“I once was lost but now am found; Was blind, but now I see” the amazing waste in the ethanol subsidy program, admitted Vice President Al Gore. A November 27, 2010, Wall Street Journal article confirmed that the ethanol cheerleader and environmental eminence of the climate change movement had backtracked on his support for the program, saying it was a “mistake,” and that he only supported it because he had a “certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa” during his presidential run.
The Perfect Storm for ESPCs
Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) is an idea whose time has come. The federal government is beyond broke. The budget deficit reached a record $1.4 trillion at the end of last fiscal year. It is projected to remain over $1 trillion annually for as long as estimators can see. This level of deficit spending will […]
Cash for…Caulkers?
“Cash for Caulkers” sounds like a comical spin-off of the notorious “Cash for Clunkers” program. But on May 6, 2010, the House of Representatives made sure this was no joke, voting 246-161 in favor of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. The legislation authorizes a $5.7 billion program that will offer rebates to homeowners for renovations made using energy-efficient “green” materials, including better insulation and energy-saving windows and doors.
Pulling the Plug on Yucca Mountain – A New Mountain of Waste
The 27-year saga of the nation’s permanent underground nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada continues. After taking office in January, 2009, President Obama made good on his rash campaign promise to shutter the site, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Weatherization: More Clouds on the Horizon
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the so-called stimulus package, continues to be a source of contention and controversy as the end of 2009 approaches. When Congress first considered the $787 billion legislation, CAGW expressed grave concerns about the entire plan, especially those programs which received massive increases in their budgets.
Amidst the Healthcare Hubbub, Cap-and-Trade Moves Ahead
While Congress and the American public remain fixated on the contentious healthcare debate, little attention has been paid to S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, better known as the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill. Democrats have used this distraction to their advantage, steadily pushing the onerous climate change legislation forward.
Waxman and Markey Attempt to Go Green, But Put Taxpayers in the Red
On May 21, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), which was co-sponsored by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and the Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Among other environmental regulations, the legislation calls for the implementation of a burdensome cap-and-trade system. This byzantine system proposes that the government grant tradable allowances for each ton of pollution emitted into the atmosphere to such entities as electric utilities, oil companies, and large industrial sources. The program decreases the number of available allowances issued each year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on 2005 levels by 3 percent in 2012, 17 percent in 2020, 42 percent in 2030, and 83 percent in 2050.
Energy Battle Heats Up
Americans are feeling some relief from the drop in gas prices, which were more than $4.00 per gallon last summer and now hover around $2.25 per gallon. After expectations that winter home heating costs would rise dramatically above the prior year, they rose less than predicted. Some argue there is an “energy dividend” that is helping the economy by putting more money into consumers’ wallets.
Weatherization Assistance Program – A Perfect Storm of Potential Waste?
President Obama’s $787 billion so-called “stimulus” bill, formally known as the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), will have reverberations throughout the economy for years to come. The contained a wide range of new government spending programs as well as dramatic increases in existing programs, some of which had previously been funded with relatively small budgets.
Gasp!
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Massachusetts v. EPA. The lawsuit’s intent was to force the EPA to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) as pollutants because of their supposed contribution to global warming. The basis of the suit was EPA’s contention in 2003 that it lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2).