Recently in Obama administration Category

CNN's Jenny Wilburn emailed

Hi there! I’m wondering if anyone from The Evangelical Ecologist would be interested in joining CNN.com/Live today for a segment about Pres. Obama’s speech to the UN today on climate change. The segment will take place around d12:15p ET today. Feel free to call my cell to talk more about it! 404-xxx-xxxx 

Thanks, Jenny

CNN's live link is up via their homepage. China's president is speaking now. Nothing new from him. Prime Minister of Japan next. 

Will update this post with any interesting bits. Would also expect Mr Obama's speach to be up here by tomorrow.

UPDATE: Got pulled away and missed his comments, which happened about an hour early. Gore, on the other hand, sitting on a panel, is "optimistic" that global warming legislation will be passed before Hopenhagen. Says that even if it doesn't, the Supreme Court has already ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, and thus EPA can already regulate it. 2nd Court of Appeals also ruled last night that large CO2 emitters in the US can be sued under common law. "So even in the absence of legislation, existing law through the courts will require reduction of CO2."

Translation: Use courts to end-around the electorate. LOL! Of all people, I'd think Gore would decry that...

UPDATE: Q to Gore: "Disappointed in lack of specifics" in Obama's statement? A: "He was recognizing the reality of the situation that legislation was still pending...."

UPDATE: CBS is on the trail of some rather large carbon footprints in NYC today.

UPDATE: World leaders kick climate policy into the long grass. Preparing for still more disappointment at the Hopenhagen site. The more they talk, the further away they get from a concensus. And Denmark is a mighty chilly place in December. 

Bumped: I heard an outstanding lecture Monday night here at the College by Mr. Amory Lovins, cofounder, Chairman and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute. The topic was “Military-  and Business-led Solutions to Oil, Climate and Proliferation." Hard to absorb everything, but what stuck with me the most was his info on the amount of energy we could save through re-engineering induced conservation.

For instance, only a tiny fraction of the energy in a gallon of gasoline is used to actually move the people in it. Most is lost through heat/friction or the energy it takes to move a couple thousand pounds of steel. He figures composites not only simplify and reduce the cost of constructing cars but an 800 pound car would get 75+mpg easy (smaller engine too). As far as safety, his video of a driver walking away from the crash of her composite racecar hitting the rails at 200mph convinced me we are over-whining about this.

Second example was whale oil use dropped off long before we ran out of whales because people discovered petroleum and found it a better product.

His bottom line was it's much easier - and profitable - to approach energy and climate change from a conservation perspective. Problem is the government wants to impose conservation (the way the UN is trying to do) rather than back off and afford the free market and engineering entrepreneurs with the chance to innovate.

Great stuff.

People who think climate change is little or no threat = 58%

Obama's job approval rating = 56%

I wonder if that's because of this delay.

Black helicopter theory. Maybe the Administration's not worried about passing climate change law. The "poor progress" we're making on global warming gas controls could be the excuse our president needs to side with the E8 to enforce international standards in Copenhagen.

It's all going according to plan, I'm sure.

RELATED: Cap 'n Trade slipping from the top of The Agenda.

Found this over at WorldNetDaily:

Hard to imagine this won't impact the looming eventual (?) CO2 tax debate.

So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.

***

And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame.

-- Obama Administration Green Jobs Advisor Van Jones

-- Former Obama Administration Green Jobs Advisor Van Jones

I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment--indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.

-- Obama Administration Senior Science Advisor John P. Holdren

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit notes that the government has suspended "Cash for Clunkers." The reason? Too many people are taking advantage of this incentive to buy new cars, and too many dealers are now left holding the bag (i.e. not getting paid back). Glenn gets a followup from Moe Lane, who notes, "what’s essentially happening here is that car dealerships are giving $4,500 interest-free, unguaranteed loans to the federal government…"

Well, another government bailout this year was the $8,000 New Home Buyer Tax Credit. We're buying a new home this month and I really wanted to get this to offset our closing costs. What's cool is your broker is supposed to be able to give you the cash up-front:

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has announced that HUD will allow "monetization" of the tax credit. What does that mean? It means that HUD will allow buyers using FHA-insured mortgages to apply their anticipated tax credit toward their home purchase immediately rather than waiting until they file their 2009 income taxes to receive a refund. These funds may be used for certain downpayment and closing cost expenses.

Under the guidelines announced by HUD, non-profits and FHA-approved lenders will be allowed to give home buyers short-term loans of up to $8,000. The guidelines also allow government agencies, such as state housing finance agencies, to facilitate home sales by providing longer term loans secured by second mortgages. Housing finance agencies and other government entities may also issue tax credit loans, which home buyers may use to satisfy the FHA 3.5 percent downpayment requirement. In addition, approved FHA lenders will also be able to purchase a home buyer's anticipated tax credit to pay closing costs and downpayment costs above the 3.5 percent downpayment that is required for FHA-insured homes.

More information about the guidelines is available on the NAHB web site. Read the HUD mortgagee letter (pdf) and an explanation of the FHA Mortgagee Letter on Tax Credit Monetization (pdf). An FAQ about monetization (pdf) is available at the NAHB web site.

I asked the guy who is issuing me an FHA loan if they'd do this for us. Here was their response:

Based on the information I got yesterday, only state agencies are allowed to place a lien on the property for monetizing the tax credit. Each state agency decides if they want to participate or not, RIMFAC has chosen not to participate. Their logic is they would rather see the borrower have additional reserves when they get the credit than need it to acquire the property. No lenders are participating because it would basically be an unsecured loan for the 8k and there is no guarantee that the borrower will get an 8k refund when they file. For example if they owed the IRS 6k in taxes with the 8k credit they would only get back 2k and may not have the money to pay back the loan for getting the 8k upfront.

Does the "unsecured loan" bit sound familiar? (The sound is "clunk.") Also interesting that liberal Rhode Island (unemployement rate near 12%) has "chosen not to participate." I guess that makes sense since, if I understand my lender correctly, the Feds are asking states and lenders to back this $8,000 government note.

So I'm still out of pocket for my closing costs. No big deal. I anticipated this anyway. But now I'm starting to worry if I'm even going to get this credit on my income tax this January.

I didn't care for all the government growth under Bush. But at least his largesse actually, um, worked.

UPDATE: Some consolation - government failures prevent market bubbles.

Obama senior science advisor John Holdren: "We need a Planetary Regime."

Perhaps those agencies, combined with [the United Nations Environmental Program] and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime — sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.

The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

[Photo info here.]

Michelle Malkin:

My syndicated column below contrasts the Left’s “unease” over the evangelical Christian faith of NIH director-designate Francis Collins with its radio silence on the eco-zealotry of Obama science czar John Holdren. But first, some late-breaking developments: As Zombie notes, the White House has responded to rising blogosphere unease with Holdren’s cultish ideas by pooh-poohing Holdren’s co-authorship of the nutball manifesto, Ecoscience. Team Obama told the Washington Times that Holdren “never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization.” Never? Whom do you believe: the White House or your own eyes?

Lots more links there for your eyes to enjoy.

Collins was not just NIH director, but he was picked as the head of the NIH's Human Genome Project. Before Wordpress ate it I'd transcribed Collin's speech-slash-testimony on Christian faith, NIH and the HGP.

When his book came out I thought it was important to dig into Collins a bit and see where his faith and science intersected. It should give him creds to alot of you that I was a little disappointed in what I heard. I wanted him to define how his understanding of evolution and genetics substantiated his faith. Only got a few squishy platitudes. Still, he holds science comfortably in one hand and God comfortably in the other.

Holdren shouldn't be a surprise either. His perspective on "natural selection" among homo sapiens is the same Sanger-esque, anti-minority, anti-life Malthusian misanthropy we've come to expect from the Planned Parenthood bloodline. Give him credit for being honest enough to publish it.

Will the glorious, broad-minded humanitarian universalist that is Obama back up both men? Or is that a bus I hear chugging up the street...

MORE: Christians Need Not Apply (to NIH)?

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