News

  Explaining the ANPR The Environmental Protection Agency announced in 2008 that it was well on its way to regulating at least 85 percent of the energy used in America in the name of global warming (nevermind the fact that global temperatures have inexplicably not increased since at least 2001).[1]  Because energy is an indispensable part of economic activity, if EPA’s plans go forward they will exercise some regulatory control over most of the American economy. The problems created by...
Continue Reading...

One of the few booming sectors in the U.S. economy is oil and natural gas. Domestic development has been helped by high worldwide prices for crude, but the improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—“fracking”—have also been very important. In a new report, researchers at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) estimate that the Eagle Ford shale alone generated $25 billion in economic activity in 2011 alone, in addition to creating over 47,000 jobs. These...

Continue Reading...

The proponents of laissez-faire in energy markets keep winning argument after argument, but their critics keep moving the goalposts. For decades, Americans have been warned that they needed to wean themselves from oil because the U.S. would always be dependent on hostile foreign regimes. Now that new technological developments and further discoveries have shown that North America has centuries’ worth of fossil fuels, the argument is shifting. Now the alleged danger—“proving” that...

Continue Reading...

  The federal mandate to blend corn-based ethanol into the U.S. vehicle fuel mix is an economically absurd practice. On a level playing field, conventional gasoline would be used for the foreseeable future, as it is the most efficient method (all things considered) to deliver energy to U.S. vehicles. At most ethanol would have a small share of the market in the absence of federal government support. However, a study  from Iowa State University argues that the growth in ethanol production...
Continue Reading...

Those who have followed the political debates over energy through the decades have observed a familiar pattern: The critics of American “dependence” on oil will keep coming back with new arguments, no matter how many times their earlier arguments are refuted. So it is with a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study on “Energy Security in the United States.”

In its introduction the CBO paper explains that it “ examines energy security in the United States—that is, the ability...
Continue Reading...

  One of the problems with making purchases based on “the greater good”—as opposed to the direct benefits and costs—is that your estimate might turn out wrong. For example, many people simply assumed that electric vehicles were “good for the environment” and so were willing to spend more, and put up with more hassles, thinking that they were helping future generations. Yet some recent studies suggest that the environmental case for electric vehicles is more dubious. Electric...
Continue Reading...

  In July 2011, President Obama announced yet another federal intervention into the economy: increased fuel-efficiency mandates for vehicles. Although his speech was jocular and peppered with humor, it was also filled with very misleading “facts” about energy markets. In the present piece I’ll address some of the biggest whoppers. The President Agrees: Rising Oil Prices Are Bad! Although we won’t have many kind things to say about the speech, at least the president acknowledged...
Continue Reading...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving ahead with its efforts to impose a “Tier 3” tightening of standards that would further reduce the permissible levels of sulfur in refined gasoline. According to a study by Baker & O’Brien, Tier 3 standards would impose upfront costs on refiners of just under $10 billion, and cause a permanent increase in refining costs of 6 to 9 cents per gallon of gasoline. These economic harms would come with only a relatively small reduction in sulfur content, because previous regulations have already greatly reduced the sulfur content in gasoline.
Continue Reading...

  Critics of NYT columnist and blogger Paul Krugman know that the economist—who won his Nobel award for work on international trade—has a habit of carelessly repeating the “facts” on environmental issues put out by his liberal colleagues. Yet Krugman’s blog post  on the EPA’s decision to regulate mercury emissions from power plants was so factually mistaken and incredibly misleading that it was surprising even by his standards. In this post I’ll clarify the depth of the chasm...
Continue Reading...