Category Archives: Energy Policy

Editor: Why Trump is Right About Paris Climate Accord

President Trump is going to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord tomorrow.
The elite media culture is going to completely lose their minds. International corporations who have invested in “climate change” regulations as a tool to lock out cheaper competition and innovators will display a phony panic.

UPDATE – For example, here is Apple CEO Jim Cook on the Paris Accord:

Apple products are made in China—which as part of the Paris Accord is conveniently exempt from carbon limits.

There are a few facts that you need to know.

1 – If everyone who wanted the Paris Accord actually agreed to it the result, in theory based on computer models that have never accurately predicted temperatures in real life, might affect the temperature by a tiny fraction of a degree over hundreds of years.

2 – But in reality the Paris Accord is based on junk science which is why Global Warming Alarmists have simply given up on debates with real scientists and climate realists as they always lose.

3 – Europe is already in deep violation of the Paris Accord as their CO2 production levels keep rising.

4 – But no one cares about Europe. The Paris Accord is about sticking it to the United States.

5 – Most of the world is not signed on anyways (or simply signed on and ignored it like China) so by complying with it all we are doing is hobbling our economy while others sit back and laugh at us.

6 – The Paris Accord would have required the United States to pay less productive countries direct payments because they produce less than us. The United States would be forced to subsidize third world dictators and tyrannical regimes like Venezuela who would use that money to murder political opposition etc. We are $20 trillion in debt.

7 – No matter what the media says, CO2 is not a poison or pollution. It is vital for life. Plants use it for food.

Tucker Carlson vs Congressional Candidate Erin Schrode (video)

This is priceless. Tucker Carlson destroys a leftist politician whose rhetoric simply could not stand up to basic cross examination.

This is something I have seen countless times by leftists on campus. They toss accusations like “white supremacist” and “Hitler” around more often then they say “french fries” and in the next breath lecture about civility.

To read about the lawsuits mentioned in the video go HERE.

Hillary Campaign Chair on Exec Board of Putin Connected Energy Company, Failed to Report to Regulators…

This is not the kind of thing that just gets randomly picked to be in your retirement portfolio….

International finance and money laundering just seem to go together like bacon and eggs, death and taxes, politics and corruption….and Hillary says that it is Trump who is too close to Putin?

Please pardon the length of the quote, international finance and corporations can get pretty arcane.

WND:

Emails released this week by Wikileaks indicate John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, laundered shares of stock he received from an energy company cited in the Panama Papers money-laundering probe that has received funding from the Russian government.

WND reported Oct. 6 Podesta had been paid an undisclosed amount for serving on the executive board of Joule Global Stichting, an appointment he neglected to report to regulatory authorities in the U.S.

He also has received consulting fees from the Wyss Foundation, a group controlled by Swiss billionaire Hansjoerg Wyss, an investor in Joule Energy, according to Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute in a report, “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.”

Joule Global Stichting and Joule Global Holdings figure prominently as a client of the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, which is at the heart of the Panama Papers investigation into offshore money-laundering operations on a massive international scale.

WND reported Russian entities that funneled money to Joule and its related companies, and ultimately to Podesta, include Viktor Vekselberg, a controversial Russian billionaire investor with ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian government.

Vekselberg owns the Renova Group, a multi-billion dollar private Moscow-based Russian conglomerate with interests in oil, energy and telecommunication held in Russia, Switzerland, Italy, South Africa and the United States.

Vekselberg is a board member of Rusnano, the Russian State Investment Fund, as well as president of the Skolkovo Foundation, named for Russia’s version of Silicon Valley.

Rusnano made a multi-million dollar investment in Joule Unlimited, a small Massachusetts-based energy company owned by Joule Global Holdings B.V. in the Netherlands and Joule Global Stichting, the ultimate controlling entity.

On Jan. 6, 2014, Mark Solakian, a senior vice president and general counsel with Joule Unlimited, emailed Podesta, confirming that Podesta had exercised 75,000 shares of 100,000 options in Joule Unlimited. Podesta had been issued the shares in 2011 in partial compensation for his work on the Joule board of directors.

Secondly, Solakian confirmed Podesta had transferred the resulting 75,000 common shares of Joule Unlimited to Leonidio LLC in a transaction that most likely would prevent the stock shares from showing up directly as an asset owned in any financial statement Podesta prepared.

The denials are already flying:

WND reached Bournakis by telephone in Salt Lake City, and he confirmed that 5835 Waterbury in Salt Lake City was his home apartment address. Bournakis denied knowing anything about John Podesta or Leonidio LLC, the company registered under his name.

Growing irritated by the phone call, Bournakis firmly denied he knew anything about the transfer of 75,000 shares of Joule Unlimited stock that Podesta made to Leonidio LLC.

Read the email for yourself HERE.

UPDATE – Brietbart has obtained some other interesting documents HERE.

Limbaugh: Journalism Has Adopted a Special Kind of Stupid to Be This Acquiescent to the State

Every once in a while Rush Limbaugh has a monologue that is something really special and this, while a long read, is one of the best explanations of what is wrong with journalism that one may ever see. It is worth your time.

(Full Disclosure – This writer has been quoted in a Rush Limbaugh Biography)

Rush Limbaugh:

Have you ever noticed, ladies and gentlemen, how the… You know, I call them the left, the liberals, the Democrats, whatever. Have you ever noticed how they claim they love Mother Nature?  They just love it!  They don’t like humanity much because humanity destroys Mother Nature.  But they love Mother Nature.  But then when Mother Nature does something nasty, like give us a drought or give us a hurricane, it’s not Mother Nature’s fault.  No!  It’s our fault….

Read more HERE.

Obama Gave Chinese Solar Producer Suntech $337 Million…Now Bankrupt

With so many of these green energy boondoggles it looks like this – Obama hands over tax-dollars to a fund raiser who is an owner in a junk “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business.

As of last November (2012) there were 50 such companies. Obama Administration emails released show how green energy money was steered to Obama cronies with sham, junk bond companies.

Christine Lakatos at Green Corruption:

A jaw-dropping revelation came to light in December 2011 by the Trib Total Media, yet it was ignored by the media and even missed by those of us watching the solar world unfold.

© SunTech via Treehugger.com

China’s major solar panel companies — whose low-cost products led some American factories to close, helped create the Solyndra controversy and spawned talk of a trade war — were bankrolled in the United States by the world’s largest investment banks.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, USB Investment Bank and others raised $6.5 billion for seven young Chinese solar panel makers in the mid-2000s by underwriting their securities on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, a Tribune-Review investigation has found.

The Trib goes on, “It’s not clear how the idea of using offshore tax havens to get listed on U.S. exchanges developed. But the Trib learned through SEC reports how Chinese solar companies grabbed onto the idea.” The first was Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd., now the world’s largest solar company. It began operating as a Chinese company in May 2002, and by 2004 reported sales of $85.3 million…”

However, Bloomberg News reported last week, “Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP) [was] forced to put its Chinese solar unit into bankruptcy last month, “becoming the latest casualty of a painful slump in the global solar industry,” wrote Townhall.com. But Bloomberg noted that Suntech “began that slide into insolvency in 2009 when customers linked to the founder couldn’t pay their bills and the company booked the sales as revenue anyway, regulatory filings show.”

What most don’t know is that Suntech is a tiny fraction of “Obamanomics Outsourced,” whereas his administration is responsible for steering billions in stimulus funds (and other “green” money) to foreign companies and shipping green jobs overseas. This is clearly a broken 2008 energy campaign promise, but worse, a violation on how the 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus package was sold –– to create jobs and grow the economy here in America.

Read more HERE.

National Research Council: Telling both sides “confuses children”

Once again, never does a week go buy were we do not see the most fantastic idiocy coming from the public education sector.

Even many of the authors of the now thoroughly discredited UN IPCC report on global warming, which abandoned even basic academic standards, have called out the report for what it is, the entrenched far left public education establishment is cramming it down children’s throats.

[Editor’s Note – Be sure to see the video at the following link – Lord Christopher Monckton lecture at the Heartland Institute: Global warming alarmists have lost the argument both scientifically and rhetorically.]

Via The Daily Caller:

Climate change may soon be coming to every classroom in the country.

Pending nationwide science standards will recommend that K-12 students at public schools learn about climate change to help fill a knowledge gap concerning the subject, while skepticism will be discouraged.

“Only one in five [students] feel like they’ve got a good handle on climate change from what they’ve learned in school,” Mark McCaffrey of the National Center for Science Education told NPR, adding that many teachers will also need climate change science training. “So the state of climate change education in the U.S. is abysmal.”

New science standards are being developed by the National Research Council with help from 26 states to identify science that “all K–12 students should know,” according to the website promoting the standards.

It has been almost 15 years since the last time the National Research Council and the American Association for Advancement in Science published recommendations on which states base their standards.

“There was never a debate about whether climate change would be in there,” says Heidi Schweingruber of the National Research Council. “It is a fundamental part of science, and so that’s what our work is based on, the scientific consensus.”

Schweingruber added that much consideration was put into how to teach what can be a depressing topic and not alarm students.

“We’ve heard stories of students who learn about climate change,” said McCaffrey. “Then they go home and tell their parents, and everybody’s upset because the parents are driving their kids to the soccer game, and the kids are feeling guilty about being in the

NPR notes that educators say the controversy surrounding climate change encourages many teachers to avoid the topic or show competing viewpoints — like Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” against the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” — which they say just causes more confusion about the issue.

Read more HERE

New regulations create more wealth for Obama’s “green cronies”

Use junk science, arbitrary regulations, and abuse of enforcement and licensing to restrict energy at home to raise energy prices so Obama’s “green donors”, who are profiting not from the market, but from massive tax payer support, can make more money and look more “competitive”.

Marita Noon:

On Good Friday, a day fewer people would be paying attention to the headlines than on most other days, the Obama administration released news about its plans to raise the price of gasoline. Gasoline prices for the first quarter of 2013 are higher than the same time in 2012. Intentionally pushing prices up would seem stupid in the midst of a struggling economy—that is, if your goal is to help those most impacted by higher fuel and food prices, rather than boosting the bottom line for your billionaire donors.

The plans, announced Friday, call for stricter limits for sulfur in gasoline—from the current 30 parts per million to 10. (Sulfur is an important element that is found naturally in crude oil has many industrial uses.) The EPA estimates that the low-sulfur gasoline will raise the price of a gallon of gas by “less than a penny,” while industry sources say it will be closer to ten cents a gallon.

Energy analyst Robert Rapier, told me that the new regulations “will certainly make gasoline more expensive.” He said; “Note that diesel was historically less expensive than gasoline until the ultra-low sulfur diesel standard was passed. Since then, diesel has often been more expensive than gasoline. I am not saying whether or not those standards were needed, maybe they were. But the impact on cost is undeniable. I worked in a refinery when those standards were passed, and we spent a lot of capital making sure we could comply.”

Though air pollution is a worthy consideration, it is low on the public’s list of priorities, while gas prices are of utmost importance. If the public doesn’t see air pollution as a problem, and the President’s popularity has peaked, why would he put out policy that would hit the middle class the hardest? Because, despite his campaign rhetoric, he’s not “a warrior for the middle class.

One year ago, Christine Lakatos launched her blog— “The Green Corruption Files”—through which she set out to prove that “green corruption is the largest, most expensive and deceptive case of crony capitalism in American history. Stay tuned as we expose one piece of this scandal at a time.”  Last summer, Lakatos and I partnered to draw more attention to Obama’s Green-Energy Crony-Corruption Scandal. To date, I’ve written fifteen columns based on her research—this is the sixteenth.

A week ago, she posted her expose on George Soros and his profiting from his, apparent, insider information on green-energy investments. Within her post, Lakatos says: “be prepared for regulations and legislation that will, in some form or another, resemble cap-and-trade and demand additional funds to bank roll Obama’s efforts to save our planet.” Exactly one week later, the new EPA standards on gasoline were released. The standards will raise the cost of fuel—which has been the underlying goal of the Obama energy agenda: make what works more expensive so people will accept the high cost of “green energy” in the name of saving the planet. (Remember outgoing Energy Secretary Chu’s 2008 statement: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”)

But, as the Soros story shows, it’s not about the planet, it’s about the profit. Soros’ investment portfolio shows he invests where he can make money—both traditional and green energy (though, as you’ll see, through Obama’s green energy emphasis, he has more control over green energy investments). In a 1998, 60 Minutes interview, Soros said: “I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.”

Continue reading HERE

Obama Administration kills 3,900 power plant jobs in Texas.

The Obama Administration has been using the EPA and the permitting process to make easy permitting for friends and campaign donors, but a GOP state like Texas gets the hand. This is the type of bnana republic abuse of power that is so typical with this administration. Welcome to Chicago.

Washington Examiner:

Chase Power, the parent company behind the $3 billion Las Brisas coal power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, announced yesterday that it was cancelling the project.

“Chase Power … has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company,” Chase CEO Dave Freysinger told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Freysinger made it very clear who was responsible for the projects death. “The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants,” he said.

The Las Brisas power plant had been part of a larger Las Brisas Energy Center project planned for Corpus Christi’s Inner Harbor. Economists had projected that in the first 5 years of construction and operation the project would create as 1,300 direct and 2,600 indirect jobs. Now none of those jobs will exist.

Lawsuit Alleges “Corruption and Negligence” at Department of Energy

More about Green Corruption” and kickbacks. Welcome to energy policy, Chicago style.

Via Heritage:

A lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday alleges mass favoritism in the Department of Energy’s decisions to award federal grants to major car companies to develop electric vehicles, according to a legal complaint obtained by Scribe.

The plaintiff, San Francisco-based XP Technology, says in a complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that “corruption and negligence” pervaded DOE’s decision to award loan guarantees to Ford, Nissan, Tesla Motors, and Fisker Automotive for the development of electric vehicle technology.

“Investigations have shown that DOE officials intentionally stalled numerous applicants’ reviews in order to force them out of business and protect favored players,” the complaint claims. It adds:

XP has received information demonstrating that the unprecedented number of failures in the DOE program relative to what DOE officials have claimed to be “the most expensive and extensive due diligence in history” is explained by manipulated reviews, in the due diligence effort, on behalf of what the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations found to be “favoritism” in published investigation reports. A senate ethics investigation states, in published reports, that “negligence and mismanagement by DOE officials” was a regular occurrence.

XP, which applied for federal backing under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, “is seeking to have applicants who were “targeted” receive fair re-reviews, in a transparent manner, if they so desire.”

In addition to an unfair selection process, XP alleges that DOE retaliated against the company for reporting evidence of negligence and corruption incorporated into the various investigations into the ATVM program.

After XP staff first reported the incidents, becoming “whistle-blowers”, by reporting the evidence to GAO, Justice Department, The White House Press Office and The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, among others, they received threats and personal attacks. Over time, the volume of third party investigations, which have validated the charges of questionable acts by DOE staff have become voluminous.

Read the full complaint HERE.

Promise from the debate broken already: Obama Shuts Down 1.6M Acres to Oil Shale Development

So much for the “all of the above” policy….

Via Breitbart News and The Hill:

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, the Obama Interior Department announced a plan to shut down 1.6 million acres of federal land to oil shale development. The land had originally been slated for drilling under President George W. Bush.

“By significantly reducing the acreage of wilderness potentially available for leasing, Secretary Salazar is laying out a creative, thoughtful and more responsible approach in managing some of our most precious resources,” said Bobby McEnaney, senior lands analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

From the debate October 16th, 2012:

OBAMA: That’s the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.

ROMNEY: But that’s not what you’ve done in the last four years. That’s the problem. In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.

OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.

ROMNEY: So how much did you cut (inaudible)?

OBAMA: Not true.

Obama debate approved drilling permits
Hey President Obama – What was that you said about how you approved more drilling permits than Bush?

Green Corruption: Over 80% of “Green Jobs” money went to Obama donors, 50 “green” companies going under…

In a nutshell: 150 more Obama Administration emails released showing how green energy money was steered to Obama cronies with sham junk bond companies. The list of green jobs companies gone or going under grows to 50. That is your money folks.

With so many of these green energy boondoggles it looks like this: Obama gives big taxpayer money to a fund raiser who is an owner in a “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business.

While the administration claims that this was all science and no politics, a slew of leaked emails show the corruption and influence peddling.

Our friends Christine Lakatos at Green Corruption and Marita Noon at Townhall  have been tracking the list of green jobs boondoggles that are going out of business after paying themselves lavishly with your money. That list went from 15, to 16, to 36  and now 50 green jobs enterprises paid for with your money that either have shut down or are about to. See that list here:

http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/2012/10/green-alert-tracking-president-obamas.html

Via the research from Lakatos and Noon, the Daily Caller is now running with this story, as is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich:

Newt comments on the erupting “green corruption”story after he discusses the emails showing that the order to let or embassy staff die was from the White House.

Erupting indeed. Emails showing the influence peddling and corruption keep coming out.

The House Oversight Committee has released a new set of 150 emails that show how your money was steered to cronies in the name of green jobs. More on this story from Marita Noon in today’s Townhall (excerpt):

The 1705 loan guarantee program had 460 applicants, but only 7% were approved—26 projects were funded. Of those 26 projects 22 were junk-bond rated—meaning private investors wouldn’t fund them. So why did we, the taxpayers?

Our research showed that at least 90% of the projects had close ties to the White House and other high ranking Democrats. Despite the obvious connection, President Obama has repeatedly denied any involvement—preferring to blame “career bureaucrats” who could take the fall with no political consequence.

In March, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, testified that, “We looked at the loans on their own merits.” Also, back in November 2011, he said: “I am aware of no communication from White House to Department of Energy saying to make the loan or to restructure.”

Just last week, on October 26, President Obama affirmed Chu’s position when he said: “Decisions made in the loan program office are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.”

However, late Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a new report of “over 150 emails that contradict statements by the President, Secretary Chu, and White House and DOE officials.” The emails reveal a series of questionable practices, including coercion, cronyism and, cover ups.

Read the rest HERE.

Says Noon, “The Obama green energy program is the largest, most expensive, and deceptive case of crony capitalism in American history”.

See the rest of our green jobs scam and Solyndra coverage HERE.

UPDATE – Even MORE from the House Oversight Committee: Obama Administration lying about the influence peddling; caught again with more of their own emails.

House Oversight Committee:

INTERVIEW EXCERPT FROM KUSA Channel 9 News Denver Colorado’s Kyle Clark:

KYLE CLARK: In a national address, you touted the stimulus money going to Abound Solar – a Colorado company connected to one of your billionaire fundraisers. Now, as you may know, Abound Solar is out of business and under criminal investigation. The jobs are gone and taxpayers are out about 60 million dollars. How do you answer critics who see Abound Solar as Colorado’s Solyndra – a politically connected clean energy company that went under and took our money with it?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Laughs) Well, Kyle, I think that if you look at our record that these loans that are given out by the Department of Energy for clean energy have created jobs all across the country and only about four percent of these loans were going to some very cutting-edge industries that are going to allow us to figure out how to produce energy in a clean, renewable way in the future and create jobs in Colorado and all around the country. And some of them have failed but the vast majority of them are pushing us forward into a clean energy direction. And that’s good for Colorado and good for the country. And these are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics.

Investigative Reporter Todd Shepherd: NOT POLITICAL? EMAILS SHOW WHITE HOUSE DROVE FAILED GREEN-LOAN IN COLORADO

CompleteColorado.com has obtained emails that seem to directly contradict Plouffe’s answer, and also challenge the President’s notion that the DOE’s loan decisions were universally autonomous within the agency. The emails also lend even more credence to the theory that the loan to Abound Solar was political payback to Colorado’s wealthy Democratic benefactor and Gang-of-Four member, Pat Stryker.”

In the above email thread, DOE loan executive Jonathan Silver tells DOE credit advisor Jim McCrea, “You better let him know the WH wants to move Abound forward.” It appears to be a mild scolding to a Treasury advisor, Ian Samuels, who is not moving fast enough to schedule calls regarding Abound.

The second page of the email thread makes mention of “…transaction pressure under which we are all now operating…” This entire email thread happened just a few days before President Obama would hail the government-backed loans as a job creator for Colorado.

Editor – So many lies and misrepresentations in the debate we couldn’t keep up with them…

UPDATE – Romney was right and Candy Crawley and Obama were both wrong, Obama did NOT call it a terror attack in his Rose Garden statement. Obama’s full statement is in the first comment below. Here is CNN almost sorda kinda apologizing:

Romney got the better of Obama performance wise for about the first hour, but Obama made a comeback in the last 30 minutes or so. Obama was playing a nasty class warfare card that just wasn’t sincere and didn’t fly.

Romney reversed his position on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (remember how he demagogued and misrepresented Rick Perry on this issue?) which I predicted he would do long ago and his answer on Syria was almost a joke.

Obama engaged in a systematic, Alinsky inspired and very deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, especially when it comes to energy policy, healthcare and taxes. Of course Romney was correct on the general idea on Libya but fell into a trap on semantics instead of focusing on how the administration lied about this issue for two weeks and was as caught as caught could be. Obama’s campaign already admitted on national television that the $5 billion dollar tax cut talking point Obama used in the debate really isn’t accurate, but again they used it tonight.

The lies (and misrepresentations with a tiny kernel of truth) were so voluminous that it would take this writer all night long to catalog them and I have to be out the door in seven hours….so no point by point fact check will be posted tonight. If any reader has a specific question I will be happy to answer it. The documentation to demonstrate President Obama’s flamboyant dishonesty is cataloged on this very web site.

Obama debate approved drilling permits
Hey President Obama – What was that you said about how you approved more drilling permits than Bush?

 

Obama Pays Women Less –  via yours truly in my old college blog in 2008:

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/profiles-in-hypocrisy-obama-speeches-say-he-supports-equal-pay-for-women-and-mccain-doesnt-but-obama-pays-women-in-his-campaign-less-mccain-pays-women-more/

and

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/obama-ad-says-mccain-opposes-equal-pay-for-women-but-guess-who-paid-women-less-than-men/

and just now in The Daily Caller:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/obama-touts-fair-pay-for-women-despite-records-showing-women-paid-less-in-his-own-white-house/

The most powerful moment in the debate was Romney going large in his description of the last four years:

Below is my live blog:

Chuck Norton – I have to say that Romney’s college job answer is a total home run. He looks in charge, calm, confident and ready.

Chuck Norton – Obama looks good, he sounds assertive, but wow the misrepresentation starts already. The fact checkers have dinged Obama on his “Mitt Wants Detroit to go bankrupt” line before.

Chuck Norton –  Taxing the wealthy doesn’t give anyone a job, it chases wealth away when they try to avoid the tax.

Chuck Norton – Romney, including those who dropped out of the workforce the U3 would be 10.7%. Romney explains bankruptcy reorganization.

Chuck Norton – Jobs are created and lost all the time, but adding 5 million jobs when 10 million are what is needed to break even with people losing jobs and coming into the workforce puts the number into perspective.

Chuck Norton – They doubled fuel standards on cars… and now we see these tiny FIAT’s on the road and the emissions devices have raised car prices to out of the world. Chevy Volts cost over $100,000 more than GM is selling them for.

Chuck Norton – Romney explains the difference between private land energy production and production on federal land which Obama has been trying to bring to a screeching halt.

Chuck Norton – Wow, who looks presidential folks. I expected Obama to come back hard but this is so one sided it is unbelievable. (But Obama made a comeback in this area near the end).

Chuck Norton – We are drilling more now because of oil permits approved under Bush that are now coming online that Obama couldn’t stop…. but look at what Obama did stop.

Oil imports are down because the economy has slowed overall demand.

Chuck Norton – The oil leases were yanked because when they looked at what it would take to get through the EPA to actually drill and concluded it would not be profitable so they paid for the lease and concluded with today’s EPA it would be a money loser or too much of a risk to actually try and drill.

Chuck Norton – Wow, if the fact checkers are honest Obama is going to get hammered.

Chuck Norton – Food prices up, gas prices up, insurance prices up family income down $4,000

Chuck Norton – Romney, NO TAX on your savings. Wow that is smart, that is very smart and it encourages middle and low income people to get involved in saving and investing which would be great to help recapitalize the country.

Chuck Norton – Obama want to continue the Bush tax cuts for small businesses??? Since when?

Chuck Norton – Obama’s 97% of small businesses number includes small businesses on paper and ones that do not have more than 1 employee. The vast majority of small businesses that actually employ ten or more people are going to get whacked by the $200k number.

Chuck Norton Wow, Obama’s campaign already admitted that the $5 trillion dollar number he just spouted wasn’t true. Folks this is surreal.

Chuck Norton – Fact checkers are going to cream Obama’s earlier coal and oil production claims. Coal workers are blasting Obama already – Miners Fight Back Against Obama TV Ad: “Absolute Lies”

Chuck Norton – Of course the numbers adds up – Romney

Chuck Norton – Well Obama, first of all your campaign pays women less and so do Democrats in congress when it comes to their staffs….. big opportunity here for Romney.

Chuck Norton – Romney is getting upset and needs to calm don a bit.

Chuck Norton – Obama says that it is ROMNEY who wants people in Washington deciding women’s health decisions.. WHAT –
ObamaCare Panel Targeting Women’s Health Screenings…Again – LINK

Chuck Norton – Great answer on how Romney differentiates himself from GW Bush.

Chuck Norton – Romney pounds on the broken promises….

Chuck Norton – I have to admit, the BS Obama is putting out sounds good…. …. wow I really hope the fact checkers pay close attention.

Chuck Norton – Romney just reversed himself on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that he blasted Rick Perry on in the primary.

Chuck Norton – Libya question – Obama pivots to general national security and the specific question asked to him was not answered.

Chuck Norton – Romney hits Obama for skipping the intelligence briefing the next day and going to a Las Vegas fund raiser.

Chuck Norton – Second Amendment question – Who will tackle it and who will dance.

Chuck Norton – Romney hits Obama on Fast & Furious – about time.

Chuck Norton – Romney was not bold enough on the second amendment follow up

Chuck Norton – Romney: Canada tax rate 15% America 35% where would you rather start a business. Regulations up four times.

Chuck Norton-  Obama’s advanced manufacturing answer was a good one. He doesn’t mean any of this because his regulatory war on business is a huge job killer.

Chuck Norton-  Wow it was surreal; the misrepresentation of facts has been stunning. While both sides had factual deficits Obama was so dishonest it was amazing.

Obama’s War on Domestic Energy Jobs Continues: The Great Alaska Shut Out

Remember that Obama’s Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, testified to Congress under oath that gas should be $8.00 a gallon.

While Obama had instituted an illegal offshore drilling ban he was giving billions in low cost loans to Brazil (PetroBraz) to drill in water far deeper than we were in the Gulf. Of course, George Soros, the biggest money man for Democratic Party interests, is a large stock owner in PetroBraz…. but we all know that Chicago style politicians never engage in such behavior don’t we?

Wall Street Journal:

President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he’s had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it. The latest example is the Interior Department’s little-noticed August decision to close off from drilling nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve because in 1976 Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the “energy needs of the nation.” Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve. The feds had been reviewing four potential development plans, and the state of Alaska had strongly objected to the most restrictive of the four. Sure enough, that was the plan Interior chose.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says his plan “will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives.” He added that the proposal will expand “safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that’s needed to bring supplies online.”

The problem is almost no one in the energy industry and few in Alaska agree with him. In an August 22 letter to Mr. Salazar, the entire Alaska delegation in Congress—Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young—call it “the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades.” This decision, they add, “will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska.” Mr. Begich is a Democrat.

The letter also says the ruling “will significantly limit options for a pipeline” through the reserve. This pipeline has long been sought to transport oil and gas from the Chukchi Sea, the North Slope and future Arctic drilling. Mr. Salazar insists that a pipeline could still be built, but given the Obama Administration’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline, Alaskans are right to be skeptical.

Alaskans also worry that the National Petroleum Reserve will become the same political football as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, or ANWR, which Washington has barred from drilling because of dubious environmental objections. The greens now want Congress to rename the energy reserve the “Western Arctic Reserve” to give the false impression that it is a fragile wildlife area. Some parts of the area are environmentally sensitive, but those 1.5 million acres (around Teshekpuk Lake) had already been set aside. Most of the other 11.5 million acres are almost indistinguishable from acreage owned by the state that is being drilled safely nearby.

The feds and Alaskan officials disagree about how much oil and natural gas is in the petroleum reserve. Some early federal estimates put the range between six and 15 billion barrels of oil, but in its latest survey the Bureau of Land Management projects closer to one billion. State officials and industry experts put the figure much higher based on the earlier surveys and improved drilling techniques.

The truth is no one knows. Prudhoe Bay turned out to be much more productive than originally believed, but surely the best strategy is to allow private drillers to risk their own money to find out. The oil and gas industry isn’t in the business of drilling dry holes on purpose.

The Interior power play couldn’t come at a worse time for Alaska, whose economy and government are heavily reliant on oil jobs and revenues. As recently as the 1980s, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline carried some 2.2 million barrels of oil a day from the North Slope to the port of Valdez. Yet as the once-rich fields of Prudhoe Bay and the Kuparuk River have declined, oil flow has dropped to one-third of that volume. North Dakota recently passed Alaska as the second highest oil-producing state behind Texas.

The problem isn’t that Alaska is running out of oil but that federal rules are preventing the state from developing those resources. No matter what Mr. Obama says now, in a second term his great Alaska energy shutout will continue.

British Meteorological Office: No Global Warming for 16 Years

The significance of this admission from them cannot be understated. The British Met is the academic epicenter of global warming alarmism. They work closely with the University of East Anglia and other ClimateGate hoaxers like Michael Mann at the disgraced Penn State University.

UK Daily Mail:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

By David Rose

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changes

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Obama Green Energy Jobs Project Cost $28 Million Per Job

And this is just an excerpt… and so many billions in green jobs projects that just went to cronies and campaign contributors to make them rich. When you are done reading be sure to click the link below and read the rest. Also, retired famed super athlete Christine Lakatos now tracks these green energy projects and dollars on her web site which has shown to be very illuminating as to just how far this corruption has progressed.

Townhall Finance Columnist Marita Noon excerpt:

With the assistance of researcher Christine Lakatos, I have been chronicling Obama’s stimulus-funded green energy failures. First we looked at the companies that have gone bankrupt, and then those that are heading that way—or, at least, have financial issues. Within those reports, we frequently addressed specific green jobs failures. For example, regarding Fisker, the electric car made in Finland, we say:

ABC reported: ‘Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright, new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs.’ Those jobs didn’t materialize—at least not in America. … Two years after the loan was awarded, the Washington Post stated that Fisker ‘has missed early manufacturing goals and has gradually pushed back plans for U.S. production and the creation of thousands of jobs’… Now, in 2012, Fisker Automotive is laying off staff in order to qualify for more government loans. So, President Obama’s ‘green’ energy stimulus was supposed to create jobs; now it’s destroying jobs so that companies can get more stimulus?”

About now-bankrupt, and under-investigation for fraud, Abound Solar, we wrote:

“President Obama, in July 2010, praised Abound Solar, which was to make advanced solar panels … He believed these plants would be huge job creators: ‘2000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent jobs.’ In December 2011, CEO Craig Witsoe called Abound Solar the “anti-Solyndra” saying that his company is “doing well and growing.” However, just months after that optimistic report, Abound Solar filed bankruptcy…”

Due to the various loans, grants, and subsidies, it would take an investigative team made up of dozens of people to ferret out each and every true green-energy job that was created, absent that, we are hitting the high points in attempt to answer Ryan’s question: “Where are the 5 million green jobs?”

Short answer, even optimistically—and perhaps deceptively, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) news release, only 3.1 million green jobs were created. To reach this number, BLS counts jobs that “were associated with the production of green goods and services,” specifically those which “are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.” It is important to note that most of these 3.1 million jobs are primarily pre-existing jobs that have been reclassified as “green.” Once those existing jobs were shifted into the green column, through three-quarters of 2011 only 9,245 new “green” jobs were generated when the White House touts generating over 200,000 new jobs by 2010.

The House Oversight Committee wondered, just what are those jobs that are “associated with the production of green goods and services?”

On June 6, 2012, at a House Oversight hearing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) questioned BLS Director John Galvin on his agency’s green jobs numbers. Through Galvin’s reluctant responses (he didn’t want to be there), we learned that the Obama administration’s labor department counts oil lobbyists, bus drivers, garbage men, etc., as green jobs—shameful, embarrassing, deceptive. According to how BLS rates green jobs, I have a green job. I qualify under several headings. After all, I do education and public awareness on environmental issues. Next time I am at a social event, where I am asked the inescapable: “What do you do?” I’ll respond: “I have a green job.”

Complete details can be found in a report on the “Green Job Myth” from the Institute for Energy Research (IER). It states: “the green-job definition is extremely broad and includes both direct and indirect jobs.”  Each of the following would qualify:

A person who sweeps the floor in a solar-panel manufacturing facility

A driver of a hybrid bus

A school bus driver

An employee who fills the bus with fuel

An employee involved in waste collection or water and sewer operations

A clerk at a bicycle repair shop

A manufacturer of rail cars

An oil lobbyist whose company is engaged in environmental issues

An employee of an environment or science museum.

Now that we know what the BLS constitutes as a green job—even recycled ones; those that already existed—we’ll look at the billions of taxpayer money spent on green jobs. We’ll focus specifically on just two programs: the Loan Guarantee Program and the Renewable Energy Grant Program.

On June 19, 2012, Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, testified at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearings on the Loan Guarantee program. Within her thorough assessment of the program, she states: “since 2009, Department of Energy has guaranteed $34.7 billion in loans, 46 percent through the 1705 loan program, 30 percent through the 1703 program, and 14 percent through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program.” And, that “some 2,378 permanent jobs were claimed to be created under the program. This works out to a potential cost per job of $6.7 million.”

The 1603 Grant Program was implemented as part of the Obama stimulus, and is administered by the Treasury Department, with the goal of reimbursing eligible applicants for a portion of the costs of installing specified energy property used in a trade or business or for the production of income. Basically, 1603 gives billions in favored-businesses, tax-free cash gifts that do not have to be paid back.

The June 19, 2012 Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on “The Federal Green Jobs Agenda,” highlighted the “gimmick” accounting method used by the BLS. Testimony revealed that a multi-billion dollar stimulus program, the section 1603 grants for renewable energy, does not even include job creation among its primary objectives—which obviously contradicts the purpose of the 2009 trillion-dollar Obama stimulus package.

Congressional Research Services expert, Dr. Molly Sherlock, deflected direct questions regarding the total jobs created by the 1603 program. “If you’re looking at the direct jobs, this one estimate has direct jobs created at 3,666 in the construction phase, and direct jobs created at 355. Direct jobs would just be the construction jobs and the ongoing operations and maintenance jobs. But if you wanted to look at the supporting jobs in other industries then you’d want to look at the other figures.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) pressed on: “I just want to know how many jobs were created”

Sherlock admitted: 355 jobs created a year, for $10 billion—which comes out to about $28 million per job.

California Gas Stations Close as Rationing Hits Consumers

When governmet demonizes and industry, scapegoats it, seeks to make it unprofitable with excessive regulation, the result is much less incentive to produce the product. Production drops and the shortage begin. Rent control has the exact same affect. Similar policies caused the gas lines and shortages under Carter as well. Those with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics understand this and yet new university trained leftist academics keep causing these same problems and keep expecting a different result.

This administration seems to think that by making regulatory war on refineries, drilling, coal technology and power plants people will rush out to pin a solar panel on their car (a solar panel made in China no doubt).

Bloomberg News:

Gasoline station owners in the Los Angeles area including Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) are beginning to shut pumps as the state’s oil refiners started rationing supplies and spot prices surged to a record.

Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) stopped selling gasoline on the spot, or wholesale, market in Southern California and is allocating deliveries to customers. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is also rationing fuel to U.S. West Coast terminal customers. Costco’s outlet in Simi Valley, 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles, ran out of regular gasoline yesterday and was selling premium fuel at the price of regular.

The gasoline shortage “feels like a hurricane to me, but it’s the West Coast,” Jeff Cole, Costco’s vice president of gasoline, said by telephone yesterday. “We’re obviously extremely disheartened that we are unable to do this, and we’re pulling fuel from all corners of California to fix this.”

Spot gasoline in Los Angeles has surged $1 a gallon this week to a record $1.45 a gallon premium versus gasoline futures traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s the highest level for the fuel since at least November 2007, when Bloomberg began publishing prices there. On an outright basis, the fuel has jumped to $4.3929 a gallon.

Prices Jump

Gasoline at the pump gained 8.3 cents to $4.315 a gallon in California yesterday, according to AAA.com, 53.1 cents more than the national average of $3.784. In Los Angeles the price was $4.347. Gasoline futures for November delivery on the Nymex rose 14.34 cents to settle at $2.9429 a gallon, after falling yesterday to a 10-week low. Retail price movements tend to lag behind those of futures.

“Product supply in California has tightened, especially in Southern California, due to refinery outages,” Bill Day, a Valero spokesman at the company’s headquarters in San Antonio, said by e-mail.

 

Related:

More energy price hikes and power shortages on the way due to government regulation – LINK

Obama’s EPA Shutting Down 10% of America’s Power Plant Capacity – LINK

Obama’s EPA crushing coal-fired power plants, electricity bills rise… – LINK

Candidate Joe Kennedy III Calls for End To “Cheap Oil” – LINK

Gas Prices Under President Obama – LINK

EPA Official on Video: We Are “Crucifying” Oil And Gas Companies – LINK

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent – LINK

Obama Green Energy Program Cost $9.8 million Per Job – LINK

15th Green Energy Company Funded by Obama Goes Under – LINK

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another – LINK

GAO: Recoverable American oil in a single location equal to the entire world oil reserves – LINK

Obama’s EPA Shutting Down 10% of America’s Power Plant Capacity

EPA Power-Plant-Closures
Click to Enlarge

Ten percent of our power just like that and some states are already suffering from black outs and brown outs. Is this the change you voted for in 2008?
Institute for Energy Research:

Download the Updated Report as a PDF

More than 34 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (colloquially called Utility MACT)[1] and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2] regulations. Most of these retirements will come from coal-fired power plants, shuttering over 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.

This report is an update of a report we issued in October 2011.[3] Last October the original report, we calculated that 28.3 GW of generating capacity would close as a result of EPA’s regulations. At the time, we warned that “this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.” Unfortunately, this statement has proven to be true. This update, a mere eight months later, shows that 34.7 GW of electrical generating capacity will close—a 6.4 GW increase.

According to EPA, their modeling of Utility MACT and CSAPR indicates that these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. But events in the real world already show that EPA’s modeling is a gross underestimate.

To calculate the impact of EPA’s rules, we first assumed that EPA’s modeling of the regulation correctly predicted which power plants would close as a result of the regulations. Then, we looked at statements, filings, and announcements from electrical generators where the generators were closing power plants and in which they cited EPA’s regulations as the precipitating cause of the plant closures. We then compared EPA’s modeling outputs with the announcements and created a master list of plant closures as the result of EPA regulations (the master list is below).

Combining actual announcements with EPA’s modeling shows that EPA’s modeling grossly underestimates the actual number of closures. As noted above, EPA calculated that only 9.5 GW of electrical generating capacity would close as a result of its rules. But the reality is that over 35 GW of power generating capacity will likely close—over three times the amount predicted by EPA modeling. Worse, as utilities continue to assess how to comply with EPA’s finalized Utility MACT rule and CSAPR, there will likely be further plant closure announcements in the coming weeks and months.

More energy price hikes and power shortages on the way due to government regulation

Government picking winners and losers and getting kickbacks in what has become “Greenscam”, an effort to funnel tax dollars into far left eco-extremists groups and the Democratic Party – LINK.

Read carefully – Marita Noon:

“Once real numbers have come out about renewable energy costs, people are having second thoughts,” reported Maureen Masten, Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources and Senior Advisor on Energy to Governor Bob McDonnell, VA,  while addressing his “all of the above energy” strategy to meet the state’s energy needs.

The real costs of renewable energy are coming out—both in dollars and daily impacts. After years of hearing about “free” energy from the sun and wind, people are discovering that they’ve been lied to.

On Tuesday, August 14, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) approved a new renewable energy rate rider that will allow the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) to start recovering a portion of its recent development costs for building five solar facilities around the state, a pilot solar facility with battery storage, and wind resource procurements. The renewable rider could be on ratepayers’ bills by the end of the month—“depending on when the commission publishes its final order,” said PNM spokeswoman Susan Spooner.

The rate rider currently represents about a $1.34 increase for an average residence using 600 kilowatt hours of electricity per month—or a little more than $16 per year. This increase seems miniscule until you realize that this is only a small part of increases to come. PNM needs to recover $18.29 million in renewable expenditures in 2012 and the rate rider only addresses monies spent in the last four to five months. The remaining expense will be carried into 2013.

Like more than half of the states in the US, New Mexico has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that mandates public utilities have set percentages of their electricity from renewable sources. In New Mexico the mandate is 10 percent this year, 15 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. Most states—with the exception of California (which is 33 percent by 2020)—have similar benchmarks. To meet the mandates, PNM will need considerably more renewable energy with dramatically more expense—all of which ultimately gets passed on to the customer. PNM acknowledges that the rider will increase next year and predicts the total cost recovery for 2013 to be about $23 million. By 2020, based on the current numbers of approximately $20 million a year invested, resulting in a $24 a year increase, consumers’ bills will go up about $200 a year just for the additional cost of inefficient renewable energy.

Had the PRC not approved the special rate rider, costs would be even higher. Typically rate increases are only approved at periodic rate case hearings, usually held every few years. The system of only allowing rate increases after a lengthy hearing, keeps the costs hidden from the consumer for longer but increases costs to the utility and, ultimately, the consumer, due to interest charges on the borrowed money. PNM believes the rider will allow for more “timely recovery of costs,” resulting in a $2.7 million savings.

Environmental groups, who’ve been pushing for the renewable energy increases, opposed the special renewable rate rider and have threatened a potential appeal of the PRC’s decision. It is hard to tout “free” energy when there is a special line on the utility bill that clearly points out the new charge for renewables.

So, renewable electricity is hardly free. It also isn’t there when you need it—like in the predictable summer heat of California.

To meet their 33 percent renewable mandate, California’s utility companies, like New Mexico, have been installing commercial renewable electricity facilities—with wind capable of providing about 6 percent, and solar 2 percent, of the state’s electric demand. But in the summer heat, the wind doesn’t blow much and the solar capacity drops by about 50 percent when the demand is the highest.

Despite increasing renewable capacity and an exodus of the population, California has been facing threats of rolling brown/blackouts due to potential shortages. TV and radio ads blanket the air waves begging consumers to limit electricity usage by setting their air conditioners at 78 degrees and using household appliances only after 6PM. “Flex Alerts” have been issued stating: “conservation remains critical.” “Consumers are urged to reduce energy use,” “California ISO balances high demand for electricity with tight power supplies” and “maintain grid reliability.”

Even with expedited permitting, California cannot build renewable electricity generation fast enough. Environmentalists block construction due to species habitat, such as that of the desert tortoise or the kit fox. If they oppose renewable energy construction, you can imagine the vitriol they extend toward coal, natural gas, and nuclear. There is a big push to shut down nuclear power plants and new natural-gas plants, which are ideal for meeting the needs of “peak demand,”are fought by the very same groups that are pushing electric cars.

San Diego-based, nationally syndicated radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock observed: “Right at the moment in California, building new electricity generating power plants of any kind is politically taboo. Electricity itself is becoming politically taboo.”

Texas has been faced with both increasing costs and fears of shortages. “Concerned about adequate electricity supplies,” the Texas Public Utility Commission recently voted to allow electricity generators to charge up to 50 percent more for wholesale power. The increase is to encourage the building of new power plants in the state with the highest capacity in the country for wind electricity generation.

Apparently new electricity-generating power plants are politically taboo in Texas, too—at least within the environmental community. Instead of encouraging new power plants to be built, Ken Kramer, the Texas head of the Sierra Club, said, “A better idea would be to encourage more energy-saving programs”—perhaps like setting the thermostat to 78 degrees and not turning on appliances until after 6PM.

When will Americans revolt over being forced to use less while paying more?

We know that high energy prices are just the beginning of inflation that raises the cost of everything from food to clothing to manufactured goods. When the cost of manufacturing goes up, industry moves to countries with lower-priced energy, cheaper labor, and more reasonable regulations. Jobs go overseas and we import more. The trade deficit grows, and America is less competitive.

The higher electricity costs are 100 percent due to government regulation and legislation that are unreasonably crushing American businesses and ratepayers—much like the pressure England imposed on the American colonies that launched the American Revolution.

Obama’s EPA crushing coal-fired power plants, electricity bills rise…

RELATED:

Candidate Joe Kennedy III Calls for End To “Cheap Oil” – LINK

Gas Prices Under President Obama – LINK

EPA Official on Video: We Are “Crucifying” Oil And Gas Companies – LINK

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent – LINK

Obama Green Energy Program Cost $9.8 million Per Job – LINK

15th Green Energy Company Funded by Obama Goes Under – LINK

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another – LINK

GAO: Recoverable American oil in a single location equal to the entire world oil reserves – LINK

 

 

Phil Kerpen:

With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants.

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Indeed Obama attempted to make good on his campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity prices skyrocket the legitimate way – by proposing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. It was jammed through the House but crashed and burned in the Senate, where many Democrats understood such an energy rationing plan to be political suicide.

They were right.

The American people decisively rejected energy taxes and rationing in the 2010 election, with dozens of Democrats losing because of their support for cap-and-trade. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin survived and won his Senate seat by literally shooting a bullet through in the bill in a television ad.

But the day after the 2010 election President Obama said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

With Tuesday’s EPA action to bankrupt coal, he found his “other means” to address the “problem” of affordable electricity.

As I demonstrated in my book “Democracy Denied”, under Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the power to make these decisions resides in Congress, not the EPA.

The House has already acted to fix the structural problem that allows bureaucrats to implement economy-changing rules without congressional approval when they passed the REINS Act last year, a bill that would require prior-approval from Congress for major new regulations.

The Senate has refused to act on the legislation.

Fortunately, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has already promised to introduce a resolution of disapproval that will put every senator on the record on this global warming power grab. Because the resolution is privileged under the Congressional Review Act, Harry Reid cannot prevent it from coming to the floor and it cannot be filibustered.

Whatever the result of that Senate vote is, it will ultimately be up to the American people to hold Congress and the president accountable for the actions taken by rogue EPA bureaucrats this week.

Nothing less than America’s economic future is at stake.

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and the author of “Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him.”

 

Emails Show Rahm Emanuel Lied About Solyndra Scandal

Related: 16th Green Energy Company Funded by Obama Goes Under – LINK

See our other green energy scam coverage HERE.

Via the Washington Free Beacon:

BY:
August 2, 2012 5:07 pm

Chicago mayor and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel repeatedly claimed he had no memory of the Obama administration’s controversial $535 million loan to failed solar company Solyndra, but White House emails released Thursday say it was Emanuel’s idea for the administration to tout the doomed firm.

In a batch of White House emails released in a report on Solyndra by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday, White House aide Aditya Kumar wrote to Jacob Levine of the Office of Energy and Climate Change: “Feels like Rahm wants this too (barring any concerns) — POTUS involvement was Rahm’s idea.”

However, speaking to Chicago radio station WLS 890AM at a news conference in September, 2011, Emanuel said he did not remember anything about the failed investment loan by the Department of Energy, which critics say was fast-tracked to fit the White House’s political agenda.

“Ya know, I’m focusing on a major announcement today for the City Of Chicago,” Emanuel said. “I don’t actually remember that or know about it.”

Four weeks later, Emanuel again claimed he did not remember anything about the Solyndra loan.

Earlier emails revealed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee hinted at Emanuel’s involvement.

An assistant to Emanuel wrote on Aug. 31, 2009, to the Office of Management and Budget about the administration’s upcoming Solyndra announcement, and asked whether “there is anything we can help speed along on OMB side.”

The director of the OMB at the time was Jack Lew, now White House Chief of Staff. The Washington Post reported Thursday that Lew allowed the Solyndra loan to be restructured despite warnings from his staff.

Obama Gives $737 Million to Solar Firm Ran by Pelosi’s Brother…

Just when you thought this was bad enough…

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

By Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit:

It’s as if Solyndra never happened. The Obama Administration is giving $737 million to a Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. PCG is an investment partner with SolarReserve. Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law happens to be the number two man at PCG.

IAC: Previous IPCC Reports failed to meet basic academic standards; Participants “too political”

I have been waiting for this for a long time. When I was in college finishing my latest degree I was making many of these very same claims about global warming alarmist nonsense as the IAC report below. Leftist students and faculty pretty much told me that I was nuts, and I wasn’t a climate scientist so how would I know? Well it looks like I knew. It was easy. First of all it doesn’t take a genius to see when the scientific method is being ignored and second of all, what I am an expert on is politics and I know a political movement when I see one.

At the bottom of the article I posted a list of links that I wrote starting in 2007 saying many of the same things the IAC has pointed out below. Why am I so often using the word “I” when that is not an attitude that as editor I often take here at Political Arena? To be honest, I am going to take the low road and revel in rubbing it in my critic’s noses. I reactivated my old college blog just for the purpose of posting this story. We should ask ourselves what has happened to our education system when the doctoral academics who doubted me and called me names behind my back were all wrong, while the mere undergrad like me was spot on? – Chuck Norton

President of the Heartland Institute Joseph L. Bast:

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the Inter Academy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined.  The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary.  Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted.  Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.

The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure.  Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.

Alternative views not considered, claims not properly peer reviewed

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).  In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

No formal criteria for selecting IPCC authors

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18).  Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).  In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

Too political…

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking.  “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote.  The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really?  Too political?  We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics.  Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting.  Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

Phony estimates of certainty

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34).  Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007.  Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.”  Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement.  Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.”  Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.

IPCC participants had conflicts of interest

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.  The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all.  That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

IPCC critics vindicated

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report.  Nothing to see here…keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there!  The news release means that the IAC report was right.  That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable.  Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised.  It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014?  The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already.  They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree.  Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false.  On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better.  But where do we go to get our money back?

Related from my old college blog:

Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Ask – February 18, 2007 – LINK

Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming – October 22, 2007 – LINK

Global Cooling Continues; Global Warming Alarmists Still Issuing Death Threats – December 28, 2008 – LINK

UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – December 28, 2008 – LINK

National Climatic Data Center: Cooling in Last 10 Years – January 10, 2009 – LINK

The Debate is Over. Global Warming Alarmism is About Achieving Central Control of the Economy and Now They Admit It Openly – March 27, 2009 – LINK

Al Gore: Climate change issue can lead to world government – July 11, 2009 – LINK

EPA Tried to Suppress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct – October 23, 2009 – LINK

New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study – UPDATED: Look where they put THIS ground station… – October 27, 2009 – LINK

Professors Paid to Plagiarize – UPDATE: Global warming scientists hacked emails show manipulation of data, hiding of other data and conspiring to attack/smear global warming skeptics! – November 19, 2009 – LINK

National Association of Scholars on the “ClimateGate” Scandal – November 28, 2009 – LINK

Examples of the “Climategate” Documents – UPDATE: BBC Had the emails and files for 6 weeks, sat on story. UPDATE II – They carried out their conspiracy threat; much of the raw data from CRU destroyed! – November 28, 2009 – LINK

Scientific American thinks you are stupid: The dissection of a blatant propaganda piece for global warming alarmism. – December 6, 2009 – LINK

The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds. – February 23, 2010 – LINK

OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits… – April 23, 2010 – LINK

UN IPCC Co-chair: climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth – November 18, 2010 – LINK

More Hadley Center Global Warming Horror Claims Debunked by Real Science – December 6, 2010 – LINK

ClimateGate One Year Later. Elite Media Still Lying – December 6, 2010 – LINK

More ClimateGate One Year Later – December 7, 2010 – LINK

IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT: Most global warming models are exaggerated, many scientists in it for the grant money or treat it like a religion – December 7, 2010 – LINK

How Global Warming Propaganda Works – December 8, 2010 – LINK

NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and suspect data – December 10, 2010 – LINK

Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Halt economic growth, start government rationing. Global Warming Alarmists Party Fat in Cancun – December 21, 2010 – LINK

Global Warming Conference Delegates Sign Petitions to Ban Water and “Destabilize U.S. Economy” – February 15, 2011 – LINK

Global Warming Alarmist Quote of the Day – Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart: No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

AAUP Seeks to Limit Transparency Over Climate Science – September 19, 2011 – LINK

Candidate Joe Kennedy III Calls for End To “Cheap Oil”….

There is out of touch and then there is OMGWTF out of touch. Just when you thought it was bad enough when Obama’s Energy Secretary testified to Congress that gas should be $8.00 a gallon….

The Daily Caller:

As gas prices continue to soar around the country, Joe Kennedy III, the Democratic candidate for Rep. Barney Frank’s seat, wrote an online letter to supporters calling for an end to “cheap oil.”

“Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama — they’ve all talked about the same thing: the need to wean ourselves off our debilitating dependence on foreign oil,” Kennedy wrote.

“The cycle that allows cheap oil to trump tough choices has to stop,” he continued. “Forty years is enough.”

In the week before Kennedy posted, AAA Southern New England reported that the price of gas in Massachusetts had risen a further two cents. The Worchester Business Journal reported that at an average of $3.899 a gallon for regular unleaded gas, the price is currently 24 cents higher than it was one year before.

Kennedy is running against Sean Bielat, a former Marine who lost to 16-term Rep. Barney Frank by 10 points in the 2010 election.

“It’s kind of stunning that he’s so out of touch that he would say it that way,” Bielat Communications Director Sarah Rumpf told The Daily Caller. “Democrats, Republicans and independents — everybody is paying for higher gas right now.”

Though Kennedy has said that he is not running on his name — which represents a liberal political dynasty — critics have attacked him for not putting forth policy positions. His campaign website does not have an issues section.

Obama’s Top Money Man Was In Charge of Bain Capital During GST Steel Layoffs

Also see – Obama invested heavily with outsourcers, after accusing Romney of doing the same… – LINK

President Obama accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for shutting down this American Steel plant, saddling it with debt, and screwing the employees out of their pensions, but Mitt Romney left Bain Capital two years before this happened to run the Olympics. So who was in charge of Bain Capital when this happened? You guess it, Obama’s top campaign money bundler John Levine. Does it get any better than this?

Our friends Chuck Slowe and  Jim Hoft have a great report on this. Be sure add their websites to your daily reading:

The Obama campaign blamed Governor Mitt Romney for the demise of GST Steel company in a video they released in May. The plant closed in 2001. Mitt left Bain in 1999.

[Political Arena Editor’s Note – I ripped this video to my hard drive just in case it vanishes from Obama’sYoutube Channel]

For some reason the Obama camp forgot to mention this
Obama’s top bundler Jonathan Lavine was in charge of Bain during the BST layoffs.

Chuck Slowe reported:

Blaming Governor Romney for any issues surrounding the failure of GST is wrong and it is a blatant lie. Mitt Romney had been long gone when the company started to fail and subsequently closed it doors. When are the President and his campaign hacks going to get the story correct? When are they going to get back to their economy and its dreadful condition? Mr. President, you can run but you cannot hide.

It turns out that Jonathan Lavine, current Obama bundler, was actually in charge, at Bain, during that period, when the layoffs occurred. Oops, that isn’t right, is it? Yes, that story is the one that needs to be reported on. Sorry Mr. President, your lies are just getting to be more than many of us are able to handle.

And, Jonathan Lavine is not your average Obama Bain donor. Lavine is one of Barack Obama’s top bundlers.
ABC reported:

While Democrats assail presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital business practices, Republicans note that President Obama has not been bashful about accepting cash from Bain executives or other high-profile figures in the corporate buyout business…

…One of Obama’s top campaign financiers – Jonathan Lavine – is also managing director at Bain, bundling between $100,000 and $200,000 in contributions for the 2012 Obama Victory Fund, according to estimates released by the Obama campaign. The president has also relied on other leading figures in the private equity sector as hosts for high-dollar fundraisers and as members of his Jobs Council.

Maybe someday the liberal media will report on this.