Planet Gore on National Review Online

Planet Gore on National Review Online http://planetgore.nationalreview.com Planet Gore is National Review Online’s “global warming” blog, on which a team of experts report and comment on the myriad scientific and economic issues surrounding the contentious global warming debate. This blog is one of the web’s top stops for informed news and views about climate change, alternative energy, environmental activism, and of course, Al Gore’s carbon footprint. en-us © National Review Online 2009. All Rights Reserved webmaster@nationalreview.com (NRO Webmaster) Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:20:20 -0500 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:20:20 -0500 NRO RSS Generator v1.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 5 http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/nro_rsslogo.jpg Planet Gore on National Review Online http://planetgore.nationalreview.com 144 80 National Review Online Obama, Car-Market Clairvoyant -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWRhNzcwNDc2YzFlOGJhMTAwNzg1ZDAzNjQ1YTAwZTU= Detroit -- In rolling out its plan for the future of Chrysler on Wednesday, Fiat executives dutifully stressed that the “New Chrysler” would be more fuel efficient -- hailing the tiny, 40 mpg, Euro-transplant Fiat 500 as a marquee car. After all, a precondition for Fiat’s no-money-down takeover of the ailing automaker was that it conform to President Obama’s prophecy for the auto industry. “Fiat has demonstrated that it can build the clean, fuel-efficient cars that are the future of the industry,” <a href="http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:8wLnqqLRXgYJ:scoop.chrysler.com/13500/chrysler/president-obamas-remarks-regarding-chrysler%E2%80%99s-restructuring/+obama+and+chrysler+and+fiat+and+fuel-efficient+car&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">announced</a> the soothsayer-in-chief last April, upon handing Chrysler’s keys to the Italians. Coincidentally, October sales figures came out the same day this week that Fiat laid out its Chrysler plan, and greens were cheered by the fact that hybrid sales climbed to 2.9 percent of market share -- nearly where they were <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzlhMWIzZDFiNjE3YmUyZWUxNzZkMzFmZmVjYTBlYTk=">two summers ago</a> when gas prices hit $4 a gallon. But a closer look at the numbers raises more questions about whether more expensive hybrids and diesels will ever be more than a niche U.S. market -- rather than the norm predicted by the president (a prediction mandated by his 35.5 mpg requirements by 2015). Dozens of new hybrid entries have flooded the market in the last two years, but as the Toyota Prius goes -- so goes the hybrid market. The Prius (sales up 14 percent last month) still dominates the sector with a 55 percent market share. Both Honda (the Insight) and Ford (Fusion Hybrid) have brought impressive entries to market this year, wallpapering the airwaves with green marketing. Both products have been a disappointment. The Prius outsells the Insight by an 8:1 margin. “Honda’s Insight is a sales dud,” <a href="http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/hybrid-and-vw-diesel-sales-analysis-prius-outsells-insight-8-to-1-jetta-tdi-4-to-1/">writes</a> Paul Niedermeyer of Green Car Congress, “only modestly improving on last year’s Civic hybrid numbers. The Civic Hybrid (down 85 percent) is becoming irrelevant.” For its part, the Fusion Hybrid -- targeted at Toyota’s mid-size Camry Hybrid -- only seems to be stealing Camry sales rather than expanding the market. Camry Hybrid sales were down a staggering 50 percent in October. Furthermore, the Fusion seems to be stealing from its own nest as its SUV cousin -- the Ford Escape Hybrid -- saw sales drop 53 percent. All of this continues to raise “the question as to whether Ford’s hybrid program is anything other than a PR/EPA/Govt. fleet sales gambit, with volumes limited purposely because Ford’s hybrid costs likely exceed incremental revenue,” concludes Niedermeyere. It also raises the question as to whether President Obama has any idea what he’s talking about. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWRhNzcwNDc2YzFlOGJhMTAwNzg1ZDAzNjQ1YTAwZTU= Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:00:25 -0400 An Ill Wind -- By: Drew Thornley webmaster@nationalreview.com (Drew Thornley) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzc5OTc0MzJjNjZhOTEwMDMwZWUxMmRlY2EyZjVmZmM= Apparently, I'm not the only one who has <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI4MzFhNGI0YzNmYzQ2MmUzYWE3NGUzNGVjYzcyMzI=">qualms</a> about a plan to pay $1.5 billion for Chinese wind turbines to go up in West Texas. Sen. Chuck Schumer <a href="http://www.newsrunner.com/display-article/?eUrl=http%3A%2F%2Frochesterhomepage.net%2Fcontent%2Ffulltext%2F%3Fcid%3D132512&eSrc=WROC+8+-+Rochester+NY&eTitle=Texas+Wind+Farm+Leaves+Sen.+Schumer+Steamed">isn't a happy camper</a>. <a href="https://mail.nationalreview.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=4f15ce10a7214ed2ba053b9d503471a7&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newsrunner.com%2fdisplay-article%2f%3feUrl%3dhttp%253A%252F%252Frochesterhomepage.net%252Fcontent%252Ffulltext%252F%253Fcid%253D132512%26eSrc%3dWROC%2b8%2b-%2bRochester%2bNY%26eTitle%3dTexas%2bWind%2bFarm%2bLeaves%2bSen.%2bSchumer%2bSteamed" target="_blank"></a> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzc5OTc0MzJjNjZhOTEwMDMwZWUxMmRlY2EyZjVmZmM= Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:00:46 -0400 Op-Ed of the Day -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjlkMTkwZjgyYzM5MzUxNmM4OGExNDkwZjA3NjIyY2E= Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, writes in today's Washington Post: <blockquote> Lower-carbon future? Try natural gas. The public debate on climate change can seem beguilingly simple: alternative fuels good; fossil fuels bad. If we burn less of the latter and use more of the former, the argument goes, we will be well on our way to a lower-carbon future. But shaping our energy future will be more complex than simply using less fossil fuel and more alternatives. Getting to a lower-carbon world while also providing the increasing energy needed to power a growing economy requires a more nuanced approach. Renewable energy sources -- wind, solar, biofuels -- have an important role, and BP, the energy company I head, is investing significantly in all. Still, the shift to alternatives can't happen overnight. Global energy needs and the sheer scale of our business make this impossible. The issue, then, is not a choice between fossil fuels and alternatives but, rather, what combination can achieve the fastest carbon reduction at the lowest possible cost using available technology? Answering that question requires recognizing that not all fossil fuels are created environmentally equal. We can reduce carbon emissions significantly if we burn cleaner, less-carbon-intensive fossil fuels while also moving in a deliberate and affordable way toward alternatives and increased efficiency. Fortunately, there is a feasible path toward this goal. Seriously tackling carbon dioxide levels over the next two decades will require addressing the use of electricity -- and coal in particular. Electricity generation produces 41 percent of the CO2 the United States emits, the largest single source. Coal generates half of all U.S. electricity, but 80 percent of the resulting carbon. Coal has to be cleaned up or replaced. Is there a path to cleaner coal? In theory, yes: It's called carbon capture and storage (CCS), which essentially involves reverse-engineering a gas field, putting the carbon back in the ground rather than taking it out. (BP is a major investor in demonstration projects to test CCS at scale.) With government support, large-scale implementation of CCS could be achievable by roughly 2020. But even then, substantial costs will be associated with its use. What about nuclear power? All-out nuclearization, a la France, would be costly and difficult to achieve in the United States, and the environmental payoff would be slow. I don't think we can afford to wait. Until renewables gain a sizable share of the power sector, CCS becomes available, and nuclear energy ramps up, the only realistic option is increasing use of natural gas. Gas is far and away the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, generating at least 50 percent less carbon per kilowatt hour than coal, and almost zero sulfur oxides, mercury and particulate ash. And because gas-fired power stations can be easily switched on and off (unlike those fired by coal), it is the ideal complement to intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504329_pf.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjlkMTkwZjgyYzM5MzUxNmM4OGExNDkwZjA3NjIyY2E= Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:15:17 -0400 Headline of the Day -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWRmMzM4ODkyOTE1Zjc3NTZhMzAwMzk4NGMzNDczODg= Times Online: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6905356.ece">All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say</a> An excerpt: <blockquote> A world treaty on climate change will be delayed by up to a year and is likely to be watered down because countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions are refusing to commit to legally binding reductions. British officials preparing for next month’s UN summit in Copenhagen said the best that could be hoped for was that national leaders would make “political agreements” on emission cuts and payments to help poor countries to adapt to climate change. These agreements would be non-binding, however, and could later be revised or rescinded by national parliaments. At pre-summit talks in Barcelona, the officials said the final agreement would not emerge until at least six months after the Copenhagen summit, which ends on December 17. They said they hoped another meeting would be convened by next December to allow leaders to sign the treaty. The admission that no treaty will be signed at Copenhagen marks the failure of the process agreed at a UN meeting in Bali in December 2007, when industrialised countries agreed to deliver a binding climate-change agreement within two years. The delay has angered developing countries, which say they are already suffering from man-made climate change. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWRmMzM4ODkyOTE1Zjc3NTZhMzAwMzk4NGMzNDczODg= Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:00:17 -0400 Conservatism and Conservation -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E4M2E2MTAyNjRhYTI0MzdmMjg1NWI3YzhlODk4Y2E= Historian Paul Johnson, writing in <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1116/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events.html">Forbes</a>: <blockquote> People say that the election of Barack Obama and his pursuit of radical measures -- from state-run health care to unilateral nuclear disarmament -- marks the end of American conservatism. One Jeremiah, Sam Tanenhaus, has produced a predictable book, The Death of Conservatism. I do not sympathize with such defeatism. To begin with, conservatism is protean. One kind was neatly summed up by that bluff old Victorian the Duke of Cambridge: "It is said I am against change. I am not against change. I am in favor of change in the right circumstances. And those circumstances are when it can no longer be resisted." Then there are reactionaries. Margaret Thatcher is a good example. She did not agree with Winston Churchill's principle that Labour's nationalization program, introduced in the postwar period of 1945-51, could not be reversed. She simply reversed the program, privatizing British Airways, steel, water, electricity, gas and other industries. There are also romantic conservatives. These are the intellectual descendants of Edmund Burke, who see their views as creative and imaginative. They are quite happy to embark on change if it has the positive purpose of underpinning the security and stability of society. The outstanding recent American example of this is William F. Buckley, who left behind a school of his own, as well as his magazine, National Review. A fourth category is made up of economists, ranging from Milton Friedman to Friedrich Hayek, who identify conservatism with capitalism. They cannot be opposed to change as such, for the chief source of change is capitalism itself -- and never more so than today. The birth of industrial capitalism in the late 18th century was the biggest single upheaval in history. Moreover, it was merely the first in a series of technological transformations that continue at an accelerating pace. One has only to list these first four varieties of conservatism to realize that there is no possibility of its death. The instinct to resist change, to recover the past or to romanticize it are part of human nature and will always find political expression. Capitalism is merely a term for the investment of money in wealth creation. Conservatism, indeed, is so protean that one of its most powerful expressions is now found with the radical left. The noisiest single lobby in the world today is the Climate Change/Global Warming/Green alliance, of which the supposedly liberal President Obama is an enthusiastic member and which has the support of left-wing ideologues all over the world. This is essentially a reactionary movement, for its aim is to confine and even reverse capitalism, returning to a precapitalist arcadia in which woods and forests expand, the sea is no longer harvested, energy is strictly rationed and controls on human activity, especially wealth and job creation, are universal. It's no accident that this movement began as "conservation," an old form of resistance to change, and got its first impetus from the publication of Rachel Carson's romantic book The Sea Around Us. This form of conservatism has a new order of priorities, in which "preserving the planet" comes before the interests of mankind. Indeed, many of its supporters would prefer a pristine world in which Homo sapiens remained primitive or did not exist at all. Their faith, like most forms of political absolutism, is a substitute for genuine religion. In fact it is, in one sense, a crude form of religion -- pantheism, the worship of the Earth and all its manifestations. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1116/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E4M2E2MTAyNjRhYTI0MzdmMjg1NWI3YzhlODk4Y2E= Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:30:04 -0400 Gamecock Gamesmanship, Uncloaked -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RmMTYzNTkzMWIwY2VjZjdhOWY4NDgyOWI3YTk0MjM= Yesterday, at the Washington Times' day-long confab on climate policy -- featuring Sen. Inhofe, Rep. Markey and Czech Pres. Vaclav Klaus -- I was part of a panel which was asked by moderator Jeff Birnbaum to share our thoughts about Sens. Kerry and Graham's claim to be developing a way to "yes" on a climate bill, in apparent hopes of snatching defeat from the jaws of our looming victory. I responded in part by noting that Sen. Graham doesn't even seem to know what this loosey-goosey "framework" is, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html">gushing</a> as he does in the New York Times with Sen., Kerry about a critical component of it being something that sounds like cap-and-trade -- then having his Washington and South Carolina staffs, as well as outside consultants tell voters and the media that he doesn't support cap-and-trade, and never will. The latter comes from people who have called the office, and from locals -- as you'll read in the link below. Given such confusion, this sounds like something to stay away from until Sen. Graham either knows, or is willing to admit, what it is he's talking about. "<a href="http://cei.org/news-release/2009/11/04/us-chamber-caves-special-interests-energy-rationing-legislation">Pulling a Chamber</a>," and latching onto the vague notion (under immense pressure from large member companies and/or in desperate DC-style hope) that members of Congress won't snub you, even while on bended knee at fundraisers, for daring to be obstructionist -- others would call it having a survival instinct -- is of extremely curious appeal. Worse, however, the more the locals dig into <a href="http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/11/05/more-on-lindsey-grahams-left-leaning-bedfellows/">and tell us about</a> Graham's undertaking, the less there is to like. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2RmMTYzNTkzMWIwY2VjZjdhOWY4NDgyOWI3YTk0MjM= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:00:55 -0400 Expect a Boxer Rebellion -- By: Patrick J. Michaels webmaster@nationalreview.com (Patrick J. Michaels) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmVkZGJkZDE4MWNiNTJmYzY1Mzc1YTA4OTI3ODNiOGY= When it comes to climate change legislation, it's hard to figure what the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer could possibly be thinking. Less than 48 hours after citizens in New Jersey and Virginia turned around the last year's support of President Obama and his policies by a whopping 25 percent, Boxer rammed a cap-and-tax bill through her committee that is even worse than the one passed by the House last June. That House bill provoked the first angry "town hall" meetings -- everyone remembers them as being about health care, but they really started in response to climate legislation -- that culminated in Tuesday's landslides. How can Boxer not realize that forcing this bill out of committee is an even bigger slap against taxpayers and energy consumers? If anything, she has guaranteed the measure's failure on the Senate floor, where any chance that there will be 60 votes required to close debate has just evaporated. By doing this, she has taken the regulation of carbon dioxide away from the people's representatives and placed it in the hands of the unelected Environmental Protection Agency, which will be given its marching orders by climate czar Carol Browner. This will only incite more anger that government by the people is rapidly becoming government by czars. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmVkZGJkZDE4MWNiNTJmYzY1Mzc1YTA4OTI3ODNiOGY= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:45:27 -0400 Don't Believe the Hype -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQ2ZTBhMTM2ZGY4NDM0YjhmMGE2ZTliNGYxNzRlMTQ= Only if the world leaders in Copenhagen are complete morons will they believe that today's committee vote <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A42WB20091105">means anything</a>: <blockquote> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A controversial climate change bill cleared its first hurdle in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, allowing President <a title="Full coverage of President Barack Obama" href="http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama">Barack Obama</a> to tout progress in the run-up to next month's global warming talks in Copenhagen. Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ignored a Republican boycott and used their majority to approve the legislation that would require U.S. industry to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels. "I think this is a great signal for Copenhagen that there's a will to do what it takes to advance this issue," committee Chairman Barbara Boxer told reporters after her panel voted. The committee vote also came as international negotiators held a contentious climate change meeting in Barcelona, their final session before the Copenhagen summit starts December 7. But Democrats are likely to fall far short of their goal of passing legislation in the full Senate before Copenhagen as Boxer's bill lacks enough support for full approval. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQ2ZTBhMTM2ZGY4NDM0YjhmMGE2ZTliNGYxNzRlMTQ= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:00:58 -0400 Give Us $7B or We Kill the Trees -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjhlZGI4YTQ0ODRhYTAxZDc3ZDgzZjllOWJjYzFkY2Q= I think this is the sequel to the next Austin Powers movie . . . New Scientist: <a href="ECUADOR's unprecedented offer to accept payment for not extracting oil from beneath the Amazon rainforest is beginning to draw interest. The move could usher in a new way to both combat climate change and prevent damage to ecologically diverse and sensitive regions.">Pay us oil money, or the rainforest gets it</a> An excerpt: <blockquote> ECUADOR's unprecedented offer to accept payment for not extracting oil from beneath the Amazon rainforest is beginning to draw interest. The move could usher in a new way to both combat climate change and prevent damage to ecologically diverse and sensitive regions. More than two years ago, <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/WorldResources/yasuni-itt-initiative-presentation" target="nsarticle">Ecuador said it would abandon</a> plans for drilling in Yasuni National Park, one of the few pristine regions of Amazon rainforest remaining, if it was paid half of the $7 billion that it expected to earn from tapping the oilfield. "This was a major turning point in the 'drill, drill, drill' mentality," says Matt Finer, an ecologist with <a href="http://www.saveamericasforests.org/" target="nsarticle">Save America's Forests</a>, an environmental group based in Washington DC, which released its analysis of the initiative this week (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00587.x" target="nsarticle">Biotropica, DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00587.x</a>). <div class="quotebx bxbg"> <div class="quoteopen"> <div class="quoteclose"> <div class="quotebody lowlight" style="padding-left: 30px;">Ecuador said it would not drill if it was paid half of what it expected to earn from the oilfield</div> </div> </div> </div> No country has taken up Ecuador's offer so far, but Finer says there has been "increasing chatter" that Germany will pay about 20 per cent of the total. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjhlZGI4YTQ0ODRhYTAxZDc3ZDgzZjllOWJjYzFkY2Q= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:00:41 -0400 Down on the Farm -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDc5MmI4MWIwYjk2NDcyZDFmZjgwZDE4NmQwY2Q2N2Q= To get an idea of the tomfoolery that lies ahead with Waxman-Markey/Kerry Boxer climate-change legislation, take a look at the “agricultural title” now being crafted by Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow. “Stabenow has been working for about 18 months on a farms and forests bill,” reports CQ Today. “It will probably be merged with broader climate change legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and establish a market for trading government-issued pollution allowances.” Cap-and-trade in Europe has foundered since the trading of dubious “emissions credits” has eclipsed any serious effort in reducing carbon emissions. Western European countries have earned “credits” from closing antiquated industries in Eastern European or planting trees in Rwanda. There are even stories about factories built in China solely for the purpose of closing them down and selling the “emissions credits” to European nations. We may be about to see worse. Stabenow’s idea is to marry the interests of two of her constituents -- limping Rust Belt industries and ailing farmers -- into one big subsidy package. The farmers will earn emissions credits by not cutting down trees, not planting crops and maybe diapering cows. There is even talk of urban farming: “We have a lot of excess land in Detroit and Flint,” Stabenow told CQ Today. “We could develop farms and forestation that would be positive for the city.” “Stabenow envisions Michigan cashing in on an offset program,” says the report -- and who wouldn’t? “Depending upon how the program is structured, it could be cheaper for industrial polluters to purchase offsets than the government-issued emissions allowances.” With various government programs encouraging farmers both to grow and not grow crops and with climate legislation rewarding them for putting more land under cultivation and then taking it out again, the whole thing could turn into one vast pipeline of federal subsidies to Michigan and every other agricultural state. No wonder even skeptics such as Montana Democrat Max Baucus are starting to come around: <blockquote> Baucus said that developing a farm title with generous offset provisions for farmers may not, on its own, be enough to win his support for the bill. “But it’s important,” he said. “Everything helps.” </blockquote> So here’s a better idea. Why don’t we reward farmers not to produce the ethanol that now consumes 30 percent of the nation’s corn crop? Ethanol is doing absolutely nothing to reduce oil imports, probably loses energy as far as anyone can tell, drives up food prices, and actually increases carbon emissions by throwing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere that otherwise would have remained in the soil or the food chain for years or decades. So now we’d have a program that would pay farmers to stop causing environmental damage by allowing industries to escape carbon caps by encouraging farmers to put more land under cultivation where they would be paid not grow crops . . . well, we’ll let Senator Stabenow figure it all out. <div>-- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDc5MmI4MWIwYjk2NDcyZDFmZjgwZDE4NmQwY2Q2N2Q= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:00:12 -0400 The Scoundrel's False Refuge of 'Certainty' -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThhMTVkNTdiMGU0MzgwZGU4ZWMzNGIyZDdjZmM5ODI= I have a <a href="http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2538">piece</a> in Energy Tribune that I decided to post after encountering a particular energy lobbyist who, like many, has spent too much time in Washington while at the same time seeming to have just ambled out of the Greyhound station on First Street. It is subtly titled, "The Four Horsemen of Cap-and-Trade defeatism: There's only one 'Certainty.'" Some who have followed business-group intrigue in recent days may find the thought exercise worthwhile. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThhMTVkNTdiMGU0MzgwZGU4ZWMzNGIyZDdjZmM5ODI= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:30:38 -0400 Re: Tastes Like Chicken, Only Cuddlier -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhlMjU0YTU3YzI0NDBhNTUyMmZlNjU5YjJjNjYxYjM= <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/05/eat-your-pets-save-the-planet/">Washington Times editorial today</a>: <blockquote> Eat your pets, save the planet </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhlMjU0YTU3YzI0NDBhNTUyMmZlNjU5YjJjNjYxYjM= Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:00:22 -0400 Analyzing Cash-for-Clunkers -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk5Y2IxZTQ3Y2I3MjEwMDE4YTdmYTZkNmM2MThkMmU= <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers;_ylt=AqxpRJJH.slscbbCFqw4.R6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM2dG50b2lhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTA0L3VzX2Nhc2hfZm9yX2NsdW5rZXJzBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2FwaW1wYWN0Y2x1bg--">So much for the environmental benefits of the program</a>: <blockquote> WASHINGTON -- The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by The Associated Press. The single most common swap -- which occurred more than 8,200 times -- involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers. Owners of thousands more large old Chevrolet and Dodge pickups bought new Silverado and Ram trucks, also with only barely improved mileage in the middle teens, according to AP's analysis of sales of $15.2 billion worth of vehicles at nearly 19,000 car dealerships in every state. Those deals helped the Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado -- along with Ford's Escape midsize SUV -- climb into the Top 10 most-popular vehicles purchased with the government rebates. The most common truck-for-truck and truck-for-SUV deals totaled at least $911 million. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk5Y2IxZTQ3Y2I3MjEwMDE4YTdmYTZkNmM2MThkMmU= Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:30:25 -0400 Hilarity from Canada -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWViYTliZWFhZTY3YWEzYmU4NmQyMGU0MDhjMDBmNmE= A very funny spoof video on global warming from our friends in the warming north: <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ehMs9MHo-W4&feature" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ehMs9MHo-W4&feature"></embed> </object> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWViYTliZWFhZTY3YWEzYmU4NmQyMGU0MDhjMDBmNmE= Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:55:50 -0400 Winds of Change in Oregon -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYwZGZiODFhMTY0Mzk4NTBmOWQwZjIxNzhmYjQxZmQ= Reader A.F. sends a follow up to <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjAwYTUwYWUxMzIxMzkzNmQ5YmVmMmZlNzJmMWIyYzU=">this post </a>on out of control alternative-energy spending in Oregogn. The <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/oregon_curbs_controversial_tax.html">Oregonian</a>: <blockquote> Oregon energy officials released new rules Tuesday aimed at curbing a controversial state program that grants lucrative tax subsidies for wind, solar and other renewable power plants. The changes are intended to rein in some of the runaway costs of the program by making it harder for one project to qualify for multiple tax credits and by giving the Oregon Department of Energy greater leeway to deny an application. The new rules also allow the state to withdraw the subsidy to a company that doesn't produce the amount of energy, conservation or jobs it promised in its application. The rules become effective immediately but don't apply to businesses that have already qualified for the tax credits. "We took this action because we wanted to preserve the program but also to make sure we were reducing the fast growth in the program and reducing its impact on the general fund," said Energy Department Director Mark Long. The announcement of the new rules comes on the heels of an investigation by The Oregonian that showed state officials lowballed the cost of the Business Energy Tax Credit program before asking the Legislature to boost the size of the subsidies. The investigation also showed little oversight or accountability in the way the credits have been handed out. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYwZGZiODFhMTY0Mzk4NTBmOWQwZjIxNzhmYjQxZmQ= Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:00:37 -0400 Lost in the Election Hoopla -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWNhYmQzMTkzNGNjODFkN2JmYWQ3NjA2NjExODYzMmM= <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/politics/main5506142.shtml">A headline from yesterday</a>: <blockquote> Republicans Boycott Climate Bill Debate -- Absent Senators Argue Costs of Bill to Address Global Warming; Democrats Say Move is a Delaying Tactic </blockquote> I'm sure there are more than a view red-state Dems who woke up this morning and, after reading the election results, are quietly thanking their lucky stars for said "delaying tactic." <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWNhYmQzMTkzNGNjODFkN2JmYWQ3NjA2NjExODYzMmM= Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:00:24 -0400 Glenn Beck's Question for the Goracle -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM3NzYzMDcxODA5YTA3ODAyNGQyNWZjNjVmYjZmMDU= Passed along to him by . . . Diane Sawyer?! My, my, my. If Al Gore really cares about the planet, why isn't he a vegetarian? <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="305" height="275" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="id" value="mediumFlashEmbedded" /> <param name="name" value="undefined" /> <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /> <param name="flashvars" value="playerId=011008&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=&referralObject=11273827&referralPlaylistId=playlist" /> <param name="src" value="http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/largeplayer011008/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf" /> <param name="wmode" value="false" /> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="quality" value="high" /><embed id="mediumFlashEmbedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="305" height="275" src="http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/largeplayer011008/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf" quality="high" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="false" flashvars="playerId=011008&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=&referralObject=11273827&referralPlaylistId=playlist" bgcolor="#000000" name="undefined"></embed> </object> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM3NzYzMDcxODA5YTA3ODAyNGQyNWZjNjVmYjZmMDU= Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:00:33 -0400 Here Comes the EPA -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGM3ZjE3ZGE1YzAwMzRmMjA5M2U3MGE5NDBjYjQ0NjU= Washington Times: <blockquote> To appreciate the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama is a regulator reborn, consider this: EPA officials have begun to cut air pollution by invoking the Clean Water Act. Long quiescent under President George W. Bush, the agency is churning out initiatives and regulations at a pace that pleases its friends in the environmental movement and frightens many in the business community. In the past eight months, the EPA has proposed eight major new regulations for air pollutants that would strengthen the nation's clean air laws almost overnight. In contrast, in the first eight months of the Bush administration, the agency proposed one small regulation that affected a limited number of polluters. "The Obama EPA is issuing more significant rule-makings at a much quicker rate than the EPA did in eight years of the Bush administration," said Roger Martella, who served as the agency's general counsel under Mr. Bush. Since February, the EPA has placed 175 surface coal mining projects under review and halted 79 of them because of their effects on surface water. For 30 years, the agency did not object to the air pollution caused when miners blast dirt into the air to expose coal deposits. Now, invoking the Clean Water Act, the agency is moving to block, at least for now, the projects when they sully nearby streams with the same pollutant. The agency also has, for the first time, revoked a permit for a surface mine because the project in West Virginia could violate the Clean Water Act. More broadly, the agency has announced there could be a link between greenhouse gas emissions and public health and welfare - a prelude to new mandates for corporations to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The agency also agreed to allow California to regulate tailpipe emissions, increased fuel efficiency standards for cars for the first time in more than 25 years and won White House approval to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's largest polluters. And that's just the beginning. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/04/epa-uses-water-act-to-fight-dirty-air/?feat=home_headlines">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGM3ZjE3ZGE1YzAwMzRmMjA5M2U3MGE5NDBjYjQ0NjU= Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:00:42 -0400 Couric Celebrates the 'King of Conservation' -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzEyNjExN2Q2ODYxMmRiYzZkZDFlNDRiZGEwYWUxODQ= CBS news anchor Katie Couric interviewed Al Gore on her web program, “@katiecouric,” this week as the Goracle makes the media rounds flogging his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. Would she go after his blatant conflict of interest in <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWUwNmE0ZDc1MDMzMjY4OTI1ZWU3MzA1MGUwMGNlY2E=">using nonprofit dollars</a> to promote and lobby for energy policies the adoption of which would <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjUxZDhiMDQwZGU4YzQzYzkwMzBlNjhjNzNlMjVkYTA=">benefit him financially</a>? Would Katie put the ex-veep through the shredder, exposing his shallowness on the global warming issue -- giving him the same treatment she gave Sarah Palin last fall? Couric’s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5500244n&tag=api">introduction</a>: “I'm honored to be joined today by the Godfather of Green, the King of Conservation: Former vice president Al Gore.” Nope. No bias there. (See more clips from the interview <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/katiecouric/main504423.shtml">here</a>, courtesy the Media Research Center.) <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzEyNjExN2Q2ODYxMmRiYzZkZDFlNDRiZGEwYWUxODQ= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:00:41 -0400 How about 'Blow Up This Global Test'? -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmM2Y2M3MmZlNTk5MzFhYjBjNGIyNTFhZDAxZGY1MTI= As candidate, Barack Obama wanted to deliver his soaring apologia for our nation at the Brandenburg Gate -- the site of President Reagan’s famous plea to “tear down this wall” -- but was rebuffed for reasons obvious to all . . . except, well, him. Now, he waves off an invitation to return to the former site of the Berlin Wall to commemorate the 20th anniversary of communism’s defeat on November 9 (no one thinks he would actually celebrate it, as Rich Lowry’s <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/03/behind_obamas_berlin_wall_snub_98993.html">analysis</a> of our dear leader details). Today we see another twist on the tear-down-this-wall moment. Obama faces the “global test” that Sen. John Kerry warned us was coming during his time as candidate. Caught up in the moment, in a rare joint meeting of Congress using the hook of the fall of the Berlin Wall, “German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on the U.S. Congress today to tear down the metaphorical ‘wall’ that makes it possible for some to ignore the effects global warming will have on future generations. A failure to address the problem, she added, would be ‘shortsighted.’” That comes via the reportage of E&E News today, under the blustery headline “Merkel warns Congress against inaction.” “Inaction” means both the U.S. refusing to a Kyoto II treaty later this year in December, and Congress not passing domestic cap-and-trade legislation -- harming our economy and, incongruously, turning our ship of state further in the direction of the regime whose defeat Merkel was supposedly celebrating. Yet again we see how easy it is for central planners to convince themselves that the failure of central planning simply means that we need more and better planners. It was bad enough that Western Europe went so recklessly soft under the defense umbrella that brave Americans -- and American taxpayers -- provided them for decades. This also led to social democracy flirting more openly with socialism -- and, worse, festering radical environmentalism that has now metastasized into a full-blown anti-capitalist agenda, in the name of saving the planet. Green is the new red, as I argued in detail in <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1596985011">The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)</a>. Chancellor Merkel was stranded on the wrong side of that Wall when President Reagan called on another state to change its policies. Reagan’s call was liberating and led to statues in European squares. Coming here to set forth a “global test” and demand our lawmakers do what a democratic voter base rejects is simply offensive. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmM2Y2M3MmZlNTk5MzFhYjBjNGIyNTFhZDAxZGY1MTI= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:00:51 -0400 More Climate Stagecraft -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2JiNzY5NGViZmVlOGU0NzY4NzU5YzgxZjdiMDQwMzc= Following the example of <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODMxNmM2ZTIzN2UyNWZlZmJiZjY5MTYyNjk2ZTViNjU=">the Maldives' underwater cabinet meeting</a>, Nepal is hosting a similar <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/africa/03melt.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes">stunt on Mt. Everest</a>: <blockquote> KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) -- Nepal’s cabinet will hold a meeting on Mount Everest to highlight the threat from <a title="Recent and archival news about global warming." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">global warming</a>, which is causing glaciers to melt in the Himalayas, an official said Monday. The cabinet will meet at the Everest base camp this month, just before an international climate change conference in December in Copenhagen, said Deepak Bohara, the forest and soil conservation minister. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and other cabinet members will fly by plane to the 17,400-foot camp, the starting point for mountaineers trying to climb the world’s highest mountain. Last month, the cabinet of Maldives donned scuba gear and held an underwater meeting to highlight the threat of global warming to that nation, the world’s lowest. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2JiNzY5NGViZmVlOGU0NzY4NzU5YzgxZjdiMDQwMzc= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:45:40 -0400 White Man Speak with Forked Tongue -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWMzMjMxNjRmNDcxYTRiZGZlNmJmNjE2MDBkZDRkY2E= At the committee hearings on the Kerry-Boxer Bill last week, Democrats dutifully trotted out Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation of Alaska, who assured us that climate change would affect Native Americans more than most others. “Tribes in Alaska are seeing their villages literally disappear from under them,” President Sharp told the committee. “The melting permafrost threatens to undermine their buildings and all they have ever built and owned. We think it is imperative that Congress take action to prevent this looming catastrophe.” If things are that serious, apparently the news hasn’t reached the Wampanoag Nation of Massachusetts, which recently asked the Department of the Interior to block the 170-megawatt Cape Wind project off Nantucket, claiming the Atlantic Ocean is their “traditional cultural property.” (This is the project Teddy Kennedy spent his last years trying to prevent.) The New York Times could barely restrain its anger as it editorialized against the tribal claim on Monday: <blockquote> Tribal officials say their culture requires them to greet the sunrise each day and that this ritual requires unobstructed views. Their claim should be rejected by the responsible federal and state officials. Another round of bureaucratic reviews would drag out an approval process that has gone on much too long and give opponents time to find some other way to derail the effort. The tribes’ claim seems unsupportable. “Traditional cultural properties” tend to be defined areas -- a ceremonial burial ground, for instance -- not a huge, unenclosed portion of the ocean. Awarding Nantucket Bay such status could cast a legal shadow over a host of other activities, including shipping and commercial fishing. There is also evidence that the tribes have been working hand-in-glove with the project’s main opposition group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The alliance includes many local people but has been largely underwritten by wealthy homeowners from Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod who hate the idea of having 440-foot windmills on the horizon. </blockquote> Then there’s the case of the Goshute Native American Tribe in Utah, which for a decade has been offering to store the nation’s nuclear waste on its reservation. Environmental opponents have practically sworn to restart the Indian Wars if that one goes through. Apparently what Native American think about environmental issues only counts when they’re on your side. -- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWMzMjMxNjRmNDcxYTRiZGZlNmJmNjE2MDBkZDRkY2E= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:30:48 -0400 China and Copenhagen -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGZlNGE2NGVmMDY1MzA3NzUxNzJhZDdkNTlkZWUxNDg= FT: <blockquote> <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/433e0ebc-c89c-11de-8f9d-00144feabdc0.html">Beijing has played climate cards beautifully</a> </blockquote> An excerpt: <blockquote> In the frantic round of talks ahead of Copenhagen, meanwhile, China’s negotiators can take comfort from the fact that the real pressure is being felt in other capitals. In truth, China has played its climate cards beautifully. Beijing has been helped by events elsewhere. In its early days, the Obama administration hoped to forge a close partnership on climate change with China that would allow it to nudge Beijing into important new commitments. But with its climate-change bill still languishing in Congress, Washington has little leverage. Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, has admitted the two countries will not sign any substantial agreement when President Barack Obama visits Beijing later this month. China has also been quite happy for India to strike a more belligerent tone in climate talks - a role often played by Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister. Both governments feel strongly that the onus of dealing with global warming lies with the rich world. Last week they even signed an agreement to co-ordinate climate-change efforts, which will help them to take a united stance in Copenhagen. But it suits China for India to take a harder line in public. Beijing has also done an excellent job at convincing the rest of the world it is serious about climate change. China is one of the biggest manufacturers of solar panels, and this year, announcements have been made almost every week about another big new wind farm - even if a large number of the existing ones are not yet connected to the national grid. The government has set itself a target of improving energy efficiency by 20 per cent in the 2006-10 period and, with a little help from the downturn at the end of last year, the country is on track to get near to this goal. So, by the time President Hu Jintao told a United Nations climate- change conference in September that China would also adopt a “carbon intensity” target, environmental groups were only too happy to herald it as a big breakthrough. Beijing’s policies have been so successful that US advocates of green technology have given warning that China will become the dominant player. “China is spending about $9bn (€6.1bn, £5.5bn) a month on clean energy,” Steven Chu, the US energy secretary, told a Senate committee last week. “The US, meanwhile, has fallen behind.” </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGZlNGE2NGVmMDY1MzA3NzUxNzJhZDdkNTlkZWUxNDg= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:30:39 -0400 M - I - C - See You Real Soon . . . -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDM3MGRjMzg2NGMzNzE3ZDk1NjdhODU1ZTY3YjVkODQ= K -- E --Y -- Why? <a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/disney-invests-4-million-to-save-forests/?hp">Because it's good PR</a> (even if it is a pointless environmental gesture): <blockquote> The Walt Disney Company announced Tuesday that it has made <a href="http://www.conservationfund.org/news/walt_disney_company_makes_significant_commitment_protect_threatened_forests_amazon_congo_and_un">a $4 million investment</a> in forest conservation projects to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. The money will go to Conservation International for reforestation projects in the <a href="http://www.conservation.org/EXPLORE/PRIORITY_AREAS/WILDERNESS/Pages/congobasin.aspx">Tayna and Kisimba-Ikobo Community Reserves in the Democratic Republic of Congo</a>, and the Alto Mayo conservation project in Peru. The $4 million is one of the <a id="w0bd" title="largest corporate donations" href="http://www.conservation.org/sites/celb/news/Pages/110309_disney_redd_announcement.aspx">largest corporate donations</a> ever made to an international effort known as Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation -- or <a id="lws3" title="REDD" href="http://www.conservation.org/learn/climate/pages/climate_redd.aspx">REDD</a>. The REDD program rewards countries that preserve forests with carbon credits that can then be sold for cash on the global carbon market. “It’s a real milestone,” said Toby Janson-Smith, the senior director of forest carbon markets at Conservation International. “It really shows how far we’ve come in understanding the role that tropical forest loss plays in climate change.” Mr. Janson-Smith hopes that Disney’s donation will help draw attention to REDD as climate legislation is debated in the United States Congress, and as December’s United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen approaches. Disney is donating additional funds to two other non-profit groups: <a href="http://www.conservationfund.org/">The Conservation Fund</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.org/">The Nature Conservancy</a>. Two million dollars will go to a Nature Conservancy <a href="http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/features/art27444.html">reforestation project in the Lower Mississippi Valley</a>, and $1 million will go to The Conservation Fund’s sustainable <a id="b8ik" title="forestry work along California's North Coast" href="http://www.conservationfund.org/north_coast_forests">forestry work along California’s North Coast</a>. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDM3MGRjMzg2NGMzNzE3ZDk1NjdhODU1ZTY3YjVkODQ= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:30:58 -0400 Update from Barcelona -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzc3YWNlNmI4MTA0YzQyZTUwOGI0NGVjZjZmNDlkNWY= <a href="http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/11/03/why-african-countries-are-boycotting-climate-change-talks/">Christian Science Monitor</a>: <blockquote> UN climate change talks in Barcelona have stalled as African countries say the world's rich nations must do more to cut emissions. Talks over how to cut back global carbon emissions to ease the effects of climate change have broken down, with African nations arguing that rich nations are not doing their fair share. The latest round of talks, scheduled for Nov. 2-6 in Barcelona, are aimed at looking into a number of natural remedies that might help manage the rise in global emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main by products from the burning of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels in electrical power plants and heavy industries. Richer nations (except the United States) agreed at a 1997 United Nations-sponsored forum in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce their industrial emissions by 11 percent to 15 percent from their 1990 levels by the year 2020. But a growing number of developing nations, many of them in Africa, argue that richer nations such as Japan, Britain, Germany, and the US (which did not sign the Kyoto Protocol) should cut emissions by as much as 40 percent in order to slow down climate change. “They’re saying let’s focus on the real issues, which is targets for developed countries,” South African delegation head Alf Wills told Reuters news agency in Barcelona. Richer nations are using “delaying tactics” rather than talking about how Europe and the industrial nations can share the burden more fairly in cutting back on carbon emissions, he said. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzc3YWNlNmI4MTA0YzQyZTUwOGI0NGVjZjZmNDlkNWY= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:00:26 -0400 Op-Ed of the Day -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVhMzA1YTI5ZTBlOWQxNzQ2OTNmYTEyYzFlZjNmNjI= Daniel Yergin and Robert Ineson write in today's WSJ: <blockquote> America's Natural Gas Revolution -- A 'shale gale' of unconventional and abundant U.S. gas is transforming the energy market. The biggest energy innovation of the decade is natural gas -- more specifically what is called "unconventional" natural gas. Some call it a revolution. Yet the natural gas revolution has unfolded with no great fanfare, no grand opening ceremony, no ribbon cutting. It just crept up. In 1990, unconventional gas -- from shales, coal-bed methane and so-called "tight" formations -- was about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40%, and growing fast, with shale gas by far the biggest part. The potential of this "shale gale" only really became clear around 2007. In Washington, D.C., the discovery has come later -- only in the last few months. Yet it is already changing the national energy dialogue and overall energy outlook in the U.S. -- and could change the global natural gas balance. From the time of the California energy crisis at the beginning of this decade, it appeared that the U.S. was headed for an extended period of tight supplies, even shortages, of natural gas. While gas has many favorable attributes -- as a clean, relatively low-carbon fuel -- abundance did not appear to be one of them. Prices had gone up, but increased drilling failed to bring forth additional supplies. The U.S., it seemed, was destined to become much more integrated into the global gas market, with increasing imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). But a few companies were trying to solve a perennial problem: how to liberate shale gas -- the plentiful natural gas supplies locked away in the impermeable shale. The experimental lab was a sprawling area called the Barnett Shale in the environs of Fort Worth, Texas. The companies were experimenting with two technologies. One was horizontal drilling. Instead of merely drilling straight down into the resource, horizontal wells go sideways after a certain depth, opening up a much larger area of the resource-bearing formation. The other technology is known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fraccing." Here, the producer injects a mixture of water and sand at high pressure to create multiple fractures throughout the rock, liberating the trapped gas to flow into the well. The critical but little-recognized breakthrough was early in this decade -- finding a way to meld together these two increasingly complex technologies to finally crack the shale rock, and thus crack the code for a major new resource. It was not a single eureka moment, but rather the result of incremental experimentation and technical skill. The success freed the gas to flow in greater volumes and at a much lower unit cost than previously thought possible. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574507440795971268.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVhMzA1YTI5ZTBlOWQxNzQ2OTNmYTEyYzFlZjNmNjI= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:00:41 -0400 NYT: Al Gore, Green Profiteer -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjUxZDhiMDQwZGU4YzQzYzkwMzBlNjhjNzNlMjVkYTA= You know, I wish some blog had existed previously that could have informed us of this major conflict of interest. From today's New York Times: <blockquote> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?pagewanted=print">Gore’s Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor</a> </blockquote> An excerpt: <blockquote> WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President <a title="More articles about Al Gore." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/al_gore/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Al Gore</a> thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the <a title="More articles about Venture Capital." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/v/venture_capital/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">venture capital</a> firm where Mr. Gore is a partner. The company, <a href="http://silverspringnetworks.com/">Silver Spring Networks,</a> produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, <a href="http://www.kpcb.com/">Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers</a>, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses. Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and <a title="More articles about John Doerr." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/john_doerr/index.html?inline=nyt-per">John Doerr</a>, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers. The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in<a title="Energy Department news release." href="http://www.energy.gov/8216.htm"> smart grid grants</a>. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years. Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of <a title="Recent and archival news about global warming." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">global warming</a> and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes. Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in. Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a <a title="A transcript of the hearing, in PDF form." href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090424/transcript_20090424_ee.pdf">hearing this year</a> that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt. Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is. “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.” In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades. “I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.” Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like <a title="Chicago Climate Exchange Web site." href="http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/">carbon trading markets,</a> solar cells and <a href="http://www.falconwaterfree.com/home/flash_v4.html">waterless urinals</a>. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjUxZDhiMDQwZGU4YzQzYzkwMzBlNjhjNzNlMjVkYTA= Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:30:25 -0400 Al Gore's New Ecumenical Climate Catechism -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGIxY2UxYTdmMWFiZWZlZTU2OGIwM2Y2MTI1ZmEzZWQ= <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate">Thou shall not emit CO2</a>: <blockquote> Al's Gore's much-anticipated sequel to An Inconvenent Truth is published today, with an admission that facts alone will not persuade Americans to act on global warming and that appealing to their spiritual side is the way forward. In his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, the man who won a Nobel prize in 2007 for his touring slideshow on disappearing polar ice and other consequences of climate change, concludes: "Simply laying out the facts won't work." Instead, Gore tells <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552">Newsweek</a> magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message - now put out by hundreds of volunteers - to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet. "I've done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It's probably my favourite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytising," Gore tells Newsweek. Gore's book arrives at a time of intense international scrutiny of America's moves on the environment ahead of an international meeting on global warming at Copenhagen, now just more than a month away. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGIxY2UxYTdmMWFiZWZlZTU2OGIwM2Y2MTI1ZmEzZWQ= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:00:20 -0400 Shocking News to Nobody -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWNiMjAzNzJiZWI1Y2RmMjM3YjE0ZWJlMGNjYWExYjE= <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/gao-recoup-government-investment-gm-chrysler-unlikely/?test=latestnews">Fox News</a>: <blockquote> GAO: Full Recoup of Government Investment in GM, Chrysler Unlikely </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWNiMjAzNzJiZWI1Y2RmMjM3YjE0ZWJlMGNjYWExYjE= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:45:54 -0400 Tastes Like Chicken, Only Cuddlier -- By: Drew Thornley webmaster@nationalreview.com (Drew Thornley) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDkxNGQzNWQ0YTAzMTNjNmQ1YmQzMDhhNGJiMGQyMDg= <div>Last week, I <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/go-veggie-to-fight-global-warming-says-expert-1810134.html">noted</a> how eliminating meat from your diet can help fight global warming. This week brings another installment of "Simple, Stupid Steps to Save the Planet:" Get rid of Toto! A New Zealand study claims a medium-size dog leaves a larger ecological footprint than an SUV. The <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010183212_dogcarbon02m.html">Seattle Times</a> (hat tip to longtime friend, Planet Gore reader, and Seattle resident, Landon Howell) covered the study thus:</div> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <div> In "Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living," authors Robert and Brenda Vale argue that resources required to feed a dog -- including the amount of land needed to feed the animals that go into its food -- give it about twice the eco-footprint of, say, building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. Noting that a cat's pawprint was roughly equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf's, "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com">New Scientist</a>" asked an environmentalist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, U.K., to independently calculate animals' environmental impact, and reported that "his figures tallied almost exactly." The study apparently didn't take into account the emissions of either the SUV or the dogs. There are 40,906 licensed dogs in Seattle, and about 125,000 total, according to Don Jordan, director of the Seattle Animal Shelter and President of the Washington State Federation of Animal Care and Control Agencies. "If you look at a large-size dog, they can live 10-14 years, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me," Jordan said of the study. "There's a lot that goes into manufacturing and producing food to care for dogs during the course of a life." Short of eating the dogs, what should be done about these four-legged eco-Hummers before they kill us all? "If, in fact, this is true, I think that given the focus particularly with the mayor's office of being the greenest city possible, I would think that pet owners would look at the manufacturing process for the items they're buying for their dogs. I've seen every year the boutique shops for dogs start to sprout up, whether it be bakers or clothing stores or treats or stuff," Jordan said. Mayor Greg Nickels' spokesman Alex Fryer somehow appeared not to find the matter urgent. "We never answer a hypothetical," he said. Candidate Mike McGinn didn't respond to a Seattle Times query. Joe Mallahan's spokeswoman, Charla Neuman -- who owns two St. Bernards -- refused to relay questions on the topic to Mallahan. "Thank god this wasn't paid for by taxpayer dollars," Neuman said of the New Zealand study, while spinning the matter thusly: "Take the combination of Joe having a small dog and driving a Prius, and he'll be a very green mayor." </div> </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDkxNGQzNWQ0YTAzMTNjNmQ1YmQzMDhhNGJiMGQyMDg= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:45:27 -0400 Palin vs. Biden on Energy -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmEzNjc5NzAzYTJlOTY2MDJhZjU3YmI5OWM3YmQwMDY= <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=165548298434&ref=nf">From her Facebook page</a>: <blockquote> As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs. The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.” This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs. There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman! </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmEzNjc5NzAzYTJlOTY2MDJhZjU3YmI5OWM3YmQwMDY= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:00:41 -0400 Ford Makes $1B in the Third Quarter -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzQ4ZGQzM2IwNDAwZmNjYTM4MzVmYmMyOTk3ZDNlNzk= <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ford-profit3-2009nov03,0,7152688.story">Great news</a>. And how is this news greeted by the Left? But of course, an e-mail blast from Democrats.com pressuring Ford on global warming: Subject: <blockquote> Ford Must Quit the Chamber of Commerce </blockquote> Text: <blockquote> Dear , What group is doing the most to make global warming worse? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That's why top companies including Apple, Exelon Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric, Nike, and Public Service Company of New Mexico have all quit the Chamber. If Ford wants to reduce global warming, it must break with U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Thanks for all you do! Bob Fertik To: William Ford Jr., Executive Chairman, Ford Motor Company Subject: Ford must break with U.S. Chamber of Commerce Dear Mr. Ford, I am happy to see that your company is supporting new national clean car standards. These standards will reduce U.S. oil consumption, cut global warming emissions, and save people like me money at the gas pump. Unfortunately, Ford's environmental commitments are undermined by its continued participation in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has sued the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent implementation of the new standards and is actively lobbying against other efforts to curb U.S. global warming pollution. I therefore ask that you lead the board of directors to make a public break between Ford and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Sincerely, </blockquote> No doubt the next step will be for Dems to impose an excess profits tax on Ford until it becomes a loyal Party member and breaks its associations with various undesirables. Then, once it complies with the aforementioned global-warming mandates, Ford will finally be competitive with GM and Chrysler. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzQ4ZGQzM2IwNDAwZmNjYTM4MzVmYmMyOTk3ZDNlNzk= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:30:08 -0400 Climate-Cost Lies in Oregon -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjAwYTUwYWUxMzIxMzkzNmQ5YmVmMmZlNzJmMWIyYzU= Thanks to reader A.F. for sending <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/state_lowballed_cost_of_green.html">this</a> in: <blockquote> State lowballed cost of green tax breaks State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told, an investigation by The Oregonian shows. Records also show that the program, a favorite of Kulongoski's known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, has given millions of dollars to failed companies while voters are being asked to raise income taxes because the state budget doesn't have enough to pay for schools and other programs. The incentives are now under intense scrutiny at the Oregon Department of Energy, which is scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs. Energy officials were worried about the impact on the state budget in 2006, when Kulongoski and his staff proposed a dramatic boost in tax breaks to woo wind and solar companies to Oregon -- upping the subsidies from a high of $3.5 million per project to as much as $20 million. According to documents obtained under Oregon's public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11. The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies. "I remember that discussion. Everyone was saying, yes, this is going to be a huge (budget) hit," recalled Charles Stephens, a former analyst for the Energy Department who left in 2006. "The governor's office was saying, 'No, we need a smaller number.'" </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjAwYTUwYWUxMzIxMzkzNmQ5YmVmMmZlNzJmMWIyYzU= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:00:24 -0400 Solution to Polar-Bear Starvation Discovered -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTZhOTExNzI3MmU1MjljMzRkNjhiMzY1MDYwZDU1NGE= <a href="http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/x1201846710/Gallery-Animals-celebrate-Halloween">Let's airdrop pumpkins</a> in the Arctic to feed the bears. Tastes almost as good as endangered seal! <img id="__mce_tmp" src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/11/02/58be0bfaa6d4ada00c9953ce7341559e.jpg" alt="" /> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTZhOTExNzI3MmU1MjljMzRkNjhiMzY1MDYwZDU1NGE= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:31:02 -0400 'If I Die from Malaria Tomorrow, Why Should I Care about Global Warming?' -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjBmY2VkOGVhZWUwNzNkZjRlMGJmZDQ5NzFjMjQzYWI= Bjørn Lomborg writes in today's WSJ: <blockquote> Climate Change and Malaria in Africa: Limiting carbon emissions won't do much to stop disease in Zambia When he first got sick, Samson Banda didn't realize he had malaria. Only after he came down with a serious fever did he end up at a clinic in the Bauleni slum compound in Lusaka, Zambia. The clinic has just a few nurses and staff with basic medical skills. Locals can wait for an entire day to be seen. Unchecked malaria is serious. Nine out of 10 of the world's annual one million malaria-caused deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa. The disease -- transmitted via mosquitoes -- can cause low blood sugar, an enlarged spleen and liver, severe headaches, a shortage of oxygen to the brain, and renal failure. It can lead to coma and death. Twenty-seven year-old Samson was ill for six months before he started to recover. Bauleni is an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes during the rainy season between November and April. The slum lacks any sanitation or sewer supply, so locals dig pit latrines. The waste overflows. Most adults have some long-term infection that tends to recur. "Our conditions are pathetic -- both the health clinics and the sanitation in this area," Mr. Samson told a Copenhagen Consensus Center researcher. Ask what he wants to see foreign donors' money spent on, and he is quick to answer: better health care. When he is asked about global warming, Mr. Samson responds: "I have heard about it, but I don't even know how it would affect me. If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?" </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505722902620770.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjBmY2VkOGVhZWUwNzNkZjRlMGJmZDQ5NzFjMjQzYWI= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:00:47 -0400 Washington, Under the Hood -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjA4MGVhZTEyYmMzNjk5Y2UxZjlhOWU2ZjQ1NmM1MDU= Detroit -- When Washington bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, the Obama administration promised that government’s role would be to make loans to ensure that the companies became viable, profitable entities again. That promise was as believable as the idea that Washington can provide universal health care and cut federal spending -- and sure enough, Washington pols have been eager to play auto mechanic. A few examples: Greenback mandates. While D.C. pols insist on the one hand that Detroit build the green cars politicians want, federal pay caps are making it difficult for the automakers to keep key green-friendly executives. Case in point: the ultra-green, electric Chevy Volt program has lost two top execs in the last two months. Last week, Frank Weber, the German-born engineer in charge of the Volt, moved back to his mother country to work for Opel. Just a month before, Bob Kruse, executive director of engineering for all GM plug-ins, left for the consulting industry. "You can’t blame the guy," industry analyst Joe Phillippi of Auto Trends said of Kruse. "What is the prospect of ever making serious money . . . working for a ward of the government, where your pay is capped?" NIMBY contracts. Numerous pols are insisting that automakers provide pork for their districts. For example, the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125677552001414699.html">reports</a> that Montana’s delegation is pressuring GM to reinstate a contract with a Montana palladium mine (palladium is used in catalytic converters) that had been nullified in bankruptcy court. "The simple fact is, when GM took federal dollars, they lost some of their autonomy," says GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg. The Dealer Untouchables. One of GM’s key moves has been to streamline its bloated dealer network to bring it in line with sales (despite a market share similar to Toyota’s, GM has five times as many dealers). But GM’s plan to eliminate 1,300 dealerships has run into a buzzsaw of Congressional opposition. Strong-arming from senators like West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller and New York’s Chuck Schumer have already reversed the closing of 70 dealers . . . and counting. Union favoritism. Chrysler and GM have moved aggressively to cut their transportation costs, effecting Teamster jobs and riling the union’s political friends. Chrysler, for example, will save 25 percent of its $111 million annual hauling budget by transferring to lower-cost carriers. But Michigan reps from both sides of the aisle are unimpressed, <a href="http://detnews.com/article/20091016/AUTO01/910160394/Teamsters-fight-Chrysler--GM-cuts">reports</a> the Detroit News. "Relatively minor short-term cost savings generated by shifting this work to non-unionized companies is greatly outweighed by the elimination of good-paying, union middle-class jobs,” complains Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter. In response to such interference, GM head of global purchasing Robert Socia responds, "The best way to repay taxpayers is to run the business as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible." But as the auto bailouts are proving, politics -- not taxpayers -- are Washington’s top priority. EDITOR’S NOTE: This item has been amended since its initial posting. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjA4MGVhZTEyYmMzNjk5Y2UxZjlhOWU2ZjQ1NmM1MDU= Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:00:08 -0400 Edmunds Reacts to Its Presence on Obama's Enemies List -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZhNTRiOWI1YjY3M2NlNGRlODdiZGNjNjg5NjRkYmQ= Edmunds corporate has <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159486/article.html">issued this press release</a>: <blockquote> SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- October 29, 2009 -- Today the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/?postversion=2009102910" target="_blank">Department of Transportation</a> and <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/10/29/busy-covering-car-sales-mars-edmundscom-gets-it-wrong-again-cash-clunkers" target="_blank">White House</a> chose to respond to an <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html">analysis</a> Edmunds.com released Wednesday that looked at auto sales this year and what sales volumes would have been had the popular Cash for Clunkers program never existed. At issue is one point of the analysis showing the taxpayer cost for every incremental vehicle sold was $24,000. To be clear, <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/">Edmunds.com</a> is not disputing the government's statements regarding total voucher applications, vehicles sold or voucher values. The key question is how many of these sales would have occurred anyway. Apparently, the $24,000 figure caught many by surprise. It shouldn't have. The truth is that consumer incentive programs are always hugely expensive when calculated by incremental sales -- always in the tens of thousands of dollars. Cash for Clunkers was no exception. The White House claims that our analysis was based on car sales on Mars and that on Earth, the marketplace is connected. We agree the marketplace is connected. In fact, that is exactly the basis of our analysis. It is also claimed we missed the possibility that Cash for Clunkers generated excitement and consumers bought vehicles even if they didn't qualify for the program -- a claim that has been widely supported by anecdote but by little analysis. It does, after all, seem a bit odd that masses of consumers would elect to buy a vehicle because of a program for which they don't qualify -- doubly so when you add in the fact that prices shot up during Cash for Clunkers, creating a disincentive to buy. Finally, the White House claims that the increase in fourth-quarter production reported by the car manufacturers can be attributed to Cash for Clunkers. But here is a better reason: the economy is recovering accompanied by improved car sales. No manufacturer increases production -- a decision with long-term consequences -- based on the 30-day sales blip triggered by an event like Cash for Clunkers. With all respect to the White House, Edmunds.com thinks that instead of shooting the messenger, government officials should take heart from the core message of the analysis: the fundamentals of the auto marketplace are improving faster than the current sales numbers suggest. Isn't this a piece of good news we can all cheer? <a href="help/about/">About Edmunds.com, Inc. </a>(<a href="help/about/index.html">http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/index.html</a>) <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/">Edmunds.com</a>, Inc. publishes four Web sites that empower, engage and educate automotive consumers and enthusiasts. <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/">Edmunds.com</a>, the premier online resource for automotive consumer information, launched in 1995 as the first automotive information Web site. Its most popular feature, the Edmunds.com <a href="tmv/index.html">True Market Value®</a> , is relied upon by millions of people seeking current transaction prices for new and used vehicles. Edmunds.com was named "Best Car Research Site" by Forbes ASAP, has been selected by consumers as the "Most Useful Web Site" according to every J.D. Power and Associates New Autoshopper.com Study(SM), was ranked first in the Survey of Car-Shopping Web Sites by The Wall Street Journal and was rated "#1" in Keynote's study of third-party automotive Web sites. <a href="insideline/">Inside Line</a> launched in January 2005 and is the most-read automotive enthusiast Web site. <a href="http://www.carspace.com/">CarSpace</a> launched in February 2006 and is an automotive social networking Web site and home to the oldest and most established automotive community. <a href="http://www.autoobserver.com/">AutoObserver.com</a> launched in 2007 and provides insightful automotive industry commentary and analysis. Edmunds Inc. is headquartered in Santa Monica, California, and maintains a satellite office in suburban Detroit. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZhNTRiOWI1YjY3M2NlNGRlODdiZGNjNjg5NjRkYmQ= Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:30:16 -0400 Op-Ed of the Day -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTc4Nzk5ZWRkMzJmNzMxMTUxZDc2NTg0OTk4ZWEzYmI= "Cap-and-trade Mirage" by Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, lawyers for the EPA, in today's Washington Post. An excerpt: <blockquote> We are speaking out as parents, citizens and attorneys, but our analysis is informed by more than 20 years each at the Environmental Protection Agency's San Francisco Regional Office, including Allan's extensive experience overseeing California's cap-and-trade and offsets programs for the EPA. Cap-and-trade means a declining "cap" on total emissions, while allowing trading of pollution permits. Confidence in the certainty of declining caps is based on the mistaken assumption that cap-and trade was proven in the EPA's acid rain program. In fact, addressing acid rain required relatively minor modifications to coal-fired power plants. Reductions were accomplished primarily by a fuel switch to readily available, affordable, low-sulfur coal, along with some additional scrubbing. In contrast, the issues presented by climate change cannot be solved by tweaks to facilities; it requires an energy revolution through investments in building clean-energy facilities. The biggest obstacle to this revolution is that uncontrolled fossil fuel energy remains much cheaper than clean energy. Cap-and-trade alone will not create confidence that clean energy will become profitable within a known time frame and so will not ignite the huge shift in investment needed to begin the clean-energy revolution. In recent interviews, even the economists who thought up cap-and-trade have said they don't believe it's an appropriate tool for climate change. What guarantees failure of the proposed climate bills, however, are their provisions for carbon offsets, a concept not used in the acid rain program. Both bills allow all required greenhouse-gas reductions for almost 20 years to be met with carbon offsets rather than actual reductions in use of the capped sources. Offsets -- considered indispensable to keeping cap-and-trade affordable -- are supposed to be "additional" reductions beyond what is legally required. But experience with offsets in Europe and California has shown that ensuring real "additionality" is not an achievable goal. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002988.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTc4Nzk5ZWRkMzJmNzMxMTUxZDc2NTg0OTk4ZWEzYmI= Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:00:18 -0400 Piling on the Carnivores -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFkODI2ODUzMzExNzgwOTliODNjNTI0NThkZTY5NWU= <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?_r=1">Today's New York Times</a> has an op-ed in defense of this <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece">Times</a> of London piece on how we'll have to become a world of vegetarians to "save" the planet: An excerpt: <blockquote> Methane is agriculture’s second-largest greenhouse gas. Wetland rice fields alone account for as much 29 percent of the world’s human-generated methane. In animal farming, much of the methane comes from lagoons of liquefied manure at industrial facilities, which are as nauseating as they sound. This isn’t a problem at traditional farms. “Before the 1970s, methane emissions from manure were minimal because the majority of livestock farms in the U.S. were small operations where animals deposited manure in pastures and corrals,” the Environmental Protection Agency <a title="E.P.A. PDF" href="http://www.epa.gov/methane/reports/05-manure.pdf">says</a>. The E.P.A. found that with the rapid rise of factory farms, liquefied manure systems became the norm and methane emissions skyrocketed. You can reduce your methane emissions by seeking out meat from animals raised outdoors on traditional farms. CRITICS of meat-eating often point out that cattle are prime culprits in methane production. Fortunately, the cause of these methane emissions is understood, and their production can be reduced. Much of the problem arises when livestock eat poor quality forages, throwing their digestive systems out of balance. Livestock nutrition experts have demonstrated that by making minor improvements in animal diets (like providing nutrient-laden salt licks) they can cut enteric methane by half. Other practices, like adding certain proteins to ruminant diets, can reduce methane production per unit of milk or meat by a factor of six, according to <a title="Methane study" href="http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-180/004-180.html">research</a> at Australia’s University of New England. Enteric methane emissions can also be substantially reduced when cattle are regularly rotated onto fresh pastures, researchers at University of Louisiana have <a title="Forage study" href="http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/269">confirmed</a>. </blockquote> However. . .methane might be a bigger issue than originally thought, meaning if we are in a crisis, politicians will have to force Americans to give up meat. Again, from the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece">Times of London</a>: The effects of a critical greenhouse gas on global warming have been significantly underestimated, according to research suggesting that emissions controls and climate models may need to be revised Methane’s impact on global temperatures is about a third higher than generally thought because previous estimates have not accounted for its interaction with airborne particles called aerosols, Nasa scientists found. When this indirect effect of the potent greenhouse gas is included one tonne of methane has about 33 times as much effect on the climate over 100 years as a tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than 25 times as in standard estimates. Drew Shindell, of the <a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/" target="_blank">Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies</a> in New York, who led the study, said that the findings added to the importance of measures to contain methane emissions, as well as those of carbon dioxide, which will be discussed at the Copenhagen climate summit in December. <script src="tol/js/picture-gallery.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript"></script> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece"></a> How much will polling on "saving the planet" drop once America learns there's no more meat in our diet? <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFkODI2ODUzMzExNzgwOTliODNjNTI0NThkZTY5NWU= Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:30:27 -0400 'The Elders' Are Here to Save Us -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWUwMTgyYjgyMGVhYjQ1NjcyYzU1MTQxNDI1N2EzYmM= From today's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/science/earth/31elders.html?_r=1">New York Times</a>: <blockquote> For a group of 20th-century leaders called <a title="The Elders home page" href="http://www.theelders.org/">the Elders</a> -- whose members include Archbishop Tutu of South Africa, former President <a title="More articles about Jimmy Carter." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jimmy_carter/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Jimmy Carter</a> and <a title="More articles about Mary Robinson." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mary_robinson/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Mary Robinson</a>, a former Irish president -- it also was a conversation with their families that they felt would be most usefully conducted before the cameras. On Thursday, seeking to highlight the responsibility that older generations bear for climate change, members of the group traveled to Istanbul for a symbolic photo shoot accompanied by young relatives. “This is a rather late wake-up call for all humanity to behave in a more responsible manner,” said <a title="More articles about Lakhdar Brahimi." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/lakhdar_brahimi/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Lakhdar Brahimi</a>, 75, a veteran <a title="More articles about the United Nations." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org">United Nations</a> envoy who helped broker an agreement ending civil war in Lebanon, and who was accompanied by his grandchildren, Balthazar, 5, and Basile, 3. “It is the responsibility of today’s generations to act,” he said. The Elders group was founded in 2007 with the help of <a title="More articles about Nelson Mandela." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nelson_mandela/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Nelson Mandela</a>. Its chairman, Archbishop Tutu, acknowledged that his generation bore the blame for not making tough choices sooner. “We should have long ago used recyclable energy,” said Archbishop Tutu, who danced on a lawn as he entertained his grandchildren before the cameras. “If we had used <a title="More articles about solar power." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/solar_energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">solar energy</a> or wind power, we wouldn’t have been in this predicament.” <a title="His Web site" href="http://www.lomborg.com">Bjorn Lomborg</a>, a Danish political scientist who found fame as the author of the <a title="Times Topics page" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/l/bjorn_lomborg/index.html">provocative book “The Skeptical Environmentalist,”</a> said that by campaigning for swift agreement at a global climate conference in December in Copenhagen, the Elders risked backing expensive and ineffective solutions that might divert money from more effective measures to save lives and protect the planet. “I have no doubt the Elders care deeply about their grandchildren,” Mr. Lomborg said, “but we should be concerned about all the other grandchildren who were not at the event and who run the risk of dying tomorrow from lack of sanitation, starvation and disease.” Ms. Robinson, 65, said she sympathized with that view, but she added that coming generations would not have a planet to enjoy unless action was taken now to resolve the problem. </blockquote> To paraphrase Mr. Buckley, I'd rather be governed by the first few hundred seniors in the Boston phone book than this group of "Elders." <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWUwMTgyYjgyMGVhYjQ1NjcyYzU1MTQxNDI1N2EzYmM= Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:00:54 -0400 Europe Votes 'Present' on 'Climate Financing' -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTlmYzQ4YzM0ODUxN2E1NTE2ZGNiZTIxODYzY2IzYmI= <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/science/earth/31iht-UNION.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes&pagewanted=print">New York Times</a>: <blockquote> European Union leaders on Friday offered to contribute money to a global fund to help developing countries tackle global warming hoping kick-start stalled talks on a new agreement on climate change. But E.U. leaders disappointed climate campaigners by making the offer conditional on donations from other parts of the world and by failing to decide how much Europe would contribute to a global pot of up to 50 billion euros by 2020. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt insisted the E.U. now had "a very strong negotiating position" to press for a global deal at United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December that are aimed at agreeing a successor accord to the Kyoto Protocol. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, also stressed that Europe was leading the way. "There is no-one else among the industrialized nations" to have made as concrete an offer of climate finance, Ms. Merkel told a press conference in Brussels. But environmental groups took a mostly negative view of the results of the two-day summit, saying E.U. leaders had chosen vague, global figures and thereby diminished chances of unblocking climate negotiations ahead of the meeting in Copenhagen. "Europe has failed once again to say how much it is prepared to contribute for climate finance," said Sonja Meister, a climate campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe. "In every way the EU is shirking its historical responsibilities and blocking progress towards the just and fair agreement the world needs in Copenhagen," she said. </blockquote> Life was so much simpler for Europe when George W. Bush could be blamed for everything. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTlmYzQ4YzM0ODUxN2E1NTE2ZGNiZTIxODYzY2IzYmI= Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:00:51 -0400 Lord Monckton Visits with Glenn Beck -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGYyNzkzZmY2YTVmNDI3ZmYyZWFmMjE3YmI3YmFmYTk= <a href="http://search.nationalreview.com/?q=Monckton&s=Mjg%3D&a=&sdate=&edate=&sort=0">Here's some Planet Gore background</a> on the always entertaining Lord Monckton. And if you have the time, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/">Watt's Up With That?</a> has the video from his appearance on Glenn Beck's show. Enjoy. <div>Hat Tip <a href="http://climatedepot.com/">Climate Depot</a>.</div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGYyNzkzZmY2YTVmNDI3ZmYyZWFmMjE3YmI3YmFmYTk= Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:00:53 -0400 Before and After -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzMwNWRlMjdkYjM3NzllZjBiMDcyZmE3NzhjMGRhYTc= Some choice quotes of Sir David King, former chief scientific advisor to prime ministers Blair and Brown, from Benny Peiser at CCNet. Today, alarmism is out: <blockquote> When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens. --Sir David King, The Times, 30 October 2009 </blockquote> But back when alarmism was all the rage: <blockquote> If all the ice on Greenland were to melt, sea level would rise by seven metres. Is that likely to happen? Well I was saying six years ago unlikely [but] I'm afraid that that's having to be revised... 80 percent of our human population lives within less than a one metre rise of sea level so imagine the destabilisation of our geopolitical system with a sea level rise of the order of one or two metres. And that is on the cards I'm afraid. --Sir David King, London, 19 June 2008 </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzMwNWRlMjdkYjM3NzllZjBiMDcyZmE3NzhjMGRhYTc= Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:00:16 -0400 The New Climate Order -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDY4NDdjNzU0ZDU2NzA2NzY3NGQ2NGU5MWZkYTUzMGE= Mark Steyn in <a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/">Macleans</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDY4NDdjNzU0ZDU2NzA2NzY3NGQ2NGU5MWZkYTUzMGE= Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:00:19 -0400 Add Edmunds to President Nixon's Obama's Enemies List -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2M3YjA4NjEwYWY0ZDhiNTFlMWRmY2UxNWUxMjg4NTI= <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm">CNN</a>: <blockquote> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com. Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2009102912">economy's expansion</a> in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth. The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates. The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales. </blockquote> And the White House response on the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/10/29/busy-covering-car-sales-mars-edmundscom-gets-it-wrong-again-cash-clunkers">WhiteHouse.gov blog:</a> <blockquote> <h2>Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers</h2> <div class="post-info">Posted by Macon Phillips on October 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM EDT</div> On the same day that we found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter - the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade - <a href="http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html">Edmunds.com has released a faulty analysis</a> suggesting that the Cash for Clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical “analyses” of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny. The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions: 1. The Edmunds’ analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program. In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. This analysis ignores not only the price impacts that a program like Cash for Clunkers has on the rest of the vehicle market, but the reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the Cash for Clunkers program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program. This faulty assumption leads Edmunds to a conclusion that is at odds with many independent analyses: Edmunds assumption that more than 80% of the payback from Cash for Clunkers would occur in 2009 isn't how many mainstream analyses, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight approach the problem (see pages 5 and 15 of this <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Cash_for_Clunkers_Report_FINAL.pdf">CEA report [PDF]</a>). In fact, Deutsche Bank recently concluded that “The important takeaway from recent sales trends is that it suggests that there has been minimal 'payback' for the U.S. government’s 'cash for clunkers' program.” 2. Edmunds also ignores the beneficial impact that the program will have on 4th Quarter GDP because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories. Major automakers including GM, Ford, Honda and Chrysler all increased their production through the end of the year as a result of this program, which will help boost growth beyond the third quarter. The actions of private market participants, who would not increase production if they didn’t think demand for their product would be there through the end of the year, is a far better indicator of market dynamics - and one that Edmunds.com conveniently ignores. Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/CarAllowanceRebateSystem/">Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009</a>. The strength of recent auto sales data suggest that, if anything, this projection underestimates the actual impact of the program. CEA’s analysis is transparent and comprehensive, laying out all of its assumptions for the public to understand. Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis. So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself: </blockquote> OK. I'll go to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Cash_for_Clunkers_Report_FINAL.pdf">page 5 </a>of the White House's CEA report. Here's what it says: <blockquote> We are not aware of any explicit analysis by the automakers of the proportion of sales that will not be swiftly paid back. But, according to an August 28 interview with the Associated Press, Ford Motor Company President of the Americas Mark Fields "estimated about 30 percent to 40 percent of its clunkers sales were ‘truly incremental,’ meaning that they came from consumers who had no plans previously to buy a car. The rest, he said, came from people who were going to buy a car later on."8 Moody’s Investors Service is even more optimistic, estimating "that about 60 percent of the vehicles sold with clunker rebates were purchased by consumers who were not otherwise intending to buy," according to the Wall Street Journal.9 General Motors appears to have a similar view: a September 1, 2009 story in BusinessWeek quoted Michael DiGiovanni, GM’s executive director of global market and industry analysis, as estimating that only "about 200,000 of the 700,000 cars sold under the clunkers program were pulled ahead from future months."10 </blockquote> So, Edmunds says 125,000 cars were incremental. Ford says about 245,000. And GM says the number is 500,000. Since GM has no credibility in my opinion, why don't we just go with Ford's estimate? This would basically halve the Edmunds number, resulting in a cost per clunker of $12,000. Still bad. And either way, why not jut say "we don't agree," point readers to your studies, and let it go? What's with the juvenile spaceman nonsense? <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2M3YjA4NjEwYWY0ZDhiNTFlMWRmY2UxNWUxMjg4NTI= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:30:50 -0400 Texas: Field of Dreams for Wind -- By: Drew Thornley webmaster@nationalreview.com (Drew Thornley) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI4MzFhNGI0YzNmYzQ2MmUzYWE3NGUzNGVjYzcyMzI= <div>The world's largest user and fastest-growing user of energy are teaming up to build a "massive" wind farm in West Texas<a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/chinese-and-american-partners-to-build-massive-west-texas-wind-farm/" target="_blank"></a>:</div> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <div>A consortium of Chinese and American companies announced a joint venture today to construct a massive 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, utilizing wind turbines manufactured in China.</div> Construction of the <a href="http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091029006011&newsLang=en" target="_blank">$1.5 billion wind farm</a> would be funded largely by Chinese financiers, with an assist from the United States government in the form of loan guarantees and grants from the federal stimulus package. “This wind farm project came about thanks to the openness of the United States for investments in the field of renewable energy,” said John Lin, the chief operating officer of Shenyang Power Group, an industrial group in China focused on renewable energy projects. The wind farm, to be built on 36,000 acres in West Texas, will use 240 2.5 megawatt turbines manufactured in China. Construction is expected to begin in March 2010. The project is expected to create 300 temporary construction jobs, and roughly 30 permanent jobs. </blockquote> <div>So, to recap: $1.5 billion of Chinese-built windmills are going to go up in West Texas, thanks in no small part to "an assist from the United States government in the form of loan guarantees and grants from the federal stimulus package. . . . 'This wind farm project came about thanks to the openness of the United States for investments in the field of renewable energy.'" Translation: Were it not for your hefty government handouts, we wouldn't be doing this. For all you baseball fans out there, translation: If you subsidize it, they will come.</div> <div> </div> <div>Granted, simply building more and more and more windmills (and solar panels) won't make them cost efficient -- because you still have to deal with wind's intermittency and volatility, a current lack of commercial-scale electricity storage, and an electric grid not built for the large-scale addition of remote renewable energies -- but at least the $1.5 billion dollars will create "roughly thirty" jobs. That's right: 30 . . . -ish. If that isn't a bang for your taxpayer buck, I don't know what is.</div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI4MzFhNGI0YzNmYzQ2MmUzYWE3NGUzNGVjYzcyMzI= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:00:54 -0400 Oh Good - A Sequel -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2MwMTU4ODM4NDYwZWZlNzFjOGQ2YTY1NTE0NTk0NWI= <a href="http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/10/28/al-gore-to-promote-new-climate-change-book-on-letterman/">Al Gore has a sequel </a>to An Inconvenient Truth coming out November 3 titled titled Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. Doubtless, we'll see solutions in which Kleiner Perkins has invested. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2MwMTU4ODM4NDYwZWZlNzFjOGQ2YTY1NTE0NTk0NWI= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:45:02 -0400 Obama Automotive -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjEzNjNmZDNkNWM0ODI0M2U2ZGRlYzg2MjAxMGJmNzE= Detroit -- Fisker Automotive? Call it Obama Automotive. As part of Washington’s effort to remake the U.S. auto industry to fit President Obama’s <a href="http://green.autoblog.com/2008/08/04/obama-1-million-plug-in-hybrid-vehicles-by-2015/">green vision</a> of 1 million electric cars sold by 2015, Vice President Joe Biden <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/vice-president-biden-announces-new-life-for-shuttered-former-general-motors-plant-in-wilmington-.html">announced</a> Tuesday that luxury electric carmaker Fisker would invest $193 million in taxpayer money to buy an ex-Pontiac plant in Wilmington, Delaware. “I refuse to believe that we will not once again lead the entire world in the manufacturing of automobiles,” Biden told a friendly UAW crowd. “This factory in Delaware, and the industry, are going to get back up off the mat.” With its pork barrel politics, union favoritism, and massive taxpayer subsidy, the Delaware plant is <a href="http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091027/CARNEWS/910279994">a case study</a> in Washington industrial-policy boondoggles. Toys for the rich: Democrats love to huff and puff about expensive weapons systems -- but at least those are built for the common defense. Fisker makes cars for well-to-do American greens. The luxury sedan slated to be built at the Delaware facility will sticker for $47,400 (Fisker’s press release spun the price as “around $39,900 after federal tax credits.” That credit represents a $7,500 taxpayer subsidy per car) -- meaning that it will compete against the BMW 3-series and Mercedes C-Class luxury cars. Political connections: Notably, Fisker has never manufactured an automobile before. Its first car, the $87,000 Fisker Karma, is not due to roll off its Finnish assembly line until next year. So how does an automaker that hasn’t made an auto land a half-billion government investment? Check its rolodex. Fisker is the darling of California green politicians. Located in Silicon Valley along with its electric cousin, Tesla, Fisker has been touted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Diane Feinstein as a California pioneer that will help the Bay area steal Detroit’s mantle as America’s car capitol. And Fisker also benefits from ties to the Goracle -- his venture firm, Kleiner Perkins, is a lead Fisker investor. Union payoff: Fisker will maintain the Delaware plant’s UAW representation -- an odd decision for a startup seeking to keep costs low. But of course, this is a government startup, and the union comes with the package. Political pork: Biden’s lead role in Fisker’s announcement is surely no accident. This is valuable pork for the Veep’s home state in the coming election year. The Delaware plant maintains union jobs -- and voters -- and provides Biden’s Senate replacement (his son, Beau?) with a handy campaign promise of green jobs. Washington in charge: As the majority stakeholder in General Motors, Washington (via its GM CEO puppet) had allegedly targeted the Delaware pant for closure. In fact, it is merely transferring it to another government-financed entity, Fisker, who will operate the plant with a portion of its $529 million in <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY0YjBjZDc4ODNmZWE4MWI4MTljZGMzMzM3OTg3NjA=">taxpayer loans</a>. The Obama administration’s 21st century vision of a government-led American auto industry is a striking contrast to the private companies that vaulted Detroit to U.S. dominance in the early 20th century. “This is proof positive that our efforts to create new jobs, invest in a clean energy economy and reduce carbon pollution are working,” commented Energy Secretary Steven Chu about the Delaware plant. “We are putting Americans back to work and reigniting a new Industrial Revolution that is paramount for the economic success of this country.” Welcome to the Era of Big Government Motors. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjEzNjNmZDNkNWM0ODI0M2U2ZGRlYzg2MjAxMGJmNzE= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:30:32 -0400 Live Blogging the Climate Hearings -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM1YTA2MjQwYmUzMDVmMGRiM2QyN2UzMjg5OGMyNDU= <a href="http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/live-blogging-white-house-energy-forum/">This</a> stood out from yesterday's New York Times live blog of the Senate's climate hearings: <blockquote> 10:00 a.m.: Carol Browner mentions elements of legislation that would allow farmers to get income by selling credits for carbon banked in their fields through changes in agricultural practices. Some specialists in carbon sequestration through forests and farm fields, including <a id="aptureLink_Bwj9uyXYPe" href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/breath-of-a-nation-animated-co2-map/">Kevin Gurney at Purdue</a>, have told me the policy here is out ahead of the science, given that it remains difficult to measure precisely how much, or even whether, a particular change -- for example from <a id="aptureLink_W6rFmz0JhI" href="http://extension.osu.edu/~news/story.php?id=5063">plowing fields to no-till agriculture</a> using pesticides to kill weeds -- improves the rate of carbon sequestration. That leaves significant potential for “greenwash,” or at least for actions cast as having a climate benefit that the climate system may never notice. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM1YTA2MjQwYmUzMDVmMGRiM2QyN2UzMjg5OGMyNDU= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:00:34 -0400 New Name for the Obama Energy Tax -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdmOTFjYWNlNTBlNjgyM2I1MmFhY2ViZDU3NzFkMmQ= How about the "Obama/Enron Energy Tax?" Because, really, what's so different between what President Obama wants to implement and what Enron wanted to do? From a CEI op-ed back in 2002: <blockquote> It’s not surprising to most people that Enron delivered truckloads of money to politicians in an attempt to influence the political process. What may surprise many, however, is that Enron believed that one of its main opportunities to make money by gaming the political system was global warming. Enron became one of the biggest corporate boosters of the Kyoto global warming treaty, which would require huge reductions in energy use by consumers and industry. According to an internal Enron memo, quoted by The Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.” In addition to all its political lobbying and contributions, Enron became a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, a leading industry front group pushing the Kyoto agenda. Enron chairman Ken Lay also served on the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, along with Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense, and former Alcoa CEO and current Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. Even after President Bush decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto treaty, Enron continued to push for a domestic regulatory scheme known as cap-and-trade, whereby the government would set a cap on the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions allowed in the U.S. It would then distribute permits or allowances to companies affected by the cap giving them the right to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Those allowances could then be traded in the open market. Enron executives believed that a cap-and-trade program would put them in a position to dominate the U.S. energy market. Electric utilities, required to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, would be forced to switch from coal to natural gas as the only practical alternative to electricity production. As a leading trader of natural gas, Enron would be the recipient of a huge financial windfall. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdmOTFjYWNlNTBlNjgyM2I1MmFhY2ViZDU3NzFkMmQ= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:00:51 -0400 Beware of Carbon-Credit Trading -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQzNjY5ODBhZTRmM2VlMmYyMjEzZmY2ZGFlOTFjYTY= From Jo Nova down under: If you liked subprime housing, <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/sub-prime-carbon-is-coming/">get ready for subprime carbon</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQzNjY5ODBhZTRmM2VlMmYyMjEzZmY2ZGFlOTFjYTY= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:45:31 -0400 Europe Is Writing Checks That America Will Have to Cash -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzRmOTdhNWUzOWRiZmQ0Y2YzN2FhMzgzNzVjMmZmMGU= From CCNet editor Benny Peiser: <blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/27/europe-climate-change-deal-pledge">Europe puts figure on green aid to push climate change deal</a> </blockquote> An excerpt:. <blockquote> Europe is to breathe life into the faltering search for a new global deal on climate change by pledging billions of pounds in financial support for poor countries, the Guardian can reveal. European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around €100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming. The pledge is expected to come at the end of a two-day summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday, and before negotiations on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. The move marks a victory in Brussels for the UK and Gordon Brown, who appears to have won arguments with member states including Germany over whether Europe should commit to climate funding ahead of the Copenhagen talks. Brown was the first western leader to put hard figures on the table when he said in a speech earlier this year that rich countries needed to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year by 2020. </blockquote> And what’s our share? <blockquote> The draft European position says: "All countries, except the least developed, should contribute to international public financing … based on emission levels and on GDP to reflect both responsibility for global emissions and ability to pay." Such a move would leave the US with a bill running to tens of billions a year, unlikely to go down well in Washington. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzRmOTdhNWUzOWRiZmQ0Y2YzN2FhMzgzNzVjMmZmMGU= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:30:11 -0400 Going it Alone on Global Warming -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQ1NzJjMjgyN2QyYzMyZjEwY2U5M2NkNTQxMTg1M2Q= Via <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3545/UN-IPCC-Scientists-Candid-Admission-Congressional-Climate-Bill-Could-ruin-the-US-economy-and-it-wouldnt-save-the-climate-either">Climate Depot</a>, Dr. Steve Running (who won the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore for the IPCC report on global warming) <a href="http://northernbroadcasting.com/NEWS/Headlines/tabid/71/EntryID/1073/Default.aspx">says that if the U.S. acts alone</a>, it will ruin the U.S. economy and not do anything to change the environment: <blockquote> As debate over climate change legislation heats up on Capitol Hill, the Director of the University of Montana’s Climate Change Studies Program, and a co-author of a Nobel Prize winning report, says cap and trade legislation could ruin the US economy. During a Wednesday morning interview with statewide radio talk show host Aaron Flint on “Voices of Montana,” Dr. Steve Running said any climate change solution needs to involve all nations. “We have to have all the major nations in agreement on future progress,” said Running. Running is a co-author of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founder of the Climate Change Studies program at the University of Montana. He added, “If the US passed a cap and trade and other countries did not, it wouldn’t work. It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either. So this is a global issue, the global climate statistics are global in nature, global carbon emissions are global in nature, and we really have to have an international consensus of what to do. That is going to stretch our international diplomacy to its limit, there’s no doubt about that.” Nonetheless, Running called on the United States to show leadership on the issue of addressing climate change, saying other countries will follow suit. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQ1NzJjMjgyN2QyYzMyZjEwY2U5M2NkNTQxMTg1M2Q= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:15:05 -0400 Editorial of the Day -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGExNzRhMzhjN2NlZjViOTA5NTIwN2Y5OTc3MWI2NmU= WSJ: <blockquote> Sins of Emission: The ethanol boondoggle is also an environmental catastrophe </blockquote> An excerpt: <blockquote> Donning FDR's cape, Eisenhower's stripes and JFK's boat shoes, President Obama observed in Florida on Tuesday that his "clean energy economy" will require "mobilization" on the order of fighting World War II, building the interstate highway system and going to the moon. Of course, the only "mobilization" going on at the moment is on behalf of ethanol, whose many political dispensations the biofuels lobby is finding new ways to preserve even as the evidence of its destructiveness piles up. The latest embarrassment arrives via the peer-reviewed journal Science, not known for its right-wing inclinations. A new paper calls attention to what the authors (led by Princeton's Tim Searchinger) call "a critical accounting error" in the way carbon emissions from biofuels are measured in climate-change programs world-wide. Bernie Madoff had a few critical accounting errors too. <a name="U10229890906JCB"></a> Though you won't hear it from the biofuels lobby, ethanol actually generates the same amount of greenhouse gas as fossil fuels, or more, per unit of energy. But this was still supposed to be better than coal or oil because ethanol's CO2 is "recycled." Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them as fuel would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years. With everything supposedly balancing out, the cap-and-trade programs run by the United Nations and European Union—and maybe soon the U.S.—treat biofuels as carbon-neutral. The Science study argues that this is a false economy, because it doesn't consider changes in land use. If mature forests are cleared to make room for biofuel-growing farms, then the carbon that would otherwise accumulate in those forests ought to be counted on ethanol's balance sheet as well. Cap-and-trade programs exacerbate the problem because developed countries (where emissions are putatively capped) get credit for reductions from ethanol—despite the fact that their biofuels are generally grown in developing countries (where emissions aren't capped). So if Malaysians burn down a rain forest to grow palm oil that ends up in German biodiesel, Malaysia doesn't count the land-use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500013927534676.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGExNzRhMzhjN2NlZjViOTA5NTIwN2Y5OTc3MWI2NmU= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:00:46 -0400 You Say AstroTurfing, I Say Community Organizing -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGFlZGRmMTIyOWVmMTY5YzkxZDEyMmZiZDZhMmM5N2U= So, they called the whole thing off. Or, at least, my part. The Democratic majority objected to my appearing at a House hearing on Thursday morning addressing AstroTurfing in the global-warming-advocacy industry. The majority were not amused by the prospect of a discordant note being struck. As such, the Republicans will have no witnesses. They have agreed to this after being challenged. In Washington, times such as these are called "weekdays." The hearing actually has devolved into something of an effort to rehabilitate certain Members who are now imperiled by their vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, particularly Tom Periello of Central Virginia (my Congressman, who has been hoodwinked by someone into stating, in defense of his vote, that the reason we are losing jobs to India and China is because they’ve already passed Waxman-Markey-type laws. Really. I agree we need to find out who is spreading such scurrilous tales to our lawmakers). So, Rep. Periello will open the proceedings with a statement. The hearing was already delayed once because he refused to let anyone see what he was going to say in advance. They might ask questions. I don’t think that’s much of a threat. Anyhow, it seems that pointing out how, where, and by whom this practice of deceitful industry lobbying in the “global warming” context was invented and is now used, and employing inconvenient words like “Axelrod” and “Enron” was deemed non-germane. The hearing will go on with no need to sully things by allowing you to hear the following. I believe that the Republicans will seek to introduce my written statement into the record. In the event that lightning strikes twice and the grave offense of introducing contrary thought in the form of my written, substantiated testimony is also objected to by the majority, here’s my slightly shorter oral testimony that would have been delivered. Apparently there’s something very, very dangerous about it. I cannot figure out what that might be, given the umbrage being taken at AstroTurfing and the solemn vows to expose the wantonness, so I leave it to you. Please forgive typos along the lines of “thank you for allowing me to testify” and the like, as they are in the original: DELIVERED TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER C. HORNER, SENIOR FELLOW, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, HEARING ON “ASTROTURFING” October 29, 2009 Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I would like to thank the Members of this Committee for allowing me to address the long-overdue issue of deceptive practices, specifically “Astroturfing,” in the “global warming” policy arena. Such practices have existed for years throughout environmental policy, both from inside and coordinated with government, environmental pressure groups and industry. Examples abound of “Astroturfing” and other deceptive practices to push the global warming agenda. Recently, the Environmental Defense Action Fund used Craigslist to recruit paid “activists” to rally support for cap-and-trade in the guise of a grassroots movement. We all witnessed last week’s dishonest advocacy effort by the activist group “Yes Men”. About this, Daniel Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal:<a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> “…the cable news stations, wire services and Web sites reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had recanted its opposition to climate-change legislation. It was a hoax. Incredibly (well maybe not so incredibly), the hoax was perpetrated by an activist group in a room at the National Press Club in Washington in front of reporters who’ve risen to the top of their industry. The hoaxers had created a fake Web site and faked a Chamber press release. The made-up press conference ran about 20 minutes until someone from the real Chamber of Commerce showed up yelling, ‘This is a fraud!’ Too late. Credulous TV and wire reporters had sent the Chamber’s climate flip-flop into an already confused world.” The merits of these practices of course do not hinge on whether they agree with one’s position. As AEI’s Ken Green was quoted as saying, however, “When someone else does it, it’s astroturfing; when you do it, it’s community organizing.”<a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Astroturfing is no stranger to the energy industry, purportedly perfected by Chicago-based utility Exelon, which hired David Axelrod’s public affairs firm to create a front group to achieve the same end as sought by cap-and-trade, which is a rate increase. As Newsweek wrote, when an Exelon arm “wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike”: “it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a ‘California-style energy crisis’ if the rate increase wasn’t approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. ‘It’s corporate money trying to hoodwink the public,’ the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said.”<a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Last year Business Week wrote about this component of Exelon’s $15 million effort to convince ratepayers to agree to pay more for energy, calling the campaign the “gold standard in Astroturf organizing”. Exelon is of course again in the news of late for leading a campaign, sold by public affairs professionals as an exodus from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce based upon environmental principle but which, upon scrutiny, is a collection of largely “rent-seeking” companies standing to make as much as one billion dollars per year on the backs of ratepayers from cap-and-trade according to media reports. Most will also recall when gas interest Chesapeake Energy emerged, in the words of a Houston Chronicle writer, as “one of the only companies that has fessed up to funding a recent <a href="http://www.cleanskycoalition.com/">advertising campaign </a>against Dallas-based TXU’s <a href="http://www.reliabletexaspower.com/">plans</a> to build up to 11 new coal-fired power plants… with no clear notice of who was behind it. Chesapeake admitted to funding the campaign, at least in part, after reporters did some digging.”<a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> Several internal memoranda have surfaced about Enron’s pioneering effort in the late 1990s, to leverage green pressure groups to advocate for its new creation called carbon cap-and-trade. One memo in particular stated how: “Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI, and Worldwatch.” “This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monitized).” The misspelling in the parenthetical is in the original but I believe the point is clear. This list is by no means exhaustive, as I note in detail in my written testimony. As the Journal’s Henninger also wrote, “With fakery everywhere—some of it amusing, some of it not funny—people’s ability to know where things fall on the spectrum between fact and falsity becomes so compromised that they retreat into a shell of cynicism about everything.” Hopefully today’s effort, allowing an airing however brief of the tactics used to promote the “global warming” agenda, will also assist this ongoing education campaign. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks today. <div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"> <hr /> <div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;"> <a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> “The Chamber-of-Commerce hoax: by Dan Henninger in the WSJ Oct 22 <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487311163219306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage" href="https://ex03.mindshift.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487311163219306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487311163219306.html?mod=djemEditorialPage</a>. </div> <div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;"> <a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> “Enviro ad sparks debate -- grass roots or AstroTurf?”, E&E Daily, August 27, 2009. </div> <div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;"> <a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Newsweek June 2, 2008 “Campaign 2008: Obama lobbyist connection”, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519</a>. </div> <div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;"> <a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> “The money behind the dirty faces”, Houston Chronicle NewsWatch: Energy blog, February 14, 2007, <a href="http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2007/02/the_money_behin_1.html">http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2007/02/the_money_behin_1.html</a> (links in original). </div> </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGFlZGRmMTIyOWVmMTY5YzkxZDEyMmZiZDZhMmM5N2U= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:00:56 -0400 A Summary of Yesterday's Senate Climate Hearings -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzkwNTZjNGZjOGIwOTg5YjlkNTMyOWQ4Y2ZjMGIwNzc= Via Senator Inhofe's blog: <blockquote> In today's hearing, the EPW Committee heard a few key things about <a href="http://kerry.senate.gov/cleanenergyjobsandamericanpower/pdf/bill.pdf">Kerry-Boxer:</a> -It will undermine the global competitiveness of America's manufacturers, and give a huge competitive advantage to countries such as China and India. -It will weaken America's national security because it will weaken the economy, and thus compromise our ability to protect the country against foreign threats. -It is an energy tax that will make consumers pay higher prices for electricity. Kerry-Boxer bill will penalize America's manufacturers by raising their energy costs. - <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=30d85d3d-d032-4293-a9da-d239e06d040a">According to Brett Vassey</a>, vice president of the Virginia Manufacturers, higher energy costs will hamper the ability of manufacturers to compete against countries such as China and India, which have refused to accept binding emissions cuts. As Vassey stated, cap & trade is "just another tax on businesses and consumers-regressively so on manufacturing." Vassey also noted that Kerry-Boxer does nothing to stop jobs and emissions from moving overseas, which harms the economy and increases emissions. Even if Virginia limited all of its CO2 emissions, Vassey stated, China's CO2 emissions growth alone would replace all of Virginia's CO2 emissions in only 77 days. Virginia is .44% of the global GHG emissions. America must develop its own resources to protect against foreign threats and mobilize for war. - Cap-and-trade will make America more dependent on foreign oil and undermine our national security by destroying jobs and economic growth. But the key point was made by Major General (Ret.) Robert Scales: Kerry-Boxer will do nothing to stop global warming but it will harm the economy and thus weaken America's national security. <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6f37d54b-dfa0-443b-8e4c-7d58538f8a2f">As Scales said</a>, "Advocates of [Kerry-Boxer] believe passionately that it will reduce America's production of greenhouse gasses. Some suggest that it will create jobs. They may or may not be correct. But nothing in this bill will either reduce the likelihood of American involvement in future wars nor will it improve America's war making capabilities. Indeed over the decades the consequences of the bill might well reduce American influence and retard our ability to deter and fight wars in the future." <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=3f2b716d-5164-4ae0-b1e8-036fc51bf106">More: Testimony from Lieutenant Colonel James Jay Carafano (Ret.)</a> The Kerry-Boxer energy tax will hurt electricity consumers, especially those in the Midwest, South, and Great Plains. - Dustin Johnson, the chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission: <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=842fb307-5f3b-49e1-8520-ea883bb7f6a2">"This bill will hurt Midwestern consumers because it substantially raises their monthly utility bills."</a> Johnson pointed to an analysis of Waxman-Markey that shows <a href="http://puc.sd.gov/commission/Events/carbonforum/CarbonCapandTradeSummaryReport.pdf">"South Dakota consumers will be paying as much as 25 percent more for their electricity as soon as 2012.</a> It could be even more for customers of some companies." <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo-XnKMPlMc">WATCH: Dustin Johnson Testimony</a> - Barry Hart, Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives: "Thank you very much Senator. I do want to make it clear that regional disparities are some of the things that bother us the most. No one on this panel has argued for inaction. No one on this panel has said that carbon shouldn't come with some price. The concerns that have been raised have been primarily around regional disparities." <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAtKB7bR3wk&feature=channel">WATCH: Barry Hart Testimony </a> </blockquote> More <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=9dc3ef78-802a-23ad-4980-b0262a54fb99&Issue_id=">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzkwNTZjNGZjOGIwOTg5YjlkNTMyOWQ4Y2ZjMGIwNzc= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:45:29 -0400 Editorial of the Day (From Yesterday) -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWI0OGUxOThmZjU0NjE3NDUyMzc0MGY0YTFhMGE0YjU= The Washington Post finally asks the question about electric cars, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102703165.html">"who will buy them?" </a> An excerpt: <blockquote> SEVEN MONTHS AGO, President Obama's auto industry task force rained skepticism on the Chevrolet Volt, General Motors' plug-in electric hybrid car. Projected to sell for roughly $35,000 -- after a $7,500 federal tax rebate -- the four-seat car "is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable," the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/GM_Viability_Assessment.pdf">task force noted</a>. Nevertheless, the administration rescued GM by buying a 60 percent equity stake -- and Volt production starts a year from now. <div id="body_after_content_column"> We bring this up apropos of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603011.html?hpid=moreheadlines">announcement</a> Tuesday that California-based Fisker Automotive will take over a former GM plant in Wilmington, Del., to produce a plug-in hybrid of its own. Fisker's move, too, is made possible by government help, specifically a $528 million Energy Department loan -- $359 million of which will go to buy and retool the factory for production starting in 2012. Vice President Biden was on hand in his home state, which will also be a battleground in next year's Senate elections, to celebrate a triumph of the administration's "green jobs" policy. </div> We share the administration's fervent wish for a cleaner, greener vehicle fleet. All parties to the deal assure us that the site's proximity to transportation routes and other advantages, not politics, led Fisker to locate there. Just one question: If the Volt isn't commercially viable, why is Fisker's car? The company has not even described the vehicle publicly, except to say it's "family-oriented" and will cost about the same as the Volt. Both the Volt and the Fisker cost more than higher-performing models such as the Lexus ES350 and some cars in the BMW 3-Series. Even with fuel savings, it will be years before a purchaser would recoup the initial cost differential between a Volt or a Fisker and, say, a Toyota Prius. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWI0OGUxOThmZjU0NjE3NDUyMzc0MGY0YTFhMGE0YjU= Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:30:50 -0400 The Mighty Danish Wind -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFiMDg5YmZmYTM4OTQ1MWE5YzBmMGMwMzNhOGU1Yjg= As Chris Horner <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjVmNmNhYWM0ZWQwNmRhMjIyYjFmNzg4ZGE0Y2IwYTQ=">has previously noted</a>, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. The Danes have embraced wind energy like no other country. They have put up 5,500 windmills generating about 3,000 megawatts, so that you can hardly travel anywhere without seeing them. In fact, people are getting a little tired of them and nothing much has been built in three years. The Danes claim to get 19 percent of their electricity from windmills and that figure has become a benchmark for other legislatures -- including the U.S. Congress -- eager to mandate “portfolios” of renewable energy. But that 19 percent represents only total capacity. In reality, only 10 percent of consumed electricity comes from wind. More than half of wind’s production is dumped into Sweden, Norway, and Germany at bargain prices. Meanwhile, Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive <a href="http://utorontolaw.typepad.com/faculty_blog/2009/04/michael-trebilcock-wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.html">disaster</a>.” The CEPOS study Chris recommended -- “Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark” (PDF <a href="http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf">here</a>), by Hugh Sharman, a civil engineer and international energy consultant -- offers a clear-sighted evaluation of what’s going on. I will be analyzing the study in a different forum, so forgive me if I bring together a few thoughts: 1) Most of the benefit of Danish wind production accrues to its neighbors, Sweden, Norway and Germany. The numerous subsidies and taxes that the Danes provide are “exported” to other countries. 2) Danish wind could have shuttered a few coal plants in Denmark except for a very efficient system of co-generation installed in the 1980s and 1990s. Small coal plants at the village level provide both electricity and district heating to residential and commercial customers. Unfortunately, this means coal plants can’t be shut down, even when wind is supplying sufficient electricity. 3) Coal plants in Sweden and Norway might close down except there are none. Both counties are supplied almost entirely by hydro and nuclear. Germany has more coal plants but it is also building its own wind complex and is having enough trouble integrating that. 4) Wind power can be cheap -- so cheap, in fact, that that at times the spot price of electricity has descended to zero. The problem is that, with their sunken costs, other suppliers of electricity are forced to lose money. Yet they cannot be shut down completely because they have to be there if the wind stops blowing. Wind’s off-and-on nature has caused so much disruption in the electricity market that this month Norpool, the Scandinavian power grid, introduced negative pricing. It will charge suppliers up to 200 Euros per megawatt for putting electricity on the gird in times of excess. The object is to discourage overproduction. 5) Wind suffers none of the economic harm that its frequent disruptions create because it is protected by all manner of subsidies and mandates. Wind has a “feed-in-tariff,” which says utilities must buy it whenever available at a set price. Another law says the pool must buy wind before it buys any other source. Thus wind is virtually prohibited from losing money. 6) Wind could possibly become economical if it were paired with either a system of large-scale electricity storage or another generating source that could be quickly turned on and off to match its vagaries. The only technology now capable of storing commercial quantities of electricity is pumped storage, where water is pumped uphill with off-peak or excess electricity and then allowed to run downhill during hours of peak demand. There are about 30 pumped storage plants around the country but they are regarded as environmentally damaging and new ones would meet fierce resistance. Natural gas turbines are capable of matching wind’s unpredictable patterns but are very expensive to operate. Ultimately, every windmills and solar collectors may be matched with its own natural gas turbine. 7) Without all the subsidies and mandates, it is questionable whether wind could survive in the open market. Although they can operate at zero fuel costs, windmills are expensive to build -- about as expensive as nuclear -- and only last about 15-20 years, as opposed to 60 years or more for current reactors. Whether people would invest in windmills under these conditions is an open question. Despite these circumstances, Sharman notes, the Danish people remain enthusiastic about wind energy. They don’t seem to realize they are subsidizing other countries. The Danish Parliament is about to extend the mandate to 25 percent, although the next round will be built offshore and out of sight. Under certain very special circumstances, then, wind energy could probably reduce carbon emissions and even reduce the need to build new power plants. But it creates awkward problems and comes at a price. Whether it is worth making that sacrifice -- not to mention cluttering the landscape with unsightly monstrosities -- is a different story. <div>-- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmFiMDg5YmZmYTM4OTQ1MWE5YzBmMGMwMzNhOGU1Yjg= Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:06 -0400 Lies, Damned Lies, and Journalists -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM4NmFkMTQ5N2MxODkwYjQ4NjNiMmM5ZDI5OWIzOTk= A quick note about the <a href="http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/">risible</a> effort by the AP’s Seth Borenstein to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling">push back</a> against the traction gained among the public by the observed reality of a temperature plateau -- recognized last year by none other than IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. (<a href="http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001320pachauri_on_recent_c.html">Remember that</a>?) The IPCC’s “chief climate scientist” is in fact an economist, of course, so surely he has had substantial training in statistics, no? This piece is timed to support cap-and-trade week in the Senate. But climate scientist Chip Knappenberger has already <a href="http://masterresource.org/?p=5240">detailed</a>, in about as balanced a fashion as imaginable, just how silly is Borenstein claim that he could not find a statistician who agreed that warming has stopped. You can claim warming or cooling by carefully choosing your base year, but it is clear today -- in at least the physical world in which Borenstein writes -- that temps have indeed stopped rising, just as was clearly the case nearly two years ago when Pachauri made his admission. The refereed literature, beginning with Keenlyside et al. in Nature (2008), has begun acknowledging this, and some of it is predicting the cooling to continue for decades. That is, until -- just you wait -- warming resumes, at least according to the same sort of modeling that has been telling us that the warming continued. (Until some papers and Pachauri admitted it hadn’t.) None of these fond memories mean much to Mr. Borenstein -- though he did (mildly to his credit, if wildly in defiance of his headline thesis) quote John Christy making plain that for the past dozen years there’s been no warming and it’s been cooling for the past eight. But the best part about this, I want readers to recall just as surely do those who have read Chapter One of <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1596985380">Red Hot Lies</a> is: when “An Inconvenient Truth” began taking water for its whoppers, it was none other than the AP’s Seth Borenstein who labored out a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm">deathless apology</a> for the film, the main argument of which was . . . wait for it . . . that he couldn’t find a scientist who could find anything wrong with it! Oh. Wait. He found one who said Gore understated things a bit. So, there’s your context. I am tempted to excerpt the chapter, because I have to say, this was one of the most amusing items to investigate when writing RHL. As such, it went on a little longer than I’m guessing I could get away with in this space, tackling classic Borenstein ploy after classic ploy. But I’ll leave it to the adventurous. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM4NmFkMTQ5N2MxODkwYjQ4NjNiMmM5ZDI5OWIzOTk= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:30:41 -0400 World War 350 -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTgxZTc1Mzc5OWQ3ODAzNzliZDc1MTE0NGQzNDY4YzA= My travels took me to Washington University in St. Louis last weekend where students were coincidentally prepping for a local rally supporting the International Day of Climate Action (billed by <a href="http://www.350.org/">350.org</a> as the “most widespread day of environmental action in the planet's history” with 5,200 events worldwide). With temperatures on Friday hovering in the low 40s -- some 20 degrees below normal in a Midwest that has seen record lows all year -- the students shivered in hats and mittens as they passed out literature warning of global warming Armageddon. The scene reminded me of DC National airport years ago where young Hare Krishna hippies used to aggressively peddle their religious literature (the difference being that today, the religion is backed by the U.S. government). Fortunately for the organizers, Saturday’s temperatures were a more seasonable 60 degrees, encouraging a few hundred disciples, pols, and businessmen to come to the St. Louis arch and warn of the floods, drought, and locusts that awaited us if CO2 levels passed 350 parts per million (too late -- we’re already at 387 ppm). One female student, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/67DF4581D3FAF37E8625765A00020E6C?OpenDocument">reported</a>, wore a “Power Shift T-shirt emblazoned with the group's logo of silhouetted figures raising a wind turbine, a play on the iconic World War II photograph of the flag raising on Iwo Jima.” “What that represents is that shifting the ’s power grid to clean, sustainable energy sources will require a concerted effort on the scale of what it took for us to win World War II,” said the 18-year-old. If only her green professors taught her how essential was the cheap oil infrastructure that helped her forefathers pump out the thousands of incredible planes, tanks, and weaponry needed to defeat the very real plague of German and Japanese fascism. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTgxZTc1Mzc5OWQ3ODAzNzliZDc1MTE0NGQzNDY4YzA= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:15:38 -0400 Guess the Country with the World's Largest Energy Reserves -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYyYWM0ZTdmMTY4YTM2MzVmMjU2YTQ1NTAwYjM1OWM= If you guessed the United States, you can have a cookie. <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=961f1950-802a-23ad-46fa-ef152c585de5">Sen. James Inhofe</a> (R., Okla.): <blockquote> This week, as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee kicks off hearings on the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, one argument Democrats will spout over and over is that America is a nation poor in natural resources. As seen from the quotes below, we are shamed into the belief that America possesses too little and consumes too much: “With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy security,” then-presidential nominee Barack Obama wrote on his campaign website in 2008. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated, “All told, the U.S. has only 1.6 percent of world’s known oil supply.” And in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added, “The math is simple: America has just 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil.” While America’s proven oil reserves are just 21 billion barrels, which do constitute a small percentage of the world’s proven oil reserves, it represents a narrowly construed, inaccurate depiction of America’s true resource endowment. Their “math” calculates just a fraction of the real numbers. To estimate proven oil reserves, a country must first allow drilling to prove those potential reserves -- but for America that’s impossible to do when 83 percent of federal onshore land is inaccessible or restricted due to our own government policies. Moreover, for decades Democrats have aggressively pushed these same policies to wall-off the Outer Continental Shelf for both the East and West coasts and large portions of the Gulf. Consequently, 21 billion is an opportunistic assessment for those who oppose drilling -- if drilling is not allowed, reserves can’t be proved. However, unlike our own Democrats, the Saudis, Canadians, Chinese and Russians pursue policies to prove and produce resources, not hide them. In this larger context, proven reserves represent a small, poor reflection of America’s actual oil endowment. Fortunately, a new government report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) sheds light on the true picture of America’s energy resources. The comprehensive assessment looks beyond the Energy Information Administration’s estimates of proven reserves to include government estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Minerals Management Service to include America’s recoverable oil resources from areas both accessible and inaccessible to drilling. The results show the U.S. endowment of recoverable oil to be 167 billion barrels of oil, not 21 billion -- nearly eight times higher than the number pedaled by Democrats. Remarkably, 167 billion is the equivalent of replacing America’s current imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years. But still, oil resources offer only a glimpse of the full picture. CRS also reveals that America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. In fact, America’s recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And, that’s without including America’s absolutely immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits. Why do Democrats so often downplay and deny America’s abundance of energy supplies? Our overwhelming wealth of coal, natural gas and oil resources represent tens of trillions of dollars in economic growth and security, and millions of American jobs. By targeting carbon dioxide, the long-term goal of the Kerry-Boxer bill is to take these assets off the table -- to tax these resources out of use. Cap-and-trade is merely the latest attempt to further isolate America’s access to our own coal, oil and natural gas supplies. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYyYWM0ZTdmMTY4YTM2MzVmMjU2YTQ1NTAwYjM1OWM= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:00:07 -0400 Coping with Expectations in Copenhagen -- By: Drew Thornley webmaster@nationalreview.com (Drew Thornley) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDY4ZDI1Mjk1ZTdmNTdkMjJhMmU1MjRkMjE1NTJmZGY= <div><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0">You don't say</a>? <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0" target="_blank"></a></div> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> UNITED NATIONS -- Just weeks before an international conference on climate change, the United Nations signaled it was scaling back expectations of reaching agreement on a new treaty to slow global warming. Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general's Climate Change Support Team, said Monday "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go" because the U.S. Congress has not agreed on a climate bill, and industrialized nations have not agreed on targets to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or funding to help developing countries limit their discharges. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made a new climate treaty his top priority, hosting a Sept. 22 summit on climate change to spur political support and traveling extensively to build political momentum for a global agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which only requires 37 industrialized nations to cut emissions. Pasztor told a news conference "there is tremendous activity by governments in capitals and internationally to shape the outcome" of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in early December, which "is a good development" because political leadership is essential to make a deal. But he indicated that Copenhagen most likely won't produce a treaty, but instead will push governments as far as they can go on the content of an agreement. </blockquote> Calm down, folks. I, for one, think there is no need to panic about this setback for the New Climate Order. All we gotta do is <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/go-veggie-to-fight-global-warming-says-expert-1810134.html">quit eating meat</a>, and we will save the world. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDY4ZDI1Mjk1ZTdmNTdkMjJhMmU1MjRkMjE1NTJmZGY= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:45:16 -0400 How the Sausage Is Made -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2QxNjFjMDFlOWJlNmE4OTI4Mjc1ZmRlMjk1OTYyYzk= <a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/baltimore-gas-and-electric-company,1016052.shtml">The chairman, CEO, and president of Constellation Energy</a>, Mayo A. Shattuck, sheds a little light on how a Maryland-based subsidiary of his company won $200 million in taxpayer money for smart meters: <blockquote> Finally, we are extremely grateful for the strong support of our Smart Grid application by Maryland’s Congressional delegation, particularly Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin and Representatives Steny Hoyer, Elijah Cummings, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes and Frank Kratovil. They played an essential role in garnering the support necessary to ensure BGE’s customers were the beneficiaries of this important stimulus investment. </blockquote> Great. A $3.4 billion give-away based on political pressure from Congressional delegations. Now let's see if their customers really are the beneficiaries. Smart meters <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWFiNTAzZjQwY2I4YzcwZWQ5ZGFkZWI5ZjU3MjI3YjU=">certainly have some Californians stimulated</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2QxNjFjMDFlOWJlNmE4OTI4Mjc1ZmRlMjk1OTYyYzk= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:30:53 -0400 Too Smart By Half -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWFiNTAzZjQwY2I4YzcwZWQ5ZGFkZWI5ZjU3MjI3YjU= With President Obama's $3.4 billion giveaway today to supposedly upgrade the U.S. electric grid, let's take a look at the implementation of "smart" meters in California. <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1680838.html">The Fresno Bee reports</a>: <blockquote> More than 100 people packed a hearing at the Hugh M. Burns State Building in downtown Fresno tonight to vent their frustration with PG&E's newest metering technology, which customers say has led to unwarranted spikes in utility bills. Dozens more stood outside the meeting room. Several people held signs that read, "PG&E are a bunch of theives" and"PUC ripoffs." "You deserve answers," said Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, who held the hearing amid concerns that the SmartMeter technology -- funded largely by consumers -- has failed to deliver on promised savings. SmartMeters are supposed to give consumers real-time information on their energy usage so they can make adjustments to save on their bills. But that technology will not be in place for years, Florez said. PG&E has blamed the higher utility bills on summer heat and has said that much of the increase has come from rate hikes approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. At the hearing, PG&E officials, as well as the regulatory body that pushed forward the company’s implementation of SmartMeters, are expected to defend the technology. Florez said so far only the utility itself seems to be saving money by eliminating the labor costs of manually reading older meters. Meantime, many consumers say their bills have increased dramatically, even if they have cut back on energy consumption. </blockquote> The California Public Utilities Commission has ordered a "third-party" investigation to determine if the "smart" meters are working as advertised. Stay tuned. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWFiNTAzZjQwY2I4YzcwZWQ5ZGFkZWI5ZjU3MjI3YjU= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:00:58 -0400 SuperFreakanomics -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzgxNmZkNzk3MWY0MWM4M2UxNDMwOTc3OGYwMGUwZDg= Bret Stephens in today's WSJ <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html">discusses</a> the hubbub over the new book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, SuperFreakanomics: <blockquote> . . . Also smart are University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, whose delightful "SuperFreakonomics" -- the sequel to their runaway 2005 bestseller "Freakonomics" -- gives Myhrvold and Co. pride of place in their lengthy chapter on global warming. Not surprisingly, global warming fanatics are experiencing a Pinatubo-like eruption of their own. Mr. Gore, for instance, tells Messrs. Levitt and Dubner that the stratospheric sulfur solution is "nuts." Former Clinton administration official Joe Romm, who edits the Climate Progress blog, accuses the authors of "[pushing] global cooling myths" and "sheer illogic." The Union of Concerned Scientists faults the book for its "faulty statistics." Never to be outdone, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman scores "SuperFreakonomics" for "grossly [misrepresenting] other peoples' research, in both climate science and economics." In fact, Messrs. Levitt and Dubner show every sign of being careful researchers, going so far as to send chapter drafts to their interviewees for comment prior to publication. Nor are they global warming "deniers," insofar as they acknowledge that temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. But when it comes to the religion of global warming -- the First Commandment of which is Thou Shalt Not Call It A Religion -- Messrs. Levitt and Dubner are grievous sinners. They point out that belching, flatulent cows are adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all SUVs combined. They note that sea levels will probably not rise much more than 18 inches by 2100, "less than the twice-daily tidal variation in most coastal locations." They observe that "not only is carbon plainly not poisonous, but changes in carbon-dioxide levels don't necessarily mirror human activity." . . . </blockquote> What's particularly amusing is that both Krugman and Levitt/Dubner are bloggers for the New York Times. As <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/19/a-dark-day-for-times-blogs-edi/print">Joseph Lawler pointed</a> out at the American Spectator blog, "They can't both be right; one or the other must have seriously misrepresented someone's views. I'm guessing that the Times usually holds its columnists to a higher standard. But I'd hate to be the editor tasked with sorting this one out." Dubner responded to Krugman's attack <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzgxNmZkNzk3MWY0MWM4M2UxNDMwOTc3OGYwMGUwZDg= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:30:19 -0400 Solar Activity -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTlkMTQ4OThjZTRmOTY3NTZlYTlhMWRkZjZjNzVjOTQ= The cycle-24 sunspot that appeared on Thursday has grown in its transit across the Sun's surface. <img src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/10/27/05d933285aac4760f079659d25d4dbdd.jpg" alt="" width="512" height="512" /> The folks at Spaceweather have a handy <a href="http://spaceweather.com/images2009/25oct09/1029_anim_512.gif?PHPSESSID=iq5rpjmqck9ocdm4ijg1d34lo5">animation</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTlkMTQ4OThjZTRmOTY3NTZlYTlhMWRkZjZjNzVjOTQ= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:00:31 -0400 One to Chew On -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFjY2I0OWM1MWZmZmQxZjA4MWM0ZGI1ZTE2NGQ1YmU= Via Benny Peiser, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm">Clive James</a> on Montaigne, skepticism, and climate change -- and potato chips made from golf balls. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFjY2I0OWM1MWZmZmQxZjA4MWM0ZGI1ZTE2NGQ1YmU= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:45:22 -0400 Grin and Bear it -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZmYTg0NTdhZmVlNjE0NmZlN2Q5YTNhMzE1YmY0OGY= I'm just coming above water from a week away and some crash testimony for Thursday's House hearing on fraud and deceit in the global-warming-advocacy industry, but I did catch the polar bear-suited crowds Greg highlights, <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODJkMzZiN2IxMzYxNWNiYWY1NzVkYzk1OGZjY2RlZGQ=">below</a>, packing up like so much accumulating Arctic ice right now to sway Czech president Vaclav Klaus on the issue. I caution you not to mock, dear Greg. There is precedent of public officials being swayed by far less a presence than that horde. You may recall Sen. John McCain's explanation of how he found global warming alarmism: a kid, in a -- wait for it -- polar bear suit heckled him in New Hampshire during the 2000 campaign's primaries. He and the bear had a sit-down, and the senator walked away convinced. One bear suit. One. Of course, as the saying goes, I know President Klaus. I've worked with President Klaus. Senator . . . Still, that's all it took to launch a faintly bipartisan movement that has brought us one Senate vote short of adopting economy-killing, climatically meaningless cap-and-trade. No that's one magical animal. Wonderful, well, not so much. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZmYTg0NTdhZmVlNjE0NmZlN2Q5YTNhMzE1YmY0OGY= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:30:08 -0400 A Wonderful, Magical Animal -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODMxM2Y4NGYyYTk3YWRiNWNiYjc2ZDRiNmE1ZWQzZmQ= Simpsons fans recall from "Lisa the Vegetarian" when Lisa lectures Homer that pork, bacon, and other delights come from the same animal. To which Homer replies condescendingly, "Yeah, right Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal." Well, that's how the global warming industry view "green jobs" schemes. Pork and (Davis-) Bacon all from the same magical source. We know why new investment in auto assembly does not go to Michigan but to Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky. In short and making no effort to put a fine point on it, this is to avoid the crushing weight of the collective bargaining agreements that killed American auto manufacturing. We also know why the unions push "green jobs" so aggressively, despite the overwhelming evidence that the schemes harm employment (that is, reduce the overall work force). Since these jobs are effectively federally mandated -- and certainly "federally" (that is, taxpayer-) funded -- they are uniformly, de facto or de jure, Davis-Bacon or otherwise union jobs. So even if they kill jobs, at least they increase the union labor force. And that's really what's important. Today's "E&E Daily" story should be viewed through that lens: REGIONS: Group claims the South can rise again on 'green' jobs Mmm. Yes. From a wonderful, magical pig called the taxpayer trough. Green jobs schemes kill jobs on net. Unions and greens have teamed up to promote these economic drains because it funnels taxpayer-funded workers, and therefore taxpayer funding, into the unions. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODMxM2Y4NGYyYTk3YWRiNWNiYjc2ZDRiNmE1ZWQzZmQ= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:00:13 -0400 Lessons and Priorities -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdmNjE2YjYxOWEzM2FiMjEyMTJiMzI4YTE2NGI5YWY= I see in this London Times <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece">piece</a> from yesterday that Team Obama is not sold on sending their guy just down and around the corner from Oslo after he accepts his Nobel Peace Prize to attend the Kyoto II negotiations in Copenhagen. The place still likely leaves a bad taste in his mouth, to be sure. So much so, in fact, that it appears they are breaking from their habit of doubling down on the dogmatic. Instead of putting their head down and bulling harder after a target upon seeing their tactics don't work, Team Obama seem to have learned and adapted: <blockquote> The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize, but a source close to the Administration said it was 'hard to see the benefit' of his going to Copenhagen if there was no comprehensive deal for him to close or sign. </blockquote> Insert punch-line here about that deal that was just waiting to be closed in Copenhagen last time around. So either they're learning, or they just have their priorities (as addressed <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzA2YzdlNGU4MjdmOTE5Y2U5YjgwNmVjOTkzZDBkYzg=">here</a> and <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNmNmQ4NzJmYjhjMDUyZjYxOTY2NzBkNmE1ODVjZjM=">here</a>). Speaking of priorities, by the way, I notice the media continue to flaunt theirs. Read this paragraph from the same piece: <blockquote> Chinese and Indian resistance to mandatory carbon emission limits has so far proved an insurmountable obstacle to crafting a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that is acceptable to the US. </blockquote> Now, tell me what relevant to that statement has changed since the US found the original Kyoto unacceptable? One thing, and one thing only. Any guesses? See above paragraphs for a hint. The first time around, the issue for the US was always China and India and the rest of the free-riding world where, incidentally, is where emissions are growing (and this is about emissions . . . right?). To the media, it had to be about Bush. Now that it can't be, it's China and India's turn. The good news is, the more the press flails about in this manner, desperate to latch on to a post-Bush bogeyman, the less appealing these countries will be to the American public for the whopping wealth transfer that Kyoto II is shaping up to be. Keep it up, guys. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDdmNjE2YjYxOWEzM2FiMjEyMTJiMzI4YTE2NGI5YWY= Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:30:51 -0400 Countdown to Copenhagen -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmUzMzcyNTRjYjkzZjVkYWY0NmQ1MTc2M2EzZTYyMTU= <a href="http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Company%20Industry/-/539550/677604/-/view/printVersion/-/y7irpd/-/index.html">Africa weighs in before December's climate-palooza</a>: <blockquote> As the clock ticks towards the climate change talks in Copenhagen, Africa has now declared that it will not accept a new pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol. The African negotiators have also stated that neither will they accept a merger of the protocol that is currently in use, with a new agreement. In a statement to mark the end of their Second Technical Meeting in Addis Ababa, the negotiators said successful negotiations should produce a two-pronged outcome. They want sections of the Kyoto Protocol on the developed countries to be amended to include further commitments for a second and subsequent commitment periods. Africa also wants a separate legal instrument to be developed based on the outcome of the negotiations of the Bali Action Plan under the Climate Change Convention. The statement reiterated that Africa should be equitably compensated in the context of environmental justice, for environmental resources, economic and social losses considering developed countries historical responsibilities on climate change. “In this respect, Africa requires new, sustained and scaled-up finance, technology and capacity for adaptation and risk management,” the statement read in part. Africa wants the outcome of the Copenhagen convention to provide new, additional, sustainable, accessible and predictable finance to support a comprehensive international programme on adaptation, that reduces vulnerability and increases resilience. The provision of financial, technological and capacity building support by developed country parties for adaptation in developing countries, they argued, is a commitment under the climate change Convention that must be urgently fulfilled. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h91wb9SK28bdLP0d99R5_jl_u9fAD9BISRJ00">As does Ban Ki-moon</a>: <blockquote> SEATTLE — The United States has to take a strong role if the world hopes to deal with global warming, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says. "All the world is now looking to the leadership of the United States and President Obama," Ban said in an interview Sunday with The Seattle Times. Ban is making a two-day visit to Seattle as part of a trip to call attention to global issues such as climate change and to promote the U.N. to the American public. He was to receive an honorary degree from the University of Washington on Monday, after meeting earlier in the day with Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda. Ban has been pressing nations to commit to firm emission limits when they meet in December in Copenhagen, Denmark, to work out a new treaty to slow global warming, replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on carbon dioxide emissions. The meeting has been billed as a last chance to avoid the impact of global warming. This week, the Senate environment committee will take up its version of a global warming bill. The legislation would cut greenhouse gases by about 80 percent by 2050 and require more domestic energy to come from renewable sources. But with work still to be done on health care and deep divisions in Congress over how to deal with climate change, chances the Senate will pass a climate bill by the end of the year are slim. That means U.S. negotiators are likely to not have firm targets set before the Copenhagen meeting. Ban told The Times that climate change complicates many other problems the U.N. is working to solve, such as poverty and famine and the ensuing political instability. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmUzMzcyNTRjYjkzZjVkYWY0NmQ1MTc2M2EzZTYyMTU= Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:30:23 -0400 Petitioning Vaclav Klaus -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODJkMzZiN2IxMzYxNWNiYWY1NzVkYzk1OGZjY2RlZGQ= Does anyone think that <a href="http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czech-polar-bear-demo-points-to-klaus-s-views-on-global-warming/404632">dressing up as a polar bear</a> will sway Vaclav Klaus's views on global warming? "But what if we get together a bunch of people dressed as polar bears!" Ah. <img src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/10/26/cefe837544f7a0723b02a56f40dede9a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="310" /> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODJkMzZiN2IxMzYxNWNiYWY1NzVkYzk1OGZjY2RlZGQ= Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:00:00 -0400 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmZjOWVjMDdkNDczN2VlMzYwZmM0MGQ3Yjk2MTdiZTA= <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/24/lions-den-emanuel-speak-chamber-commerce-dinner/">Rahm Emanuel</a> will speak to the Chamber of Commerce on November 4. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmZjOWVjMDdkNDczN2VlMzYwZmM0MGQ3Yjk2MTdiZTA= Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:00:55 -0400 Obama's War on Coal -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWNlZTUyZDE1ZWQ5Zjg0YjI2OWFjZTgxM2EyYjU1YmU= Amanda Carpenter writes in today's Washington Times: <blockquote> While campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama said his cap-and-trade tax plans would "bankrupt" anyone building a coal-fired power plant. Although those taxes haven't materialized, the Environmental Protection Agency has put the brakes on 79 surface mining permits in four states since he was elected. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review. But the agency went even further last week, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia - a move that has caused anxiety among coal-state Democrats about the future of the industry under the Obama administration. Mr. Obama's opposition to coal has been apparent since January 2008 when he told the San Francisco Chronicle he would clamp down on miners by enacting a cap-and-trade system that would make it too expensive to stay in business. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," he said at the time. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." Although his favored cap-and-trade bill hasn't yet been passed, West Virginia's Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin III, who supported Mr. Obama's candidacy, called the EPA moves part of a stealth campaign to stifle the industry. </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/hotbutton-60387717/?feat=home_columns">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWNlZTUyZDE1ZWQ5Zjg0YjI2OWFjZTgxM2EyYjU1YmU= Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:30:15 -0400 China Scaling Back Its Solar Plans -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjRiYmIxYmRlM2I0MTliZTY5YTcwNmIzYzdmYzg3ZGY= <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-10/26/content_8846229.htm">China Daily</a>: <blockquote> China is attempting to rein in overcapacity in the country's solar energy sector despite the government's ambitious goal to increase solar capacity from 50 megawatts in 2008 to between 10 and 20 gigawatts by 2020. Enterprises flocking to boost markets in industries such as steel and cement have been common in recent years, with the government then stepping in to correct potential overcapacity. The central government last week announced plans to curb the expansion of six industry sectors by withholding approval for new investments and tightening financing. Surprisingly, considering its role in the fast-growing renewable energy sector, polysilicon, which is used to make solar panels and wind power equipment, was included in the industry sectors targeted by the government. China will order commercial banks not to finance projects in the targeted sectors, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), along with 10 ministries, said in a statement. The China Securities Regulatory Commission, the country's capital markets watchdog, also will review applications from the country's solar energy firms for fundraising activities such as issuing additional shares and private share placement. According to local media reports, the commission is likely to reject such proposals. The move was triggered by fears of overcapacity in the sector. A government document showed that China's polysilicon production capacity is 20,000 tons a year, with an output of about 4,000 tons in 2008. Projects designed for an annual production capacity of 80,000 tons are under construction. In 2008, solar cell production in China accounted for 40 percent of the global output. Seven of the world's top 15 solar cell manufacturers are Chinese companies. Chen Bin, chief director of the NDRC's industry coordination department, said another reason polysilicon was targeted is because of the high energy costs involved in production of the wafers. Electricity expenses account for 35 to 40 percent of the total cost to produce polysilicon, he said. "Currently, the domestic solar energy sector has not yet started up extensively, but 98 percent of the solar cells, which use domestically produced polysilicon, are exported - equivalent to exporting large stores of energy indirectly," Chen said. </blockquote> <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFkNzUwNDIxOTJjNDliYWJhMDIwNDc4MmMyNDU2NWE=">Tom Friedman will be heartbroken</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjRiYmIxYmRlM2I0MTliZTY5YTcwNmIzYzdmYzg3ZGY= Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:33 -0400 Public Cools on Warming. Is Obama to Blame? -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjMwNTZhNGNmYWVjNDU3NDI0ODQ4ZmMyYjRhNzM0YjY= In case you missed it: My friend and fellow City Journal alum <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703573604574491290971140508.html">James Taranto</a> had an interesting observation on the partisan breakdown of the Pew poll Greg posted <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTZkYzZiYWJlYjkyZjliNzgzMzc0NzRhZDQ3ZWUxYzE=">here</a>. <blockquote>Global Warmism Is No Longer Cool Although President Obama is an avowed global warmist, his presidency does not seem to be rallying Americans to the cause. A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that far fewer Americans accept global-warmist doctrines than did a year and a half ago. In April 2008, 71% of those polled said there is "solid evidence the earth is warming," and 47% said the believed-in warming was "because of human activity." This month, those numbers are down to 57% and 36%, respectively.</blockquote> <blockquote> Half of those polled said they supported Obama's "cap and trade" scheme to suppress energy use by burdening it with new taxes. But the more you know about the plan, the less you favor it: Only 36% of those who said they had heard "a lot" about cap-and-trade were in favor; 64% opposed it, vs. 39% of the total population. What accounts for the shift in opinion? One possibility is that Obama's declining popularity has worn off on warmism. Belief in global warming because of human activity declined nine percentage points among Republicans and eight among Democrats, but a whopping 20 points among independents, the group most apt to change its mind about the president. Another possibility is that in a recession, people have real problems to worry about and thus are less likely to be concerned about hypothetical fears. Whatever the reasons, though, this poll ought to be a warning to senators who have repeatedly threatened to take up cap-and-trade one of these days. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjMwNTZhNGNmYWVjNDU3NDI0ODQ4ZmMyYjRhNzM0YjY= Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:30:24 -0400 Obama Lays Out His Energy Game Plan -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI5ZTI5YjQxYmZmMTllODYyYWY2MWFiOGRhMDJhNjk= President Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/us/politics/24obama.text.html ">didn’t mince words</a> in his speech to a receptive audience at MIT on Friday. Renewable energy is the name of the game. <blockquote>The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.). . . The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity.</blockquote> Moreover, anybody who doubts any of this is in for a rough time: <blockquote>The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it's important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we're engaged in.</blockquote> At the center of all this, of course, is the marvelous research being supported by stimulus money at MIT: <blockquote>Now Dr. [Ernest] Moniz is Director of MIT’s Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President [Susan] Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-powered batteries that aren’t built, but are grown -- that was neat stuff; . . . efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.</blockquote> That last one is really interesting. Probably what’s involved is some kind of storage system or tapping of underground ocean currents. But it’s nice to keep that walk-on-water aura. There was a picture accompanying most stories that showed Obama ogling in the lab while a scientist held a little windmill over his head. It’s important, however, not to forget the scale of these things. <blockquote>For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world’s newest and largest wind turbine blades -- blades roughly the length of a football field.</blockquote> Just think, if you put one of those up over MIT’s Roberts Field, you could generate three . . . count ’em, three . . . megawatts -- or 1/500th the output of a standard nuclear reactor; and that’s only when the wind blows, which is about 30 percent of the time. Wind power is now the world’s biggest Ponzi scheme and possibly the next subprime mortgage meltdown as well. As Professor Michael J. Trebilcock, professor of economics at the University of Toronto, said in testifying before the Canadian Parliament last April: <blockquote>Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). . . . Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”</blockquote> Yet nobody among our regnant liberal elite dares breath a word of this. Instead, countries that have failed at providing electricity with windmills simply move on to the next country telling everyone they’re doing great. Vestas, the Danish wind energy giant, is the leading player in the American market with a 20 percent share. The inclusion of Dr. Ernest Moniz in Obama’s energy address is also interesting. Over the past six years, Dr. Moniz has been leading <a href="http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/">an effort by MIT</a> scientists to reconsider nuclear power. Like any group of academics, the MIT group has been very cautious about embracing nuclear, but the general recommendations have been positive. Their 2009 update (click <a href="http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf">here</a> for a PDF) concluded: <blockquote>Compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge.</blockquote> So was there any mention of nuclear in Obama’s 20-minute address? Yes, there was one phrase buried in a long list of alternatives about the need for “creating safe nuclear power” -- as if the kind we have isn’t safe already. Running even a small portion of this country, 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week, on “renewable” energy would require Congress to repeal the laws of physics. Don’t be surprised if they give it a try. <div>-- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI5ZTI5YjQxYmZmMTllODYyYWY2MWFiOGRhMDJhNjk= Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:15:58 -0400 A Brief Moment of Candor -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzg0YzQyYzIwYzE4MDU5ZmMxOTNjZjQwOWIwN2UwOGY= Detroit -- This week’s “The Business of Plugging In” electric vehicle gabfest in Motown was a Who’s Who of powerful Big Auto execs, Big Green honchos, and Big Government officials -- but it was the power of the American consumer that had all of them gnashing their teeth. In the conference’s final panel discussion, Kleiner Perkins partner and green zealot Ray Lane worried about how to force a carbon tax on Americans when we have to deal “with the four-year election cycle.” Fellow panelist and Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm (who insists on calling her state tax hikes “investments”) blurted out: “Ya gotta call it something else!” Honesty is the best policy? Not for Greens. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzg0YzQyYzIwYzE4MDU5ZmMxOTNjZjQwOWIwN2UwOGY= Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:30:32 -0400 Our Squandered Nuclear Advantage -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2UzNWQ3N2ViYTI3NDQyZGQ0MTVlMDgzNDhmZmM0ZWM= Tom Sanders, the 55th president of the American Nuclear Society, is here at West Point giving a presentation at the Nuclear Renaissance Symposium -- and he isn’t happy. “Right now there’s not much left of the American nuclear industry,” he told the surprisingly large audience, numbering well over a hundred. “Westinghouse now belongs to Toshiba, the French bought a big piece of Babcock & Wilcox, and Hitachi now owns 60 percent of GE. All these companies are being backed by their governments. In ten years, we’re going to be buying our reactors from the Chinese.” Sanders has been campaigning since 1997 to get the federal government to get behind building nuclear as an export industry. “That was the year the Department of Energy zeroed out nuclear research,” he says. He’s got the AFL-CIO lined up behind him but hasn’t gotten much interest from the Obama administration. As far as building the big 1,000-megawatt reactors that are the staple of the utility industry, he thinks we’ve missed the boat. “France and Japan will probably come in and build them for us with our cheap labor. But they won’t really be American products,” he says. “I was in Japan recently and saw their heavy manufacturing operations. They’re way beyond anything we’ve got here. They’ve got a system that completely machines a reactor vessel with computer-aided design and manufacturing. One worker operates the whole thing. I don’t think we’ll ever catch up with them now.” Where Sanders sees an opportunity is in “right-sized” reactors -- smaller units of about 100 megawatts that can be mass produced in factories and assembled on-site like Lego blocks. “If you get one up and running, the profits from the first can pay for the next,” he says. “You only need about $1 billion to start. It solves the problem of financing.” But the big opportunity is marketing these units abroad. “About one-third of the countries in the world don’t have a grid that can handle more than 50 megawatts. But you can locate a 100-MW reactor can on-site and you don’t need much transmission. It’s an opportunity that could help U.S. companies get back into the world market.” Unfortunately, Sanders’s outlook is a little optimistic. The Russians already have a small reactor they developed to power Siberian villages and are marketing it around the world. Babcock & Wilcox introduced a “mini-reactor” in September but it’s still on the drawing boards and won’t be applying for design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for at least another two years. Hyperion, a California company with another mini-reactor, asked about design certification two years ago and the NRC basically said, “Please go away.” They’re already hopelessly bogged down trying to deal with applications for large reactors. Industry estimates are that the NRC won’t get around to considering mini-designs until at least 2013. Americans better get used to the idea that we are already lagging far behind in the worldwide nuclear renaissance. There are 34 reactors under construction around the globe, none of them in the United States. Last week the NRC rejected the design for the Westinghouse AP1000 -- even as China is building four of them. We once led the world in nuclear technology. Now we’re bringing up the rear. <div>-- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2UzNWQ3N2ViYTI3NDQyZGQ0MTVlMDgzNDhmZmM0ZWM= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:45:29 -0400 Let's Hope This Story Has a Happy Ending -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjJmMDNjZWFkZTg1YzAyMzQ0NDkyZTY2Y2IwYzViYzY= In the wake of more than 350 public complaints, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/21/climate-change-advertising-standards">the U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority is reviewing this commercial</a> for "scaremongering" and "misleading the public." <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w62gsctP2gc&feature" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w62gsctP2gc&feature"></embed> </object> My friend Janet Daley calls it "propaganda in the strict technical sense of the word." From the <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100014424/government-tv-climate-ad-is-propaganda/">Telegraph</a>: <blockquote> That is to say, it is an attempt by the state to manipulate opinion and evoke emotional reactions without offering argument or evidence for its case. It accepts uncritically the most extreme rendition of the anthropogenic global warming narrative as if it were entirely uncontentious and presents it in the most sentimentally evocative possible way (ie as a threat to one’s own children and to defenceless creatures generally). It uses the techniques once associated with totalitarian societies not to persuade (which is what advertising properly does) but to coerce: to create fear and guilt. And to what purpose? Without offering constructive argument or serious explanation of the options, we can only assume that this is a campaign designed to browbeat the public into accepting any new restrictions or “green” taxes which government may choose to impose. Fortunately, it seems that ordinary people still have the independence of mind to know when they are being bullied. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjJmMDNjZWFkZTg1YzAyMzQ0NDkyZTY2Y2IwYzViYzY= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:15:12 -0400 Marooned in New York -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU4MTQxOGQ2NjYwNjRlYTE0MjgwYTI5NTU3M2QyZTM= Following on the heels of yesterday's <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTZkYzZiYWJlYjkyZjliNzgzMzc0NzRhZDQ3ZWUxYzE=">Pew poll</a> about certain "global warming"-related attitudes, last night I learned that cap-and-trade and Kyoto are to voters what the Bronx is to Manhattan cabbies: the more they learn about where you're really going, the less they want anything to do with it. So you start out with some benign-sounding misdirection: "green jobs" -- or in my cab-catching case "oh uptown . . . I'll get an address momentarily." That subterfuge became necessary after two cabs sped off at the first mention of "The Bronx" -- leaving me standing forlorn like McCain and Lieberman after the Senate did the same to them (also twice). Maybe I should have tried the "national security" argument. This particular cabbie was much like me, in that once the relevant and unwelcome information was presented, he rolled down the window at every stop to tell anyone who would listen. So it was that I eventually arrived for a talk sponsored by the Fordham College Republican Club, made possible like so many such talks by the Young America's Foundation. I know a few Fordham grads all of whom evidence a rigorous training, but this iced the cake and I would enthusiastically send my boys there if they wished. It is by now a common and humbling experience to meet these students so vastly more together and impressive than I ever showed hints of becoming at their age. These College Republicans were model citizens to my mind. Further, the obviously mixed audience -- asking nuanced questions -- was respectful and engaged, with none of the ritual sneering, storming, hissing, coughing fits I regularly encounter when college students have their belief system challenged. In short, they all behaved with the civility that conservatives have long been known for extending to others (a reputation that has left our current political class swooning, aghast over the recent and ongoing displays of voters having had enough). Good show, Fordham. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU4MTQxOGQ2NjYwNjRlYTE0MjgwYTI5NTU3M2QyZTM= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:30:43 -0400 What's Good for Kleiner Perkins Is Good for America? -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDBlMjVjYTI5NTIzNTExM2FlMGM5NTE0ZTU4NWYwNjU= Detroit -- Rent-seeking is the new venture capital model, Kleiner Perkins managing partner <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Why-former-Oracle-president-joined-Kleiner-Perkins/2100-1001_3-244855.html">Ray Lane</a> explained to an <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWU1MTQzY2YwM2NlNzYzMGU3N2FhMWMzNjcwZjE0YmU=">electric car-conference</a> here Wednesday. In an extraordinary speech, Lane laid out how market socialism can guarantee profits for politically connected VC firms like Kleiner -- far more preferable to the old model of “throwing a dart at a dart board,” as Lane has put it. While Silicon Valley-based Kleiner made its reputation as a financier of tech startups like Netscape, Lane confided that they are inherently risky ventures in uncertain, fast-moving markets. By contrast, Lane expressed admiration for communist governments like China and market-socialist economies like France where government determines new markets, thus providing a more certain investment climate for rent-seekers. With Kleiner partner Al Gore lobbying for federal mandates from wind to electric cars, Kleiner would be assured of a return on otherwise <a href="http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-14-2008/0004735965&EDATE=">risky investments</a> like Fisker Automotive, a California electric car company. “China gets it,” said Lane. “They require that cars be 10 percent more efficient than the U.S, require 5 times more wind power.” He also extolled France as an example of centralizing electric utility authority at a federal level. It makes things “so much simpler” he said. To pursue this goal, Lane advocated federal polices that would end fossil fuel use including a carbon tax and a gallons-per-mile tax on automobiles (rather than the current tax on each gallon sold). In sum, Lane expressed concern that the U.S. is lagging in what he says is a global trend towards centralized governance (and here we thought the U.S. won the Cold War). Due to the lack of government dictates, the U.S. today is “falling behind. Of the top 30 renewable companies in the world, only six are in the U.S.,” he lamented -- ignoring the fact that U.S. energy costs are among the world’s lowest thanks to a lack of such mandates. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDBlMjVjYTI5NTIzNTExM2FlMGM5NTE0ZTU4NWYwNjU= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:00:38 -0400 CO2 Food Labels -- By: Drew Thornley webmaster@nationalreview.com (Drew Thornley) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDExNTliOWU2ZDZjNDE5Y2U5NDI5NjBhMDEzYTYzNTM= <div>Swedish meatballs? Excellent choice. With lingonberry sauce? Delish. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/europe/23degrees.html?_r=1">Would you like a side order of climate alarmism with that?</a></div> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <div>STOCKHOLM -- Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”</div> “Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee. But if a new experiment here succeeds, she and millions of other Swedes will soon find out. New labels listing the <a title="U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet" href="https://mail.nationalreview.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=1f88a25457c44ed98b798bf496833621&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.epa.gov%2fclimatechange%2femissions%2fco2.html" target="_blank"> carbon dioxide</a> emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDExNTliOWU2ZDZjNDE5Y2U5NDI5NjBhMDEzYTYzNTM= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:45:55 -0400 Pond Scum to the Rescue -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg1Y2Y2MWI1YTI4NTI4MmVmMjA1YTc0ZTZlNzEwYmI= AFP: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091022/sc_afp/lifestyleusclimateenergyalgae">Algae may be secret weapon in climate-change war</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg1Y2Y2MWI1YTI4NTI4MmVmMjA1YTc0ZTZlNzEwYmI= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:30:47 -0400 Don't Say You Weren't Warned -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTc1NTNhYTA5YWVkYWQxZTJlMTNjYjk5ZTEyMTQzZDE= Beware the coming energy shortages thanks to "green" mandates. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb971416-bf35-11de-a696-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1">FT</a>: <blockquote> Total, the French oil group, has warned politicians that they risk accelerating an oil supply crunch if they enact environmental policies that deter investment in oil and gas before enough viable alternatives are available. “Governments need to assess the needs of this planet in terms of energy and stop saying we will develop solar and then not have enough,” Christophe de Margerie, Total’s chief executive, said in an interview with the Financial Times. “Carbon is not the enemy; carbon is life.” Mr de Margerie has a relatively moderate position on climate change among his peers. He wants governments to enact clear, far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions so the oil industry can make investment decisions. “We as companies cannot take the risk. We are investing without knowing what the contractual framework on carbon will be,” he said. Mr de Margerie is the most vocal of his peers in terms of insisting environmental policy needs to go hand in hand with energy security policy. He warned policymakers heading to December’s climate change conference in Denmark: “Don’t go to Copenhagen only with your concern about the environment. We also have a concern over energy access. If you take only one [concern with you], we are dead and we don’t want to die.” </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTc1NTNhYTA5YWVkYWQxZTJlMTNjYjk5ZTEyMTQzZDE= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:00:59 -0400 Al Gore Hates Puppies -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3ZmExOGVjMzlmMmZiMzgzNmZhYWViN2YzZWNiMGI= Reuters: <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/33429555/">Owning a Pet Worse than Driving a SUV -- Carbonwise </a> The good news is that <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWQyOTZkYzZmZjczZmZmYWQyMGYwNDNiMDRiOTIxNTc=">Sweden has shown us</a> what to do with all those planet-killing pets. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3ZmExOGVjMzlmMmZiMzgzNmZhYWViN2YzZWNiMGI= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:45:05 -0400 Apathy in the U.K. -- By: Edward John Craig webmaster@nationalreview.com (Edward John Craig) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZkZDI2NzBhMWVjYWUxMDk4NTQ0ODI0ZDU4ZTUyZWY= Benny Peiser's CCNet missive the morning begins with an amusing couplet: <blockquote> The Foreign Secretary accused the public yesterday of lacking a sense of urgency in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change. David Miliband said that people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to be galvanised into action before the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. --Hannah Devlin, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece">The Times</a>, 23 October 2009 After the uprising of the 17th June/ The Secretary of the Writers Union/ Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee/ Stating that the people/ Had forfeited the confidence of the government/ And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier/ In that case for the government/ To dissolve the people/ And elect another? -- Bertold Brecht, 1953 </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZkZDI2NzBhMWVjYWUxMDk4NTQ0ODI0ZDU4ZTUyZWY= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:30:52 -0400 Op-Ed of the Day -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVjMjc0ZTFjYThjN2QwZDgzZjY1ODFkMzY5YTY1Yzc= Bjørn Lomborg writes in today's WSJ: <blockquote> The View from Vanuatu on Climate Change Torethy Frank had never heard of global warming. She is worried about power and running water. </blockquote> <blockquote> Global warming is a serious challenge that has captured the world's attention. But in the areas that will be worst hit by climate change, what do locals value and want prioritized? The tiny island nation of Vanuatu speaks with a big voice on global warming, calling for larger countries to make immediate carbon cuts. In a warning often repeated by environmental campaigners, the Vanuatuan president told the United Nations that entire island nations could be submerged. "If such a tragedy does happen," he said, "then the United Nations and its members would have failed in their first and most basic duty to a member nation and its innocent people." Torethy Frank, a 39-year-old woman carving out a subsistence lifestyle on Vanuatu's Nguna Island, is one of those "innocent people." Yet, she has never heard of the problem that her government rates as a top priority. "What is global warming?" she asks a researcher for the Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ms. Frank has more immediate concerns -- problems that are not spoken about on the world stage, and that do not attract the attention of the media or environmental advocates. Torethy and her family of six live in a small house made of concrete and brick with no running water. As a toilet, they use a hole dug in the ground. They have no shower and there is no fixed electricity supply. Torethy's family was given a battery-powered DVD player but cannot afford to use it. Three of Torethy's four teenage children have never spent a day in school. The eldest attended classes on another island, which cost Torethy and her husband 12,000 vatu ($110) a year, but she now makes him stay home because "too many of the kids at the school were smoking marijuana." </blockquote> The rest <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574481841335221698.html">here</a>. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVjMjc0ZTFjYThjN2QwZDgzZjY1ODFkMzY5YTY1Yzc= Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:00:59 -0400 Oops -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUwNWE5ZjNlZDdhMDAxZDYxYzdjOWMyZjA3MmM1MjM= Newsflash: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102202889.html?hpid=topnews">Biofuels may not save the planet after all</a>: <blockquote> The world's policymakers and scientists have made a critical error in how they count biofuels' contribution to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new paper published Thursday in the journal Science. <div id="body_after_content_column"> While the article addresses a wonkish subject -- how to measure the environmental impact of energy sources such as ethanol and wood chips, which absorb carbon as they grow but release it back into the atmosphere when they're burned -- it has broad implications. The current method undercounts the global warming contribution of some bioenergy crops, the team of 13 researchers wrote, because it doesn't factor in what sort of land use changes might occur to produce them in the first place. So much for settled science. The discrepancy stems from the fact that government officials in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, when calculating the greenhouse gas emissions limit, do not count the carbon that biofuels release when they're burned. But carbon is released when a producer clears and burns trees, even to grow a crop destined for the biofuels market. Officials also established a legal system that limits emissions from energy use but not from land use activities such as clearing a forest. </div> "We made an honest mistake within the scientific framing of the debate, and we've got to correct it to make it right," said Steven P. Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, and one of the paper's authors. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUwNWE5ZjNlZDdhMDAxZDYxYzdjOWMyZjA3MmM1MjM= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:00:07 -0400 Thanks a Million, Energy Tribune -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDA1MTRlODM3ZGE2NzBkZWRkMjk1YmM2OTJmMzFjZDU= I have a 40-minute PowerPoint presentation I give on E=mc2, showing in mathematical terms why renewable energies are doomed to insufficiency (or else worldwide “sprawl”) and why nuclear is the only sensible technology for meeting our energy needs. I worked it up into a magazine article and sent it around to every publication known to man -- Harper’s, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, The Weekly Standard, The American Interest -- and, I’m sorry to report, National Review. Nobody was interested. It’s a bit too . . . shall we say . . . detailed. Anyway, I had the luck of making a presentation at the National Defense University earlier this month. In the audience was Gusher of Lies author Robert Bryce, who was enthused enough about my presentation to offer the opportunity to publish the article version in his online journal, Energy Tribune. It’s much too long to post again on lanet Gore, but if you are interested (and can spare the concentration I admit the article requires) it just went up and can be found <a href="http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469">here</a><a href="http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469" target="_blank"></a>. Thanks to Robert and Energy Tribune for tackling a difficult but important subject. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDA1MTRlODM3ZGE2NzBkZWRkMjk1YmM2OTJmMzFjZDU= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:04 -0400 A History Lesson on the Electric Car -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWQyZWFhMmZjMTI3ZDllYjg2M2ZkYWRiMTMwMDc0MGY= Detroit -- History offers some inconvenient truths for the green industry. At the Big Government/Big Auto-sponsored “The Business of Plugging In” <a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWU1MTQzY2YwM2NlNzYzMGU3N2FhMWMzNjcwZjE0YmU=">electric-vehicle conference</a> this week, general-turned-green-activist Wesley Clark <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20091020/BUSINESS01/91020045/1202/rss">heralded</a> plug-ins as “that next big thing for America. It could be in electric vehicle technologies.” Or not. Though Big Utility (a co-sponsor of the conference) also stands to gain from government mandates for electricification of the auto, <a href="http://www.dteenergy.com/dteEnergyCompany/environment/">DTE Energy</a> CEO Tony Earley gave conference attendees a welcome history lesson. He reminded them that Detroit’s favorite son, Henry Ford, had worked for an electric utility before he saw the possibilities of the internal combustion engine. Earley explained that electrics made up 80 percent of the vehicle market in the early 20th century. Electrics were preferred for their ease of starting (no hand crank). By 1914, Detroit itself became the first city to have an entire fleet of electric taxi cabs (an eerie echo of politically correct efforts to electrify urban cab and bus fleets today). But, continued Earley, Ford’s revolutionary cars changed all that (in part, thanks to the electric starters that replaced the cranks). Electrics disappeared because gas engines were cheaper, had better fueling infrastructure, and “people needed to travel greater distances.” So what has changed in 100 years? Nothing. Except politics. In the 1970s, explained Earley, electric vehicles resurfaced as some (read: political elites) “became concerned about oil dependence and emissions.” Today, those concerns have been joined by global warming. Which is exactly why utilities like Earley’s DTE Energy have <a href="http://www.dteenergy.com/dteEnergyCompany/environment/climateChange/climateChange.html">signed on</a> to the fiction of global warming. Because without it, there is still no market for electric vehicles. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWQyZWFhMmZjMTI3ZDllYjg2M2ZkYWRiMTMwMDc0MGY= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:15:51 -0400 Those Pristine Plug-ins -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFkYTEyZjdiYTU3MWRiMWY0MDI5ZDVkZWQ0MjZjYmE= A new <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794">report</a> from the National Research Council confirms something we already knew -- that switching to electric cars won’t do anything to reduce air pollution or carbon emissions unless the electricity comes from a “clean” source like nuclear or wind. The report, “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” mainly measures the health effects from air pollution, specifically the sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, ozone, and particulate matter released in burning fossil fuels. Annual damages are estimated at $120 billion, with about half coming from coal in utility boilers and half from burning gasoline in cars and trucks. The report notes that ethanol from corn produces about the same level of emissions as gasoline but suggests that cellulosic ethanol from crops wastes would be a big improvement -- except it has never been done at a commercial level. Clean-air activists have long argued that burning coal in utility boilers has a big impact on lung diseases; the EPA <a href="http://lungaction.org/reports/sota07_protecting1.html">has estimated</a> the annual death toll at 24,000 per year. Yet somehow these arguments never come around to the conclusion that nuclear power would be a better alternative; nuclear has never caused a civilian death, but is somehow considered a dangerous technology. As for reducing transportation emissions, the report concludes that switching to electric cars won’t help unless the electricity for overnight recharging of car batteries comes from an emissions-free source such as wind or nuclear. While the report doesn’t take sides, nuclear seems like a better choice. Otherwise, Americans may be going bed every night praying for a strong, steady wind so they can start their cars in the morning. <div>-- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFkYTEyZjdiYTU3MWRiMWY0MDI5ZDVkZWQ0MjZjYmE= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:00:27 -0400 Wellesley Walkout -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Q0MWQzOTU5OTdlNTg0MjYwNTlkMzc4Njk4Nzg4Zjg= There was a good turnout at Wellesley College last night for my talk “A Quick Tour of the Ultimate in Political Correctness: The ‘Global Warming’ Issue, Agenda and Industry,” hosted by the College Republican Club . . . once presided over here by Hillary Rodham on her way to a thesis about Saul Alinksy, whose ghost (as we see) still lingers. The students were gracious -- particularly given the trying circumstances in recent days, including a faculty member (department-head level) expressing in a fairly open forum, with occasional lapses of civility, her sentiments about the club members and their decision to premiere Not Evil Just Wrong on Sunday, followed by hosting me on Wednesday. Oddly, her peculiar take on tolerance and campus diversity included an often salty angst over the students' supposedly showing no interest in having debate or discussion. Odd, because she had been originally approached to speak last night as part of a panel. She said, in short, no professor would want to participate with someone “like that” (er, me). School administrators have now agreed to address the issue of this kind of treatment of a political minority (of which, as you can guess, last night was only the most recent instance). But, having failed to interest any faculty in joining me on a panel -- let alone debating the merits -- the students finally asked a different faculty member to speak after the film on Sunday. He declined and offered instead an informative lunch with his faculty colleagues -- the kind who don't want open discussion or debate, at least not with anyone but their students. So with all of that as prologue it was with curiosity that, during the Q&A last night, this second <a href="http://www.wellesley.edu/EnvironmentalStudies/Faculty/Jay/jayturner.html">faculty member</a> was in attendance with a (non-faculty) friend -- the latter typing and receiving busily on a PDA, passing it on occasion to the former, who feverishly took notes. With said notes transcribed, he raised his hand with a slightly inane inquiry about whether, if we seek to heat the planet, is CO2 a cost-effective approach? On one level, I was pleased he apparently had no problem with anything I presented, though I did have to correct him for placing numerous words in my mouth in order to frame his query. Moments later, after another passing of the phone, he wanted to know if I knew what the greenhouse effect was. I began to describe it, though not without interjections demanding that I direct my answer more to his liking (by chance, the repetitive and interrupting “you’re not answering my question” was the one typical campus Alinsky-like tactic I had mentioned to the students over dinner before the event began). In that context, I did get out that greenhouse gases in our atmosphere either (take your pick, there's a debate) absorb or trap radiation -- “From?” Well, radiation comes “From the sun.” “Incorrect! It’s a basic principle of how the earth’s climate system works. If you don’t know that you should not standing there representing yourself as someone who can speak to that point” (then somewhat muffled comments as he gathers his things to run out, ironically showing no interest in discussion or debate). Well he makes a very good point, in that I walked into the trap with lazy shorthand -- about which I know better, regardless of the circumstances, and which made what I said incorrect. As he collected his notes and stood to leave I inquired, “Which slides of mine are you disagreeing with?” This was followed by some undecipherable comment at which point he began his exit. I asked him to stay: “Don’t storm out. We’re having a nice discussion.” [Audience member: “Don’t. That’s the coward’s way out.” That only made him hurry faster, at least on the videotape I turned on when I sensed some good theatrics being staged.] My hat is off to him: at least up to the storm-out, he was textbook and followed it fairly well -- though to no substantive point. I do feel compelled to note, somewhat in my defense, that the radiation, as asked and answered, comes courtesy of the sun; and somewhat in a mea culpa, that technically -- as I have described in numerous uninterrupted talks, pieces, books, and radio shows -- the radiation thus trapped/absorbed is trapped/absorbed on the way out, at which point it is infra-red and no longer “solar” radiation. So, yes, of course it comes from the sun, but to not specify that this absorption/trapping occurs when it is re-radiated from the earth was without question my bad. <img src="http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/10/22/27faa93d984aadbc77a4cd7e17ba7ed7.jpg" alt="" width="550" height="438" /> President Obama will doubtless be more articulate on this point when it is raised today across town at MIT, as he keens about the climate crisis. While my misstatement does not exactly rise to the level of Gore reversing cause-and-effect of CO2 and temperatures, or Gore’s producer’s swapping the axis labels to falsely present findings (two things identified in my talk, but which apparently did not interest my emotional interlocutor), it was sloppy and therefore literally inaccurate. Of course, I don’t know if he really assumed that I was asserting a belief that GHGs absorb or trap radiation before it gets to the earth, but I suggest his histrionics thereafter affirm that it doesn’t matter. By text message or otherwise, it was decided that storming out in the face of ignorance too insufferable to countenance was the way to best attain involvement without the dreaded discussion or debate. Whether that supports a tantrum by a fully grown man -- if an environmental-studies teacher -- is in the eye of the beholder.* His hasty retreat surely had more to do with a bristling Richard Lindzen sitting just over his shoulder than a fear that I would elaborate in response. In no indirect terms, Dr. Lindzen strode to the mike to express his impression of such behavior, likely not commonly experienced by a chaired Ivy League professor renowned in his field. But on the other hand, maybe such acting out is why he dropped out of the IPCC. Regardless, it did this department little more honor than the behavior of the previously mentioned faculty colleague -- and, I'll speculate, text-buddy -- leading up to the event. The Environmental Studies faculty had already made a meeting necessary to address its behavior. Given that, as I understand it, the administration appears sincere in its concern for outbursts like the ones Wellesley has witnessed over the past few days, there should now be more to talk about. In any event, we got some funny video. * In fact, after more than two dozen campuses, this is only the second time a faculty member has attended and spoken, though both stormed out (the former was at UNC-Charlotte; related, the ES department chair and actual Ph.D. climatologist at Knox College also stormed out, but only saying to a student "I'll get him in class, tomorrow!") <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Q0MWQzOTU5OTdlNTg0MjYwNTlkMzc4Njk4Nzg4Zjg= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:00:45 -0400 Polling Global Warming -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTZkYzZiYWJlYjkyZjliNzgzMzc0NzRhZDQ3ZWUxYzE= <a href="http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming">Pew</a>: <blockquote> There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem -- 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008. The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures. Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year. The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view -- 75% today compared with 83% last year. </blockquote> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTZkYzZiYWJlYjkyZjliNzgzMzc0NzRhZDQ3ZWUxYzE= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:30:06 -0400 Must Watch -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWZhNGQ2ZGRmYjAyYjJjZWUyOGVmYWM4NmZiMjc0Yjc= <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/thale/lord-monckton-on-the-copenhagen-treaty">Lord Monckton</a> on the Copenhagen treaty and the ceding of U.S. sovereignty to a new world government: <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="425" height="350" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PMe5dOgbu40&feature" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PMe5dOgbu40&feature"></embed> </object> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWZhNGQ2ZGRmYjAyYjJjZWUyOGVmYWM4NmZiMjc0Yjc= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:20 -0400 Pass The Obama Energy Tax to Help Wall Street! -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDUzMjdjMGU4NDIzZGQxYjY0NDM1ZWIzMjAwODQ1NTU= <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574481812686144826.html">Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand writes in today's WSJ</a>: <blockquote> Over the past year, the economic crisis has devastated the financial services industry that fueled New York's boom years. The ripple effect from Wall Street is still being felt, as unemployment has risen to 10.3% in New York City. In this turmoil, it may seem hard to imagine a financial market poised to deliver significant growth. However, a rising number of investors and financiers see one in the trading and reduction of carbon. According to financial experts, carbon permits could quickly become the world's largest commodities market, growing to as much as $3 trillion by 2020 from just over $100 billion today. With thousands of firms and energy producers buying and selling permits to emit carbon, transaction fees for exchanges and clearing alone could top nearly half a billion dollars. If Congress establishes proper oversight of a carbon market, New York's financial talent, expertise and institutions are uniquely suited to provide the tools and innovation for a new commodities market of this size. Firms wishing to invest over the long term will need to turn to our financial sector to create the emerging products and provide the capital that would allow them to make green energy investments. </blockquote> Isn't this a little off script? Aren't Democrats supposed to blame New York's "financial talent" for the economic mess we're in right now? <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDUzMjdjMGU4NDIzZGQxYjY0NDM1ZWIzMjAwODQ1NTU= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:30:04 -0400 Mea Culpa -- By: Greg Pollowitz webmaster@nationalreview.com (Greg Pollowitz) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWQ2ZTJlMTJiNTMwMjBkODdjNzExZDRlMGQ3NjY3NTk= A few readers have pointed out another hulking error in this post quoting from the New York Times, an error I let pass unremarked: <blockquote> BOULDER, Colo. -- On Sunday nights, Philip DiStefano fills up his car. In most towns, this would not be a noteworthy event, but in this campus town, it is. DiStefano is chancellor of the University of Colorado's sprawling campus here, and his car, a hulking Ford Escape, gets 54 miles per gallon. </blockquote> A hulking Ford Escape? I promise to be more diligent in the future. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWQ2ZTJlMTJiNTMwMjBkODdjNzExZDRlMGQ3NjY3NTk= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:00:25 -0400 Those Messy Consumers and Their Pesky Freedom to Choose -- By: Henry Payne webmaster@nationalreview.com (Henry Payne) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWU1MTQzY2YwM2NlNzYzMGU3N2FhMWMzNjcwZjE0YmU= Detroit -- While Big Government, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance have been in Washington trying to figure out how to force a health-care mandate on consumers , Big Government, Big Auto, and Big Utility have been in Detroit this week wrestling with how to entice customers to buy electric cars. “It all gets down to those messy ol’ consumers. We can’t live without them,” said David Cole, auto analyst and moderator of this week’s “<a href="http://www.pev2009.com/">The Business of Plugging In</a>” conference, sponsored by General Motors, the University of Michigan, DTE Energy utility, and the Michigan Public Service Commission. Those messy consumers are a problem for the central planners in the Obama administration, because they continue to inexplicably resist alternative technologies that are more expensive, less reliable, and purportedly better for the planet. While Washington has tried to sweeten the deal with a $7,500 federal tax credit to buy plug-in electrics, GM VP for global program management Jonathan Lauckner admitted this week that Uncle Sugar’s going to have to cough up more. “The costs are very high. The volumes are low,” Lauckner said to an audience of industry insiders, government bureaucrats, and green investors. “We are competing against a technology, the internal combustion engine (ICE), that has been continuously developed and has a 100-year head start.” Actually, Lauckner has that last part wrong. The battery-powered auto has been around longer than the ICE, losing the battle of the power plants when Henry Ford introduced a cheap, mass-produced gas-powered auto in 1910. Electrics have been eating ICE dust ever since. Nevertheless, a parade of politicians and CEOs have promised this week that electric cars are coming . . . if only consumers could be “educated.” Perhaps the Obama administration will just have to add economic freedom to its growing enemies list, and mandate that Americans buy electric cars. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWU1MTQzY2YwM2NlNzYzMGU3N2FhMWMzNjcwZjE0YmU= Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:30:30 -0400 Shameless Self-Promotion -- By: Chris Horner webmaster@nationalreview.com (Chris Horner) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODRhOWRhN2EyZGE4ZTM1N2EzNWI5ODk5OWI1ZWFlMTY= I'll be speaking tonight at Wellesley College's LuLu Chow Wang Center at 7:30 P.M. And tomorrow night I'll be speaking at Fordham University's Rose Hill campus in the Bronx. Stop by and say hello. <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODRhOWRhN2EyZGE4ZTM1N2EzNWI5ODk5OWI1ZWFlMTY= Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:00:37 -0400 Obama Coming Around Slowly on Nuclear? -- By: William Tucker webmaster@nationalreview.com (William Tucker) http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTAwZWNjNWVlMzVlY2EyZWU1NTFmN2QwMDk1MjM5MTc= It might seem as if the Obama administration is stonewalling on nuclear, but there are indications that its attitude might be changing. Last Sunday in a little noted <a href="http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/10.aspx">speech</a> in New Orleans, President Obama made the following remarks: <blockquote>There's no reason why technologically we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France doesn't and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way.</blockquote> Now true, there are the usual hedges in there. What does “an effective way” mean? Does that mean we have to reinvent the technology once again, instead of using what we’ve got? But something is happening in the administration. According to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=acZ_t_.bADeE">Bloomberg</a>, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told environmental ministers preparing for Copenhagen last week that the U.S. is “working aggressively to restart the nuclear industry. I believe the nuclear waste problem is solvable on a scientific level and a political level.” Good rhetoric, at least -- rather like the faint and indistinct noises the president made about tort reform as one way to restrain health-care costs. Now it would be nice to see the speechmaking translate into something concrete -- such as the containment structure around a brand-new, real-life, up-and-running nuclear reactor. <div>-- William Tucker is author of <a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/">Terrestrial Energy:</a><a href="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/"> How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey</a>. </div> <hr width=100% size=2> http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTAwZWNjNWVlMzVlY2EyZWU1NTFmN2QwMDk1MjM5MTc= Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:45:32 -0400