Posts Tagged ‘fossil fuels’

The Utter Farce of ‘Green Jobs’

January 6, 2010

A few questions to ask yourself as you’re reading this article.

If green energy is so good, or is in any way the ‘wave of the future,’ then how come it has to be so massively subsidized with government money?  Why aren’t private businesses putting their own money into this?

Another question I want you to consider is how expensive green energy is when compared to the energy produced by fossil fuels (I will answer that after the article below).  And a final question you might ask might be, when are people going to finally wake up and stop believing idiotic liberal lies and wake up to reality?

Boston firm shifts ‘green jobs’ to China
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
11/06/09 8:35 AM EST

President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress are spending billions of tax dollars to subsidize development of “green jobs” – positions for people and companies designing and manufacturing alternative energy sources such as biomass, wind and solar.

One of Obama’s buddies, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, is also a vocal advocate of such subsidies. Last year, Patrick put Massachusetts taxpayers’ money where is mouth is by backing a $58 million package of incentives and subsidies to Evergreen Solar, which manufacturers collector panels used in solar energy units.

Now barely a year later, Evergreen has announced that it is moving its final assembly phase to a factory in China, according to the Boston Globe. The firm’s Devens, Massachusetts, plant currently employs 577 full-time and 230 contract workers in designing and manufacturing the silicon wafers and cells that are then assembled into panels.

A company spokesman declined to say how many jobs will be shifted to the new assembly plant in China, according to the Globe.

“In exchange for receiving $58.6 million in grants, loans, land, tax incentives, and other aid to build in Massachusetts, Evergreen pledged that it would add 350 new jobs, a goal that it has, to date, far surpassed. However, the company disclosed in a financial filing yesterday that it would write off $40 million worth of equipment at Devens because of the production shift to China,” the Globe reported.

“The company has been a poster child of the Patrick administration’s efforts to develop a ‘green energy’ industry cluster in Massachusetts. But it has been struggling financially because of increased competition from overseas producers and rapidly falling prices for solar products. It recently persuaded the state to lend it another $5 million to cover equipment purchases, though the state has not yet released the funds,” the Globe said.

Evergreen has lost at least $167 million so far in 2009, according to the Globe. Last year during the same period, the company’s losses totalled only $33.6 million. Following announcement of the move to China, the company’s stock closed at $1.42 per share, down six cents per share.

So let’s see.  The poster boy for ‘green jobs’ got a $58 million handout, managed to lose $167 million in 2009, and is outsourcing its labor force to China.

If you think that’s the ‘wave of the future,’ then vote Democrat.  And may your children freeze in the dark at night for your moral idiocy.

Take a moment to ponder what Obama said about the impact of his own plan:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Why is that?  Why is it that green energy has to be subsidized, even as fossil fuel energy – even when it is regulated and taxed and outlawed – is still so much less expensive than the green energy that Obama wants to impose on America?

Fossil fuels are so much cheaper, so much more efficient, so much more powerful, and so much more superior, to Obama’s green energy it is utterly unreal.

Here’s a graph of the difference (the accompanying article is available here):

This should start to explain why ‘green energy’ has to be massively subsidized, and is still a dud even when fossil fuel energy is massively taxed.  This is why nobody with a clue would put his own money into green energy, apart from the belief that a socialist government will impose insanity on the energy system.

Barack Obama wants to bankrupt coal – which costs less than one cent per kilowatt hour – and wants to impose in its place something that will cost more than forty times more.  How will you like it when your energy rates go up forty times higher?

And the only way to avoid your energy costs going up beyond your ability to be able to afford it – under Obama’s own announced plan – is to massively, massively subsidize the cost of that green energy.  At the cost of far more government debt, and on the backs of your children’s children’s children’s children’s children.  Assuming that we don’t economically implode into a banana republic first, which is far more likely.

And Obama is selling this load of crap to you based on two lies.  Lie one is the giant load of hooey of global warming.  And lie two is the bogus economic advantages we would supposedly get from replacing our energy source with one that would cost us eight to forty times more.

We’ve been told for well over a decade that we had reached a tipping point where the earth could no longer handle the CO2 humans were creating, such that we would experience a massive increase in global warming.

Yeah, right:

(ChattahBox)—Brrrr—-meteorologists are predicting that the United States, particularly the entire eastern half of the country, will experience record-breaking blasts of frigid cold weather this winter. The nearly nationwide swath of cold and stormy weather has not been seen since January 1985, when freezing cold temperatures reached as far South as Georgia.

AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi, believes our current winter weather pattern is reminiscent of the long and bitterly cold winter of 1977-78, when the Eastern seaboard experienced the great blizzard of 1978. Bastardi predicts that the winter of 2009-2010 is shaping up like the snowy winters experienced during the Hippie-Vietnam War era. “It’ll be like the great winters of the ’60s and ’70s,” he said.

And this historic cold is a global phenomenon.

It’s like a desert out there, Al Gore.  But at least it’s a dry heat.

CO2 did go up, but there has never been a demonstrable link between CO2 and global temperatures.

We recently found out that the climatologists who were preaching global warming to line their own pockets were liars, frauds and demagogues.

Environmentalists and leftists want to seize $40 TRILLION of your money to “solve” the “crisis” of global warming.

From Time Magazine:

This is an enormously ambitious goal, but many experts agree it could make a real difference. The problem is that the cure may be worse than the disease. In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, climate economist Richard Tol, a lead author for the U.N. climate panel, determined that to cut carbon emissions enough to meet the 2° goal, the leading industrial nations would have to slap a huge tax on carbon-emitting fuels — one that by the end of the century would reach something on the order of $4,000 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or $35 per gallon of gas ($9 per liter). According to Tol, the impact of a tax hike of this magnitude could reduce world GDP 12.9% in 2100 — the equivalent of $40 trillion a year. In other words, to save ourselves $3 trillion a year, we’d be giving up $40 trillion a year. No wonder we’re not getting anywhere.

So make that $40 TRILLION PER YEAR.

This is nothing but a socialist redistributionist power-grab, intended to secure the leftist agenda and ensure leftist totalitarian domination for a century to come.

And the Democrats attempt to seize control over health care is no different.  They don’t want to improve anything but their dominance.  And they will use any means to secure that dominance.

Don’t believe these transparent lies.  Fight these people.  Vote them out of power.  Vote them right off the island.  Or you will pay dearly for the agenda they impose upon you and your family.

Update, January 8: Obama is pitching billions more in funding for green jobs while our unemployment rate climbs.  I guess he wants to piss more billions down the toilet.

Heritage Foundation: Five Reasons EPA Should Not Deal With Global Warming

April 26, 2009

Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming
The Heritage Foundation ^ | April 23, 2009 | Ben Lieberman and Nicolas Loris

Posted on 04/26/2009 12:42:44 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan

On April 17, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Thus, almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is the first official action taken by the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide.

The endangerment finding is the initial step in a long regulatory process that could lead to the EPA requiring regulations for almost anything that emits carbon dioxide. Automobiles would likely be the first target, but subsequent regulations could extend to a million or more buildings and small businesses, including hospitals, schools, restaurants, churches, farms, and apartments. The following five reasons explain why this would be a big, costly mistake.

1. It’s an Economy Killer

Above anything else, any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. Even when the economy does recover, the EPA’s proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth.

Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide cuts found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.[1]

High energy costs result in production cuts, reduced consumer spending, increased unemployment, and ultimately a much slower economy. But importantly, higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor, since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.

2. Negligible Environmental Benefit

The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little, if any, environmental benefit. In fact, analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding, the EPA, strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095.[2]

Some environmental alarmists believe saving the environment should come at any cost, but when the benefit is barely noticeable, such an extreme viewpoint still cannot be justified.

3. Lack of Scientific Consensus

The decision to regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases was supported by supposed compelling scientific evidence. For example, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].”[3] Additionally, the EPA cited harmful impacts including increased droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves, and sea level rises as a result of climate change. But the reality is that natural disasters are just that–they occur with or without global warming.

The scientific consensus behind global warming, especially the seriousness of the impacts, is anything but strong. Last December, the U.S. Senate Minority released a report that included 650 dissenting scientists refuting claims made in the IPCC report.[4] That number has grown to over 700, more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

4. Backdoor Policy

The United States Congress has been reluctant to pass any global warming legislation or engage in international climate reduction treaties. Last year’s most noted global warming legislative proposals was S. 2191, the America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, originally sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).

This cap-and-trade bill would have set a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. A number of concerns existed, chief among them the impact on already-soaring gasoline prices, and consequently the bill was withdrawn by its Senate supporters after only three days of debate.

While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA’s attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to bypass legislative efforts makes it all the more objectionable.

Equally indefensible is any attempt to use the threat of EPA regulations to induce Congress into enacting a cap-and-trade bill it would not support otherwise. Members should not be forced to prematurely pass a bill without fully understanding its effects and consequences.

5. Expanded Bureaucracy

Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy, all in the name of combating global warming, would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market.

Beyond the costs of such actions, the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable. Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted “shovel ready” construction projects to boost the economy, EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months, if not years.

For instance, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects. According to the Government Accountability Office, normally it takes a federal construction project an average of 4.4 years to complete a NEPA review. Along with the Clean Water Act’s Section 404 requirements, before a shovel can break ground, it could take 5.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops.[5] Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U.S. history would greatly expand the EPA’s power.

The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that routinely imposes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in compliance costs could now be imposed for the first time on many commercial buildings, farms, and all but the smallest of businesses. Not only would these costs and delays hamper the private sector, but the paperwork could paralyze federal and state environmental regulators, drawing resources away from more useful endeavors.

A Dangerous Step

The EPA’s official announcement commences a 60-day public comment[6] period before the agency issues a final ruling. Using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 would likely be the most expensive and expansive environmental regulation in history and will bypass the legislative process completely. In essence, the decisions of few will drastically alter the lives of many–all for a change in the Earth’s temperature too small to ever notice.

Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment and Nicolas D. Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


[1]David Kreutzer and Karen A. Campbell, “CO2-Emission Cuts: The Economic Costs of the EPA’s ANPR Regulations,” Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 08-10, October 29, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-10.cfm.

[2]David Kreutzer, “The Economics of Cap and Trade,” testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, September 18, 2008 at http://www.heritage.org/cda/upload/KreutzerTestimonyTrade.pdf.

[3]Environmental Protection Agency, “Overview of EPA’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act,” April 17, 2009 at http://epa.gov/climatechange
/endangerment/downloads/Determination.pdf
(April 23, 2009).

[4]Marc Morano, “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 10, 2008, at http://epw.senate.gov
/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a
-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
(April 23, 2009).

[5]U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Streamlining: Development of a NEPA baseline for Measuring Continuous Performance,” at http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/baseline/section2.asp (April 23, 2009).

[6]Comments can be submitted at StopEPA.com, (http://www.stopepa.com/).

Fewer Than Half Of Americans Buy Man-Caused Global Warming

August 17, 2008

This should be encouraging news to those whose IQs exceed their shoe size…

Fewer than half of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center believe humans are causing global warming, and a declining number even believe the Earth is experiencing a warming trend.

The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, finds “roughly half, or 47 percent, of Americans say the Earth is warming because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.”

Nearly as many, 45 percent of respondents, contend the higher Earth temperatures are due to “natural environment patterns,” that no global warming exists, or that causes cannot be scientifically determined.

Seventy-one percent of Americans believe the Earth is warming, down from 77 percent of Americans who held that belief last year. The six percentage point drop parallels falling, and in some parts of the country, record-low, temperatures over the past year that continued a decade-long trend of temperatures remaining flat or falling.

So less than half of Americans buy the demagoguery of global warming, and the trend is moving downward. Maybe it has something to do with all the facts that keep proving that global warming is an overblown load of huey perpetrated by socialists who want to redistribute wealth and anoint themselves as priests of the worship of Mother Earth.

In another development, it just came out that this “Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930.”

Just a couple weeks ago a study of 17th century ship logs provided a further evidence that man-caused Global Warming is a load of pseudo-scientific politically-fascist hoakum.

Remember that part of the book “1984” when Winston Smith was electroshocked into seeing that “two plus two makes five”? In the modern version, he would be electroshocked until he believed “Greenland was never green!”

The global warming movement has always been about politics over science. The Pew Research Center study also pointed out that:

“Only 27 percent of Republicans surveyed believe humans are causing global warming. By contrast, 58 percent of Democrats blame global warming on humans.”

I’ve written two articles on the subject of global warming:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office have reported that so-called “global warming legislation” would massively cost the US economy, and would in fact have the worst consequences upon the poorest Americans. The “cap and trade” bill alone would ultimately cost the US economy nearly $2 TRILLION.

I’m starting to believe that there’s a conspiracy: liberals are deliberately sabotaging American schools in hopes of creating people who are so ignorant, so stupid, and so controlled by ideology, that they will believe the liberal agenda.

But as of today, two plus two STILL DOESN’T make five. That’s a cause for celebration.