Several of Shell’s ships grossly exceed EPA requirements to limit air pollution, so Shell asks that the rules be changed for them.
Latest Items from TreeHugger
In a recent Feature, Al Jazeera English talked to five professional economists about their views on Ron Paul’s economic policies. One of the economic points discussed was Paul’s idea to lower the price of fuel.
Ron Paul believes, just like the other Republican front-runners in the 2012 election, that the price on fuel could be lowered if the US just allowed companies to drill for oil (both offshore and on land) in sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explained that oil drilling in ANWR wouldn’t result in any noteworthy changes to fuel prices. This idea would mean “a lot of risk both to the environment and the economy for really very little gain,” Baker said.
Here’s his full quote on drilling for oil in ANWR:
“We have a world market, so how much are we talking about increasing supply? The analyses I’ve seen from ANWR is that peak production – and we’re typically talking about ten years or so until we get there – would be about a million barrels per day (bpd), and this is in the context of a world market of around 90 million bpd. So you’re talking about lowering the price of oil maybe one or two per cent if you’re lucky.
“And the amount that you can get from additional offshore drilling – because it’s not as if we’re drilling not at all now – that’s typically put at around 200,000 – 300,000 bpd, so the impact is even less. To my mind, you’re talking about risking a lot of environmental damage – these are also places where people fish, and it’s also a big tourism destination – you don’t want to go to a beach that’s covered in oil. So you’re talking about a lot of risk both to the environment and the economy for really very little gain.”
Google+: View post on Google+
by Stephen Lacey.
Cross-posted from Climate Progress.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) is the country’s top polluter. Unsurprisingly, then, before releasing his energy plan Friday, the presidential candidate released a new attack ad and op-ed that lay out a strategy of drilling for more oil and gas, rolling back clean air and clean water standards, and spewing out a whole lot of misleading claims about the EPA.
Perry’s plan for developing more oil, gas, and coal with limited
regulation is straight out of 1911, not 2011. But then again, this is a
guy who has stuck with his dangerously ignorant attacks on human-caused
climate change — all while his state withers under the worst heat and drought ever experienced in Texas.
In an op-ed published in New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper, Perry made it clear he wouldn’t just “pray away” environmental regulations — he would make every effort to repeal them:
As President, I would roll back the radical agenda of
President Obama’s job-killing Environmental Protection Agency. Our
nation does not need costly new federal restrictions, especially during
our present economic crisis. I would also oppose federal restrictions
on natural gas production, including hydraulic fracturing, which is
successfully regulated at the state level, and will deliver the energy
needed to spark our economic recovery.
Much of my plan can be accomplished by changing the occupant of the
White House and removing the liberal, anti-job activists running
regulatory agencies in Washington. With the stroke of a pen, I will
initiate a review of all Obama-era regulations, begin a comment and
review period, and work to eliminate onerous rules that kill jobs with
little benefit to the environment.
Somebody call the locksmith. Rick Perry is ready to shut down the EPA
and drive out the supposed “anti-job” activists who care about a
healthy environment and a livable planet.
Those regulations that Perry and other candidates keep calling
“job-killers?” According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
they’re actually having a lower impact under the Obama administration
than they did in 2008 at the end of the Bush administration (see chart
below). Bruce Bartlett, a former senior official with the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush administrations, had a great op-ed in The New York Times on the false claims that Republican candidates make about regulations:
In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard
invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year
in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
Perry continues with the political opportunism by making some very misleading statements about the impact of EPA regulations:
If the EPA’s emissions regulations go into effect as
scheduled, they could cost America 1.65 million jobs by 2020, while
dramatically increasing average U.S. electricity prices.
Actually, no. While estimates of net job creation vary widely, the
impact due to increased construction and manufacturing activity through
retrofits and build-out of new power plants could be in the tens of thousands of jobs.
And here’s what the “dramatic” change in electricity prices would look
like with new EPA air quality regulations in place, according to the
Energy Information Administration:
from lying about the impact of regulation, Perry’s campaign is smearing
his closest competitor, former-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, for
supporting the shut-down of an old coal plant responsible for dozens of premature deaths and more than 14,000 cases of asthma each year.
Yes, Perry is actually attacking Romney — a candidate who once had a
backbone on environmental issues — for helping protecting the health of
his local community. But then again, this is coming from the governor of
a state with the highest levels of mercury, CO2, and toxic emissions in the country.
Perry says he’ll give a detailed explanation of his energy policy on
Friday. But he’s already made it very clear what he stands for.