Tag: higher prices

Eco-Activists’ Courtroom Carbon Tax Must Be Stopped

“U.S. helps sink world’s first global carbon tax,” read the headline. And every American who values common sense should celebrate.

A large wooden sculpture of a horse, resembling the Trojan Horse, set against a dramatic cloudy sky.

Watts Up With That?

By Larry Behrens

“U.S. helps sink world’s first global carbon tax,” read the headline. And every American who values common sense should celebrate.

President Trump’s administration stood firm against the United Nations’ attempt to impose a worldwide carbon tax through the International Maritime Organization’s laughable “net zero framework.” The message couldn’t be clearer: America’s energy policy is made in Washington—not dictated by unelected global bureaucrats.

But while the global carbon tax was stopped abroad, the same idea is being smuggled in here at home—through the courts. Environmental activists and their trial lawyer allies are attempting to do in the U.S. what the U.N. could not: force a carbon tax on working families.

Recently, one of the attorneys associated with a climate lawsuit got caught telling the truth behind their strategy. Here’s the full quote in his own words:

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax. You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense, it is the most efficient way. The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

That’s not spin—that’s a confession.

“The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products… The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Translation: We know working families are going to pay the price.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax…… [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

Translation: We know we can’t pass this through Congress, so we’re going through the backdoor.

Americans already know a carbon tax means higher prices—and they’ve rejected it every time. According to one poll, more than half 55% say they are unwilling to pay even $1 more per month on their energy bills for climate action. That disapproval skyrockets to 75% when the proposed cost reaches $75 or more per month. The bottom line is working families won’t support higher energy costs for symbolic climate virtue-signaling.

The Trump Administration understands that carbon taxes—whether global or domestic—hurt working Americans. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether to allow these climate lawsuits to proceed. Over 100 Members of Congress, led by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, have urged the Court to reject them, warning that activists are trying to use the judiciary to achieve what Congress has repeatedly refused to do.

If carbon tax proponents truly believe in their cause, they should make their case before Congress. But they won’t. Even the most left-wing members know that voting for a new carbon tax would be political suicide. So instead, they’re counting on sympathetic courts to do their dirty work. And they’re counting on the public not to notice before it’s too late.

When the lawyers for the environmental movement tell you what they’re trying to do, believe them. They’ve admitted quiet part out loud: their lawsuits are a carbon tax by another name. The Supreme Court must see through this scheme and shut it down before Americans are forced to pay the price.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain

Kathryn Porter raises new issues concerning our reliance on electricity from Norway:

A scenic view of a tranquil lake surrounded by mountains, with autumn foliage reflected in the water under a soft sky.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

Kathryn Porter raises new issues concerning our reliance on electricity from Norway:

Headline reading 'Norway’s electricity crisis is about to hit Britain' by Kathryn Porter on a light background.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/08/31/norways-electricity-crisis-is-about-to-hit-britain/

We’ve known for a few months that Norway’s political parties are backing away from exporting power to Europe and the UK. When we are short of power, importing over the interconnector has the knock-on effect of pushing up prices in Norway, which the public there are naturally getting sick and tired of.

It has got to the stage where they are prepared to ignore EU rules.

Now there is another spanner in the works, as the Telegraph reports:

There is a real chance that Norway will run out of water this winter, meaning it will not be able to maintain electricity supplies to Great Britain. Norway could be forced to restrict exports under new powers which allow them to be restricted if there is a prospect of hydrological shortages. And not just once the shortages manifest.

With elections to the Norwegian parliament on Sept 8, this is a hot button issue – as low water levels lead to high prices for consumers.

Reservoir levels in southern Norway are now well below the 20-year average and heading towards 20-year lows. This is hugely concerning. Norway has almost no pumping capability which means that once the water has been used, it will not be replaced until it rains or the snow melts.

The south of Norway is the main region of tension. This is where the interconnectors to Britain and Germany land, and where the population is highest.

Since these two interconnectors opened in 2021, the region has seen higher prices. The issue of high and volatile prices has led to them becoming an issue of concern among the general public.

Earlier this year, the governing coalition collapsed when the Centre Party left over disagreements with the Labour Party over interconnectors and energy policy. The Centre Party opposed implementation of the EU 4th Energy Package which is a legal requirement, and wants to cancel the interconnector deals with Britain and Germany.

One point Kathryn makes is that Norway does not have any pumping capacity, so once the water has gone, it has gone.

I have repeatedly complained about Britain’s increasing reliance on importing power, which makes a mockery of Miliband’s claims of energy security.

Now the birds could be coming home to roost!

From Refineries to Fiefdoms: Is Newsom Orchestrating a State Takeover of California’s Oil Industry?

California’s refining capacity is collapsing—not because demand has disappeared, but because it is being deliberately dismantled by regulatory fiat. The recent announcement that Valero Energy will idle or shutter its Benicia refinery by 2026 isn’t just a business decision. It’s the calculated result of a hostile policy environment designed to punish traditional energy producers until they either leave the state or fall into government hands.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

California’s refining capacity is collapsing—not because demand has disappeared, but because it is being deliberately dismantled by regulatory fiat. The recent announcement that Valero Energy will idle or shutter its Benicia refinery by 2026 isn’t just a business decision. It’s the calculated result of a hostile policy environment designed to punish traditional energy producers until they either leave the state or fall into government hands.

Welcome to Newsom’s California, where economic sabotage is spun as environmental justice—and where, quietly but unmistakably, a roadmap is being laid for state-controlled oil infrastructure.

The Valero Withdrawal: Death by a Thousand Regulations

The Benicia refinery, a cornerstone of Northern California’s fuel supply, processes 145,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It’s taken a direct financial hit from California’s mounting anti-oil regulations, including:

  • A $1.1 billion impairment charge—a warning siren about future profitability.
  • An $82 million air-quality fine, despite the facility operating under existing permits.
  • New laws like SBX 1-2, which micromanage fuel inventory, pricing, and even resupply logistics.

These policies are not regulatory oversight—they are operational quicksand. The message is clear: if you’re not making biofuel, you’re not welcome.

Not Just a Shutdown—A Strategic Vacuum

Valero’s exit will eliminate 9% of the state’s refining capacity, triggering ripple effects that Californians will feel directly at the pump. More importantly, the loss of this capacity reduces supply security, amplifies price volatility, and cements California’s growing dependency on foreign imports of refined fuels—a logistical and geopolitical disaster in the making.

Yet Governor Newsom appears unbothered. That’s because this isn’t about fuel security or emissions. It’s about control.

The Smoking Gun: California’s Blueprint for State-Owned Refineries

Buried in the California Energy Commission’s May 2024 Draft Transportation Fuels Assessment is an eye-popping section outlining “highly complex implementation policies” for managing gasoline supply. Among these is a plan for state-owned refineries, described in detail as a fallback option in the event of market “failures.”

https://x.com/houmanhemmati/status/1913086605507920206/photo/1

Let that sink in.

The state that has spent years making it economically impossible to operate a private refinery now wants to create its own. The very same report recognizes that refineries are shutting down not because demand has disappeared—it hasn’t—but because state policy has made it uneconomical to continue operations.

The report openly discusses how “as demand for gasoline shrinks, refineries may close or convert to processing clean transportation fuels.” But here’s the kicker: the decline in demand is slow and uneven, while supply shocks—thanks to abrupt closures—are “lumpy,” causing instability and risk. The document then lists state takeover scenarios as a solution to this instability.

In other words: destabilize the industry, then nationalize it.

Fewer Choices, Higher Prices, and One Owner

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s policy, in writing, from the California Energy Commission. State officials are laying the groundwork to replace a functioning, competitive fuel market with a government-run enterprise. Think DMV meets gas pump.

And what about the consequences?

  • Soaring fuel prices.
  • Massive job losses in refining, transport, and supply chains.
  • Crippling tax revenue loss for local communities like Benicia.
  • Increased emissions from imported fuels and marine transport.
  • Higher risks of supply shortages due to bureaucratic mismanagement.

All justified in the name of climate “equity.”

A Power Grab Disguised as Progress

This is not about climate. It’s not even about cleaner air—California’s emissions from transportation fuels are already among the lowest in the nation thanks to past technological improvements. This is about power—concentrated, centralized, and entirely unaccountable.

Gavin Newsom and his allies want to run California’s fuel infrastructure from Sacramento. They want a state monopoly on the means of energy production. If private operators won’t dance to the state’s tune, they’ll be fined, sued, and regulated into oblivion.

And then—when the last private operator gives up—Newsom will declare a crisis and “reluctantly” take over to “protect the public.”

Valero’s Exit Isn’t the End—It’s the Beginning

What’s happening in Benicia is a case study in economic expropriation by regulatory warfare. The goal is not to clean the air—it’s to seize the refinery. Newsom and his bureaucrats have written the playbook, and they’re not hiding it.

The only thing standing between Californians and $10 gasoline—rational policy, free enterprise, and informed resistance—is rapidly disappearing.

This isn’t just bad governance. It’s ideological colonization under the banner of sustainability.

Shoppers face £1bn ‘toaster tax’ under plans for new set of net zero rules

Shoppers face a £1 billion “toaster tax” under plans for a new set of net zero rules, retailers and Conservative MPs have warned.

Defra unveils plans to require larger shops to ‘take back’ used electrical items such as toasters for recycling even if bought elsewhere.

Shoppers face a £1 billion “toaster tax” under plans for a new set of net zero rules, retailers and Conservative MPs have warned.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has unveiled plans to require larger shops to “take back” used electrical items such as toasters for recycling, even if the items were bought elsewhere.

The plans would also see online and high street retailers required to provide a “free of charge collection on delivery service” under which they would have to take away a customer’s old appliance, such as a washing machine, television or fridge, if they were delivering a new one. The Telegraph has the story.

Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, told The Telegraph that the new requirements could cost firms “£1 billion or more” per year – a figure that would be passed on to consumers via higher prices.

The Government insists the measures are needed to avoid millions of household electrical items ending up in landfill each year.

Plans are ‘awful’

The plans threaten to reignite Tory rows over burdensome net zero regulations, which the Prime Minister promised to eschew in favour of a “pragmatic and proportionate” approach to decarbonising that would avoid undue pressures on households and businesses.

David Jones, the Conservative MP and former Brexit minister, described the plans as “awful” and akin to a stealth “toaster tax”.

An official analysis accompanying the Government’s consultation document admits that the cost of the scheme, while paid upfront by retailers, “could then be passed back to consumers through higher prices” – despite Downing Street insisting that its current focus is easing the “pressures” of the high cost of living.

“It will become an invisible charge that everybody pays,” Ms Dickinson said, adding that, contrary to Mr Sunak’s pledge to take a “pragmatic and proportionate” approach to net zero, “It doesn’t feel pragmatic.”

The Government’s consultation document setting out the planned changes – which would be rolled out from 2026 – states they are part of a series of measures that will “influence the transition of the whole economy towards net zero”.

Ms Dickinson said: “We think [the bill would be] in the hundreds of millions of pounds plus, and could be £1 billion or more.” The cost would be borne by retailers rather than funded by revenue already raised via business rates and council tax.

Mr Jones added: “This is exactly the sort of burdensome regulation that we thought we were getting rid of when we left the EU.

“This is an extraordinary imposition on businesses and the Government should have nothing to do with it. I think it is completely unreasonable that they should expect retailers to do that.”

‘Stores may stop selling electrical goods’

The most contentious proposal is for “retailers with a turnover of over £100k of electrical sales each year to provide free takeback of unwanted electrical equipment in store without the need to purchase a new item”.

Ms Dickinson said some shops might simply stop selling electrical items in order to avoid being bound by the requirements.

If a large chemist sold electrical items such as hair tongs and hairdryers then they would be obliged to accept equivalent items bought at other shops.

Ms Dickinson said: “If retailers have to take in more than they sell, some who only sell small volumes may stop selling them at all and larger supermarkets may also reduce the ranges offered, both reducing choice for customers.”

Richer Sounds, the television and hi-fi retailer, warned that its 50 shops were already “packed to the rafters” with stock.

Julie Abraham, the firm’s chief executive, told The Telegraph that the chain did not have “huge empty rooms for storing every broken TV, radio, and speaker that might be left in our stores under the proposed changes to the electrical recycling rules”.

She added: “This means we would have to increase collections from our stores in order to take away these items, increasing our carbon footprint and creating new costs to our business, the environment and ultimately our customers.”

‘We can’t do it for free’

The plans are also opposed by Currys, with Alex Baldock, the chief executive, saying the firm’s existing recycling policy meant that it accounted “for nearly half of all retail technology recycling in the UK”. 

Speaking earlier this month, Mr Baldock warned that retailers were already only making £3 on every £100, adding: “We can’t do it for free.”

Read the full story here.

Mini Electric Costs £10K More Than Petrol–And Has An Effective Range Of 100 Miles

The Mini Electric is temptingly priced is that it doesn’t have a very big battery, and the official range between charges is only around 145 miles. You won’t even get that far in real-world driving but you have to pay a higher price than buying a petrol car.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

I don’t use Facebook much, but am always astonished to see how many adverts for EVs appear.

Are companies so desperate to sell them, or is this the Nudge Unit at work again?

Anyway, it’s a good opportunity to check out prices again.

The cheapest Mini EV comes in at £32,550:

The specs of the two cars are similar.

The range of the EV is given as 140 miles, which means less than 100 in reality, making it utterly useless for anything other than round town.

No wonder Mini are so desperate to advertise them on Facebook!

Auto buyers have good reasons for avoiding e-cars

The politicians are ignoring the reality as they force people to buy products they don’t want.

From  CFACT

By Jason Hayes

Big government mandates are forcing the national transition to electric vehicles. Consumer demand doesn’t appear to matter.

Government is doling out billions in special loans and subsidies to select companies and twisting tax policy to make EVs appear cheaper. At the same time, heavy-handed mandates are making traditional, reliable cars more expensive and harder to produce.

Despite these efforts, the evidence is increasingly clear: Electric vehicles are not ready for prime time.

People buy vehicles to get them where they want to go, when they want to go there, with the things they want to take along with them. Yet a June study from AAA found that electric trucks lose nearly 25% of their range when they haul heavy loads. Even when they’re carrying 100 pounds less than their maximum load, their range drops off precipitously.

Trucks powered by combustion engines can lose range, too. But when you compare them with electric vehicles, traditional vehicles have a clear advantage. A Magna International towing test, carried out in July 2022, compared the capacity of a Ford F-150 Lightning to a gasoline-powered GMC Sierra when both trucks were towing a 6,100 lb. trailer at highway speeds. The gasoline-powered Sierra managed to pull the trailer 156 miles with an estimated 65 miles remaining in the tank, for a total of just over 220 miles. The F-150 Lightning managed an anemic 86 miles before requiring a charge. The gas truck went more than 2.5 times the EV’s distance.

Magna did a similar range test in October, comparing a Ram Cummins diesel with a GMC Hummer EV. Again, both trucks were pulling 6,100 lb. trailers at highway speeds. The Hummer had to stop at 123.2 miles, with an estimated 5 additional miles remaining in the battery — for a total possible distance of 128 miles. The Dodge Ram made it 212 miles before stopping to refuel, with an estimated 87 miles (or more than a quarter of the tank) remaining. That’s a total possible distance of 299 miles. The diesel truck was able to go more than 2.4 times farther.

It’s not just trucks. Electric vehicles, as a whole, are less convenient options for getting people where they want to go. The Wall Street Journal described a nightmare of an EV-powered trip from New Orleans to Chicago, highlighting range anxiety as well as extended charging times.

Certainly, electric vehicles have their staunch defenders, and they appear to be OK for short trips around larger cities where ample charging infrastructure exists. But they will fail to meet the needs of many drivers who live in rural areas or routinely need to travel on highways. Politicians are floating extensive plans to expand charging infrastructure, but that goal is decades away and will cost billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Consumers are smart enough to know that electric vehicles don’t meet their needs. Most people, when given the option, select from a mix of luxury, reliability, cost, and design. They buy vehicles that get them where they want to go, with as little difficulty and as much comfort as they can afford. More often than not, that means avoiding an electric vehicle.

Consumers are also smart enough to know that electric vehicles are a worse investment. The North American Auto Dealers Association used Kelley Blue Book figures to conclude that the average EV has a five-year cost to own of more than $92,000. A typical internal combustion vehicle, meanwhile, costs only $76,500 over that same time frame. The association also noted that, after five years of ownership, electric vehicles depreciated by an average of $43,515, whereas traditional vehicles depreciated by $27,883.

The politicians who are coercing the public into buying electric vehicles are ignoring these realities as they force people to buy products they don’t want at far higher prices.

Mandates from on high should always concern customers and voters because they are inefficient and take away consumer choice. But electric vehicle mandates, in particular, use a top-down method that satisfies only the desires of government bureaucrats and C-suite executives, not consumers or the public.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner and The Mackinac Center

Author


Jason Hayes

Jason Hayes is the director of energy and environmental policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The Inflation Reduction Act Is Biden’s Latest Flimflam

It isn’t surprising that President Biden is marking the Inflation Reduction Act’s first anniversary by traveling the country trying to convince voters that the law is working and the economy is getting better. Good luck to him.

From climatechangedispatch

 By  STEVEN LAW 

It isn’t surprising that President Biden is marking the Inflation Reduction Act’s first anniversary by traveling the country trying to convince voters that the law is working and the economy is getting better. Good luck to him.

A recent CNN poll found Americans still consider the economy the most pressing issue facing the country. [emphasis, links added]

More than half of Americans think the economy is bad and getting worse, and only 37% approve of Mr. Biden’s handling of the economy. Just 30% approve of his handling of inflation.

That doesn’t augur well for the credibility of Democrats and the legislation Mr. Biden promised would “reduce inflation at the kitchen table” and kick-start new economic growth.

Every Democrat in Congress supported the bill. It should doom them in 2024.

Republicans must aggressively articulate what is wrong with the legislation. The most obvious point: After a year, the legislation hasn’t reduced inflation.

Food and consumer costs are increasing again. Rent is going up too. Even Mr. Biden conceded that the title is a misnomer, telling donors at a fundraiser, “I wish I hadn’t called it that.”

His administration has admitted the act could cost Americans their jobs. Brian Anderson, executive director of the administration’s interagency working group on energy communities, says the law will hit workers in the fossil-fuel industry especially hard.

The fossil-fuel industry supports nearly 100,000 jobs in West Virginia and more than 350,000 in Ohio, two states critical to control of the Senate.

Yet Mr. Anderson told the New York Times, “We’re standing right at the cusp of potentially still leaving them behind again.”

This isn’t parody. Mr. Biden is traveling the country championing a law he knows will cost Americans their livelihoods.

Even worse, what U.S. workers lose through the legislation, foreign companies gain.

You might assume that American workers and companies would be the biggest beneficiaries of Mr. Biden’s signature legislation, but the Journal reports that foreign companies will reap the greatest benefit.

Even firms with ties to the Chinese Communist Party could receive billions in tax credits under the legislation—all paid by U.S. taxpayers.

And the price keeps going up. Democrats told Americans that the act would cost $700 billion. It turns out that’s not even close.

According to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, the law could cost $2.8 trillion—four times the price quoted by Democrats.

With this legislation, Mr. Biden and the Democrats sold hardworking Americans a bill of goods.

They promised an economic panacea; what we got is looming job losses and higher prices.

The more that voters learn about this law, the less likely they will be to support the politicians who enacted it.

Read more at WSJ

Govt Quietly Drops Promises Of Cheap Renewable Energy

Government seeking views on introducing Contracts for Difference reforms rewarding applicants for including factors not only based on price in projects.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

It looks like the government is opening the door for higher prices for renewables:

Government seeking views on introducing Contracts for Difference reforms rewarding applicants for including factors not only based on price in projects.

  • Potential reforms to Contracts for Difference could mean applicants would be rewarded for including wider benefits their projects could bring when submitting price bids to government for their low-carbon electricity
  • these ‘non-price factors’ could include supply chain sustainability, addressing skills gaps and innovation, help drive investment in the sector and boost country’s energy security
  • today’s step builds plans to create a more secure energy future and grow our economy, by supporting thriving green industries and high quality jobs
    • Potential reforms to Contracts for Difference could mean applicants would be rewarded for including wider benefits their projects could bring when submitting price bids to government for their low-carbon electricity
    • these ‘non-price factors’ could include supply chain sustainability, addressing skills gaps and innovation, help drive investment in the sector and boost country’s energy security
    • today’s step builds plans to create a more secure energy future and grow our economy, by supporting thriving green industries and high quality jobs

A major reform to the government’s flagship renewables scheme that could help drive further investment in renewable energy deployment and improve energy security is being explored in plans set out today (Monday 17 April).

The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme is the government’s mechanism for supporting new British low-carbon electricity generation projects, such as offshore wind and solar developers, and along with FIDER, an early form of the scheme, has awarded contracts to new low carbon projects in Britain with a total capacity of 26.1GW.

The competitive nature of the scheme has already proven successful at placing downward pressure on prices since the first auction was held, with the per unit (MWh) price of offshore wind dropping by almost 70% between the first auction in 2015 and the latest in 2022.

Currently, Contracts for Difference are awarded based on the bid price submitted by renewable energy generating stations, such as an offshore wind farm – the aim being to increase deployment and ensure good value to electricity consumers and, over time, drive down costs.

The government is now seeking evidence and views about reviewing applications not just on their ability to deliver low-cost renewable energy deployment, but also based on how much a renewable energy project contributes to the wider health of the renewable energy industry.

These reforms could see applicants considering overall costs alongside other ‘non price factors’ – such as supply chain sustainability, addressing skills gaps, innovation and enabling system and grid flexibility and operability – when submitting their bids, which could help drive investment in the sector, grow the economy and boost the country’s energy security.

More investment in supply chain sustainability, for example, would help to reduce its carbon impact and access the resources and materials it needs to deploy sustainability at scale in the longer term. Investment to address the skills gaps would help to train the technicians needed to deploy ever larger renewable energy generation stages.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-explores-major-reform-to-flagship-renewables-scheme-to-improve-energy-security-and-drive-investment

It is now beyond clear that offshore wind farms and others awarded CfDs at ultra low prices in the last round of auctions have no intention of taking up their contracts, instead preferring to opt for much higher market prices. Indeed they would soon go bankrupt under their contract prices, which are simply not economically viable.

The government has attempted to fix this problem in future auctions, by amending the contracts to force generators to trigger them as soon as they begin operations.

But this in turn is making said generators reluctant to bid at such low prices. This latest consultation suggests that the government will find a way to smuggle higher prices through the back door, using spurious arguments about supply chains and green  jobs as an excuse.

This quote from the Government’s press release rather gives the game away:

The idea that costs have suddenly just taken off is utterly absurd. In any event, CfD strike prices are index linked from 2012 prices, so if there has been a 10% inflationary increase in the last year, this would automatically be factored into the strike prices in due course.

We can expect to see much higher prices for renewable electricity coming through in future CfD auctions, “justified” by the claim of green jobs, sustainability and the rest of the crap.

And the promises of cheaper energy will quickly be forgotten.