RealClearEnergy Articles

This week the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation that would permanently ban any future offshore oil and natural gas activity in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Outer Continental Shelf of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  If successful, these measures could strongly affect future oil and natural gas production at a time when technology and government cooperation have dramatically improved every aspect of the industry.  

The Gulf of Mexico remains a prime resource for oil and gas, currently providing 16 percent of all domestic oil production.  Local revenue sharing from these activities provides major economic benefits to neighboring states, particularly Louisiana.  Permanently restricting activity in the Eastern Gulf will take both oil and revenues off the table, and will not deter future offshore development activities further to the south, by Mexico. 

Banning all future activities many miles offshore in the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would preclude even the most careful exploration using sophisticated technology. It is difficult for most Americans to believe that ninety four percent of our offshore federal acreage is today off limits to oil and gas exploration and development. Yet our neighbors are already aggressively pursuing and benefitting from the Gulf.

It’s a popular theme—from Thomas Malthus to Paul R. Ehrlich to Thanos of Avengers fame: Only drastic action will avert catastrophe. We must consume less, accept less, be less.

We’re warned in ever more strident terms that we must act now or in 12 years (or 10 years or 18 months) there will be devastating consequences. That’s the message of the G-7 as it met in Biarritz, France, and it’s the message of every Democratic presidential hopeful who will meet in Houston for a debate in September.

One of those candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, unveiled his answer to the looming disaster last month. His version of the Green New Deal will cost 16.3 trillion dollars. 

Under his plan, the government would control energy production and distribution, relying solely on wind, solar and other ‘renewable’ energy sources. (Imagine having to call the federal government because your power is out, only to hear a message that your expected hold time is over an hour long).

The Environmental Protection Agency recently exempted dozens of small oil refineries from a federal mandate that requires them to blend corn-based ethanol into their gasoline. 

The move would decrease demand for corn and therefore enraged corn farmers. Now, President Trump is reportedly looking at rescinding some of the exemptions, or making other concessions, to appease the corn lobby. 

That'd be a mistake. Blending corn-based ethanol into our gasoline no longer improves national security, and environmentalists increasingly agree it’s not environmentally friendly. 

Besides, President Trump already took steps to placate the corn lobby last May.

Tonight’s CNN town hall on climate change offer the nation a better opportunity for a serious discussion about the planet’s most daunting challenge than would a presidential “debate” that allowed only hurried responses to questions.

The remaining Democratic contenders agree on a lot. They accept the consensus of scientists that emissions from human activities are warming the planet. They also acknowledge that we are already witnessing the ability of climate change to disrupt life as we have known it, with the future likelihood that things are going to get a lot worse.

With the more generous time allowed in a forum, the candidates will have an opportunity to tell us what they plan to do about the problem in more than short sound bites.

The single most important goal for dealing with climate change is scaling up affordable alternatives to fossil fuels at a pace of technological change unprecedented in human history.

In a time when pessimism is well justified by the slow pace of the world’s governments (and particularly the current U.S. government) in tackling climate change, the ongoing development of cost-effective solar and wind power provides hope for doing much better in the coming decades. A big dent in the climate problem can come from accelerating the penetration of these renewable resources, combined with the rapid electrification of the transportation sector.

I’m neither an alarmist nor a skeptic when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, or AGW. While I used to claim that I was agnostic, a colleague astutely observed that I’m really a fatalist.

This article explains why I believe fatalism is the only rational approach.

In the great climate change debate, one fact is crystal clear. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, or CO2, have climbed at increasing rates since the beginning of the industrial revolution and the trends show no signs of moderating. We’ve all seen hockey stick graphs and read strident warnings from NGOs, research scientists and politicians predicting catastrophic AGW in the front half of this century. We’ve also seen equally strident rebuttals from skeptics who insist that the computer models are flawed and temperature data has been massaged to a point that any apparent correlation is meaningless.

Frankly, I don’t care whether computer models are flawed or the temperature data is accurate because debating those issues diverts attention from more fundamental questions:

1. What is the root cause of increasing global CO₂ emissions?
2. Is there a meaningful chance that energy substitution schemes involving electric cars, solar panels, and wind turbines could arrest emissions trends in a matter of decades?
3. How many of us are willing to become latter-day ascetics, sacrifice our high-quality energy-rich lifestyle, and embrace a simpler life of low-carbon energy poverty?

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials. 

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.

Temperature readings from 2005 (far left) to the present (far right) show absolutely no warming.

NOAA USCRN; Watts

Since the shale revolution took flight in 2008, U.S. natural gas production has soared 60% to over 90 Bcf/d. That’s a whopping 25% more than what second place Russia yields. This U.S. shale surge has led to dramatically lower gas prices (we are currently experiencing the lowest summer prices in over 20 years) and a shift in U.S. manufacturing (from oil to gas) and electricity (from coal to gas). Beyond lower cost, this transformation has been environmentally beneficial as well: natural gas emits 30% less CO2 than oil and 50% less than coal.

Indeed, natural gas this year will supply nearly 40% of U.S. power, about double what it provided before the shale revolution. Gas is also the backup fuel to compensate for the natural intermittency of wind and solar power: gas is needed for when "the wind is blowing" and "the sun isn’t shining." The U.S. is now reducing its CO2 emissions faster than any country on Earth: "Thanks to Natural Gas, US CO2 Emissions Lowest Since 1985."

Looking forward, a rapidly expanding U.S. natural gas export business (via LNG) will offer more affordable, more flexible, more reliable, and cleaner natural gas to a too slowly developing world that requires all the modern energy that it can get. Today, some 85% of the world’s population lives in still developing nations, only dreaming of the access to energy and high living standards that we Americans have enjoyed for many decades. 

The International Energy Agency (IEA), energy advisor to the 36 OECD member countries (i.e., the world’s richest economies), touts gas as playing a foundational role in reaching global climate goals. The developing cities want more natural gas to reduce their local pollutants and clear hazy skies that an immense urbanization process has been worsening. 

Not everything President Trump does is breaking news. Some very concrete actions, not glamorous or glitzy, are the ones which impact the economy in real terms, go unnoticed. Recently a major decision protecting our energy markets went into effect, and the boldness behind it is no less laudable just because it flies under the radar.

Executive Order 13868 protects our nation’s energy pipelines. “Protect from what?” you may ask. Not from age or wear and tear. Protect from protesters.

Pipeline are target of eco-left protesters. From the Keystone XL pipeline in North Dakota to the Bayou Bridge pipeline in Louisiana, eco warriors have protested, sued, blocked, even chained themselves to dozens of pipelines across the nation.

Pipeline protesters have a history, and seemingly enjoyment of, extreme tactics. In Louisiana the destruction of property and violence became so severe the Governor signed a law to protect the workers and the state’s critical infrastructure. In the case of Keystone, protestors left behind 48 million pounds of garbage and several newborn puppies in their wake.

On Monday, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution that adds the city to the list of municipalities that have committed to a local version of the Green New Deal. More than 100 cities have now declared their intent to obtain all of their electricity from renewables or “clean” energy sources. Furthermore, the Sierra Club claims that one in four Americans now live in communities that are “committed to a transition to 100% clean, renewable energy.”

While there’s no doubt that renewable energy is politically popular, there’s also no doubt that wind energy projects – both onshore and offshore – are facing increasing opposition and that, in turn, could cause the all-renewable goals to be missed.

To be sure, the US wind industry is growing. Overall capacity tripled over the past decade and an estimated 13,000 megawatts will be added this year. But recent news out of Oregon, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Germany shows that regulators, local governments, and environmental groups are slowing or derailing wind projects. Furthermore, the industry is also facing the expiration of the federal production tax credit, the lucrative subsidy that has driven much of its growth.

History shows that when the tax credits dry up, new wind-energy installations plummet. In May, the Energy Information Administration underscored this point, explaining that in 2012, (just before the PTC was temporarily phased out) the “high level of annual capacity additions…was driven by developers scheduling project completion in time to qualify for the PTC. Similarly, the increase in annual capacity additions for wind scheduled for 2019 is largely being driven by the legislated phaseout of the PTC extension for wind.”

The world is a complicated place.

Most people don’t associate the devastation of the Venezuela by communist leader Nicolas Maduro with China, yet Venezuelan oil lies at the heart of China’s interests and as a result, they have been propping up the murderous South American leader.

Shockingly, Venezuela has the largest known reserves of oil in the world, and in 1950 had the fourth largest Gross Domestic Product in the world and second highest GDP per capita. Venezuela’s economy was six times the size of China, and as late as 1982, they were still the largest GDP in South America. However, by 2017 Venezuela’s per capita GDP had shrunk back to levels last seen at the turn of the century, and they continue to shrink in spite of its impressive oil reserves.

Offshore wind power has been embraced by Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Phil Murphy of New Jersey as the silver bullet to solve their states’ energy needs and meet ambitious carbon reduction goals. Yet, offshore wind is a microscopic speck of today’s power generation. 

Putting so many eggs in the basket of unproven, large-scale offshore wind runs the risk of high electricity costs to consumers and disruptions in grid reliability, resulting in blackouts that lead to economic and public safety trauma. 

The United States today has one – yes one – offshore wind facility which provides 30 megawatts of power, enough electricity for about 25,000 homes. 

Yet, Governor Murphy has set a goal for New Jersey to have 3,500 megawatts of offshore wind by 2030, more than 110 times America’s current offshore wind power. Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo has set New York’s goal at 9,000 megawatts by 2035, more than 300 times the current U.S. total. 

California, which received 34 percent of its 2018 electricity from renewables, has placed minimal emphasis on offshore wind and has no projects near approval. Environmentally conscious Europe has been similarly unenthusiastic. 

The growing presence of renewables in our energy mix is a development that’s helping companies, municipalities and ordinary people reduce their environmental impact and their energy costs. 

Nearly all 50 states have implemented renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in recent years, or adopting voluntary goals aimed at reducing their air emissions and carbon footprints by incorporating cleaner energy sources. Anyone who understands the changing landscape of energy technology knows this a positive step toward protecting our environment.  

Nevertheless, extreme activist groups don’t think that’s enough and have been pushing elected officials to shift their cities and states to 100 percent renewable energy sources without giving any thought to the higher costs this may bring. 

For example, the mayor of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, and an official from the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska reportedly signed an electric supply contract that will provide 100 percent renewable energy to all Glenwood Springs residents. 

U.S. Steel, one of America's largest metal makers, just announced it'll idle two blast furnaces in the coming months. That could put hundreds of workers out of a job.   

The announcement is just the latest indication that President Trump's 25 percent tariff on steel imports may have unintended consequences. 

When the president announced the tariff in March 2018, he predicted the taxes on foreign steel imports—taxes that Americans, not foreigners, must pay—would "help our domestic steel industry to revive idled facilities, open closed mills, preserve necessary skills by hiring new steel workers, and maintain or increase production."  

The tariff failed for two main reasons. First, they raised production costs for thousands of companies ranging from auto manufacturers to oil and gas firms. Many companies scaled back their expansion plans and therefore had less need for steel products, whether foreign or domestic.

More closely aligned with radical environmental activists than the needs of hard-working families and energy consumers across the region, Gov. Cuomo has effectively cut off the Northeast from accessing clean, abundant and affordable natural gas. And with the signing of the radical New York Green New Deal, the Northeast is in for further electricity reliability and affordability challenges. 

This energy blockade prevents families, small businesses, and manufacturers in seven states from enjoying the economic and clean air benefits of the American shale revolution. 

Make no mistake, energy pipelines – overwhelmingly built by the region’s skilled and highly trained building trades union members – are the safest method of transporting energy that’s closely regulated and monitored by a host of federal and state agencies. “Americans are more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed in a pipeline accident,” the Manhattan Institute concluded in a recent study. 

Last week, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry tried to satisfy those gunning for energy security with nuclear, natural gas, and coal and those trying to skirt global warming with more renewables. America, he insisted, was driving down emissions globally exporting natural gas and developing nuclear and renewables.

His critics were quick reject this gloss but the Secretary was hardly worried. Why? No matter how much the environmental left or the national security right might criticize him, he can silence them by dangling before them what they both want — a government program for their preferred solutions. Thus, the bipartisan saw officials most often retreat to — an “all-of-the-above energy” strategy that offers handouts to energy options no matter how uneconomical.

A hit since America’s first energy crisis in 1971, this strategy is getting pricey. Early on, the US took up energy price deregulation and efficiency measures that remedied true market failures. Then, state and federal governments turned to subsidies, mandates and crash “commercialization” funding of virtually every kind of energy type.

Never mind oil and gas supplies have increased so America now exports both. Supports for biofuels and clean coal continue as if we might soon run out. Renewables’ costs have plummeted. Yet, government subsidies and mandates continue now mostly to pump up profits. As for nuclear and ethanol, they too enjoy government backing even though no private investor would touch them with a barge pole.

Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to reduce carbon emissions from the nation’s fleet of coal-fired power plants.  The ACE rule is replacing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan.

The new rule is legal and sensible, adjectives that do not describe the Clean Power Plan.  Many people might have forgotten that the Clean Power Plan was so bad that 27 states opposed it, and the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule (the stay is still in effect). The Clean Power Plan would have been expensive and would have given EPA too much control over each state’s electricity supply.

The reaction from opponents of the ACE rule has been predictable.  Among other things, they say the new rule will not reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the old rule.  That might seem like an important point, but it deliberately fails to tell the full story.

According to EPA’s analysis, the Clean Power Plan would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 50 million tons in 2025, and the ACE rule will achieve reductions of as much as 30 million tons.  However, it’s really not much of a difference at all.  Global anthropogenic GHG emissions total about 49 billion metric tons, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Therefore, the two rules would reduce global GHG emissions by either 0.10 percent (Clean Power Plan) or  0.06 percent (ACE rule).  The difference between these two is indistinguishable from a climate change standpoint.   

In addition, the rest of the world continues to use coal to support economic growth.  Last year, coal demand in China was six times greater than U.S. coal demand, according to the International Energy Agency. Even “green” Europe used more coal than the U.S.  As a result, from 2017 to 2018, worldwide GHG emissions increased by 560 million tons, an amount ten times greater than the reductions that would have been achieved under the Clean Power Plan. 

Our point is that arguing about the insignificant differences between the new rule and the old rule are not going to lead to a workable solution to climate change.  Neither are campaigns to eliminate the U.S. coal fleet.

One would think a proposal which threatens the electric grid of the world’s most important city was conceived by a people who…frankly…don’t really like the city. Yet that is exactly what the City Council of New York is considering. And like all things related to the green movement, these Don Quixotes battling climate change never worry about facts as intentions.

The Council is considering foolhardy plan to turn Riker’s Island into a solar farm. Proponents, like Alexandria "12-years left" Ocasio-Cortez, say covering 100 acres of Rikers with solar panels allows for the closing of all fossil fuel “peaker plants” (those facilities which come online during highest demand on the electric grid) built in the past 25 years. Because solar good. Fossil fuels bad. This idea isn’t just wrong; it’s dangerous.

As Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez once said “it’s better to be morally right than factually correct”. That must be comforting, because when it comes to energy, the facts are usually against her.

I asked Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller News Foundation's investigative energy and environmental reporter to run the numbers.  According to Bastasch, the New York City peaker plants can generate up to 9,600 megawatts of electricity when demand spikes.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee recently signed a permanent statewide ban on fracking, the drilling technique that has made America the world's top producer of natural gas. And Senator Bernie Sanders just called for a nationwide fracking ban.  

Both these 2020 presidential candidates believe that banning fracking will help fight climate change. They're dead wrong. 

Fracking actually drives down carbon emissions by unlocking new stores of natural gas -- the cleanest burning fossil fuel. Rather than ban fracking, pragmatic environmentalists ought to embrace it. 

Fracking enables energy companies to tap natural gas reserves in underground shale rock formations. Our natural gas output has spiked 50 percent since 1990.