Hot Air in the Second City

North Shore mayors have joined with Congressman Mark Kirk in denouncing the huge BP Indiana refinery's approved increased discharges into Lake Michigan. Dennis Byrne previously on the political hype:

The critics like to say, as a matter of shorthand, that BP wants to "dump" 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more "sludge" into the lake every day. But citing percentages alone is misleading without reporting the huge raw number upon which the percentages are based. In fact, a 35 percent increase in maximum daily particulates translates into an increase of less than a dozen parts per million. The actual increase would be more on the order of 8 parts per million. Same infinitesimal increases apply to ammonia.

BP notes that if the wastewater were toxic under the definitions and regulations of the 1977 Clean Water Act, no discharge would be allowed. Simply stated, according to the company, the current or planned discharge is not toxic; it is not harmful to humans or aquatic life. If you don't believe that, then argue with the legal limits.

And while you pols are flapping your gums and expelling hot air about this, note that the Chicago area has the highest gas prices in the country. How about cutting local gas taxes? And getting rid of the silly, outdated and expensive boutique gas you've saddled us with:

In truth, there is ample room to reduce the economic burden of these gasoline rules without sacrificing environmental protection, but attempts by some in Congress to do so have all failed.

Kirk had laudably pushed for reform there, but this is not part of Pelosi's new energy bill, nor are incentives for new refineries, none having been built since the 70's (and Nancy Pelosi should know how long ago that is). Where does gasoline come from, hmm?:

"The majority of our product here comes from basically six refineries located in proximity of the Midwest. When we have a problem with one of those, six companies have to go outside and purchase elsewhere and ship it up the pipeline from the Gulf Coast," Roth said.

Other gas-consuming cities along the pipeline that ends in Green Bay include Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison and Indianapolis.

"You just can't flip a light switch to bring more product in the area," Roth said."

And I would think we would welcome having some refinery capacity around here, given that a significant percentage of the nation's existing plants are in hurricane alleys. While they largely proved capable of sustaining high winds, more than a few roads and pipelines were taken out, and gas shortages spread around the country. As it is, we are importing 10-15% of our gasoline. And it should be a matter of national security to have reliable and sufficient refinery capacity close by for the Second City.

UPDATE: Stick a stake in the heart of ethanol please. Read all of Pete DuPont's column in the WSJ but note this (let's keep laying out the facts on the ethanol scam):

Oil, natural gas and nuclear power are the indispensable energy resources to insure the prosperity of America's economy. But that is not what the congressional leadership thinks. So if we mustn't drill offshore for oil or natural gas, or build nuclear power plants, what is the politically correct action Congress intends to take?

Increasing ethanol subsidies for farmers is at the top of the list. Ethanol is a politically hot energy substance produced from crops like corn, soybeans, sunflowers and switch grass. Current law requires 7.5 billion gallons to be produced by 2012; the new Senate bill would increase that to 36 billion by 2022.

But ethanol is not a good gasoline substitute. It takes some seven gallons of oil to produce eight gallons of corn-based ethanol--diesel fuel for the tractors to plant and harvest the corn, pesticides to protect it, and fuel for trucks to transport the ethanol around the country. So there is not much energy gain, nor with all the gasoline involved does it help with global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And ethanol yields one-third less energy per gallon than gasoline, so that mileage per gallon of ethanol-blended auto fuel is less than gasoline mileage.

Ethanol is a politically popular subsidized product. Producers get a 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy and are protected from international ethanol imports by a 2.5% tariff and an ethanol import duty of 54 cents a gallon. These subsidies have brought more than 100 American ethanol refineries into operation, and another six dozen are going to be built, which has nearly doubled the price of corn, raised the cost of beef and other corn-fed livestock, and increased the cost of milk and corn syrup for soft-drink manufacturers.

UPDATE: Can you believe this one? Absolutely. Sen. Dick Durbin's labor bosses are muscling in on the farm under the proposed Dem farm bill. WSJ:

The bill is flush with subsidies to produce ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that still can't compete on a free-market basis. More ethanol requires more biorefineries. Democrats plan to mandate Davis-Bacon wages for workers building those refineries. With nonunion builders unable to compete on price, each new refinery could cost as much as 35% more. In many rural areas with little or no union activity, this artificially high labor cost could even make the prospect of building an ethanol plant a net loss.

But good ol Dick and the Dems will get their campaign contributions. Might miss some from Downstate though, as they will have wrecked their local economy. And maybe around Chicago as well, as we will doubtless pay more at the pump.