Tag Archives: Green Initiative

Green Jobs – Why Won't Obama Learn From Europe?

Green Jobs and the Economy

President Barack Obama promised jobs, jobs, jobs if we (taxpayers) funded his “green” initiative. But… green jobs company failures are ubiquitous, and are getting more interesting by the minute. Solyndra, a California solar panels manufacturer, filed for bankruptcy and laid off more than 900 full-time employees, leaving just 113 employees, despite half-a-billion dollars in “stimulus” loans. Prior to its demise, President Obama said Solyndra is a successful monument to his “green jobs” agenda. The FBI raided Solyndra’s headquarters on Thursday (September 8, 2011) for unspecified reasons. Agents executed search warrants at the headquarters of Solyndra LLC. One of Solyndra’s major investors was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who raised large sums of money for Obama during the 2008 election. Obama administration officials were involved in the company’s day-to-day business activities. All we can do is wait and see if the MSM does its job.

President Barack Obama went to an energy plant in North Carolina in June to talk about the job-creating power of a green economy. Yet, almost three years into Obama’s presidency, he can’t point to significant numbers of Americans that are being hired for the green jobs he has been praising. Obama pledged in his 2008 campaign to create 5 million green jobs within a decade. One problem with the green jobs creation is that the money and incentives have run out in the two-plus years since he signed the stimulus package.

Green jobs have proved a myth. Obama came into office insisting that Spain was beating the U.S. in green jobs. In Spain the green-jobs boom has been a bust. A 2009 study at King Juan Carlos University (more below) found that Spain lost 2.2 jobs in other industries for every green job created, and Spain spent more than half a million euros for each green job created since 2000. The New York Times, which has been touting the green agenda for years, said that “federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show.”

President Obama lauded energy-efficient technology as the industry of the future. But, as green companies get deep into the red, and can’t make payroll, many are wondering what went wrong. “I think green jobs as a solution to our economic problems have been way oversold,” said David Kreutzer of Heritage Foundation. “We’ve created some green jobs in some industries for some period of time but through heavy subsidies, when subsidies stop, those green jobs stop. So it’s not a solution to an economic problem.” Solyndra received a $535 million loan as part of the stimulus package. Now, the company cannot pay back the loan, and the government will have a difficult time recovering the money. Spectrawatt, another green jobs company, received a $500,000 grant to improve solar cells. That company also filed for bankruptcy late last month.

Green jobs are about government subsidies, cronyism, and job cannibalism. They aren’t self-sustaining because they rely on giveaways of taxpayer money and they cost existing jobs. Stimulus plans have always included green jobs and money for them. Said Obama, “the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs – but only if we accelerate that transition.” On his Midwest bus tour in August, he promised an additional $2.4 billion for green jobs, especially to make batteries for electric cars. The 2009 “stimulus” bill already provided $2.4 billion for the same purpose. $300 million went to Johnson Controls to manufacture batteries. The firm has added 150 jobs because of the grant, meaning the government spent about $2 million per job.

Learn From Europe?

Economic theory suggests that government’s push to create “green jobs” will ultimately kill more jobs than it creates. That is why a study by the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain should often be referenced. After examining Spain’s experience with an aggressive wind-power program, study authors concluded:

  1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green jobs” programs are the same arguments now made in the US, that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.
  2. The Spanish experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs, on average, for every “green job” created.
  3. The study reveals that the US should expect to lose between 6.6 million and 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence of creating 3 to 5 million “green jobs.”

President Obama’s proposal to create 5 million green jobs over 10 years “is a political smokescreen designed to disguise the fact that his energy and environmental policies are going to be very costly,” said Max Schulz of the Manhattan Institute. “The reality is these various policies are going to hurt the economy, cost jobs in efficient industries and raise prices,” Schulz said. Europe is finding the dirty jobs/green jobs swap not such a boon. Most EU member nations aren’t close to meeting Kyoto Protocol and other emissions targets, and all are finding the effort to meet them costly in terms of both euros and jobs.

Green jobs are a magic bullet for the administration, solving the problems of unemployment, poverty, community degradation, class struggles, public health, terrorism, and global warming. What could possibly lead anyone to object to them? Well, real-world experience. Germany and Spain followed the green-jobs road many years ago, for much the same reasons as this administration. They saw it as a way to make their countries world leaders in coming technologies, provide good jobs to replace decaying industries, and insulate against energy shocks originating overseas. It didn’t work. A report from German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI) tells what happened in Germany. Titled “Economic Impacts from the Promotion of Renewable Energies: The German Experience,” it illustrates how the German green-jobs initiative failed to meet any of its objectives. The green jobs that do exist undercut German green-hardware prices – meaning that much of German green-energy installation simply imports cheaper foreign-produced components. The German subsidy of green energy is subsidizing jobs in developing countries; the RWI found that the subsidy of $240,000 per job.

Things haven’t worked out as Germany’s politicians and environmentalists said they would. Instead of bringing economic benefits in terms of lower energy costs, and green energy jobs, implementing wind and solar power raised household energy rates by 7.5 percent. Wind power represents about 6 percent of German electricity generation, and solar power is a mere tenth of that. Germany is finding it difficult to continue subsidizing wind and solar power. In May, 2011, the German parliament cut back the subsidy for domestic rooftop solar photovoltaic systems by 16 percent, and cut subsidies to free-standing systems by 15 percent.

The Netherlands went big for wind power, particularly offshore wind. But the Dutch government has taken exception to subsidies required to build and operate wind farms, and to the expected export of €4.5 billion in subsidies to a German company that would have built, owned, and operated the wind farms. The new prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, is reported to have said that “windmills turn on subsidies.” The Netherlands’ green power plants will not produce many green job because the new conservative government has radically reversed course and is slashing subsidies to wind and solar power. The irony here is rich. The Dutch, who have been enamored of wind power for hundreds of years, may have finally had enough tilting at windmills. If even they can’t make it work, one has to wonder if anyone can.

The United Kingdom (Scotland, particularly) has pursued an ambitious wind-power agenda. Prime Minister David Cameron said “This investment is good for jobs and growth, and good for ensuring we have clean energy.” But a study by the consultancy firm of Verso Economics points out that the United Kingdom and Scotland have not fared well in their pursuit of the new green energy and green jobs economy. Here are some key findings from a study:

  • For every job created in the United Kingdom in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost. In Scotland, there is no net benefit from government support for the sector, and probably a small net loss of jobs.
  • The promotion of renewable energy in the United Kingdom has an opportunity cost of 10,000 direct jobs in 2009-2010 and 1,200 jobs in Scotland.
  • The policy to promote the renewable electricity sector in both Scotland and the United Kingdom is economically damaging. Government should not see this as an economic opportunity

Additionally, wind turbines can actually freeze over in winter. Not only do they cease to put out power in very cold weather, they actually need to be heated!


With Thursday night’s (September 8, 2011) jobs creation speech by President Obama, and with his continued insistence on “green jobs” and their effect on our economy, WHY can’t Obama (and his administration) look to Europe to see what awaits this country? Is it that he truly believes that he “can do it better” by providing more subsidies and stimulus? Does he have that much hubris? Or is he just an ideologue?

But that’s just my opinion.

Flow Control Would Hit Dallas Businesses With $19 Million in Higher Costs

Businesses Would Pay $3 for Every $1 Generated for City

DALLAS, Sept. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Businesses throughout Dallas should be prepared to fork over an additional $19 million a year if the City of Dallas flow control program is ever put into effect.  The figure comes from the National Solid Wastes Management Association whose members collect and dispose of 77% of the commercial waste in the city.

“Flow control will impact every city council district,” said Tom Brown, Texas NSWMA president.  “While flow control would certainly have a negative impact on District 8 it will make the entire city less competitive because it will cost more to do business throughout Dallas.”

  • Flow control will net only $6,594,000 per year in income to the city at a cost of $19,500,000 to area businesses. It will cost businesses almost $3 for each $1 the city receives from flow control.
  • Businesses in Southern Dallas are closer to the McCommas Bluff landfill but currently have access to less expensive alternatives.  Disposal cost for wastes generated in Southern Dallas wouldincrease by 29.4% under flow control.
  • Costs for our 16,800 Dallas customers will increase by 20% due to higher disposal fees, transportation, labor and capital costs.
  • Flow control will reduce competition from smaller waste haulers who will not be able to afford the high cost of adding additional trucks and other equipment needed because of the inefficiencies imposed by flow control.

“The additional costs of flow control for a local minority owned waste hauler are dramatic,” said Brown.  “The company would have to invest more than $1.2 million in new equipment and would see the cost of running a typical route increase by $50,000 a year.”

The McCommas Bluff landfill has been described as a vault holding valuable materials that can be mined for later use in waste to energy or recycling projects. Landfill mining involves any number of complex issues including costs, environmental impact and demand for recyclables. Flow control will immediately increase costs to Dallas businesses.  Landfill mining, if it ever becomes economically feasible, is decades away from implementation.

Dallas can move forward now, without flow control, on a wide variety of green initiatives at McCommas Bluff that will generate economic activity in Southern Dallas.

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.

Democrats Love Affair With Big Oil

Debbie-Wasserman-Shultz-loves-big-oilRecently Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fl), who also happens to be the new head of the DNC, was on Fox News with some astounding revelations that Democrats have really concentrated on oil production recently. This comes from a woman who has voted against every single aspect of domestic oil exploration and development for the past decade in Congress ! While statistics do show that there has been a recent uptick in U.S. oil production in the last two years, the reasons behind this uptick are anything but the results of the Democratic Socialist Party  heaping huge amounts of love upon big oil companies all of a sudden. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. Just last month the Democratic message about slowing the skyrocketing prices of gasoline was that it takes ten years to develop new oil deposits and extract them, so it is not their fault we are now seeing four dollar a gallon gasoline. Today the message has been reversed by the DNC, as they try to stake claim for the 2009-2010 slight increase in domestic oil production today. Just watch the lies and misinformation roll off of the tongue of the new DNC propaganda mistress here in the following video.

First of all, U.S. oil production has been in a steady decline since 1986, when we were producing approximately nine million barrels of oil a day, down to approximately five million barrels a day in 2008. This is due to such things like environmental activist groups pushing the green agenda with the help of the very same Democratic party’s support that Wasserman Shultz is now the chair of. Throw in the bi-partisan support of the progressive RINOS of the Republican Party of the past two decades, and we lost a total of four million barrels of domestic oil production a day, for the past twenty-three years! In the above video, take note of Wasserman Shultz’ play on words there when she says the Democrats have worked hard to give us the “recent” increase of oil production. Recent, as in the past two years, when we have increased our oil production from the low point of five million barrels a day up to… five and a half million barrels a day. That still leaves us with a deficit of four and a half million barrels of oil a day from our production levels of 1986. Do the math, and you will find out that it is still a hell of a lot of lost oil production over the past twenty five years! 365 days a years, times 4.4 million barrels of oil, then multiply that total by 25, and you will see just how much we lost out on, and how that forces our massive continued dependency on the very same Foreign oil that Democrats say we need to wean ourselves from, while they continue to push the unrealistic green agenda of today.

Wasserman Shultz voting record shows us just how hard she has worked to increase ( not) our domestic oil production. From Energy and Oil – Florida politics :

  • Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
  • Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
  • Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
  • Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
  • Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
  • Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for
    energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Since Wasserman-Shultz is the new chair of the DNC, let’s put Senator Bill Nelson’s D-Fl) record up here for all to see also, since they are the two most powerful Florida politicians representing the Socialist Democratic Party up in DC today:

  • We can’t drill, drill, drill our way to oil independence. (Oct 2006)
  • Supports spending resources to stop Global Warming. (Sep 2000)
  • Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.
    (Apr 2009)
  • Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun
  • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.
    (May 2008)
  • Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May
  • Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.
    (Oct 2005)
  • Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
  • Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar
  • Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
  • Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar
  • Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
  • Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
  • Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
  • Include pickup trucks in CAFE; include hybrids in HOV lanes. (Feb 2002)
  • Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
  • Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
  • Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for
    energy independence. (Dec 2006)
  • Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
  • Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)

Voting records do not lie folks, but they do expose the truth about just what the Democratic Party is doing as far as developing our own energy production in the United States of America today. Do not take any stock in what the Democrats of today “say” they are doing, as we see it is nothing more than a bunch of misinformation and propaganda right here, but pay more attention to what they do, as in voting to cripple our own energy development. So when you see the new DNC Propaganda Mistress, Wasserman-Shultz telling you about the DNC’s new love affair with big oil and domestic energy production as in the video above, think about the facts in this article the next time you pay to fill up your vehicle with that high-priced gasoline. Also remember Obama and his fake Democratic party in 2012 when it comes time to vote for some real change we can believe in. Just do not expect any change from that $100.00 bill when filling up your gas tank today. Those days are now over, unless we get rid of the green energy Socialists and anti-Capitalists in our government, and soon. That means voting against democrats and pro-gressive RINOS in 2012.

Obama May Open Strategic Petroleum Reserves to Keep Gas Prices Down and..

Obama’s Chief of Staff, William Daley was interviewed on “Meet the Press” this morning. In the interview, Daley said, “The issue of the reserves is one we are considering .. All matters have to be on the table when you see the difficulty coming out of this economic crisis we’re in and the fragility”.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Sites

Courtesy: DOE

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is located across four sites in Louisiana and Texas and according to the SPR website, it currently holds 762.5 Million barrels of oil.

Across the nation gasoline is getting more expensive. Gas prices in North Carolina are hovering just above $3.50 per gallon and there are already areas, such as Chicago,  in the U.S. that are seeing  $4 (according to @deadvoter from twitter). Oil crossed $105 per barrel for the first time since 2008 and the Obama administration is searching for some way to handle the situation.

Democrat law makers think they have the answer. Several of them have sent letters to Obama asking that he open the reserves to give price relief to American consumers and to help fund progressive initiatives. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) letter opens (emphasis mine):

With gas prices around the nation at near-historic highs, we write to urge you to exercise your emergency authority to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).  This action would immediately lower gasoline prices, generating significant revenue to invest in your call for one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

While gas prices may be one reason for the requests, Sen. Gillibrand also made the case that this could be a way to fund electric vehicles – a purpose for which the SPR was never intended.

Each time a new revenue stream is introduced at the Federal level, it starts as temporary and ends up being permanent. The questions remains that if the progressives in D.C. turn the SPR into a cash cow for the green energy movement, what will stop them from continuing to do so – completely depleting the entire reserve?


President Obama, Why aren’t we..

Oratory, promises, statements, pleas for acceptance.  Obama has worn his heart on his sleeve, much like the liberals that slaughter the rear-end of their automobiles with stickers to espouse their love for the killing of the unborn, the forcing of the will of the government on us all and whatever new oppressive piece of false-front selfishness shows up on the Huffington Post or Daily KOS.

In re-reading Obama’s innaguration speech, I find many statements about the things Mr. Obama thought we must do and I ask, if we should have been doing these things since January of ’09, why aren’t we?

“We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises”, Obama says. His administration has expended great amounts of energy airing its grievances against the Chamber of Commerce, the wealthy, corporations, the Tea Party, Conservatives.. seriously, petty?  We heard that the stimulus would prevent unemployment above 8%, that we wouldn’t have lobbyists in the administration, that an open hand would positively affect our international relations with the likes of Iran and North Korea; that we would have a less-partisan Washington, well.. why don’t we?

“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age”.  The odd thing on greenish stuff is that it’s not the GOP slowing Obama down, it’s his own party.  Eco-freaks are filing expensive law suits to prevent the building of wind and solar farms.  If wind is so great, why are progressives fighting it? If GM’s Volt is the answer to our foreign oil dependence, why isn’t anyone buying them? If we are supposed to be building up a successful economic sector around green jobs – why aren’t we?

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small..” Obama got this one right – this isn’t a question, we know the answer – it’s too big and getting bigger. Obama’s new budget will increase the national debt by $7.2 TRILLION over the next decade. Obama even made a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half within his first term. Well, Mr President, why aren’t you?

“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day..” Just pointing out all the falsehoods here would take a book.. dems fighting the Senators that want to fight raising the debt ceiling, the lack of transparency (no posting bills online, backroom meetings without C-SPAN, recess appointments for critical administartion officials .. one could go on) – If we were to spend wisely and do our business in the light of day- why aren’t we?

“..and so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity” – unless you were Egyptian in the early days of the January 25th revolution or of course, Israeli.

“We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense..” – Obama, you’ve apologized for everything under the sun, including STDs in Guatamala .. 70 years ago.  As far as defense, isn’t the Commander-in-Chief (a term I use lightly) more concerned with the potlical perspective of what happens in Afghanistan than completing the mission? How long did the Afghanistan surge approval take for Obama to give once the generals had recommended it?

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history” of course, unless you are a Democrat. Anyone remember the Black Panther DOJ mess?  Yeah, the White house surely doesn’t want to. Obama’s infamous line, “let me be clear..” is often followed by some cocky slight of Conservative values and supported by policies like Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine that seek to quiet those who disagree with the progressive agenda.

Obama also said: “The challenges we face are real.. They will be met”, although Obama has said that he feels that 70% of his objectives have been met .. the rest of the American population is left feeling that we aren’t meeting any challenges and are wincing at the thought of what the remaining 30% will do to the country.

I’ll leave you with a quote from George Washington:

“Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it.”

This one – great American Conservatives are taking care for you – well not really for you.

Bring on 2012.

E.P.A. Oversteps Regulatory Authority on Auto Fuels – Groups File to Overturn

Petroleum industry to file suit against EPA on e15 ethanolThe National Petrochemical & Refiners Association joined with the International Liquid Terminals Association and the Western States Petroleum Association to file a law suit intended to overturn a recent regulatory overreach by the Obama Administration.

The E15 Proposal and Granted Waiver

In March of 2009, Growth Energy and several other alternative fuels organizations petitioned the EPA to have E15 introduced for use in vehicles not specifically modified to deal with the caustic nature of ethyl alcohol (ethanol).  In October, the Environmental Protection Agency bowed to the corn-to-fuel lobby and granted a partial waiver allowing for the use of E15 (15%) ethanol fuels in all vehicles newer than 2007.

Misfueling, the accidental fueling of a vehicle with the incorrect fuel, is a serious concern.  The cost to repair a fuel system once ethanol has done its damage is considerable.  The EPA web site mentions that they are working on a way to reduce misfueling, but they aren’t holding this waiver until that solution is drawn up.

..the EPA is concurrently issuing a proposed rule with the express purpose of reducing the potential for misfueling of E15 into vehicles, engines, and products for which it is not approved.  If finalized, this rule will satisfy the misfueling mitigation conditions of today’s partial waiver.

The Next Step for the EPA is Older Vehicles

The EPA waiver also discusses 2001-2006 vehicles.

EPA is deferring a decision on MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles.  DOE is in the process of conducting additional catalyst durability testing that will provide data regarding MY2001-2006 motor vehicles.  The DOE testing is scheduled to be completed by the end of November 2010.  EPA will make the DOE test results available to the public and consider the results and other available data and information in making a determination on E15 for use in those model year motor vehicles.

Problems With Ethanol 15 and higher

Only catalyst durability testing?  That will only prove whether or not the fuel is stable.  What about engine durability testing?  While ethanol’s instability is certainly a concern, fuel system components made for gasoline do not react well with corn-alcohol (ethanol).  A 50% increase in the amount of ethanol in fuels will cause failure of fuel hosing, pumps, seals and possibly injection/carbeuration.   An article at Hagerty.com relays the problem that ethanol presents to older vehicles:

  • Corrosion caused by contact between two dissimilar metals when the metals are in contact with an electrolyte, like ethanol. It looks like this.
  • Rubber components like fuel hoses, carburetor seals and gaskets, and fuel pump seals may be hardened, dissolved or distorted by contact with ethanol. This may lead to fuel leaks.
  • Ethanol holds water very readily and can expose fuel system components and steel gas tanks to rust. This is especially prevalent in boats.
  • Even low concentrations of ethanol have been shown to damage fiberglass fuel tanks. Ethanol dissolves the lining of fiberglass fuel tanks, often depositing a dark “sludge” inside marine engines causing costly damage. Eventually, fiberglass tanks dissolve until they fail, leaking fuel.
  • Metal parts, such as in-tank fuel pumps and carburetor floats, may be subject to pitting, rust or corrosion when in contact with ethanol blends.

The only way to prevent this damage is to replace fuel system components with ethanol-safe parts or buy a newer vehicle with the flex-fuel designation.  Either way, Americans will be yet again saddled with the cost of the progressive agenda.

Having to upgrade your fuel system or buy a new car are expensive enough, but even according to the government site FuelEconomy.gov it’s evident that higher ethanol content will also have you paying even more for a gallon of fuel.

FFVs experience no loss in performance when operating on E85. However, since ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, FFVs typically get about 25-30% fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E85.

So your 30 mpg turns to 20-23mpg on E85.  Perhaps you only lose 3-4mpg with E15, but that’s after you just spent money to upgrade your fuel system or the entire car.  Upgrade costs, lower mileage, and it will further increase the price pressure on corn as more corn fields are turned into fuel.  That means the less-efficient, fuel-system destroying fuel will also cost more.

The Suit Against the EPA

It would be easy to look at the petroleum industry’s suit as a special interest protecting their profits.  If that’s the position taken than one must also agree that Green Growth and tons of other corn-to-fuel businesses lobbied the EPA to put this waiver in place.  It’s one fuel provider against another.

The real concern should be how the waiver was obtained.  At least the petroleum industry lawyers are attacking the proper problem, regulatory overreach.  While those involved in the suit will file written arguments in coming weeks, they had this much to say in a January 3rd press release:

NPRA and the other organizations today filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review and overturn the EPA decision, contending EPA violated the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit by the groups will argue that EPA does not have authority under the Clean Air Act to approve a partial waiver that allows the use of E15 in some engines but not in others.

In addition, the lawsuit will contend that EPA based its partial waiver decision on new data submitted to the public rulemaking docket on the day before EPA announced the partial waiver, providing no time for the stakeholder review or meaningful public comment required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

This is exactly the same kind of circumvention of American law and process that the FCC used to put it’s tyrannical control of the internet in place.  Perhaps the courts are the last hope to protect American citizens from a government bent on even more control.

We Are Now Dependent Upon a Whole Different Country For Energy – And They Don’t Like Us Either

Thanks Barrack!  All this idiotic talk of making us energy independent was horse-pucky.  We could have drilled, nucleared, and gassed our way to independence, but instead you wanted wind, solar, and electric vehicles.

Sure, those things reduce our dependence on the middle east, but now we’re even more dependent on the far east.

The New York Times is reporting that now, China is blocking rare earth exports to Japan over a a fishing boat captain.

Sharply raising the stakes in a dispute over Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing trawler captain, the Chinese government has placed a trade embargo on all exports to Japan of a crucial category of minerals used in products like hybrid cars, wind turbines and guided missiles.

They are also used in the manufacture of solar panels, magnets, and many other parts and pieces necessary for the production of  Obama’s green energy.  How important is China in the green energy area?

China mines 93 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals, and more than 99 percent of the world’s supply of some of the most prized rare earths..

Looks pretty important.

Not only does China hold a major portion of our debt, but they now have a stranglehold on an important natural resource that the green energy movement has made us all too dependent upon.  Of course American companies could just buy the rare earth minerals directly and manufacture what we need, right?

American companies now rely mostly on Japan for magnets and other components using rare earth elements, as the United States’ manufacturing capacity in the industry became uncompetitive and mostly closed over the last two decades.

Oh, that’s right, due to high corporate tax rates and uncompetitive union pay .. we can’t.  Unions, taxes.. who’s special interests are those?  Yup, the Obarrassment.

Even if we did manage to rebuild some sort of manufacturing capability to build the components we need, we would still be held hostage by China.  What happens when we catch a Chinese spy and want to try him?  Oops, no rare earth minerals for us.

If you think this is just a green energy problem, look at how Congress and the Defense Department are reacting to China’s new found power (emphasis added).

The House Armed Services Committee has scheduled a hearing on Oct. 5 to review the American military dependence on Chinese rare earth elements.

The Defense Department has a separate review under way on whether the United States should develop its own sources of supply for rare earths, which are also used in equipment including rangefinders on the Army’s tanks, sonar systems aboard Navy vessels and the control vanes on the Air Force’s smart bombs.


“We are going to be 100 percent reliant on the Chinese to make the components for the defense supply chain,” Mr. Green said.

This is no small problem and turning to green energy has apparently made us no less dependent upon countries that hate us.  Just one more unintended consequence of the Obama administrations ill-thought policies.

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?