Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

The Unregulated Podcast #142: Nuts and Bolts

August 4, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss former president Trump’s legal battles, the regulatory death of the incandescent light bulb, new attacks on America’s energy producers and more.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

Biden Lavishes Solar Industry With Billions Of Tax Dollars

August 4, 2023 by Leave a Comment

First Solar, an Arizona-based solar-panel manufacturer, expects to receive as much as $710 million this year—nearly 90 percent of its expected operating profit—from federal subsidies meant to encourage domestic renewable energy production. Those incentives could be worth more than $10 billion for the company over the next decade. The incentives were approved by a Democratic Congress and President Biden last year and taxpayers will be paying the bill. Ten billion dollars is 20 times more than Solyndra received from the federal government when Obama was President—a company that eventually went bankrupt, without any benefit to taxpayers.

______

Fast Facts

  • A solar company, First Solar, may average a billion dollars annually in subsidies over the next 10 years from President Biden’s climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act.
  • Over $1 trillion may be spent subsidizing energy under that bill.
  • China controls more than 80 percent of the global supply chain for solar panels by using cheap coal-generated electricity.
  • The United States has placed sanctions on Chinese manufacturing in Xinjiang due to labor abuses.

______

First Solar expects to have as much as a 60 percent share of the U.S. market for large-scale solar installations this year, as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The Biden administration’s climate legislation, IRA, could provide $1 trillion for “clean-energy” projects, largely through tax credits tied to benchmarks such as the amount of wind power generated or solar panels produced. So far, about $110 billion has been announced for factories and other facilities to make “clean-energy” technologies such as wind turbines and battery components. Most of those projects involve overseas “clean-energy” companies.

Making solar panels is a low-margin business where companies vie for competitive prices, which is why factories were built in low-cost places such as China or Southeast Asia. In fact, China controls more than 80 percent of the global supply chain for solar panels. To compete with big Chinese solar-panel makers and their suppliers, First Solar makes solar panels using a technology called thin-film, where layers of photovoltaic chemicals are spread onto glass in a process that is faster, cheaper and simpler than the procedure for common silicon-based panels. Thin-film panels have strengths and weaknesses as explained here.

First Solar promised to spend more than $2.8 billion into new manufacturing and research facilities in the United States, including a recently announced new factory. It has built factories in cheaper locations such as Malaysia and Vietnam, where it hosted more than 80 percent of its manufacturing capacity as late as 2018. It has lobbied against cheap Asian imports, pushing for duties on solar components made by Chinese companies. The duties and pandemic shipping bottlenecks raised First Solar’s U.S. sales. The company expects to provide more than half of the panels sold for large-scale solar installations in the United States this year, compared with around a third before the pandemic. First Solar estimates that 90 percent of the pieces that go into its newest panel are already made in America.

First Solar’s lobbying efforts have primarily been aimed at securing a level playing field with cheap Chinese manufacturers that get subsidized by the Chinese government. China is focusing on energy security and the United States needs to do the same where we are most endowed in energy resources, but the U.S. government is choosing the path that the Chinese government wants with these subsidy incentives.

China Solar Supply Chain and Human Rights

Global supply chains for solar panels have been trying to shift away from a heavy reliance on China, in part because of a ban on products from Xinjiang, a region that produces polysilicon using Uyghur labor. However, the vast majority of solar panels made globally continue to have significant exposure to China and Xinjiang. Xinjiang produces about a third of both the world’s polysilicon and its metallurgical-grade silicon, the material from which polysilicon is made.

The Solar Energy Industries Association, the industry’s biggest trade association, has been asking companies to shift their supply chains and cut ties with Xinjiang. More than 340 companies have signed a pledge to keep their supply chains free of forced labor. Despite that, major global companies still have extensive exposure to Xinjiang, and potentially to forced labor. The world’s five largest solar manufacturers — all with headquarters in China — have “high” or “very high” potential exposure to Xinjiang.  The area is so productive in the solar business that a single facility there has more onsite coal electrical generation than the nation of Kenya has from all sources.

Source: Breakthrough

The Chinese government denies the presence of forced labor in the work programs it runs in Xinjiang, which transfer groups of locals to mines and factories. According to human rights experts, those who refuse such programs can face detention or other punishments. In June of last year, a U.S. law, the Uyghur Force Labor Prevention Act, was adopted that assumes any product with materials from Xinjiang is made with forced labor until proved otherwise. Since then, U.S. customs officials have detained $1.64 billion of imported products, including an unspecified volume of solar panels, to check them for compliance, causing installation delays in the United States.

Recently, the Biden administration added four Chinese companies, as well as several of their subsidiaries, to a special list of firms restricted from sending products to the United States because of their participation in receiving, recruiting or transporting forced labor or members of persecuted groups from Xinjiang. The companies supply products to the automotive, apparel, food, electronics and other industries.

As solar projects continue to escalate to meet President Biden’s climate goals, it is likely that materials and equipment with ties to forced labor will grow. Over the next decade or so, the solar industry projects it will install double the amount it has in past years, with annual growth expected to average 11 percent. In the near term, the manufacturing capacity in the United States is sufficient to meet less than a third of national demand.

Walk Free, an international human rights group, estimates that 50 million people globally lived under forced labor conditions in 2021, an increase of 10 million from 2016. Part of that growth is due to the rapid increase in renewable energy pushed by Western countries due to their climate agenda.

Conclusion

U.S. taxpayers are paying dearly for President Biden’s energy transition to carbon free energy. It is expected that incentives under IRA will top a trillion and solar manufacturers are part of the companies receiving those benefits. Unfortunately, many of these solar manufacturers are getting supplies from China, who controls 80 percent of the solar supply chain and uses forced Uyghur labor to produce polysilicon and other solar components. The United States has a law prohibiting the purchase of goods obtained using forced labor from China. However, it is difficult to determine the sources that U.S. solar companies use to obtain needed supplies, meaning that they may need and do rely on China. Unfortunately, the United States has fallen so far behind China in solar manufacturing that an enormous amount of work, capital and technical knowledge would be needed to catch up, costing Americans big bucks in incentives as well as in future energy costs.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Biden Seeking To Regulate Your Family Out Of Car-Ownership

August 1, 2023 by Leave a Comment

Last week, the Biden administration issued a proposal by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to increase the average fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States. Under the proposal, automakers would be required to increase the average mileage of the passenger vehicles they sell by 2 percent a year for passenger cars, and 4 percent a year for light trucks, between 2027 and 2032. If implemented, the plan means new autos sold in the United States would achieve an average fuel economy of 58 miles per gallon by 2032.  In order for automakers to achieve that average, about two-thirds of the new cars they sell by that year would have to be all-electric, which is exactly the same goal that was proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in April. The proposed rules are part of President Biden’s climate agenda that aims to have half of all vehicles sold in the United States be electric by the end of this decade. The rules come from President Biden’s political appointees, interpreting various laws in such a way to reach the President’s “goal”.

General Motors Co. indicated that federal rules and other regulations in six states could require automakers to sell more than the Biden Administration’s goal of 50 percent of volume from electric vehicles by 2030, which is likely to be difficult to achieve. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents automakers, said the Biden Administration’s goal to have electric vehicles make up half the market by 2030 was a stretch. Major auto companies do “not believe they can be met without substantially increasing the cost of vehicles, reducing consumer choice, and disadvantaging major portions of the United States population and territory.” Yet, President Biden is pushing his Environmental Protection Agency and his Department of Transportation to do his bidding regardless of whether automakers can comply. Even if the proposals were feasible, the Biden administration is removing options from Americans to decide what is best for themselves. This is especially true when only one-third of Americans would consider purchasing an electric vehicle.

The Transportation Department estimates that the efficiency proposal would reduce the use of gasoline in the United States by 88 billion gallons through 2050 (about 2.1 billion barrels), which would be the equivalent of taking more than 233 million internal combustion vehicles off the road from 2022 through 2050 and replacing them with electric vehicles where about 60 percent of the electricity that would charge their batteries currently comes from coal and natural gas. That makes NHTSA’s emission reductions estimate of over 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide questionable. NHTSA estimates that the combined benefits of the proposal would exceed costs by more than $18 billion, chiefly by saving consumers money on fuel. But, that number is also questionable since the Biden agencies do their analyses in a vacuum where they model new proposals without considering the cost of other proposals that are also needed, including the cost of new renewable electricity generation and transmission–the new “fuel” of Biden’s EV goal.

For example, a study by the Anderson Economic Group found the cost to fuel certain electric vehicles to be higher than similar gasoline-powered cars. In the fourth quarter of 2022, drivers fueling a typical mid-priced Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) car paid $11.29 to fuel their vehicle for 100 miles of driving. That cost was $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by drivers in mid-priced electric vehicles charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially. This occurred because gasoline prices were declining and electricity costs were increasing. As the Biden administration continues with rules for transitioning to green energy, electricity prices will continue to increase, despite its claim that renewable energy is practically free.

If automakers cannot reach the standards that NHTSA sets, they are forced to pay a fine, which will simply raise the cost of autos for consumers.  Automakers must buy credits or pay fines if they cannot meet the Corporate Average Fuel Equivalent (CAFE) requirements. Stellantis, then known as Fiat Chrysler, paid $152.3 million in total CAFE fines for 2016 and 2017 and faced additional civil penalties. In 2022, NHTSA more than doubled CAFE penalties when it also ordered automakers to increase their average fuel economy to about 49 miles per gallon by 2026.

Conclusion

NHTSA estimates its new rule would save Americans a cumulative $50 billion in fuel costs over the long term, but consumers would incur up to $1,000 in upfront costs for vehicles and electric vehicles would be pushed onto consumers. The average new electric vehicle is about $5,000 more expensive than the average new internal combustion engine vehicle, according to July data from Kelley Blue Book. That number is larger in the case of the federal government where electric vehicles cost over $21,000 more per vehicle than internal combustion vehicles they are replacing. The proposed NHTSA rule will effectively require auto manufacturers to more than double the average fleet fuel efficiency, from the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimated 2022 efficiency level of 26.4 miles per gallon to “potentially reaching an average fleet fuel economy of 58 miles per gallon by 2032.”

Both the Transportation Department rule on auto fuel economy and the EPA rule on auto emissions are proposals, not yet final regulations. Both agencies will next request public comment on the rules, and they are to incorporate comments before issuing final rules next year. The Biden administration and legal experts believe that two measures — one from EPA and one from NHTSA — for the same goal, have a better chance of surviving legal challenges. If the courts strike down one, the other might survive, meaning that electric vehicles might possibly be pushed on Americans despite their higher cost, lousy range, and lengthy charging times. These massive changes in vehicle choice options for Americans come as a result of President Biden’s “goals,” rather than legal direction by statute and they will fundamentally transform personal transportation in the United States.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #141: Boiling Point

July 31, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest doomsday proclamations from climate-cultists, and headlines from a busy week in Washington.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Biden Goes After American Energy Producers By Raising Fees 20-Fold

July 28, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed increasing royalty rates for oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands from 12.5 percent to 16.67 percent—about a third higher–and raising the minimum bond paid upon purchasing an individual drilling lease from $10,000 to $150,000. To top it off, they propose raising the minimum bond required for a drilling lease on multiple public lands in a state from $25,000 to $500,000—a 20-fold increase. Developers must pay the bond before drilling begins. The agency also proposes limits designed to steer development away from wildlife and cultural sites. The Interior Department estimates that energy firms will incur $1.8 billion in additional costs by 2031 as a result of the increases, which will make oil and natural gas products more expensive for consumers. The Biden administration is making this determination as Americans are seeing higher inflationary costs, including for fuel, of 16.3 percent since President Biden took office in January 2021.

The Interior’s rule also raises fees to rent land from the government — previously either $1.50 to $2.00 per acre — to $3 per acre during the first two years of the lease, $5 per acre for the next six years and $15 per acre after that. It also ups the required minimum bids for a lease from $2 per acre to $10 per acre and establishes a new fee of $5 per acre for companies to formally register their interest in leasing public land for drilling. The new rule also requires the agency to prioritize approvals of new permits in areas where drilling is already taking place or where there is significant potential for oil and gas production and that is not near “important wildlife habitat or cultural sites.”

The Interior Department’s plan codifies provisions in Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, approved solely by Democrats in Congress last year, as well as the 2021 infrastructure law and recommendations from an Interior report on oil and gas leasing issued in November 2021. The new royalty rate set by the climate law is expected to remain in place until August 2032, after which it can be increased.

A separate Biden administration proposal would allow conservationists and others to lease federally owned land to keep it from other uses, similar to the way oil companies buy leases to drill and ranchers pay to graze cattle. Environmentalists say the plan would benefit wildlife, outdoor recreation and conservation, but opponents say it could exclude mining, energy development, forest management and agriculture, increasing scarcity and resulting in higher costs. This is a significant change from federal law that stipulates multiple uses of the public lands under the Federal Land Policy Management Act, FLPMA.

At the same time, the Biden Administration is discussing dropping renewable energy fees by 80 percent, after a 50 percent reduction last year.  Biden supports wind and solar energy deployment, even though the land footprint to produce energy from these sources is much larger than that of oil and gas to produce similar amounts of energy.

Of the $1.8 billion additional cost in Biden’s proposals, about half is scheduled to go to states, approximately a third would be used to fund water projects in the West, and the rest would be split between the Treasury Department and Interior.  However, increasing costs may ultimately dissuade people from investing in such activities on federal lands, which could result in less activity and revenue.

The rules on oil and gas and public lands use are expected to become final next year.

New Poll on Domestic Energy Production

A new poll indicates that an overwhelming majority of voters not only support the production of more American energy but also want the economic contributions of oil and natural gas to inform energy policies in the United States. The poll found that 88 percent of voters believe it is important to produce natural gas and oil in the United States; 90 percent believe producing natural gas and oil strengthens the U.S. economy; and 83 percent believe that the government should consider economic data when developing regulations that would affect the development of the U.S. energy infrastructure. Further, 88 percent of voters believe that producing natural gas and oil in the United States can help lower energy costs for American consumers and small businesses; 85 percent believe that producing natural gas and oil in the United States helps make it more secure against actions by countries such as China and Russia; and 80 percent support increased development of the U.S. energy infrastructure.

The study was commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute and prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The oil and gas industry supported 10.8 million jobs and contributed nearly $1.8 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2021, and since energy makes all other endeavors possible, is responsible for much of the wealth creation and the sustainability of the modern quality of life.

Conclusion

The proposed rules by the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management raise the costs  for onshore fossil fuel leasing including bonding requirements, royalty rates, and minimum bids. These drilling fee increases are so huge that they could kill new oil and gas production on federal lands that are owned by the American public. A new poll shows that the American public wants continued domestic oil and gas development, which they believe provides for greater security against actions from such countries as China and Russia. The new fees by the Biden administration come after its policies have resulted in federal leases falling dramatically as the Wall Street Journal reported last year.

American Petroleum Institute Vice President of Upstream Policy Holly Hopkins called the move “yet another attempt to add even more barriers to future energy production, increases uncertainty for producers and may further discourage oil and natural gas investment.”  These policies are part of a suite that fulfills President Biden’s promise to end fossil fuels.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #140: Checks and Balances

July 24, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Special K’s trip to China, the continued implosion of the legal system, and give an update on the looming appropriations battle.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Mandated EVs Acting As Firebombs Across NYC

July 14, 2023 by Leave a Comment

So far this year, there have been 108 lithium-ion battery fires in New York City, which have injured 66 people and killed 13, up from 98 fires that had injured 40 and killed two at this time last year. The most recent was a fire at an e-bike shop that killed four people near midnight on the morning of June 21 and left two individuals in critical condition and one firefighter with minor injuries. According to Fire Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, it was “very clear” that the fire was linked to lithium-ion batteries, and she warned New Yorkers that such devices could be very dangerous and typically exploded in such a way that rendered escape impossible, as opposed to slowly catching on fire. The volume of fire created by lithium-ion batteries is incredibly deadly. The NY fire department issued a warning on Twitter, advising citizens to keep devices with lithium-ion batteries away from exits or windows, avoid using batteries that lacked “approved safety certifications,” avoid charging batteries overnight or when they are not present and to not use damaged or after-market batteries. In just three years, lithium battery fires have tied electrical fires and have surpassed blazes started by cooking and smoking for major causes of fatal fires in New York City.

Across the United States, over 200 micro-mobility fire or overheating incidents have been reported from 39 states, resulting in at least 19 fatalities, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The problem is particularly acute in densely populated areas like New York City where 23 people have died in battery fires since 2021. In London, lithium battery fires are the fastest-growing fire risk, with 57 e-bike fires and 13 e-scooter fires this year.

Reasons for the Increased Fires

The reasons for the increased NYC fires include a lack of regulation and safety testing for individually owned devices, hazardous charging practices (such as using mismatched equipment or overcharging) and a lack of secure charging areas in a population-dense city with numerous residential buildings, where most fires start. New Yorkers rely on e-bikes and other battery-powered devices to make deliveries or use them in other ways to earn a living.

Cheap e-bikes and e-scooters became popular during the COVID pandemic when public transit was compromised and the demand for food deliveries skyrocketed. New Yorkers that purchase them typically charge the batteries in their apartments. However, once a lithium battery overheats or malfunctions, the speed and impact of lithium battery fires make them particularly perilous, especially when people live in close quarters.  E-bikes of questionable origin have made it difficult for victims to sue as batteries are often destroyed in fires, and even when they are recovered, they can lack identifying marks to trace back to a specific manufacturer or distributor who can be held legally responsible. Some NYC landlords have banned e-bikes and other e-mobility devices in the wake of fires.

Beginning in September, New York City leaders will ban the sale of e-bikes and other e-mobility devices that fail to meet recognized safety standards—the first such ban in the nation. City and fire officials have also pushed for greater state and federal oversight of the devices, and have shut down illegal battery charging stations, worked with food delivery apps to educate workers and shown public service messages with exploding batteries. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has increased its oversight of e-mobility devices, urging companies to “comply with established voluntary safety standards or face possible enforcement action.”

Background

Since 1991, Lithium batteries have been used commercially and have had a history of sparking fires in Dell notebook computers, Samsung smartphones and hoverboards, leading to huge recalls. But after years of research, lithium batteries have generally become safer. Inside a lithium battery, a number of small cells are bundled together. When the battery is used, lithium ions move between the electrodes inside each cell, generating an electrical current. The danger occurs when a cell goes into “thermal runaway,” a chain reaction in which heat develops extremely quickly, creating a threat of fire and sometimes explosion. A cell can be sent into thermal runaway by overcharging, a manufacturing defect or even the heat from an adjacent cell in the battery pack that is already in thermal runaway.

In 2019, after a Citi Bike fire, battery safety became a priority for NYC’s bike-share program. The program uses only batteries that have been certified to safety standards and have built-in sensors to monitor their condition in real-time, as well as a shut-down switch. In the warehouse, each battery is inspected and charged in a rack with fireproof concrete dividers. Since these protocols were added, there has not been a major battery fire at Citi Bike. Fire officials also revised the city fire code, which now requires buildings to provide safety measures, like a dedicated charging room with a sprinkler, when more than five e-bikes are charging. The fire code, however, does not cover the individual use and charging of e-bikes, and fire inspectors do not enter private dwellings to check for safety violations without a warrant.

Fire officials had been aware of the dangers of lithium batteries for years. They initially focused on highly regulated batteries in energy storage systems, which hold backup electricity for buildings. There is market pressure, however, on manufacturers to add more energy to batteries, which can push safety limits. The batteries in e-bikes contain far more energy than in cell phones and, as a result, are more potentially destructive in a fire.

More powerful batteries are only part of the reason that so many e-bikes and e-scooters are catching fire. Electric cars and energy storage systems require far more energy and yet have fewer fires. The difference, according to battery and fire safety experts, is that those industries are closely regulated and have to go through several layers of testing to show their products are safe. Until recently, e-bikes and e-scooters have not received similar scrutiny.

Conclusion

The rash of deadly explosions and blazes in New York City are linked to the lithium-ion batteries in E-bikes and E-scooters. The batteries are generating fires as many of the bikes and scooters are of questionable origin and do not meet standards, their owners use hazardous charging practices such as employing mismatched equipment or overcharging, and there are few secure charging areas, resulting in charging in densely-populated apartment areas. Regulators, lawmakers and fire officials need to be on top of procedures and regulations to ensure that battery fires are contained as the demand for lithium-ion batteries grows due to Biden’s electrification of the U.S. economy to meet his net zero climate goals.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #139: Kite Strings

July 14, 2023 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by guest-co-host Travis Fisher, of the Heritage Foundation, for a wide-ranging discussion.

Links:

• American Energy Alliance Releases 10 Questions for Special Envoy Kerry

• Read the latest from Travis

• Follow Travis on Twitter

• Read the latest from Tom

• Follow Tom on Twitter

• Read the latest from Mike

• Follow Mike on Twitter

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

10 Questions For Special Envoy Kerry

July 13, 2023 by Leave a Comment

The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability is set to force Kerry to explain his budget beginning Thursday at 10 a.m. The American Energy Alliance has prepared 10 questions for Special Envoy Kerry.

  1. Can you provide an estimate as to how much carbon dioxide you emit a year traveling the world in your official capacity as Special Envoy on Climate?
  2. In 2009, Special Envoy Kerry said the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014.  It’s 2023 and this hasn’t come to pass.  Why should we believe today’s claims about disasters when yesterday’s claims of disasters have not come to pass?
  3. In numerous instances, Special Envoy Kerry has made claims about climate change that are not backed by the IPCC’s reports on climate change.  Should we trust the IPCC’s reports on climate change?
  4. Do you consider China to be on the forefront of the sort of climate policies that you would like to see in America?
  5. China burns more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, and they have recently opened new coal mines that will last generations and started moving coal by rail from Mongolia cutting transportation costs to 1/4 their previous level.  Since China makes most of the world’s polysilicon for solar panels from cheap coal power, doesn’t this just mean the administration’s “green transition” means we will be importing coal-dependent solar panels from China?  Does it ever occur to you that we may be making China stronger by pushing for “green energy” products they make and sell to us because they use so much coal?
  6. Given the critical minerals requirements of green technologies, why are we not working toward streamlining the approvals process for domestic mines that would produce them?
  7. Are claims of modern-day slavery in China a concern to you?
  8. Are you willing to acknowledge that the cost-of-living crisis in Europe is, at least in part, tied to the climate policies pursued by the EU?
  9. Is there any sort of limit you are willing to put on how much the U.S. government should spend a year addressing climate change?
  10. Recent surveys show that American voters prefer affordable energy to your climate agenda. Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much.  How do you make the democratic case for continued aggressive government action in the name of climate change?
Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

American Energy Alliance Releases 10 Questions for Special Envoy Kerry

July 13, 2023 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (07/13/2023) – The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability is set to force Kerry to explain his budget beginning Thursday at 10 a.m. The American Energy Alliance has prepared 10 questions for Special Envoy Kerry.

  1. Can you provide an estimate as to how much carbon dioxide you emit a year traveling the world in your official capacity as Special Envoy on Climate?
  2. In 2009, Special Envoy Kerry said the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014. It’s 2023 and this hasn’t come to pass. Why should we believe today’s claims about disasters when yesterday’s claims of disasters have not come to pass?
  3. In numerous instances Special Envoy Kerry, you have made claims about climate change that are not backed by the IPCC’s reports on climate change. Should we trust the IPCC’s reports on climate change?
  4. Do you consider China to be on the forefront of the sort of climate policies that you would like to see in America?
  5. China burns more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, and they have recently opened new coal mines that will last generations and started moving coal by rail from Mongolia cutting transportation costs to 1/4 their previous level. Since China makes most of the world’s polysilicon for solar panels from cheap coal power, doesn’t this just mean the administration’s “green transition” means we will be importing coal-dependent solar panels from China? Does it ever occur to you that we may be making China stronger by pushing for “green energy” products they make and sell to us because they use so much coal?
  6. Given the critical minerals requirements of green technologies, why are we not working toward streamlining the approvals process for domestic mines that would produce them?
  7. Are claims of modern-day slavery in China a concern to you?
  8. Are you willing to acknowledge that the cost-of-living crisis in Europe is, at least in part, tied to the climate policies pursued by the EU?
  9. Is there any sort of limit you are willing to put on how much the U.S. government should spend a year addressing climate change?
  10. Recent surveys show that American voters prefer affordable energy to your climate agenda. Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much. How do you make the democratic case for continued aggressive government action in the name of climate change?


AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Special Envoy Kerry has made a career championing dubious claims about the so-called ‘climate crisis’ while turning a blind eye to the world’s worst polluters such as China. The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability has an obligation to raise questions to Special Envoy Kerry about the role of China in the government-imposed energy transition.”


Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,
Previous
Next