greymule Loc: Colorado

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/mitt-romney-energy-plan_b_1828378.html?utm_campaign=083112&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=FullStory


Barack Obama has given "billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies," according to an ambitious new energy plan rolled out last week by the president's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

It's a tired and demonstrably false charge that Romney and his supporters nonetheless continue to make -- and here it is deployed as a way of setting Romney's energy vision somehow above and apart from such favor-peddling.

In a nutshell, the Romney energy plan calls for a loosening of federal environmental regulations and a great unleashing of oil, gas and coal development -- including expanded drilling off the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas, and on protected federal lands everywhere.

Toward that latter ambition, Romney, whose coronation as the Republican Party's nominee for president is unfolding this week, would undo decades of federal stewardship over the nation's parks, giving over development decisions to individual states.

The words "climate change" and "global warming" are nowhere to be found in the 21-page document. The term "greenhouse gas" appears just once, in a passage decrying the Obama administration's efforts to curb noxious emissions from the nation's coal-fired power plants.

Sure, the Romney energy plan was drafted in close consultation with the candidate's allies and supporters in the fossil fuel industries -- including his chief energy policy adviser, the billionaire oilman Harold Hamm. But that's not cronyism, right? It's just ... policymaking.

Needless to say, the arrival of such a fair and balanced energy plan was broadly welcomed by those who stand to benefit from it.

"The Romney plan demonstrates a very clear understanding of how America's oil and natural gas companies, like mine, work," said Virginia Lazenby, chairwoman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group, and chief executive of Nashville-based oil and gas company, Bretagne, LLC, in a prepared statement. "It unleashes the potential of America's independent producers, which will result in millions of jobs, revenues to federal, state, and local governments and a more secure United States."

For just about everyone else -- environmental groups, climate activists, and even moderate supporters of oil and gas development in the United States -- the plan's silence on climate, and its near-silence on newer, cleaner forms of energy, was baffling.

"The plan promises independence for big oil companies," Dan Weiss, senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-leaning advocacy group in Washington, said in an emailed statement. "Big oil would become independent from paying its fair share of taxes, safeguarding public health from its pollution, and competing with new, cleaner energy technologies."

Rob Sisson, the president of ConservAmerica, a group working to re-connect the Republican party with its roots in environmental stewardship, said he supports careful development of America's oil and gas industry. But he was particularly distressed with Romney's plan to give over the nation's public lands to individual states, where they would almost certainly be rapidly exploited by fossil fuel prospectors.

"Public lands belong to all Americans and have been dedicated for the use and enjoyment of all Americans since the days of Theodore Roosevelt," Sisson said in a document circulated to the press. "These lands do not belong to individual states, any more than the Grand Canyon belongs to Arizona or Yosemite belongs to California.

"We Republicans must listen to the young conservatives in our ranks who understand the science of climate change," Sisson added, "and who are fighting for cleaner energy sources to ensure a safer, cleaner energy future for our country."

To the extent that the Obama administration has pursued such goals -- and the president has plenty of critics who say he hasn't done enough -- Romney and his supporters cry cronyism.

Meanwhile, working alongside oil and gas industry executives to draft a plan that rolls back protections for clean air and water, expands oil and gas production on protected lands and in coastal waters, and otherwise doubles-down on fossil fuels -- and doing all of this while giving short-shrift to climate change and the still-embryonic renewable energy industry -- well, that's just aimed at "the well-being of the nation," according to Romney's energy plan.

No special favors here.

Indeed, the justification for Romney's oil and gas intensive energy policy in the United States is ostensibly twofold: jobs -- more than three million new ones are at stake, the candidate claims -- and that elusive thing called "energy independence."

These seem laudable goals on their face, but as Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of its Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, noted recently, they are distractions. The United States is likely to remain deeply integrated in -- and subject to the price fluctuations of -- the global oil market for decades to come, Levi points out. And while a domestic oil and gas boom will certainly create jobs -- it already is, in fact -- those dividends would diminish as the economy recovers and oil and gas jobs begin to come at the expense of others.

"[W]e can't drill our way out of America's job crisis," Levi wrote.

Two weeks ago, as Romney and his team were drafting this new American energy policy, roughly 90 workers were laid off at a Pueblo, Colo., wind tower manufacturing facility. Vestas, the global wind energy leader and the owner of the Pueblo factory, announced 30 more layoffs this week at another plant two hours north, in Brighton. The company pointed to federal lawmakers, who continue to squabble over an expiring tax credit that supports wind power production.

The sun is scheduled to set on that benefit at the end of the year.

The Vestas layoffs come on the heels of hundreds of others across the American wind power industry in Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arkansas and elsewhere, as the uncertain future of the tax credit causes potential investors to get jittery, and project financing to wither.

The American Wind Energy Association, the industry's main lobby group, suggests that as many as 37,000 jobs could be lost if the tax credit is not renewed. That prediction is, of course, hard to verify, but there's no question that the stakes are high and that a large number of workers will find themselves jobless should Congress fail to act.

Romey's apparent take? Expand oil and gas development, roll back environmental regulations, leave lucrative tax subsidies for fossil fuel interests in place -- and kill the wind production tax credit.

That last bit would help to "create a level playing field" in the energy market, a Romney campaign spokesman said last month.

Uh-huh.

Below, the top recipients of oil and gas industry donations in the 2011-2012 election cycle so far, as compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

To carry the enviormentalist concept forward - peddal as if you are riding bicycle, flail your arms as if you are swimming to generate air to relieve the heat. Do the same in the winter to generate bodily heat to keep warm. Take shelter in the tall grass but don't break a stem or tread on an insect.

greymule Loc: Colorado

Very deep thinking.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Another truck load of manure. Getting more than a little predictable. Yawn....

greymule Loc: Colorado

Your insight is truly underwhelming.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Your BS is not worth any considerate reply.

ted45 Loc: Delaware

Again Greymule pops up a totally undocumented lecture based on his liberal bias.

According to a report issued by the US Senate on August 1, 2012 the global warming alarmist movement has collapsed under the weight of actual science. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2012/aug-the-leading-edge

The problem with the “green energy” movement is that they want us to give up proven energy systems and use unproven, mostly experimental systems. Where does the energy come from to manufacture those wonderful wind turbines?

Quote: “The American Wind Energy Association, the industry's main lobby group, suggests that as many as 37,000 jobs could be lost if the tax credit is not renewed.” How is that possible when you look at the facts: GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer. In 2010, the wind power industry in the US received 42% ($4.986 billion) of all federal subsidies for electricity generation. GE is the only US manufacturer in the top ten list. Who runs GE?

Top 10 wind turbine manufacturers by annual market share (installed capacity) in 2011 by IHS Inc.

1. Vestas 12.7% - Denmark
2. Sinovel 9.0% - China
3. Goldwind 8.7% - China
4. Gamesa 8.0% - Spain
5. Enercon 7.8% - Germany
6. GE Wind Energy 7.7% - United States
7. Suzlon Group 7.6% (inc Suzlon Energy (India) and REpower (Germany))
8. Guodian United Power 7.4% - China
9. Siemens Wind Power 6.3% - Germany and Denmark
10. Ming Yang 3.6% - China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_turbine_manufacturers

Where is your concern for the American jobs lost in the coal and oil industry? Are those workers unimportant to you? What about the hardship of increased energy costs on the poor or the 99% that you liberals are so concerned about?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills

Maybe we can give them all Chevy Volts that can be driven up to 40 miles on electric power unless they want to fill up the gas tank with the dreaded fossil fuel. Are Volts manufactured using only wind power?

We will use new energy sources when they become available, affordable and practical.

greymule Loc: Colorado

Tell me: Are you and some of the other fools as ignorant and uncaring as you appear in print?

Or is it some misguided macho impersonation? It is a shame that any serious discourse is shrugged off, winked off, lied off, and otherwise minimized.

It's so misguided, and so Republican.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Yawn......

greymule Loc: Colorado

Are you stupid, or what? My post was about the lack of any new ideas for Mitty, the rich boy in big coal and oil's pocket.

This Neanderthal thinking. The world uses ~ 1,100,000,000 gallons of oil each and every day. It is a finite resource.

Why all the tax breaks for big oil?

Oil and Gas Tax Breaks: $2.4 billion a year

Like the percentage depletion allowance just described, the oil depletion allowance lets certain companies deduct 15% of the gross income they derive from oil and gas wells from their taxable incomes, and continue to do that for as long as those wells are still producing. Some smaller companies get to increase the deduction by 1% for every dollar the price of oil falls below $20 a barrel.

This tax break, on which we lose about $1 billion a year, can add up to many times the cost of the original exploration and drilling. In fact, it formerly could amount to 100% of the company's profits-in which case the company paid no taxes, no matter how much money it made. Presently this is capped at 65% of profits.

The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.

Introduced in 1926, the oil depletion allowance was restricted in 1975 to independent oil companies that don't refine or import oil. To make up for this, the larger, integrated companies were given the intangible drilling cost deduction, which in some ways is even better.

It lets them deduct 70% of the cost of setting up a drilling operation in the year those expenses occur, rather than having to depreciate them over the expected life of the well. The other 30% they can take off over the next five years. This boondoggle costs us about $500 million a year.

A third tax break is the enhanced oil recovery credit. It encourages oil companies to go after reserves that are more expensive to extract-like those that have nearly been depleted, or that contain especially thick crude oil. The net effect of this credit, which costs us $500 million a year, is that we pay almost twice as much for gasoline made from domestic oil as we do for gas made from foreign oil.

Together, these three loopholes sometimes exceed 100% of the value of the energy produced by that oil. In other words, it would be cheaper in some cases for the government to just buy gasoline from the companies and give it to taxpayers free of charge.

(Of course, without the tax breaks, the oil companies would charge more for gasoline, bringing our prices closer to other countries'. This would undoubtedly lower our per capita consumption of gasoline, which is currently the highest in the world.)

There's a fourth tax break we can't count because we can't estimate its size; for details on it, see the section on "master limited partnerships" in the chapter called What we've left out. But miscellaneous smaller tax breaks and subsidies add an additional $400 million a year to the oil industry's wealthfare, which brings the total to $2.4 billion.

Instead of throwing $2.4 billion a year at the oil companies, we could encourage them to cut down on waste during production and transport. Each year, the equivalent of a thousand Exxon Valdez spills is lost due to inefficient refining, leaking wells and storage tanks, spills at oil fields and from tankers and pipelines, evaporative losses, un-recycled motor oil and the like.

The current oil and gas tax breaks encourage the use of fossil fuels at the expense of cleaner alternatives, reward drilling in environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands and estuaries, and artificially attract to the oil industry investment money that could be used more productively in other areas of the economy.


Take the Rich Off Welfare

The BLM is selling our coal at $.25 per ton.

I don't believe the post was about jobs, but about a progressive energy policy- A policy that rich boy doesn't have.

I don't believe the post was about global warming, either. At least not directly.

Here is your report preamble- Sounds scientific to me, and not partisan.

I must say it feels like we're back to the good old days. It may be hard to believe, but it was in February of 2009, during the height of the global warming alarmist movement, that this committee last held a hearing on global warming science. Back then we heard promises from the Obama administration of a clean energy revolution with green jobs propped up by billions in taxpayer dollars to companies like Solyndra.

What came of all those promises? The global warming movement has completely collapsed and cap-and-trade is dead and gone.

I suspect a look back over the past three years will be a little painful for my friends on the other side. In 2009 with a Democratic President, and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, global warming alarmists were on top of the world - they thought they would finally reach their goal of an international agreement that would eliminate fossil fuels. Yet the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill didn't happen.

Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was that the science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finally exposed. For years I had warned that the United Nations was a political body, not a scientific body - and finally the mainstream media took notice:

New York Times editorial: "Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel's chairman...is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests..." (February 17, 2010)

The Washington Post: "Recent revelations about flaws in that seminal IPCC report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel's work but also in projections about climate change.

Newsweek: "Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles..."

UK Daily Telegraph on Climategate: "The worst scientific scandal of our generation."

Just how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global warming and one of the reasons is because they don't trust the scientists' motivations.

The IPCC has even lost the trust of the left. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times recently called for IPCC chair Pachauri to make a choice between global warming activism and leading the IPCC. They are also saying similar things about global warming alarmist James Hansen. As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, Hansen has "become so politicized that people tend to dismiss him."

Just one look at this committee and we can see how bad things have gotten for the alarmists: today there are no federal witnesses here to testify about the grave dangers of global warming. President Obama himself never dares to mention global warming and some on the left have noticed: Bill McKibben recently criticized the President for not attending the Rio + 20 sustainability conference noting that, "Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend."

It must be very hard for my friends on the left to watch the President who promised he would slow the rise of the oceans posing in front of pipelines in my home state of Oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas.

I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they know President Obama is still moving forward with his global warming agenda - he just doesn't want the American people to know about it.

Now what the American people don't know: President Obama is doing through his bureaucracy what he couldn't do legislatively. He is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on his global warming agenda. We've already identified $68 billion.

Today we should have a fascinating debate. I want to thank climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the Committee to provide his insights. I am also looking forward to the testimony of Dr. Margo Thorning, a noted economist who will discuss the economic pain of the Obama EPA's current regulations.

We've been through this now for the past 3 ½ years and the results are clear: President Obama's green energy agenda has been a disaster. The time has come to put these tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the US energy boom so that we can put Americans back to work, turn this economy around, become totally energy independent from the Middle East, and ensure energy security for years to come.

Does this sound like the GOP misinformation machine to you??

It does to me.

You morons will get exactly what you deserve. I hope you enjoy it.

ted45 Loc: Delaware

By your standards I am a stupid moron. However, I do not need to resort to name calling to engage in debate.

Your post was yet another diatribe based on liberal idealogy without any support. You answered none of the questions I posed to you.

Based on your icon you have more money that 90% of the people I know so where is all this hatred of the rich coming from? Maybe you share Obamas guilt at having money he did not earn.

john vance Loc: Granbury,Texas

I have one thing to say YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR TREE CRAZY.!!!! where do you come up with this BS

john vance Loc: Granbury,Texas

Insight on you is real simple, you have your head up your rectom or you are simple minded or last but not least maybe is is that thin air starving your brain

john vance Loc: Granbury,Texas

Not at all none of us are ignorant, but if you want to see ignorance look in the mirror

Lancer W/A Canon Loc: atlanta

It's kind of like a special education teacher friend of mine explained to me about trying to teach certain mentally challenged children . Sometimes , you just can't.