Break this china Ebell

As the human experiment continues to race towards its avoidable mass extinction, lizards like Myron Ebell cheerlead the sorrow in the United States Senate, and the consequent inability of China to assist in negotiating around this existential dysfunction.

China is the economic competitor that the United States needs to race to the bottom against, modified by the fact that Americans can't feel the deadly smog clouds in Chinese cities. There's also a perception that they prefer to depend on coal power. Putting that together with Myron's undisclosed but very evident coal industry funding, there's a lot of room to spread disinformation and lies.

What has he been saying, apart from ignoring hydro-power as a renewable resource?

From 8 October:

The alternative to using the energy sector to foster perpetual economic stagnation would be to use the energy sector to underpin a new era of prosperity. All we need to do to undertake this radical change of direction is to take President Obama's advice and follow China's good example: clear away the regulatory obstacles to energy production, open federal lands and offshore areas to oil exploration, and start building coal-fired power plants... China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, is building two coal fired power plants every three weeks.

And from 1 October:

It amazes me that the idea that there is such a race [for clean energy technologies] has been repeated so often that it is now accepted as given. It would be news to the Chinese. China is in a race with the U.S., and they are winning it. It is the race for abundant and affordable conventional energy.

While China is now installing nearly as many windmills every year as the U. S., they are constructing at least twenty times’ as many coal-fired power plants. About 80% of China’s electricity comes from burning coal, which is why the wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers are closing factories here and in the EU and building new ones in China. The cost of manufacturing anything depends primarily on the costs of capital, labor, and natural resources -- and usually the most important natural resource component is energy. Assuming comparable capital costs, China has lower energy costs as well as lower labor costs than the U.S. If the U. S. wishes to remain competitive with China and insists on using higher-cost energy, then the only way to do it is to lower labor costs dramatically.

Of course, if the U.S. wanted to bring forward any technological innovation, then Myron's financially cheap coal policy will ensure that market forces will forbid it.

Oh, there's something else Myron says here:

Recently, some environmental pressure groups suggested that the next round of increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for cars and light trucks should be 60 miles per gallon by 2025. Today, the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation told the press that they were considering requiring increases of between 3 and 6 percent per year in fuel economy after the 35.5 miles per gallon average for cars and light trucks goes into effect in 2016. Six percent per year between 2017 and 2025 would get to 62 miles per gallon by 2025.

The 35.5 miles per gallon standard by 2016 is going to cause a major car crash. If the manufacturers somehow manage to produce a lot of cars that meet the target, it is unlikely that many consumers are going to want to buy them. The automakers will be forced to sell their tiny cars very cheaply and to raise prices on larger cars dramatically in order to meet the 35.5 mpg average. This is a recipe for bankrupting all the automakers and for a second bailout that will makes the taxpayer bailout of GM and Chrysler look cheap. To then raise the standard to 60 miles per gallon by 2025 is sheer fantasy.

Hey, I wonder what China is doing regarding this policy. From the New York Times:

Worried about heavy reliance on imported oil, Chinese officials have drafted automotive fuel economy standards that are even more stringent than those outlined by President Obama...

The new plan would require automakers in China to improve fuel economy by an additional 18 percent by 2015, said An Feng, a leading architect of China’s existing fuel economy regulations who is now the president of the Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation, a nonprofit group in Beijing...

Mr. An estimated that the average new car, minivan or sport utility vehicle in China already gets the equivalent of 35.8 miles a gallon this year based on the American measurement system of corporate averages and will be required to get 42.2 miles a gallon in 2015.

By comparison, President Obama announced last week that each automaker will be required to reach a corporate average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

What's Myron Ebell think of this kind of strategic longer-term national interest reasoning while he is busy advocating all the policies for economic and environmental devastation he can muster from a successful state at a distance?

Crickets.