Posts Tagged ‘Economy’

CEA Continues to Educate Consumers about Negative Impacts of an LCFS Across the Nation

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Last week various newspapers reported about the special election in Massachusetts and how it could affect the success of President Obama’s policy agenda, including climate change. In fact, The Winnipeg Free Press reports the following in their article,Obama’s loss is our gain”:

The political setback will stop Obama’s cap-and-trade bill on greenhouse gas emissions dead in its tracks. This is excellent news for Canada. The so-called Waxman-Markey Bill, which was passed by the House by a very narrow margin, would dole out green energy subsidies that various states and municipalities are planning to use to discriminate against Canadian energy imports. It would also designate Canada’s oilsands as “dirty fuel” and prohibit the U.S. federal government from using it.  Even if Canada set up a similar system of cap-and-trade, the chances that American lobbies would start trade action is huge. With good sense and prudence, Ottawa is trying to make Canadian rules as similar as possible to the American regime.

While the status of climate legislation in Washington, D.C. may now be questionable, the threat of Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) still exists. Indeed, many states and regions across the nation are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic.

This is why Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) continues to work to educate, inform and engage American consumers about the economic and national security threats that an LCFS poses.  Oilprice.com reports these points in their story, “Canada’s Alluring Energy Supply Regaining it’s Lustre Despite Continued Criticism”:

Some American government officials, including a group of Northeastern governors, are beckoning for a low-carbon fuel standard that would stem Canadian crude oil from spilling into the United States, said Travis Windle, spokesman for the Washington-based Consumer Energy Alliance. The non-partisan group, which advocates wise energy use, is pushing a national advertising campaign about the low-carbon fuel standard.

On the whole, the United States is bent on beefing up its oil ties, Windle noted, adding the reserves account for 20 percent of American energy. Last August, the State Department gave the go-ahead for a pipeline called the Alberta Clipper to carry crude from Canada to U.S. refineries in Wisconsin.

Despite the fact that the Alberta Clipper pipeline is being developed to carry crude from Canada to U.S. refineries in Wisconsin, the Badger State is currently working to pass an LCFS proposal that would actually block these fuel supplies from entering the state.

Fortunately for Wisconsinites, Scott Manley with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has been leading the charge on this issue in Wisconsin and educating consumers about the negative consequences of this proposal. In fact, he shares his concerns with Wisconsin’s global warming legislation in the following Green Bay Press Gazette op-ed:

The so-called Low Carbon Fuel Standard would cost Wisconsin motorists more than $3.2 billion in higher gas prices according to the WPRI study. This global warming gas tax could cost consumers as much as 61 cents per gallon according to a study by the Marshall Institute. All told, these expensive policies are projected to cost each Wisconsin family more than $1,000 each year by the time they are fully implemented. Worse yet, the supporters of this misguided bill have not identified any meaningful benefit that would be achieved relative to global temperatures or climate.

Last month Manley took to the pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to highlight the devastating economic effects associated the LCFS legislation that was recently introduced. In a column entitled “Global warming bill kills state jobs,” Manley writes:

Wisconsin families cannot afford these tremendously expensive policies given our current recession and fragile economy. Wisconsin has the single-most manufacturing-intensive economy in the country. Our family-supporting manufacturing jobs pay an average wage of $62,959 – more than 35% higher than the state average. Unfortunately, we already have lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade, including 60,000 jobs lost since 2008 alone.

In light of the critical effects that an LCFS could have on jobs and the economy in the U.S., the governors in the Mid-West, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that are currently considering an LCFS – as well as leaders in Washington – should consider these facts and stop these policies while they still can.

CEA, COHA Tag-Team Efforts to Defend Struggling Consumers From Higher Gas, Home-Heating Prices

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Consumer Energy Alliance’s (CEA) vice president and in-house oil sands expert Michael Whately and Shantel Beach, a Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) fellow, discussed the dangerous consequences associated with Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) proposals yesterday with the media. The pair highlighted the threats to the energy security, impacts on fuel and home-heating costs for consumers and U.S. economic competitiveness.

Whatley characterized LCFS as “a cap-and-trade system for transportation fuels.” He also discussed the states and regions across the nation that are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic.

COHA’s Beach summarized her recent report entitled “The U.S. Targets Canada’s Oil Sands: Washington Should Tread Lightly with its Environmental Legislation, so that Carbon Cuts will not Come at the Expense of Canada’s Energy Sovereignty or U.S. Energy Security,” which finds:

Canada can and likely will push back, especially since China is more than happy to step in and purchase oil … if the U.S. chooses not to. That prospect is taking on enhanced credibility as planning proceeds for the Northern Gateway pipeline project to carry oil sands petroleum to Kitimat in northern B.C. for potential shipment to Asia.

In addition to COHA’s concerns about China moving forward to aggressively acquire affordable and secure Canadian energy reserves if the U.S. decides to turn its back on its closest and most strategic trading partner, Beach raised concerns with an LCFS:

Under a national LCFS program, all vehicles would be required to fill-up with a blended fuel. As the production of bio-fuel in the U.S. is not currently enough to satisfy a one-to-one ratio blend with gas coming from the oil sands, in the short-term the blend will likely favor conventionally extracted oil, at Canada’s expense. Due to Canada having less conventional oil reserves than oil sands reserves, a shift in U.S. demand toward conventional oil would redirect trade away from Canada. If the U.S. comes to depend less on Canada’s oil sands, it will surely come to depend more on conventional oil reserves from less dependable countries overseas.

In fact, this same theme was recently touched on by The Globe and Mail in their article, “Why the U.S. needs all the tar sands oil it can get,” which says:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Midwestern colleagues had better think twice before banning carbon-dirty fuels such as the oil made from Canadian tar sands. If they don’t like the fuel Canada has to offer, their only other choice is to get off the road entirely.  Like it or not, synthetic oil from Alberta’s tar sands is going to figure ever larger at American fuel pumps in the future (provided that it isn’t siphoned off to China by a pipeline to the west coast first).

Mr. Schwarzenegger and his fellow governors should realize one thing before they ban dirty fuels. The reason the United States will be so dependent on Canadian tar sands is that there ain’t a whole lot else left.

Despite the doubt that may exist about the likelihood of a pipeline being built to the West Coast to allow China access to the Canadian oil sands, that project is moving forward. In fact, this week Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Mr. Gaétan Caron, chair and CEO of the National Energy Board, announced the establishment of a three-member joint review panel for the environmental and regulatory review of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

While this is good news for China, since they are eager to secure as much of this energy as possible, the U.S. is at risk of losing almost one-fifth of our secure, affordable and reliable fuels from Canada.

This is why CEA continues to work to educate, inform and engage American consumers about the economic and national security threats that an LCFS poses. Stressed by Whatley and Beach in yesterday’s media call, an LCFS will threaten American jobs, increase greenhouse gas emissions, deepen our dependence on unstable regions of the world and drive prices at the pump even higher.

Welcome to Secure Our Fuels

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Today marks the launch of Consumer Energy Alliance’s Secure Our Fuels campaign – a national effort to educate the American people on what a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is, what it’s not, and how efforts to advance such a plan on Capitol Hill may impact the availability of secure, affordable supplies of essential energy.

Unlike the complicated mechanics of implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade regime, an LCFS seems like it’d be simple and straightforward: Reduce the amount of carbon in our fuels, and thereby reduce the amount of carbon dioxide our vehicles emit from the tailpipe. Same power, same performance, same price (maybe even cheaper!), all while reducing the carbon footprint of America’s transportation fleet.

At least that’s how it’s sold. How it actually works is quite a different story. That’s because an LCFS isn’t about making our gas, diesel or jet fuel any better, cleaner or more efficient than it is today. It’s about making those fuels more expensive and less available. Do that, and Americans will be forced to seek out lower-carbon energy sources in the future – because they won’t be able to find or afford the fuel available to them right now.

But the problems with an LCFS don’t end there. In addition to increasing prices at the pump, an LCFS would discriminate against secure North American supplies of crude oil – resources from Canada in particular that LCFS proponents deem too “heavy” for you to use. Who would make up the difference? Some of the least stable foreign regimes around the world – all of whom would like nothing more than to be given a chance to expand their share and influence in America’s energy markets.

And for what? Less carbon in the atmosphere? Not according to a recent study published in the American Economic Journal by professors from California and North Carolina. The New York Times highlighted the study’s core conclusions in April:

A low-carbon fuels standard is likely to do little to reduce global warming emissions and can even be counterproductive, according to a paper published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.

The study, by three academics, found that the policy reduces consumption of high-carbon fuels like oil, but “increases low carbon fuel production, possibly increasing net carbon emissions.” …

The economic journal’s paper starkly concludes that a low-carbon fuel standard “cannot be efficient.”

Some will suggest the LCFS threat is premature – aren’t gas prices a lot lower right now than they were last summer? Doesn’t cap-and-trade pose a much more immediate danger to American energy consumers? But that’s just the point: Whether or not cap-and-trade legislation is signed into law in Washington, the effort to impose a nationwide LCFS regime is already well underway. It’s a policy supported by leaders in Congress, and even included as the centerpiece of energy legislation introduced by President Obama while in the Senate.

Some politicians believe an LCFS can be used as a viable (and politically more attractive) alternative to cap-and-trade. But the extent to which that strategy can be successful will depend on the extent to which the American public is kept in the dark about the true consequences of an LCFS. This campaign will provide some light.

How will an LCFS impact your state? Visit our interactive map feature to see who gets hit the hardest.

How might it impact jobs and our economy? Take a look at some of the letters in opposition to LCFS sent by organized labor and everyday American workers.

Welcome to Secure Our Fuels. Stay long, bring others, check out our new TV and radio ads, and help us advance the message that America’s economic well being and strategic security are too important to risk under an LCFS.

DOCUMENT CENTER

INTERACTIVE MAP

Find out the fuel profile of your state – and what a one-size-fits-all national fuel mandate might mean for jobs, gas prices, and security.

image