28
Oct
While worrying about everyone else, Nancy Pelosi has apparently forgotten about problems in her district. After undergoing a patch repair a month ago, the Golden Gate Bridge is falling apart again and has been closed. Accordingly, several community activist groups are demanding the bridge be fixed immediately. Everyone has a right to safe bridges, it says so in the Constitution somewhere. Anyone who thinks they should waste their time figuring out what’s actually wrong with the bridge before fixing it just wants babies to fall into the bay while they wear white gowns with swastikas and disrupt peaceful meetings just because that’s what they do.
( That’s sarcasm folks. According to Pelosi, anyone who doesn’t agree with the clandestine health care reform exacttly has she wants it just wants people to die in the streets, or worse. For suggesting Obama might be spending too much, I was once again vilified on Facebook as someone who supports slavery. Real rational stuff we got going on right now huh? )
Michael Duvall was busted for sleeping with a lobbyist. No big deal. In fact, at least one of his conquests was pretty smoking hot. That would have bought him a pass most likely. However, he didn’t do it in the normal fashion. According to him, he made a mistake. However, I think most people saw a whole laundry list of mistakes, namely:
- You don’t talk about sex at work. Period.
- You don’t discuss personal details of sex. That’s more than anyone ever needs, and usually wants, to know.
- You never, never, never, discuss the hygene of sex. Ever. Talk about a mood-buster.
- You never discuss anything personal in front of a microphone.
- If you sit in front of a microphone, make sure it’s off. Might seem paranoid at the time, but…..
- You never, never, never, compare babes you cheating on your wife with. That word gets out, one or most likely both will make your life a living hell and have one incredibly simple way to do it. In this case, they had several to choose from.
- If you have an easy angle to score smokin hot babes, don’t tell anyone what it is.
- If you’re fat, pasty, and aging fast, worship what you’re getting now.
- If you politic on family values, keep it in your pants. If you can’t do that, don’t politic on family values. It’s enough to simply pass laws that enforce family values without getting preachy about it. People don’t like being lied to.
- And, my personal peave, if you’re gonna run around like a horn-dog bagging whatever bends over, get divorced first or some kind of arrangement with your wife. People just kinda get the willies when fat, pasty, married, fathers run around behaving like sex freaks. It puts the family in a very uncomfortable position as well. The family either has to swallow their pride and respect, or kick the bastard to the curb. It’s kinda hard to kick family to the curb tho. The wife can get a divorce easy enough, but the kids are kinda screwed.
- And, the main mistake, if you’re gonna ask people who vote to pay your salary, then take a vacation if you feel the urge to have a second childhood or just wanna get nasty for a while. Get it out of your system while no one cares. Have a complete blow-out and let it all hang out. THEN run on family values and keep it in your pants fora while. If that urge returns, take another vacation. If that urge never leaves, don’t get into politics.
- And bottom line, if you’re a Republican, expect headline news. If you’re going to behave that way in office, run as a Democrat and no one will ever say a word. “Until the Orange County Republican’s racy comments about his sexual conquests were caught on an open microphone in a Capitol hearing room and reported by CBS 2 and KCAL 9 Tuesday. “
Oakhurst resident Krista Arceneaux remained jailed Sunday on $100,000 bail following the incidents Wednesday outside a Bass Lake bar.
Madera sheriff’s spokeswoman Erica Stuart says the boy was crossing a parking lot with his family when Arceneaux allegedly ran up to him, told him he was sexy and kissed him. She then ran into the bar and authorities were summoned, according to Stuart.
Arceneaux denied kissing the boy and was taken into custody. Inside the patrol car, she tried to kick out the windows and repeatedly spat on the deputy driving, Stuart said.
Arceneaux was charged with lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14, interfering with an officer, possession of marijuana and annoying or molesting a child under 18.
OK, so everyone tells me that kissing a six year old is already a crime. Spitting on a police officer and trying to kick out the windows of his cruiser is already a crime. That part I can agree with. But, I’m gonna bet Krista wouldn’t have had the urge to make out with a six year old in public if she wasn’t stoned.
Just call it a hunch.
A few people over at my favorite conspiracy board noticed this little line from the most commonly accepted health care reform legislation:
National Medical Device Registry
‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—
‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
Implantable? That of course led right to implantable chips. This of course is absurd. Everyone who reads that assumes that they are talking about pacemakers and stuff like that. Any logical person would come to that conclusion in a heartbeat if it weren’t for one problem with the wording. “or” is an option, not a requirement. If it were worded “a class II device that is life-supporting, or life-sustaining”, that means one thing. The word “or” means “a class II device that is implantable” stands on its own. That of course, could include microchips. That would make another part of the legislation a lot more meaningful:
Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
Under most circumstances, “life sustaining treatment or similar” is a very broad description, open to interpretation by both the medical community, differing social definitions, and the individual themselves. This process allows for a state to take away your right to make an informed decision, declare your services as “end of life”, and then make a determination as to whether those services would be of any benefit or not. From what I’ve read in the legislation itself ( HR 3200, the most commonly referred to at this point in time ), “end of life” services could include things like heart medicine. They really don’t define what those services are, they just define, in very loose detail, what groups would make that determination for you.
How would they know when “end of life” services would be necessary? Why, a microchip of course 
( heh, heh, heh ) They already know you’re on a life-sustaining device in the first place.
Sounds crazy huh?
Right now states are initiating a program that allows non-trained, non-skilled, non-insured, non-workers’ comp covered people to provide services to the elderly because it’s only 33% more expensive than the current system, has a fraud rate of only 25%, and in order to get those house-keeping services usually provided for free to minimum wage, the state takes your entire estate.
19
Aug
Recently about six peeps decided to go hang out in the forests of Santa Barbara County, California. For most of us, that’s not much of a big deal. However, for these peeps, the story is a little different:
For some reason I do see some irony in the fact these guys apparently can’t control burning their weed. I’m sure they feel differently:
About 30,000 marijuana plants and an AK-47 assault rifle were found near the origin of the blaze in a remote canyon in Los Padres National Forest, authorities said at a news conference.
So far this year, California has busted about 220,000 plants in Santa Barbara County alone.
Besides the obvious gripe I have about these drug dealers burning down our forests, this is what their camp looks like now:
I mean, that’s a horrid mess. Even if they hadn’t burned 137 square miles down, I seriously doubt they would have gone to a lot of trouble to clean it up. However, oddly enough, groups such as The Sierra Club, are still working themselves to death attacking things such as coal mining. If you check out their discussion, they’re all for legalizing marijuana so people will quit burning down the forests. This logic defies me. If anyone on the planet had less of a reason for that Le Brea fire, it was the guys protecting 30,000 plants of income. If anyone had less of a regard for the forest, it was the guys hauling in propane tanks, clearing out the natural growth to plant their stuff, and littering the hell out of the forest for no other reason than laziness and total disregard for nature. Now, I would think a natural line of logic would be to do more to protect our forests from anyone intending to use it for purposes other than it being a forest. That’s the way I see it. Everyone’s the same when it comes to destroying a forest. However, people like The Sierra Club thinks it’s bad for loggers to clear out brush, but perfectly OK for drug dealers to burn it. Go figure that one huh? Now, I just wonder what The Sierra Club and other environmental groups think about the government going into a forest and clearing out drug dealers’ illegal crops that were never indigenous to that forest? How much ya wanna bet they’d be all for it?
All I’ve heard since last week was how the woefully underfunded Cash for Clunkers program needed another $2 billion to keep it going. This had to be done RIGHT NOW since it was such a wildly successful program. I heard more than one analyst tell me it was a key cog to kicking the economy back in gear. For those unaware, the Cash for Clunkers program gives you money for your outdated clunker based on the greenness of what you are trading it in for. People went crazy and rushed in to get rid of their gas guzzlers in an effort to save the environment, the economy, and of course, themselves some out of pocket cash. The reason people here are telling me it needs to get a lot more money RIGHT NOW is because it’s creating jobs in Michigan. So, I finally was made privvy to how this program is actually going. We all know they are selling all kinds of cars. But, what cars are they? Given that we had just shelled out a few billion dollars to save GM and Chrylser, I figured there would be some icentive to buy American. Where are the jobs being created? Obama promised Michigan and Indiana he’d fix all their problems.
Let’s look, shall we?
| Rank | Vehicle | Mileage | Manufacturing location | Co. Hdq. |
| 1 | Ford Focus | 27-28 | Wayne, Michigan | USA |
| 2 | Honda Civic | 24-42 | Canada | Japan |
| East Liberty Ohio | ||||
| 3 | Toyota Corolla | 25-30 | Japan | Japan |
| Brazil | ||||
| Canada | ||||
| China | ||||
| India | ||||
| Indonesia | ||||
| Malaysia | ||||
| Pakistan | ||||
| Phillipines | ||||
| South Africa | ||||
| Taiwan | ||||
| Thailand | ||||
| Turkey | ||||
| United Kingdom | ||||
| Venezuela | ||||
| Fremont, California | ||||
| 4 | Toyota Prius | 46 | Japan | Japan |
| 5 | Ford Escape | 20-32 | Ohio | USA |
| 6 | Toyota Camry | 23-34 | Georgetown, Kentucky, USA | Japan |
| Japan | ||||
| Australia | ||||
| Russia | ||||
| China | ||||
| 7 | Dodge Caliber | 22-27 | Illinois, USA | Italy |
| 8 | Hyundai Elantra | 26-28 | South Korea | South Korea |
| 9 | Honda Fit | 29-31 | China | Japan |
| Brazil | ||||
| Thailand | ||||
| Japan | ||||
| 10 | Chevy Cobalt | 25-30 | Ohio | USA |
Of the bailout monies, only the Chevy Colbalt is on the list. Of the American made and owned, Ford does quite well, placing two cars, Chevy makes it three. Japan however clocks in with five cars our clunker money is going to. South Korea and Italy round out the clunker cash. However, this clunker cash is susbidizing countries all over the planet. Including, of course, Venezuela. Some cars such as the Prius and Elantra, are manufactured completely abroad, and all the profits go abroad.
That’s what your tax dollars are doing with the Cash for Clunkers program that needs another $2 billion RIGHT NOW. I don’t know exactly what the percentage of the Cash for Clunkers program actually benefts US bailout companies. Obama’s super-transparent administration refuses to release those numbers.
3
Aug
Apparently some guy named Chris Steiner wrote a book called $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better
$20 a gallon is about the only thing that could unleash the genius of the market in energy innovation. And nothing else will really do anything to abate climate change. Bring it on!
But the transitional impact would be absolutely devastating for most people. Even Steiner admits that whole industries — from airlines to amusement parks to sushi restaurants — would go under. Almost all homes outside urban centers would be simultaneously unlivable and unsellable. Only the independently wealthy would be able to travel abroad. Essentially, we’d set our lifestyles back a hundred years.
Now, to me, this is so typical of liberal vs conservative mindset. I’m not necessarily saying Sullivan is liberal, but with this particular concept, he is.
We have to very clear examples of what this situation would do if it were to happen to some degree. First of all, Sullivan cites this passage from the book:
IPO’s, wild sums of venture money, 23-year-old C.E.O.s — all of it will be resurrected from that movie called 1999.
However, 1999 was part of what is now referred to as the “tech bubble”. It’s no longer the tech revolution, the new economy, the death of bread and mortar. For what Steiner and Sullivan are ignoring is what happened AFTER 1999. The shining example of what hi-tech could do for a comunity in 1999 was of course, that area in California called Silicon Valley. Every community wanted to be Silicon Valley. Hi-tech incubators popped up in about every community trying to figure out how to breed the next Silicon Valley. Only the Golden Triangle of North Carolina I think echoed that boon. However, this is Silicon Valley ten years later:
Now, it’s retail sales propping up the economy devastated by the hi tech bubble.
North Carolina, more of the same:
Layoffs at Nortel, Lenovo, Sony Ericsson, Cisco, IBM, NetApp, Fidelity and GlaxoSmithKline have helped drown down tech job rolls. But the losses of construction and manufacturing jobs indicate how reliant the region’s overall economy remains on traditional jobs.
Bottom line, the hi-tech boon of the 90′s was not an economic revolution. It has contributed some to the diversification of employment possibilities. But, it’s the leading edge of technology that is most vulnerable to economic downturns. So much hi-tech revenues are derived from entertainment that it really sticks it’s nose out there when things go sour.
So, the very basic premise that the hi-tech bubble was something good for the country in the long run is kind of seriously flawed. Sure, it was great for a hand full of 23 year olds on the cutting edge. But, since then, it’s been absorbed into the very traditional realities of business cycles.
Now, fast forward to Steiner and Sullivan’s utopian future with $20 per gallon gas. You can pertty much kiss the trucking industry good-bye as we know it. They’ll be the first to collapse. Along the way, they’ll hammer the hell out of the commodoties sectors. Groceries, clothing, general retail, they’ll all be hammered to the brink of extinction. Crazy you say? The largest expense of groceries is the transportation of it. How many people do you think will snack on a $10 bunch of bananas? Forget pineapples. Forget rice. Forget, yeah, sushi. Forget anything that’s not totally needed that is grown outside of the US. How many people will be buying t-shirts weekly at $50? Cotton’s not made in the US. Minimum wage took care of that.
Second, we have some perspective to look at here. The dot.com revolution, tech bubble, of 1999, versus the sudden surge in gas prices of 2007. With a whole lot of words:
That’s gas price.
That’s unemployment claims.
That’s gross domestic product.
Now, that was the result going from $1.50 to $4.00. It totally thwarted the momentum from the tech bubble. It sent us into a recession we’re still trying to get out of. And, the really scary thing was the price of gas collapsed when the world demand subsided. So, even though the price returned to normal levels, the damage done hasn’t. Most are speculating it will be 2010 before things start returning to normal.
Now, take that scenario of what has actually happened and multiply it by seven or more. Without trying to be overly pessimistic, the unemployment rate would at least double. The GDP would nose-dive. As far as that utopia goes, the reduction in GDP directly affects the collection of taxes. It not only reduces the revenues states and the feds can collect, it costs them in real expenses as people file for unemployment benefits, entitlements, and crime rates soar. The net result is very real. Funding to universities is cut, research grants are cut, corporate research monies are cut. The industries needed to lead the way in the energy revolution will be the hardest hit. When the big oil companies actually made a profit during the gas price run-up and economic downfall as the result of it, public officials started targeting those corporations for special taxes and penalties. That money I’m quite certain would have been used for research among other things. Secondly, even if the public decides to go green, it takes years to get the technology to do it ready. It just happen with the snap of a finger. And, with all of our money going to OPEC, it won’t be there to push that technology revolution. For example, everyone who has experience working in nuclear plants raise your hands. Go ahead Chris and Andrew, count those hands.
And lastly, the tech bubble occurred during economic great times. That wild speculative start-up money was there to be wasted. In the case Steiner is presenting, it won’t be there to be wasted. He’s talking about completely devastating the economy and THEN investing billions if not trillions of dollars on the new technology. That will have to be done. But, it won’t be done nearly as simply as the dot.com boom and bust. That spec money just won’t be there quite the way it was then. If you suck all of the economy out and give it to OPEC, there’s just won’t be anything left. The technology to do it is already there. That’s not the problem. The problem right now is the expense of taking the chance of trying to convert existing technology. There’s no one standard. And, there’s no one accepted solution. Every solution we’ve pursued has some drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks potentially more dangerous than burning coal. So, which way do we go? And, if the economy is sucked dry, you’re probably going to get one shot at fixing the problem and that’s it for probably 100 years.
So, I’m definitely siding with James on this issue. We need to make the changes. But, we need to make them now when we have the excess capitol to do it. There is no guarantee at all that the excess capitol needed will be there in a time of crisis. None.
Bottom line, if gas goes to $20 over the next five years, our lives will be a hell of a lot worse for a long time.
I receive several newsletters in regards to what I do at work. This is one I received this morning.
Kentucky lawmakers discuss possible effects of federal energy bill
FRANKFORT – State lawmakers shared comments and concerns about a federal bill that proposes, among other changes, a three percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and a 17 percent cut in emissions by 2020 during a meeting of the state legislative Special Subcommittee on Energy today.
The comments followed testimony by Kentucky Public Service Commission officials on the bill, named the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill after sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass. PSC Executive Director Jeff Derouen said that the bill, which passed the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, could mean significant increases in utility rates over time.
Derouen said possible rate increases under the climate and energy bill could range from 15 percent to 60 percent, although most experts estimate that rate increases would fall in the 20 to 35 percent range.
“They (rate changes) wouldn’t all come at once, and there’s still a moving target even among utilities about what it would mean in real dollars,” Derouen said.
Sen. Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, said he is concerned about the impact such increases would have on Kentucky industry and jobs. Per Stivers’ request, the subcommittee asked for more detail on the bill’s potential impact on large employers who rely on Kentucky’s historically low electricity rates.
“What bothers me…especially in this economy, is what there will be in terms of impact to the A.K. Steels of the world, the Ford plant in Louisville, the Toyota plant in Georgetown, the GM plant in Bowling Green—these high-end users that have come to the state because of low energy costs for production,” Stivers said.
What emissions are taxed will ultimately affect how much Kentuckians are taxed, Derouen said. He explained that Kentucky’s average utility rates are currently ranked 48th nationally while emissions from utility plants are ranked 7th. That ranking falls to 13th if all emissions, including vehicle emissions, are considered.
“So if the federal government chooses to tax all emissions including vehicles, the impact on us would be less than if they just taxed carbon emissions from utility plants,” he said.
Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, said the climate crisis gives Kentucky opportunities to be an energy leader—something it has been working toward for several years in the General Assembly and the research field.
“I truly think there are bits and pieces of this puzzle being worked on all over the country and nobody has pulled that together, but that can be done and we can do that in Kentucky,” he said. “We can be the lead state in carbon management.”
In response, Subcommittee Co-Chair Sen. Brandon Smith, R-Hazard, said that while there are some concerns by some members, “…we are looking forward to playing whatever role we can in moving forward.”
On a motion by Sen. David Boswell, D-Owensboro, the subcommittee passed a resolution to recommend to the 2010 General Assembly that Kentucky’s resources be combined with available federal and other states’ resources to move forward on the use of carbon dioxide outside of the realm of carbon capture and storage.
“We’ve talked about coal conversion. We’ve talked about utilization of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, we’ve talked about all these things. We’ve not only talked, we’ve spent hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars in the process. And we’ve come to the conclusion that we can do all these things if we just figure out what to do with carbon dioxide,” Boswell said. “What’s been said here today I think exemplifies the desire of this Legislature to move forward and kind of quit talking about it and let’s pull all these resources together.”
Carbon capture and storage involves removing carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas that has been attributed to global warming–from fossil fuels and storing it hundreds of meters below ground indefinitely, potentially for millions of years.
This just reinforces the opinion I expressed May 18th. This is California’s payback for losing their industry due to their making their energy costs too expensive. They’re putting the screws to the rest of the country rather than just fessing up that what they did neither helped the climate or their economy. Need the pudding? Henry Waxman, the primary sponsor of this disaster, is from California.
I got news for Harry Moberly, Kentucky can not lead in carbon management. We don’t have the means for generating alternative energy. We also don’t have the financial resources to convert to other means of energy. Our state government is broke, as are most. They are cutting back on essential services much less funding extremely expensive conversions. And, it the cost estimates above are correct, energy costs will both sap state funds by means of energy subsidies to the poor, as well as deplete the state’s abilities to attact new industry to generate additional revenues. I would like to hear Moberly’s explanation of how he thinks a bankrupt state government will lead the way in something most people don’t think we need in the first place while they watch their utilility bills explode. I might even make it a point to go to a public function just to hear Moberly’s explanation.
For me, this entire issue was summed up best by David Boswell:
“We’ve talked about coal conversion. We’ve talked about utilization of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, we’ve talked about all these things. We’ve not only talked, we’ve spent hundreds of millions of state and federal dollars in the process. And we’ve come to the conclusion that we can do all these things if we just figure out what to do with carbon dioxide.
For hundreds of millions less of state and federal dollars, I could have told them that was the problem in the first place. This entire thing is a bad joke. A very, very, bad joke. I would laugh if it wasn’t already causing people problems……
and it hasn’t even started yet.
18
May
OK, so we’re no sooner finishing Obama’s reform of the housing, banking, and automakers industries, than we’re apparently ready to do the same to the energy industry. Now, as with the other situati0ns, you’ve got two very different prevailing thoughts going apparently. On one side, is the keep it simple philosophy. In the other debates, basically their argument ( I’m on this side ), was that what had worked for 200 years seemed to be a good indication it would still work. Let the bad business models fail so that the good business models could thrive. We didn’t get that in any of the previous situations. Then there is the FUBAR line of thought that anything simple MUST not be working. Until it’s so complicated no one can understand it, it needs adjusting. Welcome to the energy debate.
A few years ago Al Gore and others proposed something called “cap and trade”. Or, “carbon credits“. California immediately jumped on the bandwagon. This rather repressive legislation helped spur the move of several businesses out of California. However, most states did not pass this type of legislation. So, Henry Waxman decided what was good for California was good for the rest of the country. This, now 946 page bill, is the culmination of Al Gore and the greens drive to eliminate the planet of greenhouse gases so that our climate will continue to do what it’s been doing the last couple of years, cool down.
Now, I’ve heard all kinds of nightmare stories over the cost of this bill. A lot of debate has been over a figure of $3,100. Greens say it’s a lie:
“If Boehner and McConnell had simply misstated the results of the MIT study, the Truth-O-Meter would have been content giving this one a False. But for them to keep repeating the claim after the author of the study told them it was wrong means we have to set the meter ablaze. Pants on Fire.”
Well, we’ll see what happens. Some folks just don’t care how hot it gets.
Of course, it’s always quantified with the “if you doubt me, you’ll die in hell” disclaimer. So, according to these peeps, the Republicans ( and per norm, ONLY the Republicans ), are lieing when they say it will cost at least $3,100 per family. However, a lot of other peeps are saying these figures are reasonable, if not low:
And,
And, in a piece that tries to be objective and present the cons of both sides:
• Due to lower industrial output as a result of higher energy prices, the costs of complying with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs, Kentucky would lose as many as 23,000 jobs in 2020 and nearly 50,000 jobs in 2030.
• Disposable household income would be reduced by as much as $2,500 per year in 2020 and up to $6,000 by 2030.
• The price of gasoline in Kentucky would increase between 74 percent and 144 percent in 2030. Electricity prices would increase by between 122 percent and 159 percent. Kentucky residents would pay between 99 percent and 142 percent more for their natural gas by 2030.
All of Kentucky’s largest manufacturing sectors would experience output losses.
Kentucky’s 1,865 schools and universities and 134 hospitals will likely experience an increase of up to 35 percent in expenditures by 2020 and as much as 123 percent by 2030.
Chemical makers, second only to the producers of transportation equipment among Kentucky’s leading manufacturing sectors, say the mandates proposed by President Obama would push U.S. jobs and investment offshore.
In recent testimony before a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel, Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) argued that mandatory cap-and-trade would unfairly target U.S. manufacturers. “The industrial sector is not the problem,” he said. “In the U.S., the industrial sector’s (carbon) emissions have risen only 2.6 percent above 1990 levels while emissions from the residential sector are up 29 percent, commercial up 39 percent, transportation up 27 percent and electricity generation up 29 percent.”
Cicio asserted that “under cap-and-trade, the industrial sector pays twice — through the additional cost of carbon embedded in energy purchases and through the higher cost of natural gas and electricity.”
Then of course, there’s alternatives. This is what the picture might look like according to The Heritage Foundation:
Red states get hammered, no one will want to live there. Whitish states get rewarded. Now, one of the problems I have is Vermont would likely get rewarded. They don’t burn any coal at all. The reason they don’t burn any coal is because they import it all. They do however, supplement what they import by burning trees. Burning trees is OK, burning coal is awful.
Then there’s places like DC. Yet another rewarding place to be. They get some of their energy from Allegheny Energy. Allegheny will quickly inform you they are 95% coal. So why do these states get a pass?
The consensus with those against this Cap and Trade scheme is it will cost the average consumer $3,100. Now, gotta remember, that’s AVERAGE. This thing is designed to punish those in states producing coal and reward those living in states that don’t. So, you could be double that in Kentucky and Utah, and of course see no rate hike in places that use the coal like DC and Maryland.
Most economists I have looked at feel the expenses will go way beyond the initial cost to consumers. None of tried to argue this is economically cost neutral, or even close. What they are saying is we HAVE to do it because the world will boil if we don’t. Only problem is I haven’t seen much of an increase in temps since I was born. If you go back farther, and not that much farther where I live, it was actually much hotter for a long time ( 1860′s thru 1930′s or so ). Things cooled down for a while and people decided the next ice age was on the way in the 1970′s and 80′s. Then Al Gore bought a bunch of stock in global warming companies and decided we all needed to use his products whether we wanted to or not, or destroy the planet if we refused. Now, Henry Waxman has decided we don’t even get the choice. He’s going to fix the planet by cap and trade schemes.
Now, would someone please tell me how cap and trade actually reduces carbon output? Fact is, it doesn’t. It’s a tax. By making coal energy repressively expensive, the argument is people will switch to other means of electricity like solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, or something. We don’t have tons of acreage to get any solar worth anything, wind is not an option here, they would most likely be destroyed every spring. Try getting the environmentalists to let you build one more dam in this country. Nuclear I like. However, environmentalists love nothing more than to sue anyone trying to build one. I say build them and let the environmentalists move to France. But, it takes a long time to get a nuke going. Until then, we have to eat. People need to contact their legislators, especially in the Senate where California can’t dominate like they do in the House. If your state is red, you better be worried. You better be letting your Senators know you’re worried. I truly am.
Then of course, we could burn wood and make Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama happy.
This needs some looking into:
OK, the way I read it, Ms. Feinstein intervened on an issue she had no interest in to make sure a company her husband has an interest in is awarded a “competitive” contract at a rate higher than most would charge.
Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
I am waiting for Nancy Pelosi to demand an investigation into yet another blatant example of the Democrat Culture of Corruption.
