Gore – Er – Obama: ‘Carbon Is Eating Our Planet’

YET ANOTHER DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO SHORE UP THE BASE – AND FORWARD THE ‘GREEN’ AGENDA

Two peas in a pod

From the Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results department: Barack “I never saw windmill or solar panel I didn’t like” Obama warned the Obamabots for the billionth time late last week that (man-made) global warming would soon destroy the earth as we know it – and vowed that only hundreds of billions of additional “investment” (taxpayer dollars) to subsidize “green energy” firms would prevent the “epic cataclysm” from occurring:

“By the way, yes; my plan will reduce the carbon pollution that is eating our planet because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and hurricanes and wildfires. That’s not a joke. That’s a threat to our children’s future, and we can do something about it.”

Really, Al – er – O? More droughts? You mean like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s? More hurricanes? Seems to me that we’ve seen less hurricanes in recent years, haven’t we? (Note: Global warming loons like to play scare this particular scare tactic both ways: When hurricane activity increases – they naturally blame it on global warming. When hurricane activity decreases, they say its the result of warmer waters in the Atlantic, due to – wait for it – global warming.) And wildfires? Hell yea, O – what else but man-made global warming would cause an arsonist, irresponsible smoker, careless trash burner – or lightning – to start a wildfire? More from President Green Jobs:

“So, now you’ve got a choice. My plan would cut our oil imports in half and invest in the clean energy that has created thousands of jobs all across America.”

Translation: “Under my plan…electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

We’ve already seen your plan, O: Not only have you failed to create the “thousands of jobs all across America,” but you flushed billions of taxpayer dollars down the “clean energy” toilet in the process. Cut oil imports in half? Have you actually taken the time to consider where and how all that evil oil is used? What “clean energy alternative” can “you” (That’s “you” – as in “you” killed Osama bin Laden.)  provide to the nation’s trucking and railway companies – not to mention, heavy industries? What viable (and affordable) alternative can you force Americans to use in their automobiles?

Here’s the reality, O: The horse and buggy business didn’t disappear because an intrusive government did its best to kill it. It didn’t go out of business because government invested billions of dollars in the fledgling automobile industry. Competition and free markets not only developed the internal combustion engine and  the automobile; it learned to mass-produce vehicles – cost-effectively – and the horse and buggy business simply fell victim to progress.

Under your “plan,” the horse and buggy business would be decimated – long before the free market produced a viable alternative. (Of course you would have probably been flushing taxpayer dollars down the toilet on wind-powered cars, huh?) Moreover, your plan is politically-motivated - period. That’s not how capitalism works – or thrives. Take a look at history, O.

Think about it: Cut oil imports in half (without increasing domestic production or approving the Keystone XL pipeline, of course) and drive up the cost – with the perverse logic of making “clean energy” costs “competitive” as a result.  This is a perfect example of liberal elitists’ lack of understanding of the business world. Competition works the other way around; those who learn to produce goods or services efficiently drive prices down – forcing competitors to either follow suit – or go under. O would have us believe that by forcing energy costs to “skyrocket,” we’ll turn to his beloved “green energy” sources as the only alternative. Liberals.

Yep, on Planet Obama – to hell with the free market; let’s cause the cost of energy to “skyrocket” and force Americans to use energy sources on which the Regime has spent more than $90 billion in taxpayer dollars (so far)  to promote – all because loons like Al Gore and Barack Obama are fixated on “man-made” global warming. Talk about betting the farm. Except – it’s the taypayers’ farm that the loons are betting. Liberals.

Oh, one more thing: How does O propose to pay for his obsession with solar panels and windmills? Why – by eliminating oil subsidies – which he hypocritically calls “taxpayer-funded welfare. And, as is usually the case with liberals, not only does his math fail – but so does his “logic.” Here’s the “genius” one more time:

“If you want to know how we’re paying for it, one of the things; we do not allow oil companies to collect another $4 billion in taxpayer-funded corporate welfare every single year.”

Hmm, let’s do the math – and I don’t think we need a calculator. O has “invested” (taxpayer-funded corporate welfare) in excess of $90 billion on mostly-failed “green energy” companies in less than four years. Just imagine what he would do over the next four years – without the fear of running for reelection.  He tells us that “one of the ways we’ll pay for it” is to eliminate $4 billion in oil company subsidies. Bend over, America – when a Democrat says “one of the ways” – it’s the “rest of the ways” that are going to hurt like hell.

Incidentally, why does O rail against oil subsidies? Because he knows it fires up the “less-than-informed” among his base. The truth is – shocker - his charge is just one more political lie.

About these ads


Categories: "Green Energy", Energy Irresponsibility, Global Warming Fanatics, Liberal Political Lies, Obama Hypocrisy, Obama Reelection Campaign

Tags: , , , ,

45 replies

  1. Never fault a candidate for going green. The reason renewables haven’t caught on big is that oil, gas and coal are doing everything in their power to eliminate competition. Any moron can see that fossil fuels will eventually be depleted—what’s wrong with trying to develop endless sources of energy like wind, solar and dozens more off the grid sources? You can’t see the forest for the trees!

    • You missed the gist of the article, Mick. Does that make you a “moron”? Of course – at some point WAY DOWN THE ROAD – fossil energy sources will be expended. That, however, has nothing to do with the point of the post.

      Obama vilifies the oil and gas industries – our ONLY viable source of energy for years, if not decades, to come – particularly as it related to heavy industry – not to mention the airlines.

      I used the horse and buggy industry analogy because it is a correct one. The world gradually shifted dependence on horse-drawn carts and wagon to internal-combustion-powered vehicles when invention and cost-effectiveness made it prudent to do so.

      Gore and Obama’s politically-driven obsession with “green energy” – and the subsequent “investment” (taxpayer money), in companies which have mostly gone down the drain has been irresponsible at best.

      Plenty of trees and forests out there, Mick; not to mention oil and coal.

      • Renewables are the future and it’s not happening fast enough because of the big oil/gas/coal industries. They don’t want to kill their golden goose. What they don’t see is that they are hurting all in the long term.

        • Respectfully, that’s just nonsense, Mick. As I asked your pal merlin, what source of energy is going to run heavy industry, the airline industry and the nation’s semi-trucks – and when?

        • Mick:
          You have your golden goose and the golden egg inversed. The reason that solar and wind aren’t able to take off is because the technology just isn’t there to make them competitive. Period. The Fossil fuels industry is NOT doing anything to block renewable power. In fact, many of the fossil fuels industries are VERY diversified into wind and solar trying to shift gears. Those companies are buying wind, gas and solar farms like crazy. To think there is some grand conspiracy is lunacy.

          The fact of the matter is that wind and solar are just not efficient or dependable, and until we develop battery technology to store the energy, they never will be. Ironically, many environmental groups block the mining of heavy metals needed to build batteries (concerns of sulfide pollution)…counterproductive to the success of solar or wind. Very ironic, isn’t it? Also, are you aware that one of the bigger problems with wind is lack of infrastructure to actually deliver the power to markets where it is needed? There are hundreds of thousands of Mw wind farms on hold because the grid does NOT exist from the plains states (where wind is most dependable) to the east and west coasts where it is most needed. Are you suggesting that fossil fuel industries are blocking the building of power lines to keep the wind farms down? Also, have you ever noticed wind farms sitting idle on blustery days? Are you aware that they sometimes have to shut them “off” due to overheating of the motor oil? Special cooling packages are installed on some but not all turbines. Pretty funny (in a sad way) that wind turbines have to be stopped on windy days.

          Now let’s move on to the fact that wind power has proven to be completely uneconomical in Europe and the US. Take for instance Texas where the greatest number of wind farms exist. In the heat of summer, wind energy is only capable of producing 0.03 percent of the necessary power to that state. In order to make wind viable, government subsidies are REQUIRED. Otherwise they go bankrupt (not that the left understands the concept of deficit spending, but…) The Netherlands is another example where subsidies are required to suport the industry. It just doesn’t work as “base load” energy. It, along with solar and gas are “peaker” producers because they are intermittent sources (although gas can be base load when gas is available and not too expensive).

          Notwithstanding the taxpayer burden, there is also the economic impact of lost labor (wind doesn’t hire as many people on operating turbine farms as coal mines, truck drivers, railroad and coal generation plants do) and higher electric bill rates. How do we offset those impacts, Mick? Isn’t unemployment high enough now?

          I would suggest that you do some studying of the situation rather than regurgitating main stream media talking points. There are a lot of facets here. We need to understand them or we might as well be recommending the use of unicorn feces as a power source.

          As Rat said, this will be a slow process and one that will only occur as the market allows. Forcing the square peg up our round butts will result in pain and resistance.

          TG

          • Great comment, TG – I figured this was in your wheelhouse. As usually, the drive-by commenters usually make one comment – sometimes two – presumably for arousal purposes – and disappear. Sp predictable.

          • I also meant to add the question of “what will the environmental impacts be from green energy”? Bird kills, electromagnetic fields from turbines, covering large areas of ground (shade) by solar panels. The left is famous for applying the laws of unintended consequences.

          • I’m no scientist but the renewable energy industry is not moving fast enough because the “free market” dominated by big oil/gas/coal is “directing” the push to their own backyard. The government has NOTHING to do with this philosophy—I believe the government is trying to help renewables to survive until technology catches up. I find this quote from TG to be interesting, “….one of the bigger problems with wind is lack of infrastructure to actually deliver the power to markets where it is needed? There are hundreds of thousands of Mw wind farms on hold because the grid does NOT exist from the plains states (where wind is most dependable) to the east and west coasts where it is most needed. Are you suggesting that fossil fuel industries are blocking the building of power lines to keep the wind farms down?”
            YES, I’m suggesting that!!! Are you telling me we can’t build infrastructure in the midwest if the power companies/investment companies wanted to?! If the technology is not there, FIND IT!! We need the cooperation of government and industry NOW to move into the future. We’ve got the brain power, now let’s get this done. My whole philosophy is to build up, not tear down—-apparently that doesn’t make for a good story very often—more fun to tear down than build up I guess.

          • “I’m no scientist but the renewable energy industry is not moving fast enough because the “free market” dominated by big oil/gas/coal is “directing” the push to their own backyard.”

            This is not only nebulous – its’ unfounded. Please provide specifics. (Just as I asked you to do regarding alternative energy sources for factories, trains, semis and aircraft = which you’ve failed to do.)

            “I believe the government is trying to help renewables to survive until technology catches up.”

            EXACTLY. And when has that EVER worked? Additionally – the “goverment” (the Regime) is doing so for POLITICAL purposes; again, there is NO alternative for the purposes I keep repeating ANYWHERE on the horizon.

            School is still out on wind farm viability, my friend; do a bit of research. Without the massive government subsidies, we wouldn’t even be having the conversation.

            Finally, at any rate – what sense does it make to vilify and punish the only viable sources of fuel that will be both economical – relatively speaking – and practical – for decades to come? Unless, that is, one’s purpose is playing to his political base.

          • Renewables need more help. Final answer.

          • Then it’s irresponsible to try to turn the country against the oil and gas industry, isn’t it?

          • Ratt, I’m not turning anybody against big oil/gas/coal—they do a good enough job themselves! (Sorry)
            Great discussion but I have to go try to refinance my house to fill up the tank!

          • Rat, I have no answer to your point, “alternative energy sources for factories, trains, semis and aircraft”. I’m not an authority, just an average guy looking for answers. I know I’m fed up with high power bills and high gas prices. Do you have those answers? Please share. We have to find those answers and I for better or worse have to depend on credible sources. Please remember that most of us are average Joes, trying to stay afloat and looking for the truth. That’s why we look to you and others like you to help. Thank you for this forum.

          • I know you have no answer, Mick – neither does anyone else. The purpose of the question was to illustrate the lunacy (by O, not you) of vilifying two industries on which America will be dependent for decades -whether the left likes it or not.

            Multiple factors are to blame on high gas prices. Refinery output, manipulation of prices, concerns with the Middle East and more. However, intuitively, doesn’t it make sense to open America’s reserves – obviously with concern for the environment at the forefront – rather than attack our energy providers and politicize them?

            Again – I participate your participation, Mick,

          • Mick:

            In your question of “why isn’t the infratstructure there”?…the answer is because the market hadn’t needed it before. It is now being developed. The situation that is stated is indeed a REAL project that I am involved with. These things don’t just appear overnight. There have to be studies, logistics analysis, land acquisition, engineering and investor participation. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT OR ADVERSITY APPLIED BY FOSSIL FUELS (did I shout that loud enough to penetrate into your intellect? In fact, I can suggest that this process would go even faster if the government were not interferring. You see, part of the slow down is that the environmental impact (archaelogical, brown bat, frogs, bugs, water, you name it) studies are time consuming, costly and cumbersome. There will be law suits blocking some rights of way (e.g. just like the Keystone pipeline), private landowners will complain, state governments will protest (it doesn’t go through this land or that depending on donors, etc.)

            Mick, in the way that you admitted to not being a scientist, you should also note that you are not a businessman, not understanding of anything related to this industry or any form of capital development, and generally not knowledgable about anything except the need to feel good about doing something for the planet. Do yourself and the rest of a favor…educate yourself before proposing how to use unicorn poop and pixie dust as viable alternatives for energy…and stop blaming people, industries, etc when you don’t know what you are talking about. Once you educate yourself, you will find out that government is probably the greatest deterrent to the successful development of green resources (don’t get me started on ethanol subsidies!!)

            TG

  2. It’s simple: Agenda 21 needs a motor. That the motor is sputtering is thanks to people like The Rat who are BS-resistant.

    • Um – what alternative energy source are we going to use to power the airlines? Heavy industry? The nation’s semis? I have said – for years – and continue to say: it’s not the government’s job to use taxpayer money to chase after “hedge funds.” And – alternative energy sources can – and should be – developed – without vilifying the only viable sources of energy the is country needs for survival. What part of that is so difficult for you loons to understand?

  3. Ironically, the people that tout alternative energy the most tend to know the least about its limitations, or at least that has been my experience (review my points above regarding limitations). It is politically correct and gives personal warm fuzzies to want green energy. I agree that we need to be working that way…but not being forced by the government. I would suggest that I am more of an environmental lover than most, and care more about the well-being of our planet…but I have common sense about it. I bet that we would find some pretty scary carbon footprint activities if we dug down into these “environmentalists”. I can usually find some HUGE hypocrisies. As I’ve said before, if these people are as activist minded as they suggest, then they should disconnect their power, stop driving cars, stop using ALL petroleum products (including some medicines) and move to a cave…also no paper products, so wiping thy buttocks will be less pleasant too. If all of those people removed themselves from the grid, we would have more sustainable fuel sources and our air would be cleaner…and quite honestly, they would be off the internet so I wouldn’t have to listen to inane statements. Problem solved!!

    TG

  4. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22464&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

    This article poses some food for though regarding subsidies to the wind industry. How does this play into the earlier statement that fossil fuel industries are “blocking” green energy viability?

    •The oil and gas sector receives $1.9 billion in subsidies per year.
    •This amounts to $0.03 per million BTU of energy.
    •But the wind industry receives a subsidy of $6.44 per million BTU produced.

    How is that giving the advantage to fossil fuels? I can also tell you that the coal industry is COMPLETELY hamstrung by federal regulations and isn’t getting subsidies anywhere near those of wind. Green energies fail on their own account, NOT because of the big, bad fossil fuel guys (another “man keeping me down” excuse!)

    • I stand by my earlier statement, especially this part:
      “If the technology is not there, FIND IT!! We need the cooperation of government and industry NOW to move into the future. We’ve got the brain power, now let’s get this done. My whole philosophy is to build up, not tear down…” But apparently it is more fun to tear down than build up.

      • “But apparently it is more fun to tear down than build up.”

        That is EXACTLY what your president does – ad nauseam – to the oil and coal industries.

        • And that’s exactly what YOU do to anything the prez does, Rat!!!! Gotta love the other side! I just appreciate the ability to comment.

          • And I welcome substantive rebuttal to every article I write – I really do. There are a few libs on Facebook with whom I debate on a regular basis. No name calling. No slurs. Always works – even when we agree to disagree. I welcome your comments, Mick – seriously.

            I just get a bit frustrated when I ask for necessary answers – that would support an argument – I get crickets. ;-)

      • You make good points but you can spin it anyway you want, TG——and I can too!! Do you at least get my point that we need more cooperation especially on the corporate side?

    • Thanks for your insight, TG. Always good to hear from an insider and I hope you continue to get that word out—most people are not aware of many of those details.

      • There is a lot going on behind the scenes that doesn’t make it out to the public because it doesn’t make good news (unless Lindsey Lohan strips naked on a drinking binge under a wind turbine that overheated, the mainstream media won’t cover it). I can tell you with 100% certainty from experience, capitalism and industry ARE trying to facilitate diversity in energy resources and improve new technology. It is SMART business to do so. Any industry that fails to diversify and look at the future is a “dead man walking”.

        Having said that, I can also tell you that government is the absolute biggest obstacle to most of these initiatives, NOT the best to further advancements. Between regulations and allowing lobbyists (for and against the initiatives) to weigh in, the projects are slowed exponentially. My company works on everything from coal mines, coal combustion power plants, integrated combined cycle power plants, gas turbines and wind turbines (and much more). I see the hurdles everyday. I also see the subsidies for things like ethanol, where certain businesses take the government (read our tax dollars) money and run with it, then scuttle the plants the second the teat runs dry. I don’t blame the companies; I blame the government for picking losers (to coin a recent phrase). Stop subidizing industries and the cream will rise to the top instead of the turds!

        You mentioned being disgusted with high energy costs somewhere in this thread…I have news for you, government regulations hit you on those utility bills, then the subsidies hit you on your taxes. Double whammy! It will only get worse the more government is involved. COMPETITION will drive costs down, not government interference.

        You keep saying “FIND IT”…it would be nice if it was that simple, timely and convenient, but it’s not. Life is complex and business/technology is even more complex. I believe that private industry will always fill the need where there is one. If someone needs something and there is a way to provide it, somebody will create it and generate the industry…with time.

        Mick, I encourage you to look into all of these “green” energy initiatives. I think that it will curl your toes once you see how much BS is peddled out there. And you would do yourself a favor to give up on the petroleum industry evil-doer conspiracy theory…you would be shocked to see how much R & D and capital investment dollars for alternative energy sources come from the big petro-chem and utilities. Small investors build wind farms and big companies gobble them up everyday…capitalism at its best.

        I truly hope that we can find a multitude of energy sources to support our needs, while balancing the need to be good stewards of our planet, provide adequate jobs, etc…but this won’t happen over night.

        Okay, enough rambling…I have to genereate revenue to create more dollars for the government to waste!!!

        TG

  5. Our entire economy, and military, are powered by crude and natural gas, and a whole lot of coal. The technology is in place to protect the environment, while providing in-expensive power. But this is not being allowed to completely happen. We have more fuel under our toes, than has ever been taken from Suadi Arabia…or that is still there. My guess is that the nafarious powers that have control of our government wants to hoard it all until therre is a world wide shortage, then we get super rich…..

  6. Any tech discussion left or right is “way above my pay grade.” Seems like I’ve heard that lately from some pol. Anyway are you “greens” part of the “me now generation?” Planet being eaten by carbon now. Be forward thinking. Old ’56 set of Compton’s encyclopedia in section about Sun. Not quote…As the fission and fusion of the sun’s resources build and maximize…surface temperature of earth will reach 700 degrees F (no Centigrade back then). Then of course…gets cold after last reaction. Better think ahead…or forward.

  7. The Conservative Hill Billy: What about fracking, is that environmentally safe? And ya gotta love those oil spills too. Every energy source has its drawbacks but shouldn’t we use our carbon sources for their other vital uses like plastics etc? Seems a shame to use carbons for energy when there are alternatives. Yes yes yes, I know you can’t just jump into all of this immediately, it takes time and is still impractical from a financial standpoint but we are not moving fast enough.

    • Okay, at the risk of ticking you off, Mick; you said we shouldn’t “waste” carbon sources on energy – and that “alternatives” exist What are the alternatives to diesel and jet fuel? What alternatives are even being considered as options?

  8. As I said in an earlier reply to this post, I’m not a scientist and as GT said, I’m not an economist—just a concerned citizen.
    I don’t know of any viable alternatives yet for heavy diesel engines and jet fuel but let’s put our best minds on this! Maybe these vehicles don’t even have to run on liquid fuel. We can’t stop the research and development of such. We can’t depend on the current status quo, we must move forward with research, incentives AND the cooperation of the big oil/gas/coal. The private sector can and must be the driver of energy independence.

    • The alternatives to diesel and plastics thus far have been plant based (ie soybeans, corn, switch grass)…outstanding in theory…unfortunately that taps into food resources either through the use of the beans for food or by using land for soybeans that could have been in use for corn, wheat, etc. Ethanol is similar in that it taps a food resource and drives up cost (furthermore, ethanol is so completely inefficient to produce, requiring a lot of electricity…therefore coal…to make. Add to that the fact that it too requires government subsidies (yep, more lobbyists there).

      At the end of the day, there are finite resources, and increased need due to society and technological needs and overall population. At some point, the resources just do not support the need. Reduce population of the planet and this math problem gets easier to solve. Unfortunately euthenasia to solve energy concerns and environmental stewardship isn’t considered politically correct yet (although we could get into that really deep leftist philosophy…but I’ll leave that for another day for the Rat blog) :)

      TG

  9. And don’t worry about pissing me off, my skin is thick.

    • Guess I’m suffering from a Rat Bite

      • Great comment, Mick. Seriously.

      • Mick, you seem reasonable and open to understanding the true nature of the situation at hand. Yes, it is very complex, and the mainstream media doesn’t do a good job of educating the public (because it is contrary to their agenda). I would encourage you to read various business journals, technical publications, etc. You can learn a lot by doing so…and the more you distance yourself from the false media, the more you will be AMAZED at how much bad information is floated out there. Thank you, Mick, for being civil…these types of conversations are much more constructive this way.

What's Your Take?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,403 other followers

%d bloggers like this: