The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had a column December 25 titled: “Springtime for Toxics.” The column extolled virtues of the gift to the nation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the form of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules reducing emissions of mercury from power plants December 21. Usually gifts are at no cost; but this one is different and it is prudent to examine its costs and benefits.
EPA acknowledges these rules will cost $10 billion annually. Tom Fanning, President of Southern Company, testified before Congress last Spring these rules would cost his company $3 billion in new expenses and may require rate hikes of 25 percent. The Shreveport Times reported its utility would have to raise rates as much as 25 percent by 2015.
Scott Segal, Director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said the ruling would mean a loss of 1.44 million jobs by 2020 and raise rates by 23 percent the next decade. Other estimates are annual costs over $100 billion. No matter what position is taken on this issue, the costs to consumers is going to be big.
[click to continue…]
Ron Arnold, writing at The Washington Examiner, has a column slamming the so-called “light bulb ban” that is phasing out incandescent bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient bulbs — the mercury-filled bio-hazard bulbs known as compact fluorescents.
He quotes Republican congresswoman and presidential contender Michele Bachmann saying she’d end the ban and mentions efforts by a couple of Republican lawmakers to fight the measure. He rightly observes:
At root, the light bulb war is not about energy conservation, but about freedom of choice versus the ideological demand to force less energy production and less energy use — until America’s power flatlines.
But he does not mention this is an issue because of a bill that Republican president George Bush signed into law, thus giving me example number 7,416,717 of why I say the Democrats and Republicans are the left and rights wings of the same bird of prey.
[click to continue…]
The House of Representatives has planned a vote Monday to repeal the de facto ban on the incandescent lightbulb — one “energy sucking” wattage at a time. The Heartland Institute’s energy experts will have a statement at the ready tomorrow. While we wait, it’s worth reading the great Mark Steyn’s take on this issue.
Steyn notes a comment from Friday by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who’s most famous quote to date is: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Well, chalk up another classic from a government know-it-all who actually believes taking away basic freedoms — even what lightbulb you may use — is for your own good.
Said Chu:
We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.
[click to continue…]
Edmund Contoski — author of Makers and Takers, and a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute — has done a lot of writing lately about the absurd compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) our government will mandate starting next year.
I challenge you to find a single writer who has catalogued more incidents of the cursed squiggly, gotta-wait-til-it-warms-up, Chinese-made, “green” bulbs causing fires in the homes of Americans. All brought to you, of course, by your well-meaning nannies in the federal government.
Contoski will be on CBS News Monday to talk about this scourge. The network just couldn’t ignore his latest piece at The American Thinker:
New evidence of CFLs causing fires — even exploding — as well as new environmental concerns have come to light since my article “The CFL Fraud” published. Here are some of the additional fires:
Read both pieces by Contoski here and here. Heartland’s coverage at the blog of this issue can be found here.
In its attempt to restrict use of fossil fuels, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed new rules to reduce the amount of mercury in effluents from coal-fired power plants. Of course, one might question the sense of these EPA rules when at the same time the EPA is endorsing use of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for lighting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; because CFLs consume one-fifth the energy of conventional incandescent light bulbs. By Congressional mandate, incandescent light bulbs are to be phased out starting in 2012.
Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality, recently published an article “And the beat-down goes on” which showed “proposed EPA rules will do more harm than good for human health, especially for minorities.” This article said the total mercury emissions from all United States power plants is 41 ton annually, dispersed globally. At the same time total emissions globally by man and Mother Nature is 9100 tons, most due to nature.
[click to continue…]
By posting this item during “Earth Hour,” I’m celebrating the “holiday” (which is losing steam) the Heartland Way.
Part of that bright light at the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan? That’s me.
Doug Powers over at MichelleMalkin.com has an excellent take on this full-on-guilt “holiday.”
A smidgen:
Here’s another reason I won’t participate in Earth Hour: I refuse to acknowledge, symbolically or otherwise, that electricity is the problem and that civilization can be saved by turning itself into North Korea for anylength of time.
[click to continue…]
The answer to the above headline is “a whole Congress” (and a senseless president “W”). As Stephen F. Heyward noted the other day, the ban of the incandescent light bulb — thanks to the federal mandate of compact fluorescent light (CFL) for all Americans starting in 2012 — will be the stupidest “energy conservation” law since Jimmy Carter Richard Nixon spearheaded the national 55 mph speed limit.
I’d rather wear a sweater. We can only hope this scheme will be much less short-lived.
Writes Heyward:
[click to continue…]
As House Republicans have planned to assume control in January, the biggest debate about chairmanships has been over who will manage the Energy and Commerce Committee, with Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan next in line in seniority. But many conservatives object because of some of his past votes, which included one for a ban on offshore drilling in Florida and the Great Lakes and another in opposition to an extension of the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. There were others, not the least of which was his cosponsorship of the bill that led to the ban of the incandescent light bulb.
Now, according to the Washington Times, Upton says his mind has been illuminated by those who object to that ban: [click to continue…]
