We can and must rejuvenate our economy by developing America’s resource bounties
Guest post by Paul Driessen
“As the Democrats become more committed to, and defined by, a green agenda, and as they become dependent on money from high-tech venture capitalists and their lobbyists, it becomes harder to describe them as a party for the little guy – or liberalism as a philosophy of distributive justice.” – Charles Lane, “Liberals Green-Energy Contradictions,” The Washington Post, October 15, 2012.
Governor Mitt Romney strongly supports North American energy independence as the foundation of renewed U.S. employment and prosperity. There is much needed to fill-in the blanks, but the challenger’s guiding philosophy promises real reform.
Free-marketeers, playing defense for the last four years, and during a lot of the Bush Administration too, actually have a chance to play offense should Romney prevail.
President Obama is waging a three-front war on hydrocarbon fuels in the spirit of Thomas Malthus, while promoting a jobless recovery in the name of John Maynard Keynes.
Obama’s efforts are so counterproductive that old-school textbooks in Government and Economics are under pressure to add a new term alongside “market failure”– government failure. Long live James Buchanan and the Public Choice School of Economics.
Turnaround Needed
Romney/Ryan have some serious turnaround work to do. Careful analysis and due diligence brought Romney and Bain Capital notable winners like AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts and Staples.
Compare that to Obama, whose focus on ideology, political calculation, cronyism, and campaign contributors has produced losers and scandals like Abound Solar, Crescent Dunes, Ener1, Fisker, Mountain Plaza, Solyndra, Tesla, and, most recently, battery-maker A123 Systems. And just think of the all the other “green” projects that would collapse if their taxpayer subsidies were cut off.
Fittingly, U.S. gasoline prices are double what they were the day Obama took office. And consider these facts: Some 25 million Americans are without full-time jobs – leaving 23% of the workforce unemployed, involuntarily working part-time or at jobs where they are overqualified, making far less money than they did previously, or no longer looking for a job. Our 64% “labor participation rate” is at a 30-year low.
There are still 4.5 million fewer jobs than in 2007, even though our population has grown; the hourly wage of college-educated Americans age 23 to 29 fell 4.7% between 2007 and 2011; median household income plummeted $3,040 since the recession (supposedly, officially) ended in June 2009; and a record 45 million Americans are on food stamps.
Energy in an Unstable World
Meanwhile, the ever-unstable Middle East is even more unstable. Terrorists murdered our ambassador to Libya. A pitiful anti-Islamist video excused riots in Egypt, where a Muslim Brotherhood leader is now president. More than 33,000 have died in a nasty Syrian civil war. Internecine conflicts continue in Iraq and elsewhere. The seemingly perpetual Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains poised to intensify. And the Taliban and Al Qaeda continue to build power and launch vicious attacks, such as gunning down the US embassy’s Yemeni security chief in Sana’a.
Outside the Middle East, the Putin government is using energy to pressure and blackmail European nations dependent on Russian oil and gas, while orchestrating anti-fracking campaigns to keep EU countries from tapping their abundant shale gas supplies. Politics, events and human rights violations raise further questions about Russia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria and Sudan. And many of these countries are among our most important oil suppliers – because we refuse to develop our own deposits.
Since oil is sold in a world market, producing more in the United States means we could import less from abroad, freeing up more oil for other nations, and pushing prices down. Exporting US natural gas and drilling, fracking and production expertise would make other nations less dependent on the Middle East and Russia, bring natural gas prices down, turbo-charge economies, and encourage African countries to use gas to generate electricity, rather than “flaring” it as an unwanted byproduct of oil production.
Two Approaches
Romney understands this. He is calling for more oil and natural gas production here in the United States, changes to excessive and counterproductive federal regulations that raise energy costs and kill jobs, and increased use of friendly Canadian oil to serve America’s consumers. He knows this will protect us against disruptions in Middle East oil supplies, reduce the flow of American dollars to totalitarian human rights violators, create American jobs, increase tax revenues, and jumpstart our sluggish economy.
President Obama, by contrast, continues to ignore reality and embrace policies based on hope, green dreams, and a determination to “fundamentally transform” America’s economy, society and system of business. He continues to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize unreliable, unsustainable, inefficient, insufficient energy forms that are at best decades from competing in the free market– even as 80% of Department of Energy grants and loans went to companies owned or controlled by Obama contributors; DOE restructured its $465 million loan to Tesla, to make sure the electric-car company doesn’t run out of cash right before the election; and President Obama says malnourished, energy-deprived Africans should avoid fossil fuels and rely instead on wind, solar and biofuel power.
Left Cronyism
Many recipients of involuntary taxpayer largesse are donors to Obama and Democrat re-election campaigns; have electoral clout in crucial swing states, where corn growers and others benefit from ethanol, wind and solar schemes; or provide crucial propaganda and campaign services via government employee and labor unions and tax-exempt radical environmentalist organizations.
While Obama turns his back on the reliable fossil fuels that power America’s economic engine, he denounces and demonizes companies that produce this energy, pay billions of dollars in taxes and support millions of American jobs. He singles out America’s oil and natural gas sector for discriminatory tax increases and excessive regulation, and makes more and more federal lands and waters off limits to responsible oil and gas production.
Strange Logic
Environmental activists and the Obama Administration express outrage about subsidies for generating electricity, which amount to $0.25-$0.44 (25-44 cents) per megawatt-hour for coal and natural gas and $1.59 per MWH for nuclear. But they are eerily silent about subsidies for wind ($23.37 per MWH) and solar electricity ($24.34 per MWH).
They express equal outrage about importing petroleum from Canada’s oil sands via the Keystone Pipeline – but are silent about imports of thick, gooey crude from Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. They brag about increasing US oil and gas production (on private lands) but insist that there be little or no drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rocky Mountains or even National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, which Congress set aside decades ago specifically to safeguard our national security by increasing exploration in areas with the best potential for oil and gas.
Lisa Jackson’s Environmental Protection Agency is imposing draconian restrictions on power plants and other CO2 sources, as another way of “skinning the cat” and hyper-regulating coal out of the US energy picture, after Congress rejected cap-tax-and-trade legislation. Meantime, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has introduced the Managed Carbon Price Act, which analysts say will impose regressive taxes that will rise to $5.20 per gallon of gasoline by 2024 and equally hefty surcharges on other hydrocarbon use.
The impact on transportation, shipping, commuting, manufacturing, jobs and families is frightening to contemplate. So is the fact that these actions are coming even as Britain’s Meteorological Office released data showing that the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago – or at best average global temperatures rose an impossible-to-measure and statistically insignificant 0.03 degrees C per decade.
Meanwhile, Germany, Italy and Japan plan to phase out nuclear power, thereby increasing their use of natural gas and coal for electricity – while China and India build 900 new coal-fired power plants to electrify their growing economies. All will pump tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – dwarfing any reductions the USA might achieve by closing more power plants and further shackling our economy.
Conclusion
The Administration’s actions have been arrogant, irresponsible and autocratic. Win or lose in November, the White House, EPA, DOE and Interior Department will impose boxcars of punitive new regulations that have been put on hold until November 7.
We can dig ourselves out of this hole. We can and must rejuvenate and reinvigorate our economy, by developing America’s resource bounties.
We don’t need to “fundamentally transform” America’s economy, society and free enterprise system. We need to fundamentally transform the anti-hydrocarbon culture that pervades the Congress, White House, Executive Branch and radical environmental groups that have brought us to where we are today.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Posted on Master Resource, 10/17/12 and reposted here at the request of the author – original URL:
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/10/winning-vs-losing-energy-policy/
Thumbs down on the political content.
Our economy is an energy based economy. Manufacturing has taken many hits because of the continued rise in input costs due to embargoes and low production nonrenewable commodities. We are now at over $ 4 per gallon for gas and now the new pipeline from Canada is not moving forward even though they are our best friends. Instead our southern border is being flooded by illegal aliens. Businesses can not reduce input material costs and many then must use reduced labor costs by bringing in illegal aliens. What a mistake.
Why has the Arctic sea ice concentration image from Cryosphere today been rotated West away from the Greenwich meridian?
As a result it is difficult to compare like with like.
Outstanding and factual analysis.
Hope for change folks and vote.
If you don’t, you did!
The anti-hydrocarbon culture is merely a parcel of this political desire to supplant Capitalism and Communism with Third Way Corporatism. Communism did not produce enough revenue for the nomenklatura to live as they wish and keep a minimal standard of living for everyone else. Capitalism in its Smithian/Hayek free market form does not have politicians and their cronies in charge of the economy. Creative destruction sometimes takes out campaign contributos with a friendly “you borrow my jet anytime” policy.
So we get a dirigiste economy centered around Gaia has a temperature so the extent of the political and economic power grab is less clear. Old fashioned Corporatism is what it is. Now using all the powers of ed to convince our young people and future voters that there is a crisis that justifies radical changes in behavior.
The gigantic looting is another term for it. The extent to which the anti-hydrocarbon is really an attack on free markets and individualism and personal freedom itself really comes out when you look into the Bioregional Movement. Set up in 1973 through the UN, the year after the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, the finger prints on the extent to which this is all a Cold War and then post Cold War “How do we get end result we want?” becomes much more apparent.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/why-make-the-long-sought-goal-of-anarchists-and-socialists-the-21st-century-education-ideal/ explains Bioregionalism and the acute hostility to economic freedom and markets incorporated in it. Education is just the toll to changes values, beliefs, and feelings, around the issue and remove anyone with an Axemaker Mind that gets through K-12 from being a threat.
Greatest scam in history.
politics – meh
This article beautifully sums up the whole political situation in America and also, by extension, in Australia too. It Is time to get out and exercise your democratic rights to set the ship on its proper course again.
For those not wanting to discuss political issues as they relate to climate and energy: This has always been a political issue. The science (or what the liberals call science) was just a sales pitch.
“President Obama is waging a three-front war on hydrocarbon fuels”
Well, he’s certainly in the pocket of Natural Gas interests. But talking about how nat gas and nuke industries use the GHG scare to suppress their coal competitors, and thereby increase profits, risks raising the shackles and ire of the American Right Wing Scream Machine who think “business” is all a victim of the “greenies” or whatever.
“Since oil is sold in a world market, producing more in the United States means we could import less from abroad, freeing up more oil for other nations, and pushing prices down.”
Production fluctuations have little to do with current prices. It is mostly about the declining dollar and low margins since the Bush II admin on commodities options and derivatives. Follow the Money. Both Romney and Obama are not going to do a thing about them because both are in the pockets of, or want to be, Wall Street finance. And they are certainly not going to talk about how both parties embrace deficit spending which denigrates the dollar, heck, both parties love deficits! Paul Ryan even supports his “budget plan” (written by health lobbyists, actually) which embraces 20 years of massive deficits while blaming Medicare for other spending. It is delusional, but common thinking in Washington, because as the Bushbots said, “deficits don’t matter, tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves, we will grow out of the deficit…” all which raised prices.
BTW, Romney was the grandfather of Obamacare, so he was for CO2 Cap and Trade. He and Obama are both con artists of extreme skill.
While agree in full with the comments of the article I really don’t like ” Political ” views being stated here even though the whole boon-dongle of climate change is solely driven by a political agenda. I much prefer the science. Anthony has kept a good division between ” science and state “. The state views are much more difficult to evaluate in contrast to the crap science coming from the climate change machine. Politicians and climate change scientist lie, science does not.
While I don’t disagree with most of the factual information in this article, I think that it is a bit off the usual climate science emphasis found on WUWT. It lends legitimacy to the complaints of folks who want to dismiss us as the evil minions of the fossil fuel barons.
Energy is the engine of economic growth. Those who strive to restrict energy usage (e.g. Steven Chu) are thus necessarily restricting economic growth. We see the results of such restrictions around the world in the current economic depression.
Is the Obama administration really denying approval of the Keystone XL??
I’d like to know because I have read that half of it is approved and the other half is on hold pending a redesign around sensitive (shallow water) areas in Nebraska and that this redesign was requested by a broad coalition of political and environmental groups in Nebraska. By approving one half can we assume that the other half will gain approval too? Half a pipeline has limited use for the Canadian companies behind it. Why would they start construction without the other piece being assured?
Also, by Executive Order 13604 (March 2012) the administration is pushing for ‘Fast Track’ environmental approvals of pipeline projects. Is that just for show?
What is really happening with this project?
Superb analysis.
Although it’s potentially controversial in the run up to the election, I support Anthony’s decision to publish at this time. The article is certainly critical of our current administration’s policies but not partisan per se.
Current US energy policy is an unmitigated fuster-cluck and I hope folks will think about that when they cast their vote.
@ Russ in Houston says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:48 pm
For those not wanting to discuss political issues as they relate to climate and energy: This has always been a political issue. The science (or what the liberals call science) was just a sales pitch.
************************************************************
I agree, but would add that there exists a simple solution for those who object to political commentary: Don’t read it. This is Anthony’s site, and he decides what gets posted and discussed, not his guests.
I have not had an opinion about American politics since the Cuban missile crisis, it’s all been comparatively bland since then.
James Hastings-Trew time for you to pull your head out of the sand. CAGW is politics and damned little science. You can’t fight against CAGW without being in the political arena that is where it will be won or lost.
One other thing: We should be glad that we are even allowed to discuss politics at all. In many countries political discussion usually includes guns, bombs, and beheadings.
Good article, but I object to the inclusion of Tesla in the list of goofy Obama Administration errors. The firm is one of the very few successes; the DoE’s recent request to accelerate payments on the loan was in view of the likelihood that it will achieve profitability far sooner than expected, and just wanted to make sure that if that occurs, some funds will be used to retire the debt earlier.
World-wide, TeslaMotors is the only EV firm with a large and growing overhang of new orders to fill. The recipients of the first wave of its cars are deliriously happy about their purchases. Its products are superior in every way to the competition.
Elon Musk, controlling owner of TM, is a rigourously ethical quality and results-oriented engineer, whose other main venture, SpaceX, is racking up unparalleled successes and also has a burgeoning world-wide order/launch manifest. His ventures are the exception to the rule, because he makes sure they are.
Looks like Lane needs to dig out some Aristotle and review the definition of “distributive justice”. The democrats are opposed to it.
jbutzi, re “what is happening with this project?”
Opposition to the obvious need and benefit of the Keystone XL pipeline has always been from enviro-whackos who spewed a lot of disinformation. The project seems to be moving forward but has been much delayed by foolish obstruction.
It seems that the southern portion from Cushing, OK to Houston TX is now proceeding with construction, while the northern portion from Canada to Oklahoma is still awaiting approval of a revised route. Nutty enviro-whackos are still fighting tooth and nail to stop it but it seems that it will ultimately go through. Darryl Hannah is still trying to stop it, though:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/entertainment-us-usa-darylhannah-keyston-idUSBRE89403T20121005
The opposition has all along been a form of enviro-fanaticism that really doesn’t want any more evil oil, period. We already have pipelines criss-crossing all over the USA to supply our modern economy. Maps of US pipelines prior to Keystone XL project:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/10/18/newsflash-pipelines-are-everywhere/
My understanding is that the northern portion of the Keystone XL route has been altered to try to win approval and that it’s back in the approval process.
Anyone who actually supports a healthy US economy, as opposed to fanatical “Green” ideology, would support this pipeline.
“fossil fuel” is the engine of the american economy, and therefore the world economy, gas, oil, coal…run our world…wind solar and batteries ruin our world. Lets get back to $1.87 a gallon gas (or $0.25), explode the economy and then work towards hydrogen fuel cells, fussion, fission, or what ever, fixing the problem before it becomes a problem….not making a problem to fix a problem.
B. D. Hillicoss
I’m with Brian H on Tesla. They are actualy paying back their loans early.
(BTW Green Power / Black Death should be on the must read list)
Obama’s energy future is unacceptable. Romney, OTOH, actually has a specific plan instead of vague, nebulous assurances.
We need an energy policy that promotes the production of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Modern society could not exist without fossil fuels, and the cheaper they are the better. The current Administration has been a disaster. They are the reason that energy and gasoline prices are skyrocketing.
Ultimately, the war on C02 or “carbon” is a war on truth and on democracy itself. Obama unfortunately is on the wrong side of that war, and for that reason alone he must be defeated.
The thing which is most concerning about all of this “CAGW” driven clean energy movement is the way scientific facts are constantly perverted by the media for the cause.
Clearly the media cannot be trusted on anything related Climate Change but that trust was further eroded by what millions of people saw last night.
The way the CNN Moderator supported Obama in the debate against Romney’s widely anticipated Libyagate line of attack was obviously prearranged between CNN and the Obama team. Obama used the CNN Moderator to reply to Romney’s demands for clarifications so that the line of attack could be conveniently cut off and Obama avoided admitting publicly to what his Secretary of State now calls a “fog of war” error. To be fair, Romney was trying to trap Obama over this embarrassing story, which was a nasty line of attack that may not win support for Republicans.
It is scary to have such clear proof that the media are in cahoots with the incumbent administration, as this presents a clear and present danger to every American’s freedom – Democrats and Republicans alike.
The key takeaway from the “CAGW” media meme is that our democracy is sadly a long long way from having a free press, a fact reenforced by last night’s debate.
Obama used the words “not true” in reference to nearly everything Romney said and the words “the truth is” prefaced much of his rebuttals.
It sure sounded like the President represents “The Ministry of Truth”. Orwellian indeed!
bones says (October 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm): “While I don’t disagree with most of the factual information in this article, I think that it is a bit off the usual climate science emphasis found on WUWT.”
The line at the top of the WUWT home page:
“Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts.”
I don’t know about bones, but I consider the Obama energy policy very, very puzzling. 🙂
Obama’s “Green” energy policy has been a complete bust. America is running up $1 trillion annual budget deficits, with a current total national debt of $16 trillion, which will be partially defaulted on in the neat future.
America and the rest of the world cannot continue subsidizing expensive alternative energy programs. If an energy source is uncompetitive, it should stay in its development stage until the time it’s able to compete with conventional power technologies.
LFTR technology seems by far to be the most viable alternative energy technology and can be completely funded and developed by the private sector, providing the government simply establishes the permits, standards and oversight mechanisms for its development.
Follow the Money says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm
……… Follow the Money. Both Romney and Obama are not going to do a thing about them because both are in the pockets of, or want to be, Wall Street finance. And they are certainly not going to talk about how both parties embrace deficit spending which denigrates the dollar, heck, both parties love deficits!
————————————
So I guess we’re both voting for Governor Gary Johnson for POTUS, eh?
cn
Phil’s Dad says:
October 17, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I’m with Brian H on Tesla. They are actualy paying back their loans early.
(BTW Green Power / Black Death should be on the must read list)
—————————————–
Tesla had to restructure their covenants with DOE because they are violating the original terms. I agree they aren’t as bad as Solyndra or A123 –at least for now– since they are making timely loan payments, but they are missing their production schedules and are not a profitable company. In fact, they are increasing shareholder dilution to raise more capital.
SpaceX seems to be a success story (not a public company so no numbers available), but Tesla is hardly a blazing success story to crow about. Here are some numbers that hardly tell a “green” story:
EPS: -$3.27
Gross/Operating Profit Margins: -220%
Operating Cash Flow: -$159MM
Levered Cash Flow: -$306MM
Total Cash: $150MM
% of Shares Short (float): 60% (60%!!!!!!!)
So far this is a company built entirely on Hope and Change and given the trials of the Leaf and the Volt coupled with Tesla’s own delays and luxury market branding there’s no earned green($$) in green.
On the political issue. AGW and education are both weapons in what is actually a political, economic, and social Transformation war. That is not the story I went looking for. I ignored it the first several times it seemed the only explanation. I accepted it after encountering enough open declarations of intent. AGW was much the same and Bioregionalism. I knew there was a connection but ultimately I read explicit descriptions that could not be ignored.
If we do not acknowledge the political intent and economic ramifications, we cannot get back to the hard science in the case of AGW and the transmission of needed knowledge in the case of education. We will need all of that in the future. We must acknowledge what we are dealing with once we can prove that is in fact the monster. And that those in fact are the likely consequences.
It is power and rent seeking and government coercion. Not an English murder mystery. People throughout history will try to game the rulemakers and the conveyors of someone else’s money.
More tripe “evidence” and “facts” that have not been checked. HUGE bias here.
Here’s an article posted today by Ed Dolan claiming high energy prices are no problem. Paul Driessen should read in order to have counters ready:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/929771-interview-the-myth-of-affordable-energy
This entry was posted in energy, politics and tagged U.S. energy policy.
If your not interested in understanding the political dimension of the climate/green agenda and only are interested in the “science” then only read the articles not flagged as having political comment.
Good summary of the issues and I agree with almost all conclusions expressed.
Larry
Keslin @ 6:14
So point out the “tripe” and enlighten us with your “facts.”
Viable technology? Lets take Hawaii. Total energy independence in two years. Proven simple, cheap, reliable 24/7/365 power with waste heat used for cooling.
What is it?
Geothermal, ready willing and able and demonstrated in Iceland, no longer in debt slavery.
Rocket Science at work
As Robin says, explicit statements of intent are ubiquitous. There seems to be a (possibly justified) belief that they will be ignored until it is too late, written off as extremist hot air. Yet they correspond exactly to the actions and proposals of the AGW Believers and their patrons.
This now qualifies the theory that the Green agenda is global deindustrialization and depopulation as the Null Hypothesis.
“””””…..Follow the Money says:
October 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm
“President Obama is waging a three-front war on hydrocarbon fuels”
BTW, Romney was the grandfather of Obamacare, so he was for CO2 Cap and Trade. He and Obama are both con artists of extreme skill……”””””
Well actually, no he wasn’t. He did work with both Democrats and Republicans in the Massachussets Legislature to construct a STATE program, which evidently the people of Massachussets wanted (since their elected representatives enacted it); but in no way did he propose an unConstiturional take over of a third of the entire US economy , with a “bill” that was not read by even one of the 546 people in the federal Government who should have an interest in reading it. Besides the 435 house members, and 100 Senators, I threw in the Pres, and Veep, as well as the nine Supremes.
They of all people should have a passing interest in its Constitutionality.
So NO, Romney didn’t invent Obamacare; even Obama didn’t invent Obamacare; nobody even knows who invented Obamacare, since it was voted on by people who never read a word of it. But approved by ONLY DEMOCRATS.
But there is a choice; one is a pied piper Jim Jones, who never ever ran a lemonade stand; and the other is a person with significant management and economic savvy skills. One goes on the Barbara Wawa “View” catfight, and the other successfully managed the Olympic games.
Glad the choice isn’t mine; I don’t know if I could decide between those two.
Warmist scientists like Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf call for a Global Transformation of the economy (see the WBGU pamphlet). So economic policy is a legit topic for a climate-related blog.
I will say this, its a choice of the lesser of two evils. Romney talks about including wind and solar in our energy portfolio as a “true all of the above policy”. So in other words due to his support of “CAGW science” in the past and that, I can only assume he means to continue with the green boondangles to some extent. But he still criticizes Obama strongly on this particular issue.
I wonder how much he will actually push down on the EPA if he is elected. Will he allow it to continue regulating “greenhouse gases” at some extent? IF so, he changes nothing over Obama except to perhaps allow coal to stay around a little longer. But we will all be forced into NG and nuclear power anyway if that is followed. I don’t see as a nation abandoning coal as benefiting anyone except for people in those industries and those who make money as activists, etc.
Energy independence will happen regardless of what Obama does as seen from the oil boom on public lands. It will just happen more slowly.
So I ask this again, how is Romney much better except not being the most incompetent president since Carter? Perhaps he is better, but the bar is set so low by our current president that I kind of wonder how in the world we ended up with the choice between two such people?
We need jobs and renewed economic vitality. We all want a clean environment. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, industries of all kinds have made tremendous progress in reducing emissions and improving safety, efficiency and sustainability. oil and gas jobs
They will doubtless continue to make further progress.
Sounds like Paul ain’t never heard of the GFC. So if Obama is to blame for current conditions, how much blame are the Bush republicans going to accept for being in power when the GFC actually started.
Here is some bad news for people more concerned about getting their grubby hands on the steering wheel than telling the truth. US house construction approvals are trending up, thus likely signalling further improvements. Keep up the good work Mr Obama. Because if he takes the blame it’s also fair that he takes the credit.
The problem with mixing politics with WUWT science coverage is the polarizing of the skeptic view. We don’t want to isolate our “other” skeptic brothers… do we? Keeping the blog friendly for all skeptics will be more effective, in the long run (IMO). The sun insolates both parties equally. GK
G. Karst says:
October 18, 2012 at 7:12 am
“The problem with mixing politics with WUWT science coverage is the polarizing of the skeptic view. We don’t want to isolate our “other” skeptic brothers… do we? Keeping the blog friendly for all skeptics will be more effective, in the long run (IMO). The sun insolates both parties equally. GK”
Anthony has always maintained he would give Gavin Schmidt the opportunity of posting here. So I guess, if one of the warmist adherents of a Global transformation of energy policy towards Wind+Solar+unknown storage only would lay out his plans here, that would be open for him as well?
And Jerome Ravetz had multiple postings explaining the advantages of Post Normal Science… Why can’t the people who think Warmism and policies have nothing to do with each other just EXPLAIN why that is so instead of trying to silence the blog? Because they have no leg to stand on, that’s why… so attack the messenger…
LazyTeenager says:
October 18, 2012 at 5:16 am
“Here is some bad news for people more concerned about getting their grubby hands on the steering wheel than telling the truth. US house construction approvals are trending up, thus likely signalling further improvements. Keep up the good work Mr Obama. Because if he takes the blame it’s also fair that he takes the credit.”
When you spend 4 trillion you don’t have it’s next to impossible to not get SOME activity.
You may want to read Robert Zubrin’s “Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil”, or watch his video: “Robert Zubrin: Energy Victory” available various places online.
Simply require all new cars sold in the U. S. to be flex fueled. That is they must run on any combination of gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. Cost $0 to $500 per car, mode $100.
Methanol may be made from any orgainc waste as well as coal, oil, and natural gas.
Of course there are problems and it is more complicated than that.
A Biomass electrical generation plant in my community is closing soon. Farm and forest- (subsidised chip industry) waste is the fuel. Expensive electricity yes. Required purchasing by the Utility that I use. The price differential is paid through my electric bill. A small town Utility near me is not required to purchase any of this expensive electricity and their rates are lower than mine.
Energy Independence, apparently, is not a goal of government but is more of the same Energy new deal that is much much older than this Administration. Gopher runs are all subterranean and mostly out of sight excepting the ‘tailing’s’. The issue is Government and Science being one and the same. Government is Political and presents the border (square edges) to this great puzzle.
Tsk Tsk says: October 17, 2012 at 5:39 pm “Tesla is hardly a blazing success story to crow about.”
Not particularly crowing TT, just giving them a reasonable chance to get going.
BTW here is a car company to crow about – in its early years.
Henry Ford’s initial foray into automobile manufacturing was the Detroit Automobile Company, founded in 1899. The company floundered, and in 1901 was reorganized as the Henry Ford Company. Ford had a falling out with his financial backers, and in March 1902 left the company with the rights to his name and 900 dollars.
Henry Ford himself turned to an acquaintance to finance another automobile company and the pair designed a car and began ordering parts. However, by February 1903 they had gone through more money than expected, and creditors were demanding payment.
And so it goes on. A car company, especialy an inovative one, isn’t a short term punt.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Educate yourself and be proactive.