► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Environmentalism’ Category

Uncle Ted Speaketh: California Nightmare

by huckfunn ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Headlines, Misery Index, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation, unemployment, Unions at May 16th, 2012 - 12:41 pm

Once again, The Nuge calls it like he sees it. California dreamin’ has become a California nightmare. Bloated government, over-payed public sector employees, high taxes and over-regulation have tarnished the Golden State.

Will the last American left in California please turn out the lights? And don’t let the door slam you in the behind. California isn’t going broke. It’s already broke and is $16 billion in the hole. With businesses leaving the state in record numbers because of punitive taxes and bizarre overregulation, the only way forward is to either raise taxes or severely cut benefits. Raising taxes is the mantra of liberals, and California is awash with liberal politicians.

In addition to business-killing taxes and regulations, California has the third-highest state income tax in the nation, the nation’s highest sales tax and the highest gas taxes in America.

Get this: Roughly half of California’s income taxes are paid by just 1 percent of California’s residents. It’s no wonder the most productive people are leaving the state each year as more bloodsuckers move in.

If that isn’t bad enough, California has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates; its health care system is on the verge of collapse, with dozens of hospitals closing over the past decade; crime is rampant in California’s cities; its public employees are paid staggering amounts of money compared to ordinary Californians; and massive numbers of illegal aliens continue to invade the state.

Read the entire article here. Hat tip Washington Times

► Hot Links

Obama’s Epic Green Fail, And How He Knowingly Gave Away Billions Of Our $$$ For Campaign Donations

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Climate, Crime, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Election 2008, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Politics, Progressives, Science, Socialism, unemployment at May 3rd, 2012 - 8:00 am

What needs to be investigated is how many of these loser companies were/are major donors to the Marxist occupying the White House’s 2008 election and 2012 re-election campaign.

I’d bet the vast majority were/are. It’s a quid pro quo using our money as payback to his biggest donors, taxpayers be damned.

Here’s a partial list of the “green” companies, given billions of our tax dollars by the Obama regime, that were wasted and went mainly to company executives, for this non-existent “green” job scam, in exchange for campaign contributions. And right after getting the money, they filed for bankruptcy, or bankruptcy protection.

This is just one of many shenanigans that Romney needs to drive home to voters; the billions of our tax dollars, given to companies that the Obama regime knew damn well would fail, as a payback for donations to Obama’s campaigns.

SunPower, after receiving $1.5 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs.

First Solar, after receiving $1.46 billion from DOE, is reorganizing, cutting jobs.

Solyndra, after receiving $535 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Ener1, after receiving $118.5 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Evergreen Solar, after receiving millions of dollars from the state of Massachusetts, filed for bankruptcy protection.

SpectraWatt, backed by Intel and Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Beacon Power, after receiving $43 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Abound Solar, after receiving $400 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Amonix, after receiving $5.9 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Babcock & Brown (an Australian company), after receiving $178 million from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

A123 Systems, after receiving $279 million from DOE, shipped some bad batteries and is barely operating. It cut jobs.

Solar Trust for America, after receiving a $2.1-billion loan guarantee from DOE, filed for bankruptcy protection.

Nevada Geothermal, after receiving $98.5 million from DOE, warns of potential defaults in new SEC filings.

And this is just a partial list. Can Obama and the DOE pick ‘em, or what?

The American Thinker has a great piece that just came out this morning about all these taxpayer dollars that were given to campaign contributors after Obama said that taxpayer money would not be doled out to political friends.

It just goes to prove what we all know: You know how you can tell when Obama’s lying? His lips are moving.

BTW, when I saw this was written by Warren Beatty, I said, no, it can’t be! That’s guy’s a washed-up Hollywood libturd imbecile! I was right. It’s not “that” Warren Beatty.

Obama’s Epic Green Fail

By Warren Beatty

As we get into the campaign season (has Obama ever left it?), some recollections of what President Barack Hussein Obama said and has done (courtesy of Peter Schweizer and Ashe Schow) are both humorous and instructive. Humorous because you have to laugh at what Obama has said and done to keep from crying. Instructive because this is what we can expect from Obama (and more) if he gets re-elected.

Peter Schweizer, in his book Throw Them All Out, told us that Obama said that taxpayer money would not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merit,” Obama said, referring to the 2009 stimulus. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

I guess the word “lobbyists” provides Obama with an “out” since none of the CEOs of the green energy companies he backed are registered as lobbyists. Just like with the last Democrat president this country had, every word uttered must carefully be parsed. But then, I don’t know the meaning of the word “is.”

Anyway, Obama was emphatic about how recovery money was to be spent. But…as Schweizer says, the 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program funneled billions of dollars to alternative-fuel and green-power companies. The loan guarantees and grants were earmarked for green energy projects, so it is not surprising to learn that these companies were run by liberals. And guess what! Eighty percent of the Department of Energy (DOE)’s green loans, loan guarantees, and grants went to Obama backers. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

Schweizer wrote, “… a large proportion of the winners [companies receiving loans, loan guarantees, and grants] were companies with Obama-campaign connections. At least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants.” How much? Schweizer continues, “In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of September 15 [2011] went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”

Schweizer further wrote, “The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the DOE, complaining that the process appears ‘arbitrary’ and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials ‘did not always record the results of analysis’ of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, ‘lacks performance measures.’ No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made.” (Author’s note: based on evidence, we know how loan decisions were made!)

Schweizer concludes, “DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of ‘sufficient transparency and accountability.’ He testified that contracts have been steered to ‘friends and family.’”

……

Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), said, “If projects like this [speaking about Nevada Geothermal] did not contain a certain level of risk, alongside their enormous potential for creating jobs and generating clean energy, there would be no need for the bipartisan loan guarantee program.”

Creating jobs? Generating clean energy? How are these projects creating and generating in light of all the bankruptcies and reorganizations? Obama promised in 2008 that a $150-billion investment would generate 5 million jobs over 10 years. The White House said in November 2010 that its clean-energy efforts had generated work for 225,000 people. Let’s see. Obama promised 5 million jobs, and as of 2010, 225,000 had been created. He has some work to do if he wants to keep that jobs promise.

For comparison, “Big Oil” has added 75,000 jobs since Obama took office in 2009, while the wind industry has lost 10,000 jobs since 2009.

Obama supporters say that he over-promised on the jobs front and worry that a backlash could undermine support for his clean-energy policies. Duh! You think?

And let’s not forget Spain, the model for Obama’s clean-energy policies. Spain announced on April 7, 2012 that they would halt all new renewable energy and co-generation projects.

Because green energy companies can no longer or coud not ever attract enough willing investors, Obama and like-minded politicians force the rest of us to “invest” (via subsidies) in them, so we can “Win The Future.” Will Obama’s next green energy initiative be named his “Five Year Plan”?

Click here or on the headline above to read the entire article…

Hat tip to Denny.

► Hot Links

If I Wanted America to Fail…

by huckfunn ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Climate, Cult of Obama, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Headlines, Marxism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Socialism, taxation, unemployment at April 24th, 2012 - 11:30 am

This powerful add spells out exactly how Obama’s energy and environmental policies are destroying our economy.  Be sure and spread this around. Submitted without further comment.

Transcript:

If I wanted America to fail …

To follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream.

I would start with energy.

I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.

I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.

I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy. And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.

And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.

I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes. I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables. I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity.

Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance – and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights. I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.

I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.

And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones. I’d devise fictitious products—like carbon credits—and trade them in imaginary markets. I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.

If I wanted America to fail … For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause; Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls. And when everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins and not people, it would already be decades too late.

If I wanted America to fail … I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it – easier to kill jobs than create them – more fashionable to resent success than to seek it. When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them. And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.

If I wanted America to fail … I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact. I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions. I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private. I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.

If I wanted America to fail … I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans. I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good. If I wanted America to fail, I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.

► Hot Links

Obama Faces Defeat on Keystone Pipeline

by huckfunn ( 11 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Headlines, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Socialism, unemployment at April 20th, 2012 - 3:09 pm

President Obama’s delay of the Keystone XL Pipeline continues to be a millstone around his neck.  A recent Gallup Poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly approve of the Keystone project by a margin of 59 to 29. The most recent vote in the House was on Wednesday and 69 democrats voted with republicans for approval of the pipeline. The measure passed 293 to 127 which is a veto proof majority. I suspect that Obama’s strategy is to make approval of the pipeline his October surprise. This is clearly a losing issue for the Regime. The republicans need to keep bringing it up until it passes both houses or Obama throws in the towel.

“The president has put his feet in cement in opposition to the Keystone oil pipeline. But on Capitol Hill, more and more Democrats are joining Republicans to force approval of the pipeline, whether Obama wants it or not.

The latest action happened Wednesday, when the House passed a measure to move the pipeline forward. Before the vote, Obama issued a veto threat. The House approved the pipeline anyway — by a veto-proof majority, 293 to 127. Sixty-nine Democrats abandoned the president to vote with Republicans. That’s a lot of defections.

When the House voted on the pipeline in July of last year, 47 Democrats broke with the president. Now that it’s an election year and the number is up to 69, look for Republicans to hold more pipeline votes before November. GOP leaders expect even more Democrats to join them.

Then there is the Senate. Democrats are using the filibuster to stop the pipeline, which means 60 votes are required to pass it. (Some Democrats who bitterly opposed the filibuster when Republicans used it against Obama initiatives are notably silent these days.) In a vote last month, 11 Senate Democrats stood up against Obama to vote in favor of the pipeline. Add those 11 to the Republicans’ 47 votes, and the pro-pipeline forces are just a couple of votes away from breaking Harry Reid’s filibuster.”

Byron York’s entire article can be found here.

 

 

► Hot Links

China Slows Solar and Wind Projects Undermining White House Green PR Strategy

by huckfunn ( 46 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Science, Socialism at April 15th, 2012 - 5:00 pm

The Obama Regime energy policy is primarily about driving up the cost of fossil fuels to the point that they are no longer affordable so that we will have no choice but to turn instead to the so-called “green” or “alternative” energy sources of wind, solar and biomass. To that end they have tried to sell the idea that we must move quickly to convert to these alternative energy sources so that we won’t lose our competitive edge to China. Oh, yes; and think of all of the green jobs that will be created.

Much to the disappointment of the O-Regime, the Chinese government announced that it  “would stop expanding its wind and solar industries, choosing instead to focus on nuclear, hydroelectric and shale …. as the energies of the future.”  How about them apples?! Obama has been telling us that fossil fuels are the energy of the past and wind, solar and algae are the fuel sources of the future. As I’ve said in the past, I have yet to fill up my gas tank with wind, sunbeams or seaweed as Dr. K-Hammer quipped.

“It is getting tougher and tougher for the Obama administration to argue that somehow we’re in this big race for green power worldwide when the rest of the world seems to have decided that the race isn’t worth winning,” Daniel Kish, the senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller.

President Barack Obama, whose administration has held up solar and wind energy while stunting shale and snubbing hydroelectric, has deployed nationalist lingo, holding the specter of global Chinese green technology dominance as a driving motivation behind the administration’s expensive and embattled green energy subsidy programs. In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama said, “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

By halting wind and solar industry expansion, Kish told TheDC, “China’s just doing what every other country in the world other than the United States is doing. Years back, the president used Spain as an example [of green energy competition] … then Germany, then China.”

Spain’s green energy subsidies were found to have a cost of 2.2 jobs for every one created; and in Germany, the government announced this year that it is scaling back its subsidies. “It’s too damn expensive,” Kish explained, “and someone’s got to pay for it.” 

Read the whole article here. Hat tip Rain of Lead.

► Hot Links

Truck Runs w/o Gas?

by Bunk X ( 81 Comments › )
Filed under Cars & Trucks, Climate, Environmentalism, Humor, OOT, Open thread at April 4th, 2012 - 10:10 pm


[Found here, via]
Late tribute to Earth Day/Alpha Proxima Day.  I don’t know the story behind this, but it looks like this Dodge Ram runs on coal, just like the electric cars do in many parts of the country.

We’re all about fighting Global Cooling here on The Overnight Open Thread.

► Hot Links

HAH! Let there be light: ‘Human Achievement Hour’ to coincide with Earth Hour

by huckfunn ( 25 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Humor, Multiculturalism, Open thread, Political Correctness, Satire at March 31st, 2012 - 12:00 pm

As we know, the eek-o-freak-o-wack-o’s will celebrate Earth Hour  on Saturday March 31 from 8:30 to 9:30 PM (local) by sitting quietly in the dark fantasizing about how they are saving the planet from global warming. It may be a total coincidence, but those of us who celebrate carbon in all of its combustible forms now have a counter celebration known as Human Achievement Hour or HAH that will occur at exactly the same time Saturday night. Here are just a few of the things you can do to celebrate energy during this special 1 hour:

Turn on every light in your house; turn on all computers, TVs and stereos. Turn the AC down to 60. Be sure you have a load of laundry going in both your washer and dryer. Recharge your Chevy Volt. :roll: Turn on all your cars. Be all you can be.

With just a little effort we should be able to burn off 2 or 3 times the energy that the hippies are saving, which means  WE WIN!

As millions of people sit in the dark during Earth Hour to call for action against climate change this weekend, a libertarian think tank wants you to fight the power by keeping the lights on.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute plans to commemorate Earth Hour 2012 with its “Human Achievement Hour,” 60 minutes to gather with friends in a heated home, watch television and surf the Internet instead of dimming or shutting off the lights altogether to draw attention to climate change.

“HAH is an annual event meant to recognize and celebrate the fact that this is the greatest time to be alive, and that the reason we have come is that people have been free to use their minds and the resources in their environment to experiment, create, and innovate,” reads a CEI website on the event scheduled to coincide with Earth Hour 2012 from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. local time Saturday.

Participants in the event understand the “necessity to protect the individual persons from government coercion,” according to the Washington-based think tank.

The event is about saluting the people who “keep the lights on and produce the energy.”

“Observers of Earth Hour want world leaders to ‘do something’ about pollution and energy use,” the website continues. “What this means is that they want politicians to use legal mandates and punitive taxes to prevent individuals from freely using resources, hindering our ability to create the solutions and technologies of the future.”

Read the whole article here. 

► Hot Links

Labor/Eco-Radicals Defeated in Queensland

by 1389AD ( 93 Comments › )
Filed under Australia, Conservatism, Environmentalism at March 26th, 2012 - 5:30 pm

Map of Australia
This is a solid blow to the AGW fraudsters, the carbon-taxers, and the Red-Green-Green axis in Australia:

Watts Up With That? Eco-rout down under: ‘A mini-van will have more seats than the Labour party in the new parliament.’

Australians come to their senses – March 24th will be remembered as the day they collectively said “we’re tired of this sh**”

Commenter “truthseeker” writes in comments:

Anthony,

You may want to refer to Jo Nova’s latest post about the results of a state election down under.

Now for all of you nice people from the USA who may not think state elections are that big a deal if you do not live in that state, please remember that we only have 6 states and 2 territories, not 50 like you guys. We just had an election in Queensland, one of our most economically important states, especially for mineral wealth representing about a quarter of the population. Before the election the Labour (think Democrat) held a small majority in the 89 seat Lower House (House of Representatives).

With over 70% of the vote counted, the results are;

Liberal / National Party coalition (think Republicans – sort of) – 78 seats
Labour (think Democrat) – 7 seats
KAP (new party – think TEA party with less logic and more strangeness) – 2 seats
Independents – 2 seats.

A mini-van will have more seats than the previously incumbent Labour party in the new parliament.

I have one word for this … OUCH!

Jo Nova writes:

Those devastating Queensland Election Results: Voters hate lies and the Carbon Tax

UPDATE: Is this a record? Has there ever been a loss this bad in Australian history? Conservatives likely to win 74 seats of an 89 seat parliament.

Labor was reduced to only 11 seats in 1974, and on latest counting tonight appeared set to retain only nine seats. Some analysts put the figure even lower, at seven. This would mean Labor falling short of official party status and relying on the incoming LNP government to grant it party offices, staff and resources. The Queensland Greens failed to win a seat and suffered a fall in support. [The Australian]

This is thread for all those who want to comment on this election. According to Bolt, things are not just bad, they’re seriously awful for the Labor Party. Newspoll says LNP (conservatives) 55%, Labor 26%. Channel Nines polls says Labor could be left with less than 10 seats!

The ABC’s election predictor at 8:26 has LNP on 67 seats, Labor on four, others five, doubtful 15. Absolutely catastrophic for Labor. The current leader of the Labor Party in Queensland is Anna Bligh facing a 13% swing against her, and will need preferences just to stay in Parliament.

March 24, 2012, will be remembered as the day the electorate delivered a decisive, devastating blow to an incumbent Labor government. Courier Mail

For non-Australians, Australia has seven states (technically 5 states and 2 territories), and in 2007 all the States and the Federal Government were Labor. Currently Liberal (meaning conservative) governments have won NSW, WA, and Vic and now look like taking a landslide in Queensland. These are the four largest states.

JoNova: Those devastating Queensland Election Results: Voters hate lies and the Carbon Tax

Much more here.

Andrew Bolt: Queensland won’t be gentler on Queensland

The choice of words is unfortunate, but the analysis of Labor’s Queensland apocalypse seems right:

Former Hawke and Keating minister Graham Richardson said Queensland voters’ feelings towards the Prime Minister verged on “hatred”

“I think people just wanted to get rid of Anna Bligh but I think they want to get rid of Julia Gillard as violently as possible,” Mr Richardson said.

A record:

The NLP achieved a massive 15.7 per cent swing to capture at least 76 seats… It is the largest recorded swing in Australian political history, eclipsing the 14.9 per cent surge against Victoria’s Labor government after the party’s 1955 split.

But keep denying the evidence, you believers:

ABC’s Insiders yesterday:

LAURA Tingle: I don’t think anyone can claim that this was about the carbon tax or any federal issues.

Courier-Mail online, Saturday:

SKY News exit polls show voters were most concerned about the cost of living (69 per cent), followed by delivery of state services (63 per cent), and carbon tax (44 per cent)

Nothing left to say:

Julia Gillard flew to a summit in South Korea yesterday without commenting publicly on the destruction of Anna Bligh’s government…

Watching and waiting:

Kevin Rudd … had planned to mount his leadership challenge after the state election. One of his old backers expressed frustration that Mr Rudd had not waited. The MP said the Queensland result would not reignite any meaningful leadership talk now but its enormity kept Mr Rudd’s prospects alive.

It was noted that of the five seats of which all or part fell within the boundaries of Mr Rudd’s seat of Griffith, the average swing was 9.7 per cent, whereas the statewide average against Labor was 16 per cent.

Greg Sheridan:

Labor’s Queensland election debacle means that the party may be forced, no matter how reluctantly, to turn once more to the former prime minister and foreign minister. This is the view of some of Rudd’s key backers, and it is correct. Tony Abbott could win the next federal election in Queensland alone.

Michelle Grattan can’t bring herself quite to mention the carbon tax as a colossal error and deceit, which actually is the basis of this analysis:

JULIA Gillard issued an extraordinary statement on Saturday night after Queensland Labor was decimated. She congratulated Campbell Newman, praised Anna Bligh and promised to deliver for Queenslanders. But she made no mention of the rout that flattened Labor and raised the spectre of Queenslanders — who don’t believe in half measures — wielding the axe federally next year.

Some Gillard government advisers want to think that because this election was fought overwhelmingly on state issues and involved the “it’s time” factor, the result does not have federal implications. This is delusional…

Queensland also highlights how important “trust” is for voters… Gillard is not likely to find it much easier to get back trust than Bligh did — trust is probably non-renewable capital for the PM.

Queensland is the warning. Politicians who cyncially break election promises get punished. Gillard cynically broke a promise not to introduce a carbon tax. Voters had being lied to about this tax, which many also fear. Gillard will be punished. All the rest is excuse-making, wishful thinking and we-know-best arrogance. Labor must drop a tax for which there is no mandate and from which there is no benefit – to the planet, the economy or Labor itself.

UPDATE

Murdoch Tweet

But a discreet silence from normally prolific tweeter Kevin Rudd.

Also see:

 


► Hot Links

So What!?

by Flyovercountry ( 119 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism at March 25th, 2012 - 10:00 am

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

We have all heard, since the early 1970′s, that familiar liberal attempt to make us all feel guilty for driving our cars, heating our homes, turning on lights to read, watching television, or participating in any activity which uses energy or energy byproducts in our daily lives. The U.S. only produces x percentage of the world’s oil, but manages to consume y percentage. We are led to believe, either through the usage of crying caricatures of Native Americans, inaccurate disproportionate maps, or unnwatchable Hollywood bilge such as, “Avatar,” or, “Dune,” that somehow this resource is a zero sum endeavor, and that we hear in the United States are in fact stealing the precious life blood of some distant unknown land. Many of my smarter compatriots on the right have taken up the sport of pointing out the total baloney in the arguments being put forward, and I admit that it has been great fun to read this commentary. I wish to take a different approach.

So what? Let’s assume for just one moment that everything Barack Obama has said on the subject of oil production and oil prices are true. I realize that this acceptance of fantasy is harder for people with any sings of intelligence, but just pretend you’re reading a Tolkien or Lewis novel or something like that. Fairies and Orcs are real, so why wouldn’t it be possible for President Obama to be telling the truth? So what? Even if we produced not one single drop of oil domestically, why does that lend any credence to the argument that we should somehow be prohibited from its usage? The purchase of oil is not a wealth transfer, it is a wealth exchange. For those who do not fully understand the distinction, let me explain it to you.

We buy oil in this country and we use it, rather than let it sit on a shelf somewhere. Farmers use it in their machinery to make food grow on their farms, which is then used to not only feed us here in America, but pretty much the rest of the world as well. Glad uses oil to make sandwich bags so that people all across America can pack lunches if they so choose rather than blowing their entire disposable income on restaurants during their work week. They also make garbage bags so that environmentalists will be happy when we no longer take our refuse and throw it where ever we see fit. Doctors, operating on patients will use energy for lighting so that they can see where to cut, plastics exist all over that operating room, and the sterilization process uses extreme heat, and then air conditioning to keep the operating room at a constant non bacteria breeding ground temperature. As this could go on for days, I believe every one should get the point by now, so what?

Now let’s take a look at the argument that it will take x number of years for new production and sources to come on line anyhow. So what? Nobody in the known universe is suggesting or even attempting to suggest that our need for affordable energy is a short term proposition. We have all heard the arguments that our manufacturing base has been fleeing the country. Let me let you in on a well kept secret. The manufacturing of the entire globe will follow where the cheap affordable energy, and to a lesser extent, the cheap affordable labor are. As long as we have oil here in America, and we are willing to allow the free markets to provide that oil to those who want it, we will continue to have a manufacturing base. Our base started to flee, not coincidentally, the very same day that our elected leaders thought it would be a good idea to meddle in those markets. 5,10,15,20,and 30 years from now, we will look back on today and say, “gee, I wish we had had the foresight to drill for more oil x number of years ago.” So even if Barack Obama’s asinine predictions, based on nothing real by the way, about how long it would take to get oil from a new source to market, so what?

While we’re at it, let’s talk about the concept of, we already are drilling, and are drilling more than we ever have. So what? Our population is growing by about 150,000 people per month. It stands to reason that more of us will use more resources to create more stuff. Assuming that this is true, (remember that we are still operating in the Obama bizarro universe here,) this is still a poor reason not to allow anyone who finds it economically advantageous to drill, to drill. The beauty of the free market system is that when production is actually too high, the price signals of economic loss will tell those drilling when to stop. People who lose money on an endeavor, will soon stop. People who make money on an endeavor will continue, and find ways to do more of it. The profits that big oil, or little oil for that matter, are able to turn, represent nothing more than the measure by which they were able to benefit their fellow man. When you buy a gallon of gasoline at what ever price per gallon that you pay, it is because at that moment in time, you would rather have the gasoline than the money. Conversely, when gas prices climb too high, people make the conscience decision to drive less. the fact that oil companies are able to produce such large profits, is a good thing. This means that society as a whole, has determined that their product is very important and useful to the rest of us. So, for those who inexplicably feel as though the President’s assessment as to our current oil production is accurate, so what?

Alternative forms of energy, known as, “green energy,” are the future of the world and America is another of his favorite talking points. Never mind that belief in this necessitates a complete misunderstanding of economics and reality, let’s assume, since we have already agreed to do so, that it is all true. So what? when I decide to travel the 3 hours to Pittsburgh to watch my favorite Hockey Team play in the Stanley Cup Playoffs this year, I will purchase sufficient energy to put me in a 3000 pound piece of American machinery and travel the 180 miles at an average speed of 65 miles per hour. I will then, after watching what hopefully will be a great game, travel the same distance home again. My cares for this energy are that it will be a) reliable, b) convenient, and c) affordable. I want to actually have a reasonable assurance that I will make it there and back, that I will be able to utilize the energy when it is convenient for me to do so without hours of preparation ahead of time, and that it will cost me personally a price that I feel is worth it to pay for such an endeavor. Do I ultimately care what the source of that energy is? Most Americans do not, and for those who do, they are free to put that into their equations. Alternative sources, without the government’s meddling into the market place, would cost much more. Since this is a free country, those people who care are free to pay that price. When those alternative sources become more efficient to utilize than current sources, I will be the first to use them. Even before the Obama Administration began its war on energy, BP was the leading researcher into wind and solar power. They are in the business of providing us with our energy needs, and from their perspective, they are selling us the ability to travel 180 miles in 3 hours for about $20. Ultimately, their decision as to what the end product will be depends upon their ability to bring it to market in sufficient quantities as to satisfy those three conditions that I mentioned earlier. Even if we witnessed today, the full splendor of the green fairy, and we were fully capable of satisfying our energy needs through the wind and the sun, the free market system would still be best suited to tell us when oil production was not longer needed, and when it would be a good time to stop producing it. So, even if the President’s assumptions about how soon we would be able to replace fossil fuels as our primary source of energy, so what?

Now, since I am a jazz fan, and since the Miles Davis tune bears the same name as my posting, please enjoy Miles Davis and John Coltrane performing, “So What.”

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

► Hot Links

Obama’s Magical Energy Tour

by huckfunn ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Climate, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Marxism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation, Technology, unemployment at March 21st, 2012 - 11:00 am

This Wednesday, Barak Obama will take his magical energy tour on an extended road trip to the states of Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, ostensibly to tout and defend his energy policies. I’m not sure why he’s going to Oklahoma as it was the reddest of red states in the 2008 election. There will be plenty of angry oil patch hands to meet him when he visits Cushing, OK on Thursday. At any rate, here’s what we can expect;

“Fossil fuels are yesterday’s energy; the energy of the future is wind, solar and biofuels.” Well, I’ll tell you what, BO; I have yet to fill up my gas tank with wind, sunbeams or algae (or as Dr. K-Hammer says “stuffing seaweed in your gas tank”). Your coal-fired Volt is a fire hazard and the $108,000 Fisker won’t even work for 20 minutes.

“We need to end the ‘subsidies’ to the big greedy oil companies”.  Like everything else the Pharaoh in Chief™ says, this is simply bogus. The oil companies receive the same sort of tax breaks that the manufacturing segment of the economy receives. Those tax breaks generally amount to $4 billion per year. An article last year in The American Thinker provides a pretty good synopsis of what the so-called subsidies are:

They are all tax “breaks,” or earnings that oil companies get to keep, not money paid out from the US Treasury.

The amount of earnings not collected in taxes is about $4.3 billion per year — about 0.2% of this year’s deficit and enough to fund about 10 hours of current US government spending.

A full $3.55 billion of that amount (82%) is due to the way taxes are treated for all industries or manufacturers.  To change these tax laws only for oil companies would require singling them out among all industries for special mistreatment.  (I’m not a lawyer, but that sounds like a bill of attainder to me, something our Constitution forbids.)

The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs.  The amount of that subsidy?  That would be $0.78 billion per year — enough to fund less than two hours of federal spending in 2011, and not even half the amount we are lending a foreign-owned and state-owned oil company for drilling offshore Brazil.

Oil companies already pay tax rates of 40-50% of income.  For one company, Exxon, in one quarter of one year, that amount was over $8 billion, or almost double the so-called tax “subsidy” for all oil companies for an entire year.

Exxon recently released its first quarter results for 2011.  The number grabbing the headlines was Exxon’s profit: $10.65 billion in a single quarter.  The number not given quite as much exposure was the taxes it paid in that same quarter:  $8 billion, or 42% of income before taxes.

And what does Exxon do with all that money it has left after paying $8 B in taxes?  It put $7.8 billion into capital and exploration, as part of its plans “to invest between $33 billion and $37 billion per year over the next five years to develop new energy supplies.”

Read the whole article here. 

 

 

 

► Hot Links

Frac!

by coldwarrior ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Education, Energy, Environmentalism, History, Politics, Special Report, unemployment at March 17th, 2012 - 8:45 am

Interesting and rather long read.

 

 

The Truth about Fracking

In the middle-of-frackin’-nowhere Pennsylvania, Boy Genius is showing off his giant robot: It’s about 150 feet tall, God and the almighty engineers alone know how many hundreds of tons of steel, and four big, flat duck feet on bright orange legs. “Yeah, this is kind of cool,” he says of his supersized Erector Set project. “You can set those feet at 45 degrees, and it will walk around in circles all day,” a colleague adds.

But Boy Genius is not letting himself get too excited about all this — it’s pretty clearly not his first giant robot, and he’s a lot more excited about his seismic-imaging system: “It’s kind of like a GPS, but it’s underground and it works with the Earth’s magnetic characteristics.” Nods all around — that is cool. Everybody here has a three-day beard and a hardhat and steel-toed work boots, but there’s a strong whiff of chess club and Science Olympiad in the air, young men who are no strangers to the pocket protector, who in adolescence discovered an unusual facility for fluid dynamics and now are beavering away at mind-clutchingly complex technical problems, one of which is how to get a 150-foot-tall tower of machinery from A to B without taking it apart and trucking it (solution: add feet). That giant robot may walk, but it isn’t too fast: It can take half a day to move 20 feet, because this isn’t a Transformers movie, this is The Play, and Boy Genius is a member of the startlingly youthful and bespectacled tribe of engineers swarming out of the University of Pittsburgh and the Colorado School of Mines and Penn State and into the booming gas fields of Pennsylvania, where the math weenies are running the show in the Marcellus shale, figuring out how to relentlessly suck a Saudi Arabia’s worth of natural gas out of a vein of hot and impermeable rock thousands of feet beneath the green valleys of Penn’s woods. Forget about your wildcatters, your roughnecks, your swaggering Texans in big hats: The nerds have taken over.

The weird little in-house argot of gas exploration has more plays than Stephen Sondheim: the conventional gas play, the shallow gas play, the Gothic play, the Wyoming play, and the gold-plated godfather of them all, the Marcellus play, which stretches from West Virginia to New York and contains hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Exactly how much recoverable gas is down there is a matter of hot dispute, but the general consensus is: a whole bunch, staggering amounts quantified in numbers that have to be written in exponential expressions (maybe it’s 1.7×1014 cubic feet, maybe 4.359×1014), with the estimates on the higher end suggesting the equivalent of 15 years of total U.S. energy use. There’s so much efficiently combustible stuff down there that the boy geniuses have to spend hours in esoteric preparations for what to do about the oil and gas they hit that they don’t mean to — they’re after the Marcellus gas, but there’s a lot of other methane on the way down.

Given that oil imports account for about half of the total U.S. trade deficit, that U.S. policymakers suffer from debilitating insomnia every time some random ayatollah starts making scary noises about the Strait of Hormuz, and that about half of American electricity comes from burning coal — which, on its very best day, is a lot more environmentally problematic than natural gas (something to think about while tooling down to Trader Joe’s in your 45-percent coal-powered Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf) — exploiting natural gas to its full capability has the potential to radically alter some fundamental economic, national-security, and environmental equations of keen interest in these overextended and underemployed United States. Tens of thousands of new jobs already have been created (want $60,000 a year to drive a water truck with a $2,000 signing bonus? Pennsylvania is calling), and tens of billions of dollars in new wealth has been injected into the ailing U.S. economy, since Marcellus production really picked up around 2008. Pennsylvania and West Virginia saw 57,000 new Marcellus jobs in a single year, as firms ranging from scrappy independents to giants such as Royal Dutch Shell poured billions of dollars into shale investments — land, equipment, buildings, roads, machinery: capital, in a word. Massive capital.

Cheap, relatively clean, ayatollah-free energy, enormous investments in real capital and infrastructure, thousands of new jobs for blue-collar workers and Ph.D.s alike, Americans engineering something other than financial derivatives — who could not love all that?

Josh, mostly.

Everybody in the Marcellus play is on a first-name basis with Josh Fox, even though few of them have met the young director who with a single fraudulent image in his documentary Gasland — footage of a Colorado man turning on his kitchen sink and setting the tap water on fire — brought into existence a new crusade for the Occupy Whatever set and a new Public Enemy No. 1 for the Luddite Left: gas exploration, specifically the extraction technique of hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as “fracking.”

Fracking works like this: You set up your giant robot and you drill a five-inch-diameter hole down several thousand feet until you hit the gas shale, and then you turn 90 degrees and you drill horizontally through some more shale, until you’ve got all your pipes and rig in place. And then you hit that shale with a high-pressure blast of water and sand, creating millimeter-wide fractures through which the natural gas can escape and make you very, very rich in spite of the fact that you’re spending about a million dollars a week on space-age “matrix” drill bits and squadrons of engineers and a small army of laborers, technicians, truck drivers, machinists, and a pretty-good-sized bill from Hoggfather’s, the local barbecue joint that has added a couple of specialized and custom-outfitted mobile crews just for cooking two massive meals a day for the fracking hands who are far too busy to take off for lunch. (Sure, ExxonMobil is going to be making a killing, but fracking’s biggest boosters may be the local restaurateurs who are cooking with gas while cooking for gas, and are happy to serve workers straight from the field: “No Mud on the Floor, No Cash in the Drawer” says the sign in a local diner.) The water makes the fractures, and the sand keeps them open. There’s some other stuff in that fracking blend, too: biocides, for one thing, not very different from what’s in your swimming pool, to keep bacteria and algae and other gunk from growing in the water and clogging up the works. There are also some friction reducers, because water and sand moving at speed can produce a lot of wear and tear (cf. the Grand Canyon), and the occasional jolt of 7 percent hydrochloric acid solution for boring out holes in the concrete. The mix is 99+ percent water and sand, and the rest of the stuff is mostly run-of-the-mill industrial chemicals (those friction-reducers use a polymer that also is used in children’s toys, for example). Real concerns, but not exactly an insurmountable environmental challenge.

Not only is this happening more than a mile beneath the surface, it’s also happening at a level that is separated from the closest points of the aquifer by a layer of impermeable rock three or four or five Empire State Buildings deep. “We couldn’t frack through that if we were trying to,” says one engineer working the Marcellus. “The idea that we could do so by accident is crazy. Not while we’re fracking with water and sand. Nukes, maybe, but not water and sand.”

So what about that burning water?

The weird true thing is that water has been catching fire for a long time — “long time” here meaning way back into the mists of obscure prehistory and the realm of legend. The temple of the Oracle of Delphi was built on the site of a burning spring said to have been discovered by a bewildered goatherd around 1000 b.c., and sundry antique heathens across the Near East had rituals related to burning bodies of water. The geographically minded among you will appreciate that there are several places in the United States named “Burning Springs,” including prominent ones in such energy-intensive locales as Kentucky and West Virginia. There’s a Burning Springs in New York, too, and 17th-century missionaries wrote in awe about Indians’ setting fire to the waters of Lake Erie and nearby streams. Water wells were catching fire in Pennsylvania as early as the 18th century, well before anybody was fracking for gas.

You wouldn’t know it from watching Gasland, but that Colorado community made famous by the film has had water catching on fire since at least the 1930s, and the Colorado division of water chronicled “troublesome amounts of . . . methane” in the water back in 1976. As it turns out, places that have a lot of gas in the ground have a lot of gas in the ground. And sometimes that gas is in the water, too, as the result of natural geological processes.

Which isn’t to say that gas drilling can’t muck up drinking-water wells. That can and does happen — but it has nothing to do with fracking. If anything, fracking is less likely to pollute groundwater than are other forms of drilling, because it happens so far from the water, with so much rock in between, which isn’t the case with shallower wells and more traditional forms of gas exploration.

“Methane migration is real,” says John Hanger, an environmental activist in Pennsylvania who served as head of the state’s department of environmental protection under the liberal governorship of Democrat Ed Rendell. “Prior to the Marcellus, there have probably been 50 to 150 private water wells, out of more than a million in the state, that have had methane contamination as a result of mistakes in the drilling process — but that has nothing to do with fracking. Some in the industry deny that it ever happens, and that is false. But frack fluids returning from depth, from 5,000 to 8,000 feet under the ground, to contaminate an aquifer? When the industry says that’s never happened, that has in fact never happened.”

Colorado’s gas regulator took the unusual step of releasing a public debunking of Gasland’s claim that fracking is responsible for that flaming faucet. Confronted with the facts — call them “an inconvenient truth” — Fox responded that they were “not relevant.” But what is not relevant is that image of a burning water faucet, at least if you want to understand the facts about fracking, which the anti-frack fanatics don’t.

The problem with fracking mostly isn’t what goes down the pipe, but what comes up, and the real hairy environmental challenge turns out to be the relatively un-sexy matter of wastewater management. Gas drillers put their bits down through a lot of ancient seabeds, meaning that the water comes up saturated with our tasty friend NaCl, a.k.a. salt. Given that a great many examples of aquatic and riparian flora and fauna are evolved to do well in fresh water but curl up and die in salt water — especially salt water that’s considerably saltier than the saltiest seawater — you can’t just dump that stuff in the Susquehanna River. And then there’s potassium salts and such. And then there’s other stuff that comes up, too, substances you’d just as soon see remain buried in the depths of the earth: arsenic, for one thing, and the darkly whispered-about entity known in drilling circles as NORM — Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material — and various other kinds of Very Bad Stuff. Of particular concern is the presence of bromides, which, when combined with the chlorine used in water-treatment facilities, have a worrisome tendency to turn into the SEAL Team Six of volatile organic compounds, basically a big flashing neon sign reading “Cancer.”

There are other workaday environmental problems endemic to fracking: For the three to five days a frack lasts, it’s loud — really, really loud, because it’s basically a construction site, with a vast array of pumps and compressors and giant margarita mixers blending sand into the water, and a big battery of generators to run it all. There’s not much to be done about the noise, though you’re typically not fracking real close to densely populated areas. A few firms have hit upon the novel approach of simply offering nearby homeowners money to go away for the week, expenses paid, or at least putting them up in a hotel for the duration. (An idled fracking rig might cost you $1 million a week — you can afford to pay a lot of HoJo bills to keep that from happening.) The trucks cause traffic snarls, so they’re building more pipelines to replace the trucks, but digging pipelines can be an inconvenience, too. Fracking for gas is not zero-impact. There’s no easy way around that.

And there’s certainly no easy way around the water issues, either. Disposing of wastewater is a challenge from all sides: PR, economic, technical, environmental, and economic. But a number of the drillers have come up with a nearly ideal solution for disposing of it: Don’t.

A couple of hundred miles away from Boy Genius and his giant robot, in the Marcellus heartland of Williamsport, Pa., is TerrAqua Resource Management, one of the many private firms that have sprung up throughout The Play to do what the local wastewater-treatment plants and municipal authorities aren’t equipped to do and probably shouldn’t be expected to do: treat nasty drilling water so that it can be used again. Trucks pull up, unload their murky liquid cargo, and then fill up on usable water to take back to the next job. Inside, a trio of vast water tanks, chemical vats, some sand filters, and a bunch more engineers make that water reusable. The facility has been up and running for only a couple of years, but millions of gallons of water already have passed through it. The solids get filtered out and disposed of, bacteria get biocided, and everybody makes the department of environmental protection happy by providing a government-certified “beneficial reuse” of drilling water.

Interesting thing: The place doesn’t stink. It’s got a slightly earthy smell to it, like the nursery section at Home Depot, but it doesn’t smell like you’d expect a water-treatment plant to smell.

TerrAqua makes its living from the dirty end of the gas business, and its executives are under no illusions about the industry. There are good eggs — or at least self-interested, large-cap eggs who appreciate how much they have to lose if they get sloppy — and then there are what the locals call the “gassholes,” by which they do not mean to denote the channel down which the pipe goes.

“There’s compliance, and there’s high compliance,” says TerrAqua vice president Marty Muggleton. “There are companies that like to have a lot of extra cushion between where they are and where they have to be, and then there are those who like to get their toes close to the edge. And I think the industry has figured out which one of those you really want to be.”

The one you want to be, everybody from environmental activists to industry insiders says, is a company like Range Resources, a Texas-based firm that owns a big part of The Play south of Pittsburgh, operating out of the hamlet of Canonsburg, Pa., near the West Virginia border. Like practically everybody else in town, they have a bunch of shiny new space in a corporate park that was barely half-populated until the Marcellus began to get going. It’s a busy anthill with a lot of boots and surprisingly few suits. Range is one of the companies that have figured out that there’s so much money coming out of the shale — even with gas down near $2 — that it pays to go above and beyond. Their trucks tear up the roads in Canonsburg, so they build newer and better roads than the ones they found, spending more money on roads than the city itself does. There are a surprising number of speed traps around town, but they aren’t the local Barney Fifes: They’re contractors hired by Range, keeping an eye on the company’s drivers, who get fired for speeding or otherwise behaving in a gassholish fashion. The old days of what they call “Texas-style” gas development are mostly in the past: The billion-dollar boys have a lot of resources to throw at environmental problems and a lot to lose.

“Pennsylvania used to have surface disposal,” says Range’s Matt Pitzarella, “and West Virginia still does. That’s just crazy.” “Surface disposal” means “just dumping it in the river or on the ground.” Pennsylvania, he points out, has a long history of environmental grief related to the energy industry, from acidic mine discharges to thousands of forgotten (and not always well-capped) oil wells dating from back in the days of Colonel Drake, the genius who noticed that farmers drilling water wells kept hitting oil and figured he might as well drill for the oil. Thousands of steel casings were ripped out of wells during World War II, and thousands of miles of waterways in the state have been befouled, mostly by mine discharges. Natural gas is pretty clean at the combustion point, and Range wants to be the firm that shows how clean it can be during the preceding stages. “If anything, the microscope that we as an industry are under has made us more innovative. Some of the tactics they use may be unfair. It’s not fair to paint us all with the same broad brush. But at the same time, it’s not fair for the industry to paint all the environmentalists with the same broad brush, either.” Recycling water rather than discharging it has been a fundamental change for the industry’s environmental impact and, as long as the water is cleaned up enough that it doesn’t muck up the works, it’s all the same to the drillers. “We could frack with peanut butter, if we had enough of it,” Pitzarella says.

Fracking with Skippy never occurred to George Mitchell, the legendary gasman who staked his fortune on the seemingly crackpot idea that you could efficiently get gas out of a rock, but he tried everything else. Range engineer Mark Whitley was with Mitchell in the early days, and still gets a little edge in his voice when he talks about the dicey prospect of having invested about $1 billion of a company worth only about that much in a technology that nobody thought would work. Noting that President Obama claimed that “it was public research dollars” that made shale extraction possible, he laughs without mirth, and looks like he wants to spit: “Not true,” he says. “We tried everything known to man to get a rock to produce. There’s a lot of people who claim to be the father of the Marcellus, but if you didn’t put any money in or take any gas out, then what’s that? It was industry studies, industry experience, and industry dollars that did this, and we’ve driven up production more rapidly than anybody thought possible.” And it was far from a done deal for years: “We could have thrown in the towel any time during the first ten years, but the one guy who didn’t want to quit was the guy in charge: George.” (George. Not, incidentally, Barack.) They tried all sorts of brews to get the shale to give up the gas, and, as the expenses mounted, they tried cheaper and cheaper alternatives, eventually settling on the low-tech combination of water and sand that turned out to be the thing that actually works. “Economics drove it,” Whitley says.

The gas guys scoff at President Obama’s claim that federal ingenuity produced the shale boom, and they scoff harder at their rivals’ occasional pleas for government handouts, notably T. Boone Pickens’s plan to have the government require long-haul trucks to convert to natural gas and then have taxpayers pick up the bill for it. “The best thing the federal government can do is stay out of our way,” Whitley says. “Leave us alone, and we are happy. We are well and appropriately regulated by the state.”

Practically everybody in the industry speaks well, if sometimes begrudgingly, of Pennsylvania’s department of environmental protection, which, after being caught flat-footed in the early days of the shale revolution, has gotten with the program in a big way. It’s undergone a major overhaul of its regulatory regime, and by most measures Pennsylvania’s gas industry is cleaner and safer today than in the pre-fracking era. Billions of dollars rolling in, and thousands of new jobs, and much more on the line in the future, will do that. And the industry, while not always entirely in love with the DEP and its colonoscopic minions, appreciates that its Pennsylvania regulators understand the practices and geology of Pennsylvania in a way that faraway regulators at the EPA would not. If the EPA — especially Barack Obama’s highly politicized EPA — gets involved, the result is likely to be arbitrary national standards. “The feds only screw things up,” says one engineer, and any reasonable federal regulatory regime would end up essentially replicating most or all of what the states already are doing, but at a political distance that makes regulators more remote and less accountable. When it comes to fracking for gas, facts on the ground are facts literally in the ground. Keeping regulation at the state level is the top political priority in the Marcellus, so the industry has an interest in making the DEP look good: It’s that compliance– vs.-high compliance thing again, naked self-interest producing virtuous outcomes. Range regularly has the DEP out to its facilities to show them the latest and greatest, with the unspoken suggestion that what it does voluntarily everybody else in The Play should do voluntarily, too, because voluntarily accepted best practices are the only real political insurance against involuntarily accepted second-best (or worse) practices: Let’s do it right before the feds make us do it wrong.

DEP spokesman Kevin Sunday encourages that line of thinking: “Pennsylvania has a unique and diverse geology, and that’s why states should have the primacy in regulating this instead of the one-size-fits-all approach that some in the federal government would prefer to see.” He says that water recycling has represented a “sea change” in the industry. “Some are recycling at 100 percent — it depends on what you’re drilling through. The average is 70, 75 percent.” Higher standards for discharged water have made it more attractive to recycle, too, with many facilities required to treat water to the state’s standard for potable drinking water before putting it into streams or rivers. That’s a sneaky little trick: Once the water has been cleaned up enough to discharge, nobody wants to discharge it. “If you get it down to that standard, it’s too valuable to flush it down the toilet,” Sunday says.

Which is to say that in the Marcellus they have discovered, along with enormous quantities of gas, that rarest of commodities: a regulatory success story.

‘There is no doubt that drilling wastewater is highly polluted,” says Hanger, the former DEP secretary. “Prior to the Marcellus, when the Pennsylvania industry was small, we were dumping drilling wastewater untreated into rivers and streams and hoping that dilution would keep concentrations below levels that would cause damage to aquatic life or drinking water. There is probably less water going untreated into the rivers today than before the first Marcellus well. It’s a success story. If you look at the top ten things impacting water in Pennsylvania right now, the gas industry would not be on the list, and certainly not fracking. Industry, environmentalists, and regulators all ought to be celebrating. But there’s money to be made out of fighting.”

All of which is perplexing to the boy geniuses in the fracking command centers scattered around Pennsylvania. Talking politics with engineers is dancing about architecture — they just don’t get it, and they get frustrated. “We have all this wealth in the ground,” says one of the bespectacled brethren, “and we can get it out. We can do it efficiently and cleanly” — and we have giant frackin’ robots! — “but some people don’t want us to. They just don’t like it.” Laying out this scenario, he wears a look that is four parts nonplussed and one part hurt. You want to hand the kid an Ayn Rand novel with the good parts dog-eared.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, political or environmental, even a mile under the rock. And the real question about fracking, as Hanger points out, isn’t fracking vs. some Platonic energy ideal. It’s between fracking and coal, or, to a lesser extent, between fracking and oil.

Walking around finished gas wells in The Play, you’ll notice a weird thing: A lot of them run off of solar power. There’s no utility power in some of the more remote areas, and it’s more efficient to put up some solar panels to run the monitoring equipment and the other gear necessary to keep a producing well producing. And in the remote Texas panhandle, Valero operates a major oil refinery that’s attached to a 5,000-acre wind farm, being located in the sweet spot of having lots of crude pipelines, lots of wind, lots of real estate, and not very many people. When it’s operating at its peak, the wind farm produces enough juice to run the whole refinery — but it takes a lot of turbines and a lot of West Texas wind to get that done when you have the capacity to refine 170,000 barrels of crude a day. The wind farm isn’t a PR stunt, Valero insists: It’s economical, and beyond wind Valero has a pretty good-sized portfolio of investments in alternative energy, from ethanol to algae. But consumers and policymakers should understand the limitations of those technologies, a Valero spokesman says: “We get frustrated by this idea that cars should run on sunshine and happy thoughts.” But cars can and do run on natural gas, and the surge in U.S. oil and gas production has made American firms more competitive with their overseas rivals and has led to a renaissance among local refineries.

Given all that, the data are on the side of fracking. But the political momentum is on the other side. It remains likely that the EPA will take its heavy hand to the industry, a development for which the enviro-Left, led by Occupy Wall Street, is positively howling, which is frustrating for environmentalists such as John Hanger. “If there’s no fracking, the unavoidable consequence would be a sharp increase in oil and coal consumption. Even if environmental and public-health issues were your only concerns — leave aside national security and the economic impacts — that fact alone should give you some pause.”

But don’t bother with evidence: The opposition to fracking isn’t at its heart environmental or economic or scientific. It’s ideological, and that ideology is nihilism. Environmentalism is a movement that began with the fire on the Cuyahoga River in 1969 and a few brief years later had mutated into the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (motto: “May we live long and die out!”), which maintains: “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.” (Good luck with that “less dense” thing, geniuses.)

Benign environmentalists are opposed to pollution, as all sensible people are; malign environmentalists are opposed to energy and most of what it enables. Their enemy isn’t drilling rigs and ethane crackers and engineers and their technological marvels: Their enemy is the kind of civilization that makes such feats and wonders possible, the fact that a smart guy with a big idea can make a hole in the ground and summon up power from the vasty deep. Their enemy is us. We can debate best drilling practices, appropriate emissions regulation, wastewater-disposal techniques — the engineering stuff — and even hare-brained ideas like the Pickens plan.

But we can’t really debate the course of modern technological civilization with people who are opposed to modern technological civilization per se, your mostly middle-class and expensively miseducated (and forgive me for noticing but your overwhelmingly white) types afflicted with the ennui of affluence, who suddenly take a fancy to the idea that life might be lived more authentically with a bone in one’s nose and a trip to the neighborhood shaman — the shaman who might, if the spirits smile upon him, initiate you into the ancient mysteries of the burning spring.

— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review. This article appears in the February 20, 2012, issue of National Review.

Permalink

► Hot Links

It’s Not Raining, It’s Our President!

by Flyovercountry ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Elections 2012, Environmentalism, Politics, Progressives, Regulation at March 1st, 2012 - 11:30 am

I found these two videos today on HotAir.  Take a good listen to both of them.  Something both cynical and hilarious is happening.  Apparently, central to Barack Obama’s campaign strategy this year will be his ability to flat out tell lies with a straight face.  I realize, before you start sending comments about how I am a fool to have not noticed this before, that lying is a part of any politicians repertoire, but this is different.  Laced with in the Zero’s rhetorical past have always been little snippets of actual fact, not enough to make it honest, but enough to merely be mostly deceitful.  This is a small distinction I admit, but at least that little iota of truth within the lie usually remained.  Well, nuts to that strategy. Little Barry has decided to completely abandon any pretext of being truthful, and now has full out assumed that most Americans will do nothing by way of fact checking him.

Keep in mind this little fact, Mary Landrieu is from President Obama’s very own political party.  This is not some partisan attack upon the President’s good name being perpetrated by those evil Republicans who are only seeking to damage the President politically, rather than actually being helpful.  Also, and I urge you to watch the videos again, take note of the fact that Ken Salazar, tries to put out that old canard of we leased x number of millions of acres for exploration.  The good people of the Oil and Gas industry have been facing this baloney for decades.  The problem with demanding that they drill on already leased land before seeking to explore other places is that it does no one any actual good to drill baby drill somewhere that oil or gas does not exist.  Landrieu does a good job of calling Salazar on the carpet over this blatant piece of deceptive statistics, something which I thought a Democrat would never do.  Granted, she is from Louisiana, and the Oil and Gas Industry are of paramount importance to the people of her state, as the Louisiana economy is almost entirely dependent upon drilling in the Gulf.

All of this is played of course against a back drop of a President who stands as our nation’s first chief executive to be held in contempt of court over this very issue.  While Secretary Salazar was spouting those dishonest statistics which were designed to make us all believe that our President is working diligently to get our own energy production revved up, a Federal Judge in Louisiana has already ordered the White House to quit the practice of indefinitely stalling all Gulf Oil Permits, and issued a subsequent contempt order for the President’s refusal to heed the original order.  The fact is, the Obama Administration has processed exactly the minimum number of permits necessary to prevent one of their Administration being incarcerated.

No matter what the President and his minions say about how he has actually done more than any other President to increase our energy production, relieve businesses from the cancerous regulatory environment which he has largely helped to build, and the actual efficacy of his disastrous monetary policy, one quick glance at reality tells a far different story.  The rosy economic picture and reporting being touted daily in our press does not square at all with reality and what people are living every day.  Consider this, on the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009, 39 short months ago, The United States of America ranked as the 4th most economically free society in the world.  Today, we rank 10th.  This is not the result of someone leading our nation who has deregulation in mind.  For those of you who are curious, Hong Kong, a society that is technically under Communist rule, actually ranks number one.

I have been inundated with emails from the Obama Campaign on a constant basis for some time now.  Each of these helpful little steaming piles of crap claims to be setting the record straight.  Barack it seems believes that he is the only hope left for the small business owner, and that he wishes to defend us from those big bad evil large corporations.  So, as a small business owner I must also strive to set the record straight. Barack Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for us small guys out here living in the land of reality.  In my industry, the financial services industry, he has worked almost exclusively to destroy us little guys and insure that the big boys have limited competition. That is the true record of the Obama Administration in my little corner of the world.

Here is my message to the Obama folks out there.  Quit urinating on my head and telling me that it’s raining.  I can tell the difference.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

► Hot Links

2012 Chevrolet Volt Cleared for California Carpool Lanes

by huckfunn ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Headlines, Misery Index, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation, Transportation, Unions at February 27th, 2012 - 8:28 pm

This will be the end of the line for the Chevy Volt. When those turd heaps start snarling traffic on California highways due to bursting into flames and dead batteries, the public will have daily, first hand knowledge of the utter failure of this wretched device.

DETROIT – A low emission model of the 2012 Chevrolet Volt electric car are on their way to California, where customers will qualify for a $1,500 state rebate and be allowed to drive solo in the state’s carpool lanes.

Volts with the Low Emissions Package, which is standard for California, began shipping from the General Motors Detroit-Hamtramck plant this week and should begin arriving at the more than 140 participating Chevrolet dealerships in California before the end of the month.

“The Volts with the Low Emissions Package are certain to be a strong draw for California commuters looking to travel the state’s notoriously congested freeways in the carpool lane,” said Chris Perry, vice president of Chevrolet Marketing.

Commuters who use carpool lanes in Southern California save an estimated average 36 minutes a day, or about a third of their total driving time.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles is making 40,000 Clean Air Stickers available for registered vehicles that meet the state’s emissions standards. Applications can be downloaded from the DMV’s web site at dmv.ca.gov

Additionally, the new Low Emissions Package makes the 2012 Volt eligible for owners and lessees to receive up to $1,500 in state rebates through the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. This incentive is in addition to a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 Clean vehicle rebate applications can be submitted online at www.energycenter.org

Read all about it right here.

► Hot Links

Telling more lies again, Obungler? Five outright lies he told us about his energy policy

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 142 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Inflation, Marxism, Media, Misery Index, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Science, Socialism, Technology, unemployment at February 27th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

This commie clown occupying the White House is a serial liar. During his “energy speech” the other day, he told so many half-truths and outright lies, that the MSF’in’M naturally ignored, because they’re not the least bit interested in being journalists, but rather cheerleaders for this corrupt administration and Obungler’s re-election.

So, the capitalists at Investor’s Business Daily put together a list of Obungler’s five biggest lies he told regarding our energy policy since the POS became President. They called them “whoppers”, but whoppers come from Burger King, while lies come from Obungler’s mouth every time he moves his lips…

5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama’s Energy Speech

Energy: The White House billed President Obama’s energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.

Obama’s main message to struggling motorists was: It’s not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama’s peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking.

The five biggest:

“We’re focused on production.”

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has “done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.”

“The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that “we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices.” The argument goes that since the U.S. supply is limited, it won’t ever make a difference to world prices.

It’s bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.

In fact, the U.S. has a mind-boggling 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to “fuel the present needs in the U.S. for around 250 years,” according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.

“Because of the investments we’ve made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled.”

Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

“We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”

Fact: Renewable energy simply won’t play an important role in the country’s energy picture anytime soon, accounting for just 13% of U.S. energy production by 2035, according to the EIA.

“There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices.”

Fact: Obama could drive down oil prices right now simply by announcing a more aggressive effort to boost domestic supplies. When President Bush lifted a moratorium in 2008, oil prices immediately fell $9 a barrel.

Obama said in his speech that Americans aren’t stupid (other than those who voted for the POS- BiB). He’s right about that, which is why most are giving his energy policy a thumbs down.

Hat tip Denny

► Hot Links

The New Manacles

by coldwarrior ( 23 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Climate, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, government, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Science, Special Report, taxation, World at February 24th, 2012 - 7:49 am

The New Manacles

-Coldwarrior 24 FEB 2012

 

Manacles are a metal band, chain, or shackle for fastening someone’s hands or ankles to restrict movement and prevent their escape and freedom.

Origin:
1275–1325; Middle English,  variant of manicle  < Middle French:  handcuff < Latin manicula  small hand, handle of a plow. See manus, -i-, -cle1

 

Normally manacles are placed on a prisoner or criminal because he will want to escape his confinement.  The warders have a duty to restrict this criminal’s freedoms. This duty and these manacles are given to the warders as part of the social contract between the citizens and government. The citizens allow the government to try, incarcerate, restrict the movements and freedoms of, and eventually deem the criminal as rehabilitated and release him from his manacles.

 

In the last decade we have seen a different kind of manacle placed on not the criminals, but on the law abiding citizens. These manacles are the policies and fees and extra costs levied because of Carbon driven ‘Global Warming’ both globally and here in America. Any distortions in the energy market, restrictions of availability, or increased cost in the use of energy is a manacle on the economy and on the citizen’s freedoms when we get right down to it. We are going to see $5-6 dollar gas this summer because of lack of drilling and lack of refining that was in part a product of the environmental/Global Warming agenda. Electric costs are up due to the onerous regulations placed on coal fired power stations, ‘necessarily skyrocket’, anyone? We could have built Nuclear Stations, they are clean and emit zero carbon dioxide. That should have placated the Global Warming crowd, right? No, we can’t have all the energy we want: Manacles placed on you and me for what? A myth?

 

‘Global Warming’ as a driver of policy and taxation is dead in the US. It has even become the butt of jokes on late night TV. Seriously, could we have blamed anything else on Global Warming? The blogs, some real scientists, and the Global Warming crowd with their lies and fake data cut off this manacle. It took us about ten years to get back to reality, Carbon Dioxide is plant food and does not have an appreciable effect on the atmosphere. Therefore, much to the chagrin of the New Carbon Warders, Carbon Driven Global Warming eventually makes a lousy manacle.  The Carbon Trading desk at the Chicago Mercantile exchange was closed without much fanfare and now the New Carbon Warders are all silent. The prisoner came out of his trance and could see through the manacle and break it with common sense and a little research on the internet.

 

That should be the end of the story. It isn’t.  The New Carbon Warders will change uniforms. It leaked out in the President’s speech last night confirming what I have been saying in private for a couple of months. The New Carbon Warders will change into the ‘Sustainability Police’ . Sustainability will replace Global Warming as the driver for taxation, fees, and destructive policies that will continue to retard and distort our economy.The Sustainability Police will insist that this is for our own good, they just want to make sure we survive. Isn’t that what Sustainability is, survival and the ability to endure? Why not care for the ecosystems while providing for our needs? We can get fuel from algae! What a great idea! The Sustainability Police sound rational enough at first until they get into the implementation phase.  They see consumption of any kind to have a negative impact on the ecosystem. Instead of using Carbon as the Manacle, they will use ‘Carrying Capacity of Planet Earth’, ‘Management of Human Consumption’, ‘Impact’ and ‘Footprints’ to form the restrictions of our freedoms:

In 2007 a report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated: “While much discussion and effort has gone into sustainability indicators, none of the resulting systems clearly tells us whether our society is sustainable. At best, they can tell us that we are heading in the wrong direction, or that our current activities are not sustainable. More often, they simply draw our attention to the existence of problems, doing little to tell us the origin of those problems and nothing to tell us how to solve them.”

 

Sustainability will be the new manacles placed on the citizens to restrict their freedom and control their lives. Sustainability does not need science behind it. There does not need to be tree rings, temperature monitoring stations, and massively complicated computer models to back it up. Sustainability only needs the force of law and regulation. It is, simply because it is, and it is what the Sustainability Police say it is. This is a far more dangerous Manacle because the regulators and the activists define the ‘reality’; there is no scientific process to dissolve the chains that will be placed on us in the name of Sustainability.

 

► Hot Links