« Tit For Tat | Main | State Of The Union Open Thread »

"Under the cover of creating green jobs...."

"... Washington has increased the cost of traditional energy." 

That and more from Senator John Barrasso out of Wyoming:

On energy, Washington's record is just as indefensible and shares the blame for rising gas prices.

Under the cover of creating green jobs, Washington has increased the cost of traditional energy. They've done it through politically motivated drilling moratoriums, limiting access to American energy, and imposing costly regulations aimed at trying to control the world's climate. These policies show us that when the President says that he wants to make alternative energy the cheapest form of energy, he doesn't want to make alternative energy cheaper. He wants to make all other energy more expensive. We need to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising prices on American families.

I support green energy, but not at the expense of red, white and blue jobs. I am working to eliminate Washington's ability to impose job-crushing and energy-crushing regulations. Soon, I will introduce sweeping legislation that will prevent the Obama Administration and states from imposing extreme climate rules. It will stop the President's attempt to enact cap and trade through the Environmental Protection Agency and other Washington agencies. By passing this legislation, Congress can protect jobs, consumers, and small businesses from Washington overreach that stifles job creation and slows our economic recovery.

That piece in my inbox this afternoon, shortly after hearing the following from Van Jones this morning on the Beck show:

Van Jones, for those who may not know (and there shouldn't be any of you out there), used to be Obama's Special Advisor for Green Jobs up until someone finally paid attention to his radical roots and the Obama Administration was forced to let him go.  But listen to his words and look at what the Obama Administration has been doing to the oil industry and to the coal industry and understand that Van Jones may be gone but his ideas and his policies live on.

We need to hope that people like Barrasso fight this crap with every fibre of their being and that they succeed or the radicals are going to get their way.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40991.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Under the cover of creating green jobs....":

» Brutally Honest linked with "Under the cover of creating green jobs...."

Comments (16)

This administration's polic... (Below threshold)
914:

This administration's policy's resemble sub Saharan Africa more everyday. Stuck eternally on stupid! 2012 where are you?

The Democrat Party is addic... (Below threshold)
heartbroken:

The Democrat Party is addicted to raping Truth, Language, Prosperty, Innocence, Justice and the Repupliban Party is the enabler of addiction; nothing will change until both hit rock bottom.

So tonight while Republicans Krauthammer, Gingrich, Rove, McConnell, Graham party hardy with the Democrats where's the party for Independent Conservatives?

As pointed out, renewable e... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

As pointed out, renewable energy is only CHEAP when you jack up the price of fossil fuels by manipulating scarcity (restrictions on mining and drilling).

The price of oil bares no resemblance to the actual cost of producing it. Not since the Sheiks arbitrarily doubled the price per barrel in the early 70's. In the mean time, the world became more efficient while the demand continued to rise.

Kalifornia 'greenies' are continually stymied by their fellow tree huggers. Can't get more water via desalination - you'll hurt the fish. Can't divert water from the delta - you'll kill a worthless minnow. Can't put solar mirrors on THOUSANDS of acres of desert land - it's unsightly and harms the lizards and scorpions, to say nothing of the power lines you'd need to get the electricity where it's needed. And don't even mention nuclear power. Kalifornia spent $2 Billion to put solar panels on roofs. They ran out of money - and the price still hasn't fallen to the point where solar is affordable WITHOUT subsidies.

In the past, people decided what to use as an energy source. That decision was based on price. Market price - NOT government manipulation of that price. People went from wood to coal to oil, and from candle wax to whale oil to electricity. Each was more efficient, more convenient and CHEAPER than it's predecessor.

I've looked on energy as so... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I've looked on energy as something of a game - humanity's always trying to find the ultimate source of energy to power civilization.

Started with horsepower and slave/man power in Roman times, with some water and wind. For heat? Wood and charcoal. And that was pretty much it (aside from some usage of coal) until the industrial revolution.

Then heat engines came into vogue - powered by wood, then coal... and then oil.

For lighting, you had candles (and whale oil, as Garandfan points out) then coal gas and kerosene. Electricity (from dynamos powered by heat engines) took the place of the liquids and gasses used before.

Then we developed nuclear. If this all were a game, we'd be building the boogers out of nuclear at this point, doing just enough drilling to keep a supply of petroleum for fuels and lubricants... and working on shifting as much surface transportation as possible to electric power. (Requiring, of course, massive increases in battery efficiency and motor efficiency, as well as ways to quickly recharge said batteries and improving nationwide power transmission networks.)

You get nuclear fission worked out - and then you shift to nuclear fusion... which with the deuterium in sea water would give us an effectively infinite supply of energy for as long as our civilization is likely to last.

We couldn't get to THAT state, however, without without comitting to and using nuclear fission to the fullest.

But there's always some asshole who likes to see how badly they can force others to lose a game. And Van Jones is one of those people who'd like and cheat in order to get what they consider a 'win', regardless of what it does to the other players in the game.

You want green? Go nuclear. It's that simple.

The green jobs these guy un... (Below threshold)
Don L:

The green jobs these guy understand begins and ends with the color of USA money - period. They are all carbon addicts with pius eco-talk.

You want green? Go nucle... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

You want green? Go nuclear. It's that simple.

Ah, but how would that act as a vehicle for communist agitation?

Answer: it wouldn't. So that's out.

And does anyone actually ta... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

And does anyone actually take the "green jobs" rubric seriously? Anyone, that is, who doesn't also believe in the Easter Bunny?

In essence, the whole idea of "green jobs" is to do things less efficiently than they're done at present. If you can't see a small but noticeable problem with the economics, then you must be a liberal.

Can anyone expalin what a "... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Can anyone expalin what a "green job" is supposed to be? (Not being rhetorical; I really want to know what people think this is.)

I support green en... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
I support green energy

I don't. Because it's inefficient. I know it's inefficient because if it were efficient, the free market would plunge in and make money.

The only way "green energy" can be sustained is by government control. By that I mean, like Van Jones, destruction of the private enterprise system of energy delivery and government takeover.

First healthcare, then energy. What's next? Food delivery and distribution?

Cheap energy, and innovativ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Cheap energy, and innovative ways to use energy more efficiently through the years, has enabled the US to enjoy its abundant lifestyle. This lifestyle includes not only conspicuous consumption [harped on endlessly by the left - what were the many things that Obama said we would have to give up to change our lifestyle in order to be more responsible citizens of the world?], but also the ability to produce more food than we use - and truly amazing medical advances. We have shared our food and medicine with the poor of all nations. That's part of our "lifestyle" generated by cheap energy.
Our feckless governmental policy of attempting to force our populace to use uneconomic "green energy," while at the same time fraudulently hyping and subsidizing "green jobs," will put a large dent in our lifestyle - including our lifestyle of providing food and medicine for the poor of the world. Like the ban on DDT, the poor of the undeveloped nations will be killed by our policy decisions - and those who aren't killed will be forever doomed to the status of living in an undeveloped country, because they will never enjoy the abundance provided by cheap energy.
As far as the left is concerned, this is just the price of the socially just result of lowering our standard of living. Sort of like those eggs that had to be broken to make that socially just omelet of Stalin's workers' paradise.

Barry should go green and s... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry should go green and save some energy tonight and cancel the SOTU address.

Put his money where Soros mouth is and set an example.

He wont because he is a money grubbing power hungry fool. Shame on you Barry.. The msm will tote your magnificent hogwash tonight without a doubt. The truth is its the economy stupid! For that you have no answer.,

Confronting the enormous ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Confronting the enormous increase in C02 emissions is the greatest challenge facing our species and planet today. This is what has happened in the past. And what do the political neanderthals want to do? Continue or even increase the rate of burning lots of fossil fuels, with its corresponding high CO2 emisisons, because it is cheap and gave us our 'great' lifestyle, but for how much longer? Their answer is to let the free market (assisted by billion dollar government oil tax depeletions and huge coal subsidies) determine everything, but the so called 'free market' looks ahead...about two years, meanwhile everyone else can see which way irreversible global warming and climate change is going.

Steve, please. AGW is so o... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Steve, please. AGW is so outdated - even the President isn't talking about it tonight. "Irresversible global warming?" From a recent post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University

"Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the magnitude of global warming experienced during the past century is insignificant compared to the magnitude of the profound natural climate reversals over the past 25,000 years, which preceded any significant rise of atmospheric CO2. If so many much more intense periods of warming occurred naturally in the past without increase in CO2, why should the mere coincidence of a small period of low magnitude warming this century be blamed on CO2?"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/#more-32351
But, rather than argue about your belief system, I'll ask a serious question: Given that historical warming periods have been extremely beneficial to mankind while cooling periods have been extremely detrimental, what do you believe is the optimal temperature for our planet, as compared to today's temperature?

In other words, where do yo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

In other words, where do you want the fucking thermostat to be set at, Steve?

The scam's unraveling. The science isn't settled, and the 'warming' is down in the noise from instrument error... and let's not even talk about problems with calibration of said instruments, or their locations and external factors.

Or the programs themselves, with built-in 'correction' factors that take the raw data and massage it to a happy ending.

You know, if you'd shown half the skepticism about AGW that you do about ANYTHING conservative, you'd have smelled a rat years ago. But I think you had to do a reflexive "They're against what Al Gore is saying, so I'm going to defend it no matter what" sort of thing. It didn't matter what evidence you saw, or where you were pointed - hell, you could have been shown a BBQ grill was set up next to a temperature station and you'd have ignored it.

You were going to believe what you were told. Al Gore said there was a problem. Hansen showed graphs that said there was a problem - but wouldn't show his data, wouldn't release his programs - and then someone lost the Medieval Warming Period. But that still didn't register as a problem for you. You could TRUST Al Gore - he wouldn't screw you over!

Except... they did. And Al Gore's been laughing all the way to the bank.

JLawson, I'm not a scientis... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

JLawson, I'm not a scientist, but global warming is going to be hard to reverse. Sure high C02 emission were catacylsmic in the past, from volcano eruptions and so forth, but the effects occurred over hundreds and thousands of years.

C02 emissions corresponding to temperature rise- I suppose we will leave that debate to another time. Basically, most of you are against heavy public sudsidies for green energy, but it would be interesting to see the public subsidies comparisons given to the coal and oil industries?

I don't think we should personalize this to Al Gore. He is a career blue-blood politician after all. There are commercial vested interests on the other side, for that matter.

Control = power. W... (Below threshold)
Constitution First:

Control = power.

With enough power, money (or voter opposition) ceases to be relevant.

Can any other end result better explain the actions of the Left and their minions?

It cannot be stated more succinctly than that.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy