Newsbytes: Green Energy Policy Threatening Europe’s Industrial Base

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

About these ads
This entry was posted in Newsbytes and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Newsbytes: Green Energy Policy Threatening Europe’s Industrial Base

  1. DBD says:

    Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?

  2. David says:

    Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?

    Be careful what you wish for. :)

  3. D Böehm says:

    “Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?”

    Question: how many times is America expected to “come to Europe’s rescue”?

  4. MikeP says:

    Yep…He’s on his way to raising US energy costs to Europe’s levels. That’ll save Europe for sure (sarc).

  5. DBD says:

    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.]

  6. MarkW says:

    Don’t worry, by the time Obama’s done, we won’t have cheap shale gas either.

  7. MarkW says:

    “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.

  8. P Walker says:

    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 .

  9. Matt says:

    “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.

  10. jono1066 says:

    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.

  11. Owen in GA says:

    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!

  12. Mark Wagner says:

    Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?

    I’ll gladly send him right over. Keep him for as long as you need.

  13. RHS says:

    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.

  14. D Böehm says:

    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.

  15. LKMiller says:

    “…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?

  16. RockyRoad says:

    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.

  17. Bob Diaz says:

    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. :-(

  18. Vince Causey says:

    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.

  19. DirkH says:

    “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.

  20. LKMiller says:

    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.

  21. jim2 says:

    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

  22. arthur4563 says:

    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.

  23. jeff 5778 says:

    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”.

  24. Gary Pearse says:

    “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.

  25. davidmhoffer says:

    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?

  26. nevket240 says:

    http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Ancient-Maya-Felled-by-Climate-Change-in-Tale-4020963.php
    or if the poor old Mayans had had a Green Funding Policy maybe they would have prospered.
    regards

  27. Al Gore says:

    The major democrats leaders where all supporting Obama during this election.
    What ever Obama does it will stick for the Democratic Party for a long long time.

  28. eo says:

    Your new president coming to rescue europe— did they mean the new CHINESE President ? Energy be in peace or in war is always an important component in getting an edge over the competition after a good sound strategy starting from securing food, use of fire by cave men, to the domestication of animals, invention of machines, robots and electronics.

  29. Peter Miller says:

    If you want to destroy a country’s economy, just make it follow the European Union’s energy policy.

    If you don’t believe it, then just look at what’s happening there.

    Europe just needs rescuing from itself.

    Perhaps if Tehran has a spare nuke, they could drop it on Brussels. It is difficult to imagine anyone would object.

  30. Doug says:

    I have been conflicted as to whether we should start exporting natural gas. I think this is a good case for why we shouldn’t—-let them bring the industry here.

  31. Claude Harvey says:

    By the end of Obama’s second term, any advantage the U.S. may have had in energy costs over any country on the planet will be dead and gone.

  32. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Having just returned from an extensive trip to the Far East I can report that as Europe and the USA race to the bottom, so to speak, the Far East is doing just fine. They fuss about growth rates no longer even dreamed of in the West. Their wages are rising and people are busy getting things accomplished on a scale that is amazing.

    With the US population internally polarized into vituperative paralysis and Europe unplugging its industries in order to create (….green industries?) less CO2 it is no secret who is going to prosper from all this.

    It is not a matter of the US benefitting at Europe’s expense. Both of you are tossing your pre-eminence in global affairs down the AGW sewer. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, both are lying in the ditch of their carbon trading dreams. It is just another banking scheme that is going as wrong as the mortgage bubble. Like Dire Straits, the alarmist investors want money for nothing and their chicks for free. Dire straits indeed.

    The Norweigan group Differ sees carbon certificates trading at EU0.50 per ton, maybe EU1.00. The problem is it was always faith-based, a confidence game based on fudged numbers. Oh sure, if the confidence was there the stocks would always be worth something but, like Nortel, sometimes confidence wanes and in the end it is only the financial vultures who gain anything picking over the corporate corpse.

    The EU and the US are locked in a struggle to see who, after falling over, will be lying on top.

  33. Lars P. says:

    DBD says:
    November 8, 2012 at 11:44 am
    … I don’t know how to get the two dots over the ‘o’ :)
    [Reply: Just cut 'n' paste. — mod.]

    ei, where do we get if you do everything the easy way? cut ‘n’ paste ! you could try with a combination of numbers when pressing the -alt-key- like described here:
    alt plus 148 ö (0246)
    http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t49531.html
    or here:
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061028192907AAwSMbg

  34. DaveG says:

    Come to Western Canada we’ve got Plenty of Money and Jobs to spare for any hard working free enterprise person – Rich or Poor!

  35. DirkH says:

    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    November 8, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    “Having just returned from an extensive trip to the Far East I can report that as Europe and the USA race to the bottom, so to speak, the Far East is doing just fine. They fuss about growth rates no longer even dreamed of in the West.”

    Trust in c0mmunist statistics much?

  36. anticlimactic says:

    If I developed a new method of creating free energy I would have to ensure more energy is produced than it takes to create and maintain it or else it would would not be commercial and would require a subsidy…….Oops!

    Wind, solar and biofuels all need as much, or more, energy to create than they produce or else they would not need a subsidy. But hey, that’s the point of it – they are just a mechanism to destroy wealth, and are highly successful at it.

    Think how much better the financial situation would be in Europe if so much had not been wasted on these useless things. Now Europe is teetering on the edge of anarchy. Which brings us to phase II.

    Eco-activists blame everything on humans, usually without good evidence, which means they see the biggest threat to the planet as humanity itself. The moderates want the human population reduced to around a billion, whereas the extremists want humanity removed from the face of the planet completely. Think of your world with little or no power, transport, food, etc. The population will soon begin to fall. If we can be moved to a pre-industrial lifestyle we will have a pre-industrial population – about a billion globally. Job done.

    I think most people want to be Green, but this does not mean blindly following the dictats of Green organisations, who have their own agenda. Think for yourself. Question everything.

  37. Rhoda R says:

    Crispin in Waterloo: Is this just China or are we talking about Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam etc. also?

  38. D. J. Hawkins says:

    DBD says:
    November 8, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Won’t your new president come to Europes rescue?

    To paraphrase: “Take my president…PLEASE!”

  39. Edohiguma says:

    The first expansion will go into Eastern Europe. Here in Austria we have companies like the steel giant VOEST openly considering moving East and abandoning Austria over rising costs for workers and infrastructure. In Germany smaller companies have actual fears of having to shut down if the electricity costs rise by just one cent. Such companies are small to medium aluminum factories, which, as well we all know, require a lot of power to run. A rise by just one cent for them means cost explosion by millions of Euros, which they can’t cover.

    As for the US “rescuing” Europe. Don’t. We’re trying to “rescue” the Euro with more money we don’t have.

    What the US needs to do is get out of Europe. Military, political and financial. You want the future? That’s in Asia. Europe is literally the old world.

  40. markx says:

    DirkH says: November 8, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    “…Trust in communist statistics much?…” (Re; “….. extensive trip to the Far East……”)

    Rob, it’s well worth while doing the flying and driving. And looking. Some things you just can’t fake.

    My prediction – no matter what happens I can’t see China grinding to a halt in the near future … too much momentum and too many bold and ambitious investors.

    Likewise Vietnam, Indonesia (both with the added driver of masses of ambitious young people). Even Thailand is getting a move on again now. Partially boosted by Myanmar opening up more (there I have not visited). Philippines is perhaps the only place in this regions that still looks the same, but a new President may be changing things there too.

    By the way .(re the region) ..: Of the ten biggest energy projects ever ($ wise), six are in Australia:

    Today’s energy projects dwarf most past endeavors. The Hoover Dam cost $49 million in 1936. Adjusted for inflation, that’s only $825 million today. Six of the world’s 10 largest energy projects are located in Australia, as detailed …..- From CNN Money. (eg Gorgon Project is $57 billion)

  41. markx says:

    Aaaargh! ….DirkH says: November 8, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    I meant …”Dirk,….

  42. Karl W. Braun says:

    Nope, the Philippines is booming too!

  43. F. Ross says:

    DBD says:
    November 8, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Boehm – …
    . And I don’t know how to get the two dots over the ‘o’ :)

    [Reply: Just cut 'n' paste. — mod.]

    [+emphasis]

    Or, if you are using a PC, hold the Alt key and input 0246 on the number pad.

  44. DirkH says:

    markx says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    “it’s well worth while doing the flying and driving. And looking. Some things you just can’t fake.”

    Well theyy did build a lot of buildings. Now their apartment prices are collapsing. Millions of flats sit empty. Millions of illegal children that are not recognized by the state exist.

    There are cranes everywhere. The number of cranes is a leading indicator for a housing bust.

    And then there’s this.
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1956162926001/where-is-us-foreign-policy-headed
    07:45 – Gordon Chang -
    “China hasn’t 7% economic growth but more like 0 or 1 or 2 % if you look
    at the underlying data.”

    And this about centrally planned economies.
    “Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth”
    By Ludwig von Mises (1920)
    http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

  45. 4eyes says:

    “Despite Sandy, global warming is a fringe issue in the US.” If global warming caused Sandy what caused the snow and freezing cold a few days later? Global warming? global cooling? global anything? someone from the CAGW side, maybe Bloomberg, please tell me or i’ll twist off and make life for every CAGW follower feel real uncomfortable. Perhaps Mann, or Trenberth or Jones or even big Al might explain – they can explain everything else.

  46. tadchem says:

    Obama only helps Obama.
    Ask his embassy staff in Benghazi.
    If you have trouble with getting in touch with them I have a Ouija board you can borrow.

  47. Sasha says:

    The Australian and comments are behind a paywall.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

    The AGW zealots have been soft-peddling lately, and I notice the record sea ice formation has not been reported in any MSM in Britain, unlike the so-called “record melting” three months ago.

  48. Baa Humbug says:

    So many have misread what may happen in the 2nd term.
    We are talking about a man who is (essentially) all hat ‘n’ no cattle. He is not and never was up to the job of being a leader of the free world. He is interested in celebrity, pop culture and fame.
    Expect to see more Obum on the couch sitting between Whoopie and whattits her name on “The View” and similar popular shows. Lots of hand shaking, networking and fame and fortune building.

    The ones to worry about are the real politicos working with Obama. These are the people with the motivation, energy and ideology who will cause the real damage to America and its traditional way of life. Obama will just say “Yeah sure, where do I sign?”

    Keep your eye on Defense cuts, strengthening of the EPA and Supreme Court appointments.

  49. Canadian Mike says:

    Much of Europe dug their own grave over the past 20 years by gulping down the global warming/renewable energy kool-aid. Germany, being the only European country with even a casual relationship with reality, have suddenly realized their suicidal folly and are now planning new coal fired generating facilities at a breakneck pace. Fortunately for Europe, with Obama’s re-election and an openly hostile and unrestrained EPA, US energy prices will likely rise toward Europe’s levels. This has been one of Obama’s stated goals for a long time. So while Europe’s “industry” may not lose out to the US, it is like being the tallest of the seven dwarves. You are still going to contually lose industrial production to China, India, Indonesia, etc. Fortunately all of these countries have stringent and strictly enforced environmental regulations so the Greens will have accomplished their goal of saving the world. Wait, what?

  50. E.M.Smith says:

    DBD says:
    November 8, 2012 at 11:44 am

    (

    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.]

    Generally, you can do a web search on the name of a character plus the word “unicode” and get the magic sauce for it in html. So, for example, the Ampersand:

    http://duckduckgo.com/?t=ous&q=ampersand+unicode

    (Duckduckgo.com is a search engine that doesn’t track your every breath like Google… and is not possessed of an AlGore “adviser”..)

    finds

    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0026/index.htm

    where you discover you can type & or & for hex and get an ampersand, or even use & (which is kind of funny, really, since you are trying to GET an ampersand ;-) (you need to include the trailing ; too…)

    Doing the same search for “umlaut o” gives a wiki page near the top (that also has the information) but lower down is the fileformats page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_umlaut

    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f6/index.htm

    Were we find:

    &246; ö and ö all listed as synonyms.

    I’ll leave it for you to figure out how to put the actual text here without it getting turned into an ö but as a hint, it involves that digression into how to get an & above… ;-)

  51. eric1skeptic says:

    Obviously Obama has ideas of his own and cares about his legacy. He may believe his legacy can be improved by forgetting his 2008 promise to cause electricity prices to skyrocket. But he may also believe that his legacy lies in his war on coal and he will ultimately be admired for his “courage” and “foresight”. It is a mystery to me why Ohio voters would reelect him when over 80% of their electricity comes from coal.

    However, there is another theory why an inexperienced junior Senator becomes President and is reelected after a lackluster performance. There are much more powerful interests that seek to dismantle American capitalism and replace it with some form of socialism. Those interests use climate change alarmism simply as a tool to suppress or destroy the strength of American industry. By destroying domestic coal they also remove a good source of cheap power for industry. Obama is another tool of theirs albeit less predictable and diluted by conflicting advisors and other politicians. We can only hope that if the “tool theory” is correct, Obama can gain a little more independence with his reelection and realize some of the practical consequences of the war on coal and the subsequent war on natural gas (promised in the same 2008 speech).

Comments are closed.