About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Promises-promises! Obama throws snake eyes again

 

Ever since the exit of George Bush, late night comedians have struggled with the void: for the first time in recent memory, they had no Dubya (or Clinton) to lampoon during their monologues.

 

And to dare make fun of Barack Obama was completely off limits-- a first degree crime of political incorrectness.

 

But what's a late night audience supposed to do? Simple; just go to the source, Professor Obama himself, whose quotes last year on the campaign trail are worthy of any hall of fame comedian:

 

There's the one where Mr. Obama said..."I will promise every American the same health care plan that I have as Senator!"  Hardy-har; guffaw-guffaw. Now that's funny!

 

Or how about the one where he claimed..."We're going to create five million alternative energy  jobs-- jobs that can't be outsourced!" Indeed--even funnier! And these were supposed to be those highly-coveted, "green-collar" jobs of the future according to Professor Barack-O, the energy master of disaster.

 

Are we ready for more jesting? How about when he was campaigning in Pennsylvania (and West Virginia) where Obama claimed he was for "clean coal"---basically an oxymoron -- just like all the rest of the "green energy" ideas.

 

But the apex of Obama's levity hit its peak in late summer "08, during a tour of an alternative energy plant near Monaca, Pennsylvania -- an operation synthesizing biofuels from chicken fat.  Mr. Obama had enthusiastically declared, "We can duplicate these plants all over America!"

 

This was undoubtedly Obama's greatest-ever idea! U.S. industry would churn out poultry fat-based biodiesel, and we'd thumb our energy noses at Saudi Arabia-- literally playing chicken with OPEC; and it would reduce foreign oil imports, plus show 'em thing or two about good ol' American ingenuity. 

 

But what came first; the chicken or the egg? It seems that every company who took up the Obama green banner (in 2008) is suddenly "chickening-out." Fat-generated biodiesel is about to bite the dust.

 

Conoco-Phillips recently announced it would halt its collaboration with Tyson Foods to make diesel fuel from animal fat, after federal tax credits were cut in half.
 
Shame; the tax credit had fallen victim to dirty politics-- lobbying by a coalition of soap makers, concerned that it would drive up the price of animal fats used in the manufacturing process.

 

Thus far, every corporate player-- attempting to roll the dice and "play" the green energy game-- has thrown snake eyes.

 

A prime example is Green Fuel Technologies, one of the earliest, best-funded and most publicized "algae" companies. Green Fuel is shutting its doors; a victim of the credit crunch.

 

The company's plan was to pump carbon dioxide from smokestacks into "bio-reactors" (cavernous plastic bags filled with algae and water). The algae then grows fat within its cells (as lipids and carbohydrates) and is then converted into oil for biodiesel.

 

Of course, getting the process to run smoothly became quite another matter:

 

Green Fuel easily grew the algae; the problem was CONTROLLING it. The algae grew much faster than it could be harvested, and the process became highly unmanageable. The company also found its system would cost more than three times its target. Estimates were that algae- based green fuel would have cost American consumers $12-15 dollars per gallon-- now wouldn't Professor Obama have loved that!

 

But that’s typical: whenever Obama announces a new policy, he omits the details-- he just puts it out there for "discussion", and lets the media & public run with it.

 

And all politics aside, why was the threat of the algae fiasco not analyzed, nor the plight of the hapless chicken population ever mentioned?

 

Hundreds of millions of chickens would have been facing doom-- their innards destined not for the dinner table, but the fuel tank.  It would have meant open season on chickens everywhere-- possibly driving the species to extinction.

 

Has PETA been asleep at the switch?

 

And what about the EPA? After it became public that the algae-to-biodiesel process couldn't be controlled, this should have immediately set off  alarm bells in DC -- the specter of an unstoppable green tide of algae engulfing mankind, and possibly taking over the earth.

 

It would have made the disaster portrayed in the 1969 movie, "the Green Slime", tame by comparison.

 

And what about economic considerations? The chicken-biodiesel boondoggle would certainly have been another replay of the corn-ethanol disaster, further jacking up worldwide food prices. To what new heights would it have taken the price of poultry? Four-five- even six dollars per pound?

 

And our science-challenged anti-president never once mentioned the complicated process of "hydro-cracking," where chicken fat is converted to biodesel-- a process not easily performed in basements or garages. 

Chicken fat vaporizes at temperatures varying from 275 to 325 degrees Celsius (527 to 617 degrees Fahrenheit)  After liquefication and weighing, the contents are transferred to stainless steel reactors. Water and catalysts are then added to help achieve the desired pressure. 


After letting the reaction run for 20 minutes, the reactor is cooled, and the contents are removed; ergo, chicken fat-based biodiesel, an energy-intensive process, resulting in an end-product that generates less power than the amountof fuel needed to produce it--an overall net energy LOSS (similar to ethanol).

 

But the law of economics always prevails. Costs of production for chicken-biodiesel = approx $40/barrel HIGHER than for conventional diesel; which would translate to fuel costing around $7/gallon!

 

And we thought $4.43/gallon gasoline was ridiculous (the all-time high of the 2008 peak gas prices).

 

So Mr. Obama, we only have one final question... wouldn't it just be easier to drill?

 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blowhard politics? Odds for America's green energy revolution--about one in a million!


Go ahead...pick a number...any number-- as long as it's over a million.

 

Nowadays-- no matter where you turn-- we're being inundated with an unending parade of politicians, TV-radio spots, news broadcasts, talk show interviews, etc., all trumpeting the same, grandiose promises of the so-called green energy revolution ..."It will create millions of new green energy jobs, and reduce our dependency on foreign oil!"

 

Ho hum (yawn).

 

Whenever any liberal politician talks about our new green-energy economy, it's become de rigueur to "hyperbolate" about the unlimited millions of new jobs at hand, once we switch to renewable energy sources. Examples abound:

 

Barack Obama  promises..."We're going to create 5 million new green energy jobs that cannot be outsourced!" 

 

Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania... "We're going to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs with clean green energy..."

 

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland..."Renewable energy can create millions of new green jobs."

 

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm..."A transition to a green economy will create millions of new green jobs and will reduce our dependency on foreign oil."


Henry Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Chairman Edward Markey of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee..."Our clean energy legislation will create jobs, help end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and combat global warming."

 

U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, in her speech at the New Hampshire Forum on the Future..."Millions of new jobs will be created in alternative energy, and energy efficiency."

 

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal)... "Green energy means green jobs..."President Obama's new auto mileage CAFE standards are one big step toward creating up to five million new green jobs, and will fuel long-term economic development." 

 

Even England's Gordon Brown is jumping on the bandwagon: (quote) "The president and I share the conviction that green technologies will be a major driver of our future economic growth, and we can create millions of green-collar jobs in the world for the future.”

 

Whew...that's mighty impressive-- add 'em up: So far, we've totaled at least 30 million new green energy jobs, have virtually eliminated our dependency on foreign oil, and we're still counting!

 

But before we all go hoarse cheering, who was it that said..."There's a sucker born every minute?"

 

Calling P.T. Barnum; we're being suckered by both the press and these self-serving politicians, who know nothing about science; know nothing about the hard realities of economics, and ignore the fact that less than 4% of U.S energy is currently generated by "renewables."

 

These untold millions of green energy jobs-- that promise to combat atmospheric "climate change"-- are little more than pie in the sky. 

 

EXAMPLE: Our blowhard politicians omit one grossly inconvenient truth: the failure to consider the millions of  jobs LOST due to the massive changes they espouse for the U.S. economy.

  

Legislation requiring a shift from fossil fuels displaces jobs at coal mines, oil fields, refineries, power plants (plus their support industries), and will do little other than sentencing millions of ex energy workers to the unemployment lines.

 

But not to worry-- they'll be replacement jobs aplenty.

 

The green energy revolution will spark a boom in "administrative services"-- huge increases in trial lawyers, government regulators & administrators, not to mention the ballooning staffs the EPA will require to enforce these preposterous measures. 

  

But for now, the political momentum appears unstoppable. A prime example of the green energy mania can be found in the Keystone state-- Pennsylvania:

 

Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, is raising taxes and spending more than $2 billion on clean, green energy investments; and of course, this includes the standard obligatory promise to create hundreds of thousands of new "green" jobs.

 

Thus far, Rendell's efforts have been an abject failure.

 

His first $1 billion of green energy "investments" created a whopping  3,500 new jobs; a cost to taxpayers of a mere $285,000 per job-- a shining model of efficiency. 

 

Rendell won't be in line for the Nobel Prize in economics anytime soon.

 

And if one were to extrapolate the data  from Pennsylvania, it would cost the federal government more than $1.1 TRILLION to replace the estimated 3-4 million conventional energy jobs, destroyed by a nationwide push to renewables.

 

Aside Pennsylvania, another voice shouting in the wind comes from yet another brilliant democrat, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland...(quote) "Wind turbines  and other renewable sources are not only a less-polluting means of diversifying the state's energy sources, but also, as a job-development tool."

 

Governor Insanity (er, Strickland) wants to make the Ohio Turnpike an "advanced energy corridor", using state land to site wind turbines and other renewable energy technologies.

 

And if state legislators allow Strickland to get his way, Ohio will soon see dozens of giant, hideous windmills sprouting up offshore in Lake Erie .

 

Turn baby, turn... this is fabulous news! Stricklands "advanced" land /lake energy corridor will be based on the 500 year-old, 16th century technology of windmills.

 

Picture it now it now... driving along the scenic Ohio Turnpike...dodging thousands of dead birds, slaughtered by the whirring 40 foot diameter of  windturbine  blades. ODOT (Ohio Dept. of Transportation) will indeed experience a job boom in roadway cleanup crews hired. 

 

And out in pristine Lake Erie, consider the dilemma of the "pleasure" boaters, who now have to dodge hundreds of anti-scenic, offshore wind turbine installations, most of which will remain calm on the numerous wind-free days that are typical of northern Ohio weather.

 

So who was it that said..."look before you leap?" 

 

As America rushes intrepidly into the renewable energy era (and attempts to clean-up the atmosphere) what becomes of the effort if the large developing nations, like China and India, refuse take the same dramatic steps-- something they're unlikely to do.

 

China recently surpassed the U.S. to become the world's number-one emitter of CO2; and India is fast coming up to supplant the United States as number two.

 

If the goal of our actions is to prevent global warming, then to what end? No matter what the U.S. and the western countries may do to restrict emissions, China's carbon dioxide output is on track to double (or possibly treble) during the next decade,

 

So basically, the money the U.S. government spends on renewables will serve no other purpose than to subsidize the Chinese economy, and concomitantly penalize our own.

 

Attention Al Gore-- here's the BIGGEST inconvenient truth-- why spend billions to restict CO 2 emissions in the U.S. when it's a scientific fact that all of China's (and India's) rapidly-increasing CO2 output all eventually mixes within the upper atmosphere anyway?

 

Short of building a gigantic, green energy bubble over each one of these "offending" countries, all U.S. environmental efforts will be for naught.

 

Unlike our liberal, coconut-head politicians in Congress, China recognizes the undeniable indications from around the globe-- green energy literally does not pay.  

 

Evidence from Spain and Germany (and other countries that have attempted to fast-track growth in their green-energy sectors) reveals that such policies often destroy more jobs in other industries than they actually create, and have done virtually nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2.

 

And in reality-- after the U.S. plunges headlong into this climatological fools' errand-- how much global warming are we really avoiding? How many conventional jobs are lost as we destroy our economy in a futile attempt to remake it?

 

But repeating mistakes has long been a storied part of Washington's misguided energy policies of the past.

 

Unlike China, the U.S. will spend untold billions on windmills, solar panels, biodiesel, ethanol, switchgrass, refined cooking grease, and every other boondoogle these radical environmental extremists in Congress attempt to legislate down our throats.

 

But fifty years from now, the U.S. will still be using fossil fuels; the internal combustion engine will have survived America's foolhardy rush to electric cars; and those blowhard, windmill-touting politicians will have eaten their words.

 

The law of economics cannot be repealed. Sooner rather than later, the green energy bubble is bound to burst, and America will return to its former sanity.

 

Or so we hope.

 

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Flexible fuels of the future? Oh yes we can!

 
He's like a kid in a candy store; or more appropriately, a neophyte in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama, the nation’s 44th president, ever the zealous one, after only two weeks into his presidency, can't move fast enough!
 
It’s an explosion of executive orders. The near and dear pet projects of Barack Obama. His book of political dreams are now coming to life. 

Yes indeedy, it's President Obama --confounding those cynics who think elections don't change anything-- and answering back in spades. With a flourish of his pen, he rolled back various Bush administration policies that were heavy on ideology, but lacking in "sensibility."
 
Oh yes he can!
 
Climate change, green energy, global warming, a stimulus package, mileage standards, bank nationalizations--you name it, and Barack is doing it.

And so now, he must.

Obama is making 180* turn from the 'failed Republican policies of the past.' Hence, he's issued a plethora of presidential "payback" executive orders to placate his partisan left, which also serves him to make good on his campaign promises.
 
Obama is operating in the Oval Office the same way he campaigned..."I am a blank slate" (i.e. open to any good ideas).

Yes, Mr. Obama has said he's open to any good ideas, but Republicans need not apply.

Obama’s idea of of reaching across the aisle is extending a handful of political razor blades to his opposition, but all the while, flashing a smile (and an occasional invitation to dinner).

Obama's break with the past republican administration has been fast...so fast that it's almost hard to keep up: executive orders on closing Guantanamo Bay, ending torture, imposing  rules for restricting lobbying, and requiring more openness in government.
 
And turning on the proverbial dime, Barack directed the Environmental Protection Agency to defy the Bush administration’s previous directives. Mr. Obama wants to re-examine whether California can impose stricter automobile emissions standards than those required by the federal government (a surfire nightmare for the big 3 auto manufactures), and all for the cause of “environmental Obammunism."

Damn the private sector. Full regulation ahead.
 
The auto companies have lobbied hard against the California standards, and challenged them in court. So good luck GM; and 'arrividerci' Chysler.

Obama and his green minion--energy czar Dr. Stephen Chu-- have already decided to bid a fond farewell to fossil fuel, and they're only focused on the green cars of the future, which of course, no body cares to drive.

But we must listen 'in between the lines' to Mr. Obama, and there within his words are the seeds of the future..."We will harness the sun and the wind and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories," declared our new president  in his inaugural address.

But predictably, Obama said zilch about oil and gasoline, as if they didn’t exist. "Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthens our adversaries, and threaten our planet," he said.

Translation: "7-dollar a gallon gas is coming by my second term. Get your bicycle tires pumped up".

But what are we to do Mr. Obama... park our cars and trucks, and take a biodiesel-
powered bus?

And as of now, renewable sources of power (solar and wind) account for only a small percentage of overall energy. So, can heavy machinery and large trucks be run on electrical power from solar panels and wind turbines?

No they can't!

Ask any physicist, scientist, or alternative energy expert-- there will  NEVER be a battery capable of running an 18 wheeler, an airliner, a freight train, or a tank.

But perhaps we're selling him short. Does Mr Obama have other ideas?

Curiously Mr. Obama’s statement about, "using the soil to power our cars and factories," does bear scrutiny. Now HERE is where word associations become very, very important.

Let’s see now... soil powered cars? H-m-m-m.

Oh of course ...Mr Obama meant mining the soil for the plants that would provide the power; but he didn’t elaborate a whole lot.

So we must assume then, Mr. Obama is talking about corn as a substitute for oil--yes, ethanol energy!

But the dreaded corn ethanol has shown to be ornery in cold weather, and like biodiesel, will not easily start by itself when the thermostat drops below 32 degrees. Also, corn ethanol lacks the explosive power of gasoline, so it delivers very poor mileage. Thus, it can only be used as a blend.

So here's a suggestion for Mr Obama: substitute growing peanuts for expensive corn
ethanol (you can always consult Jimmie Carter for advice as your alternative peanut energy Czar).

Just as the Brazilian climate is suitable for sugar cane ethanol, the temperate southern United States climate is ideally suited for peanuts. And growing peanuts would provide abundant peanut oil-- it could be the biodiesel of the future, and anoint the U.S. as the Saudi Arabia of bio-peanut fuel. And no doubt, this would have the Brazilians as being very jealous with their wimpy sugar cane derived alcohol fuel.

Think of the innumerable possibilities…even a Nobel prize in science.

Growing peanuts for biodiesel would expand the flex fuel capabilities of the cars of the future; and burning peanut oil instead of gasoline would save the planet, (one of Mr. Obama’s most cherished campaign objectives).

American scientists everywhere would be highly motivated, and would no doubt put their noses to the grindstone, possibly even deriving a car that ran on peanut butter, (a resource the U.S. could provide in abundance) which would shake the likes of OPEC down to its very foundation. Miles per gallon (mpg) would be instead be dps(distance per scoop).

Yes we can Mr. Obama—we praise your inspiration, and we shall never question your ability to lead us to the flexfuels of the future, nor doubt the ingenuity of American science to provide we the people with the latest scoop on renewable energy we all can believe in.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Place your bets: alternative energy vs. oil addiction...can anyone win?


Uh-oh, it’s back to the future time. Here we go again! President-elect Barack Obama has selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu, as his energy secretary (er...energy czar). Chu is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources.

 

And make careful note of that phrase..."developing new energy sources". (More on this later). 

 

The President-elect vowed to, "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy." The selection of Chu, a Chinese American who shared a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997, received widespread praise on Capitol Hill.

 

Obama was peacock-proud about the selection: "His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago. "We must control our own destiny; America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. And this is not a challenge for government alone; it's a challenge for all of us".

 

Umm hmm... once again, Obama used that ominous phrase..."develop new forms of energy".

 

And just what new forms of energy is he talking about? While Obama huffs and puffs about wind and solar, there's just one little teensey-weency fact that the science-challenged president elect hasn't mentioned: what about all the nearly 300 million vehicles currently residing in our nation’s driveways and garages, that are powered by internal combustion engines? Will we just trade 'em all in for the new-fangled hybrids of the future?

 

Last August, during his Denver convention speech, Obama was quoted: "As president, I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy; wind power and solar power and the next generation of bio-fuels..."

 

Thus, this brings up another vehicular conundrum--just drive by any large construction site today and witness the actual nuts and bolts of a growing economy. There will be nonstop activity: heavy trucks coming and going; cranes moving busily hoisting materials up and down; yellow front-loaders and Caterpillar bulldozers moving all about . And every worker in step, doing his own individual job as efficiently as possible.

 

So this begs the question, how could our country function without the heavy diesel vehicles that are vitally instrumental to a growing economy? Are they supposed to run on old french fry oil, which is basically how you derive biodiesel?

 

But Obama and his leftist, enviro-marxist democrats despise oil, and all its refined forms of energy, and want to tax all fossil fuels out of existence. They will permit no new drilling, and no new refineries. And what might occur if Obama has his way, and levies heavy consumer taxes on gasoline and diesel, to FORCE us into the green energy era? America must be aware of Obama's creeping socialism-- do we really want the government regulating us for everything, including what we shall drive?

 

Sales of elecric cars are plummeting in Europe. Why? Basically it’s the same reason that Americans are to find out the hard way when Obama interferes with the domestic auto market: Even in green-obsessed Europe, people still like powerful, sexy cars. 

 

Belgium is trying to force mandatory caps on European manufacturers of gasoline and diesel-powered cars, but is running into fierce opposition led by France and Germany. And not only are the ugly electric cars no fun and lack power, the bedeviling problem of their 40 mile range won't be solved until the battery can be replaced with some new breakthrough, which might not come in this century. 

 

How practical is it to talk about developing the new energy sources of the future? Ask the Chinese, who recently showed off a modern line of electric-powered buses that ran in an eight block area of Beijing to ferry passengers for the Olympics.

 

But hidden nearby in an off-limits area, there were 2 full time robots, operating to change all the dead batteries from buses that were drastically limited in their operating range.  Each high-tech swap took about eight minutes. But this could be the last charging station in China: the Chinese are now faced with the environmental problem of hundreds of non-recyclable dead battery clusters from the 'modern' buses, which now no longer operate in Beijing any more.

.

High costs, coupled with a lack of clear policy support from the central government, could limit China's one-time use of battery powered buses, trucks and cars to the Olympic weeks. Meanwhile, the country is struggling to plot a future course for an alternative vehicle industry.

 

So far, China's car buyers have shown little interest in alternative vehicles. Only 414 shoppers last year bought the only hybrid car available on the Chinese market. Feng Fei, deputy director in China for the Industrial Economy Department at the State's Development Research Center, revealed that China's alternative auto industry is in disarray. He blames a lack of clear plans for development.

 

Basically, whether you examine Europe or Asia, its the same chicken vs.egg conundrum:  does it pay to create a market that's virtually non existent for alternative energy vehicles? Or do you wait for the demand, and then take on the engineering costs to develop them? And China has 6 times more engineers than the U.S.; yet they, like the Europeans, remain 'oil-addicted.'

 

Thus, given the econo-scientific reality of all these false hopes, picture the enviro-Obamian economy after 4 years: People shunning the green cars of the future...gas lines winding around the block...men pushing cars toward gas pumps...drivers anxiously leaning out their windows looking ahead...white bags covering the nozzles...violent arguements about "next in  line"... worried driver facial expressions-- civil disorder as people suffer across America-- all waiting for the magical appearance of the "alternative energy sources of the future".

 

And magical is no exaggeration! The Democrats are the know-nothing party when it comes to the hard scientific hurdles that delay the onset of alternative energy. Mass produced electric and hydrogen cars are decades away. They remain prohibitively expensive. The battery and fuel-cell reliability problems have yet to be solved; and only hybrid vehicles with gasoline assist are practical now, yet remain expensive and unpopular. 

 

We cannot replace oil and coal, with solar or wind anytime soon. Just ask any engineer; (preferably, a republican) if you want to get the real story: We are at least fifty years from seeing alternative energy being mass produced; and right now alternatives account for just 1.5% of America's total energy BTU's produced. But coal is at 60%.

 

Obama is either dreaming or misleading. If we all understood physics a little better, we'd know you cannot take money away from drilling, and then use it to INVENT a new alternative type of energy. Once again, ask any engineer in America, or Europe, or in China.

 

Was coal invented? Oil? Nuclear? Electricity? How about the great invention of the wind?

The last great energy "breakthrough" was 160 years ago, when Drake struck oil in Pennsylvania. Ask Isaac Newton..."energy cannot be created or destroyed"...it's Newton's first law of physics. And Obama probably thinks physics is an old remedy sold at the drugstore for people who can't properly 'go'.

 

Obama might not be cognizant of it, but his "damn the fossil fuels-save the environment" energy policy will destroy economic growth, jeopardize our military security, and ruin our economy. Bulldozers and all heavy vehicles run on diesel. There will never be an all-electric freight train, or fuel cell airliner this century; nor any wind powered tanks or solar-driven fighter jets.

 

So will Obama's "jolly green-environment" spike gas prices to $6 a gallon in the next four years? The only people who would benefit would be the bicycle shops --the rest would suffer. This no-growth policy will prolong the recession, give OPEC more leverage, and put us on the road toward becoming the world's most advanced third world country. 

 

And to where will all this government environmental extremism take us? Since when did we lose faith in our free markets? They've worked for 235 years to make America great. And now, Obama and his liberal do-gooders, have decided to throw it all aside, and claim more government development of alternative energy is the answer to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Okay everybody...get ready to duke it out for one of those 5 million new green-collar jobs"

 
My oh my! The way Barack Obama tries to depict our economy these days, you'd think there were soup and bread lines stretching around every corner, and people bearing torches, ready to march on Washington. In fact, a huge blow was dealt to the Obama campaign last week, when statistics showed a surprising 3% quarterly growth rate in the economy. The news hit the Democrats squarely below the belt-- right into their credibility.

Obama himself seemed taken aback. You could almost feel the dismaying effect it had on his stump address the day after. It was probably the first "duh, how'd that happen" moment of Obama's political career.

 
But it wasn't as if Obama had lost his self confidence (although he does appear to be stammering and stuttering a little more). It was as if that certain swagger from his persona had gone down a notch or two; and that certain aura of arrogance from his delivery was now lacking in oomph. He seems a little unsteady-- it's as though he's run fresh out of ways to denigrate the Republicans, now that there appears to be a spark of an economic turnaround on the horizon. 

 
But Obama is certainly no shrinking violet, He appears to only have been knocked off of his "A" game. So he's flipped back to plan B-- the dreaded, "new industry of green jobs" that he's proposing as part of his grandiose plans for change in Washington. And what an industry! It's basically a windmill-biofuel-solar boondoggle, claiming the creation of FIVE MILLION new jobs. Yup...the man said five million; all dedicated to building windmills and creating biofuels. And like the steel and auto jobs of the 1970's, these are to be those highly coveted green jobs of the future, according to Professor Barack.  

 

But hold the phone here for a minute...there seems to be a slight hitch in the numbers. The United Auto Workers peaked at 1.5 million members in 1969. And today, the United Steelworkers Union represents 850,000 workers in both the U.S. and Canada. So let's just do a little adding up here: Uh, yes; the total number of workers in these established industries appears to only exceed 2 million.


However, Obama is claiming FIVE million new jobs. What a man!  And don't dare forget...these are also denoted as "green-collared"jobs. Hmmm.  So should we all prepare to vie earnestly to be one of the lucky ones to don a green-collared work shirt? Somehow, green-collared shirts just don't sound all that chic. And would they be of "designer" quality, with a logo? But the only color green really matches well is orange. Maybe part of Obama's five million jobs created would be in manufacturing all those nice, new collars and shirts. It might even put a lot of millinery workers back on the job in South Carolina. Or would Obama sellout to the Chinese?

 

But there's one small detail, mister Barack-O...once you make all these windmills, where the heck do they all go? Would you and your wife Michelle, be okay living within sight of one?

 

At the Democratic convention, during his Thursday night acceptance speech, Obama is on record as saying, "I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy". So will Obama have the government in the windmill manufacturing business? Or are they just going to give private industries $150 billion and say, "Git goin' boys, and start making all them hi-tech windmills of the future!" And who would be in charge of picking out the recipients of the $150 billion? Gore? The EPA? The U.N.? Who? The more you examine it, the murkier it gets. 

 

Government make-work programs go back to the 1930's. FDR's New Deal created the CCC, and the WPA,  putting millions back to work building projects, but did nothing to lift the country out of the Great Depression; it only prolonged it. It seems that Obama is making the classic liberal mistake-- government programs create jobs, but create no actual wealth. If there's no actual markets for the skills or jobs you're creating, then all are eventually doomed. Markets create wealth because every dollar invested in something that's actually useful or needed, has an economic-multiplier effect...it generates more and more investment as those markets continue to expand.

 

So are we to become the Saudi Arabia of windmills or what? Maybe we can export 'em to the far ends of the earth, because no one wants them anywhere near their property back here. 

 
Examine the actual market for windmills realistically. Would you want one in your backyard? They create a maddening whir that literally drives people and animals away. No one can stand their noise, or even their sheer ugliness. And 40-foot diameter windblades slaughter birds by the tens of thousands. Small-diameter windmills don't spin with sufficient inertial force to generate much power. And there's that bedeviling problem of constructing an all-new transmission grid to get the power back to the load centers in the cities where it's needed.
 
Does Obama realize that you can't mass produce biodiesel? Since it can consist of many forms, biodiesel's not a fungible commodity like crude oil or coal. For a man so articulate and so educated, you've got to believe ole Baracko has got some slick tricks up his sleeve that he's saving for us after he's been elected. In the meantime, he's content to paint us a la-dee-dah picture of millions of new jobs...all sorts of clean renewable energy...no more imported oil in ten years...changing Washington...cleansing the planet; and turning back the oceans. Save,oh save us, O' mighty Obama!

 
And the one "inconvenient truth" that Obama, Al Gore, and all the other green-energy proponents omit is the decided inability of alternative fuels to mass produce power similar to a coal or nuclear plant. But ho hum, what's a silly little detail like that got to do with winning an election? The Democrats steadfastedly maintain that we can rely completely on alternative energy power in a decade, but speak not of the political power they would wield if Democrats have veto-proof majorities in Congress, Obama in the Whitehouse, and Gore as his "silent partner".
 
But despite all the murkiness of this far-fetched energy agenda, why is no one in the media taking Obama to task? Shouldn't we be getting some further explanation? After all, Obama hasn't provided much detail, nor explained the far-reaching effect it might have on our military, which is by far the largest consumer of the 8 billion barrels of oil we use every year.

 

But although Obama has never said it publicly, he's totally anti-oil. He shuns any more domestic drilling, and desires higher pump prices as a means of forced conservation. And if we don't drill for more domestic supply, that means more reliance on imports.  So in time of sudden emergency in the Middle East, could we depend on OPEC to come through? How reliable would they be?

 

Remember 1973? Obama was in grade school then. The Arabs cut off our oil supply right after the outbreak of the October Yom Kippur War. So what would happen if Israel and Iran were to get aggressive in 2 or 3 years with Obama as president? Who's side would OPEC take?  What if they cut us off again? Our insufficient domestic resources would jeopardize our military supply of oil in time of a national emergency.  We cannot expect to have a strong military in this century without the assurance of an adequate oil supply. Tanks can't run on electricity, and jet fighters don't run on wind or solar.

 

Obama is an undeniably brilliant man, but to this day, remains an enigma. Everyone knows ABOUT him, but besides his wife and family, does any one really KNOW him? He's able to talk entensively about almost anything, but is specific about nothing.

 

The only people who've been close to Obama as an adult are those back in south Chicago, and they're of highly questionable character. He is a brilliant orator, but keeps talking himself in and out of one political brushfire after another. If he only had a cause or purpose other than himself, a man of such brilliance could certainly be capable of truly great achievements.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »