Tag: energy
Britain's New Energy Minister Is An '18th-Century'  Climate Denier

Britain's New Energy Minister Is An '18th-Century'  Climate Denier

On Tuesday, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a U.K. Brexit minister of 12 years who is loyal to both Boris Johnson and new Prime Minister Liz Truss, got a fancy new title. Rees-Mogg will serve under Truss as the secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy. This is terrible news for anyone concerned about the climate crisis given Rees-Mogg has made his money as an oil and coal mining investor. He’s supportive of fracking, drilling for fossil fuels until the North Sea is tapped, and has frequently misconstrued climate science to suit his needs. His position may prove no different as Rees-Mogg is expected to once again work on his own betterment instead of the planet’s.

The Guardian offers a comprehensive writeup on the many ways that Rees-Mogg, who’s known as “the honorable gentleman from the 18th century,” will fail to meet the moment. Rees-Mogg’s nickname comes from his sartorial choices, though his devotion to fossil fuels certainly has an antiquated quality to it, as does his history of slamming IPCC reports and disinterest in reaching net zero. Though the U.K. has drastically slashed its emissions over the years—thanks, in part, to Rees-Mogg’s predecessor—it will be that much harder for the country to continue its course toward net zero if the person charged with leading that fight has no desire to even engage in it.

Greenpeace UK slammed the decision to appoint Rees-Mogg. “Rees-Mogg is the last person who should be in charge of the energy brief, at the worst possible moment,” Greenpeace UK Politics Head Rebecca Newsom told Bloomberg. “This will either be a massive own goal for Truss’s efforts to tackle the cost of living crisis or Rees-Mogg will have to do the steepest learning curve in history as he gets to grips with the issues facing our country.”

With the U.K. as a signee of the Paris Agreement and COP27 on the horizon, it’s anyone’s guess how obstructionist of a role Rees-Mogg may play in negotiations at the November conference. Nearly 200 countries will work to address a crisis that has only grown more pressing. It will certainly be a major change given that the last United Nations Climate Change Conference took place in Glasgow, where local leaders looked to position themselves as leaders in reaching net zero goals. But that’s simply not something Rees-Mogg is interested in, and that spells disaster for not just the U.K. but the entire planet.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Those High Gas Prices Aren’t Stopping Summer Traffic

Those High Gas Prices Aren’t Stopping Summer Traffic

It's easy to find people who say gas prices will keep them from driving. They're on the roads.

That is an early hint that the "crisis" of high prices at the pump is less dramatic than the testimonials make it. And if history is any guide, it is temporary.

Florida is seeing a record number of tourists. They are driving, and they are flying in, having bought air tickets made extra expensive by the high cost of jet fuel. The Transportation Security Administration, which oversees airport security, expects travel this season to match or even exceed the pre-pandemic levels.

And Florida is surely not alone. Las Vegas tourism is reportedly back to near pre-pandemic levels. In Colorado, the Automobile Association of America expects driving over the Fourth of July weekend to be up about 8% over a year before. Never mind that the national average for a gallon of regular is $1.86 higher than it was in July 2021.

A recent Longwoods International Travel Sentiment study has two-thirds of American drivers saying that higher gas prices would factor into their decision about traveling the next six months. But only 6% of those surveyed said they are actually canceling trips because of it.


And so what gives? It could be that Americans, driven by pent-up demand for post-pandemic travel, are just willing to dig deeper into their funds to keep the tank filled. It could it be that they are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and thus buying fewer gallons of gas to begin with. It could be that the "record-high price of gas" we keep hearing about is not actually a record high.

It could be all the above.

To some extent, consumers make choices as to how much gasoline they buy. Consider the woman in Reno, Nevada, who worried on CNN that high gas prices might deprive her 3-year-old daughter of a visit with family.

"There's so much my daughter has lost out on," she said, referring to the COVID-19 shutdowns. "And there's a feeling again as a parent that I'm going to have to be limited about what I can offer."

It's true that pump prices in Nevada are among the highest, but we do decide how far to live from family. The Reno woman has a car, unlike the very poor, and looked solidly middle-class. She ought to know that cheap gas is not an entitlement. And living far from family is ultimately her decision.

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, many workers moved away from metro areas for bigger houses and more land. Their choice. If that meant they had to drive more, well, that belonged in their calculations. For many, the ability to work from home saved on commuting costs. But also for many, there was the strong possibility that they may have to return to an office. And it's never wise to assume that those travel expenses won't go up at times.

We should not underestimate the power of more fuel-efficient vehicles to relieve "pain at the pump." Mileage has been improving for decades, with electric vehicles an absolute game changer. Ford's current high-class problem is keeping up with calls for its electric vehicles, particularly the Mustang Mach-E EV and the electric version of its F-series trucks.

A sophisticated analysis of today's gas prices would note that the national average for a gallon of regular now stands at about $5.01. Adjusted for inflation, the price for that gallon in 2008 (then $4.11) would have been $5.37.

Demand for gasoline keeps rising. But so apparently is demand for space on the roads. Moan about high gas prices, if you must. The traffic doesn't seem to have noticed.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

McConnell Saved Big Money For Big Coal — And Let Us Pay Instead

McConnell Saved Big Money For Big Coal — And Let Us Pay Instead

Reprinted with permission from DCReport

Kentucky coal miners—along with the rest of us—will be paying the price to keep the government running next year. And we can thank Kentucky’s senior senator, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for the sellout.

Buried in the giant $1.4 trillion government spending package that McConnell ushered through the Senate last week was a relatively modest $15 billion, 30-year payout to sustain the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund—a boon to the majority leader’s home state coal miners.  As many as one in five coal miners suffer from black lung.

But here’s the kicker: What McConnell had removed from the must-pass funding legislation. In order to keep the government running, McConnell threw out provisions that would have forced coal companies to commit to higher payments toward the health-care costs of their employees and retirees, nixing requirements to extend the commitment period and modestly increase the tax on coal mining companies that are supposed to support the trust fund.

McConnell threw out provisions that would have forced coal companies to commit to higher payments toward the health-care costs of their employees and retirees.

In short, McConnell let the coal industry skip out and leave the $15 billion black lung tab for everyone else to pay.

The move was mind-boggling, considering McConnell is already under scrutiny and criticism for partnering with a previously sanctioned Russian businessman, Oleg Deripaska, who McConnell voted to de-sanction. Deripaska, who owns Rusal, a Russian-owned coal company, joined McConnell in a project that his home state of Kentucky voted in 2017 to invest $15M of taxpayer money.

‘A Handout’

“This is a handout. This is a giveaway,” Jim Waters of the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, told WaPo in August. Waters reasoned that judgment might have been clouded by the possible thousands of area jobs that could be added. “I think the excitement of that overrode some of the due diligence.”

McConnell’s strange allegiances to influences domestic and foreign have clearly reached the grassroots level. As Mikaela Curry, a community organizer and member of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, wrote in an op-ed in the Courier-Journal, Feb. 22, entitled, “Mitch McConnell is silent on coal while Kentucky miners suffer and die”:  “When McConnell speaks up for coal, it always seems to align with the people profiting in the fossil fuel industry and not the hard-working people he is supposed to represent.”

Disabled Miners

Most poignant are the call outs to McConnell from those suffering physically as well as financially from his unwillingness to make the coal companies own up to their responsibility to their current and retired workers and their families. Patty Amburgey, now secretary of the local black lung association in Letcher County, is the widow of a coal miner who died of Black Lung Disease after leaving mining, “blind, unable to feel his legs or arms, and constantly short of breath,” according to his obit.

“I’m asking [Mr. McConnell] to please remember that East Kentucky is a mining area,” his widow wrote in Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. “And we do have a lot of miners and the election is coming up. I want him to understand that.” Obviously, Mr. McConnell is betting his Appropriations Bill will heal these sores and smooth his way to re-election.

But that may not be so easy in practice. Instead of increasing the excise tax rate in effect in 2018, which sunset on Jan. 1, 2019, Congress failed to act, which allowed the tax for coal companies to reset to 1985 rates, lowering contributions by 55 percent (from $1.10 per ton of coal from subsurface mines to $.50 and from $0.55 per ton for coal from surface mines to just $0.25), which many in Congress had contested.

Companies Protected

After congressional wrangling, the 2020 tax rate will revert to 2018 rates of $1.10 and $0.55 per ton, respectively. But those prices will sunset again on Dec. 31, 2020, and if not renewed will revert to the 1978 rate of $0.50 and $0.25 per ton. The companies also are protected from market price rises by a ceiling cap on the tax of 4.4 percent of its coal selling price.

In June, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a 10-year extension as part of a broader package. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) proposed the rate be renewed at a higher rate through 2029. He and co-sponsors want to see the Trust Fund fully funded with no sunsets.

While Moscow Mitch steers millions toward business ventures with oligarchs, many in Appalachia want lawmakers to realize that a hike in the excise tax of $0.14 per ton for surface-mined coal and $0.28 per ton for underground-mined coal would eliminate the debt in the Fund completely by 2050, according to the General Accounting Office.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Trump Falsely Claims Wind Turbines ‘Spew’ Pollution

Trump Falsely Claims Wind Turbines ‘Spew’ Pollution

Donald Trump continued his war against renewable energy this weekend, telling a crowd of supporters at a rally that wind turbines were the real culprit behind climate change.

At a Saturday speech to right-wing students in Florida, Trump — who has called climate change a Chinese hoax — delivered a stream-of-consciousness assault on wind energy.

“I never understood wind,” Trump told the crowd. “I know windmills very much, I have studied it better than anybody. I know it is very expensive. They are made in China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none, but they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right?”

“So the world is tiny compared to the universe,” Trump continued. “So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right spewing, whether it is China or Germany, is going into the air.”

As The Hill noted Sunday, Trump is correct that the manufacture of wind turbines — like most things — does cause some carbon emission. But wind farm-generated electricity saved about 200 million tons of carbon pollution in 2018 and studies have found a wind project typically saves more than its carbon footprint in the first six months.

Trump, by comparison, has done little to reduce his own carbon dioxide emissions, flying in private planes, acquiring massive mansions, and erecting large golf resorts.

Trump has long objected to wind energy and the way wind turbines spoil his view. Earlier this year he was forced to pay 225,000 pounds sterling — a little less than $300,000 — to Scotland’s government after mounting a failed crusade to block offshore turbines near his Balmedie golf resort.

“I want to see the ocean, I do not want to see windmills,” he said in 2006 before launching the multi-year legal battle.

In 2012 Trump falsely told the tourism committee of the Scottish National Parliament that those turbines would “lead to the almost total destruction of Scotland’s tourism industry.”

Trump has claimed without evidence that wind turbines are dangerous, cause cancer, and bring blackouts. His administration has pushed for significant cuts in federal funding for renewable energy, while pushing to let coal plants spew more toxic waste.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.