The Obama administration is expected to reject the controversial Keystone Pipeline this afternoon, according to Fox News.

The State Department is expected to vote against the pipeline this afternoon. Transcanada will however be allowed to reapply with an alternate route going through Nebraska.

(more…)

Republicans in the Senate, led by Sen. Dick Lugar,  have introduced a bill that would force President Obama to act on initiating construction of the-1,700 mile Keystone XL crude oil pipeline from Canada. The project is expected to create approximately 20,000 jobs and increase energy security for the United States.

Although President Obama has been openly mocking and denouncing Congress for failing to pass his jobs bill, his decision, through the State Department, to delay the Keystone XL project until after the November 2012 elections has led to criticism that the president is putting politics ahead of the best interests of the country.

37 Republican senators signed onto the bill that would require the administration to approve the pipeline project within 60 days, unless Mr. Obama declares the project is not in the national interest.

The Keystone project has been interesting in that it has marked a division between two groups that have been very supportive of the president: environmentalists and Big Labor. Environmental groups, fearing oil spills and other ecological disasters, as well as celebrity “green” fans, have opposed the pipeline plan, while labor groups have supported it in the hopes of obtaining high-paying union jobs. In addition, none of the states involved in the pipeline’s path- Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas- supported Mr. Obama in the presidential election of 2008.

While the Keystone project had already been found to be environmentally sound prior to the president’s delay of the pipeline’s construction, some rerouting of the pipeline was done in Nebraska, for example, and approved by that state’s legislature quickly so as not to prevent the project from moving forward. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska) is supporting the bill to force implementation of the pipeline. “This bill respects the Nebraska process to protect the Sand Hills while providing a commonsense approach to bring friendly oil and jobs to the U.S. without unnecessary delay,” he said.

If the pipeline project is not implemented, Canada has said that it will sell its oil to China.

(more…)

The importance of strategic metals to the U.S. economy came into sharp focus last November when China cut off Japan’s rare earth metals supply over a territorial dispute and Japan immediately backed down. Since then, Americans have learned that the majority of rare earth deposits are in China, accounting for 97% of world production.

China’s action against Japan also exposed a more threatening strategy in the works‐‐ to create a two-tiered price structure with China’s manufacturers receiving rare earths at significantly lower costs than the rest of the world. Prices outside China are now 20 times what they were 2 years ago and 40% higher than inside China.

Is America confronting a situation similar to the 1970s OPEC oil embargo? No, the current situation is actually far worse. Deng Xiaoping famously noted 30 years ago that “the Mideast has oil, China has rare earths”. What he didn’t say was unlike the Mideast, China also has the means to manufacture and distribute globally every product that requires rare earths, which today includes automobiles, computers, cell phones, fluorescent lights, much of our military equipment and nearly every green technology‐electric cars, wind turbines, fuel cells, solar panels, etc. This is precisely what makes the current situation so dangerous to the long term prospects for the U.S. economy and American jobs. A two‐tiered price structure could make it impossible for American manufacturers to compete with China in the 21st Century.

A constant refrain from economists and politicians is that American innovation is our way out of the current financial dilemma. Breakthrough U.S. discoveries in the past have created whole industries such as automobiles, commercial flight and computers, generating millions of jobs and national prosperity. But what if we are unable to participate in the next great American discovery simply because we can’t get the necessary raw materials at competitive prices? The millions of jobs would blossom where the materials are available. Today, that is China.

(more…)

There’s an old saying that if you lie down with dogs be prepared to get up with fleas. Apparently if you lie down with environmentalists you should be prepared to get raided by the Feds.

That’s the lesson to be learned from the experience of Gibson Guitars, whose Tennessee-based operations were overrun by armed agents from the Fish and Wildlife Service this week. The agents were looking for wood used in the manufacturing of the company’s legendary six strings. They believe some of it comes from sources not considered environmentally correct.

Gibson’s CEO protested the raid loudly this week, and who can blame him? For years Gibson has worked hand in glove with far left environmental organizations in an effort to make sure their wood comes from “approved” sources. Gibson is a partner in Greenpeace’s “Music Wood” campaign. It was one of the first instrument makers to procure wood that has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), another green group. Gibson’s president sat on the board of Rainforest Alliance.

What has all the consorting with environmentalists gotten Gibson? Government jackboots kicking down doors and bad-mouthing from environmentalists.

And is anyone surprised to find George Soros involved in this saga?

(more…)

Thanks to Ronald Reagan’s legacy and a legal miscalculation by leftist environmentalists, this week a California judge stopped the implementation of California’s Cap and Trade law: better known as Cap and Tax. This is the same type of carbon trading that Al Gore has hawked for years, but failed to get through the most radical Democrat Congress in generations. That’s how bad it was. Of course, that didn’t stop whacked out California from passing a Draconian version of the same job killing scheme.

To add insult to injury, the so called “republican” Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law in 2006. It was opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and most sane taxpayers (admittedly, CA doesn’t have enough of those). The opponents claimed that the law would drive out business to other states and dramatically increase the cost of energy. Energy costs would, of course, be passed on, driving up the cost of everything else-in the midst of the nation’s worst recession.

The voters of California even had an opportunity last year to put the brakes on it at the ballot box with Proposition 23, but the environmental left spent millions fighting the proposition. It wouldn’t even have scrapped the whole law, but only would have suspended the Cap and Tax until state unemployment dropped below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. The proposition was defeated overwhelmingly. Considering our unemployment rate is well over 12% here, the California voters essentially supported assisted economic-suicide of their own state.

It took two forces working together to finally defeat Cap and Tax: a group of radical Lefties and Ronald Reagan to put the brakes on this law.

(more…)

Buried beneath the avalanche of press coverage about the lame-duck Congress, I found a story about President Obama’s mid-December meeting with twenty corporate CEOs. The purpose of this Blair House get-together was to discuss how to jump-start our still-ailing economy. Among other aims, Mr. Obama reiterated his goals to increase employment, end the recession, and double U.S. exports over the next five years.

These are lofty and laudable ambitions. But it seems that Mr. Obama’s regulatory bureaucrats haven’t gotten the memo. For example, consider the counter-productive impact of their efforts on agriculture.

As any shopper knows, food prices this past year have been rising faster than the overall rate of inflation. “Fears of a global food crisis swept the world’s commodity markets as prices for staples such as corn, rice and wheat spiraled after the U.S. government warned of ‘dramatically’ lower supplies,” the Financial Times reported in early October. “There is growing concern among countries about continuing volatility and uncertainty in food markets,” said World Bank president Robert Zoellick later that month. “These concerns have been compounded by recent increases in grain prices.”

Confronting this looming food-supply crisis is the American farmer. His productivity is such that the United States is the world’s largest agricultural exporter, with $108.7 billion in farm products shipped abroad in 2010. Helping him increase the supply of agricultural products is the key to addressing both rising food prices and global shortages. His productivity is also critical to our country’s broader economic recovery.

So, you would think that the administration’s apparatchiks would be doing whatever they can to remove the regulatory impediments that farmers face. But you would be wrong. Consider several ways in which federal regulators are threatening agricultural productivity, both directly and indirectly.

(more…)

I get a sense of the threat we may face, from a Supreme Court influenced by Elena Kagan, in her vow to defer to the political branches of government when interpreting the Constitution. This is a stance now being trumpeted by, e.g., environmental(ist) trade press outlets like E&E News. E&E runs a headline right now: “Kagan stresses deference to Congress, agencies” (subscription required).

That curious turn of phrase is Kagan’s own. It is not one nuanced with, say, a concern for divining legislative intent, but instead is a broad expression of deference to bureaucrats and politicians. Not to the Constitution. This is illuminating.

Taken in context, it is chilling. As Yahoo News writes:

“In her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Elena Kagan vowed to show restraint and deference to Congress and the will of the people if ultimately confirmed to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the court “must recognize limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

“The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution,” Kagan said. “But the time I spent in other branches of the government reminds me that it must always be a modest one — properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives.”

The reporter first conveys the by now de rigueur implication of the attitude of restraint. But presumably in seeking to preempt claims that as someone with an extensive political history she would be an activist justice, Kagan manages to nonetheless betray the feared disregard for the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s role is to apply the Constitution to laws enacted by the legislature, and to how those laws are being executed (or otherwise as the political branches choose to interpret or assert authority). It is the Constitution to which our non-political branch of government the courts, and certainly Supreme Court Justices, must defer.

Not the political branches. Political branches give us, say, Power Grabs. Courts are a check, to apply the Constitution to rein politicians and bureaucrats in.

(more…)

Coinciding with Earth Day, a group of teenagers launched a new program called GreenMyParents, which seeks to “help young people teach their peers and parents how to work together to help the economy, earn money at home, and save the planet through simple, everyday actions.”  Looking for ways to help their families save money while protecting the environment are laudable goals, but I have some concerns.  I don’t want to insult these kids by assuming that they are just puppets of any other organization, but they should be aware of the fact that many will seek to use their organization to advance their agenda.

These kids should be commended for designing a program that relies on persuasion and free choice.  All too often, environmental groups have sought to circumvent public opinion and free choice by appealing to governmental force.  Mandates on personal behavior and restrictions on liberty are not how people should seek to affect change in a democratic society. I hope they will stay focused on their model of persuasion and stay away from politicized issues like cap-and-trade.

While wading into the issue of personal choices, I also hope they will stop and consider some of the trade-offs adults have to make.  It is easy to condemn their parents for wasteful behavior while they are still too young to have to be responsible for things like safeguarding a family.  For instance, in a write-up by the New York Times, it was suggested that the group would advise “washing in cold water, walking or biking to school/work and kicking the bottled-water habit,” as ways to save money and help the environment.  Walking or biking to school might save both money and reduce pollution, but it also exposes children to greater risk of violence or kidnapping.  These are the types of things that responsible adults have to consider.

(more…)

And that’s the point, I guess. Watch this ad for a “clean diesel” car by Audi, and good luck getting this slightly modified version of the Cheap Trick classic “Dream Police” out of your head. I couldn’t get it out with a lobotomy. It’s been playing off and on in my brain since it first aired during the Super Bowl.

But beyond the diddy, I also can’t get the vision of a fascist “green” future out of my head — even if it’s portrayed with a heavy dollop of of “Reno: 911“-style cop-show parody. Good comedy has to have a grain of truth in it to work, and this spot has plenty. It’s not just a peek at a ridiculous future, but a look at our “be green or else” present. An overreaction? Tell that to the chief of America’s Green Police, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who Tweeted:

“Ok .. That ‘green police’ Audi commercial hits home..”

(more…)

It is only a matter of time before Environmentalists and some scientists blame the Haiti earthquake and its massive death toll on Global Warming. They have already laid the groundwork with this Sept 2009 article in the UK Guardian newspaper. According to Professor Bill McGuire of University College London an upcoming scientific conference would show how “global warming threatens the planet in a new and unexpected way – by triggering earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches and volcanic eruptions.” Despite these claims the earthquake in Haiti was not caused by Global Warming.

And the death and destruction was not because Haitians had made a pact with the devil.

The reason so many people died in Haiti is because its people live in poorly built houses and have not benefited from development which brings with it cities and houses which can withstand earthquakes.

But guess who are the most active opponents of cities and modern concrete housing?

(more…)