Errors of Enchantment

Recently, I appeared on a special on Channel 4 called "The Climate Case" to discuss global warming and what, if anything, should be done about it. The show lasts 30 minutes and can be found below:

href="">

Also, if the current fiscal crisis has any silver lining it is that Congress, according to New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Energy Committee, says that Congress will not act until 2010 on global warming legislation. At least Congress recognizes that the American people view purported climate change as far less of a problem than the economy. Of course, whether government at any level has the right solutions is an even better question.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Around New Mexico we've had some interesting weather variations this fall. Well above average temperatures have been followed quickly by temperatures that are far below normal. Of course, unpredictable weather is nothing new. Interestingly enough while Obama, who has embraced Al Gore's views on global warming, is going to be President, the planet seems to be experiencing cooler weather.

According to Investors' Business Daily:

* In October, the Swiss lowlands received the most snow for any October since records began; Zurich got 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14 centimeters set in 1939.
* In the United States, Ocala, Florida, experienced its second-lowest October temperature since 1850, October temperatures fell to record lows in Oregon and Boise, Idaho, got the earliest snow in its history.
* In the Southern Hemisphere, Durban, South Africa, had its coldest September night in history in the middle of the month, some regions of the country had unusual late-winter snows and New Zealand's Mount Ruapehu had its largest snow base ever.
* The International Arctic Research Center reported in October that there was 29 percent more Arctic sea ice this year than last.

These are indeed anecdotal examples of a potential cooling trend, but those who are skeptical about warming should not have to bear the burden of proof. Rather, those who believe that global warming is a crisis need to prove: 1) that warming is taking place; 2) that it is a crisis of epic proportions; 3) that humans have caused it and human action can resolve it. Anything short of proving those three hypotheses should lead objective observers to question whether we need to abandon Western Civilization as Al Gore would have us do.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 05:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Paul Gessing, president of he Rio Grande will appear on Channel 4 in and around Albuquerque (or the local NBC affiliate in your area) at 6:30pm on Saturday October 18. Click here for schedule. He’ll be discussing various issues in climate change and the hysteria in some circles over “global warming” on a half-hour program called “The Climate Case An examination of the state of the environment.” Aside from Mr. Gessing, Weather Channel Founder and global warming skeptic John Coleman will appear. The opposing side will be represented by two UNM professors.

While my role on the show is to talk about the politics of global warming, not the science, there have been some interesting stories recently about climate. First and foremost, there is widespread belief that the coming winter could be extremely cold, in part because the sun has no sunspots (thus signaling a cold winter). Only time will tell, but the idea of a new phase of "global cooling" must make Al Gore very concerned that the global warming gravy train has left the station.

Then there is this interesting story about major climate change taking place on Jupiter. No word on whether humans have caused this to occur, but considering that we've never stepped foot on the planet, I doubt even Gore can pin the blame on automobiles. Just goes to show that our solar system is ever-changing and the climate on planets -- including ours -- is not exempt.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Marita Noon of the Coalition for Responsible Energy has an excellent article in today's Albuquerque Journal. The fact is that, despite the ongoing economic crunch, we still need to be concerned with energy policy and ensuring that Americans have access to gasoline, electricity, and heat at reasonable prices.

Thankfully, as Noon points out in the article, New Mexicans have repeatedly expressed support for energy exploration, including offshore drilling and opposition for increasing taxes on energy companies. This economic crisis will pass and, when the economy strengthens, there is no doubt that energy will again be an issue. That is why it is so important that we continue to put the pressure on our elected officials in New Mexico and in Washington to make sure that we don't harm our economy by cutting off access to energy, the foundation of our economy.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Google has been one of the most innovative companies in the world for some time now. Their web browser is used by hundreds of millions of people every day and I couldn't get around town without their maps. According to recent news stories, however, their most recent innovation may take the cake...at least as far as combining environmental and bottom line benefits are concerned.

The company is considering deploying the supercomputers necessary to operate its internet search engines on barges anchored up to seven miles (11km) offshore.

The “water-based data centres” would use wave energy to power and cool their computers, reducing Google’s costs. Their offshore status would also mean the company would no longer have to pay property taxes on its data centres, which are sited across the world, including in Britain.

So, use ocean water to save massive amounts of electricity and hang onto more revenue at the same time. What a beautiful concept. We'll see if google's floating data center idea "floats" and whether it can keep politicians' grubby hands away from these platforms or if they'll find some way to tax.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The US Minerals Management Service recently announced that it intends to prepare a new Five Year Leasing Plan for the Outer Continental Shelf. This is a vital first step in initiating more exploration and production on OCS lands that MMS estimates could hold 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

MMS has opened the process for taking public comments. I’m writing to you, in hope that you will take a few minutes form your hectic day to write a brief note or letter to MMS, underscoring your support for leasing these lands and producing more of the oil and gas that are the foundation for our economy, living standards and opportunities.

Already, a number of environmental pressure groups have mobilized their extensive financial and networking resources, to deluge MMS with comments OPPOSING any plan that opens up more OCS acreage for leasing and drilling. I’ve heard that comments to MMS are currently running at approximately 15 to 1 AGAINST opening new OCS areas – and thus in favor of continuing the unconscionable Energy War on Poor Families.

To make it easier for you to write a letter to MMS, I’ve attached a sample letter (click on the link below) that provides some facts and ideas you can use, and that you can tailor to your own taste. Also attached are a couple of background papers by MMS and the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) that provide useful information about the OCS program and the laws and technologies that enable us to extract even more energy, from even deeper waters, with even greater care for the environmental values we all cherish.

You can send a detailed letter like this. But even a brief letter supporting a full analysis and expanded leasing program will help greatly.

All comment letters must REACH MMS by SEPTEMBER 15, when the comment period closes.

Letters can be snail-mailed to the addresses on the sample MMS letter – or they can be submitted by going to the MMS website (http://www.mms.gov/5-year/5-YearProgramComments.htm) and using either of the following links:

via the web: Public Commenting System

via e-mail: 5YearRFIComments@mms.gov

Continue reading "Want Offshore Drilling and Lower Gas Prices: Comment Here!" »

Posted by Paul Gessing at 05:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It seems like every week or two the Albuquerque Journal feels compelled to publish a hopeful article by proponents of some "alternative" energy source. This week's edition, "N.M. Sun, Wind Key To Our Energy Future" comes to us from the N.M. Solar Energy Association.

The authors assert in their article that:

A concentrated solar plant (CSP) utilizing about 15 square miles of otherwise unusable land would produce enough electricity to offset New Mexico's total electrical energy requirements. A CSP of around 100 square miles could meet the country's entire need, producing more energy than the U.S. consumption of oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower and nuclear energy.

Wind energy programs are working well in New Mexico and have proven to be a cost-effective energy source. Eastern New Mexico could easily produce 20 times the amount of electricity needed in the state. New Mexico's wind could supply a major percentage of U.S. energy.

This all seems wonderful and without a doubt that wind and solar can become a more important part of both our state and national energy picture, but as it stands now (according to the Energy Information Agency), they combine for less than 1 percent of our energy supply.

Certainly, what the authors promise for wind and solar doesn't seem to mesh with reality. It's hard to believe there's a conspiracy here because if you could solve our energy problems with the measures they proscribe, someone would have done it or be doing it now.

America can't run on a pipe dream. Solar and wind can help, but they will be niche players for the foreseeable future.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, the Rio Grande Foundation and CARE co-hosted a series of screenings of the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" statewide to large audiences. You can view the film here.

Bob Balling, a climate scientist at Arizona State University gave a post-film presentation with his take on the movie. His powerpoint presentation is available here. Video of Bob's Albuquerque presentation along with some Q and A is available below:

Posted by Paul Gessing at 07:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My former colleague at the National Taxpayers Union, Andrew Moylan, had an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal recently which discussed yet another often-overlooked reason to open new areas to domestic drilling: a gusher of tax revenues.

As has been made abundantly clear in New Mexico during this special session, this state relies heavily on oil and gas revenues for tax revenues. We're not alone. The federal government also collects billions of dollars annually from oil and gas and, as Moylan points out:

The potential federal revenue from Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil development is $191 billion over 30 years -- roughly $18.36 per barrel, based on projections of recoverable reserves. Applying that formula to the 107 billion-plus barrels of recoverable oil that federal agencies estimate is in ANWR, the nearby National Petroleum Reserve and offshore tells us that sensible drilling could yield nearly $2 trillion in overall revenue over 30 years, or an average of about $65.5 billion per year.

Additional domestic oil and gas drilling is already a "win, win." As Moylan concludes, "More supply, lower gas prices, greater energy security, and lower taxes. What are we waiting for?"

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Watch Nancy Pelosi dance around the issue of offshore drilling in the video below. As I've noted before on this blog, Congress must act before Election Day to renew the offshore drilling ban or it expires. Pressure on Pelosi and others will keep offshore drilling and homegrown energy sources on the agenda.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Albuquerque — The Rio Grande Foundation and Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy will be hosting a series of free screenings of the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” statewide August 20-August 22. A discussion of the film and the relative impact of human-caused global warming with prominent climatologist Bob Balling will follow each event.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician. Come see what the media isn’t telling you about global warming.

Each event (except Santa Fe) will be held in a “happy hour” type timeframe with refreshments from 5:00-5:30, showings at 5:30 and Robert Balling’s presentations at 6:30. In Santa Fe the event is also cosponsored by the Center/Right Coalition. Join us for lunch – snacks and soft drinks will be available (or bring a “brown bag” – no messy food please). The movie will start at 11:00AM and Robert Balling’s presentation will start at noon. In all locations, come for the whole program, or just the part that fits your schedule.

Artesia – August 20: Artesia Country Club, 2703 W Richey Ave, Artesia, NM 88210, (575) 746-2055;

Farmington – August 21: Totah Theater, 315 W. Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401;

Santa Fe – August 22: State Land Office, Morgan Hall (Parking available in the public parking space at the P.E.R.A. building across the street from the Roundhouse. No Parking at the Land Office.) 310 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87501;

Albuquerque – August 22: State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109.

Bob Balling is a professor in the climatology program in the school of Geographical Sciences at Arizona State University. Prior to accepting a position in Arizona, Balling was a faculty member in the climatology program at the University of Nebraska.

Over the past 20 years, he has been involved in a variety of interrelated climatological issues. He has published more than 125 articles in professional, scientific literature, received more than $3,000,000 in research grants, presented lectures throughout the United States and in more than a dozen foreign countries, and appeared in a number of scientific documentaries and news features.

Balling has written three books on climate change: The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, Interactions of Desertification and Climate, and The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming. Balling will elaborate on the movie’s message and take questions from the audience.

The Rio Grande Foundation is a non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization that promotes prosperity for New Mexico on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.

CARE is a non-partisan, tax-exempt organization devoted to educating the public about the need to guarantee our access to the affordable energy that drives our nation forward.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While the Albuquerque Journal often does a poor job of covering oil and gas/energy issues, a gem appeared in today's paper. Two scientists from the Los Alamos Education Group debunked windmills (favored solutions of Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens) as a primary source of energy.

As the scientists point out:

In 2006, the Energy Information Agency published the total national electrical demand at 580,000 megawatts; about 50 percent comes from coal, 20 percent from natural gas and 20 percent from nuclear power. Natural gas provides a little over 100,000 megawatts.

Windmills are proposed to provide the power now obtained from natural gas. If each windmill generates three megawatts, over 33,000 windmills would be required to replace natural gas or nuclear power, when the wind is blowing at the correct velocity.

Because the operating record for getting electricity from windmills is only a third of the time, three times as many would be needed, still with no assurance of constant, adequate supply.

Additionally, modification of the electric grid system would be necessary to collect and distribute windmill energy. At two acres per windmill, the footprint would be enormous and the electrical energy would replace only the natural gas-generated power.

The scientists propose nuclear power as the most logical solution for our electricity generation needs. While I have no reason to disagree with this as a proposed solution, it would be great to allow market forces to work in order to see what the best option might be.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

T. Boone Pickens is a smart man. He's made billions of dollars in the oil and gas industry and should be applauded for engaging in economically-productive behavior that has benefited all of us. Unfortunately, now Pickens is looking to make money in a less honorable way -- by putting his hands in taxpayer pockets.

Pickens was on Capitol Hill recently to discuss his new energy plan which he says would result in the United States producing 22 percent of its electrical energy needs using wind-powered electricity. More information on the Pickens plan is available here.

During the year 2003 alone, federal energy subsidies ranged from $37 billion to $64 billion, according to a study prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy. Wind energy accounted for less than 1% of the total.

Thankfully, our friends at the Cato Institute are fighting back against Pickens' self-serving subsidy "plan." In a recent column, Jerry Taylor showed how Pickens' plan benefits him at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. More information on the flaws and subsidies associated with wind power can be found here.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've recently blogged about Al Gore and his out-of-control energy usage -- all while he tells the rest of us to eliminate our carbon footprints. At his recent speech, some folks from the free market advocacy group Americans for Prosperity talked to Gore supporters and questioned them for their own energy usage. Check the video out here.

The fact is that Gore and the environmental radicals go far beyond traditional environmentalism. They want to control our lives and force us to abandon our cars, flying, heating, air conditioning, and technology. Climate change can be dealt with in the marketplace.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Albuquerque Journal front page included a silly headline "Oil, Gas Drilling Practices Questioned" that attempted to lead the casual reader to assume that oil and gas drillers are doing something wrong by choosing not to drill on certain leased federal lands. While the article goes on to explain that permitting and the lack of any known oil and gas in some of the leased areas are just two of the many reasons that 68 million acres of federal lands are leased but not currently producing oil and gas.

The Journal is not alone in promoting ignorance of oil and gas. Indeed, there is widespread misunderstanding of oil and gas issues. For example, did you know that now that the President has rescinded the executive order prohibiting oil and gas drilling on the outer continental shelf, Congress must act before the election to keep the ban intact? The following is from the Institute for Energy Research.

American oil and gas leasing has been prohibited on most of the OCS since the 1982. The U.S. is now the only developed nation in the World that restricts access to its offshore energy resources.

The Congressional Moratorium comes in the form of an annual appropriations rider in Congress. It must be renewed annually by a vote in the Congress, which has enacted OCS leasing moratoria every year since 1981.

**Unless Congress approves a new rider - and the President signs into law a bill that includes the rider - the Congressional ban will expire on September 30, the end of the federal FY2008 fiscal year.**

To see if you are knowledgeable on this and other oil and gas issues, take this quiz from the American Petroleum Institute. I scored 70%.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The anti-modernity, anti-drilling environmentalists seem to have latched onto two basic strategies in opposing more domestic drilling and innovative energy exploration at home. First is to blame speculators for all of our problems. The other is that additional drilling won't bring oil and gas prices down and therefore won't solve our problems. Laura Sanchez makes the latter argument in the Alibi.

Not surprisingly, we at the Rio Grande Foundation disagree strongly that drilling won't improve our situation. In a letter to the editor I make the following arguments:

Although I disagree with her ultimate point (opposition to drilling), Laura Sanchez makes some good points in her article. Indeed, the days of $1 and perhaps even $2 gas may be over in the United States. As she points out, no amount of drilling, whether here in New Mexico, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or offshore is going to return us to the “good old days” of cheap gas.

Freer markets in China and India have raised living standards for literally billions of people. While we should celebrate this, it is also true that China adds 1,000 new cars to its roads every day.

Oil is a finite resource. Energy independence is a pipe dream, but if we don’t drill here our economy (most particularly, the poor and low-income for whom filling the tank is a larger portion of their family budget) will suffer and prices will continue to spiral upward. Economic progressives should be especially sensitive to this fact.

We also must realize two additional facts: 1) Every source of energy, including politically correct solar and wind, has its drawbacks; 2) Prices will create efficiency and spur innovation.

Energy policy, like most factors in a multitrillion-dollar economy, makes a difference on the margins and over time as adjustments are made. High prices will spur conservation; we should not stand in the way of efforts to increase supply as well.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While President Bush has certainly had his share of mis-steps on energy policy (his support for ethanol being one prominent example), but he was definitely on the right track yesterday when he lifted the ban on offshore drilling which was enacted by his father. Unfortunately, as Michael Coleman points out in today's Journal, Sen. Bingaman and Senate candidate Udall decried the lifting of the ban and made it clear that they would not support expanded offshore drilling in the Senate.

Bingaman said he supports offshore oil and gas drilling, but objects to allowing individual states to initiate or reject drilling off their coastal waters. He went on to say, "We need a national energy policy; we don't need every state legislature or governor making our policy." This statement shows that Bingaman both doesn't understand federalism and the fact that individuals operating in an economy ultimately make our "energy policy," not politicians. Rather than forcing states that don't want offshore drilling, allowing each state to accept or reject it seems eminently reasonable. Also, with rising prices, individual consumers are reacting in ways that are far more powerful than Bingaman's impotent efforts to mandate and regulate.

Udall, for his part, pointed out that oil companies "can now drill on 68 million acres of federal land they have leased and not used." He would "force them to drill on the land they already have access to in order to boost supply quickly." Udall clearly does not understand the oil and gas industries or how federal leases work:

The fact is:

Many of them cannot be drilled because there is no oil in them. The government makes these oil companies purchase these leases before they are allowed to survey them. The company geologists then survey, find there’s nothing in there, and now the big oil companies are stuck with these leases that they can’t do anything with..and…who pays the cost for those non-productive leases? We the people do as a pass through expense. It’s just another scam by the government and something they don’t want everyone to know about.

Republicans have clearly been asleep at the switch as far as increasing America's ability to access oil and gas resources is concerned. They may be waking up. Bingaman and Udall seem to be running for Chair of the "Head in the Sand" caucus.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This excellent article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal today and explained the need to explore for oil and keep options open for securing our energy future.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, in the Business Journal (subscription required), an article discussed efforts by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. invest $1.5 billion to create a 150-mile, high-voltage transmission line that happens to cut through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park to reach San Diego. The idea is to generate solar energy, something environmentalists supposedly love, and transmit it to be used in a major urban center.

Yet, environmentalists are opposing the project. Instead, they are pushing for renewable power to be generated closer to heavily populated areas, rather than brought in from distant sites. I'm not sure exactly how that would work even if every building in large, southern cities was set up to generate solar power.

As a follow-up editorial in the Journal put it,

We have placed billions of barrels of coastal and arctic crude oil off-limits to ourselves. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years. And now the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. faces fierce opposition in its effort to build one of the world's largest solar power plants east of San Diego...killing this groundbreaking renewable energy project because it would diminish scenic views would be the act of a nation in the dark, in every sense.

As I've said before, environmentalists oppose our civilization and global warming and other supposed environmental crises are just tools in their fight. When environmentalists oppose wind and solar (not to mention nuclear), what do we have left?

Posted by Paul Gessing at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While free market advocates and others who prefer drilling for oil and gas here at home rather than paying $5.00 or more per gallon of gas have been gaining ground in the public debate recently, some opponents of drilling, sensing that they are losing the debate, have used the issue of "idle leases" to defend their inaction. Marita Noon of CARE (Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy) attacks our own Sen. Bingaman for his ongoing efforts to keep vast tracts of our resource off limits. She also does a great job explaining the "idle lease" issue:

There are myriad other reasons why a lease may not be developed such as a shortage of equipment or the fact that extra leases are purchased to allow access to the parcel believed to have the most potential for production. But today, the biggest culprit for non-development is environmental protest.

Here are a couple of examples.

In New Mexico, each lease sale typically has a few parcels pulled due to protest. They are usually due to a specific plant or animal that is believed to be there on that piece of land. Recently, the environmental groups have begun to protest the entire sale, not based on flora or fauna, but on global warming. These protests take valuable time from the BLM employees — employees paid by our tax dollars — who could be processing the applications to drill, allowing the drilling to happen more quickly.

Don't let those who oppose use of our natural resources confuse the debate. Ask them where they WOULD like to drill oil and gas. The reality is, they hate progress and Western Civilization and we must fight them at every turn.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review (also printed recently in the Albuquerque Journal, made an excellent point recently in calling certain politicians on "failed policies of the past." As Goldberg points out, at least when it comes to offshore drilling, "how does anybody know (if past policies like offshore drilling have failed) when we haven’t even tried?

Of course, the outer continental shelf is by no means the only place environmentalists want to stop drilling (they're against it just about anywhere it is proposed), right here in New Mexico, they are protesting 43 leases made by the Bureau of Land Management.

Said John Byrom, president and chief executive officer of D.J. Simmons, Inc., of the concerted efforts of environmentalists to bog down the approvals process, "It doesn't affect us immediately, but my information is that the challenge is part of a concerted Western states tactic."

"They're pulling out all the stops and they know how to play the legal game," Byrom said. "It's not surprising, but it is frustrating because they're trying more and more to halt drilling in the United States."

Unfortunately, unless there is a massive anti-extreme environmentalist backlash both in New Mexico and around the country, politicians will continue to feel like $4.00/gallon gas is okay.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last year, my friend Drew Johnson at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (a fellow member of the State Policy Network) made national news with a story that Al Gore's home in Nashville used more than 20 times the electricity of the average American home. Gore’s extravagant energy use did not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month in 2006.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President supposedly tried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's recent look at Gore's energy bills found that Gore's home now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. When it comes to living up to efforts to "save the planet," it looks like Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With oil prices over $4 a gallon and Congress doing nothing except make it more difficult to access the resources we need to keep our society moving forward, the average motorist may be frustrated. While ranting and raving about the oil industry and its supposed "windfall profits" is the preferred reaction of the political left, when compared to other major industries, the profits associated with the industry are actually low.

Currently, there is an online petition being circulated that any American can sign to express their support for increased oil and gas drilling. While increasing oil and gas supplies may take some time, we don't want to be paying $10 for a gallon of gas in ten years. We can avoid that problem by accessing energy sources here at home. Nowhere is that more true than here in New Mexico where the NIMBY impulse is especially strong.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Americans are increasingly being asked to decide whether or not to allow or disallow resources to be accessed on both public and private lands. Unfortunately, the attitude that somehow certain people are "above" having resource exploited on or near their lands has become more prevalent in recent years and is to a large extent responsible for today's rising commodity prices. Nowhere are these battles and this anti-resource attitude more prevalent than here in New Mexico.

As Marita Noon of the Coalition for Responsible Energy reports, yet another confrontation over resource usages will take place this weekend at a public meeting in Grants over whether all of Mt Taylor and many surrounding areas should be declared "off limits" to the public.

More background information on the battle over Mt. Taylor is available on the website of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. A big crowd is expected, so if you plan to go due to the highly-charged nature of the issue, so show up early!

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In case you missed the news, "cap and trade" legislation ostensibly to fight global warming, died in the US Senate late this week. Senator Domenici actively opposed the legislation (which would have resulted in a massive new hidden tax) and made an eloquent statement to that effect on the Senate floor.

In the meantime, a supposed "Republican" argued in the Albuquerque Journal that Sen. Bingaman should "stop trying to derail or weaken the climate bill."

Robert Samuelson, also in the Journal, argued that "cap and trade" would:

Act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

As Samuelson points out, "cap and trade" is nothing but a tax. Worse, it lacks the simplicity and transparency of a tax on carbon (not that such a tax would be good policy) and opens the door to lobbying and political meddling. "Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10," argues Samuelson.

Unfortunately, both a prospective President McCain or President Obama would likely sign such legislation which would undermine New Mexico's energy-based economy immediately and the entire US economy over time. Americans need to be educated about the very real problems of "cap and trade."

Posted by Paul Gessing at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, the Rio Grande Foundation and CARE (the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy) held a series of showings of the film Mine Your Own Business in Albuquerque, Farmington, and Roswell. As this article from the Farmington Daily Times discusses, the film drew a crowd (80 people) in Farmington. This included some hostile opponents from San Juan Citizens Alliance and the Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment.

While we certainly wish that more people shared our belief that responsible mining and access to dependable energy sources are compatible with and integral to our modern way of life, increasing numbers of environmentalists are anti-progress. Our hope is, by showing this film, to expose New Mexicans to the dark side of the environmental movement and point out that we should not blindly attribute altruistic motives to those who say "save the earth." After all, it was Jacques Cousteau who once said, "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ned Farquhar, a regular columnist for the Albuquerque Journal, is one of my favorite punching bags. His stances on most issues are predictably left-wing and rely on the coercive power of big-government.

A recent column of his, "Four Options with More Mileage than ANWR," remains stuck in my crawl. In his article, Farquhar expresses his opposition to drilling in ANWR on the grounds that the area would produce "only" a million barrels a day and "only" reduce our reliance on foreign oil from 65 percent to 60 percent. Considering that the US uses approximately 20 million barrels daily, I'd say that it is well-worth drilling on 20,000 acres of frozen tundra (half the size of the District of Columbia) in a wildlife refuge the size of South Carolina.

Obviously, drilling in ANWR alone is not the answer to all our energy needs and "energy independence" is not a reasonable or relevant goal, but we are reliant on oil (not addicted as Farquhar would assert) and we have to drill for it somewhere.

But, Farquhar believes otherwise. His preference is for (1) electric cars which are not on the market yet (and rely on some other energy source like nuclear) and hybrids which still use gasoline. Clearly, this is at best a partial option for the future. (2) Farquhar predictably pushes renewables which he admits generate less than 2 percent of our energy. He claims, apparently using a magic wand, that we can up that to 25 percent by 2020. (3) Use bio-fuels. Again, it sounds nice on paper, but can we really ramp up production to necessary levels? (4) More efficient vehicles (using government mandates). Again, no details are necessary and individual preferences are ignored.

The ironic thing is that with oil at $130/barrel, the market, not government bureaucrats, is the most powerful force acting on behalf of efficiency. Demand for fuel efficient cars and hybrids has skyrocketed. Now, most Americans are unhappy with current fuel prices, but if Farquhar and his friends in the environmental movement have their way, fuel prices will go up and freedom will drop. It couldn't be any simpler than that.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In case you are not aware, the Rio Grande Foundation and the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE) are hosting free film events around the New Mexico. We are showing the film Mine Your Own Business in an effort to expose the real agenda of all-too-many in the environmental movement.

The Farmington Daily-Times had an excellent article in which both Paul Driessen, who is speaking after each of the film showings, and I were interviewed about the film and its message. See you in Albuquerque this Tuesday, Roswell on Wednesday, and in Farmington on Thursday.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 01:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mark you calendars now! The Rio Grande Foundation and CARE (the Citizen’s Alliance for Responsible Energy) are partnering to bring a powerful film event to New Mexico!

On May 20-22 we will be showing the movie Mine Your Own Business in New Mexico.

Albuquerque--May 20: State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
Roswell--May 21: Roswell Museum and Art Center, 100 West 11th Street, Roswell, NM 88201
Farmington--May 22: Totah Theater, 315 W. Main Street, Farmington, NM 87401

Mine Your Own Business is a one-hour feature documentary that exposes the real agenda of many prominent environmental activists. It is an entertaining and informative exposé on how the environmental movement is ignoring the world's poor and their dire need for economic development.

The film features interviews with some of the world's poorest people and reflects on their individual goals for a better life. It is the first documentary to ask hard questions of the environmental movement and the right of all people to live prosperous and productive lives. Even if you think you understand the importance of economic development, this film will provide insight into the desperate state of the world's poor – as no book or study can – and why we cannot deny them the dignity of development and economic achievement.

Read a review of the movie. Listen to an interview with the film’s producer. Watch the preview.

Each showing will be followed with a short presentation by Paul Driessen, author of the book Eco-Imperialism. Driessen will localize the movies message and answer questions from the audience.

Each event will be held in a “happy hour” type timeframe with refreshments (Beer and wine will be available at the Albuquerque and Roswell locations) from 5:00-5:30pm, showings at 5:30 and Paul Driessen’s presentations at 6:30. These events are open to the public free-of-charge and you are encouraged to bring everyone you know! (Event sponsorships are still available.)

RSVP today at: info@riograndefoundation.org

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is Earth Day and over at Eye on Albuquerque, the author has an excellent posting on the mixed significance of the environmental movement today. While it is certainly good to limit our ecological footprint, environmentalists seem more concerned about taking away our freedoms and putting the state in control of society's resources.

The irony here is that the environmental movement has actually succeeded since it began in earnest back in 1970. The earth, especially in the United States, is better off than ever before. Rather than giving the government more control of our lives, the key to improving the planet is to help other countries grow as wealthy as we are.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 01:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As many New Mexicans know, the state's main utility is currently fighting the state's regulatory agency, the Public Regulation Commission, for a major rate increase. In today's Alamogordo Daily News, I discuss the potential benefits of deregulating utilities in order to allow customers to determine for themselves where to buy their energy and what price they are willing to pay. Such competition driven by the ability and the need to set reasonable prices would also increase efficiency.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Environments are sometimes their own worst enemies. Today's celebration of "Earth Hour" during which major cities across the country turn off the lights for an hour is one of those examples. Thankfully, Mayor Marty hasn't signed Albuquerque up for this ridiculous stunt, but if the concept catches on, I bet he'll be first in line.

So, why does turning out the lights hurt, not help the enviros? Simply put, there are many people who generally support "helping the environment." But what most hard-core environmentalists fail to realize is that for most people the environment is just not their highest priority. In this recent poll the environment is the top priority of only 4 percent of the US population far behind health care, Iraq, and gas prices.

The really dumb blunder of the enviros is that they seem to prefer radical steps like simply turning out the lights (will crime rise in darkened cities?) over more mundane efforts like pricing energy in such a way as to account for peak demand and shift demand to non-peak hours. Anyway, like NBC's wacky experiment with turning out the lights during its Sunday Night Football broadcast last year, people are going to react negatively to such extreme measures as turning out the lights.

In the battle between regular people and their governments over control of energy, the greens may be our best allies.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The financial market intelligence provider, Standard & Poor’s, has recently changed Public Service Company of New Mexico’s bond “outlook from stable to negative.” (Matt Mygatt, The New Mexican/Associated Press, Mar. 22, 2008) Other financial speculators, including Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, are either considering or have acted on reducing PNM’s bond status.

PNM’s bond status is in jeopardy because it has had to endure the recent increased costs of “fuel used to generate electricity” and of “purchasing electricity that it does not generate.”(AP) These increased costs have created a potential for the company to default on bonds when investors want to cash out.

This is causing problems for PNM. The state’s Public Regulation Commission has allowed PNM to seek a $300,000,000 loan to stabilize its bond status and avoid defaulting bonds, but because of market speculation, it’s finding it hard to secure the funds. To offset these financial woes, the company is also proposing a 13.8% rate increase for all customers, which the PRC would have to approve before taking effect. Many New Mexicans are objecting to the rate increase.

For most New Mexicans, PNM is the sole provider of gas and electricity. Market competition in this sector is nonexistent. Many citizens petitioning for the PRC to reject a rate increase have opined that because PNM is a legal monopoly, investors and company employees should have to bear the burden of increased costs, not customers who have no other option for heat and power. One citizen referenced CEO Jeff Sterba’s $700,000 salary, which the company justified as due for his executive experience. This is a good example of the need for consumer options in a free market. On one hand, a company should have the ability to increase customer prices if it needs to, but not if it’s operating a monopoly.

And for skeptics of utility deregulation, California was not really deregulation at all. Wholesale generation markets were largely deregulated but retail prices were not. True deregulation will not only save PNM and other energy companies the heartburn or having to ask politicians’ permission to raise prices, but it will result in lower prices for consumers due to efficiency and competition in a genuinely free market.

Posted by Corey Davis at 03:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)