14 November 2014

In the News

Fossil Fuels: The Moral Choice

Alex Epstein, Fox News, 14 November 2014

The Wind Lobby’s Case against the PTC Extension

Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 14 November 2014

Obama Touts Energy Taxes as a Way To Fight Global Warming

Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 14 November 2014

Dr. Mann, Super-Villain

Mark Steyn, Steyn Online, 14 November 2014

Interstellar’s Rejection of Climate Change Hysteria

Sonny Bunch, Washington Free Beacon, 14 November 2014

Tom Steyer Provides a Lesson in How To Waste $67 Million

Thomas Pyle, Investor’s Business Daily, 13 November 2014

Study: Energy Jobs Lead the Recovery

Joshua Cain, Fuel Fix, 13 November 2014

The Audacity of Climate Cynicism

Washington Examiner editorial, 13 November 2014

Carbon Tax Advocates Discuss Post-Election Prospects

Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 12 November 2014

The Coming Climate Onslaught

Andrew Restuccia & Erica Martinson, Politico, 11 November 2014

IPCC’s Latest Report: The End Is Nigh Unless Mankind Repents Its Fuelish Ways

Marlo Lewis, CNS News, 10 November 2014

Unquestionably One-Sided Climate Change Coverage

Tom Harris, Washington Times, 10 November 2014

News You Can Use

The One Statistic Climate Catastrophists Don’t Want You to Know

According to the Cato Institute’s Pat Michaels, in the decade from 2004 to 2013, worldwide climate-

related deaths (including droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, wildfires, and storms) plummeted to

a level 88.6 percent below that of the peak decade, from 1930 to 1939.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Reid Rushes Senate Vote on Keystone Pipeline To Try To Save

Landrieu

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) strategy to keep Democratic incumbents from being voted

out of office by keeping floor votes to a minimum failed miserably on 4th November. Voters sent

Democratic incumbents packing in Arkansas, Colorado, Alaska, and North Carolina. As a result of those

defeats plus Democratic losses in open seat races in West Virginia, Montana, Iowa, and South Dakota,

Republicans will take control of the Senate when the 114th Congress is sworn in on 3rd January

Now, to try to save Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) from defeat in a 6th December runoff with Rep. Bill

Cassidy (R-La.), Reid wants to have a vote on a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline

from Alberta’s oil sands, across the Canada-U.S. border and down to Cushing, Okla., where it would

hook up with the southern leg of the pipeline that has already been constructed and is operating

(because pipelines that don’t cross an international border don’t require presidential approval). The

Senate is currently scheduled to vote on the bill on Tuesday, 18th November. However, with Reid in

control of the Senate schedule, that could change several times.

It can be seen from past votes that all 45 Republican Senators and 12 Democratic Senators will vote yes

on Keystone. That is three votes short of the 60 needed to surmount procedural hurdles and pass the

bill. So Senator Landrieu, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has been lobbying

several Democratic colleagues furiously to come up with three more votes. As of Friday afternoon,

Senators Thomas Carper (D-Del.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) have announced that they will switch.

It really doesn’t matter whether Landrieu finds the sixtieth vote or not. She is almost certain to lose to

Cassidy in the runoff because she got 42% of the vote on election day, while Cassidy got 41% and Rob

Maness, the other Republican in the race, got 14%. Nor is it clear what passing Keystone out of the

Democratic-controlled Senate will do to help Landrieu. The White House is still signaling that President

Obama may veto the bill. And if it doesn’t reach the president’s desk this month, it surely will early next

year when Republicans control the Senate.

That’s why the Republican leadership in the House did not stand in the way. On Friday, 14th November,

the House voted 252 to 161 in favor of H. R. 5682, which approves the Keystone Pipeline. Thirty-one

Democrats votes Yes. This is the ninth time the House has passed a Keystone bill. Oh, and by the way,

the sponsor of H. R. 5682 is Rep. Bill Cassidy.

If the Senate goes along next Tuesday, expect anti-Keystone activists led by billionaire Democratic donor

Tom Steyer and Bill McKibben’s 350.org to form a human chain around the White House, as they did on

4th March. Currently, 350.org is planning a rally on the Mall in Washington on 17th February 2015,

which is Presidents’ Day.

Across the States

William Yeatman

Southern Co. CEO: EPA’s “Clean Power” Plan Would Cause Rolling

Blackouts

In an interview two days ago with Bloomberg, Thomas Fanning, the CEO of Southern Company, which

provides electricity service to a four state region in the southeast, said that “I don’t think we have the

ability to maintain a reliable system” and also comply with EPA’s “Clean Power” Plan.

Fanning’s statement is only the latest warning about the threat to electric reliability posed by EPA’s rule.

In recent testimony before the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Philip Moeller voiced his concern about the possibility of

cascading blackouts within the 15 state region served by the Midcontinent Independent Service

Operator. And in October comments to the EPA, the Southwest Power Pool, a regional transmission

organization that serves an 8 state region, warned that the rule, if left unchanged, would cause rolling

blackouts within its footprint. Thus, grid operators from 27 States have issued warnings that the EPA’s

Clean Power Plan could turn out the lights.

Around the World

Myron Ebell

Obama, Xi Agree on Meaningless Climate Deal

U. S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a commitment by both

countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2025-30, at the end of the APEC summit meeting in China

on Wednesday. President Obama pledged that the United States would reduce it emissions by 26-28%

below 2005 levels by 2025, while President Xi pledged that China’s emissions would peak by “around

2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the share of non-fossil fuel share of all

energy to around 20% by 2030.” That quote is from the White House fact sheet on the agreement.

The Obama Administration’s long-stated goal has been to reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by

2020. That works out to an annual cut of 1.2% from 2005 onward. The new goal would require a much

faster rate of cuts. The White House calculated that if the faster rate doesn’t begin until 2020, then the

annual cut would work out to 2.3-2.8% from 2020 to 2025.

It is not clear what President Xi’s commitment means, but President Obama’s signature on the deal has

no legal force. And it will be up to future Presidents and Congresses after he leaves office in January

2017 to decide whether to require the emissions reductions agreed to.

Leaders of the official climate establishment quickly claimed that the U. S.-China agreement will provide

new momentum to the international negotiations on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol,

which will continue at the annual United Nations climate conference in December in Lima. A new

international agreement is supposed to be signed at the next UN conference scheduled for December

2015 in Paris.

Here for example is what former Senator Timothy Wirth said in a written statement: “Today’s

announcement is the political breakthrough we’ve been waiting for…. If the two biggest players on

climate are able to get together, from two very different perspectives, the rest of the world can see that

it’s possible to make real progress.” Wirth is the vice chairman of Ted Turner’s United Nations

Foundation and served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs during the Clinton Administration,

where he prepared the groundwork for the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

However, it doesn’t appear that there is much that is new in the agreement. The Reuters story by David

Stanway reporting from the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation) summit in Beijing got it right in

the headline: “China, US agree limits on emissions, but experts see little new.”

Stanway continues:

For China, the targets add little to its existing commitments to wean itself off carbon, environmental

experts said. ‘The statement is an upbeat signal to motivate other countries, but the timeline China has

committed to is not a binding target,’ said Li Junfeng, an influential Chinese climate policy adviser linked

to China’s state planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission.

There is also the little obstacle of Congress. Republicans take control of the Senate in

January. Majorities in both the House and Senate will be opposed to the Obama Administration’s

climate agenda. It seems certain that they will be even more opposed to the new 26% cut by 2025 goal

than they are to the 17% by 2020 goal. My guess is that there will be votes on a resolution disavowing

President Obama’s new commitments in both the House and Senate early in the 114th Congress.

That would complicate the State Department’s plans to announce its commitments that will be part of

the Paris accord by the end of March. In fact, if the House and Senate do disavow the deal with China, it

would be a major international embarrassment to President Obama and would be a severe blow to the

chances for a significant agreement in Paris in December 2015.

Reactions to Obama-Xi Climate Agreement

Among many insightful commentaries on the O-Xi deal, I recommend my CEI colleague Chris Horner’s

post on GlobalWarming.org on the potential legal consequences and Rupert Darwall’s post on National

Review Online on the economic consequences. The Onion had the best headline: “China Vows To Begin

Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers.”

The establishment press and leftist columnists were ecstatic. Here’s a sample. New York Times editorial

headline: “A major breakthrough on climate change.” Washington Post editorial headline: “A landmark

climate deal.” Paul Krugman in the NY Times: “We have a deal, and it’s pretty big.” Fred Krupp,

president of the Environmental Defense Fund, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “A game-changing climate

deal.” And Al Gore’s group, the Climate Reality Project, began its e-mail on the O-Xi deal: “Climate wins

don’t come much bigger.”

Politico reporter Michael Grunwald damped down the enthusiasm in a long article that points out the

agreement was “just words.” Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani gave Politico this pithy

analysis: "We have plans to continue to reduce emissions and we have agreed to continue to increase

those plans to reduce emissions. And we have, over the years, shown our good faith by actually doing

that. So, that's our quid. What's the pro quo? They're going to continue to emit carbon and then after

16 years, they're going to freeze that emission, as far as I can tell, at the level they bring it up to in 16

years.” Investor’s Business Daily had a good editorial slamming the deal that included a useful graph.

Republican leaders in Congress were quick to announce that the President’s climate deal with China

didn’t stand a chance in Congress. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) called it a charade. And here is

Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) reaction. Inhofe will become chairman of the Environment and Public

Works Committee in January. McConnell will become majority leader of the Senate.