Power To Spare

Posted 11/05/2009 07:33 PM ET

Leadership: As Palin jousts with Biden on energy independence, the government reports that we lead the world in energy reserves. From oil to gas to coal, we are sitting on prosperity. So why are we importing anything?

One of the interesting sidelights of the NY-23 race was an exchange on energy independence between Vice President Joe Biden and the former governor of energy-rich Alaska, Sarah Palin. Biden, who came in to campaign for Democrat Bill Owens, was reminded of the issue of energy.

"The fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy was 'Drill, baby, drill,'" Biden said at an Owens fundraiser, referring to Palin's own campaign slogan last year. "No, it's a lot more complicated, Sarah, than 'Drill, baby, drill.'"

Actually, it's not, according to a new report produced by the Congressional Research Service, hardly an outpost of the vast right-wing conspiracy or on the payroll of Big Oil. The report says that if all our energy resources are added up and converted to a barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), the U.S. has the largest reserves in the world.

According to the CRS, the U.S. has 1,321 billion barrels of oil (or barrels of oil equivalent for other sources of energy) if you combine its recoverable natural gas, oil and coal reserves. Russia is close behind with 1,248 billion barrels BOE. Other energy-producing nations, including many that export oil to the U.S., lag behind.

Of course, much of our world-leading reserves>>>

Foolishly Choosing Bears Over Barrels

Posted 08:10 PM ET

Ecology: The administration creates the mother of all protected habitats for a species whose numbers have increased since Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." It's our hopes for energy independence that are drowning.

When filmmaker Phelim McAleer, whose documentary "Not Evil Just Wrong" takes apart the myths of global warming, got to ask Gore a question at the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists, McAleer brought up the nine critical errors in Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth."

A British court two years ago listed them and said they must be righted before the film could be shown in schools as part of the curriculum. McAleer asked Gore why nothing had been done to correct those factual errors.

One of the nine critical errors Judge Michael Burton found in Gore's film was the claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for ice melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court said it was aware of were four that died following a storm.

McAleer then said Gore had misrepresented the status of polar bears as endangered from melting Arctic sea ice and pointed out that the bears' numbers were increasing.

That was before his microphone was cut off>>>

Going Back In Time

Posted 09/24/2009 06:53 PM ET

Environmentalists: What sort of future are green groups pushing us toward? If they get their way, it will be one that won't look much different than the world our great-grandparents were born into.

While some want to put an end to soft toilet paper, the Brits are moving toward a regime in which workers who discharge "more than their fair share of carbon emissions" will have their pay docked. Meanwhile, in California, regulators are hoping to ban big-screen TVs.

There are no limits to which environmentalists won't go to, to put limits on human freedom and progress. Not even our personal choice of toilet paper is beyond what they believe to be their business. The Washington Post reported Thursday that environmentalists have been campaigning against soft toilet paper because of the timber needed to make it.

"We don't need old-growth forests ... to wipe our behinds," said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council who presumes that he speaks for everyone.

The thinking in Britain is no clearer than it is here. Last week the London Times reported that a trial program in which employees are fined for exceeding their personal carbon dioxide emissions caps will be extended.

"The rationing scheme monitors employees' personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights," writes Times environmental editor Ben Webster. "Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit."

The maximum fine is $164, but it's "likely to>>>

Save the Light Bulb!

• AUGUST 30, 2009, 7:19 P.M. ET

By HOWARD M. BRANDSTON

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will effectively phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2012-2014 in favor of compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. Other countries around the world have passed similar legislation to ban most incandescents.

Will some energy be saved? Probably. The problem is this benefit will be more than offset by rampant dissatisfaction with lighting. We are not talking about giving up a small luxury for the greater good. We are talking about compromising light. Light is fundamental. And light is obviously for people, not buildings. The primary objective in the design of any space is to make it comfortable and habitable. This is most critical in homes, where this law will impact our lives the most. And yet while energy conservation, a worthy cause, has strong advocacy in public policy, good lighting has very little.

Even without taking into account people's preferences, CFLs, which can be an excellent choice for some applications, are simply not an equivalent technology to incandescents in all applications. For example, if you have dimmers used for home theater or general ambience, you must buy a compatible dimmable CFL, which costs more, and even then it may not work as desired on your dimmers. How environmental will it be for frustrated homeowners to remove and dispose of thousands of dimmers? What's more, CFLs work best in light fixtures designed for CFLs, and may not fit, provide desired service life, or distribute light in the same pleasing pattern as incandescents. How environmental will it be for homeowners to tear out and install new light fixtures?

None of these and other considerations appear to have been included in the technical justification for this law. Instead, the decision appears to have been made entirely based on a perception of efficiency gains. Light-source efficacy, expressed as lumens of light output per watt of electrical input, has been used as a comparative metric justifying encouragement of CFLs. But this metric is flawed for one simple reason: It is a laboratory measurement and a guide, not a truth, in the field; actual energy performance will depend on numerous application characteristics and product quality.

If energy conservation were to be the sole goal of energy policy, and efficacy were to be the sole technical consideration, then why CFLs? If we really want to save energy, we would advocate high-pressure sodium lamps—those large bulbs that produce bright orangish light in many streetlights. Their efficacy is more than double what CFLs can offer. Of course this would not be tolerated by the public. This choice shows that we are willing to advocate bad lighting—but not horrible lighting.

Not yet, at least. Energy regulations pending>>>

A No-Carbon Payoff

September 3, 2009, 5:00PM EST

For one year, author Colin Beavan and BusinessWeek's Michelle Conlin tried to live with no impact on the environment

By Michelle Conlin

My author husband, Colin Beavan, decided in late 2006 that he wanted to stop writing about history and start writing about global warming. He was so excited about his idea—attempting to live for one year in the middle of New York City without making any negative environmental impact—that when he asked me to join him, I immediately went all wifely and lobbed back an effusive yes. When my best friend from childhood, filmmaker Laura Gabbert, later heard about No Impact, she begged Colin to let her and her partners film us. After they promised Colin to make as low-carbon a movie as possible, he agreed. His sustainably produced book—made from postconsumer recycled paper and chlorine-free cardboard, with energy supplied by biogas—is titled No Impact Man. It hit stores Sept. 1. The documentary of the same name begins opening nationwide on Sept. 11.

Truthfully, when I said yes to this Woody Allen-meets-Walden affair, I didn't fully think through what it would mean to live with a toddler and a dog in a one-bedroom, ninth-floor Manhattan apartment using no elevators, no electricity, no disposable diapers, no food grown more than 250 miles from home, no TV, no takeout, no beauty products, and no washing machine. Oh yes, and no buying anything; for the next year I would shop my own closet.

Little did I know that a year after>>>

Cap And Fade

Posted 06:58 PM ET

Climate Change: The Senate has finally rolled out its long-awaited cap-and-trade bill to slash carbon dioxide. Looking at its draconian restrictions on the U.S. economy, it's hard to believe its supporters are serious.

The Boxer-Kerry bill isn't a whole lot different from the Waxman-Markey bill that was passed by the House of Representatives in June. And that's the problem.

Both bills provide for a "cap-and-trade" system to slash the use of fossil fuels and replace them with solar, wind and other "alternative" energy sources. The idea is to impose strict limits on the output of CO2, a supposed cause of global warming.

If this sounds like a good idea, it isn't. It'll lead to massive new taxes, the demise of entire industries, the elimination of millions of jobs and lost income for all. As the Heritage Foundation found when it ran the numbers on Waxman-Markey, the economic losses entailed in imposing cap-and-trade are enormous.

Over 23 years, a cap-and-trade plan would slash $9.4 trillion from GDP and kill 2.5 million jobs. It would hike gasoline prices by 58%, or $1.40 a gallon. Home electricity rates would soar 90%.

All told, cap-and-trade could cost families an added $1,761 a year in taxes. And no, that's not an estimate cooked up by anti-cap-and-trade activists. That's the White House's own estimate for the costs, which it tried to hush up. Taxpayers will have to pony up as much as $200 billion a year in new taxes, the equivalent of raising everyone's taxes by roughly 15%.

"Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1% of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation," said a confidential White House memo, written late last year and obtained recently by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Worst of all, neither the House's bill nor the Senate's will work.

The Senate version would slash CO2 output by 20% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, from 2005 levels. Waxman-Markey, by comparison, would cut 17% by 2020.

Supporters point out that we've already sliced our CO2 output in the last two years. We could do more, they say. Sure, but we haven't cut CO2 output because of any green initiative. We've cut it by suffering the worst recession in at least two decades.

Some advocates seem not to mind that they would>>>

Invasion of the Golf Carts

• SEPTEMBER 25, 2009, 10:31 P.M. ET

By JONATHAN WELSH

In a trend that has the car-safety establishment worried, golf-cart-like vehicles are leaving the confines of gated communities and invading public streets.

And most of the time, it's perfectly legal.

Dan Karleskint, a retired software developer in Lincoln, Calif., near Sacramento, bought one of these battery-powered vehicles—which are also known as "neighborhood electric vehicle," or NEVs—to cut his fuel costs and become a greener driver. His model, a Chrysler GEM, has a top speed of 25 miles an hour, the federal limit for NEVs. Typically, state and local laws allow them on public roads with speed limits of 35 mph or lower.

"I put about 4,000 miles a year on my NEV, and my BMW never leaves the garage unless we go out of town," says the 67-year-old Mr. Karleskint.

Drivers are increasingly buying electric vehicles, typically as second or third cars, and using them for grocery shopping, short commutes and shuttling children to and from school. A growing number of municipalities in states such as Arizona, Florida and Colorado have embraced the vehicles. Some towns have built separate NEV lanes and parking spaces. Texas recently started allowing NEVs on roads with speed limits up to 45 mpg.

Most NEVs cost between $8,000 and $20,000 and can travel 30 to 40 miles on a charge. Their performance varies depending on terrain, temperature, payload and other factors. They typically use lead-acid batteries that take about six to 10 hours to charge when plugged into a wall outlet. Special fast-charge systems allow charging in an hour or so. Some vehicles use other types of batteries, including lithium ion models, that offer longer ranges and charge faster.

The vehicles have been common for many years in gated>>>