Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category
Governing Backwards
February 2nd, 2010
As Barack Obama loves to tell us (and most Independents and right of center citizens are tired of hearing) he inherited a mess from President George W. Bush, who somehow managed to keep the Ship of State straight and the economy percolating for most of his eight years in office—despite a terror attack on New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC.
As we all know from high school civics classes, the president proposes and the Congress disposes. This is not to say Bush didn’t waste taxpayer dollars while in office. The last two years of the Bush presidency were years controlled by a Democratic Congress. If Bush asked for additional war funding for our troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, he had to pay the price by allowing the pork-laden bills that were sent to him or he never would have gotten the funding needed for these two wars on the terrorists out to destroy our country and what it stands for.
Before that, the Republican Congresses spent a lot of pork and Bush signed that legislation, which is why the Democrats won the last two election cycles.
Obama claims he was not aware of the severity of the problems this nation faced until he took office. This despite the fact that Bush included Obama and McCain on any decisions he was making regarding the financial meltdown prior to the election, and consulted with Obama after he was elected.
Bush went so far as to say if Obama wanted Bush to be the one to pull the trigger on TARP monies he would do so and let everyone blame him instead of hamstringing the new president. Obama and McCain both voted for TARP when they were still campaigning and were still Senators.
Enter Obama at high noon on January 20, 2009, and he has been blaming Bush for everything that has gone wrong in this country ever since. Hardly a day goes by that he or one of his spokespeople doesn’t mention what a “mess” they “inherited” and weren’t prepared for it until they actually saw it.
He knew jobs were being lost by hundreds of thousands shortly after he took office, but instead of putting his priorities into finding ways for businesses to succeed and be able to keep or hire new people he decided to go for his pet social projects.
He took over two car companies, gave loans to large banks, passed a “stimulus” bill that was just a pork-laden bill that had no stimulating effect, pushed for universal health care for a year despite the rejection of the legislation as written, pushed for Cap and Trade to “reduce” carbon emissions, campaigned for two failed governorships and one failed senate seat, held secretive meetings in the White House with just the leadership of the Democratic Congress over health care, and generally never gave jobs a second thought.
He made it abundantly clear to Congressional Republicans that he “won” and their input wasn’t necessary for any programs he wanted to pass, so they could be bi-partisan and agree with him or he’d do it without them anyway. Republican input into the “bipartisanship” was not needed.
After a few illegal ballots and a court fight in Minnesota for a Senate seat, the Democrat (who was behind in the original count) was finally seated and good old Arlen Specter saw the writing on the wall and figured out he’d never get the Republican nomination for Senate from Pennsylvania so he jumped parties, giving Obama his 60 vote “filibuster-proof” Senate.
Now, everything would be clear sailing. No matter that the people back home raised Cain about the health care bill all of August, Nancy Pelosi was able to finagle her way into the right amount of votes to pass health care “reform” in the House, with two votes to spare.
Now it was up to Harry Reid to easily pass a bill through the Senate and go to conference with the House Democrats and get the bill to Obama’s desk in time for him to brag about its passage during the State of the Union address.
There was no logical reason for him to not have health care “reform” passed by the end of December, 2009. He had the numbers and with a bit of bribery by Harry Reid the necessary amount of senators required to break a filibuster was there and did his bidding.
Then came the Massachusetts Massacre in January and the Democrats lost their crucial sixtieth vote in the Senate, meaning health care would have to be worked over in private with Democratic leadership, Obama and Rahm Emmanuel to make it palatable to the Democrats in each of the two legislative Houses.
Suddenly, Obama got a brain storm and decided maybe he’d better at least give lip service to jobs and the creation of jobs.
Congress has passed a new debt ceiling increase of $1.9 trillion. This money will have to be borrowed and soon we won’t be able to make even the interest payments to China and other countries still giving us credit. Except for the fact our paper bills say “Legal Tender” the dollar is really worth nothing. Try to take a dollar bill to the bank and get a silver dollar for it. Or try to take a $5 bill to the bank and get gold for it. It is worth about 1.6 cents, the amount it takes to print the bill.
Instead of taking TARP money paid back by banks (if they were so desperate last year how can they pay the money back so soon?) and using it to retire the debt, the Administration wants to put it back into circulation and have another “stimulus” bill for jobs when the original TARP money was supposed to do that and still has about 2/3 of the funds still available.
The only entity hiring any significant amount of employees has been the federal government. No one is being treated equally in this country, as those making over $250,000 combined household income are to be taxed for everything you can imagine until they are at the poverty rate, waiting in line for their food stamps.
Work is not being rewarded, but earnings are being robbed. At least Robin Hood robbed from the rich to give to the poor, but Obama and his Congress are robbing from the middle and upper class to make everyone poor.
The one person who has had the most access to this president at this White House has been the president of the SEIU, the service employees union. That’s why the so-called Cadillac health plans had an exemption from taxes for several years built into the bills.
Until Obama and his band of Merry Men realize cutting taxes for all Americans and all businesses will actually increase jobs and bring in more revenue, since more people will be working and paying taxes, our unemployment rate will stay at least where it is now and probably climb higher. Housing prices will continue to drop like a rock (but your property taxes won’t) and new homes will not be built.
Presidents Kennedy and Reagan realized tax cuts would bring the economy around and raising taxes during a recession was a stupid idea. It worked both times. Real jobs were created and not some government “make work” jobs that were dead ends to nowhere.
Obama is singing a new tune in public now. Health care isn’t the big emergency it was (but he’s still trying to figure out how to get it passed by hook or by crook behind the scenes) and jobs are the number one priority of his Administration. That’s the outward appearance. Actions speak louder than words and, judging by his performance in his first year and his defiance after the Massachusetts Senatorial election, I wouldn’t bet the house on the fact he is actually hearing the people.
This is why we shouldn’t put community organizers in charge of the country. He’s never held a private sector job in his entire adult life and his political background is sketchy at best.
May God bless America in spite of her stupidity.
Posted in 
We All Need to Do Our Part
August 9th, 2007
As we’ve all been hearing lately, we must do something to conserve our energy. We must find alternate methods of powering our houses and our toys.
If we fly somewhere we should buy carbon offsets so someone can plant a tree for us.
But, at what point is the sacrifice too great?
Take a look:
How can we do that to these good bluebloods?
Warming Draws Evangelicals Into Environmentalist Fold
August 8th, 2007
We need to protect Mother Earth.
At 8 on a Saturday morning, just as the heat was permeating this sprawling Orlando suburb, Denise Kirsop donned a white plastic moon suit and began sorting through the trash produced by Northland Church.
She and several fellow parishioners picked apart the garbage to analyze exactly how much and what kind of waste their megachurch produces, looking for ways to reduce the congregation’s contribution to global warming.
“I prayed about it, and God really revealed to me that I had a passion about creation,” said Kirsop, who has since traded in her family’s sport-utility vehicle for a hybrid Toyota Prius to help cut her greenhouse gas emissions. “Anything that draws me closer to God — and this does — increases my faith and helps my work for God.”
Her conversion to environmentalism is the result of a years-long international campaign by British bishops and leaders of major U.S. environmental groups to bridge a long-standing divide between global-warming activists and American evangelicals.
The emerging rapprochement is regarded by some as a sign of how dramatically U.S. public sentiment has shifted on global warming in recent years. It also has begun, in modest ways, to transform how the two groups define themselves.
“I did sense this is one of these issues where the church could take leadership, like with civil rights,” said Northland’s senior pastor, Joel C. Hunter. “It’s a matter of who speaks for evangelicals: Is it a broad range of voices on a broad range of issues, or a narrow range of voices?”
Hunter has emerged among evangelicals as a pivotal advocate for cutting greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are warming Earth’s climate. A self-deprecating 59-year-old minister who can quote the “Baby Jesus” speech that Will Farrell delivered in the 2006 movie “Talladega Nights” as readily as he can the Bible, Hunter regularly preaches about climate change to 7,000 congregants in five Central Florida sites and to 3,000 more worshipers via the Internet. He even has met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to talk about environmental issues
They Talk the Talk, But Do They Walk the Walk?
July 7th, 2007
The Live Earth concerts are taking place this weekend purportedly to save the planet from global warming.
I don’t claim to be an expert on global warming, but the Daily Mail reports the following:
A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.
The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts – nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.
The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists’ and spectators’ travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.
Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.
This means nearly 7.5 Britons would each generate as much waste in a year to equal the amount of waste in these concerts.
Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.
“An event of this size at Wembley – which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste,” she says. “That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption.”
She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an ‘ecological footprint’ of 3,000 global hectares – an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event.
3,000 global hectares would be equal to 7,413 acres. Does this not seem to be an exhorbitant waste for a group of people who claim they want to cut down on CO2 emissions?
Dr Collins estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.
Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.
A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced – the rest will go into landfill sites.
One third of the waste in London will be recycled. Is it environmentally friendly to dump the other two-thirds in landfills?
But wait! Live Earth has an explanation:
Andrea Robinson, Live Earth’s green manager, says her message to celebrities is: “Leave the Learjet at home – fly commercial.”
Wembley Stadium will be lit using low energy fluorescent lightbulbs, while the backdrop is composed of recycled tyres and oil drums. The organisers tried to introduce re-usable cups for interval refreshments, but found that – like many green strategies – this was not practical on such a huge scale.
Some bio-produced plastic, made from corn, will be used, and artists’ changing rooms will be fitted with energy-saving lightbulbs – all rather a drop in the ocean compared to the pollution generated by fans traveling across the UK to the concert or using the stadium’s 2,618 toilets. Plans to ask the British public to turn off their electrical appliances during the Live Earth broadcast were scuppered when the National Grid pointed out that as everyone switched on again, a giant power surge could cripple the country.
Some stadiums are greener than others. The Aussie Stadium in Sydney will run the event on 100 per cent green energy supply. Each Australian Live Earth ticket comes with a free public transport voucher, while all the bathrooms will be waterless with waste being composted into fertiliser.
Conversely, in New York’s Giants Stadium, trade unions have blocked Live Earth’s attempts to recycle, and the 52,000-seater arena is not situated near public transport. The smallest – and least polluting – concert will be held at the British Antarctic Survey’s base in Rothera.
It appears from reading this article only the site in Australia will be completely green.
So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of ‘carbon offsetting’ – a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.
[...] However, critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.
Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.
To buy your carbon offsets go to Generation Investment Management a company in which Al Gore is the chairman, partner and co-owner.
According to The Tennessean as quoted in Bill Hobbs’ blog that’s where Mr. Gore purchases his carbon footprint offsets.
The following quote seems to say it all:
Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: “There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel.
“The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.
“Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.
“It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one.”
Lead or Step Aside, EPA
May 21st, 2007
Good old Arnold.
It’s bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public’s health and welfare.
California, Connecticut and 10 other states are poised to enact tailpipe emissions standards — tougher than existing federal requirements — that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles by 392 million metric tons by the year 2020, the equivalent to taking 74 million of today’s cars off the road for an entire year.
Since transportation accounts for one-third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, enacting these standards would be a huge step forward in our efforts to clean the environment and would show the rest of the world that our nation is serious about fighting global warming.
Yet for the past 16 months, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to give us permission to do so.
Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way.
