TT`s Lost in Tokyo : energy

Who are the misanthropes - "Malthusians" or those who hate them? Rob Bradley and others resist good faith engagement despite obvious institutional failures/absence of property rights

TokyoTom — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:53:00 GMT

In a series of posts at the self-declared "free market" blog of the fossil-fuel energy industry funded Institute for Energy Research , energy expert Rob Bradley (former Ken Lay speechwriter and Enron policy wonk) explores his dark forebodings...(read more)

Update from Rob Bradley: My BOOKS prove that I`m a free-marketer! (That`s why I`m free to boost fossil fuels and bash enviros on my blogs!)

TokyoTom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:55:00 GMT

I noted in a previous post that Rob Bradley , CEO of the Institute for Energy Research and lead blogger at MasterResource , has cheered on big coal and bashed what he calls "Malthusian anti-energy crusaders", but ignoring while he does so the...(read more)

Rob Bradley: EXTRA! In tough times, economy and jobs trump enviro priorities!

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:29:00 GMT

Wow, what startling news. Thanks for sharing it with us Rob. Now perhaps you can catch your breath. Rob Bradley trumpets an opinion poll that indicates that voters care more about more immediate and pressing issues than they do about distant problems...(read more)

Rob Bradley cheers on coal, but are all those who want to better manage commons and environmental impacts "Malthusian" idiots, or only in the case of coal?

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:54:00 GMT

Rob Bradley has a new post up at MasterResource , cheering on big (and now "clean") coal, which has apparently received assurances from the Obama administration - after being bad-mouthed by NASA scientist Jim Hansen , Steven Chu and Obama himself...(read more)

Bob Murphy in Forbes: no to "green" jobs, but otherwise? No advice

TokyoTom — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:01:00 GMT

Kudos to Robert P. Murphy for a new opinion piece dated Novermber 15 in Forbes.com regarding "The High Costs Of 'Green Recovery'" . The biographical note appended to the piece describes Bob as "a senior economist with the Institute...(read more)

More on Pickens: FOX offers soapbox for Pickens mouthpiece; Milloy responds

TokyoTom — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:35:00 GMT

FOX offers soapbox for Pickens mouthpiece Warren Mitchell (former chairman of Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric, and director and head of the compensation committee of Pickens' owned Clean Energy Fuels); Steven Milloy...(read more)

Australia Caves to Hysteria; Signs AGW Suicide Pact

TokyoTom — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:17:00 GMT

[Snark in title Alert!]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-yes-to-kyoto-pact/2007/12/03/1196530575996.html

Ron Paul on the environment and energy

TokyoTom — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:16:00 GMT

1. There is an excellent interview of Dr. Ron Paul now up at Grist, the environmental news and commentary site, that explores some of his views on environmental and energy issues. I am with him in principle but think he has underestimated the seriousness of the climate change problem and not seriously thought through the issues yet.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Selected remarks on international issues include the following (emphasis added):

"If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems."

Q: "What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?"

A: "I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

"To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy discussion."

Q: "So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?"

A: "No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up."

Q: "What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?"

A: "They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

"And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion."

Q: "You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?"

A: "It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work."

Q: "You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?"

A: "I think they're more capable of it than politicians."

Q: " What's your position on a carbon tax?"

A: "I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed."

[Note: This seems ambiguous, but I suppose RP intended to disagree with the concept of permits as well as taxes.]

Q: "You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?"

A: "Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden."

Q: "Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?"

A: "Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it."

Q: "What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not buying oil from hostile countries?"

A: "I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn't work."

2. Dr. Paul also discussed energy and the environment in an interview in June, when he said the following:

Q: "Especially after the release of Al Gore’s global warming documentary, the environment has been very much on people’s minds. Where do you stand on global warming?"

A: "Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance."

Q: How about KYOTO?

A: "I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html

3. The New York Times has a new article on the views of the Republican candidates on climate change, but somehow they managed to miss Ron Paul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?bl&ex=1192852800&en=07847552491b852f&ei=5087%0A

Why are Republicans unhinged on energy policy?

TokyoTom — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:01:00 GMT

In a post of the same title at at NRO, Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of Cato do a great job of demonstrating there is absolutely no relationship between energy policy and national security.

However, they forgot to provide the answer to their own question - Republicans are "unhinged" on energy strategy for a very simple reason - because "energy security" is a very convenient way of justifying a meddlesome and paternal big government, and the Republican administration is in charge of the pork spigots and can control the flow of favors to special interests.

Do Taylor and Van Doren find the Republicans "unhinged" only because they expected that Republicans actually meant their disavowals of "nation building" and the like? Though Americans seem to share a congenital idealistic streak, I suspect that they are not that naive.

No doubt the Dems will also find "energy security" to be a convenient way to aggrandize their own power, reach into Americans' pocketbooks to direct federal largess their friends and to keep the US involved in the internal affairs of other countries. They will have been aided by a Republican administration that was more liberal in the assertion of the right to exercise power than many Democratic administrations that preceded it.