Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has been one of the fiercest critics of the Navy’s procurement of biofuels for its fleet of ships and aircraft. However, before calling the military’s $12 million R&D program for renewable fuels part of a “green agenda,” Inhofe secured millions of dollars for a company developing liquid fuels from natural gas that cost 29 times more than conventional fuel.

In 2002, Inhofe earmarked more than $2 million for the Oklahoma-based company Syntroleum, which is looking to produce gas-to-liquid fuels for military use. According to 2010 filings at OpenSecrets.org, Inhofe holds between $15,000 and $50,000 in assets through BlackRock, the largest investor in Syntroleum.

Jim Lane at the Biofuels Digest reported that Syntroleum’s fuel cost considerably more to produce than the renewable fuels used by the Navy today:

Adjusting for inflation, the $2.3 million contract in 2002 dollars equates to $2.93 million in today’s dollars, or $28.21 per gallon. Back in 2002, jet fuel was selling at considerably less than today – at an average price of 75 cents per gallon in the second half of the year, according to indexmundi.com.

Overall, the cost of the natural gas-based alternative fuel was 29 times more than the cost of conventional fuels at the time, and cost more, per gallon, in today’s dollars than the Navy’s advanced biofuels program.

Since the original contract in 2002, Syntroleum has reportedly secured nearly $6 million in contracts with the Department of Defense.

In a recent statement, Inhofe said he supports the development of alternative fuels. However, that support seems to be limited to fossil fuels. He called the Navy’s biofuels program a part of the “liberal green agenda” that could threaten “the lives of service men and women” — even while supporting a technology that was almost 30 times more expensive than conventional fuel when originally funded.

Jim Lane sums up Inhofe’s contradictory stance on renewable fuels:

There seems to be ample evidence that Senator Inhofe is intimately aware of the costs of developing and testing alternative fuels in small quantities. It appears to be a simple case of playing political games, by criticizing Dynamic Fuels for selling advanced biofuels for $26 per gallon, when the Senator himself won an earmark requiring the military to purchase even more expensive natural gas-based fuels from Dynamic’s parent.

Paying nine times as much for test quantities of advanced biofuels? “Far-left agenda.”

Paying 29 times as much for test quantities of alternatives to fossil fuels made from, ahem, more fossil fuels? “A real difference for America.”

Read more

Oklahoma continues to get scorched by extreme heat and drought. The entire state is now in extreme drought, and more than 70% of the state is in severe drought (or worse), up from 50% just a week ago.

According to Gary McManus of the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, July was the 23rd month out of the last 28 to come in warmer than statewide averages. Bloomberg reports:

More than 64 temperature records were broken in Oklahoma during a scorching July, and additional ones fell across the state Wednesday on the first day of August, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

The National Weather Service reported that Guthrie, about 30 miles north of Oklahoma City, registered 114 degrees to break the statewide record of 113 degrees, set at Meeker in 1896 and tied in Ralston last year.

The Oklahoman reports:

The January through July statewide average of 63.9 degrees was easily the warmest on record for the first seven months of the year at 4.8 degrees above normal.

It’s not only been extremely hot, but very dry. The May through July statewide average rainfall total of 5.99 inches fell 6.25 inches below normal and ranked as the third-driest period on record, McManus said.

Norman and Watonga have each gone 56 consecutive days with less than a tenth of an inch of rain on any one day, according to the Oklahoma Mesonet weather network.

In some areas of Oklahoma, the drought has been like one solid punch. Since October 2010, areas in the western Oklahoma Panhandle have only had 17 to 20 inches of rainfall, McManus said.

Even as residents swelter in the relentless heat, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe continued his tirade about man-made global warming during a Senate hearing yesterday, saying the science had “collapsed.”

This isn’t the first piece of heat-related irony to hit Inhofe. Last year, the pro-pollution Senator had to cancel his keynote address at the Heartland Institute’s climate denial conference after getting sick from an algae bloom exacerbated by extreme heat and drought. He joked at the time, the “environment strikes back.”

But it’s no joke what we’re doing to the climate and what, as a result, the climate is starting to do to us — and the residents of parched Oklahoma City:

Skyrocketing water use in Oklahoma City during the worst of the ongoing heat wave has prompted officials to implement a mandatory water rationing system until conditions improve….

The rationing also applies to Oklahoma City suburbs that use city water. Utilities spokeswoman Debbie Ragan said cities and other areas affected by the rationing are Blanchard, Canadian County Rural Water District No. 3, Deer Creek Rural Water District, Edmond, El Reno, Moore, Mustang, Newcastle, Norman, Piedmont, Pottawatomie County Rural Water District No. 3, Shawnee, Warr Acres and Yukon.

Read more

Today, the Senate votes on Sen. James Inhofe’s measure to derail the first Environmental Protection Agency regulation to reduce mercury pollution and other toxics. The EPA projects the new standard will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths. The push by the coal industry’s GOP allies isn’t likely to move forward, however, with a White House veto threat on the table.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has once again drawn where the candidate stands on reducing mercury pollution, and it doesn’t happen to be on the side of most Americans. Though a majority of Americans support the standard, Romney and other Republicans have argued on behalf of the coal industry, which has lobbied aggressively against the EPA. Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul told the National Journal:

“Governor Romney has made clear that he opposes the Utility MACT…. President Obama cannot claim to support clean coal while imposing regulations that his EPA admits would prevent another coal plant from ever being built.”

Romney’s position reversal is the latest example of the candidate’s etch-a-sketch transformation. As governor, Romney said pollution is akin to “killing people,” and Massachusetts joined several states to sue the EPA for the very regulations Inhofe wants to derail.

In 2003, Romney unveiled regulations that would require older power plants to reduce mercury pollution, “putting Msssachusstetts in the forefront of reducing air pollution.” The state’s Department of Environmental Protection proposed its own mercury standard, to capture 95 percent of the mercury by October 2012. At the time Romney touted, “Our comprehensive mercury reduction efforts are a major step towards eliminating mercury pollution and will have a positive effect on the environment and public health for many years,” according to a press release from Romney’s office.

Romney and the 35 dirty Senators backing Inhofe’s push are out of step with public opinion. A new United Technologies/National Journal poll finds that 57 percent of Americans support the EPA’s finalized rule. The rule draws broad bipartisan support in the poll, as well, with 57 percent of Republicans in support of the rule with more time to comply.

Here’s the pre-Etch-A-Sketch Romney standing in front of a Massachusetts coal-fired power plant, explaining that he would “not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people”:

by Jackie Weidman

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe just announced that the Senate will vote next Wednesday on his resolution (SJR 37) to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. Inhofe’s fevered push for this resolution is no surprise, considering that he’s received $688,417 in contributions from electric utilities and mining companies during his congressional tenure.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, a rule finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in December 2011, would require steep reductions of mercury, lead, arsenic, and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants, the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions in the United States. These contaminants are linked to birth defects, brain damage, learning disabilities, cancer and other serious ailments.

EPA predicts that mercury and air toxics reductions will save 11,000 lives annually and prevent more than 100,000 asthma and heart attacks yearly, resulting in net economic benefits of up to $80 billion annually.  On top of these benefits, investments in the manufacturing, installation, and operation of pollution-control equipment to clean up these pollutants will create jobs.

Mayors, public health groups and small business recognize the overwhelming benefits from reducing mercury pollution.

Some 91 mayors across the country, including New York City’s Michael Bloomberg, Los Angeles’ Antonio Villaraigosa, and Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel, sent a letter to the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, stressing that “this long overdue safeguard will reap tremendous benefits for our communities.”

A broad coalition of public health and civic organizations oppose the Inhofe CRA and support the mercury regulations, including the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Small Business Majority and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Small Business Majority – representing more than 28 million small businesses in the U.S. – also opposes Inhofe’s CRA, acknowledging the job-creating potential of EPA regulations.

And yesterday, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) stood up for the health of Tennesseans, saying “the rule will pretty much finish the job of implementing national clean air rules that will greatly improve the health of Tennesseans…. We don’t want to permanently have three of the top five asthma cities in the U.S.”

He also acknowledged that utility companies have known that the standard was coming since 1990.

Meanwhile, Republican-backed political action committees (super PACs) are aggressively in favor of the Inhofe resolution.  The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and its new sister super PAC, American Commitment announced a similar multimillion-dollar campaign to push the CRA through state office visits, phone calls, and television ads targeting specific senators.

The Chamber of Commerce released a ridiculous ad earlier this week asking, “will the EPA turn off your air conditioner?”  The ad ignores all credible assessments of the impact of the rules, including one from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation showing these regulations will not jeopardize reliability.

Last fall, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to pass a similar Congressional Review Act resolution blocking the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, but it failed in the Senate by a vote of 41 to 56.

Next week, it’s time for Senators to stand up against Inhofe’s CRA. It’s  nothing but an irresponsible, industry-supported attack on American’s right to clean air.

The Environment Protection Agency’s landmark mercury and air toxics standards, announced in December, would reduce pollutants from coal power plants, saving 11,000 lives, prevent 130,000 asthma attacks and avoid 4,700 heart attacks. But Sen. James Inhofe has found the required 30 Senators to bring the rule to a Senate vote.

In an event with FreedomWorks, a participant posed the question to Inhofe (at 27:00): “Can we really trust companies to protect our natural resources without the institution of the EPA?” Inhofe, a climate denier who has attempted to circumvent EPA rules because they lack “science,” did not think anyone has said the EPA doesn’t have a place:

INHOFE: I don’t think anyone has said you want to eliminate the EPA altogether. If you look at the Clean Air regulations they were good. They worked. If you look back to the Bush administration we had the clear skies act that they refused to act on that would have done away with SO2, NOx, mercury, real pollutants. We’re not talking about that. There needs to be some regulation there but the regulation needs to be based on science and theirs is not based on science.

But Inhofe really doesn’t need to look far to find many Republicans who want to “abolish” the EPA. Last year, ThinkProgress spoke to six current and recent GOP lawmakers aiming to end the agency, and Senate Republicans voted to end the EPA by combining it with the Department of Energy, with 15 GOP co-sponsors. And Rep. Stephen Fincher recently said “We must cut the EPA’s legs off.”

And of course, Inhofe has attempted to block coal and oil oversight — the climate denier has claimed there’s no science for it. However, Inhofe’s interests do not lie with the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would benefit from mercury reduction, but with his oil and coal donors.