Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts

Thursday, May 29, 2008

The immortal words of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)


In a House hearing on gas prices, executives of the large oil companies were asked for a "guarantee" that prices would go down if the areas surrounding the United States ("The No Zone") were opened up for exploration and drilling. The president of Shell Oil answered the question.

  "I can guarantee to the American people -- that because of the inaction of the United States Congress -- ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down. And the five dollars will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves and new opportunities to increase supplies."

Rep. Waters didn't like that answer.

  "And guess what this liberal is going to be all about!"

  "This liberal will be all about socializing --- uh... uh..."

  "Uhm... ... ... will be about... ..."

  "... ...Basically... ..."

  "Taking you over. And the government running all of your companies."

* * *

The word, of course, is "nationalize" and the Hugo Chavez gameplan hasn't worked out so well for Venezuelans.

And check out the poor schlub sitting next to her. You can almost read his mind. How the heck did I get stuck sitting next to this national embarrassment?

If Waters is really the best that Californians can do, I would recommend that residents start evacuating now.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Fuel prices: a handy guide


Every time you see this:

Remember this:

In Alaska, wildlife is thriving in the current Prudhoe Bay oil field. There, the caribou population has increased by over 900%; conversely, the caribou population in ANWR (with no human interaction other than very limited Indian hunting) has plummeted.

In the Gulf of Mexico, hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 109 oil platforms with "no loss of life or significant spills from any offshore well on the outer continental shelf."


Despite these facts, Democrats continue to block oil exploration in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), where tens of billions of gallons of oil remain untapped. The red areas in the accompanying maps depict "The No Zone." These are the regions surrounding the United States in which Democrats have forbidden any oil exploration.


From the tiny spit of land within the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to the OCS, Democrats have uniformly opposed every form of exploration that would allow us to stop sending our funds overseas and given us the time to transition to clean energy technologies.


In the mean time, Cuba has leased drilling rights to foreign countries, which will permit them to drain the Gulf of Mexico of its oil. For example, Cuba recently granted China drilling rights in the Gulf. And, in fact, China will be drilling within 50 miles of Florida.

The Democrats continue to endanger our economic wellbeing and national security by keeping our vast storehouses of energy off-limits.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Energy problems: solved


Just capture all of the hot air expelled on Capitol Hill.

It's just that simple.

Hat tip: Laura Ingraham

Schumer's Math: $25 = 1 cent


Question: when does $25 equal 1 cent?
Answer: when Charles Schumer is using his official Democrat Party Calculator™

Charles Schumer, May 13 2008:

If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price - offering much needed relief to struggling families.

Charles Schumer, May 6 2008:

ANWR [the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge] wouldn’t produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and its estimated that if they drilled in ANWR in twenty years it would reduce the price one penny.

1 million barrels a day is precisely the amount of oil that experts believe we would have been pumping today through the Alyeska pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed drilling in 1995.

When it comes to partisan hackery, Charles Schumer is truly without peer. Is he really the best that New York can do?

Hat tips: American Thinker's Marc Sheppard and Larwyn

Monday, May 19, 2008

Separated at birth


It's Jimmy Carter redux! Turn our thermostats to 63 degrees in the winter and break out the sweaters!

Was it the spectacular success of the first Carter administration that convinced Democrats to run Carter again?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

IBD: Dems short-sighted, ignorant and irresponsible


The Investors Business Daily:

• For the past 31 years, Congress repeatedly prevented us from building any new oil refineries that we now badly need.

• More recently, congressional Democrats defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea 100 miles out. However, it's somehow OK for China to drill there.

• As a further indictment of our Congress, since the 1980s it has continually stopped all building of nuclear power plants while France, Germany and, yes, Japan, plus 12 other major nations, did build plants and now get 20% to 80% of their energy from their wise and safe nuclear plant investments.

• From 1990 to 2000, U.S. crude oil demand rapidly accelerated by 7.41 quadrillion BTUs, according to Department of Energy data. And our rate of foreign oil dependency dramatically increased while our domestic oil production steadily declined.

Under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S. oil production declined 1,349,000 barrels per day, or 19%, while our foreign imports increased 3,574,000 barrels per day, or 45%.

During this time, President Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling bills that would have clearly made Alaska our No. 1 state in the production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for all Americans but also for national defense emergencies.

So were Democrats and members of Congress together merely short-sighted, with only a few having any real business experience?

Or were they just ignorant about economics — the fact that the law of supply and demand determines the price of all commodities such as oil, steel, copper and lumber?

Or were they simply and utterly irresponsible and incompetent in their actions that led us to become dangerously dependent on increasing oil imports from foreign countries?

We think it was "all of the above."

Can I get an 'indeed'?

Hat tip: Merv vis Larwyn

Monday, May 05, 2008

Bahrain going green?


Trendwatching is tracking the "eco-icon" meme.

The Bahrain World Trade Center is the world's first commercial building to incorporate large-scale wind turbines into its initial design. It has three massive wind turbines that measure 29 meters in diameter and are supported on bridges between the BWTC’s two 240-meter-high towers. The turbines generate approximately 11–15% of the BWTC’s total energy needs.

Not bad!

Gas price chickens come home to roost


The back-story is here.

Hat tips: Division of Labour, Vanderleun and Larwyn

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Gore, Schumer and Pelosi: Let them eat dirt


It all started out as a simple, money-making scam. In the late 1990's, members of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were tasked with assessing the scientific validity of the Kyoto Protocol. They subsequently produced the Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. The report found that "carbon offsets" and "carbon trading" were viable ways to barter the right to pollute for new forestry initiatives.


But members of the panel, such as Pedro Moura-Costa (above) and Gareth Philips, had major conflicts-of-interest. They owned or worked for businesses -- such as Ecosecurities and SGS Forestry -- that would benefit from the report's conclusions. But the mainstream media did not report these conflicts and instead piled on the "global warming" and "carbon offset" bandwagons.


The carbon offset market quickly exploded. In fact, $92 billion worth of offsets are expected to change hands in 2008. But wanton profiteering alone appears to be at the very heart of "carbon offsets." Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse. And they've been saying so since 2000, though to read the newspaper you wouldn't know it.


To demonstrate the fraudulence of the carbon offset market, one need only request quotes from various carbon offset sellers.


The price for offseting a flight from London to Toronto and back?
  • $85: from Climate Care (UK), which says 6 tons of CO2 must be offset.
  • $60: Carbon Neutral (UK), which says 4.3 tons of CO2 must be offset.
  • $195: Climate Friendly (Australia) asserts that 11.63 tons of CO2 must be offset.
  • $180: Green Seat (Netherlands) says 8.68 tons of CO2 must be offset.

In other words, they're all basically making it up as they go along.


The result of these frauds, with which the mainstream media has been stunningly complicit, goes well beyond what most of the scammers would ever have anticipated.


For one, food prices haves skyrocketed as biofuel production has eroded the world's ability to produce basic foodstuffs.

"Why are we putting food in our gas tanks instead of our stomachs?" asked Richard Reinwald, owner of Reinwald's Bakery in Huntington, N.Y., and an active member of the Retail Bakers Association...

...Joseph Glauber, the chief economist at the Department of Agriculture, said ethanol production has led to higher prices for corn and soybeans... [and]...George Braley, the vice president of America's Second Harvest, said food banks nationwide are having trouble stocking their shelves...

But biofuel production isn't the only culprit.


The rise in food prices is also due, in part, to high oil prices. Earlier this week, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) described his reluctance to pump oil from the United States' Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

What does the president do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR. ANWR wouldn't produce a drop of oil in ten years...

Unfortunately, that's exactly what Democrat Bill Clinton said fourteen years ago, when he vetoed legislation that would have permitted drilling in ANWR's coastal plain. Had Clinton signed off then, we'd have started producing oil four years ago. And billions of barrels of oil lie untouched, available to U.S. consumers, in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas.


The oil lies, patiently waiting for us, in areas around the US. But Democrats have "repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR... We could produce plenty of oil," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). "We could meet our own needs right now if we wanted to."


The red areas in the accompanying maps depict "The No Zone." These are the regions surrounding the United States in which Democrats have forbidden any oil exploration. From the tiny spit of land within the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to the OCS, Democrats have uniformly opposed every form of exploration that would allow us to stop sending our funds overseas and given us the time to transition to clean energy technologies.



In the mean time, Cuba has leased drilling rights to foreign countries, which will permit them to drain the Gulf of Mexico of its oil. For example, Cuba recently granted China drilling rights in the Gulf. And, in fact, China will be drilling within 50 miles of Florida.


Instead of thinking strategically, Democrats have proposed various short-term fixes to address high oil prices.

"We believe there ought to be a gas-tax holiday, but Big Oil ought to pay for it," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

In other words, jack up prices to consumers even more because the oil companies will be forced to raise costs in order to continue their exploration and R&D functions (and pay shareholders like you and I).


Put simply, Democrats want more expensive energy.

All that said, the real problem — and the reason Pelosi really does deserve blame — is that Democrats’ political goal of reducing carbon emissions continues to trump their populist rhetoric on gasoline prices. The two stances are impossible to reconcile. Try as they might to blame oil companies for the pain Americans feel at the pump, the Democrats want higher prices for gasoline — and for all forms of energy that emit carbon. Economic barriers against CO2 emissions are a requirement for environmental progress in the Democrats’ view, and this is the entire purpose of the carbon cap-and-trade system they will put before the House this summer — to create economic disincentives for emitting CO2.

There's that phrase again: carbon trading.

It all comes back to carbon offsets, the "global warming" scam promoted by the UN's IPCC. And now, a group of scientists has formally petitioned the IPCC, asking that they cease and desist marketing the message that CO2 emissions relate to warming temperatures. The scientists go on to renounce the unintended consequences of the UN's position: that the policy of burning food (to produce biofuel) has driven food prices sharply higher and is causing hunger and deforestation in countries around the world (especially the poorer countries).

The net result? In Haiti, for example, citizens have been forced to eat mud patties consisting of dirt, oil and sugar.

Furthermore, scientists are now coming to the conclusion that "green" fuels can't replace oil anytime soon.

* * *

The hunger and high oil prices are certain to continue until we come to grips with reality. That is, fossil fuels are required for the world to survive the next several decades. The transition to green technologies will take significant time.

Unless we wish to see mass starvation and economic ruin, Democrats must allow America to take advantage of its immense storehouse of energy.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

Linked by: Junk Science and Parkway Rest Stop. Thanks!

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Hungry Africans thank Al Gore


Thanks, Al Gore.

The world just had one of the coldest winters on record.

And the price of food has skyrocketed...

...thanks to your "global warming" -- oops, I meant "climate change" -- initiatives.

Problem is, researchers, environmentalists and scientists of all political persuasions say that your "carbon offset" businesses are money-making scams and do absolutely nothing for the environment.

And the current lack of sunspots likely indicates a solar cooling cycle beyond human control.

We're hungry, Al Gore. Thanks for all of your help.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The idiocy of Charles Schumer reduced to a single sentence


Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) describes his reluctance to pump oil from the United States' Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

What does the president do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR. ANWR wouldn't produce a drop of oil in ten years...

That's exactly what Democrat Bill Clinton said fourteen years ago, when he vetoed legislation that would have permitted drilling in ANWR's coastal plain. Had Clinton signed off then, we'd have started producing oil four years ago.

EIB adds:

The New York Times laments that [high prices haven't reduced demand]. Let me see if I can help the New York Times. "As oil prices soared to record levels in recent years, basic economics suggested that consumption would fall and supplies would rise as producers drilled for more oil. But as prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy experts are becoming worried that neither seems to be happening..."

"...But for a variety of reasons including sharply higher drilling costs and a rise of nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investment, these countries are failing to increase their output...." What do you think the key here is? Nationalistic policies? "A rise of nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investment..."

Can I translate that for you? Communist/socialist countries nationalizing their oil businesses kicking out the experts, the oil companies in drilling, producing, and refining. Could I mention Hugo Chavez? Hugo Chavez just nationalized all the oil in Venezuela... Whenever you want to find an interruption and something that doesn't make sense in economics and the laws of supply and demand, I guarantee that somewhere at the root level of it; you're going to find a liberal or a socialist or a communist attempting to manage the market or steal all the profits for him or herself... It's no wonder that Norway and Mexico and Russia -- Russia's got its own political upheavals going on right now; they've got their own political problems, too.

Remember to thank your Democratic representative for $4 gas.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Thank your local Democrat for $4 gas!


Ticked off at $4-a-gallon gas?

Despite the catastrophic damage that high oil prices can wreak on our economy, Democrats oppose virtually every measure that would relieve the pain on average Americans.

The accompanying map depicts "The No Zone." This is the region surrounding the United States in which Democrats have blocked oil exploration.

Democrats oppose drilling in deepwater, even though Hurricanes Katrina and Rita proved that modern offshore drilling platforms pose little or no pollution risk. Democrats oppose exploration in a tiny, postage-stamp sized region of Alaska. As for new refineries or nuclear energy, well, the Democrats oppose those, too. The net impact of Democratic behavior is that America will become increasingly dependent on foreign oil.

While alternative energy sources remain an admirable goal, they are decades away from becoming serious alternatives to oil. For good or bad, America's economy and national security hinge on access to oil. Ben Stein comments:

...If we lost all oil and gas products tomorrow, ...the world would simply collapse. There would be an immense depression beyond anything we saw in the 1930s -- the economy would go back to a primitive state. There would simply not be a functioning society. It would be as if there had been nuclear war, minus the casualties from blast and radiation... In a word, we cannot as a modern society or even a modestly industrial society live without oil and gas. That is, [it is not] a luxury or a narcotic. [It is] a basic necessity of life, as basic as almost any commodity there is.

The Democrats like to pretend that oil is a needless luxury by preventing exploration in sensible locations. But, in the mean time, Cuba is permitting foreign countries to drain the Gulf of Mexico of its oil. Cuba granted China drilling rights in the Gulf. And, in fact, China will be drilling within 50 miles of Florida.

Thus, while countries such as China suck oil out of the Gulf, Democrats continue to stonewall against sensible energy policies.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Chavez pitches Africa on Nationalizing the Oil Industry

 
Venezuela's deputy foreign minister has counseled African governments to emulate Venezuela and nationalize the oil industry.

...Reinaldo Bolivar speaking in Senegal has advised African nations to nationalize their oil resources in order to fight poverty and follow the example of Venezuela.

Africa currently produces 15% of the world’s oil and according to Bolivar “Africa's oil is plundered by multinationals: they sell it very expensively even here" he suggested that by pooling resources Africa could supply its own market.

Bolivar went on to say "There are some things for (African countries) to learn: the principal of nationalization of our basic industries, our natural resources in Venezuela, is something we consider necessary for our riches to benefit the people..."

Rather than look to Chavez' failed economy -- which has nationalized the oil, steel, and cement industries, to name but a few -- Africans should closely examine Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Mugabe nationalized a far simpler enterprise than oil: land use for farming. The result was an utter disaster.

Mugabe's land reform program was supposed to redistribute among poor blacks large commercial farms owned by about 4,500 whites that covered 80 percent of Zimbabwe's best land. Instead, he used the farms to extend his patronage system, giving them to ruling party leaders, security chiefs, relatives and friends.

Zimbabwe had been a major food exporter until then, but its agricultural sector collapsed and the economy started unraveling. Today, a third of Zimbabweans depend on international food handouts, and another third have fled abroad looking for work or political asylum...

AlertNet adds:

Zimbabwe is in the grip of its worst humanitarian crisis since independence. Twenty years ago the country was hailed as an African success story and dubbed the "breadbasket" of southern Africa. Now its economy is in tatters and the World Food Programme (WFP) estimates a third of the population faces food shortages...

...Zimbabwe now has one of the lowest life expectancies in the world and one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates. Just under 25 percent of people aged 15-49 are HIV-positive, according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

And with the economy in shreds, unemployment is running at an estimated 70 percent. Inflation is also rampant, standing at 164.3 percent in the year to June 2005...

Yes, it's another success story for socialism!

And remember: when Democrats advocate ever greater government control -- of the oil industry or increased taxes -- they are putting America on the road to economic disaster.

How many case studies do we need before Democrats get the point?

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Energy use dimmed during Earth Hour: North Korea celebrates


Energy authorities say the impact of last night's Earth Hour event was the equivalent of the entire country of North Korea going without lights. Which they do every night.

Kim Jong-Il was said to be pleased with the demonstration.

Update: Linked by Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities. Thanks!

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Who's better at innovating: government or the free-market?

 
Charles Johnson alerts us to an ominous new threat to Google's dominant search engine:

The European Union is putting up $152 million to fund a search engine that will compete with Google.

Who was that snickering in the back of the room?


Government-funded innovation in action at the BMV

OK, maybe it was me. I can’t help it. I’m picturing an EU-approved search engine, and I can’t stop giggling.

EUgle! Bwa ha ha!

Big government spending bucket-loads of taxpayer money on innovation?

What springs to mind are the Democrats' rocket-scientist plans to fund clean energy technology (at taxpayer expense, of course). Hillary, for example, plans to spend $50 billion on a "Strategic Energy Fund" and a few more billion on "basic energy research."

No piker himself, Barack Obama plans to spend $150 billion on "clean energy", another $50 billion in clean venture funds, and an unknown amount to "Double Energy Research and Development Funding."

Funny. With $4 a gallon gas on the way, I thought there were plenty of free-market incentives to explore green technologies.

Like the Lexus Hybrid 400h. Or the BMW Hydrogen engine. Or the Saab Biopower engine. Or Volvo's flexifuel engine. Or Toyota's hybrids. Or VW's Passat powered by natural gas. Or Honda's Civic GX, also powered by natural gas.

But I suppose Obama and Clinton have the right idea. If given enough money, big government can out-innovate the free-market.

Can't it?