Despite an anemic economic recovery and an increasingly antagonistic Iran, President Obama decided to kill the Keystone XL pipeline. Creating thousands of jobs and securing American access to oil, the much-discussed Keystone project would transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada to American refiners in Oklahoma and Texas.

For years the pipeline was an innocuous project slowly making its way through the convoluted federal approval process. After receiving all but one permit, radical environmentalist—feeling affronted two years into the Obama Administration—set their sights on the soon-to-be approved Keystone pipeline. What should have been a non-controversial construction project became anything but. Before becoming the object of environmentalist scorn, the State Department approved and advocated for the nearly identical Canadian-American pipeline in 2009, arguing:

… the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer.

Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply. Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, environmentalists threatened to sit out the 2012 election if President Obama approved the pipeline. Organizing daily protests outside the White House, environmentalists effectively turned a non-political issue into one of the most divisive topics of 2011.

(more…)

Let’s face it – there are few things more annoying than Science.  We conservatives need to take a firm stand against Science in all its forms.  In fact, Science sucks.

But let’s not confuse “Science” with “science.”  The regular, boring, old lower-case “science” has to do with applying the scientific method to observed phenomena in order to expand our knowledge of the universe.  It requires a rigorous analysis of empirical evidence and the testing of hypotheses without preconceived, concrete, politicized notions of what the truth must be.  In contrast, “Science” is a ration of pseudo-plausible horseshit asserted by liberals who try to occupy the intellectual high ground and then shut you up by basically saying you are too dumb to express an opinion.

Liberal “Science” is a bludgeon that superficially looks like what we understand to be science, but bears no more than a casual relationship to it.  It is a way of trying to end the debate before it begins – or, more precisely, before you begin.  That leaves the liberals’ nonsense as the first and last word on the subject.  And then they win.

It’s a nice trick – if you let them get away with it.  So don’t.

Call them Scientistians – liberal doofs who try to wrap themselves in the white lab coat of objective reason for only as long as it supports their particular pinko policy prescription du jour.

(more…)

From ClimateWire (subscription required):

Nuclear operators announce offset purchase (07/06/2011)

NEW YORK — The operator of two upstate New York nuclear power plants yesterday announced a purchase of carbon offsets in the state.Entergy Corp., a power generator in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and elsewhere, says it has completed the purchase of slightly less than 35,000 tons’ worth of greenhouse gas emission reduction credits certified by the nonprofit American Carbon Registry (ACR).

The company runs the controversial Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City along with the James A. Fitzpatrick nuclear power plant on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario [NB: to clarify this emphasis, the utility actually gets less than half its production from nuclear, with half coming from gas and coal].

The company says it bought the offset credits to boost its environmental credentials, using money from its designated environmental initiatives fund….

“We first set up this environmental initiatives fund back in 2001. We funded it at a level of about $5 million a year for a …[total of] $20 million…” (emphases added)

So. $20 million taken out of the hides of ratepayers, and that means the economy, in a posturing won’t you please love me scheme cooked up with the greens — that is, agreed by no one who actually paid the tab — for ‘green’ posing.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg that is already being inflicted on the economy, before Obama’s ‘other ways to skin that cat’ kick in. Incidentally, Entergy, like AEP, and Duke Energy, Exelon and some other utilities desirous of a state-managed wealth transfer are behind the agenda to mandate ever more of this, but designed (by them) to line their pockets instead of just paying for their posing.

So, keep admitting these things, my rent-seeking crony capitalist friends. Keep talking.

(more…)

Over the weekend, news broke that the White House intends to push for fuel efficiency standards that would require cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to average 56.2 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2025.

The latest effort at establishing highly green regulation would add about $2,400 to the cost of each new vehicle sold in the U.S., a cost that could have an effect on the overall auto market, and therefore employment numbers.

Environmentalists seem to be greeting the news positively.  However, consumers might have a different view.  Setting aside that few new car buyers are likely to want to have to pay an extra $2,400 for their car or light truck, they may find their vehicle choice rather limited by virtue of the White House’s preferred number.

According to the federal government’s own fueleconomy.gov website, a grand total of three cars currently on the market in the U.S. get 56.2 miles to the gallon or better.  They are the Nissan Leaf, and two varieties of Smart car.  The famed green Toyota Prius is a dirty polluter by this standard. So would be 2009 and 2010’s green cars of the year.

Is the White House really serious about this number, or is this a negotiating stance assumed at the outset, aimed at enabling the White House to push automakers to accept the highest efficiency standard that they are apparently willing to concede (46.7 mpg)?

(more…)

Some people think that marriage is the most absurd institution ever invented by man. But those that think so are ignoring what is truly the most idiotic, paradoxically absurd practice in all of human history: government. Yeah, yeah, necessary evil and all, but still there is nothing that exemplifies human folly better than politics and Washington State has uncorked a doozie for us.

From coast to coast and all over the world liberals are mindlessly going gaga for green. Anything that smacks of greenism is, with religious fervor, promoted and revered. The electric automobile, for instance, is one of the left’s dream modes of transportation. Pursuant to that dreamy green dream, liberals have made sure that all sort of tax breaks are lavished upon those citizens who dutifully jump up to their necks into the unprofitable and technologically untested world of electric cars. Washington State is no exception to this mania.

… and hilarity ensues.

The Associated Press is even a bit snarky about the whole mess.

After years of urging residents to buy fuel-efficient cars and giving them tax breaks to do it, Washington state lawmakers are considering a measure to charge them a $100 annual fee — what would be the nation’s first electric car fee.

Yes, that’s right. After giving them tax breaks to waste their money on electric cars, now Washington State wants to raise new taxes on those very same buyers. If that isn’t a bait and switch, what is?

(more…)

When movie director James Cameron descended upon the Athabasca oil sands a while back, Albertans were subjected to the predictable but nonetheless aggravating media blitz of misinformation that occurs when a mega-star chooses a cause to elevate.

The elevation came in the form of a supercilious warning to put the brakes on the world’s second largest proved oil reserve. It could, he feared, become a curse if not properly managed. This revelation came upon reflection via a government sponsored helicopter tour and a token chat with a group of not-so disenfranchised First Nations peoples in the area. (In 2009, oil sands companies contracted more than $890 million for goods and services from Aboriginal owned businesses and employed 1600 Aboriginals in permanent jobs).

And with that, Mr. Cameron and the media were able to close the case on the oil sands, as Mr. Cameron purportedly had to jet. It’s not Mr. Cameron’s fault, completely. The oil complex is just that – complex. It’s not the kind of business one just picks up as a hobby horse. Sure, Cameron can regurgitate the technical terminology if he likes. It would be difficult for a techno-geek of titanic proportions to resist a sexy term like steam gravity assisted drainage (SAGD).

Here is where I suggest “putting the brakes on.” Perhaps a moratorium on incendiary statements by celebutantes or politicians a-la-Pelosi who are not able to, because of their lack of training, do the type of deep comprehensive assessment required for these matters.

(more…)

As we mentioned in our last article, the prevalence of the Triple Bottom Line philosophy is signaling a changing paradigm, a time of transformation. Our question, then, is this: What exactly are we transforming into?  The knee-jerk answer might be that we are transforming from a capitalist system to a socialist system. However, the widespread adoption of 3BL belies such a simple answer. Socialism, with its complete government control of production, is hardly desirable for private business interests. American corporations are willingly embracing 3BL without even a government mandate. There is something deeper going on than simply a tug of war between two economic systems, and we are seeking to explore just what that may be.

Our first clues as to where we are going lay in the past, with the origin of the term “Triple Bottom Line.” For that we can credit John Elkington (his personal website and blog is here), who introduced the public to the term for the first time in his 1997 publication Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Elkington is a longtime advocate for corporate environmental and social awareness, having cofounded the business development consulting firm SustainAbility in 1987. In fact, we may consider him a “founder” of corporate sustainability, having been called a “dean of the corporate responsibility movement for three decades” by BusinessWeek.  Elkington currently serves as the Executive Chairman of the sustainability think tank Volans, which he helped found in 2008. His work with Volans is what provides a real glimpse into the end game of 3BL, in a concept termed “The Phoenix Economy.”

The Phoenix Economy is a concept professing that the failure of an existing economic system will leave a void and an opportunity for a new system to take its place.  (The term “phoenix” refers to the bird of that name which, in ancient mythology, dies in a self-created fire and is then reincarnated from the ashes.)  Old paradigms and established principles are replaced by a new way of approaching economics — and indeed the culture. Elkington recognizes this as an opportunity to establish a new paradigm based on 3BL philosophy. Global sustainability is the principle by which the economic and social culture will be driven. The Volans website provides a concise explanation of the Phoenix Economy.

According to Volans:

From the ashes of the downturn, a new economy is self-assembling—focused on providing social and environmental solutions, where markets and governments have failed.

(more…)

As the Central Illinois 9/12 Project has briefly written about in the past, one form of banking in which Shorebank is engaged is microfinance, especially in foreign countries. As this is not a type of finance that is well known to the general public, we will discuss briefly what microfinancing is, how it is used in conjunction with green initiatives and Sharia law, and how Shorebank is using this type of financing in their banking processes.

The Consultive Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) defines microfinance as simply “the  supply of loans, savings, and other basic financial services to the poor.”  These loans are generally relatively small, but carry with them a high interest rate due to costs incurred by defaulting on loans and the transaction costs that are disproportionate to the size of the loan.  (The cost of manpower and other factors needed to make the loan are the same regardless of the size of the loan – thus for smaller loans, the  percentage of these costs in relation to the amount of the loan is greater.)  Specifically, the microfinancing industry enables people to receive loans when they would not otherwise be able to do so, whether due to poverty, lack of a bank account, inability to provide collateral, and/or inability to prove employment. In 2007, there were 873 microfinance institutions worldwide serving more than 133 million loan recipients.

Microfinance was initially, and oftentimes still is, aimed at providing loans and opportunities to those who otherwise may not have the funds to get a business off of the ground, but microfinance is sometimes tied into other things such as green initiatives. Shorebank, a community development bank whose practices the Central Illinois 912 Project has highlighted before, is a partner in an eco entrepreneurship through a project called “Yurtcozy.” This initiative allows individuals to “offset their carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits which enable a microfinance loan recipient to receive funding  for things such as energy efficient appliances and solar lighting. It may also finance education on clean energy for microfianance recipients and partnerships in green initiatives. Yurtcozy asserts that if the carbon credit purchases were made for all microfinance loan recipients worldwide, then loan recipients could decrease their carbon emissions by 260 million tons, and thirty percent of their income would be unlocked.

One of Shorebank’s first forays into microfinance was through the establishment of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983. Grameen Bank was founded by Mohammed Yumus, a Noble Peace Prize Recipient in 2006 and 2009 recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Obama. Yumus’ description of the features of Grameencredit includes stating that “credit is a right,” and it’s built on “trust” (i.e., social justice in banking.)

(more…)

If you ask people on the street (outside of Chicago) if they have ever heard of ShoreBank, the answer would likely be “no.” While ShoreBank isn’t a Goldman Sachs, a Bank of America, or a JP Morgan, to the Progressives, this “little” bank is in many ways every bit as big and important as the aforementioned “large banks.”

Why?

One of the core components of President Obama’s fundamental change for America is to create clean energy jobs, also known as “green jobs”.  During his campaign and as recently as his State of the Union Address, President Obama continues to talk about the need “green” jobs. In fact, during his State of the Union 2010 speech, the President stated, “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities –  and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. “

In a speech given by the President in Virginia on Dec. 15, 2009, he said, “The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient — installing new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment — is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions.”

In the  stimulus package last year, President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his plan for building a new green-based economy.

(more…)

Since its founding, ShoreBank has been a progressive-minded bank focused on community development. However, it soon adopted the progressive commitment to environmentalism after founders Ron Grzywinski and Mary Houghton were approached in 1993 by Ecotrust, an environmentally-conscious firm focusing on debt for nature swaps in rainforest countries as well as environmental banking in the Pacific Northwest. The partnership of the two firms led to the establishment of ShoreTrust (now ShoreBank Enterprise Pacific) which provided financing, marketing and management assistance to small businesses in the Pacific coastal rain forest area. From there, the rest of the ShoreBank family eventually followed in adopting the green agenda.

For the entire story chronicling the founding of the bank and its move towards its environmental commitment, you may read Alka Srivastva’s dissertation for Case Western Reserve University here>>>.

From there, it did not take long for ShoreBank to incorporate environmentalism into its mission and formalize its commitment to the green agenda. In 1999, ShoreBank’s board of directors adopted a new conservation and development policy requiring the bank itself to reduce its waste and also encourage its customers to adopt more sustainable practices. The concept of environmental health then assumed its place alongside the goals of community development and profitability to form the “Triple Bottom Line” slogan that the company champions today. As evidence of its own commitment, ShoreBank has even addressed its own carbon emissions by purchasing offsets for 450 metric tons of C02 to offset emissions through 2010.

ShoreBank’s environmental advocacy is now prevalent throughout its dealings, both  in how it relates to its domestic banking customers, and in its international development objectives.

(more…)