanced technologies. We can maintain that leadership with the right public policies, policies that encourage innovation and economic growth. If the US regains robust levels of economic growth, adopts policies that encourage innovation while also placing a higher priority on science and engineering education, we should maintain our global

For over a decade -- ever since the Kyoto Treaty was signed by the Clinton Administration in 1998 -- the US Senate has walked up and down the cap-and-trade road. Time after time, these bills have failed because of an inability to garner any tally close to the 60 votes necessary for passage. Cap-and-trade iterations are like zombies: walking dead that just keep coming back to haunt us. How many times must mandated energy scarcity be rejected before someone says rest in peace?

The time has come to bury this flawed approach to emission management and move on. The Senate would do itself (and certainly the nation) a great service by abandoning the notion of comprehensive climate legislation and, instead, concentrating on taking an incremental approach that starts with actions which enjoy broad agreement. Such measures include:

bolstering the provisions of EPACT 2005 that were intended to promote the export of technology to developing countries; promoting an innovative R&D program targeted to the low and no-carbon energy systems that could be co

There is virtually no possibility of Senator Reid being able to craft a piece of legislation that would get 60 votes before August recess. The current Senate atmosphere is too partisan. The Majority Leader has shown that he is not motivated by seeking common ground, and many of his fellow democrats are wedded to a flawed cap-and-trade system.

The only difference between a utility only and economy wide emissions trading bill is the extent of economic damage done and the amount of wealth that traders and system gamers take from taxpayers. There is an abundance of evidence from the EU experience and the analytical literature that cap and trade is a flawed approach to reducing carbon in the atmosphere. And yet, democrats wedded to environmental zealotry continue to push it. This latest push is less about passing legislation before leaving town and more about placating the environmental wing of the democrat party.

One piece of compelling evidence is the plan to marry cap and trade with oil spill legislation. Until the cause of the Deepwater Horizon is better understood,

Answers to questions regarding the benefits of continued offshore oil and gas exploration versus the effects of a moratorium should be self evident. The fact that federal officials now assessing a ban as if the known rewards and effectively managed risks of domestic production are tenuous is a reflection of political bias trumping established facts.

When weighing our options, Americans should keep the Gulf spill in perspective. From driving a car to crossing the street to flying on an airplane, risk is a part of life. Tragedies can occur even with the best efforts to avoid them. Therefore, pursuing elimination of risk through an off oil agenda is the pursuit of a dangerous illusion whose unintended consequences are far greater than any assumed benefits.

Until the April 20th Deepwater Horizon accident, companies had safely drilled over 50,000 offshore wells in US waters over a period of 41 years. Worldwide, the number of successful deep water wells drilled tops 14,000. These facts are testimony to advances in exploration technology and safe operating

Yucca Mountain and the Obama Administration’s attempt to withdraw its license application is a symbol of our dysfunctional energy policy. It is well known that our power generation needs are significant as is the need to rationally retire older coal fired plants. We aren’t going to meet those needs through political expediency.

The Obama Administration is hostile towards coal, wants to reduce C02 emissions but doesn’t support a new age for nuclear power to meet our growing needs.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 gave DOE the responsibility to construct and operate a geologic repository for high-level waste. The NRC was given responsibility for regulating geologic disposal of the waste. In 1987, Congress directed DOE to focus solely on Yucca Mountain as the site of a repository. DOE made its determination in 2002 that Yucca Mountain would be a suitable location; President George W. Bush and Congress accepted that determination and directed DOE to submit its license application.

When Congress selected the Yucca Mountain site over Nevada&

Reports of last week’s Democratic caucus exude more characteristics of political theater than serious legislative planning. Just consider its descriptions as “inspirational,” “thrilling,” and “the best caucus I’ve ever attended” -- terms that do not normally come to mind when thinking about a Capitol Hill caucus on energy issues. There may not have been a script, but the rhetoric was so closely aligned that it felt incredibly artificial.

The next few weeks should be telling. Senators Rockefeller, Lincoln, and Nelson have shown no signs of feeling the “thrill” of the caucus. To paraphrase Wild World of Sports, a number of Democrat Senators may be sensing the agony of defeat rather than the thrill of victory from any climate legislation that they are pressured to support.

The president, whose poll numbers continue to sink, has to decide how hard he is willing to push his already embattled caucus ahead of what looks to be a very challenging election year.

Recall the blowback from House passage of Waxma

Unfortunately, insufficient collegiality and trust among Washington lawmakers has poisoned the atmosphere in the Senate. Efforts to represent the public’s interest have given way indulgent pursuits of partisan advantage. In almost any climate, it would be hard for Sen. Reid to secure 60 votes for a controversial energy/climate bill before the summer’s end. In this poisoned climate, it’s nearly impossible.

The Majority Leader has shown little interest in finding common ground or pursuing compromise to achieve truly bi-partisan legislation. And it is doubtful that he will start now.

The legislative climate proposals Democrats will consider this week all involve setting arbitrary caps on greenhouse gas emissions. These limits along with mandatory timetables will raise America’s energy prices and create faulty incentives for the type of exploitation that has been rampant in the EU’s emission trading system. Motivation for pushing this kind of legislation stems from a desire to appease hard line environmental groups when legislators’

At the start of the Obama Administration, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel warned against ever letting a crisis “go to waste.” Two years later, that same guiding philosophy appeared to direct last night’s speech. After 58 days of treating BP as a piñata, the President now wants to adopt the company’s tag line—Beyond Petroleum.

The president’s call to move off oil rapidly by using legislation and rhetoric to unleash new energy innovation is no different than President Nixon’s call for energy independence decades earlier. Style and campaign rhetoric are no substitute for substance and real leadership. Repeated calls to achieve energy independence by moving away from oil have proven misguided for over three decades and still are. Somehow, some in government continue to believe that they can order up new energy technology like you order a new car or next generation computer.

Making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity (or simply the mark of stupidity).

The 53 Senators who voted against Sen. Murkowski’s disapproval resolution sent a strong, chilling message to the American people. Lifted straight from the pages of Gone with the Wind, their action told voters in no uncertain terms, “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Lawmakers know that when Congress reauthorized the Clean Air Act in 1990, it specifically denied EPA the authority to regulate CO2. As such, Murkowski’s resolution simply reaffirmed the law. So this vote was clearly one for partisanship and against the American consumer and tax payer.

Though our economy is struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades, Thursday’s vote did nothing to instill confidence in the businesses that have to make the investments necessary to create jobs and get people back to work. 53 “nay” votes flagrantly ignored the clear intent of Congress, as well as the law of unintended consequences. The prospect of EPA regulating every aspect of the economy -- as it will be compelled to do -- will stifle innovation and investment

In 2007, the Supreme Court gave to EPA what Congress would not: a charge to regulate CO2. To protect the public for potential fallout from this misstep, federal lawmakers should close the door on the agency’s sweeping CO2 agenda under the Clean Air Act. Anyone familiar with the more than 3-decade-old CAA and its reauthorizations knows that Congress intended it to apply only to conventional air pollutants. That its Section 202 may not have been worded sufficiently for five Justices is no excuse for allowing the Act to morph into economy-wide climate legislation.

When Congress reauthorized CAA in 1990 -- two years after Al Gore made global warming a household phrase -- legislators explicitly decided that EPA should not be able to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2). A Conference Committee removed the language which would have granted EPA such authority. That expulsion and the CAA’s legislative history should have guided the Supreme Court. That it didn’t says more about the Court’s political

Until we can review a complete assessment of the cause of this tragic accident, imposing a six month moratorium on deepwater drilling is a prudent step. More information can help us understand whether this was a “black swan” event, errors in judgment, or something systemic -- in which case there needs to be major changes in regulations and risk management procedures.

Leasing off the Virginia coast was not scheduled until 2011 or 2012, so the President’s decision to cancel it is more about image than real action. Since there is no evidence that drilling in the Arctic cannot proceed safely, extending that moratorium also looks to be driven by politics.

There have been over 14,000 deepwater wells drilled around the world and, according to MMS data, over 50,000 offshore wells successfully drilled in US waters since the last production accident in 1969. The data make it clear that offshore exploration and production can be done safely and that the industry has achieved a standard of excellence.

The proper response to this tragedy is not to walk a

A move by Congress to re-impose a moratorium on offshore drilling in response to the environmental tragedy occurring in the Gulf would be irresponsible, an act of sheer folly. Until last month’s Deepwater Horizon accident, more than 40 years had passed since the last production incident in 1969. Over that period, we have drilled over 50,000 offshore wells without a serious accident. That is a record of excellence and care.

Regrettably tragic accidents, both natural and manmade, do occur. Extreme efforts to completely avoid any risk are not only futile; they’re also likely to lead to unintended consequences. The right course of action is to learn why this accident occurred and what steps can be taken to make offshore drilling even safer in the future.

The Interior Department has suspended deep water leasing activity until a thorough investigation has been completed and actions taken to prevent a reoccurrence as much as humanly possible. As unfortunate as accidents such as this are, they are also learning experiences. This one will be as

Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that standard, the newest version of US climate legislation is certifiable. The bill introduced today by Sens. Kerry and Lieberman fails to distinguish itself significantly from previous cap and trade proposals.

Essentially, the “American Power Act” attempts to impose a carbon trading mechanism while simultaneously buying off some of the targeted sectors by delaying coverage or offering incentives. Because favored entities may find themselves better positioned to gain advantage and game the system, Kerry and Lieberman may succeed in getting a number of companies to endorse the proposed approach.

A cap and trade system that mandates arbitrary emission reductions for the next several decades simply will not work. Too many factors necessary to successfully calculate those cuts are beyond the legislative capabilities of Congress. Moreover, the technology necessary to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gases does not now exist (and cannot be ordered u

Initial responses to tragic events like the recent Gulf spill too often involve overreacting. The best response, however, requires forbearance until emotions are settled and hard facts are in hand. In that light, officials can consider policy options more clearly.

In order to avoid considerable unintended consequences, policy decisions must be determined by context and perspective rather than emotional rejoinders.

While the magnitude of the Gulf spill and its short term impacts should not be underestimated, they also should not be judged out of context. Before this incident, more than 40 years had passed since the last offshore production accident. And it’s been two decades since the Prince William Sound tanker accident. The safety record of offshore exploration and production is excellent; industry has safely drilled thousands of wells in the Gulf of Mexico.

Usually, accidents that have large impacts lead to improvements in technology and operations. This will be one of the consequences of this accident as well. Before jumping to policy conclusions,

“React but don’t overreact” should be the rule that applies here. Unfortunately, when we experience a tragedy (and this certainly is one), the tendency of politicians is to overreact. Their approach too often is the equivalent of proceeding with the hanging and then holding the trial. Already, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is jumping into the fray, attempting to pre-empt the Executive Branch which has prime responsibility.

So far, the Administration has acted more or less responsibly, although comments that BP wasn’t doing enough border on absurd. The company knows that this accident is going to cost it an enormous amount of money and tarnish its reputation. Anything less than an all-out response would make a bad situation far worse. Until proven otherwise, BP should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Inspecting all drilling rigs to make sure that they have the proper blowout prevention systems and are operational is an appropriate step as is suspending new drilling projects until a determination can be made of what caused a systems

Before this weekend, a great amount of uncertainty already surrounded the climate legislation on which Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman had been collaborating for months. In the wake of Graham’s decision to exit these negotiations, that uncertainty has exploded. The potential demise of KGL raises the standing of other proposals, such legislation being crafted by Sens. Lugar and Voinovich or the energy-only bill by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

Putting aside for a moment the myriad of other measures certain to be included in each of these measures, voters should take notice of any emissions trading language. No matter how it’s masked -- by clever rhetoric or new names -- cap and trade provisions and the allowance purchase requirements they entail must be seen for what they are: a hidden tax on energy and a shackle on economic growth.

Instead of being honest about needing to put a price on emissions through, for instance, a linked carbon fee, Congress ran from this critical goal at the first mention of the term “tax

Framing a question to ask whether the US can afford not to impose ambitious climate legislation reflects image trumping reality. This spin suggests America lags behind while the EU shows real leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing new energy technologies. Yet, reality shows otherwise.

In the past decade, US has reduced its emission growth beneath than that of most EU countries that have pursued the obligations of the Kyoto Protocol. On top of that, US carbon intensity -- the measure of carbon emitted per unit of economic production -- has shown a steady and better than usual decline during the same period. Both measures, emissions growth and reductions in carbon intensity, indicate that the US is doing very well in striking a balance between addressing environmental and economic concerns. The Energy Policy acts of 2005 and 2007 had dozens of provisions which have the effect of increasing energy efficiency, promoting R&D, and reducing carbon intensity.

In contrast, the EU imposed its Emission Trading Program, which has proven a fail

Defang, declaw, and lock away both EPA and the states. It would be irresponsible for Congress to abdicate instead of legislate. The Supreme Court decision not with standing, the Clean Air Act is the wrong instrument for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Allowing EPA to go ahead with its regulatory approach would be a case of every problem being a nail when your only tool is a hammer.

There may be a technical, but tortured, interpretation of Section 202 of the CAA that allowed the Supreme Court to conclude that greenhouse gases could be defined as a pollutant but 25 years of legislative history and common sense should have lead the Court to a totally different decision, especially if it had followed its own standards as defined in Merrill v Daubert.

This was not the first time that the Court has acted in a politically correct manner over the course of the past 200 years and it probably won’t be its last. Legal constructions aside, Congress explicitly decided in the 1990 reauthorization of the Act not to give EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gas e

The newly announced offshore plans, even grading on a curve, would earn the President a gentleman’s C. Though it’s an important step and, in some respects, a politically balanced one, the proposal offers less access than the leasing plan Obama inherited and much less than what America needs. The moratoria on offshore drilling expired two years ago. And new lease sales under the administration’s new 5 year won’t take place until 2012. Lost time and lost opportunities are starting to add up. And this costly delay is inexplicable.

The President’s action lacks the sense of urgency that our leaders should have about developing our own resources. If reducing imports of foreign crude is important for energy security, why delay the leasing process? Interior Secretary Salazar had over a year to review and modify the leasing plan he inherited from President Bush and then go forward with the first sale (originally scheduled for this year).

The White House could have easily announced its revised plan along with a decision for prompt leasing of trac

The Obama Administration’s decision to retreat on Yucca Mountain is disgraceful. It boggles the mind to try and understand how a person of Secretary Chu’s scientific stature could go along with such a wrong headed action. Where is his courage to take a stand on principle (and science)?

This proposed action clearly qualifies as a case of political pandering to the President’s liberal environmental base. It’s also another example that this Administration saying one thing and doing another. So much for being guided by science.

Either the President’s talk about encouraging a expansion of nuclear energy to meet our growing need for electricity is just talk, or he believes that storing waste in drums at nuclear facilities is safer that burying it at Yucca Mountain. Given the outcome of the healthcare debate, there’s no evidence that Congress is willing to say no to the President. But on this proposal, it should.

The proper handling of nuclear waste has been studied exhaustively. Appointing a commission is just a political trick

Gallup’s discovery that the public is less concerned about environmental problems now than any time in the past 20 years must be put in context. The condition of our economy, concerns about jobs and other economic issues (like the growing federal debt and deficit) dominate public opinion and will until the unemployment rate drops to an acceptable level and economic growth is sustaining no less than 3% a year.

For at least the last decade, environmental concerns have had a hard time getting into the top 20 issues of public concern. And climate has been near or at the bottom of environmental issues. Part of the reason is the simple fact that the public sees continuing improvement in environmental quality. Existing environmental laws are working, even if not efficiently. Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion expert at the American Ent

In the 14th century, a Franciscan monk developed what is known as Occam’s Razor -- a principle for solving problems which states “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” In the 20th century, Albert Einstein validated this maxim with the observation that we should “make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

The Senate and, in particular, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman clearly do not subscribe to Occam’s Razor or perhaps just don’t understand the virtue of simplicity. Their approach to climate legislation is as arrogant as it is unnecessarily complicated. The notion that Congress understands sectors of the economy well enough to design a differential carbon pricing system to move the economy to a lower level of emissions is another example of the fatal conceit.

A ton of carbon is a ton of carbon regardless of where it originates, so what is the purpose of dealing with emission sources differentially? Applying different c

Initiatives by Senators Murkowski and Rockefeller (and similar ones in the House) offer belated recognition that either the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases -- the Supreme Court decision not withstanding -- or it’s simply a blunt instrument that cannot be wielded surgically. Indeed, when the Clean Air Act was being reauthorized in 1990, the House-Senate conference committee explicitly removed a provision granting EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. These recent Congressional initiatives also acknowledge that actions have consequences -- very detrimental consequences to a struggling economy in the case of EPA greenhouse gas regulation.

Moreover, Capitol Hill may finally be realizing that once EPA begins to regulate these gases under the Clean Air Act, there is no stopping point. An agency set up to provide environmental protection would become the pre-eminent economic policy agency of the government, supplanting Treasury and Commerce. EPA’s effort to put self imposed limits on its rea

The first step to restoring legitimacy of international climate change studies is admitting how much is not known about the system. Indeed, it is probably the case that what is unknown is far greater than is known. As award-winning science author Bill Bryson noted, “There is of course a great deal we don’t know, and much of what we think we know we haven’t known, or thought we’ve known, for long.”

The second step is offering greater transparency in the way that the IPCC and similar organizations operate. There is sufficient technology to allow the public access to information and underlying data, so that debate -- the hallmark of science -- can take place openly. That also means the IPCC or its replacement should abandon its drive for consensus. The best science not only considers but welcomes dissenting views.

Next, models should be used as research tools rather than sophisticated PR mechanisms for promoting visions of apocalypse. And the temperature record, wh

Senator Graham’s proposed national “clean energy” mandate certainly offers an improvement to alternative renewable fuel standards and cap and trade proposals. Instead of imposing a defined cap on CO2, his proposal would achieve an indirect cap requiring electric power companies to increasing percentage of electricity generated by sources Congress defines as “clean energy.” Yet, his legislative proposal goes well beyond simply setting standards for production requirements.

Graham’s plan would also greatly expand loan guarantees for the nuclear energy industry, up to $100 billion. Although, encouraging growth in nuclear power is directionally correct, loan guarantees are a dangerous mechanism. In addition to creating another moral hazard, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax paying public could end up holding the bag for up to 50% of these guarantees as a result of anticipated defaults. (That’s $50

Both actions (SEC now requiring public companies to disclose climate change risks and DOD adding it to the Quadrennial Defense Review) represent political correctness carried from the annoying to the absurd. If -- as TIME magazine reported last week -- “scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate,” how does a federal agency expect business to adequately calculate its risk decades in the future? The SEC is essentially asking for companies to know the unknowable. Estimates of risk later this century are derived not from probabilities based on data but on subjective projections. Case in point: the IPCC’s apocalytic scenarios are determined by model projections of ques

The current promise of renewables is founded in fantasy: a glittering yellow brick road that leads to nowhere. This is a harsh indictment but also an accurate one. Unless we adopt a different energy strategy for renewables, their potential will continue to be delayed. And tax dollars will continue to be wasted on rent-seekers.

Over the past few decades, advocates of renewables -- primarily wind and solar -- have predicted they could soon provide 20% or more of our energy needs if only the government (ie taxpayers) gave them a helping hand. Washington has acquiesced. And all we have to show for this heaping helping of pork is energy production that meets a mere 2% of our electric power needs. EIA projects that by 2035, with continued government handouts, non liquid renewables will still only provide 4% of our power needs.

An assessment of energy systems published in the respected journal Science concluded, “All renewables suffer from low…power densities…are intermittent dispers

The CEO of the Wildlife Federation would be well served to take a deep breath before going off on the irrelevant. The numbers cited in my response come from DOE and not the Marshall Institute. The continued dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come is a reality that is accepted by most people knowledgeable about energy. Advocacy to force the nation onto renewables before their time shows little regard for the effect on the economy or impact on lower income people.

The reference to funding is an old political trick, if you can't discredit the message, attack the messenger. He would also be well served to recall the admonishment of Ted Koppel to Al Gore who engaged in the same kind of tactics with people who didn't agree with him. Koppel told him that it is not the politics of the scientist or who they associate with that matters. It is the immersion of hypothesis in the acid bath of truth.

Let's keep the dialogue on the issues and the facts and leave the politics of guilt by association to who stoop to them as a profession

The proposed DOE budget is simply a veneer, masking the Administration’s misguided efforts to reshape the economy and our energy systems. If we are lucky, Congress -- which has been chastened by recent elections -- will reject Secretary Chu’s proposal as more pork and wasteful spending.

DOE’s Outlook shows fossil and nuclear providing the bulk of our energy needs through 2035. Even with very optimistic and unrealistic estimates, renewables only account for approximately 12 percent of our energy needs, which are expected to grow by 25 percent over that time period.

Right now, nuclear power is more expensive than coal or gas-powered electricity. Part of the cost premium is due to permitting and siting delays, bureaucracy, the lack of standardized designs, and excessive litigation. Removing barriers and streamlining the regulatory process should be DOE’s focus. If nuclear power cannot compete under those improved circumstances, then what justificat

President Obama has said “words must mean something.” And they should. Yet, for his SOTU promises about nuclear power and oil and gas development to have meaning, his Administration will have to take the necessary actions to translate that pledge into concrete results.

Oil and gas development does not have to be limited to vast resources located just off America’s coasts. Our country has a great deal of onshore potential too, especially in Alaska. If the President is serious about keeping investment and jobs at home and reducing the problems associated with oil imports from unstable regions, he will need to take steps to align leasing rules, tax policy, and environmental standards to allow industry to achieve our untapped potential. The failure to do would equate to a self imposed embargo.

Every incremental barrel of oil produced domestically is a barrel we don’t import. Great production also means

Greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act would command and control into uncharted waters and be very bad for jobs, bad for economic recovery, and devastating for American competitiveness. Carbon dioxide is such a naturally occurring and intricately interwoven part of our daily lives that attempting to manage it through sweeping, command-and-control regulations intended to mitigate adverse health affects would be akin to deploying a nuclear bomb to open a locked door. (Ineffective and messy.) By allowing EPA to unleash this blunt tool on Americans, Congress would be failing to protect their constituents. This pending decision also underscores a broader issue. A failure to rein in EPA would signal that legislators still haven’t gotten the unmistakable message that Americans, and most recently Massachusetts voters, have been sending to Washington’s political elites. Here are four important reasons: 1. Science Trumped By Political Science In May 2007, shortly after the Supreme Court decision, I published a Marshall Institute paper, “Assessing

The outcome of this week's Massachusetts special election leaves leaders on Capitol Hill facing a host of new questions. The biggest one is do they get the message that voters have been sending since the Tea Parties were first held and which was unambiguously sent on Tuesday? If they get it, the question about energy policy is how to successfully manage the Senate's new make up in order to pass an effective, sustainable climate policy? A complex question. Yet, the answer is simpler than it appears.

Now that Democrats no longer have the 60-vote majority necessary to sustain even the hope of passing the contentious cap and trade bill in 2010, lawmakers serious about addressing greenhouse gas emissions need to look elsewhere. That means giving serious consideration of alternative policies—there costs, benefits, and rationale.

One of the nation's pre-eminent economists, William Nordhaus of Yale, has made the case, "a harmonized international carbon tax is likely to be a more effective mechanism [than cap and trade] for responding to the threat

There are basically three policy routes for controlling emissions—cap and trade, carbon tax, and policies and measures (CAFE, efficiency standards, incentives for new technology, etc). Although the last possibility, policies and measures, produced significant reductions in carbon intensity over the last 10 years, many in the environmental movement claim it’s no longer an acceptable choice, unless everything else fails. That effectively narrows our options to two.

Cap and trade is enormously complex, leaving it vulnerable to rampant manipulation and outright fraud. Analysts worldwide have extensively documented its failings and its deficiencies relative to alternatives. For instance, the Marshall Institute has published two studies on this very issue—“A Cap and Trade System v. Alternative Policies to Curb U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions” and “Why Cap and Trade is the Wrong Policy to Curb Greenhouse Gases for the United States

Should Congress do more to help revive the nuclear energy industry? Though there can be legitimate debate over whether climate change will disadvantage future generations, there’s no doubt their prospects are grim if Washington continues on its current debt and spending binge. To that end, further government support for industry -- nuclear or other -- is a path to stifling innovation and hampering the economy. When the Senate first started debating the Energy Policy Act of 2005, lawmakers included a proposal for limited loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants as a way to jump start the industry. By the time the bill passed, that limited amount had ballooned. And now the nuclear industry is looking for $100 billion in guarantees. The inability of utilities to raise sufficient capital to fund new plants is telling in and of itself. If private capital markets had confidence that government, federal and state, were serious about supporting nuclear power growth, they’d likely provide the necessary funds at a reasonable cost. But there is no basis for conf

The prospects for getting 60 votes for cap and trade legislation were never bright. Now, the unseemly spectacle of vote buying that was needed to produce 60 votes for health care legislation makes those prospects dimmer. Moderate Senators have no doubt been feeling the full heat of public anger over what it sees as out of control politics. Going forward, those moderate senators may follow the counsel of the late Senator Dirksen who once said that he saw the light when he felt the heat. Public support for cap and trade was fading before the health care vote. Now like the horizon it will recede further when the Senate returns from its Christmas recess, especially as the nation experiences a very cold winter. The economy continues to struggle and it is less than certain that a recovery is underway. If it is, it is a weak one. Poll after poll makes clear that the public’s highest priorities are economic growth and job creation. Senators, especially those who want to return to the Senate next year, ought to focus on actions that will bring down unemployment and breat

The outcome of Copenhagen brings to mind the observation that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It also reminds me of an exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass, “When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things." The COP process proves that delegates can make words mean whatever they want them to mean. For the first time a COP did not end with claims of great success. And because of that, I view COP-15 as a great success. The coalition of true believers has started to come apart as EU zealots continue to demand targets and timetables for future reductions which are totally unrealistic, developing countries increase their demands for bribes to take actions that are not in their self interest, and the US, China, and a few other developing countries agree to “Pledge and Review” and the wisdom of the Rio Treaty. President Obama revealed to the

In July 1997, the Senate passed SR-98 which advised not to accept a climate treaty that would harm the economy and not require specific and scheduled reductions by developing countries. The Clinton Administration ignored that advice and agreed to what turned out to be a fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol. Since then, the essence of SR-98 has been reaffirmed a number of times. The delegates in Copenhagen appear to be traveling down the same road as Kyoto by advocating equally unrealistic targets of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 50% or more by 2050 along with billions of dollars in payments to developing countries to reduce their emissions. The President has indicated a more modest but still impractical goal for the US. This truly is a case of Organized Hypocrisy where delegations know that the goals are unrealistic but use rhetoric of moral imperatives to say that they are realistic and must be done. The fact of the matter is that Copenhagen hypocrisy and a treaty that can be ratified by the Senate do not occupy any common space. Even if the President is successful i

EPA’s Endangerment Finding was a foregone conclusion, not the result of a diligent review of the science and global sources of emissions. Whether it will withstand judicial review, only time will tell? If it does, it will be a monument to the Law of Unintended consequences.

Once EPA starts down the road of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, there will be no logical stopping point and the economic consequences would be enormous. Since CO2 emissions are mainly from fossil fuel combustion and fossil energy contributes directly to economic growth, EPA would hold all the levers for controlling the economy. This is a role that goes far beyond its mission and competence.

Congress should have a strong incentive to take legislative action limiting EPA’s use of the Clean Air Act to the regulation of the conventional pollutants for which it was developed. Whether that is part of climate legislation or through some other mechanism is less important than making a correction of legislative intent is essential.

The heads of state of over 100 nations

The basis of Administration and Congressional proposals for cap and trade and a global agreement to deeply cut emissions over the next several decades is the conclusion of the IPCC that human activities are mainly responsible for warming that has occurred over the past century. That conclusion rests on two main assumptions: 1. There is a positive correlation -- implying causality -- between an increase in CO2 emissions and a rise in temperature increases; and 2. Scientists and policymakers understand natural variability and climate sensitivity well enough to make long term climate predictions using computer models. The recently exposed emails from the Climate Research Unit (CLU) at East Anglia reinforce long expressed doubts about these assumptions that have been raised by people and organizations like the George C. Marshall Institute. Those who have expressed doubts have been dismissed as skeptics and deniers. Yet, these emails verify many of their concerns; they provide what appears to be damning evidence that data were manipulated to support a preconceived conclus

President Obama's supporters and climate change advocates will praise him for bold leadership that will save the Copenhagen talks from failure. In reality, what he has done is join the wink-and-nod club of international hypocrisy where governments talk boldly but don't take their emission reduction programs seriously. This is a harsh indictment but a justified one. There are two reasons for being cynical about his announcement. The first is the impracticality of the 17% emission reduction. And second is the lack of any clarity about how will it be achieved and its cost. The White House target is in line with House and Senate legislative proposals. Reductions on the order of 17% below 2005 by 2020 involve an energy reduction equivalent to about 1 gigaton. What is required is to reduce greenhouse emissions that much in one decade? Earlier analyses have shown this is the equivalent of building over 100 nuclear power plants, 300 clean coal facilities, or doubling the miles per gallon of every car on the road. On their face, these options are implausible. If it was poss

With the 2010 mid-term elections less than a year away, actions that don't promote job growth and stimulate faster economic recovery are a threat to political survival. The public is focused like the proverbial laser and it is still “economy stupid!”

The economy is struggling to recover, while unemployment hovers around 10 percent. With economists uncertain of when our situation will improve, it would be a monumental act of irresponsibility for the Senate to push ahead and give climate legislation a priority over jobs and economic recovery. It would send a chilling message to investors.

Professor Michael Boskin of Stanford wrote a few days ago:

The jobs agenda must begin with a Hippocratic oath: First do no harm to employment. That means jettisoning or at least delaying job-killing energy and health-care legislation with their mandates, taxes, and costs that hammer small businesses.

Every credible economic analysis of cap and trade proposals has concluded that the system will increase unemployment. And now, research shows that t

In the case of this week’s announcement of the Senate delay, inactions speak louder than words. By suspending further consideration of the climate bill until 2010, Democrats are signaling that it’s not high on their priority list. This move also suggests that they’re starting to realize that the high cost and incredible intrusiveness of cap and trade would only exacerbate the problems evident in trying to pass comprehensive health care legislation. So, from a political perspective, this delay wasn’t just a smart choice; it was a requisite one.

Senate leadership is likely gambling that by spring the public’s unhappiness with Congress and the actions that triggered the Tea Parties will have passed. Though the odds of that happening in the next four months don’t look good, their better than current chances. Moving ahead now would mean almost certain failure.

During the ’92 presidential campaign, James Carville crafted the now famous statement, “It’s the economy stupid.” Almost two decades later, that lesson se

This week’s question brings to mind Will Rogers’ observation: Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, that don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous. That has certainly proven true in the last year when the government took over major companies in the name of saving our economy. Now, the last thing we need is more bureaucratic intervention in the private sector. The oil industry has faced supply and demand uncertainties for its entire history and has done a good job of meeting consumer needs without intervention from Capitol Hill. It was not too long ago that Washington attempted to deal with shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo and, consequently, managed to make a bad situation infinitely worse. That experience proved the law of unintended consequences. Without any help from the government, the oil industry has developed advanced technologies for more accurately finding oil and gas, for going back and recovering oil left in place with the then current technology, and for drilling at great

If there was important energy legislation that could be passed and should be passed soon, it would make sense to separate energy from cap and trade. However, Washington has already generated two comprehensive pieces if energy legislation in the last four years. And since those policy acts included steps to increase investment in nuclear power, research and development in energy technology, improvements in energy efficiency and alternative energy, it is unclear what pressing energy needs must still be met by this Congress.

Legislation to encourage more domestic oil exploration is important to slow the growth in imports and increase domestic investment that will create good paying jobs here instead of other countries. Yet, the Senate leadership seems to be long on talk about reducing dependence on insecure sources of oil and short on action to actually accomplish it. On the other hand, those same Congressmen are taking great strides to use this next energy bill to increase renewable energy requirements -- a move that will simply drive up the cost of electricity and incre

The promise of an abundance of shale gas and a shift from coal to gas in electric power generation is appealing. Clearly, there would be environmental benefits. But benefits that are achieved by interfering with market forces are likely to be illusory.

Not too many decades ago, regulators curtailed natural gas consumption, even limiting its use for home heating as a result of policy induced shortages. Then as a result of decontrol, the pendulum swung in the other direction and federal officials encouraged utilities to switch from coal. That was followed by utilities moving back to coal when natural gas demand outstripped domestic supplies and Canadian imports. As domestic and eastern Canadian production declined, there was increased talk of the need to build LNG facilities to meet our needs for natural gas. Now, there's talk of a natural gas boon that could meet our needs for 100 years, if incentives and policies are structured to unlock the abundance of shale gas. This energy history is reason for caution and prudence.

Recent energy policies have been do

Over 40 years ago, a group called the Lovin Spoonful made the song Do You Believe in Magic popular. That should be the theme song for the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade legislation and this week’s hearings.

The emission reduction mandate of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 lacks any connection to economic, energy, or technology realities. According to analysis by the Energy Information Administration, achieving a reduction of that magnitude would require a reduction of about 1 gigaton. To provide a frame of reference, 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivalent of doubling the miles per gallon of every car on the road, building over 100 nuclear power plants, or over 300 clean coal electric generation facilities. Only someone who believes in magic would assume that is realistic.

If the reduction goal can’t be achieved directly, the sponsors must have in the back of their minds that “offsets”—the equivalent of indulgences to keep sinning-- would be used to claim success. But, once companies and the government get involved in the offset mark

At close to midnight on Friday, Senators Kerry and Boxer released a 923-page version of global warming legislation with an overview of emission allocations that closely resembles the widely unpopular House cap and trade bill. Even with further modifications and compromises, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Senate legislation can secure the 60 votes necessary to pass.

Climate legislation driven by wishful thinking rather than hard facts simply will not work. The Senate’s current efforts to repackage Waxman-Markey into a politically viable, environmentally effective policy amounts to rearranging deck chairs in an effort to keep the Titanic from sinking; it looks like considerable work but ultimately will have little effect.

Since the Kyoto Protocol, there have been an overwhelming number of studies analyzing cap and trade. The vast majority of this research has arrived at the same conclusion—the benefits, if any, are greatly outweighed by the cost to the economy and by unintended consequences. Just recently, the CBO issued an ana

Electricity consumption is an indispensible contributor to prosperity. That can be seen in the strong correlation between economic growth and electric power consumption As our standard of living population continue to increase, so will our need for reliable and affordable electric power

EIA's forecast to 2030 shows electricity consumption growing between 26% and 36%. Renewable energy is projected to grow much faster than overall electric power consumption but none the less is projected to supply no more than 15% of our electric power needs, even with mandates and large subsidies. So, if we are to meet the needs of a growing economy and growing, more prosperous population while reducing the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power should play a more significant role.

In spite of being a proven technology that provides 20% of our electric power needs and one widely used in other countries, especially France, nuclear power is not without its challenges. These include, but are necessarily limited to, cost, waste disposal, political acceptability, subsidie

The Kerry-Graham grand alliance is only a game changer for those who practice suspending disbelief. Politics is supposed to be the practice of addition; not subtraction. I cannot understand how anyone could conclude that adding provisions for nuclear and offshore drilling will move the Senate closer to 60 votes. The environmental zealots in the Senate and their supporters are adamantly opposed to both nuclear power and more domestic oil production. So, from my perspective, the Kerry-Graham road will lose votes; not gain them.

Senator Graham deserves some credit for trying to find a path forward but an effective compromise cannot be built on a flawed foundation. Study after study has concluded that cap and trade is not a cost-effective strategy for addressing global warming and yet Congressional advocates ignore that reality while pursuing a clearly flawed policy; one that has not worked in Europe and won’t work here.

Senator Graham bases part of his support on the need to address energy security which is an important national objective. We need more

Just as pigs can't fly and houses built on sand don't last long, there's no quick fix for legislation stemming from flawed concepts and unrealistic mandates. Though the Kerry-Boxer bill may contain several individually good ideas, its overall approach to climate policy is fatally flawed.

Time has shown that the cap and trade system of the Kyoto Protocol and the EU trading system does not effectively reduce emissions. Hard targets may be seen as a sign of bold leadership, but in reality they're what Frederic Hayek termed the "fatal conceit." Neither international bureaucrats nor politicians can possess the knowledge necessary to set accurate emission reduction targets a decade or more in the future. The problems witnessed in the EU trading system have demonstrated that there are too many unknowns are further out in time too many unknowables.

Rife with industry exemptions and exploitable loop holes, Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has led to the flight of capital to other countries, higher energy prices for households, and rampant cheating -- al

Senator Murkowski suggests that long pieces of legislation are not necessarily bad. I would like to sugges that legislation addressing complex subjects tends to be so complex that unintended consequences are inevitable. In my opinion, taking bite size pieces and addressing them well is a much better way to go.

Many of the comments try to build a case for cap and trade being preferable to a carbon tax. That case does not withstand close scrutiny because the virtue of fixing the outcome does not guarantee that it will be achieved as the EU trading system and Kyoto prove. Resources for the Future published a paper in the early 2000s that concluded that a carbon tax was 5 times more cost-effective than a cap and trade system.

The comment that we have tried a carbon tax --the Clinton BTU--and failed miserably is not an accurate rendition of history. The petroleum industry which led the opposition to the BTU tax did so because it discrminated against oil and had a bias toward coal. If it had not been structured as it was, the Petroleum Industry would not have fought

President Clinton failed to send the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification because the Senate had already indicated by a 95-0 vote that it would not approve a treaty that exempted developing countries and which would damage our economy. The Kyoto construct was fatally flawed in 1997. Time has not been kind to the targets and timetable advocates. Legislative proposals that are based on fixed targets and timetables over decades will result in the same problems that the European cap and trade scheme has experienced. The presumption that any group possesses the knowledge to set such targets is reflecting what Frederic Hayek termed the fatal conceit.

If the parties in Copenhagen stay with the Kyoto model, nothing will happen that can get passed by the Senate. Developing Countries are exempt from Kyoto and it is hard to imagine a set of circumstances that would lead them, especially the major ones—China and India—to agree to binding emission reductions commitments. A different construct for global action is clearly called for.

Arbitrary emissions reductions are

You don’t have to read 800+ pages to know that this legislation has no connection with economic, energy, or technology realities. The idea that we could get out of deep recession, get back on a path of more than 2% annual economic growth and simultaneously reduce CO2 emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 shows a total disconnect with the real world.

Senators Kerry and Boxer may have dropped the term cap and trade but there is no escaping that this is a cap and trade bill that contains all the flaws associated with cap and trade. The EU system has demonstrated those flaws but Congress seems unwilling to learn the lessons of actual experience.

The mandated reductions are more than 1 gigaton which is the equivalent of doubling the miles per gallon of every car on the road, building over 100 nuclear power plants, or more than 300 clean coal power plants. Who with a straight face can show how that can be done while achieving expected levels of economic growth?

If Senators Kerry and Boxer believe this is a credible piece of legislation, they should lay o

Over a decade has passed since a Conference of the Parties meeting was called a success. And even then, Kyoto -- in hindsight -- was merely a triumph of image over reality. Since then, UN meetings have been long on drama and rhetoric and short on concrete, meaningful results. During these past 12 years, negotiators have simply kicked the can down the road so to speak.

For Copenhagen to meet some standard of success it will have to jettison the Kyoto model -- a difficult goal considering that too many of the bureaucrats who attend these meetings have invested the entire 21st century in pushing a flawed approach. Needless to say, my expectations are not high.

Like every other COP, this one will be filled with theater, finger pointing, and a call by developing countries for obscene amounts of money from the Western world. Still, it’s inconceivable that developing countries will accept binding obligations when they currently have none. And it’s that very exemption that will provide a fatal flaw in any agreement. So -- like other C

EPA’s CAFE announcement reminds me of the old adage that if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. At best, the history of these emissions standards is checkered. Though there’s no doubt that the policy has saved some amount of oil, it has also lead to increased highway fatalities, the death of the station wagon (now making a come back as the cross over), and the creation of the SUV.

Claims about CAFE standards effectiveness and what they still can accomplish are like second or third marriages, a triumph of hope over experience.

Although it appears that EPA plans to structure its rule along the lines recommended by the National Academies of Science, CAFÉ remains a second best approach to fuel economy. There is an abundance of evidence, empirical and analytical, that price is the most effective driver for reducing fuel use. When fuel prices are high, consumers turn to higher mileage vehicles; when they go back down, they prefer comfort and size to miles per gallon. Europe has a policy of maintaining high gasoline prices and its aut

Although Congressman Rahall has a good legislative reputation, this proposal looks like a solution in search of a problem. Why does Congress have to tell DOI how to best organize to improve efficiency and oversight? This is akin to the Board of Directors telling the CEO how to operate departments in his/her company. If the Secretary of Interior doesn’t already have the authority to reorganize and impose best practices, he should be given it. And, if he does have it, then there may be a larger problem.

Over the past several years, there have been allegations that oil companies were not diligently developing their leases. At a time of high oil prices, these allegations defied logic and there was scant real evidence to support them. If the incentive structure is right, market forces will do a better job than more legislation and regulatory mandates.

There is a major energy policy issue that is not addressed by this legislation: what can be done to reduce the growth in oil imports?

Legislative and regulatory actions that would accelerate leasing and avoid unnecessari

Some level of carbon capture and storage is almost inevitable. There is a strong correlation between growth in GDP and power generation which reflects the shift to a service economy and population growth. Those trends will continue so the question becomes what are the sources of increased electric power, if not coal and gas?

The high cost and low contribution of wind and solar combined with the continued resistance to increased nuclear power mean that coal and gas will continue to be the primary fuels for power generation. Accounting for almost 70% today, it will take decades to significantly reduce that percentage. Coal accounts for almost half of our power generation and the abundance of coal reserves and lack of viable alternatives mean that we should be seeking to find ways that allow us to continue to use coal while also meeting realistic emission control objectives.

Energy and economic realities mean that carbon capture and storage will have to be used to manage CO2 emissions from coal until some other technology is commercialized. At this time, it is the only tech

If the Obama Administration is serious about science guiding policy, EPA will grant the Chamber’s petition for a hearing on the science of climate change. And, a public hearing should be structured to comply with the standards of scientific evidence established by the Supreme Court in its Daubert v Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical decision. The ramifications of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and potentially land use are significant enough to justify a re-examination of the scientific foundation for regulatory action.

An objective hearing would demonstrate that the weight of scientific evidence on climate change does not support an endangerment finding that human activities are causing climate change and that it will harm human health and the environment. An asserted scientific consensus on the role of human activities in climate change is based on a judgment by the IPCC in its Summary for Policy Makers that human activities are mostly responsible for warming in recent decades and that continued warming could lead to serious environmental damage later this century. Ho