Skip to content

“Bipartisans”, Fuel and Climate Security

June 4, 2008

In recent years, outrageous, inaccurate and sometimes unconstitutional legislation has become the hallmark of Washington politicians. Washington lawmakers have lost touch with the immediate and real problems of the American people. Instead, they have become involved in a work of science fiction.

If you are living in America and not under a rock, you have heard the inane debate about global warming and the power that humans have to solve the problem, thus saving the planet and mankind from total destruction. Even the Weather Channel has been embroiled in the debate.

Whether global warming is a reality or not, more and more people are buying into the idea. To tickle their fancy, senators have developed the Climate Security Act of 2008 in an effort to stem the building tide of panic concerning the lack of human control in the world that we inhabit.

U.S. politicians have decided that one fact is indisputable: global warming is real and it is caused mainly by man made pollution. Experts across the board are now promoting the idea that harbingers of global and far-reaching disaster are occurring all around us: drought, altered growing seasons, sea-level rise, intense precipitation and wildfires, prevalence of hurricanes and cyclones. All these cyclical events are held to be caused or worsened by the warming climate of the earth, an apocalyptic horseman that is entirely the fault of humans.

The national guilt about burning fossil fuels and fears over decadent lifestyles of thoughtless people adversely impacting the planet has risen to a fever pitch. The real fever is from fear that the earth will not recover from the pollution that mankind is filling the globe with. With fear comes the opportunity for power and influence.

Politicians, being creatures of opportunity, have decided to prosper themselves and their globalist cronies with new legislation in the name of environmental soundness by magnanimously creating new industries and jobs with landmark legislation and sheer spending prowess, otherwise known as pork-barrel spending. At a time Americans are losing their jobs and struggling to compete in the global marketplace, the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill claims to create a new and powerful economic engine. In the eyes of politicians, the bill is about creating hundreds of thousands, even millions of high-paying, permanent and sustainable jobs in America. How this is done is more by circumstance than design.

U.S. Senate documents clarify that not every expert agrees on the quickest and most cost-effective path to save the climate of the planet. The belief is that all agree that we cannot afford delay or world civilization is at stake. Better to act foolishly in haste than to act in a way that actually makes sense. The Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill is a dress rehearsal considered by many environmentalists and politicians to be a positive and critical first step in a journey that will require innovation and cooperation both here and abroad to build a new world order.

How do politicians sway public opinion? They promise that the Climate Security Act will slash taxes by $800 billion while financing the transition to clean alternative fuels by making polluters pay. The idea is that penalizing polluters will create investment in renewable fuels and develop new industry while renewing the environment. Green collar jobs that haven’t even been conceived are the talk of the town. These clever notions are the very ideas that are promoted by the United Nations and other International Globalists as a means to evenly distribute wealth and power over the globe.

Senate documents and popular lawmaker opinion is that hundreds of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy have already been created by farsighted investors. They hold that millions of jobs can be created with the enactment of a strong “cap-and-trade system” using the new IRS of environmentalism in your personal life.

The problem is that government is rarely the tool for any kind of innovation or progress. In the past, innovation and progress has been the domain of private individuals combined with industrial and corporate movements. Now, world government wants in on the action in the name of saving the earth.

Our Washington politicians consider themselves as visionaries. The Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill is considered by them to be bipartisan in the truest sense. The writers of these Senate materials proclaim that the United States Senate is ready to move beyond partisanship to do the right thing. Proponents wax poetically about the problems that will be solved.

Opponents say that this bill will lead to an increase in gas prices by as much as $3.00 per gallon in the next two decades. Consumers will pay 80% of the costs which will be passed down by the corporations. This bill is held to be the BIGGEST tax increase in American history. The bill is held by many to be worse than the possibility of the problem by itself, a case that has not been proved.

Instead of acting to lower gas prices, representatives in the Senate began debate on a measure that will increase gas prices. Instead of heeding the collective voice of America, Congress is acting in defiance of it. Instead of giving Americans relief from high gas prices, elected representatives are debating how to give even more handouts to lobbyists and special interests. Boxer-Warner-Lieberman will raise gas prices and create a massive special-interest-favoring, lobbyist-controlled, political pork dispensing machine dressed up as environmentalism.

A case in point for unproved theories can be made with ethanol and food prices. For years, the U.N. has heralded the dream of clean bio-fuels and the positive effect on the world. When the result held an unexpected bite through increasing food prices, enhanced poverty and inflation, the U.N. and other organizations have reversed their statements.

Does anyone really know what is going on beyond the promotion of power-brokering? This is unlikely. Like scientists that demand that their theories are dogma, global political and environmental theory has become the movement for a new world movement.

Essentially, the federal government in the legislative branch seeks to force change that business and many consumers have been hesitant or slow to make. By working against petroleum-based fuel technologies altogether, the power mongers seek to create a new perfect world of environmentally-friendly transportation. The ideal model is that users of filthy fuel must be punished.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. June 5, 2008 9:37 pm

    E. Manning, the first person to get “it” that I have read. I was in the Texas Enron Tower in the 1990s and carbon credits were being discussed as an invention of Enron back then. The new deregulation and the new commodity to be traded by the wealthy – Carbon Credits. This whole process was scripted and the environmentalist liberals have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Hoodwinked again! When is our media going to break free and start reporting the real news.

    If you are a real reporter, get off your ass and report this story before the new “Federal Reserve Board” or “Federal Green Board” of the 21st Century is seated and starts channeling a trillion of your dollars every year back to big business and big business passes the bill to us with the excuse that they have no choice it is mandated by law.

    See this web page to see who is going to reap the benefits of the sale of these Carbon Credits. Look at publications and presentations section. The oil companies and big industry are the first tier of groups to get this benefit from the sale of Carbon Credits. Drive up the cost of energy, pressurize the old oil fields with carbon dioxide and get the old oilfields moving again since it is economically feasible. You and I will pay for it and oil companies will make money putting carbon dioxide in the ground and pulling oil out. Paid for by higher prices and taxes/carbon credits you and I will pay for in higher energy costs.

    No other existing technology is more efficient at actually reducing existing carbon dioxide in ambient air than the methods described on the above mentioned webpage. This is by design, and they will get the benifit of a large portion of the carbon credit sales since they have the best carbon dioxide reduction technology.

    If you do not believe me watch the value of Praxair stock rise if this bill passes.

    Get on the ball reporters.

  2. June 5, 2008 9:31 pm

    Why must we keep pretending there is some miracle solution to the problem. “Comprehensive energy policy” will solve all our problems. All the pundits and commentators love to get involved, but from a scientist’s point of view, all I hear are buzz words and pipe dreams (excuse the pun).

    Who here thinks we could change energy policy today and it would make travel cheaper in 10 years? How clueless have we become that we simply expect there to be a solution we simply aren’t even using lying at the doorstep. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, NG) are one of the cheapest most efficient bodies of energy in the world. If you run out of oil, you can’t even build an alternative source of energy (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, bio). There is no magic box, we can use thermodynamics to examine the viability of any idea, and the truth is, we don’t even have a viable idea to combat the problem.

    Bush knows this. Cheney knows this. The energy policy? Buy Saudi oil til it runs dry. Then tap our sources at home and pray that technology 100 years from now solves our problems because nobody even has a scientifically sound idea of how to fix the problem today.

    Conservation? Compliance. People don’t save, never have, never will. There is only one true way to force compliance. Taxation. Taxation to a government check to support the industry or taxation directly to a larger price tag.

    Name it, name an alternative. Big corporations have been searching for 50 years. They’ve all come to one conclusion. There isn’t one. Not truly. They make 10% profit on oil, half what google’s margin of profit is. If there was something, anything they could do to turn more profit (and they can turn EXTRA profit when they label it “green” for treehugger premiums) they’d do it in a heartbeat. Energy will go up in price or we will invent cold fusion. That’s the cold hard truth. There is no blame to hand out. Nobody “made it this way,” it is simply reality.

  3. June 5, 2008 8:35 am

    Great summary. The true deniers are those who deny the fact the this bill will devastate our economy, and deny the fact that it is useless as far as “securing” the climate. The idea that “punishment” will lead to innovation is the stupidest approach ever. Also, the idea that everyone can just go out and buy a new, more efficient vehicle, spend the money to make their homes more energy efficient, and pay more for food and everything else is the most glaring example of ecoelitism ever. It is the poor that will suffer most, and the ecoelitists don’t care.

  4. June 5, 2008 8:30 am

    This is another way that the government uses fear to further oppress the citizens of this country by raping them of their hard earned money in the name of environmentalism. Face it people “Global Warming” is a scientific THEORY, not a LAW. Scientific theory does not assume truth. That is why there is on going research to this apparent problem, with scientist arguing on both side of the issue. MUCH, MUCH MORE research is needed in order to prove that WE are the SOLE cause of these changes. Mush of the research in to the THEORY of “Global Warming” are based on only 150 years of weather data, and a few core samples from some glaciers that only go back a FEW THOUSAND years. Remember the, Earth itself is approximately 5 BILLION years old. Scientists are looking at data that only goes back a fraction of time in geological terms. Yet many people today take “Global Warming” as fact and presume this THEORY as LAW because Al Gore tells them in his movie or that a small portion of scientists in the world say that this is an unnatural human caused event, when they really don’t know. For all anyone knows, this could be a natural cycle that could occur every thousands/millions of years (like volcanic eruptions or sun spot cycles) that humans cannot do anything about.

    Yet, like many people around the world, the politicians in DC take this THEORY as fact and are try to make a buck off ordinary citizens. Supporters of the act project that the government will earn approximately 6.7 TRILLION dollars in revenue by creating a C02 “cap-and-trade” market. This is basically a behind the scenes way of taxing citizens through taxing companies. They try to conceal this tax further by saying they will provide 800 Billion dollars in take relieve to “needy” families to pay high energy bills. Through this market the government will give about half of the “Carbon Allowances” to companies who emit C02 for free and auction the rest off. Then companies, who don’t pollute enough the use their total C02 allowance, can sell their allowances back to the government to be auctioned off again. How does this actually REDUCE C02 emissions? The companies that pollute the most C02 will just purchase more “allowances” in order to continue there current operations. All of the money spent by these companies to buy these “allowances” will be passed on to the consumer (you and me) in the form of higher energy prices.

    Currently, the largest emitters of C02 currently in the US are electric utility companies that burn coal to produce electricity. About 50% of the electricity produced in the US comes from coal, meaning that the companies that have to spend millions/billions on carbon allowances will just pass that cost on to us via higher energy bills. Gas refineries, oil companies, other manufacturing (plastics, steel, transportation) companies will do the same in order to offset the cost of be forced to participate in the “cap-and-trade” market. Also a tariff on all imports from countries that don’t have climate control policies (China, India) will have a tariff place on them to make the prices of them “more competitive”. All of this will result in even higher prices for manufactured goods and food across a broad spectrum. All the while we are giving our money to the government to create alternative energy sources, thinking that we will save the planet form C02. The government is the largest, slowest, most financially wasteful and corrupt entity in the nation. Most of this money that the government says will go towards researching alternative energy, will most likely go to pet projects of senators from various states, wasteful subsidies, or other special interests of the politicians in Washington.

    So instead of asking the government to solve our problems, yet again, we should concentrate on solving our problems ourselves and learn to be open minded and critical of issues that will affect every aspect of our lives!!

  5. rschier permalink
    June 5, 2008 8:29 am

    I’m certainly with luigil on this. Even if you don’t
    want to believe the “global warming” arguments, there is an extremely long list of other compelling reasons to get away from energy from fossil fuel. The govt’s biggest shortcoming by far, is that it has been in bed with oil/money interests all along, as we could have/should have had a headstart on alternatives long ago…The sad reality, is this is the way the world works (or “doesn’t work”). All one has to do is peruse this board, and you’ll find extraordinary examples of “sense of entitlement”. This particularly evident in ages 40 and under, as they have
    a) had the largest exposure to the uber-consumerist media message machine, and
    b) are increasingly removed from those who experienced hard times, such as the depression.
    Ignorance is in full bloom around here….

  6. luigil permalink
    June 4, 2008 6:27 pm

    You made a lengthy and well reasoned argument but I disagree with you; just like scientists cannot agree on if there is global warming or if the revolution theory is correct. We will never achieve consensus. There are always nay sayers. People are still dreaming of perpetual motion machines. I would rather err for the sake our children and their children that global warming is real. We must reduce our energy foot print and develop alternative, renewable, clean energy. This cannot be a bad thing. We must not be too selfish as we share the Earth with 6.5B people who also need energy and improve their lives, not to mention filling their stomachs. Do we have more rights than they do because we are more affluent?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: