Which is it for gas prices?

“President Biden on Wednesday called on the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into oil and gas companies, alleging that their “anti-consumer” behavior has led to higher gas prices…. ‘The bottom line is this: gasoline prices at the pump remain high, even though oil and gas companies’ costs are declining,’ Biden wrote in a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan.” “Biden-FTC-gas-prices–Washington Post”

On the other hand, the Whitehouse website states:

“The United States has set a goal to reach 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035,… America’s 2030 target picks up the pace of emissions reductions in the United States, compared to historical levels, while supporting President Biden’s existing goals to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050.”  Whitehouse fact sheet: President Biden sets 2030 greenhouse gas pollution reduction target

Which is it?  Does Biden intend to replace oil and gasoline (and coal) with carbon free energy, which would increase oil and gas prices (ultimately to infinity), or does he want to keep oil and gas prices low?

A market approach to phasing out petroleum products would be to increase their cost via a carbon tax–an approach that I support.

Keystone XL pipeline madness

By his own admission President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline project is political rather than scientific.

Two environmental concerns have been raised. The first is that the emissions of greenhouse gases are about 17% higher for oil from oil sands compared to conventional sources. However, the rejection of the pipeline proposal will not materially change the production and consumption of Canada’s oil shale crude, which will now be transported to market by more expensive means. “Rail transport has expanded to carry oil sands to the United States, soaring from just 16,000 barrels in 2010 to 51.2 million barrels in 2014 before dropping somewhat this year. But rail transport is more expensive than pipeline transport…. Royal Dutch Shell’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, said last year that the company had bid for space on another pipeline to move its oil-sands crude to Canada’s east coast and from there to world markets, including Gulf Coast refiners. ‘We’re covered. I’m good,’ he said in an interview. He said that ‘the argument that Keystone is a bad idea because it will somehow enable development of resources in Canada is to some extent flawed,’ adding that other alternatives would emerge.” (This and other quotes are from today’s Washington Post in the article linked below)

The second environmental concern arises from the possibility of oil spills from breaks in the pipeline. This possibility needs to be compared with the possibility of spills from rail accidents or breaks in alternative pipelines.

Because the pipeline would cross international boundaries it must be approved by the State Department. As the application was being reviewed, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on October 15, 2010 that the department was “inclined” to approve project. “We’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada,” she said. On August 26, 2011 the State Department issued its final environmental impact statement determining “there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed project corridor.” And again on March 1, 2013 the State Department issued another environmental review that raised no major objections to the Keystone XL oil pipeline saying that other options to get the oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries were worse for climate change.

Canada’s new liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, supported the project. “TransCanada’s president and chief executive, Russ Girling, issued a statement saying his company was ‘disappointed. Today, misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science — rhetoric won out over reason,’ Girling said…. Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said Friday that ‘Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer.’” (same Post article).

“As Obama rode from the White House to the campus [Georgetown on June 25, 2013, he], said he would approve Keystone XL only ‘if it does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem.’” But his own State Department found that it does not. So what is going on?

“By late 2013, Obama and Kerry had concluded that the pipeline failed their climate test — not because blocking it would guarantee that Canada’s fossil fuels would remain in the ground, but because denying the permit would strengthen America’s position in international climate negotiations…. ‘The reality is that this decision could not be made solely on the numbers — jobs that would be created, dirty fuel that would be transported here, or carbon pollution that would ultimately be unleashed,’ Kerry said in a statement. ‘The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.’”

In short the President lied (not an uncommon practice among politicians, but we might hope for a higher standard from American Presidents). But apparently not. The Obama administration has authorized the selling of coal owned by the U.S. government that would not meet our C02 emission standards to third world countries, which helps our emission record but not the world’s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-exports-its-greenhouse-gas-emissions–as-coal-profitable-coal/2015/10/08/05711c92-65fc-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html

“The Washington Post’s editorial on the pipeline today began: “President Obama rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Friday, ending an unseemly political dispute marked by activist hysteria, GOP hyperbole, presidential weakness and a general incapability of various sides to see the policy question for what it was: a mundane infrastructure approval that didn’t pose a high threat to the environment but also didn’t promise much economic development. The politicization of this regulatory decision, and the consequent warping of the issue to the point that it was described in existential terms, was a national embarrassment, reflecting poorly on the United States’ capability to treat parties equitably under law and regulation.”



My coldest winter since Chicago

Climate change is a politically charged subject. This makes it more difficult for us layman to evaluate the arguments over what is happening and expected to happen to temperatures (i.e. to know who to trust). “Climate change” is a more neutral term than “Global Warming” reflecting, I assume, the fact that scientists who specialize in climate and weather disagree not only over the impact of increases in CO2 on temperatures, but how to measure and compare temperatures over time. Should we measure land temperatures or sea temperatures or land and sea temperatures combined. Are these temperatures the result of averaging dozens or hundreds or tens of thousands of measurements and how is each reading weighed in the average? Which methods of measuring temperature are more reliable—satellite measures, ground stations, tree rings, etc. and how is one to be adjusted and matched to others in order to compare temperatures over long periods of time.

I suspect that one reason that global warming has been changed to climate change is that the global temperature has declined over the last 17 years. Temperatures have been rising and falling for thousands of years. By some measures (I have no idea which ones) it was hotter at the time of Christ than now and again in the 1300s AD and a lot hotter seven thousand years ago. But I don’t know how we can trust estimates of temperatures seven thousand years ago with now.

One of my favorite graphs is the “reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001).” The little red box on the far right is the most recent 5,000 years.

VostokTemp0-420000 BP

Thus I find the temperature information provided every morning in the Washington Post quite interesting. For example, yesterday at BWI the high was 23° and the low as 2°. The record high for BWI on the same date was 74° in 1930 (85 years ago) and yesterday’s low was the record low for that date. Fifty or so miles south at Reagan National (don’t quote me on the distance) the high yesterday was 27° and the low was 14° (well it is further south) while the record high and low for that date were 75° in 1953 and 7° in 1885. If those constitute a trend we must be moving into another ice age. Though it feels like it, I doubt it. Climate change seems the right words to describe what we have observed.