Tag Archives: environmentalists

Bizarre Predictions from the First “Earth Day”

The forty-fourth Earth Day was celebrated this week in over 160 nations around the world. The notion that we are stewards of our planet, and must nurture and protect it as we utilize the resources she provides us is both logical and moral, and should be universally embraced. But from its inception, radically political and often disparate causes and sub-movements have tainted the objectives that led to the establishment of the first Earth Day in 1970. This has severely hampered the possibility of greater support for the cause of protecting our planet and the environment.

Peace activist John McConnell in 1969 floated the proposition that peace and the earth be celebrated together, which led to the first Earth Day celebration on the first day of spring, March 21, 1970. Just a month later, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson founded another Earth Day, which either intentionally or unintentionally coincided with Vladimir Lenin’s 100th birthday, April 22. The movement went international in 1990 largely due to the efforts of Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator of the first observance.

the-earth-day-showFrom the very incipient stages, the movement was tied more to radical leftist causes than to actual celebration and preservation of the third rock from the sun. What could have led to a very broad, universal movement became instead a fractious and splintered cacophony of extremist propaganda, often bordering on pantheistic adulation of the earth over the needs of the people who inhabit it.

Radicals are too often afforded massive media exposure when gushing their jeremiads and diatribes advocating their specific cause, but all too seldom are held accountable for their apocalyptic projections and forecasts. In an effort to rectify that lack of accountability, let’s go back to the first two iterations of Earth Day, 1970, to review what the “experts” and the media were saying about mother earth.

Here are some of the predictions regarding the earth and our atmosphere itself.

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” said Barry Commoner, a Washington University biologist.

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” according to Lifemagazine.

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable,” according to ecologist and UC Davis professor Kenneth Watt.

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” lamented Paul Ehrlich, author and Stanford University biology professor.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any,’” warned Kenneth Watt.

“One theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” warnedNewsweekmagazine.

Earth-Day-burn-them-at-the-stakeAnd my favorite, in light of the anthropogenic global warming alarmism of today, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” warned professor Kenneth Watt.

Some may argue that such cataclysmic projections would have come to fruition had the EPA not been organized later that year and efforts to clean up the environment taken immediately. But listening to their 21st century equivalents, it’s obvious that we have never done enough.

Then there were the population and human life projections, which included, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” warned Harvard biologist George Wald.

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction,” said aNew York Timeseditorial.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years,” according to Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich.

Ehrlich continued, “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

wells“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” proclaimed Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day.

And finally, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine,” said professor Peter Gunter.

If we could shed the cataclysmic alarmism that often accompanies environmental movements, and wouldn’t subordinate mankind in the global hierarchy of needs, the environmental movement could have even more broad support than currently enjoyed. In the meantime, forgive us deliberative types for not gullibly gulping at today’s servings of alarmist hysteria. After all, the movement has a history, and we’re keeping track.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Private Sector Ends Unwanted Alien Invasion

Hydrilla: Michelle Obama’s heart-healthy next menu item.

Prince William County, VA is suffering the ill effects of another alien invasion and a collection of politicians is engaged in vigorous hand–wringing over possible solutions.

No, this isn’t another rant about illegals clogging 7/11 parking lots. This time it’s alien plants clogging Quantico Creek.

Recently Dumfries Mayor Jerry Foreman, Del. Mark Dudenhefer (R–2nd), Supervisor Maureen Caddigan, and Dumfries Councilmember Helen Reynolds took a pontoon boat tour of Quantico Creek. (Oddly enough Supervisor Frank Principi, a Democrat who is usually an enthusiastic participant anytime commuter ferries are involved, did not make the voyage.)

Creeping along at about the same speed as OJ’s SUV, the group’s mission was to see for themselves the extent of the hydrilla crop currently infesting Quantico Creek. Hydrilla is a green, leafy and invasive species from Florida that might do well in a vegan’s salad bowl, but causes extensive problems in lakes and waterways.

Hydrilla also has much in common with the federal government: It grows and grows, and as it increases in size all surrounding activity slowly grinds to a halt as a result of silt buildup and tendril blockage.

In Quantico Creek hydrilla is so extensive it’s impossible for boaters to cross and the alien vegetation has crowded out white lilies, swans and crabs.

Unfortunately the creek touches a number of jurisdictions so agreeing on a solution is going to be difficult. If the problem is solved, everyone wants credit but if there are problems no one wants to take the blame. Plus, anytime a political decision takes place outdoors, it attracts “environmentalists” with all the attendant scare stories, warnings and potential lawsuits.

However, I have a suggestion with two advantages in that it saves time and eliminates hydrilla. Simply call the Montclair Property Owners Assn. (MPOA) because it solved the very same problem over ten years ago

Back in 1994 Lake Montclair was rapidly becoming Swamp Montclair. Hydrilla covered approximately 45 percent of the lake. Lakefront property owners were rapidly losing the use of the lake. After easing into the water — jumping was out of the question since it was like leaping into a bowl of mold chowder — you felt like Moses in the bulrushes. The obnoxious plant would rub against your bare legs like a sex harasser on Metro’s Red line.

The MPOA was offered the same three options the politicians are considering. The first is harvesting. Think John Deere combines in the water. Unfortunately, this option is particularly attractive to politicians because it’s perpetual. You don’t eliminate the hydrilla; you just give it a yearly styling.

In fact, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has been running a harvesting program on the Potomac for almost 40 years. The Army Corps of Engineers (the same experts in charge of levies in New Orleans!) mows the river annually and everyone involved is happy. Politicians get to appropriate and show “concern” for the problem and the Corps of Engineers gets to justify its budget. A win–win for everyone but the taxpayers.

Montclair could have purchased a huge harvesting machine and donated the annual hydrilla crop to the school lunch program. But someone has to operate the harvester, repair the harvester and store the harvester, which means the cost never ends. Appealing to government but a problem for the private sector.

The second option is always carp. Montclair tried neutered Japanese carp in an effort to harvest hydrilla the natural way. I used to throw rice off the dock in an effort to entice passing carp into my section of the lake, but it never worked. And neither did the carp.

It could have been neutered carp suffer from a testosterone deficit that affects their appetite or maybe they were just resentful after losing their manhood. Or it could have been the hydrilla infestation was so extensive solving the problem would have required a concentration of carp dense enough to allow one to walk across the lake without getting your feet wet.

I’m reasonably sure the politicians won’t opt for carp either, not because it’s ineffective, but because it’s tough to have their photo taken hugging a live fish.

The last option is the one that works: herbicide treatment. Naturally this choice put the victims of hysterical “environmentalist” indoctrination into a tizzy because it introduces a chemical into a liquid. Of course adding salt to your soup does the same thing, but “environmentalists” are immune to analogy.

The Montclair greenies were joined by fishermen who had no problem with property owners losing the use of the lake as long as they could persuade a bass to stop hiding in the hydrilla long enough for them to hook it.

After approximately a year of debate (lightspeed in political terms) the MPOA board realized hydrilla was also adding to the cost of lake dredging; the association’s largest recurring expense. So in late 2000 the MPOA board approved a treatment with a chelated copper herbicide. Problem solved without wasting tax dollars or time. It was a perfect conservative solution: local, effective and cost–conscious. Which is another reason Mayor Foreman should call Montclair ASAP.

He’s concerned that eliminating hydrilla could cost Dumfries half its annual $4 million budget. Montclair treated an entire 110-acre lake for only $20,730.00.

 

Environmentalists, Please Watch “The Lion King” For A Lesson In Life

This is irony at its best! From the East Oregonian:

Oregon officials were successful in getting permission to kill sea lions that feed on protected salmon trying to swim upriver to spawn. Now they want federal approval to shoot a sea bird that eats millions of baby salmon trying to reach the ocean.

In an April 5 letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service obtained by The Associated Press, Oregon Wildlife Chief Ron Anglin says harassment has “proved insufficient” in controlling double-crested cormorants, and officials want the option of killing some of the birds.

Oregon needs federal approval to start shooting double-breasted cormorants because the birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

…the birds are threatening restoration of wild fish protected by the Endangered Species Act, as well as hatchery fish important to sport and commercial fishing.

So first, sea lions were a problem for the salmon, now birds, which are protected by the “Migratory Bird Treaty Act”, are causing problems for baby salmon. Looks like the “environmentalists” have gotten themselves into a bit of a quandry.

It would seem that something this simple would be understood by such “educated” people. Even the youngest of children understand the concept of the circle of life. Everything that has life will die some day. Simba and Nala taught us the lesson so well. Maybe “The Lion King” should be a required “documentary” for the “environmentalists”!

Return of the Living Dead: Environmentalism by Other Means

While the environmentalist hordes have been momentarily beaten back, a recent conference Planet Under Pressure 2012 shows the weakened movement is not liable to give up so easily. Leftists intend to get their money and power by hook or by crook. The manmade climate change agenda is a means to that end.

Like every good horror flick, just when you thought it was safe…

The global carbon tax cited at upwards of $76 trillion was miraculously defeated. Note that the world’s scavengers assembled at the UN walked away from the deal — not on principle, mind you, but because they couldn’t decide out how to divvy up the spoils. Those few of us who are still sane breathed a collective sigh of relief.

But the greeniacs are bellying back up to the global juice bar and there is some suggestion that the temporarily thwarted eco-crazies will find a way to accomplish their crypto-marxist agenda through more naked means. Bumbling Joe Biden may have stripped away the enviroprop by blabbing about a global minimum tax, which is fantastic because now that the left’s green push-up bra is off, we can see how sagging the environmentalist movement really is.

In your-face taxation is just not that sexy. The green movement was designed to pertify it.

While Americans were at first mesmerized by the Hayekian snake dance (Selma, not Friedrich), they’ve looked a little closer to find that it’s… Rosie O’Donnell? And is that a hammerhead shark? I’ve got to lay off the tequila.

So far, the millenarians have been content to walk up to our windows and politely ask us for our contributions to the cause. Embarrassed, we have dug into our pockets for a few spare nickels, and they’ve walked off without so much as scraping the windows. But at least the prophets of climate apocalypse had the common decency of hiding our tithes in fuel prices, so as not to bother us with the Jehovah’s witness-like persistence of their shakedowns.

As the environmentalist movement has gotten more exposed, it has also gotten more brazen.

Even as we speak, algae is growing on the Obama economy. Gas prices are killing consumers (due in no small part to those taxes), the EPA is going after coal manufacturers like a bunch of zombified hit men, and the Obama administration is strangling energy production, pulling shenanigans on everything from Keystone to the offshore drilling moratorium to blocking off the ANWR “wildlife refuge.”

Americans are no longer getting that tingly feeling from “going green,” if that means losing more of their green. Now the lefties are just telling us to pay — or else.

No one should really be surprised by the left is clamoring for ever more. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the lack of a principled moral defense of free market capitalism is an ideological void that invites left-wing extremism. If we do not push back on the right terrain, the philosophical terrain, then the millenarianism of the left will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We must ask ourselves, what good are arguments with leftists about climate data, when they view our current economic system as fundamentally immoral?

We shouldn’t negotiate with the parasites on the terms of our own exploitation. If the end of the world is nigh, so be it. Just because the left is hell-bound, doesn’t mean we have to follow them there.

Coming Soon to a Doctor’s Office Near You – The Global Warming Debate

When Chad Kent, the resident Constitutionalist here, came to me about a story on Global Warming folks weaseling their way into the field of medicine, I was moderately intrigued. He told me about a paper that had been published by American Family Physician, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Family Physicians, that was giving physicians suggestions on how to reduce the effects of Global Warming by encouraging their patients to live healthier. Now, leftists playing politics with health care with Obamacare is one thing, but starting to lobby doctors with their environmental agenda directly is something else entirely.
Physician
While I managed to end up with full-text of this article, only the abstract of “Global Warming – Benefits for Patients and the Planet” is available publicly. The author of this paper, Cindy L. Parker, MD, is a member of the faculty at Johns Hopkins University. In short, her thesis is that since it’s a foregone conclusion that human beings are to blame for Global Warming (she regularly substitutes this term for the “less pejorative” Climate Change), it makes sense for physicians to encourage their patients to eat less red meat and use bicycles or other human-powered means of transportation more often. This would theoretically make an appreciable change in the amount of carbon emissions, and thus help to slow the damage we are doing to the environment.

As relative proof for her contention on alternative forms of transportation, Parker cites data that shows there had been a noticeable decline in ozone concentration in Atlanta, GA during the 1996 Olympic games, and in Beijing, China, during the Olympics in 2008. The Olympic Committee restricts the use of motor vehicles for the duration of the games, so there was less car exhaust in those areas at those times. As for the dietary changes, there is a more convoluted equation that includes the amount of oil-based products used in agriculture, and the negative effects they have on the environment.

Now, it is difficult to argue against the idea that eating less red meat and being more active are intelligent choices for health-conscious Americans. However, taking the additional step of suggesting to doctors that encouraging these behaviors may have the additional side-effect of combating Global Warming is troublesome at best. Readers of AFP Journal did reply to this article, and pointed out some perceived flaws in the theory, primarily on the science Parker chose to back her thesis. One part of the editorial response to the readers’ feedback is rather telling.

3. Scientific process: When Dr. Parker first proposed this article, we challenged the author to justify how this information could be of use to the office-based physician, in terms of improving practice and patient outcomes. The author replied with a detailed explanation about how physicians can counsel their patients in ways that would help their health, as well as be good for the environment – a double benefit. These included eating less red meat and using bicycles for exercise and transportation. Although we were aware that the issue of global warming is controversial, we did not think that these particular recommendations, which are consistent with current national guidelines on healthy diet and physical activity, would be considered controversial.

As is standard for every clinical review article, the manuscript was independently assessed by two medical editors and three external reviewers. The reviews were supportive of the article’s basic concept, and provided helpful recommendations to strengthen and increase its relevance to the practicing family physician.

To provide additional perspective on this topic, we solicited an accompanying editorial. It described the Healthier Hospitals Initiative, and also said: “the American Medical Association (AMA), in concert with the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association, has strongly supported educating health professionals about the impacts of climate change. The AMA is a major participant in the Climate and Health Literacy Consortium, which has developed free standard PowerPoint presentations for hospital administrators and clinical staff.”

Finally, Dr. Parker is codirector of the Program on Global Sustainability and Health and director of the Global Environmental Change and Sustainability major and minor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and is an expert in the field. We mention this to indicate that this article was not published without due deliberation and discourse.

In writing, and life, context is everything. Parker is a researcher with an agenda, and a rather severe bias. Her entire career is based on proving links between the environment and people’s health. This article is just a small part of her work. Before trying to tell our doctors to encourage us to live healthier to save the planet, she wrote a book telling us directly. And it’s not hard to figure out why she might target the petroleum industry in particular, albeit indirectly, through the agriculture industry. Parker is also a proponent of the Peak Oil theory – that we are approaching a point of critical mass where petroleum use versus supply is concerned. Due to being over-reliant on oil, society will reach a point where shortages in that resource will start a domino effect, particularly in agriculture, that will lead to famines and radical inflation. But, that is yet another short-sighted theory from the world of environmentalists, primarily because it gives little or no consideration to one thing that the petroleum industry takes into account when making projections about the worldwide oil supply. It does not take into account the fact that industry in general is continually searching for and implementing technologies that increase fuel efficiency. The irony of this shouldn’t be lost on most conservatives, since a great deal of that research was essentially forced on the automobile industry in particular by the environmentalists themselves, in the form of governmental regulations.

So what do we take away from all of this, as conservatives? This should be considered a warning shot. While it’s unlikely that Parker’s research and writings will manage to make many waves with anyone that doesn’t already agree with her anyway, it would be foolish to not consider this a harbinger of things to come. Combine this with the current advertising campaigns featuring children with breathing problems promoting EPA initiatives on the Hill, and it is obvious that environmentalists are moving closer to the reality of the situation. No matter how much they want to say that they want to save the planet, that simply isn’t the case. We can’t save something that doesn’t need saving. The planet will still be here long after we’re gone, unless we disappear because the planet itself is destroyed in some cosmic event.

What environmentalists really are trying to save is our ability to live comfortably on this planet. Whether or not Global Warming is actually occurring, and whether or not it is being caused by our current use of fossil fuels are matters for scientists interested in dealing with pure theory. Their findings are irrelevant, because we do not have the means at our disposal to make radical changes anyway. Green technology research has not reached the point where it can give us viable replacements for our current fuel needs. The best that we can do until viable replacements become mass-marketable is to continue focusing on increasing fuel efficiency, and decreasing carbon emissions through improved filtration technology. Cars built today do not cause anywhere near the amount of pollution as those built in the 1970’s and earlier. Arguably, the only thing standing in the way of scientists focusing on applying the technology that accomplished that in the automobile industry to other high-carbon emission industries is the fascination with finding the next best fuel.

So, if your doctor starts trying to sell you on the idea of eating less red meat, and riding bicycles to work as your own little way to save the planet, please do set that physician straight. If you choose to do it, make sure the doctor knows it’s because you want to improve your own health, and that’s all. Sorry, but no one is going to save the world by choosing salad over steak, or pedaling over driving.

Republicans Attempt to Change a Light Bulb

I don’t know precisely how many Republicans it takes to change a light bulb, but I can tell you that 289 are evidently not enough. That’s how many Republicans are in the House and Senate, yet they can’t accomplish a relatively simple task and repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs that went into effect January 1st.

And this repeal isn’t like overturning Obamacare, which will be Stalingrad for the socialists in D.C. Democrats don’t really have anything invested in the Twisty Light Bulb Act, other than their habitual environmental hysteria. The ban was passed in the waning days of “the Failed Bush Administration.” Repealing this law is not a repudiation of Obama, it’s a poke in the eye to George W and Democrats loathe him anyway. Yet House leadership is unable to persuade Democrats in the Senate to pass this small repeal.

Thus the first bulb to go is the 100–watt model, which means the invaluable 100–200–250 three–way bulb, so useful for reading, is going the way of the dodo. To be replaced by the single power twisty bulb, which either gives off a ghastly zombie–like white or a dingy yellow light. You’ll feel like you’re reading with the help of a whale oil lamp and for only three times the cost of the incandescent bulb it replaced. And this scientific breakthrough in illumination is like cars used to be: you have to warm it up a few minutes before it’s ready to go.

In addition to being more expensive, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFB) contain mercury, so if you drop one on the kitchen floor you suddenly escalate from a standard household cursing situation into a hazmat incident. Federal guidelines assure us that — like the batteries in a Chevy Volt — the small amount of mercury in a CFB is perfectly safe while rolling around on the linoleum.
Here’s an environmental hazard Rule of Thumb: Any given substance or activity is only toxic in direct proportion to the number of Republicans and capitalists that support its use.

This is why water and chemicals used in the natural gas fracking process, which occurs mile or two beneath the earth’s surface, are a civilization–ending threat to the water table located up to two miles above where the fracking takes place.
While the mercury right there on the kitchen floor is only a minor, Environmental Defense Fund–approved annoyance.
And while we’re in a fracking frame of mind, the Chicken Little Earth Protection Council is now blaming the process for Ohio earthquakes.

This is strange. I don’t recall underground nuclear tests being blamed for causing earthquakes. Yet “environmentalists” would have us believe that what is essentially a geologic enema is more dangerous to our threatened tectonic plates than detonating an atomic bomb!

Meanwhile, back on the surface, the House did manage to remove funds for enforcement of the ban from the December spending bill. This is a meaningless gesture not fit for inclusion in a campaign commercial. It’s like telling the trucking industry that drivers no longer have to obey the speed limit because Congress is not allowing the highway patrol to buy gas.
Republican’s futile efforts to make a real difference in Washington loom large in light of Obama’s recent ‘recess’ appointments. This action is a direct challenge to Constitutional government and House and Senate leadership does not appear to care.
The Constitution specifically states “Neither House…shall without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days…” The House has not consented to a Senate adjournment; therefore Congress remains in session. The fact this frustrates Obama does not make his appointments constitutional.

Obama doesn’t like checks and balances, and he knows his picks for the Labor Relations Board are so anti–business they would not survive the Senate confirmation process. Without an aggressive response an administration filled with appointees like Energy Secretary Steven Chu — who justifies the light bulb ban by saying, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money” — will be able to run roughshod over Congress and the nation.

Sure Boehner and McConnell issued pro forma objections, but where is the line in the sand? Republican leadership should be making the case to the public and informing the President that no additional business will be conducted until these unconstitutional appointments are retracted.

If these appointments are allowed to stand the remainder of Obama’s first term will be government by edict, while Republicans in Congress hope they can be rescued from themselves by a GOP victory in November.

Congress Smashes Light Bulb Law .. For Now

Americans of all political bents have been stockpiling traditional, incandescent  light bulbs ahead of the planned enforcement of the so-called Light Bulb Law which was signed by former President Bush. It now appears they have more time before having CFLs shoved down their throats.

In an attempt to pull government from yet another facet of American life, GOP lawmakers reached a deal and were able to include a postponement of the law in the Omnibus spending bill. The spending bill that will fund the government through the end of September of 2012 passed the House last Friday.

Republicans removed any funding for the enforcement of the Light Bulb Law. Without finding, the Energy Department will have no way to make sure that Americans no longer use the wildly popular and very inexpensive bulbs to which they have become accustomed.

The funding cut will have no effect on those that choose Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) or LED lights which require less electricity to run, but are hugely more expensive to purchase. 6 100-watt equivalent CFLs cost about $20.00 – more than $3 per bulb – while the standard 100 watt incandescent bulbs can be purchased for less than $0.80  per bulb.

The CFLs at the the $3.25/bulb end of the spectrum also contain mercury – a serious toxin that makes bulb breakage a HAZMAT event.

The standards that were due to go into effect on January 1st only applied to 100 watt bulbs. 75-watt bulbs would have been regulated out-of-existence in 2013 and all other incandescents in 2014.

To fully reverse the light bulb mandates, the 2007 law will need to be repealed. Something Republicans in the House and Senate were looking to do in March of this year. As it stands, the 100-watt provisions would now go into effect in October of 2012 with the 75-watt provisions following close behind. This could be another regulation that will be killed or strengthened at the ballot box in 2012.

Jim Presswood, policy director for the environmentalist group Natural Resources Defence Council, called the move by Republicans “dim-witted” and “completely ridiculous”.

The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Fred Upton said that they had “heard the message loud and clear. Americans don’t want government standards determining how they light their homes”

U.S Oil Production to Shut Down Completely? Is That the Goal?

Note: Article revised to include recent decision to allow the bridge to be built, with conditions yet to be named.

In the great state of Alaska there is a region that is designated as the National Petroleum Reserve. (NPR, and no, this is not about the National Propaganda Radio, which also goes by NPR) The NPR consists of 23 million acres of Alaska’s North Slope wilderness that was originally established in 1923 by President Harding to supply the oil needed to keep the U.S. Navy fueled. Since it’s establishment, the National Petroleum Reserve has sat idle, and today there is not one single production well in operation there. Access is difficult, to say the least, and with no current roads, all equipment would have to be flown in, making it increasingly expensive to extract the oil and distribute it to refineries or transportation hubs.

So just why has there been exactly no oil or gas production from the designated National Petroleum Reserves in question? It was designated almost 90 years ago, and with America trying to reduce her independence on foreign oil, it only seems logical to carefully open it up for production. As a matter of fact, 4 million carefully studied acres were opened up back in the 80’s, as the federal government sold several leases in the area, but none were developed, and then they expired. The same thing happened in the 90’s, as the federal government again sold another $150 million dollars worth of drilling rights in NPR-Alaska. The history behind NPR-A, and the reasons as to why there has never been a drop of oil or a cubic meter of gas production is well documented here, from the Government Affairs Program-American Geological Institute. Here is the final report summary listed in the above linked page:

“The final report was issued on August 7, 1998. It states that 4 million acres (87 percent) of the area studied will be available for leasing. Development in 20 percent of that area will be limited by prohibiting oil and gas surface pipelines but can be accessed by directional drilling. The areas where leasing is prohibited or restricted fall mainly around the Teshekpuk Lake and Colville River, which provide habitats for molting geese, caribou, raptors and passerine. The plan also prohibits oil and gas facilities in riparian areas identified by the North Slope residents and governments as areas important for subsistence and forms a Subsistence Advisory Panel”

That was back in 1998, and after decades of studies and input from local citizens,s state agencies, and a slew of environmental groups, there was a firm plan put into place to allow the extraction of oil and gas deposits from the NPR-A designated areas. Note in the above final report, that it specifically mentions the Colville River area. This is at the center of the latest roadblock that has been put in the way of any production from NPR-A. From an article at FoxNews.com, dated Nov. 28, 2011, we see the following headline: Energy in America: No Bridge to Oil. The bridge that is now being denied in that article is in fact a proposed bridge over the Colville River that is mentioned in the above paragraph. 30 years of exhaustive studies, research and planning in the designated National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, along with millions of dollars in the sale of leases and drilling rights, were once again poised to be all for nothing, because of a fight over a bridge. How do the locals feel about this bridge? The mayor of the town Nuiqsuit, Thomas Napageak says the bridge would make his town a hub for the oil industry and help lower the current 38% unemployment.

Conoco Phillips wants to build a road bridge and pipeline over the river to connect to the nearby Alpine development, which sits just outside the NPR. But the Army Corps of Engineers and related EPA and Fish and Wildlife agencies originally rejected the plan telling the oil company it had to go under the river. Update 12/11/2011: From the Petroleum News we see the following headline: Agencies Agree on Bridge, Corps of Engineers decision this year.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, which had opposed the company’s plan to put the crude oil pipeline from CD-5 to the company’s Alpine production facilities on a bridge to be built across the Nigliq Channel of the Colville River, have reached “an agreement in principle” with the company on the proposal.

While this looks like marvelous news at the onset, ConocPhillips Alaska spokeswoman Natalie Lowman said in a Dec 5th email, “We have not yet seen the permit nor it’s conditions, but we are encouraged by today’s announcement.”

Alaska Congressman Don Young added that while he welcomed this most recent announcement, “The fact of the matter is that this should have happened sooner.” He noted the importance of the CD-5 project not only for Alaska jobs, “but also because it will put this nation on a path towards becoming energy independent.”

This is a very welcome development in moving America forward towards energy independence in the future. The only question left to ask is, “Why did it take almost 90 years to do it?

People for the Ethical Treatment of .. Rocks

Appearing at a People Against Dangerous Environmentalism (PADE – pronounced ‘paid’) event, former Vice President Al Gore said that the spotted owl, delta smelt and albino salamander are to blame for the warming of the earth. The sudden proliferation of those protected species and the sudden over-reliance upon solar farms and windmills is creating a warming effect in the atmosphere directly over so-called “green states”.

Having recently pointed out that everything from breathing to cow farts were contributing to man-made global warming, Mr. Gore now explains how environmentalism has become a major contributor to the problem.

There are entire companies springing-up that promote the protection of certain animals and certain types of green energy. Some of them are OK, especially the ones I have a financial stake in. The others, however, are dangerous and we must shut them down – or take them over if that’s to my .. er .. our advantage.

Gore has recently railed against people that eat beef, farmers, people who walk on the left side of the sidewalk, take up two parking spots and “idiots that take the last cup of coffee without making a new pot”. “I can’t believe that everyone isn’t mad at those people. They’re wrong, all of them, and their killing our children – and also – grandma.”

Not everyone is falling in-line with Al’s version of climatology and he’s not taking it sitting down. In a recent conversation with Alex Bogusky, he paralleled climate skepticism to racism saying, “When racist comments would come up in the course of conversations, There came a time when people said, ‘Hey man, why do you talk that way? That’s wrong, I don’t go for that, so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.”

Gore also recently visited a solar energy plant in the middle of a baron desert where he scolded the plant owners. After expressing his concerns for the safety of plant workers due to “attacks by spice worms”, Al Gore turned his focus to the company that built the plant.

This plant has irreversibly destroyed 13 cacti which were taking carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it in the sand – where it belongs. Instead of a few cactus, now we have all of you here breathing and stuff – which is bad – really, really bad.

When asked what humans should do, Mr. Gore responded, “Live naked in mud huts, of course – and eat rocks – because rocks don’t remove carbon from the atmosphere.” Joe Blow, president of PETR (people for the ethical treatment of rocks) could not be immediately reached for comment.

 

This entire article is satire, fiction, false, not real, made-up, imaginary. Well, Al Gore is real – unfortunately.

John Bryson, Commerce Secretary, Appointed For Jobs or Climate Change?

If confirmed, Commerce Secretary John Bryson will be tasked to double U.S. exports over five years. He is a long time dedicated green environmentalist. With all that, maybe we ought to wonder what Bryson will be exporting over the next five years.

Last year, John Bryson served on the United Nations advisory group on Energy and Climate Change; they established a course of action in meeting Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It calls for “policy-makers and business leaders” to transform the performance of energy sources over the coming decade. There were eight Millennium Goals that includes ending poverty & hunger, universal education, gender equality, environmental sustainability and global partnership. In their report, “Energy for a Sustainable Future: Summary Report and Recommendations,” high-income nations may increase R&D investments and focus more on supporting developing countries. They also “encourage the United Nations and its Member States, other multilateral institutions, and the private and non-profit sectors to take the actions needed to achieve its goals.” According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon stated “Addressing the challenges is beyond the reach of governments alone. It will take the active engagement of all sectors of society: the private sector; local communities and civil society; international organizations and the world of academia and research.” It appears that the advisory group he participated supports the United Nations Climate Change movement.

In addition to serving on the UN advisory group, John Brysonalso co-founded the National Resource Development Center (NRDC), an international nonprofit environmental organization that protects the world’s natural resources, public health and the environment. Their mission is “to safeguard the Earth, its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.” They strive to create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.” Apparently, the center he founded supports the Global Climate Change movement.

Bryson does have some business experience as the CEO of a California’s power company, Edison International. After 18 years as CEO, he retired in 2008. In the 2000 and 2001, his company was in involved with the California blackouts and a subsidiary of Edison International nearly went bankrupted. His experience also expands to sitting on a board of Walt Disney Co and Boeing Co. where he was director.

Apparently, the Republicans sought to oppose confirmation unless the Obama Administration submits to trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Jim Inhofe’s Press office released this YouTube video on John Bryson discussing the Hidden Carbon Tax. Darrell Issa also referred to Bryson as a “green evangelist.”

As the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce give him positive responses, it appears that John Brysonwill be doubling U.S. exports over five years. We should have learned our lesson when someone states they are going to fundamentally transform America, we may want to ask…to what? Maybe one of the first questions we should ask of John Bryson…export what, jobs, money, goods & services?

E.P.A. = Extreme Political Activism

On April 25, 2011 Shell Oil Corporation announced it was dropping it’s efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic Sea off the northern coast of Alaska. This decision comes after 5 long years of jumping through the governmental hoops of massive regulations, careful, tedious exploration and the expense of investing over 4 billion dollars in the project. So just what caused Shell to accept the massive monetary losses and drop the project? Was it due to the fact that they couldn’t find enough oil there to make a profit? Apparently that is not the case, as there are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil just sitting there waiting for extraction. Could Shell’s reason for dropping a 4 billion dollar project be that there is no demand for all of that oil in the U.S. today? With current gasoline prices over $4.00 a gallon across the nation that hardly seems like a valid reason to not extract that domestic oil in the Arctic Sea. Supply and demand are what drive gasoline prices, no matter who tells you anything different.

So why is Shell being forced to accept 4 billion dollars in losses in pulling out it’s drilling operations in the Arctic Sea near Alaska? The answer to that question can be found in 3 simple little letters: EPA , as in the infamous Environmental Protection Agency. Just do not try to get an exact answer from Obama appointee Lisa Jackson, the current EPA administrator, as she refuses to answer phone calls or emails to explain this ludicrous decision by her four radical Democrats on the board that denied an “air quality permit” for Shell to drill in the region. So much for accountability in our government once again from an Obama appointee. They have a pattern of making radical decisions, and then refusing to explain them to the very people who pay their salaries. I offer this article from FoxNews as proof  of just who is behind this ludicrous decision, and how they refuse to tell the people why they have made such a blatantly extreme decision.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. (emphasis mine)

After 5 years and 4 billion dollars, the Democratic extremists on a panel for the EPA have denied the extraction of 27 billion barrels of our very own oil for… wait for it…the fact that ice-breaking vessels burn fuel, and therefor emit pollution. Does this mean that every ship traveling in our waters will be shut down also because they all burn fuel of one type of the other. No, this only means that the evil capitalists at Shell Oil will be stopped from producing millions of dollars of oil for U.S. consumption because they ‘gasp’ did not include the emissions from the ice breaking ships in their total environmental impact figures for air quality control. If crab fishermen in Alaska get stuck in the ice this year, does this mean that the ice breaking ships will be told to let them sit there and freeze to death until Lisa Jackson’s radical EPA board checks their emission statements too? There is no difference there.  These people on this EPA board, including Lisa Jackson are extreme activists, hypocrites and liars, period. From the prior linked Foxnews article we see who they really are:

The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes. (emphasis mine)

There you have it, an EPA board which includes an appointed political activist lawyer, all of them Democrats, has denied Shell Oil the rights to extract the oil in the Arctic Sea due solely to the emissions of the ice breaking ships. Will Lisa Jackson and this board write the refund check to Shell oil for the billions of dollars they are out of due to this environmental extremist board’s decision ? No I,m not talking about a check drawn on the taxpayers account here, but instead a personal check drawn on the accounts of these five people who bear responsibility for this nonsense. Maybe that would make them think twice before trying  a politically motivated stunt like this the next time they get asked to make a decision that will affect every single tax paying American citizen.

Steve Maley, over at Redstate.com also makes a very good point about the main agenda behind this decision here, in which he shows us the ultimate motive behind this action, shutting down the Alaska Pipeline:

But the real motivation, the real prize, is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The design throughput of the pipe is in excess of 2 million barrels of oil per day; recent throughput is around 600,000 barrels per day. At some limiting rate (I’ve heard 200,000 barrels per day), the cost to operate the line will exceed the value of operating it, and it will be shut down.  Pipeline shut-down is the ultimate goal of the environmental movement. Not just ANWR, but any new development must be stopped so that TAPS dies an early and unnatural death.

Since the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to de-fund the domestic terrorists over at the EPA, only to be denied by the career politicians in the U.S. Senate, I think we need to remember these Senate tyrants in 2012, and replace them with some people who will actually protect U.S. citizens from this kind of blatant abuse of power.

Obama Losing Environmentalist Following

President Obama ran on an environment platform: green jobs, cap-and-trade, and renewable energy.  His constant droning about it during the 2008 election garnered the support of the far left-wing environmental movement, but his actions of-late .. not so much.

First we find the Obarrassment in trouble because he said ‘no’ to solar panels on the White House roof despite the personal plea of a group of environmentalists at the White House.

Then President Obama decided that green jobs need not be in Stimulus II

Of course we couldn’t leave out the vacations.  There was the personal jet service for the First Dog and then the Obamas flew the White House Chef 860 miles to deliver .. pizza

The administrations Solicitor General carried the false flag forward by reversing past environmental Presidential stances on nuisance law suits for carbon emissions.

Then again, all this new news .. might be old news as Time Magazine asked last year “Is Obama’s Environmental Agenda Losing Out?

Liberals Make Environmental Reform Impossible

Did you do a double-take on the title?  Well, it’s not a typo. Just like health care reform, climate reform isn’t being stopped by Conservatives, it’s the split left causing the stall.

While most lefties in Congress can talk-the-talk of curing global warming, they are putting together legislation that does little to curb emissions.  Similar to health care reform, politicians’ true desires are evident, and as Senator Boxer told AFP Blog, “There’s so much revenue that comes in from a cap-and-trade system that you can really go to a person in a congressional district and get enough votes there by saying, ‘What do you need? What do you want? You can really help them”.  Barbara Boxer is a co-sponsor of the new cap and trade climate bill and is showing the real reasons behind her desire to see a carbon exchange system – power.

Health care reform and climate reform seem inexorably-linked.  The liberal plans both do little to actually improve either issue and both give immense amounts of power to Congress.  Blue-dog, or Conservative, Democrats aren’t signing on to either of these two power-grabs.  This rift in the Democrat ranks is a sore point as not only could Barack Obama not unite both parties, he is actually creating a fracture within his own.

Solar FarmThe ultra-left is making its fight against “climate change” difficult at-best.  In Pennsylvania and Washington, liberal environmentalists killed planned windmill farms because birds kept flying into them (why aren’t sliding glass doors outlawed?) – ok, one strike for wind.  In California, leftie activists have now not only killed food farms in the San Jaquin valley, they have now managed to kill a massive solar power farm in … yes… the mojave desert.  If we can’t build solar in the desolate, barren reaches of a desert… where do they think we will build them?  Two strikes – down with solar.  Does this now make the ultra-left the “party of no”?

So between the elitist power-mongers like boxer and the ultra-lib enviro-freaks, they won’t be able to agree on any climate relief at all.  Conservatives would gladly look into solar fields, wind farms, and nuclear plants as is evident by their movement of “do it all” which means, oil, coal, nuclear, solar, and wind.   A responsible path is to continue the use of cheap fossil fuels (put a tyrannosaur in your tank), while we implement alternative options and figure out which ones work and which don’t.

The full on libs have now successfully curbed all of the possible alternatives to fossil fuels: nuclear, wind and solar.  If they want to return us to the dark ages , I have bad news for them.  We’ll continue burning dinosaurs if they  won’t allow a few salamanders to migrate to a new water source or birds to evolve into species that won’t fly into moving objects.

Or better yet… can we power our cars on salamander extract?