U.S. Energy Policy Spirals Downward

I write today to appease my father's desire to lambast U.S. energy and agricultural officials and chastise the global environmental alarmist movement. That seems like a heck of a lot of work for a Sunday but I'll give it the old college try. Unfortunately our energy policy will be tied to carbon dioxide emissions and the yet to be honestly debated global warming theory until the last dog dies. Did I mention that not only are the scholars and scientists that oppose the "consensus" theory given no voice in any debate format they are branded as hacks by media surrogates even though many of them have far more impressive credentials than Al Gore's all too agenda driven lap dogs. If many of the proposals burped up by the environmentally friendly politicians and presidential candidates come to pass, I for one believe the end of our free market economy as we know it is close at hand.

The problems associated with intertwining energy policy with the whole "earth turns to fire" prognostication are at the very least dangerous when viewed broadly. Even the EPA acknowledged when issuing a notice of proposed rule-making that rapid and poorly researched regluations for instant emissions controls on cars and trucks cripples everything from corporate America to mom and pop operations serving as the backbone of competitive enterprise in this country. First of all, heads are in the sand if anyone believes there will be an overnight shift from fossil fuels to alternative sources of energy. If every available acre suitable for the production of corn was seeded exclusively for the production of ethanol used in weaning us from gasoline consumption, it would constitute only 9% of the fuel utilized now. Even with aggressive conservation methods we are stuck trying to develop a source for the other 90% (and growing) need. That means no affordable corn feed for cattle and hog producers and food-based corn costs would skyrocket beyond exorbinant levels. What about the taxpayer and tax break dollars already flowing to corn producers and producers of biofuels? Where in this picture does the consumer get a break? Is it one of the tenets of the environmental movement to ensure the wealth and liquidity of large corn producers while you and I still pay inflated prices at the pump and grocery store for food now in short supply because of its fuel value? Most concerning to me is that we are contemplating a major investment in technologies that are still relatively new and unproven. The questions just keep on coming too. Changing corn to ethanol is extremely expensive and inefficient. It takes as much or more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the finished product itself gives us. Recently concerns about biofuel emissions and its effects on warming have come up. I'm hesitant to spend all this money on unproven technologies only to have the controlling environmentalists tell us we're still killing the planet. Maybe we should just scale down to loin cloths and clubs and forage for our food. I'm not really kidding, is this what they want?

As a rule of thumb we've been importing about 14 million barrels of oil a day at a cost of $340 billion dollars a year from countries and zealots that would happily enjoy our collapse and participate in a festive round of beheading. Little do you hear in the way of gigantic oil reserves our own government has outlawed us from recovering in the Atlantic Ocean. We've in quite cowardly fashion slithered away from refuge drilling by extremely environmentally and eco-friendly processes. China and India can of course pursue that which we've stupidly castrated ourselves from obtaining but they're entitled right? Oh, and they're modern industrialists that have a handle on pollution controls right? They're responsible for more direct particulate emission than we ever dreamed of. Have you seen the air in Beijing (cough, cough)? When is the last time you've heard about the vast supplies of oil in the Bakken field of North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota? 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are waiting to be horizontally drilled out of the Earth in an environmentally friendly way but apparently the American consumer isn't worth the effort or doesn't deserve the information. Do you ever hear about the vast reserves available on the Wyoming and Utah border, the new formations in the Gulf of Mexico, and a million others the environmental propagandists don't want you to hear about? I hate to sound like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" but understand you and I have been deemed unworthy by our government and those that control it.

Does it bother you to know that states like Montana with vast reserves of coal get the thumbs down from environuts even if the technology is available to sequester carbon dioxide emissions? Has anyone told you the break consumers would get when clean coal to diesel technology was up and running and decreasing our reliance on foreign energy thus driving down energy costs for everyone participating in the economy? No you haven't heard because they don't want you to. I guess bozo politicians figure we've ran a dismal trade deficit for this long, why change a good thing? I'd start fashioning that loin cloth if I were you. Don't even mention clean nuclear power to envirocons. Regardless of its "clean" potential they just don't like it. Seems to me they're more about control than solutions. Nuclear power if allowed to benefit from a reduction in mind numbing regulatory barriers can be an effective form of energy production. Collecting berries on a windswept hillside can be a marvelous family outing or so I've heard. Although contrary to popular belief, most of the profits from big oil benefit American investor's 401K's and not a small group of corporate demons. Still, with the record profits I believe the time is now to cut oil subsidies as currently structured. If you want to use subsidies and tax breaks as an incentive, do it by requiring the major oil companies to invest in their infrastructure and the manufacture of refineries. Therein lies a great deal of costs associated with the farce theory of "supply and demand."

Perhaps the most dangerous element regarding upcoming energy policy changes revolve around the carbon tax and cap and trade issues. Let's scale this down for dummies like me. Every business, large or small, mom or pop, farm or ice cream shop will inherit a tax passed on to them by energy producers penalized through hidden taxes for the production of fossil fuel energy. Basically the government would allow energy producers to produce a set limit of energy. After that limit is exceeded by increased demand from consumers, the energy producer can purchase auctioned or allocated permits from other producers that haven't hit the imposed limit. Notice the permit terminology. It's a tax and it will be passed to you. By 2050 carbon taxes would in today's language equate to about $.50 per gallon. Don't fret though because you're going to pay it if you use natural gas, heating oil, or propane. It's an all-inclusive gotcha tax. Try to make money at your business and the government will happily take your profits on the backside through this carbon taxing process. I'll mention again that the whole carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming alarmism is still an unproven theory. Isn't the government and the cerebrally challenged morons that run it a wonderful spectacle to bemuse?

At any rate I've just brushed the surface of these issues and each one could expand to pages and pages of dialogue and research. For now diesel hovers around $4.00 per gallon and biodiesel is the same. Sketchy science and production for the same price. If the trucking industry collapses due to high fuel prices and government inactivity the economy will follow long before we crown the next presidential dunce. I wonder if I should learn how to start speaking Chinese so I'm prepared for their takeover.

Global Warming, Don't Buy That Ton of Sunscreen Just Yet.

What is that creature up in the tree? Do you see it dear? Is that some kind of Arctic bear escaping the perils of the polar ice caps? No, no, no. It's just a dirty, smelly, and disoriented Woody Harrelson. Should we take him some food? No, I see he's getting by with a jug of lemonade up there. Those green groups could publish television advertisements featuring any one of a hundred wacko environmentalists like B-actor Harrelson and his elitist friends. Each commercial ends with, "Coming to a tree near you." That would explain the mess on my new lawn I guess.

There are a number of issues in which the positions of both 2008 Democratic presidential contenders should scare us to death. Suffice it to say Republican candidate John McCain doesn't lag far behind. I argue with those that claim some Democrats and far-left liberals (including Republican liberal McCain) disavow religion. This whole global warming phenomenon fits that bill for them quite nicely as Christianity does for a majority of others. For political leftists "An Inconvenient Truth" is the spoken word and that in and of itself ends the controversy. We cause the warming, we need to blame ourselves, and we will be held accountable. How does all that happen without destroying an economy, jobs, growth, and standard of living? You better read on because it doesn't.

I find it interesting that far left activists and politicians including Clinton, Obama and House Speaker Pelosi support punishing oil companies with 18 billion dollars worth of fines and carbon taxes which Nancy will then redirect to her green constituencies with marked agendas. Unless the excited utterances of "clean environment do-gooders" paralyzed a clear majority of American taxpayers and maybe it has, have we forgotten that for at least the next 15 years our economy will be petroleum based and right now it hovers at nearly $3.50 per crippling gallon? The American consumer that relies on oil for survival cannot afford much more "environmental" punishment than this current market painfully inflicts. That is why the cause/effect relationship between human carbon output and its effect on the environment and this possibly insignificant warming cycle deserves so much attention.

Al Gore's dedication to a cause like the environment may under more direct and honest circumstances be admirable and worthy of praise. Unfortunately for Gore and his minions, the premise of the movie and message is based on agenda driven science rather than a reliance on accepted data retrieval, interpretation, and thesis. In other words the science is molded to fit a given hypothesis. A supposedly unbiased mainstream press fuels the fire towards this end. Gore thrives on the contrived adulation while millions of Americans unwittingly soak it up during network and cable news broadcasts. "Hey, when does the movie start?" Al Gore is a demogogue supported by mainstream press agents including those producers and journalists putting out propaganda like "Scorched Earth" and "Planet in Peril" and other such mindless drivel. There has been no formal debate against Gore and his supposed consensus of climate experts and a cadre of scientists. Maybe there is a small sliver of hope in the coming days.

The Heartland Institute will host The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change at the Marriot New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in the city from March 2 through 4th 2008. Hundreds of scientists given no voice by Gore, those like him, and the liberally biased mainstream press will be allowed to give their viewpoints and dissenting opinions on climate change. That will be a nice break from what is force fed to you through the tube-media and tabloid publications like the New York Times. Before you pipe up and say they're a funded arm of an oil company or lobby keep in mind they've accepted no more than 5% of their budget from any oil company and no money from them in the last two years. Ask some of Gore's supporters how much money they've received from the radical MoveOn.org people and their Socialist/Fascist agenda to propagate a debate-less theory.

Al Gore and other liars involved in the fear mongering environmental consensus club have been asked to join in the debate but as usual most if not all of them declined to attend. They never asked organizations like the Heartland Institute for comments or debate during their moment in the sun and just as expected when politely asked to attend this conference there is no response. If these facts are so self-evident you'd think Gore would jump at the chance to put an end to the debate once and for all in a venue that would surely make him immortal. That in and of itself should make you interested in pursuing the issue further and keeping a healthy distance on reports from mainstream media outlets.

I hope the scientists at this conference cover the following topics or at least touch on them. You keep track too.

1. How do you explain warming during what has been coined the Medieval Period? There certainly was no carbon output from industrialization at this time.

2. What effect does ubanization (i.e., paving and construction at points of measurement) have on the consensus scientists readings and trends?

3. What proof do consensus scientists give showing for a fact that we are not in a recovery from the "Little Ice Age?"

4. Is there scientific data suggesting that warming played any part in the chain of events that led to dinosaur extinction?

5. Isn't a quasi-measurement involving carbon outputs always a lagging indicator? How would we know now what effect these outputs have if we have no scientific way to determine this?

Keep an eye on the debate and hit www.heartland.org to keep up with this all important debate and fleecing. And by the way, if Woody doesn't get out of your tree by next Tuesday I've heard he can be lured with the assistance of some mixed nuts and a pellet gun. I'll see you all on Arbor Day.

Can Washington Get Anymore Stupid or Chaotic?

I find solace at the keyboard. Making the mistake of watching the Sunday morning network news circuit simply makes my blood boil and blood pressure rocket to near lethal levels. We'll cover several topics being hotly contested on Capitol Hill and within the confines of news studios in Washington and New York City. The sad fact remains; not one of the top selling news stories has one iota of signifigance in the propagation of peace and prosperity within the borders of America.

The newly elected Democratic Congress responds to the needs of the nation as expected. The House Democrats beat the drum of troop withdrawl and passed a bill (with 17,000 pork earmarks, makes you feel good about your tax dollars) for supplemental funding of military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill also contained a firm date for the redeployment of U.S. military forces in September 2008. Basically the Democrats drew a line in the sand and conceded defeat to insurgents and radical Muslims. The Democrats never understood or believed in a strong national defense to begin with so I certainly understand their disdain for utilizing American troops for the liberation of an entire culture and the stabilization of a violent and fundamentalist Middle East. All the time spent debating, spinning, and arguing over a bill that George W. Bush would veto even under the influence of cocaine and strong scotch. I think the idea of a hearty, proud, and potent national security policy literally scares the speaker and majority leader. The only national defense system that makes their progressive ideas sustainable revolves around a reactionary philosophy as opposed to one of proaction. Basically let's contract national security out to carnies not working during breaks in the carnival season and contract airpower responsibilities to France's three plane air force or Lithuania's advanced fleet of helium balloon craft. The left wing liberals in this country simply have no idea of what the military means to a country; it is not about reactionary protections but rather world leverage in maintaining peace through strength. The fall of the Roman Empire begins anew. Oh, as an aside our borders are wide open and Iran continues to defy weapons inspectors and the U.N. while Pelosi wastes your time debating non-binding resolutions. Aren't elections supposed to be about furthering the agenda of the taxpaying populace?

Al Gore testifed on Capitol Hill on the subject of global warming. Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that each and every American including the scientific community agrees with the premises of Gore's arguments. Therein lies the problem. There is mass confusion on the difference between scientific consensus and scientific fact. Scientific consensus simply means a vote has occurred on some proposed theory. It is no different than the American public voting for the next American Idol winner. It doesn't mean that the winning contestant is more viable than any other or maintains more factual merit. All of the empirical data used to build the foundations for a global warming thesis can be challenged. It has been warmer since 1990 and man is believed to be responsible for this through increased emissions of carbon dioxide but what about the even warmer temperatures obtained through geologic comparisons in what is known as the medieval period? Did lords and noblemen in the English countryside have hidden textile plants beneath the sod secretly emitting CO2 as serfs slaved about in the burgeoning candlepowered economy of 1500 A.D.?

The most alarming facet of Gore's movie and public display is the grossly overblown alarmism he spreads to justify and rationalize his position. Gore touts scientific consensus in regards to the tenets of his theory but disavows the same consensus when it comes to the actual and probable effects of global warming. Al believes we will be cooked like chickens in ten years only to be swept away by flooding waters from the seas rising 20 feet. The international scientific community on the other hand (Yes, Gore's own clique of scientific supporters) believes the effects to be far more minimal. Seas may rise several inches rather than feet and no one in Gore's camp even talks about the benefits of increased warmth over increased cold in regards to other Democratic talking points like energy conservation. If we bought Gore lock, stock, and barrel the widespread and catastrophic damage to our economy, standard of living, and place in the world far outweighs the supposed and surmised climate changes pushed by Gore's camp. It is scary to watch the mainstream media spoon feed the American public one side of a debate spearheaded by a secular dirt worshipper determined to justify his place and power base in modern America. I guess I'll invest in an umbrella.

The scandal driven media continues its full frontal assault on the Bush Administration. I am not saying Bush doesn't have plenty of skeletons rattling in his closet but nonetheless the attacks on every move made within the administration seem unparalleled in comparison to previous administrations. Clinton got a pass on refusing to take the handover of Bin Laden from Sudan among other cigar-stained relapses of morality. So now the race is on to convict Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in regards to the firings of several United States attorneys. Apparently opponents of the administration cite political motivations in the firings especially in the case of New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). Here is a news flash.

It simply doesn't matter and the firings are perhaps the most insignificant news story in the history of the mainstream press. Bush and his appointees can fire an attorney whenever and however as provided for in the Constitution under executive privilege. Bush can call Alberto into his office and inform him that he simply doesn't like the brands of soft drinks consumed by the attorneys and fire them for that reason. He may not like that several of the attorneys chose boxers over briefs and fire them for that reason. He may not like that one attorney's wife's mole on her nose and especially the wiry hair protruding from it and fire him for that reason. It simply isn't a story. It certainly isn't a story being reported fairly because Clinton's half-man attorney Janet Reno swept all 93 attorneys onto the sidewalk. What about the sudden dismissal of the U.S. attorney investigating Illinois Democrat Dan Rostenkowski's ordeal? No politics played there. It is the same biased media double standard pretending that inside deals and politically motivated firings are unique to this administration or any other. Maybe their reporting would hold more credibility if both sides were examined instead of the viewpoint they choose to editorialize. Remember the media is smarter than you are and you will be told only what is in your best interest according to an editor that donates to liberal causes. Sounds like sheep doo-doo to me.

Global Warming

I was watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" and successfully controlling my gag reflex as he went on a "Gore-like" diatribe concerning global warming. Look. I want a clean, healthy environment too. Is the globe warming because of us? Maybe, I don't know I'm not a climatologist. The liberals are quick to point the finger of damnation at corporate America (the same corporate America that signs Maher's paycheck) but they aren't as willing to reciprocate the other side of the story. Maher never once mentioned that 97% of greenhouse gases come from volcanic emissions. Why don't Maher and Gore climb every Pacific Rim volcano and shovel their respective holes shut? Of the remaining 3% of gases that we (corporations included) contribute to the "greenhouse" effect, how is it that we aren't a little cleaner than we used to be? Our old 76' wagon had a big carb and no fuel injection and got 8mpg instead of a more modern 20 mpg. Also, would someone more scientifically astute than I tell me if it's possible that the Earth and its atmosphere are just changing because it's time or it wants too? Several areas are warmer, several are cooler, some are drier, and some are wetter. At any rate, the typical liberal response is to stop the economy in its tracks, shut down production, and return to a time of loin cloths and clubs for foraging food.