And it makes sense:

Ford Motor Co. will offer a natural gas option for its 2014 F-150 pickup truck models, turning drivers of America’s most popular vehicle into potential consumers of the low-cost fuel.

The option, scheduled to be announced Wednesday, will add a major prospect for consumers hoping to use natural gas to fuel cars and light-duty trucks, since only one such vehicle — the Honda Civic Natural Gas — is available now for direct sales from an automaker to U.S. customers.

“There is the potential that we may look back on this launch as when natural gas really became a mass-market fuel for retail customers as well as fleet customers,” said Jon Coleman, sustainability and technology manager for Ford, in an interview with FuelFix.

Though no one — not even Ford — is predicting large sales for the natural gas versions of the F-150, the model may draw particular interest in Texas — the nation’s top producer of natural gas and No. 1 buyer of pickup trucks.

UPS: Natural gas ‘game changer’ for cutting costs, emissions

And Ford’s F-series, of which the F-150 is the most popular model, has long been the top selling car line in America.

Ford sold about 367,000 F-series trucks in the first half of the year, according to data from trade publication Automotive News. Toyota’s Camry, the top-selling sedan, notched about 207,000 sales in the first half of 2013, according to the figures.

“Texas is such a huge truck market. By a long shot it’s the No. 1 truck market in the country,” said David Whiston, an analyst for investment research firm Morningstar in Chicago. “So if there’s a lot of demand for natural gas and pickups in Texas alone, it’s not surprising to see Ford make this move.”

In Texas, where natural gas wells dot the landscape, pride may drive some buyers who want to consume the local fuel, said Lynn Lyon, director of fuel market development for oil and natural gas producer Pioneer Natural Resources.

“There’s a pride in energy production and the fact that we have been able to have scientific advancements that make this available,” Lyon said.

Here’s an excerpt from the president’s interview with the New York Times:

NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline — Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You’ve said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?

MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.

NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need.

So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.

Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.

And what about the 40,000+ jobs the State Department said the pipeline would create? Via The Hill:

“The president conveniently chooses to ignore the construction jobs from steel, fabrication, and the rest of the jobs that would be created by our nation of builders if he would just approve the Keystone pipeline,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) in a statement Sunday.

“He also conveniently chooses to ignore the March draft [Environmental Impact Statement] from his own State Department that said Keystone could create upwards of 42,000 jobs,” Terry added.

And what’s with the “chuckles?” If the president thinks 50-100 permanent jobs are funny, wait until he sees the amount of taxpayer money used to create the same number of permanent jobs. Here’s a quick snapshot from the DOE’s website; note the number of projects that created fewer jobs than the president suggests will be created by Keystone:

You can stop chuckling now, Mr. President, because your phony claims about fixing the economy are no laughing matter.

Oh, global warming — is there nothing you can’t do? Mother Jones breathlessly reports:

Here Is a Video of One Lobster Eating Another Lobster

From Henry Payne:

Detroit - At the University of Michigan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been funding experiments on human beings to determine the effect of particulate pollution on their health. The tests are similar to others around the country that use mobile units to pump in filtered exhaust to labs exposing paid subjects to so-called PM2.5 particulates.

Trouble is, the same EPA that funds the studies claims that any exposure to PM2.5 particulates can be deadly.

“Studies demonstrate an association between premature mortality and fine particulate pollution at the lowest levels measured in the relevant studies, levels that are significantly below” existing Clean Air Act standards, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation Gina McCarthy testified before Congress. “These studies have not observed a level at which premature mortality effects do not occur.”

If PM2.5 particulates are as dangerous as the EPA says, then how can the same agency simultaneously expose human lab subjects to the compounds? Only by grossly misleading the public on the harmful effects of air pollution.

In truth, as the U-M studies show, PM2.5 exposure is not fatal, yet the EPA — with the help of its environmental and media allies — has been scaring the public on particulates to justify stringent new air regulations even as they are costing jobs and shutting down coal plants.

“Soot particles from industrial flares, diesel exhaust and road grit … can get deep inside the lungs, causing disease and early death,” writes the Houston Chronicle, parroting EPA’s call for costly new standards that the Obama Administration claims will save 46,000 lives a year.

Steve Milloy, a regulatory scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com, is calling the EPA’s bluff.

Milloy is suing researchers like U-M’s Robert Brook claiming he is conducting illegal human experiments.

Read the rest here.

West Virginia to President Obama: We’ll see you in court. Via the Intelligencer:

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the state will “seek to form a collective voice” and join other states in federal lawsuits to fight regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Morrisey hosted a town hall meeting focused on job creation at West Virginia Northern Community College in Wheeling Wednesday. He told attendees new regulations “are being issued on a daily basis” by the EPA.

President Barack Obama last month announced his plan to work toward elimination of carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

“Yes, West Virginia is going to be engaged in litigation against the EPA,” Morrisey said. “In the past, the governor had to really push and have the attorney general’s office kicking and screaming to file suits against the EPA. That’s not the case anymore. We now are working collaboratively with the governor and the (state Department of Environmental Protection) to speak with one voice.”

Such cooperation allows West Virginia to get involved with the process earlier and enter the state’s official comments into federal records, making it harder for the EPA to implement its rules, Morrisey said. He noted West Virginia also is building relationships with attorneys general in other states that have positions similar to West Virginia’s.

“We’re now able to speak with more strength because we can now have six, 10, 15 or even 20 attorneys general join a brief and step forward so that West Virginia’s voice is magnified,” Morrisey said. “You didn’t have that in the past.”

The rest here.

The Senator from Wyoming writes in Investor’s Business Daily:

Last month, President Obama unveiled his plan for a national energy tax. On Thursday, I am introducing legislation that will give senators a chance to tell the American people exactly where they stand on this proposal.

The president’s plan would increase energy costs for seniors, small businesses, and low-income families. It also would kill jobs across the country. The president would do all of this without the consideration of the American people or their representatives in Congress.

Soon after the president made his announcement, energy companies announced they would close three coal-fired power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Nearly 500 people will lose their jobs because of Washington regulation. Congress must act to stop President Obama’s regulatory overkill before it is too late.

Of course, the president has tried to push his massive energy tax before. When he ran for president in 2008, he said that under his plan, electric rates would “necessarily skyrocket.” He also said he would ensure that anyone who tried to make energy using traditional sources, instead of his preferred methods, would go bankrupt.

With the strong support of the American people, the Democrat-controlled Congress rejected President Obama’s attempts in his first term. So now he’s making a power grab to give himself unprecedented new authority.

The rest here.

The only thing missing is someone shouting, “1.21 gigawatts?!?!” Via Yahoo News:

Commuting is a way of life for most Bay Area residents. Many people are accustomed to an hour commute each way without traffic. Some people even commute to Southern California several times a month, spending several hours each way either in the car or fighting through airports. What if there was an alternative to flights and car rides? If it was up to Tesla CEO Elon Musk and a Colorado company, an answer could come sooner than we think.

Hyperloop System

Musk, the man behind both Tesla Motors and SpaceX, has spoken about a high-speed transportation system known as the Hyperloop, a tube transport system that would allow passengers to travel at high speeds. The proposed system could reduce trips between San Francisco and Los Angeles to minutes, and reaching the East Coast from California could take under an hour. Crazy as it seems, the company ET3, based out of Longmont, Colorado, has already been hard at work making this a reality, calling their project the Evacuated Tube Transport.

How Does It Work?

The Hyperloop has been vaguely described by Musk as a “cross between a Concorde, a rail gun, and an air hockey table.” A better description might be an elevated tube system with a magnetic levitation system similar to high-speed bullet trains. The kicker would be the enclosed tube, which would provide a nearly friction-less surface for individual capsules to travel in.

I will give Musk some credit: “Hyperloop” is a much better name than “Evacuated Tube Transport,” which sounds like last-minute prep while you’re being rolled in for a colonoscopy.

The rest here.

Florida Power & Light blew up the oil-fueled Port Everglades Power Plant this morning to make way for a new plant that generates electricity with natural gas. According to FPL, the new plant will save customers $400+ million on their electric bills over the plant’s lifetime. Those savings may or may not come to be, but at least there was a giant, choreographed BOOM! to hold customers over until the savings materialize:

It looks like Al Gore still doesn’t like to answer questions about his hypocritical sale of Current TV to oil-rich Qatar. Via Deadline Hollywood:

AllThingsD editor Walt Mossberg took the opportunity to call the former VP on an inconvenient truth — not his movie, the hypocrisy of his sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. “You sold your network to Al Jazeera, which is owned by a government that’s a big oil producer,” asked Mossberg. “How could you do that?” Gore eventually responded “I don’t ask you why you continue working for Rupert Murdoch.” Uh-oh. Mossberg parried, “Last I checked, he’s not in the oil business”. Gore retorted, “He’s also not strictly in the news business, either”.

Mossberg should have asked him about massages, too.

Writes John Hanger in today’s Guardian:

If you care about the environment, you should welcome natural gas fracking

There is no perfect energy source that has no environmental impact and is low-cost. Natural gas is far better than coal or oil

Shale gas is reshaping America’s economy, environment and politics in still surprising ways. It was an unpredicted phenomenon, but shale gas, now more than a decade old, accounts for 40% of the natural gas in the US. The success of shale production, that has reached large areas of America where no gas development previously existed, birthed the largest environmental movement since the anti-nuclear power protests of the Three Mile Island era. The “fracking wars” have come to America and the world, with the recently fired French energy and environment minister saying shale gas supporters wanted her scalp.

The massive supply of shale gas crashed the price of gas from $13 for a thousand cubic feet in July 2008 to below $4, delivering heating and electricity savings of $1,000 per year to many US consumers and helping to fend off further recession in 2011 and 2012. These large price reductions in heat and power – necessities of life – are especially vital for those living in poverty, and a welcome turn of luck for median-income households.

As a result of shale gas, fortune has smiled as well on millions of Americans who have lease their land to the drilling industry. They receive payments and royalty checks that total tens of billions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands more get a paycheck from jobs created directly or indirectly by the shale gas boom and chemical manufacturing associated with it.

Shale gas in the US is no Ponzi scheme, resting on sketchy reserves, as some have recklessly asserted, but a durable economic bonanza that could return energy intensive manufacturing jobs to many communities. In fact, the new gas volumes are so real and enormous that they threaten coal, oil, nuclear and renewable energy.

The rest here.

Here’s a great piece by Alex  Berezow on why global poverty is a much bigger problem than climate change. The opener:

It’s particularly trendy among politicians and members of the media to be worried about climate change. When President Obama recently spoke before a crowd in Berlin, he said that climate change “is the global threat of our time.”

But that’s not true. Just a cursory glance around the world reveals that, given the enormous problems facing our planet, it would be surprising if climate change cracked a list of the top 10 immediate concerns.

As I discussed in my book Science Left Behind, the single biggest threat facing humanity is poverty. That’s a mundane topic; it’s neither sexy nor trendy, but it’s nonetheless true.

About 1.3 billion people don’t have electricity. A poignant article in TIMEdescribed what that life looks like:

It’s boring, for one thing — no television, no MP3 player, no video games. And it’s lonely and disconnected as well — no computer, no Internet, no mobile phone. You can read books, of course — but at night you won’t have light, other than the flicker of firewood. And about that firewood — you or someone in your family had to gather it during the day, taking you away from more productive work or schooling, and in some parts of the world, exposing you to danger. That same firewood is used to cook dinner, throwing off smoke that can turn the air inside your home far more toxic than that breathed in an industrial city. You may lack access to vaccines and modern drugs because the nearest hospital doesn’t have regular power to keep the medicine refrigerated. You’re desperately poor — and the lack of electricity helps to ensure that you’ll stay that way.

The lack of adequate healthcare explains why, in the world’s poorest countries, six of the tenleading causes of death are infectious diseases: lower respiratory infections, diarrhea, AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and neonatal infections.

The rest here.

She writes on the DNC blog:

As a representative of South Florida, climate change threatens the very existence of our communities. Since the 1920s alone, we’ve experienced 9-inches of sea-level rises. This may sound inconsequential but if trends continue or accelerate as we pump more greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, communities like mine in South Florida and coastal communities all across the country face a desperate fight against rising sea levels.

Schultz represents Florida’s 23rd Congressional district. Here’s a map:

Duh. If you build giant hotels and apartments on a barrier island mere feet above sea level, yes: you are at risk. Schultz continues:

But sea level “could” rise is the important distinction here. It means that we still have an opportunity to reverse course. It means hope for the millions of families in Florida and other communities across our country. And it means that our actions today can affect the outcomes tomorrow.

Oddly, Schultz never suggests not building in areas that “could” be affected. If you believe climate change is real and a threat, shouldn’t new zoning laws — however politically suicidal — be part of your solution?

A pity that Americans don’t get to hear more speeches like President Obama gave in Africa. In the course of a tour of poverty and sub-Saharan political corruption, Obama talked in Tanzania and South Africa last week of deregulation and building more fossil fuel power plants. This from a president whose regulatory overreach – including a war on coal and oil generation –  has strangled his home country’s economic recovery.

“Access to electricity is fundamental to opportunity in this age. It’s the connection that’s needed to plug Africa into the grid of the global economy. You’ve got to have power. And yet two-thirds of the population in sub-Saharan Africa lacks access to power,” the president said at the University of Cape Town in South Africa as he outlined his “Power Africa” initiative that invests $7 billion in U.S. dollars with the goal of doubling Africa’s electricity output by exploiting Africa’s vast oil and natural gas reserves.

Cheap carbon energy is what runs the U.S. and the industrialized world. Visit underdeveloped nations (no need to go all the way to Africa, just visit the Dominican Republic or Haiti) and the lack of centralized power – an electric grid tied to megawatt coal and gas and hydro plants – is a severe shortcoming.

Yet one wonders if Obama – green ideologue, lifetime activist – comprehends what his own speechwriters have penned for him.

The country from which he gave his speech, South Africa, is the continent’s powerhouse thanks in part to huge reserves of coal – 93 percent of the country’s electricity comes from that plentiful resource. But at home, Obama’s comprehensive climate strategy – delivered just before he embarked to Africa – is an all-out war on coal, America’s  most abundant energy resource. In its place, Obama embraces the Green Utopia of a return to decentralized power – windmill, solar panels – that is a recipe for expensive power and brownouts.

Indeed, Europe – Obama’s energy model – is now experiencing “energy poverty” as hundreds of thousands of Eurozone citizens can no longer afford the continent’s sky-high electricity rates brought on by years of green mismanagement. As a result, Europe has turned to the U.S. for coal exports to feed its electricity appetite.

The irony is rich. While Obama’s EPA tries to eliminate America’s use of coal to fight global warming, the globe – Europe, China, India (soon Africa?) – is coming to America for its cheap coal reserves. In the last six years, American coal exports (including to Europe) have nearly tripled – negating Obama’s attempt to eliminate coal’s carbon emissions even as it deprives the U.S. of a competitive fuel.

That’s bad enough, but the avicide happened in front of 40 birdwatchers. (Your laughing as you read this, aren’t you?)

The Daily Mail:

Rare bird last seen in Britain 22 years ago reappears — only to be killed by wind turbine in front of a horrified crowd of birdwatchers

• The white-throated needletail is usually only seen in Asia and Australasia
• Forty birdwatchers dashed to the Hebrides to catch a glimpse of this one
• But as they watched it was knocked ’stone dead’ after impact with turbine

There had been only eight recorded sightings of the white-throated needletail in the UK since 1846. So when one popped up again on British shores this week, twitchers were understandably excited.

A group of 40 enthusiasts dashed to the Hebrides to catch a glimpse of the brown, black and blue bird, which breeds in Asia and winters in Australasia.

But instead of being treated to a wildlife spectacle they were left with a horror show when it flew into a wind turbine and was killed.

John Marchant, 62, who had made the trip all the way from Norfolk, said: ‘We were absolutely over the moon to see the bird. We watched it for nearly two hours.

‘But while we were watching it suddenly got a bit close to the turbine and then the blades hit it.

‘We all rushed up to the turbine, which took about five minutes, hoping the bird had just been knocked out the sky but was okay.

‘Unfortunately it had taken a blow to the head and was stone dead.

‘It was really beautiful when it was flying around, graceful and with such speed. To suddenly see it fly into a turbine and fall out the sky was terrible.’

The rest here.

All 11 here, but No. 4 is my favorite:

No impact on climate change. Even if the U.S. stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today (virtually halting all economic activity), the Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.

Shouldn’t a climate change plan address climate change? 

Brad Plumer over at the Wonk Blog wonders if carbon-tax-imposing Julia Gillard getting sacked by her rival Kevin Rudd will have “broader implications for climate-change policy in the years ahead.”

Um, yes. Via The Australian:

KEVIN Rudd will push to dump the carbon tax and go straight to an emissions trading scheme in a bid to unshackle the government from the politically toxic policy.

The Daily Telegraph understands the carbon tax, which is due to rise by $1.15 per tonne to $24.15 next week, will top the agenda when the new Prime Minister convenes his first cabinet meeting, scheduled for Monday.

Sources close to Mr Rudd confirmed it would be a high priority and most likely be at the top of the cabinet agenda.

However, in a signal that he would conduct a consensus government, Mr Rudd indicated to colleagues no changes would be made without approval of the cabinet.

It is believed the sticking point will be how quickly Mr Rudd could drop the fixed carbon price and go straight to a floating market price, considering the significant cost in also retaining the household compensation package.

Axing the current fixed price for a market-based floating price could see the cost drop to as little as $6 a tonne.

It’s estimated the move could cost the government several billion dollars in lost revenue. With parliament not due to return before an election, Mr Rudd is likely to announce it as an election policy, with changes to come in next year. Such a change would require legislation, which the Greens have indicated they would not support.

“This is a priority issue,” a source close to Mr Rudd said.

The move would allow Mr Rudd to keep Labor’s commitment to a carbon price but distance his new government from Julia Gillard’s broken promise to not impose a carbon tax. Yet carbon is also something of a vexed issue for Mr Rudd, who famously described the onset of climate change as “the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation”.

The rest here.

Scott Lincicome writes at Reuters:

Thwarting America’s crude awakening

The American “shale boom” is poised to revolutionize global energy markets. It could transform the nation from a longtime net oil importer into an export powerhouse. Consider that the 2012 increase in U.S. crude oil production, announced last week, was the largest not just in U.S. history but the world.

To help this transformation, a bipartisan swath of federal and state officials is pressing for new infrastructure, like the Keystone XL pipeline, to move a glut of domestic oil from the center of North America to Gulf ports. This is a crucial step, but unless Congress reforms archaic restrictions on crude oil exports, all that black gold’s going nowhere.

These restrictions not only contradict global trade rules and national trade and energy policies, they also threaten to derail the American energy revolution. Yet, unlike similar restrictions on natural gas, almost no one in Washington is talking about them.

In a free market, the answer to the key question of where to sell all this new American oil would be simple: wherever demand takes it. Unfortunately, the U.S. crude oil market is anything but free.

Instead, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 authorized an export licensing system that, though intended to address temporary conditions, remains in place. It prohibits almost all crude oil exports — even in this time of abundant supply.

Exports today require a license from the Commerce Department that, except for shipments to Canada and a few other narrow circumstances, is only approved if the proposed transaction is “consistent with the national interest.”

Non-Canadian exports of U.S. crude oil are effectively banned. No license applications were approved under the “national interest” exception between 2000 and mid-2012, and subsequent data confirms that this unfortunate streak remains intact.

This de facto ban creates a host of problems. First, by curtailing exports and subjecting license approvals to the whims of bureaucrats, the current system slows domestic production, breeds economic distortions, discourages investment and destabilizes energy markets.

The rest here.

What was the most cringe-worthy moment in Barack Obama’s cringemaking anti-carbon-plan speech in Georgetown this week?

Was it his extolling “the first humans to orbit the moon (who) took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world”? This from the president who has ended the manned flight program?
 
Was it his promise to “refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing”? This from a president who has piled up a record $17 trillion in debt left to future generations?
 
No, for my money it is this quote: “Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America,” he said to applause. “So it’s a good start.”

Really?

According to an analysis of government data by energy consultant John Miller for the left-leaning TheEnergyCollective.com, the top two reasons for the 12 percent drop in CO2 emissions from 2007-2012 were 1) natural gas fuel switching  (45 percent of the total) and 2) reduced demand due to the Great Recession (27 percent).

In both instances, Obama should can the self-congratulation. In the case of natural gas, Obama repeatedly pooh-poohed the gas fracking revolution (until his 2012 campaign, when he took credit for it), and his green allies despise fracking and intend to suffocate it just as soon as they dispose of King Coal. Secondly, Obama has dismissed the idea that CO2 reduction inhibits growth. One thing is certain, though: inhibited economic growth equals CO2 reduction.

So here’s to the future of natural gas (until the greens declare war on it). And here’s to long recessions (the president’s secret weapon to reduce emissions).

Via The Guardian:

No UK households have completed green deal process, figures show

Not a single home in the country has been modified to fully meet the energy efficiency plan as take up remains ‘worryingly slow’

Five months after its launch, not a single household in the UK has completed the process of making their home more energy efficient under the government’s flagship green deal, according to figures released on Thursday.

Nearly 40,000 assessments – in which experts visit properties to see what measures would best be undertaken – have been carried out, but only four households are registered in the system as finalising green deal plans, whereby works are installed and paid for by the scheme’s financing. A further 241 households have confirmed they would like to proceed with financing.

But not a single household has what is known as a “live” green deal plan, where the works have been undertaken and details of the repayments on electricity bills have been passed to its energy supplier. The figures include data up to 16 June.

More than 5,000 people have registered for the green deal scheme’s “cashback”, with 968 being paid a total of just over £250,000. Virtually all of the cashback payments – 99% of them – were for boiler upgrades, with just one for loft insulation and one for solid wall insulation. Last year the climate minister, Greg Barker, wrote in the Guardian: “Eight million solid wall homes have had no affordable solution to insulate. The green deal will change that.”

I like how “zero” homes completed in five months is only ”worryingly slow.” Or maybe “worryingly slow” is a Britishism for ”total failure.” 

The rest here.

Detroit — At Georgetown University Tuesday, President Obama launched new, far-reaching plans to combat what he calls “the disastrous effects of climate change.” Yet, while economists agree that his remedies would have little impact on global temperatures, the policies his administration has already put in place have had disastrous effects on the U.S. economy recovery, especially in Middle America.

What does Obama’s global warming agenda look like?

It looks like Chase Holcomb, father of a newborn daughter, and one of 318 coal miners laid off by Consol Energy last year as the EPA’s promised emissions caps (effectively eliminating new coal plants) have dried up coal contracts. Holcomb is part of a wave of thousands of miners laid off across Appalachia as the EPA also tied surface mining permits in knots of red tape. The loss of these high-paying union jobs have devastated communities like Clay County, West Virginia, where unemployment is high and mines are the principal source of property taxes that pay for schools.

I looks like green Detroit activists who, at the urging of local Congressman Gary Peters (D., Detroit) this week protested Canadian oil sands and its coal-like petroleum coke (pet coke) byproduct used in electricity generation. Peters and his ilk hope their protests will not only cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline (20,000 new jobs) but also cancel future oil sands refining — even as Marathon Oil’s refinery expansion in near-bankrupt Detroit has brought 5,000 construction jobs and 250 permanent jobs.

It looks like the burning of cheap pet coke exported abroad even as the EPA denies permits for its use in power plants here. So while President Obama preaches American abstinence from carbon — driving up electricity costs in the U.S — pet-coke-fired plants will drive down manufacturing costs abroad for competitors in Canada, China, and South America.

It looks like the Fiat 500e, a money-losing electric car ($10,000 per vehicle) that Chrysler has been forced to produce in California to meet that state’s strict zero-emissions vehicle laws — similar to Obama regulations that go into effect by 2025.

It looks like an increased tax break — from the current $7,500 to $10,000 — for wealthy electric-vehicle buyers like Leonardo DiCaprio and Justin Bieber to buy electric toys like their $100,000 Fisker luxury sportscars.

In a recent Pew Research poll of 21 problems, Americans said that the economy is No. 1 on their list of concerns, while global warming ranked dead last. No wonder. The Obama administration’s War on Carbon is a leading threat to economic growth.