Recently in Green Politics Category

Found this over at WorldNetDaily:

Read more here.

-D

From Glenn Beck's Common Sense:

As always, the hypocrisy is loudest in Washington. In 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced with great fanfare that Congress was "going green" by replacing twelve thousand incandescent lightbulbs...Trees would be planted and carbon offsets purchased.

What you didn't see in her press conference was the carbon-belching Capitol Power Plant that burns more than seventeen thousand tons of coal each year. The plant's proud owner? None other than the United States Congress.

...plans for a carbon-neutral guilt-free Congress died an uncereomonious death. Congress will no longer purchase carbon credits. No reason was given for the change...

Common sense tells us that the simpletons running our government should have learned from their own failed two-year experiment with carbon credits...[but] In the same month that they abandoned carbon credits, Congress introduced a 648-page bill that could effectively impose the carbon-credit scheme on every American business.

-D

Excerpts:

...one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency...Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

So much for "overwhelming transparency." -D

Excerpts from here:

A team of scientists with years of expertise in climate issues has written an open letter to Congress asserting the "sky is not falling" and there is no evidence man is causing global warming.

The new letter said the facts are simple: "The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

"The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST."

The [cap & trade] legislation would, however, "cripple the U.S. economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors," the scientists warned.

-D

The House barely passed the "Cap & Trade" legislation. What will happen if the Senate also passes it? From Heritage Foundation:

• Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;

• Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and

• Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

By 2035 the bill will:

•Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
•Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
•Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
•Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
•Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
•Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
•Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Change we can believe in. -D

Heritage/Morning Bell:

Two competing solar power companies, Ausra and BrightSource Energy, recently filed plans to build plants in the California desert. Both firms’ plans affected wildlife habitat. But only Ausra’s plans were hit with complaints demanding expensive and cumbersome environmental studies. The reason? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

Not encouraging.

Senator Inhofe about 2 hours ago:

“While the House will pass the bill … in the Senate, they’re not going to be able to pass it,” Inhofe said. “You guys – it’s just not going to happen..."

Earlier thoughts here.

Senator Alexander made a call to return to the promise of nuclear energy:

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander called Wednesday for doubling the number of nuclear reactors nationwide, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.

Obama's administration is considering a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gases and to require larger quantities of carbon-free energy production.

The country's 104 commercial nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation's electricity, while most of its energy comes from carbon-producing coal.

Of course, the enviro-radical end of the eco-concerned quickly turned on the scare tactics:

Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander's proposal "reckless."

"Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution," Smith said. "New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for."

Actually, had we built all of the reactors we originally planned decades ago, we wouldn't be having an energy crisis. Nuclear energy has been proved safe. Other countries use it even more extensively. New reactors are even safer, produce less waste (much of which is recyclable), than the older generations. We do have places to store waste, people like you, Steve, won't let us.

Alexander said he also backs renewable energy sources, notably solar power and biomass fuels, yet called those still too expensive and inefficient.

Exactly. We need diversity.

"Today there is a huge energy gap between the renewable electricity we would like to have and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have," he said.

There are a number of reactors waiting approval or already approved. It's time to end the scare tactics and the pretend-to-care-politicians and really solve our energy problems. -D