From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
Europe’s ability to compete against the US as a manufacturing centre is being damaged by rising energy costs as North America benefits from cheap natural shale gas, Germany’s biggest companies have warned. The energy cost advantage for US companies is rising and is expected to persist until at least 2020, according to the BDI, the German industry lobby group. German industrial companies such as Bayer and BASF are among the those alarmed over the gap. Some executives fear a growing divide between European and US energy costs could see energy-intensive manufacturers divert investments that might have gone into Europe to the US instead. –Gerrit Wiesman, Financial Times, 8 November 2012
While Obama will continue with a series of environmental regulations that would curb the production and use of coal, his policies promise to boost demand for natural gas in vehicles and power plants and facilitate domestic oil and gas output to levels not seen in more than two decades. The re-election of Obama and continuation of Republican control of the House of Representatives opens the possibility for legislation to boost demand for gas, including incentives for natural-gas vehicles, Hanger said. Republicans may also limit actions the administration could take to regulate hydraulic fracturing or curb production on federal lands. Mark Drajem and Bradley Olson, Bloomberg, 8 November 2012
Leading European companies announced job losses totalling more than 10,000 on Wednesday, underlining the scale of problems facing the continent’s manufacturers. Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, said 2,000 jobs would be cut after it posted an almost doubling of pre-tax losses in the face of falling prices and fierce competition from China. The Vestas cuts underline the crisis in the renewable energy sector and will reduce its workforce to 16,000 by the end of 2013 from nearly 23,000 just a year ago. —The Guardian, 8 November 2012
Britain will need to invest 330 billion pounds in its energy sector, excluding networks, by 2030 and return its economy to growth to meet carbon emissions reduction targets, the London School of Economics said in a report on Thursday. The investments are needed to build new power plants, retrofit existing ones with carbon-reduction technology and to limit energy demand. —Reuters, 8 November 2012
Soon after his election, Obama recognised that championing climate change would only cost him political support. This is not going to change in his second term. Despite Sandy, global warming is a fringe issue in the US. Before Europeans express too much outrage over the Americans, they should look at what’s going on at their own doorstep instead. Here too interest in climate protection has gone lame. Euro-crisis, recession, unemployment – with such a terrible economic situation, no one is protesting on behalf of the environment. Climate protection has no lobby. Even the greens no longer consider it a core issue. Thus the upcoming climate conference in Qatar will achieve no progress. –Eric Frey, Der Standard, 2 November 2012
Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible. They could not be silenced. Believers in man-made global warming are declining. It will require an extraordinary crusade presaging even direr climate consequences for defying the warmist faith, before defectors even contemplate rejoining the religion. If that fails it may be time to burn sceptics at the stake. But then that would increase CO2 emissions. A dilemma, to be sure. –Maurice Newman, The Australian, 5 November 2012
The majority of the sample in our UK survey accepted that the world’s climate is changing. However, over the past five years, levels of concern among the public and expressed willingness to change behaviour in order to limit climate change have both decreased. In addition, almost half of the public believed that the seriousness of climate change has been exaggerated. Just over one-third of respondents agreed that ‘climate scientists can be trusted to tell us the truth about climate change’ — Climate Science, the Public and the News Media, September 2012
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?
Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?
Be careful what you wish for. 🙂
“Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?”
Question: how many times is America expected to “come to Europe’s rescue”?
Yep…He’s on his way to raising US energy costs to Europe’s levels. That’ll save Europe for sure (sarc).
Boehm – I meant in that the cost of energy in the USA appears poised to rise dramatically hence costing the US its advantage. I did not mean it in a WW2 manner. Sorry for the confusion. And I don’t know how to get the two dots over the ‘o’ 🙂
[Reply: Just cut ‘n’ paste. — mod.]
Don’t worry, by the time Obama’s done, we won’t have cheap shale gas either.
“This is not going to change in his second term.”
That must explain why Obama just announced a carbon tax.
Sorry, but now that Obama no longer has to worry about re-election, he’s free to do everything he couldn’t get around to in his first term.
Don’t bet on what the president or the EPA will or won’t do , neither are to be trusted . Also , don’t bet on the price of nat gas remaining low . For a nomber of reasons , many gas producers are losing money right now .
“Soon after his election, Obama recognised that championing climate change would only cost him political support. This is not going to change in his second term.”
This statement is true but utterly meaningless. Being in his second term Obam can’t run for re-election again and there for has no further need for political support.
will he, wont he, will he, wont he, will he come to help ?
will he, wont he, will he, wont he, wont he come to help ?
Sounds like a work of pure fiction to me.
A “carbon” tax or excessive EPA regulation of “carbon” emissions could be just the ticket for the administration to save Europe…but at what cost to the US?!
I am in the “they made their problem now they can fix it” camp on this one for sure!
Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?
I’ll gladly send him right over. Keep him for as long as you need.
Energy Costs, the best way to throttle or encourage an economy. Cheaper gas pump prices typically does more to put money back into a consumers wallet than a tax rebate or stimulus funds.
MarkW says:
“…now that Obama no longer has to worry about re-election, he’s free to do everything he couldn’t get around to in his first term.”
Including selling out this country to the Soviets, as he explained when he was near an open microphone. Pure treason.
“…Soon after his election, Obama recognised that championing climate change would only cost him political support. This is not going to change in his second term. Despite Sandy, global warming is a fringe issue in the US.”
If Dr. Peiser really believes this, I have a bridge for sale…
Cheap.
In his first term, President Obama and his administration showed little hesitation to shred the Constitution and attempt to ramrod through, policies that were broadly unpopular. As a lame duck in his second term with no prospect of another election he will be free to force, by extra-Constitutional Executive Orders when Congress objects, his entire green agenda on the American population. Sadly, 50% are apparently happy to sleepwalk through life, as witnessed by the election on Tuesday, so won’t know what hit them when they finally wake up.
If you thought the EPA was abusive the last 4 years, the next 4 will be an unmitigated disaster for American manufacturing, American business, and the American economy.
Who is John Galt?
A planned increase in US corporate taxes will wipe out what little advantage our industrial base has with lower energy prices.
And that assumes those energy prices in the US will continue to be low. If the EPA has their way and energy prices “necessarily skyrocket” as our re-elected president has promised in the past, Eruopean businesess will have a double advantage.
Elections have consequences–and this time they are negative.
The response fro the US should be to keep our energy costs low AND drop the corporate tax to 5% –> 10%, the companies would move jobs into the US. However, that plan is too logical and we all know that our government will do the exact opposite. 🙁
Well, let’s wait and see what Obama does – we shouldn’t have to wait long.
If he appoints Al Gore as new head of EPA and/or Bill McKibben as science advisor, then we can be sure Obama ain’t messing. Otherwise, he might just decide he has nothing left to achieve and devotes his time towards the goal of personal enrichment, as per Tony Blair. I’d bet on the latter.
“Britain will need to invest 330 billion pounds in its energy sector, excluding networks, by 2030 and return its economy to growth to meet carbon emissions reduction targets, the London School of Economics said in a report on Thursday. The investments are needed to build new power plants, retrofit existing ones with carbon-reduction technology and to limit energy demand.”
That’s a good incentive to leave the EU.
Vince Causey says:
November 8, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Well, let’s wait and see what Obama does – we shouldn’t have to wait long.
“If he appoints Al Gore as new head of EPA and/or Bill McKibben as science advisor, then we can be sure Obama ain’t messing. Otherwise, he might just decide he has nothing left to achieve and devotes his time towards the goal of personal enrichment, as per Tony Blair. I’d bet on the latter.”
Sadly, he can and likely will, do both.
Then, there’s this:
“Human Carbon Emissions Seen by Researchers Holding Back Ice Age”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/human-carbon-emissions-seen-by-researchers-holding-back-ice-age.html
Lame duck Presidents, especially when the opposition controls the House, and with no need to ensure campaign contributions, probably have other things on their minds than satisfying pesky
greenies, although, in this case,I use the word “mind” sparingly. Like most things, I doubt that Obama-rama has any clear thoughts about this subject. It won’t be long before prominent Dems will start making it known that they are ready and eager to be our next President and the media attention will shift away from the guy sitting in the White House.
No. He is a true believer. Do not count on him spending time enriching himself. There will be plenty of people willing to pay him off after he “fundamentally transforms America”.
“Britain will need to invest 330 billion pounds in its energy sector, excluding networks, by 2030 and return its economy to growth to meet carbon emissions reduction targets”
This from the once vaunted London School of Economics! A pronouncement still clinging to the oxymoron of economic growth and meeting carbon emission targets!! Man we are going to have a bunch of screwed up economists to solve future “problems” coming out of this institution.
Uhm….
Are they nuts? They’re worried about losing manufacturing jobs to the USA because of their energy policies? Have they heard of China? India? Brazil?