Posts

Thousands of Golden Eagles in Danger, Due to Wind Farms

No matter what source of energy a nation uses to move its goods and services across this country there is a price to pay for any energy source.  With oil we can expect accidents to happen, and they have, most recently the Gulf of Mexico. But for this administration and environmentalists, wind farms and solar are renewable and cleaner.  However they too come with a price.  No I am not talking about the price to build and manufacture solar panels and wind turbines, but the effect that they have on local environments. Read more

Let’s cover the Florida Everglades with solar panels

Sounds like an environmentalist’s worst nightmare does it not? I’m not talking about the entire expanse of the Everglades mind you, just a 500 acre section that’s already near a natural gas energy plant.

Read more

Obama guaranties nuclear plant loans – environmentalists balk

President Obama will announce support for a new nuclear power plant in Burke, Georgia this week. In reality, he is approving the federal loan guaranty that would be required to build the expensive plant, but will he really go to bat against anti-nuke groups?

Read more

The market speaks – Germans hoarding “climate-killing” light bulbs

At this point, just about everyone in the industrialized world has had the opportunity to try out a few of the compact fluorescent bulbs. You may have your opinion on the twisty bulbs, but some Germans are betting a market for traditional bulbs will continue to exist.

Read more

The EPA’s current gas attack…

Personally, I think that most of this current spate of double-speak about carbon dioxide is a bad case of bureaucratic alchemy — they’re trying to find a way to turn carbon into gold.  Read more

Environmental micromanagement – dish soap smugglers in Washington

When the state bans a product that has utility or desirability, it almost always leads to some sort of defiance.  This has been seen with Prohibition most famously, but occurs with other products as well.  Allow me to introduce you to the latest contraband good:  dishwater-detergent.

“SPOKANE, Wash. – The quest for squeaky-clean dishes has turned some law-abiding people in Spokane into dishwater-detergent smugglers. They are bringing Cascade or Electrasol in from out of state because the eco-friendly varieties required under Washington state law don’t work as well. Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation’s strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

But it’s not easy to get sparkling dishes when you go green.

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe’s left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand. The culprit was hard water, which is mineral-rich and resistant to soap.

As a result, there has been a quiet rush of Spokane-area shoppers heading east on Interstate 90 into Idaho in search of old-school suds.”

You couldn’t make this up — folks smuggling soap across state lines.

Now, technically, these individuals aren’t *really* smugglers — the state of Washington only bans the sale of phosphate-containing detergents, not their possession…  yet.  However, local feedback on the ban has been less than enthusiastic.

“It’s nice to be on the cutting edge,” Spokane resident Ken Beck, an opponent of the ban, said sarcastically.

Due to the inferior detergents, Mr. Beck taken to using the “pots and pans” setting of his dishwasher, increasing the use of water and,presumably, energy to do the same job and, as a result, asks a fair question:

Beck wonders if that isn’t as tough on the environment as phosphates.

“How much is this really costing us?” Beck said. “Aren’t we transferring the environmental consequences to something else?”

In other words, could the cure be having a more detrimental impact that the disease…  A good question, Mr. Beck. Given similar substitutions in other venues, it is indeed a good question.

Economics – tax the producer and they pass it to consumer

No kidding? If you’ve had anything to do with a small or large business, you know that taxes are generally passed on to consumers. Do you really think that Big Oil would have pulled some cash off the tree to pay for candidate Obama’s windfall profit tax?

We’ve heard much about possible cap and trade taxes throughout the blogosphere the past few weeks, but we have not discussed here. Remember, Obama promised 95 percent of Americans would not see a tax increase. The cap and trade legislation would ensure that 100 percent of Americans will get slammed by this type of forward thinking environmental wacko cow excrement.

Obama proposes – on the Energy and Environment section of whitehouse.gov – a cap and trade program “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.”

George Will summed up the proposal quite nicely last year.

… “cap-and-trade” comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so government could sell what it has made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade’s perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right (“allowances”) to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself — an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans’ exercise of their traditional rights.

So, some politicians want to create a commodity that currently does not exist, for which use would be mandated by law so they can regulate it. Once regulated, they can artificially create a scarcity of carbon emission credits – at will – to ensure the economy and the free markets crumble under the weight.

Yes, companies (producers) – who are struggling financially right now – would pass on those taxes to you (consumers) who uses any sort of energy. Gasoline, heating oil and electricity would all be targeted. 100 percent of Americans would be hit be indirect tax increases. Do not be fooled.

I’ve been reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and figured that liberals in Washington simply did not understand Economics 101, but I think I’m totally wrong. They understand it and are using the American people’s lack of knowledge to promote their agenda.

Morrissey over at HotAir has been covering, and leads us to today’s Wall Street Journal piece.

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing “polluters,” not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity — in this case the right to emit carbon — and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag — now Mr. Obama’s budget director — told Congress last year that “Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”

Hit hardest would be the “95% of working families” Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat “unless you use energy.” Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office — Mr. Orszag’s former roost — estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%.

And don’t forget this rubbish spouted by Rahm Emanuel, courtesy the Washington Times from March 1, with a hat tip to Gateway Pundit

Mr. Emanuel said energy costs are too low anyway. U.S. car companies have relied too long on gas-guzzling autos and failed to invest in alternative energy vehicles, he said, and contended that the time for new auto fuels is now.

“They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. They didn’t do — they have a health-care cost structure that’s outdated,” Mr. Emanuel said, repeating the administration’s premise that health costs must come under control or else risk breaking all other pieces of the budget.

They got dependent? Sweet goodness Rahm, they were selling – and continue to sell – cars, trucks and SUVs because that is what the people wanted.

And remember back in January 2008 when Obama said that cap and trade would cause energy prices to skyrocket? He was personally fine with higher costs passed on to consumers. These are not just higher costs, they are higher costs as a direct result of tax increases.

Back to Gateway Pundit, with an Obama quote from Jan. 17.

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”

Unbelievable.

Flickr photo used on the home page by Mornby.

Hypocrisy on parade – AlGore’s house boat on display

Noble Peace Prize winner AlGore continues his assault on common sense. He likes to travel from city to city and preach that the earth as a fever and we must do something now. Planetary emergency aside, AlGore has been trapped yet again by regular folk that are sick of his proselytizing.

Author note: While I’m away from the computer, I’m republishing my top 20 posts from 2008 each afternoon. -Steve

House boats are huge in the south. You might say that it is a status symbol to have one, but boats of this size are more than commonplace on the region’s lakes. House boats are just that – a second home for those in the area. The Gore family has a new house boat – named Bio-Solar One – which runs on bio-desiel and solar energy.

As of this morning, the solar panels have not been installed and the boat is supposedly a new purchase. I’m not going to slam him for that; but what the heck is this guy’s carbon footprint now? Is he so important – and his message so critical – that he can live the high life of extreme excess and not be criticized by anyone?

Steve Gill, a talk show radio host based in Tennesse is all over the story, and the story about B.S. One has gotten some national attention at Malkin’s blog.

AlGore and family can do anything they want with the money that they have earned. Good for them. But I want them to STOP telling us what to do – drive less, buy hybrids, install solar, conserve, conserve and conserve more – when they are doing the exact opposite, burning through energy at the rate of some small countries.

Leave me alone.

Most people don’t have the huge amounts of cash required to convert their lives to politically correct sources of energy. It costs too damn much money dude. Should we cripple the economy to stop using oil next week and spend trillions of tax dollars to build windmills and other PC energy?

You probably think I’m joking about trillions of tax dollars – you’re wrong, not joking.

Nice personal water craft Al. Does it run on bio-desiel too?

Hot Air has The obligatory “Gore’s got a brand new yacht” post too.

Contraception and abortion needed to … reduce global warming?

Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of a government watchdog group on environmental issues, is insistent contraception and abortion be the centerpiece of the fight against global warming.

Not windmills. Not batteries. Not solar. Not alternatives. Cutting population growth should be the centerpiece through contraception and abortion through government regulation.

Porritt is chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission whose members report directly to the prime minister. Porritt is also an adviser to the royal family and an patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), who notes on their home page they are opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.

The also state…

The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.

The population of the UK is currently about 61 million people. They think we need to “remove” half of the entire population within 92 years? Wow, they certainly may be against coercion in family planning, but my guess is they don’t have any issues with brain washing.

Since organizations like the Sustainable Development Commission and OPT work directly with the UK government, I’m wondering if they have gotten into the school system yet? Are teachers members and supporters of the OPT? When will we see literature from the OPT specifically designed for kids?

The Sunday Times has quotes from Porritt’s concerning a report to be released soon.

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. …

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.” …

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

I’m perfectly fine with families making their own decisions about how many children they want to have. Those decisions should be made after reviewing many factors including what is affordable, and yes, the impact on the environment.

The problem is that the information is not being based on facts. Global warming – re-branded as climate change – is the new religion after all. We’re brainwashing people. There is no consensus in science.

Liberalism and socialism is actually a driving force in all of this. If the government keeps bailing out everyone and continues down the path to provide health care, education, pre-school, breakfast, lunch,housing for families, and everything else imaginable, they will not have the reason to make their own decisions.

The government is there to support and provide of course, so why should they even care? Maybe if the government provides everything, parents would be willing to limit the number of kids they have. In turn, they loose all of their freedom.

Hat tip to Sister Toldjah for posting the link to the Times piece.

Hypocrisy on parade – AlGore’s house boat on display

Noble Peace Prize winner AlGore continues his assault on common sense. He likes to travel from city to city and preach that the earth as a fever and we must do something now. Planetary emergency aside, AlGore has been trapped yet again by regular folk that are sick of his proselytizing.

House boats are huge in the south. You might say that it is a status symbol to have one, but boats of this size are more than commonplace on the region’s lakes. House boats are just that – a second home for those in the area. The Gore family has a new house boat – named Bio-Solar One – which runs on bio-desiel and solar energy.

As of this morning, the solar panels have not been installed and the boat is supposedly a new purchase. I’m not going to slam him for that; but what the heck is this guy’s carbon footprint now? Is he so important – and his message so critical – that he can live the high life of extreme excess and not be criticized by anyone? Read more