Category Archives: global warming

Newt Gingrich And Energy Policy – For energy advice he calls his mother and his daughter

Posted on by
Reply

OK I can only take this for another day and I am done. These guys really do not know what they are talking about. They make up numbers that have no basis in this universe, and the reality is they only survive because they take huge amounts of industry money.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Newt_Gingrich_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Newt Gingrich on Energy & Oil

Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House

Kyoto treaty is bad for the environment and bad for America

Kyoto is a bad treaty. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for America. It sets standards that will require massive investments by the US but virtually no investments by other countries. The Senate was right when it voted unanimously against the treaty. We should insist on revisiting the entire Kyoto process and resolutely reject efforts to force us into an anti-American, environmentally failed treaty.

The US should support substantial research into climate science, managing the response to climate change, & in developing new non-carbon energy systems. It is astounding to watch people blithely propose trillions of dollars in spending on a topic on which we have failed to spend modest amounts to better understand.

It is astounding to have people focus myopically on carbon as the sole source of climate change. The world’s climate has changed in the past with sudden speed and dramatic impact. Global warming may happen. On the other hand it is possible Europe will experience another ice age.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Focus on incentives for conservation & renewable resources

A sound American energy policy would focus on four areas: basic research to create a new energy system that has few environmental side effects, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. The Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.

Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. Conservation is the second great opportunity in energy. A tax credit to subsidize energy efficient cars (including a tax credit for turning in old and heavily polluting cars) is another idea we should support. Renewable resources are gradually evolving to meet their potential: from wind generator farms to solar power to biomass conversion. Continued tax credits and other advantages for renewable resources are a must.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Stop scare tactics about drilling in Alaska

It is time for an honest debate about drilling and producing in places like Alaska, our national forests, and off the coast of scenic areas. The Left uses scare tactics from a different era to block environmentally sound production of raw materials. Three standards should break through this deadlock.

  1. Scientists of impeccable background should help set the standards for sustaining the environment in sensitive areas, and any company entering the areas should be bonded to meet those standards.
  2. The public should be informed about new methods of production that can meet the environmental standards, and any development should be only with those new methods.
  3. A percentage of the revenues from resources generated in environmentally sensitive areas should be dedicated to environmental activities including biodiversity sustainment, land acquisition, and environmental cleanups in places where there are no private resources that can be used to clean up past problems.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Gas tax sounds OK in DC, but not outside Beltway

When the Bush Administration tried to convince me that a gasoline tax increase would be okay and would barely be noticed, I tested the theory with two phone calls. First I called my mother-in-law in Leetonia, Ohio, and then I called my older daughter in Greensboro, North Carolina. My mother-in-law is retired, at the time, aged 75. She has a lot of friends who live on limited incomes, and driving happens to be one of their pleasures. She was personally against the idea of a gas tax increase, and she thought the idea would go down very badly with her friends. Then I called my daughter Kathy. She runs a small business, and her husband is the tennis coach at the university. Her reaction was, to put it mildly, scathing. “What planet do they live on?” she asked. She thought such a tax increase was the very antithesis of why people had elected the Republicans. After those two conversations, any doubts I may have had simply vanished, and I opposed the tax increase. Source: Lessons Learned the Hard Way, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Jul 2, 1998

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
  • Click here for policy papers on Energy & Oil.

    • :}

    God what slime. More tomorrow.

    :}

    Global Climate Change Isn’t Happening – And if it is it not humans fault

    Posted on by
    1

    I can’t take it anymore AND I am about to lose my mind. For the past 2 weeks with only one break I have put the thoughts about energy policy by the top 15 conservative pundits according to the Right Wing web site. These guys wouldn’t know energy policy if it tapped them on the shoulder and said,  “Hi, My name is Energy Policy, what is yours”? So today I put up some intriguing  research that if true explains a lot of human history in the 1300s and 1400s especially in Europe.

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror

    Was Genghis Khan history’s greenest conqueror?

    The Mongol invasion scrubbed nearly 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, according to surprising new research

    Bryan NelsonMon, Jan 24 2011 at 6:44 AM EST 181 Comments

    Genghis Khan GENGHIS GREEN: The founder of history’s largest contiguous empire cooled the planet while taking a body count. (Photo: Wiki Commons/public domain)
    Genghis Khan’s Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th centuries was so vast that it may have been the first instance in history of a single culture causing man-made climate change, according to new research out of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, reports Mongabay.com.
    (WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
    Learn More )

    Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

    So how did Genghis Khan, one of history’s cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card? The reality may be a bit difficult for today’s environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire — with a high body count.
    Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world’s total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.

    :}

    Back to the towheads. More tomorrow.

    :}

    Karl Rove – Cheney’s demon spawn on the darkside

    Posted on by
    Reply

    This is an excerpt of an article written the day after the fall elections. This is klassic Karl krowing.

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/business_breaking/20101103_Rove_to_drillers__Expect_sensible_regulation.html

    Posted on Wed, Nov. 3, 2010

    Rove to drillers: ‘Expect sensible regulation’

    By Andrew Maykuth

    INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

    PITTSBURGH – Karl Rove, the Republican operative and former senior adviser to President George W. Bush, today told an appreciative Marcellus Shale natural gas conference that the sweeping Republican victory on Tuesday would put an end to most of the industry’s legislative threats.

    Rove said a new Republican House of Representatives supportive of the energy industry “sure as heck” would not pass climate-change legislation that the outgoing Democratic Congress had been unable to pass.

    “Climate is gone,” said Rove, the keynote speaker on the opening day of a two-day shale-gas conference sponsored by Hart Energy Publishing L.L.P. And Rove told the trade show, “I don’t think you need to worry” the new Congress will consider proposed legislation to put the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing under federal rather than state regulation. The procedure, known as “fracking,” is responsible for the dramatic growth of shale-gas drilling in formations such as Pennsylvania’s vast Marcellus Shale.

    “I think we’re back to a period of sensible regulation,” said Rove, a commentator on Fox News and in the Wall Street Journal.

    While Rove spoke, several hundred colorfully dressed anti-drilling activists protested outside the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, but their drum beats could not be heard inside the conference as about 2,000 people dined on steak and potatoes, followed by Rove’s analysis of Tuesday’s election.

    dot dot dot says he

    This  man (Obama) can not try to pass a major piece of legislation without demonizing some group of people and making them a target,” said Rove, citing Obama’s targeting of the health insurance industry, Wall Street bankers and energy companies to advance his agenda.

    more dots

    Rove lavished praise on the gas-drillers, who he said were bringing prosperity to parts of Pennsylvania.

    :}

    For more Republican juvenile giggles and fart jokes please see the entire article because in a very short speech he manages to offend almost everyone. More tomorrow.

    :}

    Michael Barone And Energy Policy – We are addicted to coal so get over it

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Apparently Mike Barone believes the tautology that we use a lot of coal now, so we always will. He believes that politicians are gutless when it comes to environmental damage. We shall see.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2009/03/25/obama-cap-and-trade-will-meet-coal-fired-energy-political-opposition

    Michael Barone

    Obama Cap-and-Trade Will Meet Coal-Fired Energy Political Opposition

    By Michael Barone

    Posted: March 25, 2009

    By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

    Bill Galston at the New Republic‘s blog provides some clear thinking on the prospects for the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade legislation. His conclusion: ain’t gonna happen. Galston notes that national polls show that on the question of balancing economic against environmental considerations, voters have switched and are now more concerned about the economy—as in holding down utility costs—and less concerned about the environment.

    And, as Galston points out, a cap-and-trade system would substantially increase the price of electricity produced by coal. Nationally, we get 49 percent of our energy by coal (these are 2006 figures, from the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States), but reliance on coal varies widely by state. The following table may help you to understand the political implications. It shows the percentage of electricity produced by coal in each state above the national average and the number of Democratic senators and representatives from each of those states.

    % of electricity produced by coal in each state above the national average senators representatives
    Alabama 55 0 2
    Colorado 71 2 5
    Delaware 69 2 0
    Georgia 63 0 6
    Indiana 95 1 5
    Iowa 76 1 3
    Kansas 73 0 1
    Kentucky 92 0 2
    Maryland 60 2 7
    Michigan 60 2 8
    Minnesota 62 1 5
    Missouri 84 1 4
    Montana 60 2 0
    Nebraska 65 1 0
    New Mexico 80 2 3
    North Carolina 60 1 8
    North Dakota 93 2 1
    Ohio 86 1 10
    Oklahoma 50 0 1
    Pennsylvania 56 1 12
    Tennessee 65 0 5
    Utah 89 0 1
    West Virginia 97 2 2
    Wisconsin 65 2 5
    Wyoming 94 0 0
    TOTAL 26 96

    Do the math. That leaves only 32 Democratic senators from less-than-average coal-reliant states and only 157 Democratic House members from less-than-average coal-reliant states. Now I’m not saying that every member from such states will vote against cap-and-trade, but I think an awful lot would. And I don’t think many Republicans are going to vote for cap-and-trade. In his press conference last night, Barack Obama seemed to accept the Senate Budget Committee’s Democrats’ decision to jettison the money for cap-and-trade and expressed a wistful hope that something might be done later. But even in better economic times, the numbers tend to work against any such proposal.

    :}

    More tomorrow.

    :}

    Charles Kauthammer And Energy Policy – Damn someone I can agree with

    Posted on by
    Reply

    This is so weird. This column makes sense. Don’t get me wrong, I do not like this guys thinking much, but this is a pretty lucid moment.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001502.html

    Pump Some Seriousness Into Energy Policy

    By Charles Krauthammer

    Friday, November 11, 2005

    Thank God for $3.50 gasoline. True, we had it for only a brief, shining moment, and there is not much good to be said about the catastrophic hurricanes that caused it. But the price was already inexorably climbing as a result of 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians industrializing. Their increased demand is what brought us to the energy knife’s edge and makes us so acutely vulnerable to supply disruptions.

    Yet, the Senate is attacking the problem by hauling oil executives to hearings on “price gouging.” Even by Senate standards, the cynicism here is breathtaking. Everyone knows what the problem really is. It’s Economics 101: increasing demand and precariously tight supply.

    Yet for three decades we have done criminally little about it. Conservatives argued for more production, liberals argued for more conservation and each side blocked the other’s remedies — when even a child can see that we need both:

    Demand . Just yesterday we were paying $3.50 a gallon at the pump and were ready to pay $4 or $5 if necessary. No blessing has ever come more disguised. Now that we have lived with $3.50 gasoline, $3 seems far less outrageous than, say, a year ago. We have a unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices. Put a floor at $3. Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low the world price goes.

    Why is this a good idea? It is the simplest way to induce conservation. People will alter their buying habits. It was the higher fuel prices of the 1970s and early ’80s that led to more energy-efficient cars and appliances — which induced such restraint on demand that the world price of oil ultimately fell through the floor. By 1986 oil was $11 a barrel. Then we got profligate and resumed our old habits, and oil is now around $60. Surprise.

    The worst part is that much of this $60 goes overseas to foreigners who wish us no good: Wahhabi Saudi princes who subsidize terrorists; Hugo Chavez, the mini-Mussolini of the Southern Hemisphere; and (through the fungibility of oil) the nuclear-hungry, death-to-America Iranian mullahs. This is insanity. It makes infinitely more sense to reduce consumption, drive the world price down and let the premium we force ourselves to pay at the pump (which begins the conservation cycle) go to the U.S. Treasury. If the price drops to $2, plow that $1 tax right back into the American economy by immediately reducing, say, Social Security or income taxes.

    :}

    To read the rest of the piece, go to the Washington Post’s website. More next week.

    :}

    Ann Coulter And Energy Policy – Ann supports just about everything that is wrong with this country’s energy policy

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Poor Ann. She has ranted a raved for so long that she, like Sarah Palin, has become a parody of herself. She once said that , “when the democrats talk about new forms of energy they don’t actually create any new form of energys, they talk about old forms of enenrgy like solar power, wind power and barley power”. Did she miss physics in college or what?

    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=262

    THIS IS NOT A DRILL
    by Ann Coulter
    July 16, 2008

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, “the worst speaker in the history of Congress,” explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.”

    Yes, that would explain why the price of oral sex, cigars and Hustler magazine skyrocketed during the Clinton years. Also, I note that Speaker Pelosi is a hotelier … and the price of a hotel room in New York is $1,000 a night! I think she might be onto something.

    Is that why a barrel of oil costs mere pennies in all those other countries in the world that are not run by “oilmen”? Wait — it doesn’t cost pennies to them? That’s weird.

    In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: “President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay’s oil-company interests.” The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I’m not even “an oilman.”

    But yes — good point: What a disaster having people in government who haven’t spent their entire lives in politics! That explains everything. A government official with relevant experience or knowledge about an issue is obviously a crisis of gargantuan proportions.

    This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of “American Idol.”

    Announcing the Democrats’ bold new “plan” on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “is one alternative.” That’s not an energy plan. It’s using what we already have — much like “conservation,” which is also part of the Democrats’ plan.

    Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: “Just eat a little less every day.” Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a “plan.” We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

    :}

    She claims to be a comedian. But she declared that an attempt to toss a pie in her face, an age old comedic twist was attempted assault. Soupy Sales where are you? More tomorrow.

    :}

    Walter Williams And Energy Policy – Just putting their words up so you can see what we are up against

    Posted on by
    Reply

    I should say first that I detest this man and the “university” that he claims to teach at if he is still there. George Mason University is just a front group for corporate and christian evil. The real malfeasance is that they dress it up as “higher education” and “graduate learning programs”.

    This is a rich black man who drives a $70,000 car and shills for oil, gas and coal.

    Oh, and I have been neglecting to mention where I get my list of the 30 top conservative columnists from:

    http://rightwingnews.com/2009/09/the-30-best-conservative-columnists-for-2009-version-3-0/?p=1207?comments=show

    Here is Walter in all his ignorance the day before Christmas.
    Walter E. Williams

    Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming.” U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus.” In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”

    The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

    :}

    More tomorrow.

    :}

    While We Are In The Midst Of A Meditation On Conservative Talking Heads

    Posted on by
    Reply

    The Illinois Statehouse is in full swing. So I am going to take a break here and post this relatively import piece of information. PLEASE call your representatives.

    https://www.ilenviro.org/news/

    Taylorville and Leucadia Proposals Heard by the Illinois Senate
    January 5, 2011

    Tonight, two energy bills were voted on in the Illinois Senate.  There are no additional bills related to the environment expected to be heard this week.  Each of these bills previously passed the Illinois House.

    Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485)

    Tenaska’s Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485) has so far failed to pass the Senate following the Senate’s adjournment tonight.  Outgoing State Senator Deanna Demuzio presented the bill to the Senate.  Several senators expressed concerns about the increased rates to businesses.  Senator Kirk Dillard explained his concerns, “When you do the mathematical analysis of this project, it doesn’t make sense.”  He also expressed concern over what he called the “legal pledge that binds the state of Illinois to Tenaska for three decades” contained within the bill.

    A few senators expressed concerns about the appearance of a subsidy to a particular business.  Senator Don Harmon expressed concerns over the way the bill “allocates the costs and risks over what is supposed to be a competitive market.”  Harmon, who stated that he would be voting for the bill, described it as a “prudent experiment on how to deal with coal in an environmentally responsible way.”  Many speaking for the bill referred to the facility as a very clean way to process coal.

    When the question was called, the vote was 25 voting NO, 29 voting YES and 3 voting PRESENT.  The bill’s sponsor, Senator Demuzio, postponed consideration of the bill, which means that the bill can be called for a vote again.  This bill failed in the House at first, but the same mechanism was used to call the vote for a question again, when it passed.  The Illinois Sierra Club and several business groups opposed this legislation.

    Leucadia Energy Facility

    The Leucadia Energy Facility (SB3388) passed the Senate tonight and will move to the Governor’s desk for his signature.  Senator Trotter introduced the bill in the Senate.  Only one senator spoke about the bill in addition to the sponsor; Senator Risinger rose in support.  This bill passed the Senate with 36 voting YES, 13 voting NO, and 4 voting present.  View the votes here.

    :}

    More tomorrow.

    :}

    Thomas Sowell On Energy Policy – The conservative illiteracy continues

    Posted on by
    Reply

    This  continues the meditation on conservative (read: right wing) public statements about Energy Policy.  According to Thomas Sowell global warming isn’t happening. For conservatives who don’t like facts they either make up their own or claim others are making them up.

    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022808.php3

    Jewish World Review Feb. 28, 2008 / 22 Adar I 5768

    Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’

    By Thomas Sowell

    http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

    It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming” conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.


    But stampedes and hysteria are no joke — and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming “crisis.”


    They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global warming crisis.


    Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.


    A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.


    Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?


    A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th — weather permitting.


    It is called an “International Conference on Climate Change.” Its subtitle is “Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?” Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.


    They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.


    There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.


    The theme of the conference is that “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.”

    :}

    More tomorrow.

    :}

    George Will And Our Energy Future – It’s boatloads of coal

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Can you imagine a world where not only are there oil and natural gas supertankers circling the globe but coal supertankers too? George Will can. Wonder who pays this guys paycheck?

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7362049.html

    King coal’s staying power now and into the future

    By GEORGE F. WILL
    Washington Post

    Jan. 1, 2011, 4:03PM

    Cowlitz County in Washington state is across the Columbia River from Portland, Ore., which promotes mass transit and urban density and is a green reproach to the rest of us. Recently, Cowlitz did something that might make Portland wonder whether shrinking its carbon footprint matters. Cowlitz approved construction of a coal export terminal from which millions of tons of U.S. coal could be shipped to Asia annually.

    Both Oregon and Washington are curtailing the coal-fired generation of electricity, but the future looks to greens as black as coal. The future looks a lot like the past.

    Historian William Rosen (The Most Powerful Idea in the World, about the invention of the steam engine) says coal was Europe’s answer to the 12th-century “wood crisis” when Christians leveled much forestation in order to destroy sanctuaries for pagan worship, and to open farmland. Population increase meant more wooden carts, houses and ships, so wood became an expensive way to heat dwellings or cook. By 1230, England had felled so many trees it was importing most of its timber and was turning to coal.

    “It was not until the 1600s,” Rosen writes, “that English miners found their way down to the level of the water table and started needing a means to get at the coal below it.” In time, steam engines were invented to pump out water and lift out coal. The engines were fired by coal.

    Today, about half of America’s and the world’s electricity is generated by coal, the substance which, since it fueled the Industrial Revolution, has been a crucial source of energy. Over the last eight years, it has been the world’s fastest-growing fuel. The New York Times recently reported (“Booming China Is Buying Up World’s Coal,” Nov. 22) about China’s ravenous appetite for coal, which is one reason coal’s price has doubled in five years

    :}

    More tomorrow.

    :}