It is clear that there are far cheaper fuels -- efficiency, solar and wind to replace coal and natural gas in the U.S., and biofuels or electricity elsewhere to reduce oil intensity. So how much $100 fossil fuel can the world afford, climate aside?
Too often the news media have provided a platform for fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks and advocacy groups to make spurious claims about global warming and renewable energy and allowed them to pass themselves off as disinterested parties promoting free markets and limited government.
While I am far less enthusiastic about Mayor Bloomberg's support for nuclear power, I agree that the discussion of nuclear energy needs to be stripped of emotion, and focused on an assessment of costs and benefits.
Over the last five years, our country has taken great steps toward enhancing our energy security. How? By using new technology developed by American companies that offers better access to our plentiful resources.
Two news items surrounding greenhouse gas emissions moved over the past week. One on the trajectory of said emissions from government number-crunching. The other on what the proposed Keystone pipeline might mean for emissions.
Whenever I bring up the importance of getting America the energy plan it deserves, someone always says, "Boone, let's not pick winners and losers. Let's let the market decide." There's only problem with that statement.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday announced its proposed Tier 3 rules, which would reduce allowable amounts of sulfur in gasoline and help automobiles' catalytic converters capture more pollutants.
As the practice of hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas continues to spread not only in the U.S. but worldwide, the scientific community has increasingly focused on the environmental consequences of the technique.