You know we’re deep into the silly season when ‘progressives’ champion reverse protectionism – banning exports – as a solution to America’s economic woes. Congress should reject such advice for at least six reasons.

(1) Export bans are confiscatory, a form of legal plunder.

As economist Richard Stroup has often pointed out, property rights achieve their full value only when they are “3-D”: defined, defendable, and divestible (transferable). A total ban on the sale (transfer) of property rights in petroleum products or natural gas would reduce the asset’s value to zero (assuming no black market and no prospect of the ban’s repeal). To the owner, the injury would be the same as outright confiscation. A ban on sales to foreign customers would be similarly injurious, albeit to a lesser degree.

The foregoing is so obvious one is entitled to suspect that harming oil and gas companies is the point. I would simply remind

EPA’s proposed “Carbon Pollution Standard” requires new fossil-fuel electric generating units (EGUs) to emit no more than 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour. About 95% of all natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants already meet the standard (p. 115). No existing coal power plants come close; even the most efficient, on average, emit 1,800 lbs CO2/MWh (p. 134).

A coal power plant equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could meet the standard, but the levelized cost of new coal plants already exceeds that of new natural gas plants, and “today’s CCS technologies would add around 80% to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal (PC) plant, and around 35% to the cost of electricity for a new advanced gasification-based (IGCC) plant” (p. 124).

In short, EPA has proposed a standard that no commercially-viable coal plant can meet. This is

The controversy over the Gleick affair is related to the legal fight over EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations by more than just general subject matter (climate change) or the happenstance that both are in the news.

The root cause of both controversies is a by any means necessary mindset, a ‘one law for thee, another for me’ mentality, that is inimical to democracy and scientific integrity alike.

Climate scientist Peter Gleick, an expert in scientific ethics, stole fund raising and budget documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses (identity theft) and very likely forged the phony ‘confidential climate st

What is fast-becoming the main talking point against the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) is the claim that greater access to Canadian crude would not enhance energy security but would instead increase pain at the pump.

According to pipeline opponents (here, here, and here), most of the petroleum products made from Keystone crude would be exported by Gulf Coast refiners to Europe, South America, and Asia rather than sold in U.S. domestic markets. Thus, opponents contend, Canadian oil coming through the pipeline would displace little if any oil imported from unstable, undemocratic, or unfriendly countries like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) raised this criticism at a House

For President Obama, approving the Keystone XL Pipeline should have been a no-brainer. All the State Department had to do was conclude the obvious – the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest.

What other reasonable conclusion is possible? Building the 1,700-mile, shovel-ready, $7-billion, private sector-funded project would create thousands of construction jobs, stimulate tens of billions of dollars in business spending, and generate billions of dollars in tax revenues.

Once operational, the pipeline would displace oil imported from undemocratic, unfriendly, or unstable countries with up to 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil from our friendly, stable, democratic neighbor to the north. Canada already ships us more oil than all Persian Gu

We’ve all heard the talking point many times. From 1990 to 2020, the annual dollar value of Clean Air Act benefits will grow to $2 trillion, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1 (EPA, Benefit-Cost Report, pp. 7-1, 7-3). Consequently, EPA’s allies contend, nothing could be more penny-wise and pound-foolish than congressional efforts to block or delay Clean Air Act rules, which make us wealthier by making us healthier.

This line of argument is dubious for the following reasons: 1.) As EPA admits, the 30 to 1 benefit-cost estimate assumes that states, communities, and private organizations would do nothing to control air pollution if the Clean Air Act did not exist (Benefit-Cost Report, p. 1-6). History suggests otherwise. Due to technological innovation, state and local action, and common law litigation, U.S. air quality improved about as rapidly before Congress enacted the Clean Air Act as afterwa

The whole idea of a “clean energy race” harks back to the “space race” and “arms race” of the Cold War era. Although those races had economic spinoffs, they were first and foremost geo-political, not commercial. Renewable energy companies try to recreate a Cold War sense of urgency and destiny about the products they sell. Missiles and space travel had an obvious potential to affect the outcome of a global power struggle. But wind turbines and solar panels?

The global marketplace comprises countless races, because each firm typically faces competition from many others. Dannon, Yoplait, General Mills, Kraft Foods, and Chobani, for example, are engaged in a global yogurt race, and by all accounts “we” (General Mills, Kraft) are losing. Yet you probably won’t read about it in the Washington Post. What then accounts for the celebrity status of the clean energy race, and is it deserved?

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has probably done more than any other government official to popularize the notion of a clean e

The market should drive fuel economy. Government should cease and desist with all deliberate speed. And if we’re stuck with fuel economy regulation for the time being, then one agency should do it – under congressional supervision – not three agencies making it up as they go.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program is a case study in unintended consequences. During its first 25 years, CAFE boosted domestic sales of Japanese and European imports, which typically had a 50% higher mpg than American automobiles in 1975. Partly as a consequence of CAFE, the U.S. market share of foreign-designed vehicles increased from 18% in 1975 to 29% in 1980 and 41% in 2000 (National Research Council, p.15). Outcomes most Members of Congress neither anticipated nor desired when they created the CAFE program in 1975.

There are two main ways to increase a car’s fuel economy: (1) downsize the vehicle and (2) add new technology. Adding new technology raises new car prices, “forci

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said, “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”

It was déjà vu all over again. President G.W. Bush, in his 2006 State of the Union Address, prophesied that cellulosic biofuel (motor fuel derived from wood chips, prairie grasses, and other fibrous plant material) would be “practical and competitive within six years.” Well, it’s now six years later. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects cellulosic biofuel production in 2011 to max out at 3.94 million gallons – about 1.6% of the 250 mil

By “We,” I mean those of us seeking a freer economy where private industry can provide more affordable energy for the American people; by “They,” I mean those seeking to impose California-style energy-rationing schemes on the nation.

If Prop 23 passes, suspension of AB 32 will pulverize what remains of California’s alleged “leadership” on energy policy. Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, and Chairman Boxer often invoked the “California model” to sell cap-and-trade on Capitol Hill. If Prop 23 wins, the Golden State will have repudiated that model, further eroding Pelosi and company’s claim to represent the future.

On the other hand, even if Prop 23 loses, the national elections are expected to increase significantly the number of cap-and-trade opponents in Congress.

Bill O’Keefe provides an excellent overview of the issues in his post today. Here I’d like to engage just one point in the debate.

Proponents claim that AB 32 will strengthen the California economy by creat

"No one asked for corn in their gas tank…But I suppose if the first presidential primary was in Vermont, we would all be pouring maple syrup into our gas tanks." This joke by comedian Bill Maher cuts through the flimflam to the heart of the matter. The ever-expanding market for corn ethanol is a creature of politics, driven by mandates and subsidies, not by consumer choice.

In 2005 and 2007, Congress enacted and then expanded a Soviet-style production quota for ethanol – motor fuel made from corn or other plant materials. Ethanol has been touted as a cure for everything from oil dependence to global warming to high gasoline prices. But if ethanol is such a great bargain, why do we need a law to make us buy it?

The answer is that during most of the past 27 years, ethanol was more expensive than regular gasoline. In 2010, the price per-gallon of ethanol dipped below that of gasoline, because the mandate combined with other subsidies

Cap-and-trade is dead because the public finally caught on that it is a stealth energy tax, a big reason being that it makes coal - the most economic electricity fuel in many markets - uncompetitive.

That's exactly what a Clean Energy Standard (CES) would do. "Clean" essentially means "anything but coal.” Instead of pricing the carbon emissions from coal, as a cap-and-trade program does, a CES simply prohibits coal from competing with other energy sources for a specified portion of the nation’s electricity market.

Yes, I know, coal with carbon capture and storage qualifies as “clean,” but carbon capture is unlikely to be commercially viable any time soon. Thus, a CES would effectively ban some – perhaps most – investment in new coal capacity. Just like cap-and-tax, a CES would demoralize the coal industry and scare off potential investors.

I haven’t seen Sen. Graham’s specific proposal. From the descriptions, however, a CES is very much like the Renewable Fuel Standard (ethan

The Senate is stalemated over climate policy for an obvious reason. The policies on offer – cap-and-trade, renewable electricity standards, “clean energy” subsidies – would inflict potentially high levels of economic pain for no measurable environmental gain. Few Senators can get excited about such policies – especially in an election year, especially in the midst of a recession.

Instead of trying to fool the public by rebranding cap-and-tax as “comp

Sen. Lisa Murkowski scored a political victory last week even though she fell short by four votes of achieving a legislative victory.

Despite vicious smear campaigns by the likes of MoveOn.Org, Climate Progress, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, despite a White House veto threat, and despite me-too criticism from Nixon and Ford alum Russell Train and the subsidy-seeking Auto Alliance, all 41 Republican Senators and six Democrats voted for Sen. Murkowski’s resolution to stop EPA from ‘enacting’ controversial global warming policies through the regulatory back door.

Thanks to Sen. Murkowski’s courageous leadership, the Democratic Party is now the Party of Endangerment – that party t

Overturning EPA’s endangerment finding is a constitutional imperative. Unless stopped, EPA will be in a position to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards for the auto industry, set climate policy for the nation, and even amend the Clean Air Act — powers never delegated to the agency by Congress.

Worse, America could end up with a pile of greenhouse gas regulations more costly and intrusive than any climate bill or treaty the Senate has declined to pass or ratify, yet without the people’s representatives ever voting on it.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval (

The Kerry-Lieberman bill represents a failure of the imagination, a cynical charade to fool the voter, or both. All citizens need to know about the bill they can learn from this satirical video (in which I play the voice of Sen. Joe Lieberman).

Waxman-Markey was D.O.A. in the Senate because the public realized that cap-and-trade is a hidden tax on energy—a wealth transfer from consumers to special interests. Congressmen who voted for Waxman-Markey got an earful from angry constituents opposed to “cap-and-tax.”

So Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman got to work on what they said would be a fresh start, a bold new alternative. Instead, they served up the same-old, same-old, albeit tricked out with an advertising gimmick (rebranding) and Fabian gradualism (creeping Kyotoism) to sell the product as new and improved.

Sen. Lieberman remarked in April that he was dropping the phrase “cap and trade” in favor of “emissions reduction targets,” going so far as t