DC think tank warns of climate action costs

CEI warns lawmakers that a 'Green New Deal' would risk a humanitarian crisis - John Siciliano, Washington Examiner:

January 8, 2019 - "A prominent libertarian think tank is warning Congress that a real humanitarian crisis, in the U.S. and abroad, would follow if lawmakers move forward with proposals like the progressive-backed 'Green New Deal' that would restrict access to fossil fuels and thus raise the cost of living.

"The Competitive Enterprise Institute on Tuesday released its wish list of recommendations for the new 116th Congress, calling on the leadership in the House and Senate to apply a 'do no harm' principle before moving forward with climate legislation.... The group challenges the renewable energy mandate of the Green New Deal, which is being pushed in the House by left-leaning freshmen....

"CEI ... had been subpoenaed as part of an investigation launched by Democratic attorneys general in recent years into whether ExxonMobil had suppressed climate data from its own scientists. The attorneys general wanted documentation on how the think tank advised energy firms like Exxon on climate change. CEI fought the subpoena requests in court, arguing that it infringed on the organization's constitutional speech protections.

"The Green New Deal calls for ... a phase-out of fossil fuels, transitioning to renewable energy in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. Such a plan would drive up prices for low-income households, while raising 'serious humanitarian concerns,' says the group.... The result would be that low-income households would have to cut back on spending on food, medicine, education, and more.

"The recommendations also say that moving ahead with the goals of the Paris climate change accord — limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius — cannot be achieved without painful cuts in developing countries’ use of fossil fuels like gasoline, coal, and oil. Likewise, the cuts in fossil energy use would make developing nations more dependent on expensive renewable energy, affecting the health and well-being of people across the globe, according to CEI.

"The group ... wants lawmakers to ... hobble EPA’s authority by making changes to the Clean Air Act, which. .. would make it harder for the agency to revisit climate regulations in the future.... The group also wants Congress to ... pass legislation that freezes and then sunsets the nation’s ethanol mandate and biofuel program, known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, in 2022."

Read more: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/cei-warns-lawmakers-that-a-green-new-deal-would-risk-a-humanitarian-crisis
'via Blog this'

Arizona Rep. opposes compulsory school laws

Rep. Paul Mosley on lawmaker cousins and repealing compulsory education – Arizona Capitol Times - Hank Stephenson:

May 1, 2017 - "Freshman Republican Rep. Paul Mosley of Lake Havasu City.... What’d you think of your first hundred days?
"I love every bit of this political environment. I love working votes, and killing bad bills, and working with the 90 legislators. It’s fun.... But at the same time I need to respect why I was elected, which is to shrink the size of government, to repeal more legislation than we pass, which I found is pretty much impossible.

"I used to always ask candidates, If you could repeal one law, what would it be? And they usually gave me a blank stare.
"The bill that I passed is a repeal. It repeals the isobutanol limit in gasoline. It’s an additive in fuels. All of our fuels have ethanol in them. And what isobutanol does, it makes it so the ethanol is less harmful to an engine. Ethanol eats car parts, it’s bad for cars to sit with ethanol in the tank. So people with classic cars want this isobutanol.

What else would you like to repeal?
"The number one thing I would like to repeal is the law on compulsory education.  And let me explain to make it very clear why I want to repeal this.... When my son was five in kindergarten, he missed 18 days. My son is a very brilliant kid, he gets straight As. The truancy officer called....  I was actually pretty upset about getting a call from a policeman, because if I remember correctly, it’s a $400 fine and a misdemeanor for the parent. Whether the absences are excused or not.... The schools get their funding on daily attendance. This is why I believe the law is not a good law. Because education used to be a privilege. People used to believe getting an education was something you had to be privileged to get, that you had to work hard to get. Now we basically force it down everybody’s throats..... I believe education is still a privilege, and the kids who don’t want to be there are a larger distraction to the kids who do want to be there. We’re telling kids they have to go to school, and we put fences around the schools to protect them now, and we give them a meal or two and sometimes send a backpack of food home with them. So now schools are not only tasked with educating our children, but also feeding our children. What happened to the personal responsibility of a parent to feed and educate their kids?"

Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/05/01/rep-paul-mosley-on-lawmaker-cousins-and-repealing-compulsory-education/
'via Blog this'

Where Charles Koch & Bernie Sanders agree

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right - The Washington Post:

February 18, 2016 - "Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates.... I see benefits in searching for common ground and greater civility during this overly negative campaign season. That’s why, in spite of the fact that he often misrepresents where I stand on issues, the senator should know that we do agree on at least one....

"The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.

"I agree with him.

"Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States.... Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.

"Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.

"Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers. That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us. (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States)....

"I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives. This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.

"Consider America’s War on Poverty. Since its launch under President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, we have spent roughly $22 trillion, yet our poverty rate remains at 14.8 percent. Instead of preventing, curing and relieving the causes and symptoms of poverty (the goals of the program when it began), too many communities have been torn apart and remain in peril while even more tax dollars pour into this broken system.

"It is results, not intentions, that matter. History has proven that a bigger, more controlling, more complex and costlier federal government leaves the disadvantaged less likely to improve their lives....

"When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don’t infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance. In a society governed by such principles, people succeed by helping others improve their lives."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
'via Blog this'

Ethanol mandate fuels Iowa campaign

Presidential Candidates Rushing to Support Ethanol Subsidies Ahead of Iowa Caucus - Reason.com - John Stossel:

January 27, 2016 - "Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes supporting mandates that force us to use ethanol, a fuel made from corn that Iowa farmers grow.

"They support ethanol because Iowa is the first state to vote on presidential candidates. Candidates want to look strong at the start of the race, so every four years they become enthusiastic ethanol supporters. Even those who claim they believe in markets pander to Iowa's special interests.

"Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to have a consistent political philosophy aside from bashing critics and foreigners, now has joined the ethanol-praising club. In fact, Trump says regulators should force gas stations to increase the amount of ethanol they use. It's a convenient way to attack his Iowa rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who courageously says the mandate should be phased out.

"Cruz is right. Legally mandating that a certain percentage of fuel used be ethanol is a bad idea for several reasons:

"First, mandating ethanol means more land must be plowed to grow corn for fuel. The Department of Energy estimates that if corn ethanol replaced gasoline completely, we'd need to turn all cropland to corn — plus 20 percent more land on top of that.

"Second, requiring ethanol fuel raises the price of corn — bad news for consumers who must pay more for food.

"Third, although ethanol's supporters claim burning corn is "better for the environment," that's not true. Once you add the emissions from growing, shipping and processing the corn, ethanol creates more pollution than oil. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Air Task Force now oppose its use.

"Finally, because corn is grown in America, promoters said ethanol would make us more energy independent. Even if the 'independence' argument were valid, fracking accomplishes much more.

"But in Iowa Trump says, 'Ethanol is terrific'....  Ben Carson didn't go that far but according to the Washington Examiner said that it would be wrong to end the subsidies.... Marco Rubio says he'd support ending the mandate — after another seven years..... At the Iowa Agriculture Summit, Chris Christie sounded annoyed that President Obama hasn't been more supportive of ethanol subsidies, saying, 'Certainly anybody who's a competent president would get that done!'....

"Bernie Sanders, I-Ver., criticized subsidies in the past, but on Iowa public radio he sounded as if he loves the boondoggle.... Hillary Clinton says ethanol 'holds the promise for not only more fuel for automobiles but for aviation ... and for military aircraft; we could be fueling so much air traffic with biofuels'....

"Only Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) have consistently said that the market, not politicians, should choose fuels. Unfortunately, that principled stance hasn't brought them much support....

"Energy expert Jerry Taylor is right to say that running for office in Iowa not only means you must praise Christianity; it means being 'willing to sacrifice children to the corn god.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/27/presidential-candidates-rushing-to-suppo
'via Blog this'