Our Problems Are Not In Space But In Washington

Think about the absurdity of trying to push a costly "clean" green energy agenda on an already sick economy! These black mayors are ignorantly and stupidly following the Obama party line to the letter. I wonder what kind of coercive tactics Obama is using on them? Their assumptions are dead wrong and they are leading us down a path to disaster far greater than a BP oil spill!!!
Peter




by Star Parker (source)
Our Problems Not in the Atmosphere, But On the Earth
A delegation of 20 black mayors representing the National Conference of Black Mayors arrived in Washington, DC to lobby congress to pass legislation to promote “clean energy.”
According to the delegation’s press release, they want “a national plan to move their cities to become more energy efficient, reduce pollution and create new clean energy jobs and businesses.”

But is black unemployment twice the national unemployment rate because of carbon emissions? Are the budgets of state and local governments running in the red because of the kind of energy Americans burn?

One visit that the delegation of black mayors did not make was to the National Black Chamber of Commerce.


There they could have discussed the study done for the NBCC by CRA International that estimates job losses to the American economy from “clean energy” initiatives - cap and trade bills passed by the House and Senate - at about 2.5 million jobs.

And, according to the National Black Chamber, because the nation’s black population is concentrated in areas impacted the most by increased “clean energy” taxes and costs, the negative impact on black jobs will be even more severe.

What other result would we expect from layering several hundred billion dollars in new taxes on our economy, which is what “clean energy” bills that the black mayors want so badly would do? Why would these mayors be spending their time promoting policies so intuitively nonsensical?

Supposedly we have no choice. Three assumptions drive it all: that the earth’s climate has irreversibly warmed (which will cause major problems), that this warming is caused by carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, and that we’ve got to get government to intervene to get us off these fuels and onto alternatives. (All three assumptions totally wrong! -- Peter)

The global warming nightmare is a warm fuzzy dream for those that want even more major government interference in our private lives.

And if the premises behind it were all true, we’d all agree to it.
But these premises are far from clear. The recent “climategate” scandal showed that scientists at global warming “headquarters” at the Climate Research Unit in London were suppressing serious scientific dissent regarding their assumptions and conclusions.
A new article in the prestigious journal of the Phi Beta Kappa society – American Scholar – sheds further serious doubt on “clean energy” initiatives.

The article, by a Nobel Prize winning physicist from Stanford, Robert B. Laughlin, shows that the vast time spans and complexity of the earth’s geological realities are far beyond our understanding and control. Over time, the earth has gone through cycles of cooling and warming.
Dr. Laughlin concludes, “The geological record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it is unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.”

The bottom line on “clean energy” initiatives is that the only sure things we will get are more taxes, higher costs, and more government. Guaranteed costs for benefits that are extremely questionable.

Black mayors would be better redirecting their attention from the atmosphere to realities here on earth.

The National Conference on Black Mayors is partnering with the Hip Hop Caucus as “outreach to our nation’s youth.”
Here’s a tangible that black mayors can promote to cut black youth unemployment. Work to get rid of the minimum wage.
Following minimum wage increases of $2.10 since 2007, black youth unemployment increased 50%.
Or how about some serious efforts to promote school choice so that parents of poor kids can send their children to schools where they will get an education and graduate.

A Predictable Push For More Government Subsidies

With the currently popular rush to rein in "carbon emissions" (really meaning carbon dioxide) to curb the "disastrous" effects of global warming and climate change, lawmakers are seeking billions of dollars in subsidies to coal companies, power generating companies, and companies that build the plants that generate this supposedly "cleaner" form of power. Why is this not a surprise.

First intense fear is created among the people about global warming, then when voters have been thoroughly brainwashed, bills proposing more federal subsidies are proposed, and our lawmakers go along with popular opinion. The result? Taxpayers get screwed again.

Read the following article and see what you think. Is it any wonder so many big corporations are "going green"?
Peter

Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: May 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 28 — Even as Congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming, a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels.


Mike Mergen/Bloomberg News
Richard A. Gephardt, a former Democratic House majority leader, has been hired by Peabody Energy to help make the case for liquefied coal.

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, is drafting a bill to promote renewable fuels, but not liquefied coal, for electricity.
Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.
With both House and Senate Democrats hoping to pass “energy independence” bills by mid-July, coal supporters argue that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline and potentially greener than ethanol.

“For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word,” said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.”

Environmental groups are adamantly opposed, warning that coal-based diesel fuels would at best do little to slow global warming and at worst would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases tied to global warming as petroleum.

Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol.

Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.

Coal companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying on the issue, and have marshaled allies in organized labor, the Air Force and fuel-burning industries like the airlines. Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest coal company, urged in a recent advertising campaign that people “imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East.”

Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose district is dominated by coal mining, is writing key sections of the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of coal-to-liquid fuels include Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans.

President Bush has not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has carefully referred to the need for “alternative” fuels rather than “renewable” fuels. Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal.

The political momentum to subsidize coal fuels is in odd juxtaposition to simultaneous efforts by Democrats to draft global-warming bills that would place new restrictions on coal-fired electric power plants.
The move reflects a tension, which many lawmakers gloss over, between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
Many analysts say the huge coal reserves of the United States could indeed provide a substitute for foreign oil.

The technology to convert coal into liquid fuel is well-established, and the fuel can be used in conventional diesel cars and trucks, as well as jet engines, boats and ships. Industry executives contend that the fuels can compete against gasoline if oil prices are about $50 a barrel or higher.
But coal-to-liquid fuels produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel.

Coal industry executives insist their fuel can actually be cleaner than oil, because they would capture the gas produced as the liquid fuel is being made and store it underground. Some could be injected into oil fields to push oil to the surface.

Several aspiring coal-to-liquid companies say that they would reduce greenhouse emissions even further by using renewable fuels for part of the process. But none of that has been done at commercial volumes, and many analysts say the economic issues are far from settled.

“There are many uncertainties,” said James T. Bartis, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, who testified last week before the Senate Energy Committee. “We don’t even know what the costs are yet.”