Tag: green energy
Rep. Lauren Boebert

Boebert Pushed Energy Bills That Could Benefit Husband’s Firm

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) has proposed energy legislation and attacked green energy initiatives over the past several months without disclosing that her husband has been earning hundreds of thousands for consulting on energy issues.

According to financial disclosures that were revealed on Thursday, first flagged by the Associated Press, Jayson Boebert has been working as a consultant for an energy firm listed only as "Terra Energy Productions." The disclosures revealed that in 2019, he earned $460,000 from the firm and in 2020 he earned $478,000.

The first-term congresswoman did not disclose the income during her successful 2020 congressional campaign.

The Associated Press noted that there is no company with that name registered in Colorado, but that a company named Terra Energy Partners "has a heavy presence in Boebert's district."

On its website, Terra Energy Partners describes itself as "one of the largest producers of natural gas in Colorado and one of the largest privately-held natural gas producers in the United States." A report in the Colorado-based Post Independent noted that Terra "oversees hundreds of oil and gas wells in northwest Colorado's Piceance Basin."

In a September 2020 Instagram post from the congresswoman, Jayson Boebert can be seen wearing a helmet with the same logo as Terra Energy Partners. In the caption, Boebert wrote, "Pro-Energy."

Officials from Boebert's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story. Attempts to reach Terra Energy Partners were unsuccessful.

Since taking office in January, Boebert has offered up pro-fossil fuel legislation and other similar bills while attacking energy-related initiatives from the Biden administration and congressional Democrats, without indicating that her family's income or work could be positively impacted.

Successful passage of some of that legislation would likely be a boon to the oil and gas industries.

In January, the congresswoman introduced the "Paris Agreement Constitutional Treaty Act" which would prevent the United States from reentering the Paris Climate Accords. In February, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the accords, reversing a decision from the Trump administration.

The Paris agreement calls for a cut in greenhouse gas emissions, a byproduct of the oil and and natural gas industries.

In February, Boebert proposed the "Protecting American Energy Jobs Act" which would undo Biden's executive orders on several energy-related topics. The act would end a ban on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, reverse the decision to cancel the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, and prevent the Interior Department from halting oil and gas drilling.

A 2018 report noted that Terra was petitioning the government for the ability to drill on federal lands.

In April, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) reintroduced the Green New Deal resolution with the goal of addressing climate change.

Boebert attacked the legislation in an April 2021 statement, describing it as an attempt to "appease environmental extremists" and claiming it would throw the country into "a literal energy dark age."

The congresswoman serves in the minority on the House Natural Resources Committee. In May she praised herself for an "energy victory" after successfully adding two amendments to pending legislation regarding energy concerns.

A month later, Boebert joined with other House Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, in signing a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland criticizing a moratorium on energy leases.

Boebert claimed the moratorium was "illegal" and was "punishing energy workers to appease the Green New Deal radical leftists."

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Why Is Now A Great Time To Buy An Electric Car?

Why Is Now A Great Time To Buy An Electric Car?

Making decisions about the goods you purchase may not be something you always consciously think about, but they are essential choices that shape the rest of your life. About 68% of poll respondents tend to make these shopping decisions while in the car, but what about purchasing decisions for the car itself? One type of automobile that’s been making headlines more and more recently is the electric car. Not only does it boast unique environmental benefits, but its quiet performance and low operating costs make it an attractive choice for many drivers.

In this article, we’ll take a look at the basics of how electric vehicles work and why now might be a better time than ever to purchase one.

How Does an Electric Vehicle Work?

Sitting down at the wheel of an electric car for the first time could be a surprising experience because in most ways it feels just like driving an ordinary vehicle. The differences between electric and fuel-driven cars lie mostly beneath the hood.

All vehicles, whether electric or otherwise, are essentially energy conversion devices; they turn potential energy, such as fuel in the tank or power in the battery, into functional, or kinetic, energy. In a conventional car, the energy is stored in chemical form: gasoline. It’s released and utilized through a chemical reaction that takes place within the engine, where hydrocarbon molecules burn with oxygen to release heat, which pushes the pistons to turn the wheels.

Electric cars also store energy chemically, but instead of burning potential energy to produce heat and push the pistons, the energy is released electrochemically. In a manner of speaking, electric cars take a more direct route to powering themselves, with fewer moving parts and no need for combustion.

Although they look and feel strikingly similar to conventional vehicles, electric cars can actually perform better than their internal-combustion counterparts. Electric vehicles can go from zero to 60 miles per hour in less time than it takes conventional cars to do so. This goes back to conventional vehicles having more moving parts — specifically, the drivetrain, which channels movement from the engine to the wheels. Instead of sending converted energy directly to the wheels to make them turn, fuel-driven cars must first send that energy through the transmission. Along the way, a substantial portion of that power is lost in transit, so the actual performance power of the car is held back.

Electric cars don’t have a transmission. Instead, the electric motor is almost directly connected to the wheels, meaning that more potential power is utilized for actually moving the car. The drawback is that, for traveling longer distances, electric cars aren’t quite as fast for as long. But as the technology improves, this fact is destined to change.

In terms of horsepower, electric vehicles can still stand up to their conventional counterparts. The Shelby Mustang GT 500, a famous racing car, had 400 horsepower. A 2017 Tesla tested for its power came in at nearly 600 horsepower. While modern racing cars could easily outdo electric vehicles, the horsepower comparisons show that you won’t be losing any power if you switch to an electric vehicle.

As you can see, electric vehicles are similar to conventional ones in terms of their function and power. Now let’s discuss the reasons why now is a great time to join the trend and buy your own electric car.

Why is Now the Right Time to Buy?

The first of our reasons to buy an electric car is that the selection of electric cars available today is greater than it’s ever been. In fact, there are a total of 17 electric cars offered in the United States for the 2019 model year. And they aren’t all luxury options. The lowest price on 2019 electric vehicles is a very budget-friendly $23,900, with most others placed around the $30,000 range.

Another reason you should buy an electric car this year is that public charging stations are also more common than ever before. As of now, there are almost 21,000 operational public charging stations across America, and that number is guaranteed to go up even higher. Whether you’re traveling over the winter holidays to visit family or you’re on a summer adventure to find the best vanilla ice cream — the most popular flavor among Americans — in your state, you’re bound to find charging stations in airports, near public parking garages, and outside malls and hospitals.

Thanks in part to the prevalence of charging stations, range anxiety is practically nonexistent for new electric vehicles. It used to be that an electric car couldn’t get you very far on one charge. If you were going to be traveling very far, you’d have better been certain there would be working charging stations along the way. Now, not only are charging stations remarkably common, but the cars themselves have a much longer range than early electric cars. Unsurprisingly, Tesla leads in this area, with Models S, X, and 3 all peaking around 300 miles per charge.

Safety is another compelling reason to go electric, at least if you opt for a Tesla vehicle. Their Model 3 received a five-star safety rating from NHTSA in each category, and they’ve been famously building some of the safest cars on the road since the Model S was first produced. Considering the prevalence of automobile accidents and that they account for 52% of all personal injury lawsuits, improved safety is a pretty good reason to buy an electric car.

Buying a Used Electric Vehicle

Topping off this list of reasons to buy an electric car now is that these cars tend to be very low-priced as used vehicles. Though resale values for some of the latest long-range models are on the rise, many second-hand electric cars remain bargain-priced. Many of them go for as little as $10,000, or even less. Even though these cars don’t usually boast the same range that newer models feature, if it’s your first electric vehicle and you need the lower price, it’s a good thing to look into.

From their decreasing prices to the increase in range and charging stations, these are some of the top reasons why you should consider buying an electric car now.

U.S. Companies Tout Climate Policies, Fund Climate Skeptics

U.S. Companies Tout Climate Policies, Fund Climate Skeptics

By Richard Valdmanis and Grant Smith

BOSTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. companies that have expressed the most fervent public support for President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda are also funding its biggest enemies – the scores of U.S. lawmakers who are climate change skeptics and oppose regulation to combat it, according to a Reuters review of public records.

Ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential and congressional elections, the donations from companies including PepsiCo, Dupont, and Google reveal a disconnect between how these companies present themselves to the public on environmental issues, and how they manage their political contributions to support business-friendly policy.

(Click here for a graphic: http://tmsnrt.rs/2bWl9dN)

Many companies active in U.S. politics spread their political donations broadly on both sides of the aisle and consider multiple issues when deciding whom to support.

But inconsistency between a company’s environmental positions and its political giving may point up a need for better oversight, according to Jon Lukomnik, head of the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute.

“There really needs to be a process that looks at these issues … at C-suite and board levels on a periodic basis,” Lukomnik said.

The Reuters review covered donations made during the 2016 election cycle by the political action committees (PACs) of 30 of the biggest publicly traded U.S. companies that signed Obama’s “American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge” in 2015, a public promise to enact climate-friendly corporate policies and support strong climate change oversight like the global climate accord signed in Paris.

The review found that 25 of the 30 companies are funding the campaigns of lawmakers featured on a “climate deniers” list that was put together by Organizing For Action, a non-profit created by former Obama campaign aides to advocate his agenda.

The list includes more than 130 members of Congress, nearly all Republicans, and is a who’s who of the biggest opponents of Obama’s plan to combat climate change. Some of those on the list dispute the label “denier” and describe themselves as climate change “skeptics”.

The list includes Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, an energy advisor to presidential candidate Donald Trump who once argued the Earth was cooling not warming, and Republican U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who last year held up a snowball on the Senate floor as evidence global warming does not exist.

The review found PepsiCo and DuPont’s political action committees gave about half or more of the money from their top donations in support of senators and congressmen on the list. That amounted to $56,500 from the Pepsi PAC’s 29 donations of $2,500 and above, and $40,000 from the DuPont PAC’s 19 donations of $2,000 and above.

Other signatories to the American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge that gave more than a third of their top political contributions to lawmakers on the list include Google, AT&T, GE, Verizon, and Mondelez, according to the review.

Those levels of donations given to climate skeptics are relatively high given that the list covers about a quarter of U.S. Congress members.

Officials from PepsiCo, Google, AT&T, and Verizon did not respond to requests for comment. DuPont declined to comment, and Mondelez referred Reuters to the press release announcing its participation in the climate pledge.

A GE spokeswoman said the company supports “elected officials based on a wide range of issues, but we have consistently been outspoken about the need to address climate change and have invested over $17 billion in cleaner technology R&D over the last 11 years.”

PepsiCo has also been working to become more energy efficient, and now operates the country’s largest fleet of electric delivery trucks. But it still has a sizeable carbon footprint: It produced some 4.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2013, down 2 percent from 2012, according to its website. A more recent figure was not available.

DuPont, also working to increase its energy efficiency, emitted 16.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2013.

POLITICALLY CHARGED

Congressman Cramer, a self-described climate skeptic who opposes Obama’s climate agenda but has taken donations from companies that signed the climate pledge, said companies tend to consider issues like tax policy, national security, and regulatory policy when picking who to support – as opposed to a single issue like the environment.

He, like other lawmakers featured on the Organizing For Action “climate deniers” list, said the debate over climate change was not as clear cut as Obama’s allies depict it.

“It is not a black and white issue, like if you agree with Obama you’re enlightened, and if you don’t you’re in the dark,” he said. “It is more of a spectrum.”

A spokeswoman for Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, another lawmaker featured on the list, said he had “done more than almost any other member of Congress to increase the use of clean energy” sources like wind and biofuels.

But she added he was opposed to Obama’s climate change initiatives, like the Clean Power Plan to curb carbon output, because he felt that it could hurt the competitiveness of U.S. businesses globally.

Senator Inhofe, who said he doesn’t mind the label “climate denier”, suggested that some companies had signed the American Business Act on Climate Change pledge for superficial reasons.

“These are competitive companies, and the board might have said ‘Look, right now it might be a popular thing to join this, and there’s no downside since we’re not really committing to anything.’ That absolutely goes on,” he said.

The five companies reviewed by Reuters that did not fund opponents to Obama’s climate change agenda either had no political action committee, like Apple, or made only a small number of contributions, like Coca Cola.

Lauren Compere, managing director at sustainable investment manager Boston Common Asset Management, said consistency between policy and political giving was becoming increasingly important to environmentally-minded investors.

“No company should want to be perceived as espousing progressive climate policies on the one hand, while funding climate deniers on the other,” she said.

(Editing by Stuart Grudgings)

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama hosts a roundtable with CEOs to discuss efforts to tackle climate change both in the United States as well as on a global scale at the White House in Washington, DC, U.S. on October 19, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Why Cheap Oil Isn’t Bad For The Environment

Why Cheap Oil Isn’t Bad For The Environment

It stood to reason that collapsing prices for oil would make clean energy relatively more expensive. That would dampen the public’s craving to install solar panels and build wind turbines.
Well, let’s try to reason again. A lot of opposing forces are shaking the old assumptions. In the jaws of bargain oil, the U.S. Department of Energy expects Americans to increase their use of renewable power this year by almost 10 percent. Why is this time different?

Consider solar power. Over the past 18 months, the price of oil has fallen by 75 percent, yet the installation of solar panels proceeds apace. The advocacy group Solar Foundation reports that jobs in solar energy increased last year by more than 20 percent. Most of them were for installers.

As for wind power, Denmark-based Vestas, one of the big three wind-turbine companies, says that business continues to boom in North America, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Its stock price doubled last year.

What’s going on? For starters, while the price of oil has fallen, so have the costs of green energy technologies. For another, strangling air pollution in China and India has fed a desire for clean energy greater than the urge to find the cheapest source.

And international alarm over carbon’s role in global warming has taken root in concrete ways. It appears that vows to cut fossil-fuel use at the Paris climate-change summit are being taken seriously.

In this country, Congress recently extended tax credits for new wind and solar projects. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, meanwhile, is requiring states to cut power-plant emissions.
Sharply lower oil and gas prices have translated into enormous savings for consumers. Some developing countries have used their newfound cash to cut subsidies for gasoline. Countries dependent on imported oil are using the savings to invest in wind power, according to Vestas.

Drops in oil prices act like tax cuts, and American consumers may be spending some of their bounty on SUVs and trucks. That’s not great environmental news. On the other hand, SUVs and trucks are now so much more fuel-efficient than in the past.

Within the fossil-fuel world, a sharp drop in oil prices has rearranged the economics with environmental benefits. As The Economist magazine explained, “Cheap oil has a green lining, as it drags down the global prices of natural gas, which crowds out coal, a dirtier fuel.”

Another green lining is that it makes drilling in hard-to-reach places, such as the Arctic, less economically feasible. This offered good timing for Obama’s proposal to extend “wilderness” designation to millions of the acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling and mining are off-limits in wilderness-designated areas. ANWR has long been a battleground between environmentalists and oil companies.

Some economists worry that the oil-price “tax cut” isn’t doing much for the American economy because consumers seem to mostly be saving the money instead of spending. Cheer up. Saving should be regarded as deferred spending, and in any case, it’s about time Americans amassed an economic cushion.

Of course, the drop in energy prices has hurt oil-and-gas-producing parts of this country, Alaska in particular. Happily, the economies of oil-producing Texas and North Dakota have become considerably diversified. Energy is not the only game. Certainly, oil and gas are not. Texas has become America’s biggest producer of wind-powered electricity.

Renewable energy is not the environmental plaything mocked years ago by the drilling interests and their politicians. Two months ago, in the midst of an oil-price tumble, Goldman Sachs said it was quadrupling its bet in alternative energy to $150 billion. Hard numbers have clearly taken over the debate, and clean energy is winning.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com.

Photo: A pump jack stands idle in Dewitt County, Texas January 13, 2016. REUTERS/Anna Driver