After looking over GOP speeches from this primary cycle, especially those wherein Mitt Romney stated (and restated) his belief in man-made global warming, it occurred to me that many of his positions sound eerily familiar, if not strikingly similar, to those held by President Barack Obama. And after looking more closely, it was interesting to set statements from the two side by side and see how little difference there actually is between them on environmental issues.

First of all, as I alluded to above, they both believe in man-made global warming. For example, during the 2008 president debates Obama said, “I think that the climate change issue is the most serious environmental issue that we face.” And in between the time he was elected president in November 2008 and the time he was sworn into office in January 2009, he voiced his belief that man-made global warming was taking a serious toll on the earth:

Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating global climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coast lines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

When Romney gave a speech in New Hampshire this past summer, he made clear his belief in man-made global warming as well:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.

While we know empirically that Obama’s belief in global warming translated into a pursuit of cap-and-trade policies, green jobs, electric cars (that catch on fire), and what is quickly becoming an energy disaster for our country, it’s important to note that Romney also wants to act on his global warming convictions. As he said in New Hampshire: “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emission of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

(more…)

With just a few shopping days until Christmas, “You’ve Been Gored” offers….

…Holiday Ideas for Green Grinches & Climate Change Believers!

CCB – that’s Climate Change Belief – is a religion. It has a God (Gore) and prophets/saints (DiCaprio, Sting), but where are the holidays? Christmas and Chanukah offer great reasons to eat, drink and get crazy. But ALpostles, convinced that all human activity damages Gaia, are such a gloomy  bunch.

So enviro-doomsayers, pull up an old cable spool next to the artificial, non-denominational log, grab a bowl of recycled waste-punch and get in the spirit with these fun holiday ideas. (more…)

My six year-old, parroting her teacher, proclaimed, “If we don’t fix Climate Change, we’re all gonna die!” At that moment, I decided to write YOU’VE BEEN GORED, the book that lampoons Al Gore and his hypocritical “ALpostles.”

The environment has become the hottest political issue of our time. And when anything is politicized, falsehood flourishes. The volume of lies, disinformation, propaganda, hypocrisy and exaggeration far exceeds the quantity of material pollutants – and is more hazardous.

Green has become the convenient, safe, lucrative cause for politicians, corporate weasels, celebrity eco-frauds, power-hungry government agencies and fast-buck swindlers hustling everything from gas-to-water engine conversion plans to carbon offset credits.

There’s a combination gold-rush/Armageddon’s a-comin’ zeitgeist that’s very troubling. It’s like watching the panicked crowd flee from Godzilla. Their mindless fear is more dangerous than the monster.

Statistics of doom are conjured and accepted without vetting. Idiotic “solutions” are clutched in desperation. Most terrifying of all, leaders are anointed and followed — without scrutiny.

There’s more mass hysteria in the air than particulate matter. And that hysteria is stoked by people with ulterior motives – money and power.

Green rhetoric has morphed into dogma. Totalitarian semantics force an agenda on those less educated or wary. One who disagrees is labeled a denier – a pejorative term that invalidates an opinion since only “truth” can be denied.

With Bolshevik fervor they scream for the heads of non-believers. Jobs are lost, professional credentials are revoked, jail time will be served. Non-compliance is not tolerated. Mere tolerance is not tolerated. One must embrace the new creed.

It’s time to step back, set up the bullshit filter (make sure it’s on full screen), and carefully evaluate the message. And even more carefully, examine the messengers.

Over the next several weeks, BigGovernment.com will serialize portions of YOU’VE BEEN GORED.

(more…)

On “Meet the Press” Sunday, David Gregory asked Barack Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, “Should government be playing venture capitalist to try to prop these interest–industries up [referring to Solyndra]?”

Plouffe’s answer: “Well, let’s step back for a minute. We have to win this race, you know, we–if we don’t win the clean energy race in terms of technology, innovation, and jobs, and cede it to other countries, we’re not going to have the century–we need this. It’d be like us ceding the automotive industry race or the Internet and computer race.” [emphasis mine]

What pure balderdash!  I am sure that Henry Ford would not be happy to hear that the White House was taking credit for his successes – like inventing the assembly line. The success of the American automotive industry and Internet was not because the government subsidizing Henry Ford or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; it was because private investors saw the value of their ideas.

David Gregory’s question goes to the heart of our economic train wreck. Where in the Constitution does it state that Congress should be playing the role of venture capitalist and funding one business over another? What authorizes the government to fund one particular business – whether it’s Solyndra or Exxon – with everyone else’s money?

Ethanol producers receive billions in government subsidies. What does it accomplish? It increases the price the farmers pay to feed their livestock, devours huge quantities of the corn supply (more than 40%), and increases the price of corn for American families and families around the world. How crazy is that – a government subsidy that drives up the cost of food? (more…)

Across the country, utility companies are in the process of installing digital AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) “smart meters”.  This will allow for remote meter reading instead of having to send a meter reader out to your home.  What appears to be a great advancement in electric meter technology will allow for your home to ultimately be connected to the “smart grid.”

Mission Point Capital Partners, “a private investment firm established by Mark Schwartz, former President and Chief Executive Officer of Soros Fund Management and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs (Asia); Jesse M. Fink, co-founder and former Chief Operating Officer of priceline.com; and Mark J. Cirilli, former Chief Investment Officer of Marshall Street Management,” explains:

The Smart Grid is a collection of energy control and monitoring devices, software, networking and communications infrastructure that are installed in homes, businesses, and throughout the electricity distribution grid. This collective system provides a “nervous system” for the grid and for customers that provides the ability to monitor and control energy consumption comprehensively in real time. Think of it as the Internet for Energy… Smart meters and other smart grid technologies… are designed with this ability, and they can provide the infrastructure that will support the implementation of responsible climate change policy. [emphasis added]

Smart thermostats, smart meters and the smart grid will provide the utility with information and the ability to monitor energy consumption throughout the country. These devices will enable them to regulate your use of electricity and turn it on and off at their discretion.  According to SmartGrid.gov, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with about $4.5 billion to modernize the electric power grid and to implement Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which focused on the Smart Grid.”  This site shows the government’s progress  in implementing smart grid technology through the country.  The money put into this is staggering! The Solyndra scandal is only the tip of the iceberg of this Administration’s green radicalism. (more…)

The globalists at the United Nations are busy preparing their agenda for the Rio + 20 Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which will be held on June 4 – 6, 2012.  They have prepared a draft entitled “Enabling a Flourishing Earth: Challenges for the Green Economy, Opportunities for Global Governance”.  It is truly amazing that this is not being devised in Dr. Evil’s hidden lair in the depths of some inactive volcano or on a deserted island.  This has been made available for everyone to read.  It reveals the true intent; the hopes, dreams and aspirations for this new world order that they have been working on for twenty plus years.  The entire document can be viewed here.

In the document they make reference to the Earth Charter, which is purported to be “an ethical framework for a more just, sustainable and peaceful world”.

They understand that their “green” initiative has not progressed as quickly as they had hoped it would.  Cap and trade schemes that involve redistribution of wealth from developed countries to developing countries based on a market price on carbon dioxide emissions have not generated sufficient revenue.  A new or additional economic or market solution should be implemented, because humankind has transgressed against nature.  Humans have been treating nature as a commodity.  The “loss of biodiversity,  desertification, climate change and the disruption of a number of natural cycles are among the costs of our disregard for nature and the integrity of its ecosystems and life-supporting processes.  As recent scientific work suggests, a number of planetary boundaries are being transgressed and others risk being so in a business-as-usual world”,  according to the U.N. Secretary General’s report to the U.N. on Harmony with Nature.

Their proposal is to create a new world organization, naming it  the World Environmental Organisation (WEO) which will have a global legitimacy and mandate to have jurisdiction over what are considered the “common goods”, defined as “fresh water, healthy soil and clean air, but also the oceans, the atmosphere and diversity of life” since it would be difficult to implement or trade on these “common goods” that are not privately owned or traded on markets.

This document states “Our proposed WEO should be mandated with a trusteeship function over global public goals and common goods”.  Much like a legal guardian is appointed in the case of a person who is unable to represent him/ herself, such as an infant, insane or senile person, they are proposing such a legal guardian to represent and give “legal voice for the otherwise voiceless environment”.

(more…)

“Science!”: Beyond the Pose, Mr. Huntsman, What Would You DO?

When that silver-haired Republican candidate weighs in on the ‘climate’ debate I want to stick around until the end of the video. I love that line, “Good heavens, Miss Nakamoto, you’re beautiful!”

Wait, that’s not Magnus Pyke?

Seriously. Mr. Huntsman, beyond the pose: what would you do? “Science!” is a talking point. More of a pose, really, of being the thoughtful man while its success depends on no more than Pavlovian nodding and clucking in response. Anything else ultimately arrives at the question Hunstman’s pose begs:

What. Would. You. Do.?

What’s your point? You’re down with the kidz on campus and your media base can rest easy because you’re not, you know, ‘crazy’ as you say? Or you’re going somewhere with this? Is it cap-and-trade? Kyoto? Kyoto II? Carbon (dioxide…meaning ‘energy’) taxes?

What? And after you answer that, well, without using the word “science(!)”, please then state why?

(more…)

For nearly three years as Americans have struggled through this Great Recession, President Obama has given speeches that relied on failed Keynesian economic theory and the politics of class warfare and envy. As his big government policies have spent this nation to the brink, the employment picture continues to worsen.

Tonight, President Obama will deliver a major economic address before a Joint Session of Congress. The MacIver Institute expects it will be more of the same rhetoric and promotion of government solutions we’ve been hearing for the last 3 years.

The timing of the speech also conflicts with the pomp and circumstance surrounding the kickoff of the 2011 NFL season. As a Packers’ fan and in the spirit of public service, I directed our staff to comb through the hundreds of speeches President Obama has already made to give you a concise two-minute preview of his latest ‘big speech.’

(more…)

Updated – Editor’s Note: Earlier today, Mother Jones, then Media Matters for America, then the New York Times accused Andrew Breitbart of a “global warming blunder” because the piece below cited Jykri Kauppinen as an author of a Nature study on cosmic rays. The author of the piece, Chriss W. Street, has indicated that Kauppinen is the author of a separate submission to Nature in 2010 that also contests the UN Climate Panel’s “consensus” view on the degree to which human activity contributes to global climate change. Street stands by his argument, regardless of the minor citation error that Breitbart’s habitual critics on the left have attempted to magnify. – Joel Pollak

***

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.” [See above - ed.]

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere. The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes. The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increase. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere; the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye”. Because research scientists are the primary audience this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently mapping of the human genome.

But Nature’s reputation suffered a huge black eye on November 21, 2009 when a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released 1079 emails and 72 documents exposing willful fraud in several scientific papers published in Nature that supported Al Gore’s theory Anthropogenic Global Warming. CRU houses the most world’s most extensive data base on atmospheric temperatures and the e-mails exposed blatant exaggerations of the warming data, possible illegal destruction of evidence, and conspiracy to manipulate or suppress data not supporting of the man-made Global Warming theory.

(more…)

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held on August 2 – 6, 2010 in Bonn, Germany.  It was the third round of U. N. climate change negotiations with representatives from 178 governments present.  The meeting was designed to set the agenda for what they hoped to accomplish at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico in November and December of last year.

The information in their press release conveyed the urgency of the U. N. to get this moving forward with solid agreements reached by the November/December conference. The text in this press release is so extremely important for all of us to understand that paragraphs have been copied verbatim.

“Governments have a responsibility this year to take the next essential step in the battle against climate change, said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres.  How governments achieve the next essential step is up to them.  But it’s politically possible.  In Cancun, the job of governments is to turn the politically possible into the politically irreversible, she said.” (Bolded by Writer)

“Christiana Figueres pointed to the opportunity to capture the promises, pledges and progress that governments have already made, in accountable and binding ways.  According to Ms. Figueres, governments now need to resolve what to do with their public pledges to cut emissions.  All industrialized countries have made public pledges to cut emissions by 2020 and 38 developing countries have submitted plans to limit their emissions growth.”

“This needs to be captured in internationally agreed form, the U.N.’s top climate change official said.  More stringent actions to reduce emissions cannot be much longer postponed and industrial nations must lead, she added.”

“Ms. Figueres pointed out that governments agree to a comprehensive set of ways and means to allow developing countries to take concrete climate action.”

“This includes adapting to climate change, limiting emissions growth; providing adequate finance; boosting the use of clean technology; promoting sustainable forestry; and building up the skills and capacity to do all this.”

A brief history of the UNFCCC – With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC Parties.  Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments.  The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.”

(more…)

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held on June 14, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  At this conference, referred to as the Rio Earth Summit, the participants crafted a blueprint for the world, commonly known as Agenda 21.

In its preamble, Agenda 21, Chapter 1 states “Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.  However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.”

In other words, the goal of the United Nations is social and economic justice through a redistribution of wealth scheme using the threat of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming or climate change to implement the market based solution of carbon emissions trading. The International Monetary Fund has proposed a plan for a Green Fund to achieve this goal.

Following this Earth Summit President George H. W. Bush declared:

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced –a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

–signed by G.H. Bush, 1992

Despite pressure from the United Nations partners, U.S. delegates did not sign on to the convention.

(more…)

Despite a small glimmer of hope from last Friday’s unemployment rate drop to 9.1%, business leaders know nearly all other economic figures continue to point to an anemic recovery or worse, a double-dip recession.

In reaction to the jobs numbers, Home Depot co-founder, Bernie Marcus had this to say on Politico:

While some may be relieved at today’s jobs numbers, the reality is that our economy is struggling to recover. And a big reason for that is the federal government. The impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.

And this is a theme that business leaders continue to make: over-burdensome regulations from Washington are stifling the economy and preventing serious job growth while the Obama administration only continues to make the problem worse.

Lets take a look at the cold hard numbers. In the past few weeks, major American companies had to announce more layoffs:

- Borders – 400 stores will close, costing almost 11,000 jobs.

- Boston Scientific – Announced restructuring that will cost up to 1,400 jobs.

- Goldman Sachs – Will let go 1,000 employees, or nearly 3 percent of their workforce.

- Merck – Will layoff 13,000 workers to cut costs.

- State Street – Announced it will cut 850 jobs, in a second round of layoffs within a year.

With all of this going on, President Barack Obama is promising (yet another) renewed focus on job creation. But what is his administration doing? Contrary to Obama’s promised regulatory reform from earlier this year, the administration continues to say one thing and do another.

(more…)

Las Vegas CEO Steve Wynn drew attention for a boardroom rant denouncing the intolerable business climate fostered by the White House. He’s hardly the first. What’s happening is emblematic of a bigger problem.

On a Monday conference call, the casino magnate credited with revitalizing Las Vegas slammed President Obama, declaring him “[T]he greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime.”

Wynn’s statement was remarkable for two reasons: First, the hotelier has been a staunch supporter of the Obama administration from the beginning and still considers himself a Democrat. Even more remarkable, it’s historically out of character for CEOs such as Wynn to express their views in such blunt terms on political matters.

“A lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, ‘Oh God, don’t be attacking Obama.’ Well, this is Obama’s deal, and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America,” said Wynn, “The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe ‘we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest or (are) holding too much money.’ We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.”

Business is being hammered, he said. “I’m telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States.”

Rarely do I subject myself to liberal editorials, but occasionally I glance at Alan Binder’s column since he is one of the few liberals to grace the venerable opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal.  The Princeton professor is the quintessential, arrogant, ruling class elite, with a venomous dislike of all things private and a blind love of all things public. Binder’s never met a redistribution program he did not endorse, nor a spending cut he did not mock.

Binder’s latest hit piece attacks the GOP for wanting to reduce government spending. In particular, he argues that the evil GOP perpetuates a false notion that government overspending is bad for jobs. First of all, Binder makes the laughably unprovable assumption that the Obama “stimulus” created “1.3 million net new jobs”.  Even if we take the professor at his word (I know that’s a stretch but bear with me), these 1.3 million fantasy jobs come at a cost of $600 billion (his figure). THAT’S $460K PER JOB. And what types of jobs did the “stimulus” net us? Brain Surgeons? Captains of industry? Think municipal workers or SEIU jobs where they get paid to protest against the GOP Governors we elect. Sounds like a good ROI to me, professor.

Binder makes no distinction between public and private sector jobs, as if the Federal Government could solve our economic ills merely by employing 20 million Americans to dig holes in their backyards and refill them. Does the professor really believe that government jobs are on par with value creating private sector jobs?  In fact, the entire notion of value creation seems missing from Binder’s repertoire. Value—or wealth—is created when production and trade take place voluntarily so both parties gain.

(more…)

Rest easy America, for not only is the EPA busy saving the planet, it’s taken on a new responsibility: saving the economy. The Departments of Commerce and Energy can close up shop and Treasury Department better start investing in some new equipment to count all of the riches that are going to flood into America’s coffers now that EPA is on the job.

How can an agency charged with protecting human health and the environment that’s famous for placing obstacles in front of industry that Evil Keneval wouldn’t be able to clear succeed in jump starting the economy, when the rest of the Obama administration has failed so miserably at the task? It’s a complicated formula, but it all boils down to this for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: what’s good for the environment is good for the economy.

Really.

Forget all that rubbish you may have heard that suggests that piling more and more regulations on American industry inhibits economic growth. It’s actually quite the opposite, and we know this because Ms. Jackson assures us it is so: the more environmental regulations, the more money we’ll all make. Don’t you worry for a moment about abandoning the use of the cheapest, most abundant energy resource we have, for example. America will be far better off burning less coal and generating electricity by using… er… uh… Well, we’re still working that out, but the less coal we use the more money we’ll make and we’ll also reduce our dependence on foreign oil – or something like that. They’re still working up the figures summarizing coal imports from Saudi Arabia, apparently.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Elizabeth Blackney to discuss Jon Huntsman’s past support of Cap and Trade, the stimulus plan, and an Obamacare like individual mandate for healthcare.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Huntsman, Schwarzenegger ink global warming pact
Politico: The Huntsman file
Republican Gov. Huntsman says GOP leaders opposing recovery are engaging in ‘gratuitous political griping.’
Truth outweighs consistency
Flip-flopping is bad; lying is worse
Video: A Common Sense Campaign for America
(more…)

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, (H.R. 2454), sponsored by Representative Henry A. Waxman, CA, was passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, with a vote of 219 – 212, and was received by the Senate on July 6, 2009. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, (S.1733), sponsored by Senator John F. Kerry, MA, was introduced on September 30, 2009. The House bill is 1428 pages and the Senate bill is 1758 pages.

This is another bill that has so much regulation attached to it, no one knows what all is included, and no one can say for certain how it will affect states, businesses and individuals. One thing is sure, this bill will put in place strict regulations for carbon emissions at all levels of our lives. According to The Pew Center, “It covers producers of generators of electricity, petroleum fuels, distributors of natural gas, producers of certain fluorinated gases (F-gases), and other specified sources. Greenhouse gases that are limited under the bill include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen fluoride, and hydrofluorocarbons emitted as a byproduct.”

These new regulations are intended to mandate that all energy providers and large manufacturing facilities will be limited as to how much carbon dioxide they will be permitted to emit into the atmosphere. This article relates strictly to carbon dioxide emissions, as this is the majority of the gases being emitted and of our principle concern. The energy companies will be required, on an increasing scale, to reduce their CO2 emissions and retrofit their operations to be “cleaner”. They will be required to provide some of their energy using wind, solar, nuclear, and other cleaner and greener energy sources.

Many countries in the EU and states here in America have already had such regulations in place and they have failed miserably.

(more…)

One of the more interesting votes in California last November was the vote AGAINST Proposition 23. The vote was 61% No to 38% Yes. The Suspend Air Pollution Control Law (AB32) – Proposition 23 – proposed to push back the timeline of the implementation of The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) until unemployment in the state dropped to a more acceptable level of 5.5%. As of September 2010 unemployment in California was at 12.4%.

The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. It was passed as a result of the now pretty much debunked (or at least highly questioned) theory that fossil‐based energy produces greenhouse gases that are the primary contributors to climate change.  AB32 set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. The reduction measures to meet the 2020 target were to be adopted at the start of 2011. The reduction measures address many sources of polluting emissions and the standards they are required to obtain by the year 2020. In reviewing just one of these reduction measures, the California Renewable Energy Standard requires a Renewable Energy Credit of 20% between the years 2012 – 2014, meaning that 20% of the energy supply must be provided through renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Looking at this single item in the reduction measures, one can see the massive regulatory demands for compliance in tracking emissions, monitoring emissions and procedures for applications for acceptance of renewable electricity credits. It also provides for assessing fines accruing DAILY for non-compliance. This is in addition to the cap and trade provisions that have been established by AB32 wherein California is working with six other western states and four Canadian provinces through the Western Climate Initiative.

Alternative sources of energy are dramatically more expensive than conventional coal power. An article in The Morning Bell from The Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2010 reveals the prices of energy that President Barack Obama’s very own Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects for various sources of electricity per megawatt hour in 2016 (based on 2008 dollars) as follows:

(more…)

Under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket!

The Left has stealthily worked for decades to forever change this country, with the Agitator-in-Chief’s policies threatening to push us all off the economic cliff before 2012. Yet the Left has an almost hysterical fear of the Tea Party, because it represents the one great unknown that the best laid plans of the Left– even with billions of Soros money – cannot foretell: the resourcefulness and spirit of Americans.

And that great, innovative American spirit has done it again. Without billions, millions, thousands, hundreds or even tens of dollars; without strategy sessions, focus groups, coordination with media “Journolists” or anything else, patriotic Americans have launched another devastating offensive in what has come to be called the “Sticky Note Campaign.”

Sticky notes and flyers are being attached to gas pumps, at grocery stores and retail outlets all over the country, reminding people who we can thank for all this “change.”

There is a Facebook site and a few other postings. On the strength of these things alone, this idea has gone viral. The flyer above first appeared at Disrupt the Narrative where you can download and print the PDF. A clever modification appeared here.

(more…)