Think Twice Before Killing Coal

"When it comes to discussions about energy and climate change, we need a lot more numbers and a lot less hyperbole and wishful thinking," argues Robert Bryce at NRO.

The green Left continues to push the claim that the reason there’s been no major action to cut carbon dioxide emissions is that some evil cabal — quarterbacked by climate “denialists” who have a “hostility to science” — has been blocking change. (By the way, that’s exactly what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed on June 9.)

The reality — as shown by the numbers — is far different. Coal, oil, and natural gas continue to supply about 87 percent of all global energy because those sources are able to provide the vast amounts of energy the world needs at prices consumers can afford. And for developing countries in particular, coal remains the fuel of choice because it is cheap and abundant, deposits are geographically widespread, and its price is not influenced by an OPEC-style cartel.

We can discuss the need for more action on climate change. But in doing so, we must also recognize that the U.S. has been leading the world in reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. Between 2005 and 2013, according to the BP numbers, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell by 8.7 percent. For comparison, emissions in Germany, which has spent about $100 billion on subsidies for renewables, have fallen by 4.6 percent. But the numbers in absolute terms are even starker. Since 2005, U.S. emissions have fallen by 563 million tons. That’s 17 times the reduction seen in Germany, where emissions have fallen by 40 million tons since 2005.

Meanwhile, since 2005, China’s emissions have grown by 71 percent, or about 3.9 billion tons, which is about six times the total reductions achieved in the U.S. and Germany. In the Middle East, emissions have jumped by about 600 million tons, an increase that effectively cancels out the combined reductions achieved in both the U.S. and Germany since 2005.

The punch line here is obvious: Numbers don’t lie. And when it comes to discussions about energy and climate change, we need a lot more numbers and a lot less hyperbole and wishful thinking.

Good Economic, Energy News for US

If Americans are searching for some good economic, energy and national security news, they'll find it in The New American Oil Boom, a report released May 8 by Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE). Michael Rubin at commentary.com highlights the organization and its report:

Co-chaired by General P.X. Kelley, the former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and Frederick Smith, chairman, president, and CEO of FedEx, [SAFE] has assembled a marquee list of top military brass and CEOs, who together make the case that energy security is not only an economic issue, but a national security matter as well. Together, the business and military experts discuss energy issues with greater fluency and depth than politicians of both parties. Because of government regulation, the oil boom may not be as pronounced as it might be but, even so, the United States last year became a net exporter of refined petroleum products for the first time since 1949.

Petroleum fuels account for 37 percent of U.S. primary energy demand, and during the past five years, U.S. households and businesses have spent a total of $755 billion annually, a major drain on disposable income. Transportation is especially hostage to oil. Liquid fuels provide 97 percent of the energy needed to move cars, trucks, seaborne ships, and aircraft. When the White House pursues policies that limit domestic fuel production, they cripple the economy and empower foreign exporters. Ethanol is no solution. Not only does it drive up the cost of food, but because ethanol-based fuels are priced on the same scale as petroleum fuels, they do not lower the price.

The report, however, is clear-eyed about what the current American oil boom will mean and, as important, what it will not ...

SAFE's full report addresses the following policy issues:

• Key Drivers of the Oil Boom: How are high oil prices, technology breakthroughs, and the natural gas glut coalescing to drive the production boom?
• Trends and Outlook: Which regions present the strongest opportunities for production growth, and what are the prospects onshore, in the federal Gulf of Mexico, and what are the projections for costs and quantity of imports?
• Costs of Oil Dependence: While understanding that production increases will mediate the trade deficit and drive employment growth, what are the limits to these benefits? How does the nature of the global oil market prevent the United States from achieving domestic price advantages, and why can U.S. consumers expect continued price volatility?
• Defining Energy Security: What is the difference between energy security and energy independence, and how should policymakers work to maximize energy security while keeping sight of the long term costs of oil dependence?

The report's long-term policy recommendations include increased domestic oil production, vehicle fuel-economy standards, and a long-term transition away from petroleum based fuels in the transportation sector.

HE: Top 10 Obama Energy Blunders

From the Keystone Kerfuffle to the Volt Vanity, Human Events puts together great talking points — for busy conservatives — on this Administration's biggest energy policy blunders.