Skip to main content

What's The Real Cost of Overregulation?

That's a question our friend Pat Cleary of the NAM Blog asked yesterday:
As we've noted in this space before, the government's own Energy Information Administration has predicted that energy costs will continue to soar in the months ahead. The cost for people to stay warm this winter in the Northeast and the Midwest are expected to be nothing short of astronomical, a burden that falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class. Because we can see this storm cloud coming (in fact, it's already here), we just wanted to remind everyone that this country's energy policy has been held hostage for years by a small band of extreme environmentalists:

-- They have discouraged the use of coal in spite of the fact that our clean coal technology leads the world and in spite of the fact that our coal reserves exceed (in BTU's) all the world's oil reserves;

-- They've resisted the development of nuclear power. We've not built a nuclear plant in this country since the 70's. France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear. They've built 58 nuclear plants since the 70's.

-- There are about 50 liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in the world. Exactly 5 are in the US. (Japan has 23.) The permitting process for building them here is both cumbersome and expensive.

-- Environmentalists have resisted further exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a parcel the size of the state of South Carolina, where drilling will occur in a footprint the size of Dulles Airport. What's their plan?
That's a question we've asked in another context, but we're not holding our breath waiting for an answer.

We should note that Pat has cross-posted these thoughts over at Red State, where they've kicked up quite a bit of dust.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The cost of over regulation is also augmented by the fact that courts in the USA do not award costs against unsuccessful plaintiffs except where the lawsuit is frivolous. If environmental groups had to pay defendants' costs and court costs after unsuccessful litigation, they might think twice about suing. The practice of making unsuccessful civil litigants paying other parties' and court costs is well established in countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. When Greenpeace unsuccessfully sued to try and prevent the construction of a research reactor in Sydney, Australia, it had to pay the costs of the courts, the regulator, the purchaser, and the vendor, all of whom were named as defendants.

Making losers in a lawsuit pay other parties' costs may stop lawsuits being used as a delaying tactic.

Such a proposal would require a major law reform in all states and the federal government.

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…