-
Mann Acts
September 14, 2011 | 72 comments
-
Suing NASA and UVA
August 19, 2011 | 58 comments
-
Facts on Frack Attackers
August 3, 2011 | 71 comments
-
Indefensible
July 27, 2011 | 59 comments
-
Inhibiting an Oil and Gas Boom
July 22, 2011 | 81 comments
The Public Policy
Whose Clean Energy Standards?
Answers for Sens. Bingaman and Murkowski.
(Page 2 of 2)
A. You mean a Cornhusker Kickback-type exclusion, which undoubtedly some Senator wanting to protect constituents from higher energy costs would seek? No.
Q. Should the definition of “clean energy” account only for the greenhouse gas emissions of electric generation, or should other environmental issues be accounted for (e.g. particulate matter from biomass combustion, spent fuel from nuclear power, or land use changes for solar panels or wind, etc.).
A. I don’t know — ask the environmental experts who can’t even agree on what is clean and green.
Q. Should partial credits be given for certain technologies, like efficient natural gas and clean coal, as the President has proposed?
A. Depends on if you need to buy them off too in order to pass a bill.
Q. Is there a deployment path that will optimize the trade-off between the overall cost of the program and the overall amount of clean energy deployed?
A. If there is, do you think the government is capable of determining that ideal path?
Q. Should there be a banking and/or borrowing system available for credits and, if so, for how long?
A. So you want to bring back cap-and-trade?
Q. How might a CES alter the current dispatch order of existing generation (such as natural gas-fired power plants), which has been driven by minimization of consumer costs, historically?
A. Depends on how much you want to keep spending to subsidize expensive energy losers like wind and solar.
Q. To what extent does a CES contribute to the overall climate change policy of the United States…?
A. Not at all — do you have any proof, or even scientific (I use that term as loosely as climate alarmists do) projections that it does?
I trust that these answers have been helpful, if not for Sens. Bingaman and Murkowski, then for you, faithful readers. May Tea Party principles prevail.
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/24/whose-clean-energy-standards
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Boys and Girls
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
joedoc| 3.24.11 @ 6:52AM
"Because the president was vague". I love that comment. The POTUS is vague on everything. He just says something vague on any policy and lets the hacks in Congress come up with something and signs his name to it. For him to do any real work would interrupt his vacation and golf time. Does anyone think this guy has really worked one full day in his life?
GavInTucson| 3.25.11 @ 12:26AM
Of course he hasn't. This man's spent his entire life surrounded by leftist people that hate this country -- Mom, Dad, Dad 2.0, grandparents, Indonesian schools, liberal Occidental College, Harvard Law, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, etc.
None of this is in dispute.
He's here for the perks. As President, he wants to spend the majority of time doing anything not involved with leading or governing. He and his hag of a wife feel that the American people owe them something.
But we can all take comfort in the fact that Michelle is, finally, proud of her country. Apparently all it took for her was to have a taxpayer-payed makeup artist available 24/7.
GavInTucson| 3.25.11 @ 12:28AM
I forgot to add that this farce never held a private sector job in his entire life.
Spoonman| 3.24.11 @ 7:36AM
Clean energy standards - let me begin with this: alternative (green) energy is unreliable, inefficient and very expensive. For every Megawatt of electricity generated by an alternative energy facility, a conventional generating plant (think expensive to build and have in reserve) of equivalent capacity must be available to generate power whenever the alternative energy facility is incapable of generating power (think cloudy days, windless days). Operating staff have to be paid, immediately available and ready to operate these backup facilities 24/7 . There is also a significant delay from initiation of plant startup until it can actually generate power (think the time it takes to boil water when a pot of water is placed on a stove until it begins to boil and form steam). All of this backup capacity is required if reliability of power generation is a priority. Because of this the cost of the minor contribution that alternative (green) energy makes is extremely high. Open up your wallets because as consumers you will be paying this defacto tax brought on by obama and his kind.
Pecos Pete| 3.24.11 @ 7:44AM
Luckily the House of Representatives will not, in this session of Congress, pass a CES bill.
And, luckily, Sen. Bingaman is retiring and will not seek reelection in 2012.
Walking Horse| 3.24.11 @ 8:47AM
Well done, Mr. Chesser, and to the point. Unfortunately, there will be one of two reactions: (a) you will be ignored because it is not possible to deliver this message with a slap to the face of these control freaks;
(b) the poor dears will get their lace undergarments in a twist and go into hysterics, in an attempt to drown out your message.
Tony in Central PA| 3.24.11 @ 9:12AM
An ugly series of 400 foot tall wind turbines were built on the mountaintop above my hometown last year. They have been idle since they were completed over 6 months ago. Why ? According to the local paper, nobody wants to purchase them.
This isn't stopping another big ugly wind farm from going up about ten miles north on the same ridgetop. These bird - killing eyesores have been brought to us by Gamesa, A Spanish concern that fled Europe after government subsidies for wind projects dried up there. Thankfully for these companies, there are plenty of dumb Americans willing to give them money they don't have for something they won't get - - free, clean energy.
Old Soldier| 3.24.11 @ 10:06AM
Let me think, where do people use the most energy to heat their houses through a long bitter winter, and most drive inefficient 4-wheel-drive vehicles to deal with the weather? And many of the residents work on dirty petroleum energy?
I know! Alaska! I hope they pay dearly for returning that despicable Rino Murkowski to the Senate.
Mara| 3.24.11 @ 3:00PM
Oh, we will Old Soldier, we will! We already are.
And worse, the same people who put her back in are now whining because the pipeline in on its last legs.
Ned| 3.24.11 @ 10:13AM
Gamesa? Would that be the same Spanish company that was delivering "clean solar electrical power" at a high premium price by ringing their solar panel fields with diesel generators?
Tony in Central PA| 3.25.11 @ 10:16PM
Was it " clean diesel "?
Petronius| 3.24.11 @ 11:38AM
After the first earth day I asked an "environmentalist" why he was so gung ho on windmills and solar panels. His reply verbatim: "so the electric company CAN'T SELL it to you." These people want to abolish all commerce in any natural resource not merely to prevent anyone from profiting from it. They have a pipe dream to re-establish the garden of Eden and nullify any necessity to WORK for anything in life. Their logic dictates; no commerce=no competition=no private enterprise=no working for "the man" to pay for anything=bliss. This guy had a vision and desire to live in a depopulated world of nomadic hunter/gatherers with marijuana being the only cultivated crop.
I find it astounding and appalling that any reasonable legislator at any level of government should throw in with this pack of loonies and refried hippies regardless of how well they have concealed their motives and intentions these past 40 years. If the public at large does not wake up and 86 this ecocrap they are buying into their own economic destruction and Our Freedom then dies with it.
Irish22| 3.24.11 @ 12:01PM
$20 per month for every man, woman, and child in Colorado. Where do you think that money will go?
ciero| 3.24.11 @ 12:04PM
I love the socalled invironementalists who want everybody to return to the good old days of yore. I believe it was Hobbs who describedd those good old days, when life was "solitary, cruel, nasty, brutish, and short."
Hillel| 3.24.11 @ 1:03PM
The problem is there is a dearth of volcanos to sacrifice virgins to Gaia. There also is a dearth ov virins.
play nice| 3.24.11 @ 1:57PM
Which came first, virgins or volcanos?
George S| 3.24.11 @ 3:16PM
As long as we're asking questions:
Q. In 'Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services', the Supreme Court upheld citizen standing in environmental law suits. Does this mean we can file suits to demand never ending environmental impact studies for proposed wind and solar farms, the same way that stopped petroleum refineries from being built over the past three decades?
A. Are you for real?
Q. Will Washington make an example by subjecting themselves to scheduled blackouts necessitated by non windy and non sunny days?
A. Are you for real?
Q. If clean energy is defined with preset emissions levels, then any form of energy generating less would be acceptable?
A. Yes.
Q. How much emissions (CO, CO2, NOx, sulfites) are generated by nuclear power?
A. Zero.
Q. Ergo, the obvious question: will nuclear power qualify under CES?
A. Are you for real?
pomdter| 3.24.11 @ 3:33PM
You missed the most important question of all:
How can I profit from this? I'm tired of hearing about the government blowing billions to line the pockets of the lobbyists and their employers. How do I get a piece of the action???
john dubose| 3.24.11 @ 3:36PM
Clean and not too expensive energy is coming.
But it will be in spite of our wastefull and incompetent federal government.
Yosemeti Sam| 3.24.11 @ 10:39PM
Um, has the idea of eugenics ever been thought of in connection with environmentalist wackos?
Marc Jeric| 3.25.11 @ 2:08AM
This 40-year old conspiracy in 4 acts (global cooling scam, global warming hoax, climate change flimflam, cap & trade power grab) by our eco-nazis and commies continues today. Not only the "green" energy sources are extremely expensive and unavailable when needed most, they are also environmentally destructive. But what do they care - the country must be destroyed by whatever device so the criminals can assume total power.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:12AM
And necessary energy levels and types mean different things to different people: A back-to-nature maiden who practices what she preaches needs much less than a multitasker who watches her LCD TV while researching on the Internet and listening to her iPod.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:28PM
is good