In the Pipeline: 8/13/12

Let’s review.  More expensive cars ($3200 more expensive on average).  More deadly accidents (as many as 240 additional deaths every year).  No environmental benefit.  A corrupt federal government using its substantial leverage to keep private companies in line.  But other than that, this is a really good rule. American Products. American Power. (8/10/12) reports: “The Committee on Oversight’s report found that the administration “places ideology over science and politics over process” and that these extreme fuel economy mandates have “serious consequences for consumers in the choice, cost, and safety of vehicles.” One example of this is a report from the National Automobile Dealers Association which found that these regulations will increase the price of cars so much that 7 million drivers will no longer be able to afford to drive.”

Preach on, Brother Beauprez. Denver Post (8/12/12) reports: “As state and federal lawmakers debate the country’s energy policies and Colorado’s role in the ever-expanding energy economy, let’s hope they remember that unnecessary regulations stifle growth while doing nothing for public safety or health. They would also be wise to listen to voter dissatisfaction regarding overly-burdensome regulations.”

Hard to disagree with any of this.  So we won’t. Junk Science (8/10/12) reports: “The slow global take-up of EVs has been mirrored in Australia, with only 18 sold privately this year and 45 sold to government and business… While many blame high prices Mitsubishi i-MiEV retails at $48,800, Nissan Leaf at $51,500 and Holden Volt at $59,990 Australian industry figures point to a lack of government subsidies.”

If the carbon tax in Australia did not exist, we would have to invent it just to make people like Greg Mankiw, Arthur Brooks, Kevin Hassett, Bob Inglis, and the remainder of the surrender monkeys look even more ridiculous than they already do. Sydney Morning Herald (8/10/12) reports: “Liberal state health ministers have banded together to attack the carbon tax, which they say will add millions of dollars a year to their health care bill.”

How do you think the President’s crew would respond if we suggested that they should allow oil and gas exploration on military bases?  Wouldn’t more of those resources improve national security? Environmental News Service (8/8/12) reports: “The Obama Administration is moving quickly to harness solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy resources on or near military bases across the United States and on public lands.”

“’I was a climate negotiator, and no one had this in mind,’ said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council.”  Except, obviously, for the Chinese and Indian businessmen, who are clearly smarter than environmentalists in the United States and Europe.  Seriously, read the entire article and see if you can get through it without laughing.  But also remember that guys like Doniger really think they are smarter than the rest of us. NYTimes (8/8/12) reports: “They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.”

Smuckers should have responded that they planned to start producing HCFC-22. Business Wire (8/7/12) reports: “In recognition of Smucker’s [NYSE: SJM] positive first steps to respond to climate-related risks, Trillium Asset Management, LLC (Trillium) and Calvert Investment Management, Inc. (Calvert) announced today that they have formally withdrawn a shareholder proposal which called on the company to disclose climate-related risks to the Folgers™ Coffee and other brands. These brands currently represent over 40 percent of Smucker’s overall revenues and a significant portion of the company’s recent growth.”