About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Driving the EPA bulldozer over America's fragile economy

 

Get your motor running...head out on the highway! Everyone has heard "Born to be Wild", the classic 60's hit song. Especially Barack Obama, and his radical leftist cadre of cabinet appointees.

You can almost read their minds:

Taking a cue from the "first 100 days" of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 presidency, the Obama administration seems to believe in striking while the iron is HOT, and--like the words of the classic song --firing all of their guns at once.

But will all the new radical Obama measures eventually "explode into flames"?

Right now Obama is rattling off one leftist declaration after another, in conjunction with enough deficit spending to defy description. First it was mandatory "no-choice" abortions; next was the anti-stimulus bill; then a spending bill; then educational reform... nationalized health care... renewable energy...card check. Now we have talk of another second stimulus bill.

You name it, and Mr. Obama is planning to "bring it on" before the ardor for his anti-presidency cools off and falls back to reality.

America is about to realize that Obama's Kennedy-esque speeches (and soaring rhetoric) were not of the heart, but from only a teleprompter screen. Now he's removed his campaign mask and assumed his true socialist identity.

And next on comrade Obama's target list: destroying the energy industry.

Despite the fact that America uses gasoline and diesel to run 95% of its transportation needs, Generalissimo Obama has decided to make war on fossil fuels, and has wasted no time in reversing a decision that would have allowed oil exploration offshore, and opened up new exploratory leases within public lands in our interior.

Remember last year's horror of seeing, "regular 4.29", posted on street signs of gas stations? Just keep Mr. Obama's reversal in mind the next time pump prices head back up to 4 bucks/gallon.

But Obama would like to arrive at the European levels of 6, 7-- even 8 dollars /gallon. After all, didn't he accuse America as being wasteful and profligate? And that we are a nation comprising 5% of the world's population, yet consume (hog) 25% of the world's energy?

Mr. Obama will soon remedy that! How? By what he's about to do-- cleverly restrict our energy supply. And all under the masquerade of saving the environment, and halting the decline of the polar bears before its too late.

Despite the fact that we have a huge tracts of land containing an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil (in the shale of our western states), America keeps getting drilled again and again.

First it was Nancy (Nazi) Pelosi, who has prevented every Republican domestic drilling bill from even reaching the House floor. And now our leftist
Interior Secretary, Mr. Ken Salazar, is putting the brakes on a Bush administration plan to open 77 new parcels of land to oil and natural gas drilling, while instead promising a “new way forward” for offshore wind projects. 


Salazar criticized the
Bush administration’s “drill-only approach,” saying the U.S. needs a "comprehensive energy" plan that considers all the "potential resources" in the oceans.

Great. Marvelous. No new oil drilling, no new domestic supply, and an open invitation to the commodity traders to again bid up the world price of petroleum back to $144/barrel -or even higher-- once the world economy revives.

Obama and the dumbo-crats keep lecturing about renewable and alternative energy (the justification is always environmental); but they're openly hostile to cheap and readily available fossil fuels, and are more than willing to treasonously allow us to send $700 billion a year to OPEC than drill our own oil and keep the money at home.

Yes America-- elections do have consequences.

And at a time when proposals for higher taxes are politically unpopular, the radical leftists in Congress have decided to thumb their noses at the average Joe, and are about to spring another cleverly disguised way to squeeze even more tax money from Americans.

Right now, Congress is debating legislation that would create a European-style scam that "caps" the maximum allowable amounts of CO2 from power plants, heavy industries, manufacturers, and you guessed it-- our vehicles.

So once it passes, everytime we get our motors runnin', and head out on the highway, every American driver will not be victimized as a taxpayer--but as a consumer.

This cap and trade system is "designed" to give companies incentives for reducing emissions; but unsuspecting Americans will soon realize it's nothing but a hidden tax in the form of higher utility bills (natural gas & electric) that will jack the prices of everything, including gasoline, food and consumer products.

Obama and his Stalinist minions claim that, "Cap and trade is there for a reason...you cap and trade to pay for investments in renewables, which will lead the country to energy independence."

Energy independence? The arrogance of the democrats know no bounds! And it's all courtesy of an American electorate that is so dumbed-down scientifically, that they know not the difference between harmless CO2 (carbon dioxide ) and poisonous CO (carbon monoxide).

So who was it that said, "We get the government we deserve?" And its a treasonous one indeed. 

 

Realistically, by collecting cap and trade fees from American companies--with the cost borne by consumers-- we are in effect, subsidizing our foreign competitors (China, India, et. al) who have already stated that they're placing economic development above any environmental considerations

It's economic war on every working American who uses energy, and will reduce our economy into a miasma of plunging competiveness, lost jobs, and foolishly misplaced alternative energy investments.

Now let's introduce Dr. Steven Chu, (aka "Dr. No"- no new drilling)  Obama's Energy Czar, who doesn't have "faith" in nuclear power, has called coal, "his worst nightmare," and predicts "dire consequences due to global warming".

But meanwhile, Sweden is "warming" to nuclear power, because in their misguided lengthy attempt to be a leader in alternative energy, they've discovered it's extremely difficult to replace conventional energy with solar and wind. So the Swedes will set aside a 30 year ban on nuclear reactors, and are joining a rapidly growing list of nations who view emission-free nuclear as the best way to deal with "climate change".

 

But predictably, the Obama administration has lent a deaf ear to all this, and has taken an opposite tack-- no nuclear-- at least  for now.

 

Expansion of nuclear power could create tens of thousands of badly-needed U.S. corporate jobs (such as with GE and Westinghouse) and would require a multitude of construction workers to erect new reactors. And these would be high wage jobs--not just some make-work stimulus proposal. And more importantly, it would put America on track to returning to the 90's when the country last prospered as a full-wage economy.

But leftist Chu (and comrade Obama) are having none of it, and have rejected the already agreed-upon desert site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage, saying... "that it's too close to the water table and could harm the environment."

So another solution to America's energy (and employment) problem literally "bites the dust."

Next in line for battle is the EPA's attack on coal, which will be led by Climate Czar, Carol Browner, who recently declared..."The Obama Administration will soon make an "endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide"...and that..."The next step is a notice of proposed "rule making” for new regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions".

 

An "endangerment finding?" Rule making?

Translation: Coal companies --prepare for chapter 13. Consumers --prepare for a 100% hike in your electric bills; and America-- get ready to turn out the lights.

How much more insanity can our country endure! This will turn out to be the ultimate attack on all of America-- the EPA determining that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant-- and setting off the most extensive set of costly regulations in American history.

So you think insane too strong of a word? Hah!

 

Browner's new clean air decree will tag any source as emitting more than 250 tons of a "declared pollutant" as being subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers-- even commercial hog farms and bakeries.

So if you like to eat meat, or enjoy an occasional donut or a fresh loaf of bread, get ready to go vegetarian, unless you want to pay dearly for your dietary staples-- they're gonna cost a lot more once Ms. Browner gets through with her destruction of America's standard of living

So prepare for a revival of that the beloved tradition, "Depression Era cooking". Beans and greens anyone?

The EPA's so called "registry plan" would cover about 13,000 facilities that account for 85 to 90 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas output. EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, in a recent statement, crowed..."This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment -- all without placing an onerous burden on our nation's small businesses".

 

But unless you push a hot dog cart or have a roadside hamburger stand, count on the EPA breathing down your neck with these so-called "reporting regulations". Even a farm with more than 25 cows would have to document their "emissions" of methane and other greenhouse gases.

 

Got milk? Maybe not for long--this portends more small farms closing down, and permanently higher dairy and meat prices.

It's all part of the cover-up to restrict supply, and drag America down to an energy-starved, tax-burdened, third world socialist nation, with Obama and his Politburo of cabinet members proudly beaming..."mission accomplished."

 

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

The grand economic anti-stimulus...our path toward "Europeanism"


"In a crisis, be aware of the danger, but recognize the opportunity"-- John F. Kennedy; from an excerpt taken from his book, "Profiles In Courage".
 
Wise words indeed from one of America's most beloved presidents. But today, wisdom is precisely what's lacking in Washington DC.

The reality of our economic crisis can be traced directly back to last year's spike in the cost of energy. The 4 dollar-a-gallon economic anti-stimulus triggered the mortgage crisis, and the subsequent onset of the worldwide recession-depression.
 
Currently, we seem to be locked into an ideological tug of war between fossil-fuel realty and renewable energy fantasy:

On one side there's the one basic necessity of ALL modern economic growth --cheap reliable energy--lined up against the fantasy of alternative fuels, which currently supply less than 4% of America’s energy usage. And we're overlooking one of the few benefits of the economic slowdown-- the welcome drop in petroleum prices.

As far as green energy goes, actual commercial demand is weak. Installation of wind and solar power is plummeting, due in part to the attractiveness of current cheap energy prices .

But instead of using this short term drop in prices to shore up our energy policy, the Obama administration has other ideas, which could leave the country short on oil in its second term. This could put both our economy and our military in the gravest of all circumstances-- not enough gasoline, and a strategic petroleum reserve bled dry!
 
So Instead of drilling for oil (or building nuclear plants) the Obama energy team of enviro-radicals has decided to stubbornly focus on renewable alternative energy, and all but deliberately ignore the basic structural problem of the nation's economy-- the mind-numbing amount of money we export to OPEC for foreign oil.
 
Talk about irrational ignorance.
 
Let’s play make believe. What if the U.S. had a prudent energy policy in place back in the 70's, and America now was energy independent. The result? Instead of the country being in dire economic straights, we'd be experiencing a prosperity boom.
 
Example: take the $750 billion we spent last year on imported oil.

What instead if that money could have been used to fund an economic expansion, the likes of which not seen since the early 60's? This was when President Kennedy cut taxes across the board, and initiated an investment tax credit for companies wishing to expand commercially. And back then, America was a creditor nation.
 
Think... 750 billion we wouldn't have to borrow...750 billion toward investment tax credits for corporations... 750 billion toward small business loans-- the true job engine of the U.S.
 
And we're just getting warmed up. 750 billion could go a long way. We could mail out stimulus checks totaling $2000 for every one in the country.
 
We could build a badly-needed high speed rail network.  We could fund the rebuilding of our infrastructure...rebuild the nation's manufacturing base ...or have the financial latitude to cut payroll taxes for everyone for a year.
 
The salient point here is that America, as a capital staved nation, could remedy itself from the primary source of its capital shortage-- the calamitous sums of money we send abroad for imported oil.

But the Obama energy czars--Stephen Chu and Carol Browner-- are heavily prejudiced against offshore drilling, and coal and nuclear power
 
So according to these environmental Nazis, what are supposed to do? Fill 'er up with a tankful of french fried, re-refined biodiesel? Or drive the currently non-existent green cars of the future? Or maybe we could revisit  the stone age era, and design a modern foot-powered Fred Flintstone yabba-dabba car. Just think of the mileage.
 
But in reality, petroleum now accounts for 96% of our transportation fuels. And without a concerted effort to increase domestic production of our own oil reserves, the U.S. is likely to face ever-rising future energy prices, ever more dependence on foreign sources; and ominously-- less reliable supplies in the future from hostile nations.
 
And we haven’t even considered the imbalance of our trade deficit.
 
But yet, the environmental Nazis argue that, "the age of oil is over ....we need to move to new forms of energy."
 
Bravo! Profound! But of what new forms of energy are they talking about? Oil and gasoline are here for the next 50-100 years. Currently there are 300 million internal combustion engines parked in the nation's  garages and driveways. And mass production of wind, solar, and biofuels literally remains a pipe dream.
 
It's true that more diverse sources of energy would be a good thing; but Obama and his green energy lieutenants conveniently say zilcho about the need to produce energy from existing sources, such as oil, coal, and nuclear.
 
In reality, renewable energy sources are years away--they are mere symbols of what should be done. But the enviro-radicals ignore the stark scientific and technological realities of what can be done.
 
Environmental symbolism shouldn’t drive public policy. Starting exploration in offshore coastal areas (and ANWAR) would be important steps toward influencing the world market; and it would keep petroleum prices low enough that it would provide our economy the chance to become robust in the long term.

And we must shun this idiopathic notion that wind/solar/biodiesel fuels will be available any time soon in sufficient amounts to replace fossil fuels. This reckless propaganda is both a danger to our economy, and our long term national security.
 
America must also shun environmental symbolism. And long into the foreseeable future, we'll need sufficient oil resources, and we'll continue to burn coal--it's as bluntly simple as that.
 
And here's a most welcome thought: by expanding America's domestic energy supply, we can turn the tables on our good buddies, OPEC and Venezuela. The recent dip in energy prices have hurt these regimes rather grievously.
 
But the U.S. remains the ONLY oil-producing nation on earth that's deemed its reserves illegal! According  to the Minerals Management Service, there are 14 billion barrels of petroleum in the restricted areas off our continental outer shelf. But the leftist environmental Nazis, in their zest to "save the planet", have used their treasonous influence in Congress to retain the mindless offshore drilling restrictions.

But it's for sure that the Chinese, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other nations will continue to explore offshore.

So why have we unilaterally chosen to disarm our oil exploration industry? Surely our current safeguards against environmental damage are as good as any in the world. And ironically, America was the technological innovator for deepwater offshore drilling.

And rival nations continue to use our technology to their advantage; while we sit back and worship polar bear sanctity, and mail huge monthly checks to OPEC for the same oil we could be pumping from our untapped energy resources.

So is it any wonder that the U.S. is a debtor, capital-starved nation, all but begging OPEC for a break? Compare our situation to that of other oil-aggressive nations. They’re not going forward with green energy, but expansive worldwide petroleum exploration.

And with all these government restrictions on our energy production, just what actually are we saving?

In a short period of time, we will eventually become another Europe; a nation of people sleeping in 60 degree bedrooms, and riding bicycles and roller-blading to work, unable to afford the coming specter of 6-dollar a gallon gas.

This is indeed frightening; and we should kid ourselves no longer...it’s soon to be a reality, unless something changes.

We have abundant energy sources all around us. But yet the politicians seek to deny the people the fruits of our great nation.

Perhaps Cicero, the great Roman orator and philosopher of the first century A.D., had it right when he wrote..."Governments are the enemy."


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | 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
« Previous1Next »