With our increasingly clean environment, wealth, and affordable energy, we have the freedom to focus heavily on the minutest details of environmental wellness.
To tweak another Presidential phrase: “it’s the energy stupid.” The green groups are not just targeting coal; they’re targeting energy of all kinds, shapes, and sizes.
To allay your fears, readers should know that I am actually a ‘glass half full’ kind of person. I don’t like to focus solely on the negatives, so I’ll wrap up this message on an upbeat note.
Energy-wise, we are clearly on the negative arc of Newton’s energy cradle. However, I see a definite sea-change approaching as electricity users, elected officials, voters, and the media start to recognize the costs of implementing EPA’s policy and regulatory “upgrades.” I’ll cite just two examples as evidence.
First, a massive public rejection of the country’s policy direction occurred in the 2010 election. Generally energy-and development-friendly representatives were elected at all levels of government – local, state, and federal. These election results have had two clear impacts on the legislative agenda around the country, with both good and bad implications for the energy industry:
- Numerous funding measures and amendments to current bills have sought to cut funding for the EPA and/or restrict the broad powers given to EPA by the current Administration and 111th Congress. For example, in mid-July the House Appropriations Committee passed the 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, calling for an 18 percent funding cut for the EPA and a 7 percent cut for the Department of the Interior.
- At the same time, funding for many fossil energy-related research projects have also gone onto the chopping block in the heightened tensions around budgeting and national debt management.
Second, science is now openly questioning the ability of models to accurately forecast climate change. A just-released study co-authored by University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, and published in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing, has contradicted several of the most basic assumptions underlying UN climate models.
Where those models rely largely on educated assumptions about how CO2 will impact climate, Dr. Spencer’s study used physical data collected by NASA’s Terra satellite to demonstrate that “much more energy (is) lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show.” Spencer’s research also indicated that the Earth’s atmosphere begins to shed heat into space far sooner than UN models have ever predicted. If accurate, much of the predicted impacts of climate change and much of the policy developed as a result of those predictions would be undermined.
And the public is listening. Rasmussen polling from July this year indicates a sustained belief among U.S. voters that discovering new sources of energy is more important for the country than reducing energy consumption.
So the push-pull of policy continues to play out across the nation, and if these two election and climate science examples serve as any indication, the pendulum may have reached its uppermost anti-coal limit. As more people realize the costs associated with closing coal generation and begin to understand the science on climate may not be so solidly “settled,” watch for the pendulum to pick up speed in a more coal-friendly direction.
Follow Us: