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.
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.
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.
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.
Bill Galston at the NewRepublic‘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
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.
Martin Luther King’s Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1964
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when 22 million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award on behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice. I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeking to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation. I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleagured and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.
After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood, If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity. This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights Bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a super highway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.
I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
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.
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.
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.
A direct comparison between George Will’s love of coal (reportedly he sleeps with it) and Mark Steyn’s hatred of Alternative renewal energy shows that conservatives are big business shills. Plus it shows how long ago the conservatives hated Barack Obama.
Who to blame for the biofuel madness that’s starving people from Haiti to Burkina Faso to Indonesia? Well, Senator Obama’s still boasting about it:
In 2005, Obama passed amendments to the 2005 Energy Policy Act which would double the amount of ethanol used in our gasoline supply by 2012 (from 2 billion to 8 billion gallons*); provide a tax credit for the retail purchase of E-85 fuel; and established an applied research program to improve technologies for the commercialization of a combination hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle; or a plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “Hastert, meeting with reporters on Friday, praised the “incredible teamwork” of the delegation, singling out freshman Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for his work on the House-Senate committee, which cut the final deals on the transit bill and ethanol tax breaks. The energy bill included an incentive for the use of what is called E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas that can be used in “flexible fueled” cars and is supposed to be cheaper than conventional fuel. The bill calls for gas companies to get a tax credit to cover 30 percent of the cost to install E-85 pumps at service stations, up to $30,000.”
*Does “2 billion to 8 billion gallons” count as “doubling”? Hey, this is government math.
:}
Only 28 conservatives columnist and bloviators to go. More tomorrow.
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?
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
This is tough to put up on the website primarily because I have never conquered Adobe Flash. But since their post is actually a summary of 10 of their articles from the last year I will put up the sitation (yes I spelled it that way on purpose), the head line and a copy of part of their third story. The slideshow is pretty cool however so check all of the pictures out.
Analysis by Zahra Hirji
Thu Jul 1, 2010 09:09 AM ET
One of the biggest complaints of offshore wind farms is the eye-sore factor. Apparently residents would prefer a giant coal-fired power plant polluting the planet from far away to a clean source of energy they actually have to look at. This is the essence of the NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) whine.
But NIMBYist whinging is shrill, and for the residents of Nantucket Sound, powerful. Their opposition to the construction of an offshore fleet of wind turbines, part of the Cape Wind project, was enough to delay the project for years.
Enter the Windfloat.
Windfloat is an ocean-based floating wind turbine designed by the California company Marine Innovation & Technology. The turbine sits atop a 3-legged floating foundation that is based on the designs of offshore gas and oil platforms.
Due to the bulky structure of current coastal wind turbines, the structures are anchored in the seabed – limiting their positioning to shallow water depths ranging between 98 to 164 feet.
This new design, however, proves that a turbine’s size and weight need not be compromised for distance from shore. Researchers suspect that the Windfloat foundation can support a 5 megawatt turbine with a height of around 230 feet.
This may not seem to be related BUT…When my wife and I went to California on the Zypher I was looking on the net for cheap hotel rooms. I picked a couple of places in Berkley and Oakland because the intent was to a) avoid high San Fransisco prices, and b) to be close to my cousin in south Oakland. I checked a bunch of “review sites” and the reviews were nasty. There were complaints about bed bugs and filth, noise, and crime. You name it. So eventually I went with the La Quinta in Berkley because it was cheap and the car rental place was in the same building. Well when we got there, I decided to check the other places out since they were on the way to my cousins.
They were all FINE. They were in a trendy little area where Cate and I had lunch. The rooms were great and clean. Yes the Metra line went by one of the hotels but you could get a place in back if that really bothered you. So who were all those “reviewers”. Well they were probably the competition, or a marketing company paid to carry out disinformation campaigns.
Well, I have noticed this same trend in commenters on energy issues. So called “people” write comments like – those lying global warming tree huggers or they want our gas prices to go to $5 or even – how could they possibly think that the human population can change the weather on the planet. Just all kinds of garbage with facts that are lies. So I am betting that the commenters to this piece are either directly employed by the energy business. Or they work for one of the multimillion dollar marketing firms the energy companies employ. Though knowing the Koch Brothers, I am sure they hire their own.
From greenhouse gases to green agenda: 5 energy issues to watch
By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman – 12/27/10 06:00 AM ET
It’s been a dynamic past 12 months on the energy front. The massive Gulf oil spill dominated much of the news cycle. And while Democratic efforts to pass comprehensive climate change legislation in the Senate failed, the Obama administration is moving ahead with plans to use its existing powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
With the end of the year drawing close — the 111th Congress is over and President Obama is in Hawaii with his family for the holidays — it seems only fitting to turn our attention to next year.
Without further ado, here are five things to watch out for in 2011:
Attempts to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate regulations:
On Thursday, just hours before most people in Washington left town for the holidays, the EPA made two major announcements in its efforts to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency laid out a timetable for phasing in emissions standards for power plants and refineries, and announced it would issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas, where the governor had refused to align with federal rules. On top of that, beginning in January the EPA will, on a case-by-case basis, begin phasing in rules that require large new industrial plants and sites that perform major upgrades to curb emissions.
The move is certain to fuel the fire of opposition against the Obama EPA’s efforts. Republicans, emboldened by their majority in the House and swollen numbers in the Senate come next year, have promised to fight the EPA. While Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-W.Va.) effort to delay the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by two years failed, he’s promised to try again next year. Other Republicans have promised to get in on the action.
All eyes are on the new Republican House and energy and enivornment committee chairmen: Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.) will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.) will chair the Natural Resources Committee and Rep. Ralph Hall (Texas) will chair the Science and Technology Committee. All three lawmakers are planning to turn a critical eye toward the Obama administration’s climate change policies.
The continuing fallout from the Gulf oil spill:
For the many months that oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill stayed on the front pages of the country’s newspapers and at the fore of lawmakers’ minds. But almost as soon as the well was capped, lawmakers’ priorities shifted, and talk of passing an oil spill response bill in the Senate died down.
However, the spill is still very much a part of daily life in the Gulf. Spill victims continue to work to receive adequate compensation for the losses they suffered. Next year, Kenneth Feinberg, the administrator of BP’s $20 billion oil spill compensation fund, will continue to determine how best to dole out money to victims.
At the same time, the Department of Justice will advance both its criminal and civil investigations into those companies responsible for the spill. DoJ announced earlier this month that it is suing BP and eight other companies involved in the spill. The department also reserved the right to expand the lawsuit and add new defendants. And DoJ’s criminal investigation continues apace.
On the congressional front, it’s likely that lawmakers will address a few oil-spill related issues
:}
Check out the comments for yourself and finish the article. It is pretty good and much better than the top ten lists we shall see soon. More tomorrow.
GENGHIS GREEN: The founder of history’s largest contiguous empire cooled the planet while taking a body count. (Photo: Wiki Commons/public domain)
