An Open Letter to Sen. Tim Kaine

Dear Sen. Kaine,

You recently sent me an unsolicited email regarding transparency for oil and gas companies to which I feel obliged to respond. It starts,

Dear Friend,

Climate change is a pressing challenge for low-lying coastal areas of Virginia and for the world. We can discuss and debate the solutions…

We can debate the solutions, but not the evidence? This has become a hallmark of the agenda so aggressively pursued by you and the previous administration — not only a complete unwillingness to debate the evidence supporting or not supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but expending great effort to stifle any such debate, including the threat of prosecution for anyone who dares to suggest that the hypothesis of AGW is not well-supported by observations.

…but our country’s chief diplomat should be able to acknowledge the basic reality agreed upon by the world’s preeminent scientists, our country’s military leaders, and Pope Francis: climate change is real, it is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, and we must do something about it.

Yes, Sen. Kaine, climate change is real. The planet is subject to many periodic oscillations between warmer and cooler temperatures, ranging from decade-long to million-year long periods. But the basic reality that you and the previous administration have denied is that these oscillations and other mechanisms affecting changes in climate are only partially understood, and models predicting future climate change have not proven accurate. Many preeminent scientists do not support the hypothesis of AGW, and your refusal to accept any debate on the issue has led to policy-based science, rather than science-based policy.

When former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State, I asked him point-blank whether his former company has funded or continues to fund climate denial efforts…

I’m going to assume that “climate denial efforts” is your shorthand for any research that doesn’t support the hypothesis of AGW. This is the real tragedy of the previous administration’s preoccupation with AGW for a political agenda — resources have been diverted away from legitimate climate research that could actually save lives.

…despite its own internal awareness of the reality of climate change, as numerous reports have described.

Mr. Tillerson refused to answer my question.

With rising sea levels threatening our military and communities in Hampton Roads…

I have a question for you, Sen. Kaine — what is the rate of sea level rise at Hampton Roads, and has that rate accelerated as atmospheric CO2 has increased? Sea level data at Baltimore MD shows mean sea level rising at a rate of one foot every 100 years, with no increase in that rate even as atmospheric CO2 has increased:

http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8574680

…and the President threatening to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, I was troubled by Mr. Tillerson’s refusal to answer my question or agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. For that reason and others, I voted against his confirmation on Wednesday.

Studies show that the US contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement would only result in a temperature reduction of 0.03 degrees Celsius, at a reported cost of up to 176 billion dollars annually. There is no overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, so what the Paris Climate Agreement really amounts to — an agreement which was not a treaty ratified by the US Senate, as you know — is a payment of billions of dollars from US taxpayers for no discernible benefit.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans voted to scrap a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that energy companies disclose their payments to foreign governments. I voted against this, and I was troubled by the appearance of confirming the world’s foremost oilman to our country’s top diplomatic position, then the very next day voting to make the oil and gas industry less transparent.

You can watch my speech opposing the elimination of the SEC transparency rule here.

Sincerely,

Senator Tim Kaine

The question over whether energy companies — or any other company — should disclose payments to foreign governments is a valid one, and I encourage debate on that policy issue. But linking that debate to “climate change” — and let’s be honest, that was the real intention behind your email, wasn’t it — is a disservice to your constituents.

Sincerely,

Dan Grogan

Skyrocketing Costs

The chart below shows the increase in residential electricity prices by state between August 2009 and August 2014:

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Although Washington, D.C. has seen prices drop 14% in that period — go figure — most of the states have seen prices go up 15%-25% or more. And this is before the costliest of the proposed regulations have even kicked in. According to a report recently prepared by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, a state agency which oversees the regulation of public utilities,

Complying with the EPA’s proposed carbon emission rules would likely cost Dominion Virginia Power customers alone an extra $5.5 billion to $6 billion, the State Corporation Commission’s staff said in an unusually bluntly worded statement.

The EPA’s proposed regulations would “increase substantially” the bills that all 3.6 million Virginia electricity customers pay for their power, the commission staff said, and could significantly affect the reliability of electric service.

The SCC staff anticipates electricity bills would go up significantly because the federal rules would require much of today’s electricity production be replaced with costly generation and expensive programs to decrease energy use.

“Those higher costs will be reflected in the electric bills paid by customers,” said the commission’s staff, emphasizing that statement with italic type.(BACQUÉ, 2014)

The current U.S. president promised in 2008 to make electricity rates skyrocket. I would say he’s well on his way.

---

BACQUÉ, P. (2014, October 16). SCC says EPA carbon plan could raise power bills in Va. “substantially” Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/energy/scc-says-epa-carbon-plan-could-raise-power-bills-in/article_aeb9ac4d-4f7a-57f0-98ee-214a9e0af448.html

The Night Shift

Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B0219-0004-001 / Schmidt / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de, via Wikimedia Commons

The Night Shift

I drive to work at six p.m.
The sun’s already set;
It’s ten below and falling still,
But wind’s the greater threat.

We gather for the pre-shift talk,
Tonight’s assignments given;
The lineup’s done, each name’s been called,
I wait with fellow crewmen.

I’ve paced this hallway thirty years,
The faces old and new;
The coffee smells like mold and bleach
And tastes just like it too.

Tonight I’ll drive a haul truck parked
Out on the ready line;
I walk around the truck to check
If everything works fine.

This truck I drive is made to haul
Six hundred thousand pounds;
From dump to shovel, back and forth
To make my sixty rounds.

I pull under the shovel and
He drops rock in the bed;
One hundred tons, three times each load
This weight over my head.

It’s dark beyond the light plant’s glow,
As black the coal we mine;
My world’s reduced to this dim space,
No warming sun to shine.

The voices on the radio
Are someone’s son or daughter;
Though some are friends and some are not
We look out for each other.

At end of shift I head for home,
A shock to back so sore,
That after driving all night long
I drive one hour more.

I see the sun rise on the way
I’ll be asleep by ten;
And then tonight at six p.m.
I’ll do it all again.

Money Well Spent?

Ever reliable in their bias, today’s Associated Press report says:

The Obama administration will set up 10 centers around the country to help farmers and ranchers…

This part is factual, although I have my doubts as to just how helpful they will be.

…adjust to the increasing frequency of severe weather…

This part is not supported by observations. Even the IPCC, in their latest Summary for Policymakers, backtracked on the effect a hypothetically warming world will have on extreme weather events.

…and other risks associated with climate change.

The article goes on to enumerate those risks — “extended fire seasons, invasive pests, flooding and drought” — along with, presumably, plagues of blood, frogs, hail and darkness.

Farmers and ranchers have been dealing with climate change for as long as mankind has been farming and ranching, and no one knows the risks of that livelihood better than the men and women working hard to put food on your table.

Officials had no precise price tag…The work will be in addition to $120 million set aside for climate-related research in the newly passed farm bill…(The Associated Press, 2014)

So there’s the real reason for promoting the myth. Government workers and contractors get hundreds of millions of dollars, while farmers and ranchers get a risk analysis. If the government is going to spend that kind of money, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

---

The Associated Press. (2014, February 06). USDA to set up ‘climate hubs’ to help farmers amid climate change. Bristol Herald Courier, p. A14.

This Just In…

It seems everyone has an agenda these days — this blog does, I know — but once upon a time there was a clearer demarcation between news facts and news opinion. I’m not an authority on journalism but I no longer see that boundary honored by The Associated Press, and their agenda apparently includes shutting down the coal industry.

Earlier this month the local paper ran an article by The Associated Press that began with:

The chemical spill that contaminated water for hundreds of thousands in West Virginia was only the latest and most high-profile case of coal sullying the nation’s waters.(The Associated Press, 2014)

Someone unfamiliar with the situation may naturally conclude from reading this that coal — the mineral — contaminated the water, but of course that isn’t true. Or they may conclude that the source of the chemical spill was a coal mine, or a coal processing facility, or a coal-burning utility; and that isn’t true either. Wishing to hold the coal industry accountable for this is a lot like levying a fine against all automobile drivers for the BP oil spill in the gulf.

The Associated Press’ website states that they “abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions,” but they seem to have gotten over that aversion. There may have been a time when a consumer of news could rely on and trust the provider, but today that premise is gone with the wind. And with thousands* going without electricity this winter due to high costs, this bias has disastrous real-world consequences.

*I’m estimating; I don’t know how many are going without electricity this winter. The government, which typically has facts available to bolster its case, is strangely silent on this one.

---

The Associated Press. (2014, January 19). W.Va. spill latest case of coal tainting US waters. Bristol Herald Courier, p. A1.

Into Thin Air

The above An editorial cartoon recently appeared in the Bristol (Virginia) Herald Courier (Nath, 2013), and since that newspaper almost never runs articles that contradict the “established” climate science agenda, I presume that the editors interpreted (and author intended) this as follows: politics, especially the dirty politics of climate change “deniers”, is in opposition to climate science and is stalling action to mitigate man-made climate change and the resulting catastrophes.

The reality is just the opposite, though, and the editorial cartoon unintentionally reflects the truth — that the dirty politics of an anti-coal agenda, the dirty politics of renewable energy subsidies, and the dirty politics of academic arguments against higher standards of living are impeding research in legitimate climate science. The Federal government wields research dollars like a club, and one’s chance of obtaining funding is substantially lower if the result of one’s research doesn’t toe the line. Combined with this administration’s chilling (no pun intended) intrusion in educational standards, the wherewithal to conduct legitimate research that might actually save lives — instead of research that just serves to perpetuate a myth — is in real danger of vanishing into thin air.

---

Nath, P. (2013, October 28). Climate action. Retrieved from http://www.tricities.com/news/opinion_columns/image_80317d1e-3ea3-11e3-92f4-001a4bcf6878.html

Two Plus Two

Recently Phillip Muller, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, published an op-ed commentary about climate change and the current state of affairs in his South Pacific islands. My heart goes out to Mr. Muller and the citizens of those islands; famine and disease are scourges that no population in the 21st century should have to suffer through, and I applaud the humanitarian aid provided by the U.S., Australia, and other countries and organizations to alleviate their hardship. However, the cause he assigns to this adversity — man-made climate change — perpetuates a myth that is diverting resources away from legitimate climate science and causing undue economic harm.

In the 1970’s, researchers and academicians were not reasonably observing any climate changes beyond those which were typical, though little understood. What they were observing was an inordinate disparity in the standard of living between developed countries and developing countries. There are two approaches to resolving this inequity; some may choose to work to raise the standard of living in developing countries through commercial investment, application of technology, or humanitarian aid. Many in academia, though, believed in the opposite approach — lowering the standard of living in the developed countries. Their justification for this was a belief that the developed countries were exploitive, that their consumption was excessive, that their use of energy and materials was wasteful, and that air and water pollution resulting from all of this excess was choking the life out of the planet.

There is no doubt that many pollutants are harmful to the affected ecosystems or populations, and industries, working together with government agencies, made tremendous strides in the ensuing decades to reduce harmful pollutants in the environment. However, because much of this improvement was coming about through better technology or processes, and not through reduced production or consumption, the academicians who wanted to lower the standard of living in developed countries were not achieving their goals; and so the fiction of man-made climate change was pushed to center stage.

Contrary to what the current administration and most of the mainstream media would have you believe, here are a few points to consider:

• sea levels began rising dramatically at the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago, but have slowed considerably in the last 7,000 years, essentially leveling off;
  

  This image by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art is licensed under CC BY SA 2.5

• there’s been no change in sea level along the U.S. Pacific Coast, and according to this paper by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner no change in sea level in the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, or at Tuvalu and Vanuatu in the Pacific Ocean;
  

  Image retrieved from CU Sea Level Research Group. The CC license does not apply to this image.

• Arctic ice extent is at or above normal this year;
  

  Image retrieved from Steven Goddard / Real Science. The CC license does not apply to this image.

• models used to predict catastrophic man-made climate change just aren’t matching up with observations;
  

  Image retrieved from Anthony Watts / Watts Up With That. The CC license does not apply to this image.

The current administration is determined to sustain this delusion though. Recently the National Research Council guided the development of the Next Generation Science Standards, and according to the new elementary school standards “Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming).” In states where these standards are adopted, another generation of school children will be led to believe that man-made climate change is a fact, as sure as two plus two equals four.

Follow the Green

I was under the weather this weekend, and since I was sick anyway I figured I might as well fill out my tax forms. Which always leads me to thinking, “Where are my tax dollars spent, anyway?” According to the Heritage Foundation and the Science and Public Policy Institute, there have been 33 “green energy” companies offered federal subsidies totaling more than $7.4 billion that are now faltering or bankrupt. Granted, this only represents about one-half of one percent of all Federal discretionary spending budgeted in 2012, or about $100 of my Federal income tax bill; but I would have preferred to spend that $100 on something else.

And it doesn’t end there. As noted by Watts Up With That, Larry Bell with Forbes offers the following summary:

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”. . . . It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.(Bell, 2013)

Companies in the “green energy” industry certainly benefit from a popular misbelief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and perpetuate that myth while receiving staggering sums of government aid. Mainstream media bias their reporting because catastrophes, disasters, and the imminent collapse of civilization draw viewers and readers, and hence advertising dollars. After all, who’s going to tune in just to hear that everything is normal? And if scientists are told that their government funding will dry up unless they work on research that supports AGW, then that might bias their research.

But don’t just take my word for it.

In a 2011 interview, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said:

“We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years . . . The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”(Bell, 2013)

Instead of wasting money on politically-motivated projects with no benefit except to those receiving the funds, our policymakers should be working to solve real environmental health problems, such as providing clean drinking water for the estimated 780 million people worldwide who don’t have it, or helping prevent 250,000-500,000 children from going blind each year from vitamin A deficiency.

Happy (belated) St. Patrick’s Day.

---

Bell, L. (2013, February 05). In their own words: Climate alarmists debunk their ‘science’. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/print/

Innovation

I want to highlight a couple of positive news items regarding coal-fired generation technology. The first is from Ohio State University:

A new form of clean coal technology reached an important milestone recently, with the successful operation of a research-scale combustion system at Ohio State University. The technology is now ready for testing at a larger scale.

For 203 continuous hours, the Ohio State combustion unit produced heat from coal while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the reaction.

Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL), which chemically harnesses coal’s energy and efficiently contains the carbon dioxide produced before it can be released into the atmosphere….

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group’s team leaders, described the technology’s potential benefits. “The commercial-scale CDCL plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America’s natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs,” he said.(Gorder, 2013)

Here’s another item from Germany about using silos to store pulverized coal before feeding into the boiler:

German energy giant RWE originally built the silo in Niederaussem to make fueling its power plant easier. But the German energy revolution has lent the silo system an entirely new dimension….

[This] energy transition leads to more and more wind turbines and solar arrays…[and] greater fluctuations in power generation, with output changing with every gust of wind and every cloud that flits across the sun. Hitachi Power, a Japanese company that builds power plants, estimates these fluctuations will double or triple by the end of the decade…[and coal-fired plants] must be able to react quickly to fluctuations in supply and consumption…

When combined with other technologies, [coal dust silos] make it possible for coal-fired plants to hold their own against the competition in the new era of power generation.(Schultz, 2012)

The environmentalists’ response to these items was predictable — no coal, no way, no how. But it is certainly encouraging that researchers are trying to find innovative ways to use an abundant energy resource efficiently.

---

Gorder, P. (2013, February 5). New coal technology harnesses energy without burning, nears pilot-scale development. Retrieved from http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/looping203.htm

Schultz, S. (2012, September 7). Flexible fossils: A new role for coal in German energy revolution. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-coal-fired-plants-could-be-key-to-german-energy-revolution-a-854335.html

A Catastrophe in the Making

In his State of the Union address, the President of the United States said that “We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.” But the reality is far different for people in New England, according to a recent New York Times article:

Electricity prices in New England have been four to eight times higher than normal in the last few weeks, as the region’s extreme reliance on natural gas for power supplies has collided with a surge in demand for heating. Frigid temperatures and the snowstorm that hammered parts of the Northeast last week have revived concerns about the lack of alternatives to natural gas. Many plants that ran on coal or oil have been shuttered, and the few that remain cannot be put into service quickly enough to meet spikes in demand. The price of electricity is determined by the price of gas. . . . “It is certainly true that a region like New England that relies on a single fuel source like natural gas for the bulk of its power does leave itself open for more disruptions than a region with a more diverse fuel mix,” said Jay Apt, executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “It’s not a knock against natural gas; it’s a knock against a single fuel source.”(Wald, 2013)

If you live in New England and you think you’re paying more than your fair share to save the planet, you’re half right. You are paying more — significantly more — as a result of energy policies that favor one fuel source (natural gas) and exclude another (coal), policies the current administration is trying to extend to the rest of the nation. But as far as saving the planet goes, the evidence is mounting that the models used to predict catastrophic man-made climate change just aren’t matching up with observations.

(Michaels, 2012)

I’ve said before that the price of natural gas will increase, and without coal-fired generating stations the cost of electricity will increase with it. The EPA is preparing to finalize regulations that will effectively prohibit the construction of any new coal-fired generating stations in the U.S., and when coal is no longer an option as a fuel source for U.S. energy producers the cost of energy will skyrocket. High energy prices, in the long term, will force manufacturers to relocate elsewhere. The wages those manufacturers paid will be gone, and that will devastate the communities where those wages were spent on food, gas, durable goods, and services. Misguided energy policies will result in a man-made economic catastrophe with no environmental benefit whatsoever.

---

Michaels, P. (2012, December 18). The UN’s global warming forecasts are performing very, very badly. Forbes, retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/12/18/the-uns-global-warming-forecasts-are-performing-very-very-badly/

Wald, M. (2013, February 16). The natural gas trap. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/electricity-costs-up-in-gas-dependent-new-england.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&