In celebration of Earth Day, did you know that it is greener to burn our fossil fuels than to produce and burn biofuels? I think this would be a hard sell to Robert Kennedy Jr. but if it’s the environment that we’re trying to impact less, then we need to get serious about actually getting more of our own oil and gas so we can be less dependent on foreign suppliers. All in one fell swoop we could increase our national security, lower the price of gasoline at the pump, and help the environment. It’s a win win win.
Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.
Biofuels look good in climate change terms from a Western perspective, said Dr Spracklen, but globally they actually lead to higher carbon emissions.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a “green process”. It requires tractors and fertilizers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make “green” fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – “it’s essentially a zero-sums game.”
NewsBusters: New Study Recommends Against Burning Biofuels to Solve Global Warming
Will be interesting to see what play, if any, this gets in your mainstream media. And I wouldn’t hold my breath for Kennedy to get on board either. Not with BIG OIL.
All’s right with the world now as far as energy policy goes. To insure our dependence on foreign oil and higher energy cost at home, setting the stage for yet more government assistance programs, this country’s energy policies are now controlled by the courts and the EPA.
A program to expand oil and gas drilling off the Alaska coast has been canceled by a federal appeals court because of environmental concerns. A three-judge panel in the District of Columbia says the Bush administration’s Interior Department failed to consider the offshore environmental impact and marine life before approving an oil and gas leasing program in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi (CHOOK-chee) seas.”
Nothing new here. Just pointing out liberal tendency to put the wolves in charge of the hen house. EPA dictates energy policy, teachers unions dictate education policies, like labor unions and the EPA team up to dictate the future of the auto industry. All that, combined with a lack of business experience in the entire Obama Cabinet makes the Obama administration uniquely qualified to depress the economy even further.
With billions and billions of dollars already sunk into the auto industry to, ostensibly, save it, the EPA figures it is time to make the auto industry meet yet higher standards regarding emissions. That’s just what they need now. The ‘economist’ in Obama is showing.
Moving on down the list of contributors, it must be the EPA’s turn to raise costs, and to justify it by citing ‘man made global warming.’ But this is what President Obama said he would do. That’s what is expected of him, by me and all that voted for him.
As Chairman of the Board of General Motors, Barack Obama should be speaking against higher standards now, at a time when they need to figure out how to stay in business by dropping product lines, closing plants, and probably declaring bankruptcy in order to reorganize. Without all the legacy costs. So far, nothing from Chairman Obama. Ordinarily, a conflict of interest like this would be noticed.
U.S. automakers are in a tough bind, though. After recently being rescued by the federal government, they are hardly in a position to be dictating proposals. The fuel economy standard that was laid out in 2007 demands a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020 and is estimated to cost automakers $85 billion. Raising it beyond 35 mpg will place too heavy of a burden on the struggling auto industry, officials say.
He has done it in under 100 days. Gotta give him credit for a takeover well done. He runs the board, and The White House. Now any new laws on the auto industry will get no industry input and no opposition. And we didn’t have to vote on it for all that to happen. Or to put it another way, we were never asked to choose between free-market capitalism and socialism when he was running for President. He never said that he wouldn’t one day also run General Motors. What we got instead was ‘trust me.’
For all intents and purposes, General Motors is not General Motors any more. It is now Barack Motors. BM, change he believes in.
Here’s a real-life example that speaks to the benefits of the Fair Tax in attracting business from around the world. It is the exodus of business from the United States as they escape the ‘tax hammer’ of the politicos in Washington. They are moving their domicile to Switzerland. How’s that for an economic stimulus?
As the Obama administration prepares to hit the energy industry with a $10 Billion tax ‘incentive’ (his word, not mine), the law of free-market economics does what it does just as sure as gravity does what it does, it ignores the will of the political class.
The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom. Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland — mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama’s tax-seeking administration.
In a country with scant crude oil production of its own, the virtual energy boom has changed the canton or state of Zug, about 30 minutes’ drive from Zurich, beyond all recognition. Its economy was based on farming until it slashed tax rates to attract commerce after World War Two.
The Fair Tax would, all on its own and without increasing our national debt, change the global business paradigm by making the United States the tax haven for businesses around the world.
‘Limbaugh’s political influence is not vast at all.’ That, according to Air America Radio host of the Ring of Fire program, Mike Papantonio.
That’s why I thought it odd that he would go to all the trouble to offer his political advice to RNC Chariman Michael Steele. Which is, have Rush start a third party.
I’m sure Rush will be taking advice from Mike Papantonio and/or Michael Steele. Besides he wouldn’t take the pay cut. Look what good advice it is. Split the party, dilute what little solidarity there is in the GOP, guarantee Democrats stay in power in Washington. Yeah, that sounds like a plan Rush would like. 🙄
The heartburn Papantonio has with Rush is two-fold. Professional envy is probably his biggest motivator. Rush is a conservative first, not a Republican first. And, Papantonio knows that conservatism is the antidote to the liberalism / socialism as proscribed by the Democrats in Washington today.
That one man, Rush, can create such an uproar on the Left belies the irrelevancy that is ascribed to him by Mike. It takes away from examining the real issues, like how Obama’s Cap and Trade plan will raise the cost on the poor for gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and electricity.
The poor can thank Obama for not raising their taxes. The poor can also thank Obama for replacing it with higher fuel and energy costs on them. And Rush can stay right where he is.
Ever wondered why we haven’t already achieved energy independence? There is no one you can find in Washington, from any party, that won’t say they are for energy independence. Everyone is for energy independence. So what’s the problem?
The problem is the political language barrier. Probably first invented by President Clinton when his Lewinsky defense was, ‘it depends on what the definition of IS is.’ The political parties today are not speaking the same language and the media is speaking the dialect of the Left. It presumes that the other side is just stupid and there is no common ground to be found.
Energy Independence, the Right– The whole point of energy independence as far as conservatives and most Republicans are concerned is primarily a security issue. The fact that we are buying 70 percent of the oil what we currently use from foreign sources, most of which don’t like us very much, is a point not forgotten by those on the political right. Conservatives are reminded of the gas lines and rationing that went on here under the Carter administration after Iran started using their oil as a weapon against us. Like Russia, btw, is doing to its neighbors today and Chaves has threatened to do to us. To mitigate this concern, to become energy independent means to develop enough of our own resources to protect our own national security should the middle east one day shut off the valves. Or, if Iran blows them up.
There would be two other benefits to becoming energy independent. One would be a private sector, high paying, job creation project in states all over the country that wouldn’t increase our national debt one thin dime. It would also stop the annual flow of $700 billion to countries that would just as easily cut us off and sell to China or any other country, and keep that money right here in our own country, and putting it to work in our own economy.
Unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to find a liberal speaking to the national security aspect of oil resources in the United States.
Energy Independence, the Left– to the left it means energy replacement. That is to say, not to use fossil fuels. To be energy independent does not mean to have and use our own resources as opposed to someone else’s. It means to not use our own resources in favor of some technology of the future that has yet to be developed. The ‘green’ lobby, high on the list of political allies to Democrats, is leading the agenda to this definition of energy independence. This is fine and dandy in a perfect world. But it totally ignores the security aspect of not having enough of our own resources if, say tomorrow, OPEC or an oil producing State decides to cut production or worse, cut us off, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
A fact that can’t be ignored is the fact that fossil fuels are the fuel for the worlds’ economic engine and will stay that way unless and until some other source can be brought to market. To not exploit our own resources, as a bridge to some technology of the future and our own national security, is just as irresponsible as forcing us to limit the use of fossil fuels, no matter where they come from, to the detriment of our economy.
While developing this post, other terms and words have come to light that play a major role in inhibiting economic, social, and political progress. Here is a list of some that came out of the news in just the last 3 days. It is what we, as conservatives, are up against.
Spending / Investing
Bipartisan / the political right ignoring their principles and voting with Democrats.
The Obama campaign is responding to posts like this ‘How Obama Supports The Coal Industry‘ by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves. Consider this, have you ever known anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, that needed so many people to explain what he says? Or rather, to explain away what he says? Their problem is simple. When he actually says what he means, his surrogates come out to say that no, that’s not what he means. The whole Obama campaign has been an illusion in so many ways. But I digress.
To this subject, the Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, as far as coal power plants go, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ His position is to take coal power plants off the table. That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the ‘caps and trade system’ to penalize any company that wants to build a coal-fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
Have your candles ready. It is hard to believe how Pennsylvania could be a blue state when one considers Obama’s position on coal. Keep in mind that 49 percent of all electrical power in the United States is generated by coal-powered generators. This audio clip is Barack Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, SF Gate.
Barack Obama: I haven’t been some coal booster.
Joe Biden: No coal plants here in America, build them if they’re going to build them over there.
And once again, speaking to his character, saying one thing while meaning another to someone whose vote you want, the Huffington Post saw it for what it was last May.
UPDATE 11/3/08, 23:02: The Obama campaign is responding to the above news by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves.
The Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the caps and trade system to penalize any company that wants to build a coal fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
It is bad enough that the United States spends over $700 billion per year on oil resources from the Middle East and elsewhere, when we have enough resources of our own which could be developed right here in the United States, creating jobs all over the country in the process.
The confluence of two problems, energy dependency and the financial market meltdown, seem to have the world looking to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia for help. President Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia with his hand out for more production and lower oil prices. Now British Prime Minister Gordon Brown goes there looking for money for the International Monetary Fund’s ‘bailout reserves.’
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday he is confident that Saudi Arabia will contribute to the International Monetary Fund’s bailout reserves after he promised business leaders in the Gulf that they would have a say in any future new world economic order.
When you are the one in control of the oil spigot, with cash reserves that are as large as your oil reserves, it is not hard to imagine, nor is it surprising, to see this kind of attitude ‘from those that don’t like us very much.’
A senior British government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said that during talks the Saudis had been concerned about becoming a “milk cow” to prop up “basket case” economies in other parts of the world.
Both the energy and economic ‘crises’ can be solved by restoring common sense to both. By using our own resources and by paying attention to sound business practices by not offering mortgages to people that have no ability to pay. Those people are called ‘renters.’ In the meantime, with help from Saudi Arabia or not, the world will have to pay the consequences of our bad decisions.
On Tuesday, Nov 4, Americans can choose which of the two candidates, which of two parties, have the answer to today’s problems. Or at least an inclination as to which way to proceed. The choice seems pretty clear to me. One party wants to cut oil dependency by a small percentage, the other party wants to eliminate it. One party wants to make home ownership a ‘right,’ and the other wants to enable every citizen to get their own home based on their own efforts.
Socialism is easy, the government makes decisions for us, and innovation and productivity are depressed. Freedom is hard, you have to make your own decisions, innovation, productivity and the rewards that come with it are unlimited.
A week ago, Pensacola was preparing to welcome Gov. Palin outdoors at the end of the runway at the airport. It’s a good thing they changed the venue to the Civic Center for two reasons. The original thousand tickets got swallowed up in a few hours, and, it rained. I was among the 10,000+ people who stood in line in the rain to get in the Civic Center. Afterwards, I found out that the fire Marshall had declared the event full and not everyone that came could get in.
The anticipation and enthusiasm of the crowd was as good as it gets for any rock concert I’ve been too, and I’ve been to a lot in my day. Most of them I can remember, but I digress.
The big difference was that the people in line were sober, orderly, polite, of all ages, and anxious to see Sarah Palin.
She spoke of how John McCain and she will change and shake up things in Washington and get the economy going with lower spending, lower taxes, on energy, and that we will continue to win the war instead of merely end it. She listed contrasts between the Obama campaing and what they want to do and the McCain campaign and what they want to do. She effectively laid it out as a clear choice for voters.
She didn’t let Obama slide on some of his unsavory alliances or associations as relates to his judgment and character. She reiterated the Bill Ayers saga. Today for the first time, she also referenced two of his recent economic advisers who were also heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And from their roaring response, the audience knew who she was talking about without mentioning Johnson and Raines by name.
Having been to the last VP visit prior to the 2004 election, when Vice President Cheney held an event at PJC, the difference in turnout and enthusiasm was striking. I think if they were asked who you would rather have a cup of coffee with or go hunting with, Cheney or Palin? Palin would win by a landslide. 😆
Below was the scene when Gov. Palin took the stage. Just a 60 second sample of the excitement. My position was beside the media’s camera platform where there was zero commotion during the entire event.
Belly up to the counter. Politics are on the menu and Ross is on the grill.
