For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Obama’s Green Agenda: Smoke and Lies
Written By : Dave Blount

Out of work? Underemployed? Not to worry: Comrade Obama has promised to create lots and lots of jobs by flushing $billions we don’t have down green energy boondoggles:

“We expect our commitment to clean energy to lead to more than 800,000 jobs by 2012.”

Apparently this “commitment to clean energy” is the rat hole down which much of the Porkulus loot disappeared.

Any energy initiative likely to be efficient enough to generate a profit would not need to be propped up by stolen money and bureaucratic coercion. Our rulers may as well pay people to dig holes and fill them up again as to work in the preposterous green energy sector.

For an idea of what happens when moonbat ideology drives energy policy, have a look at Spain, which the Community Organizer in Chief presents as a model for us to emulate. The Washington Examiner offers translated excerpts from Spain’s La Gaceta:

The president of the United States, Barack Obama, does not appear to have chosen well in basing his “green economy” on Spain’s. After the government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero demonized a study by various experts on the economic downsides of renewable energies, it just leaked an internal document from the Spanish cabinet which is even more negative.

Highlights:

• Green energy is 120 percent more expensive, simply due to the extra costs of solar and wind, and the evolution of the market is not going to bring down those costs any time soon.

• The clean energy sector is slated to receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years, but no one knows where the money is going to come from. In 2009, the subsidies were worth 5 billion euros.

• Photovoltaic solar power accounts for 53 percent of the extra cost of renewables, whereas it produces only 11 percent of Spain’s renewable energy.

Spain has found that each green job comes at the expense of 2.2 real jobs.

In short, green energy is an extravagantly expensive farce that drives up unemployment. Due to a government run by the sort of idiots who buy into this malarkey, Spain is on the verge of bankruptcy, with the USA not far behind.

At least Texas is putting up some resistance:

President Obama’s EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.

The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a “tailoring rule,” which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It’s illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:

“In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations — regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. … To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”

When it comes to the green agenda, as with everything else Obama et al. want to impose, remember the Alamo.

smoke-and-lies.jpg
Compliments of Zappatrust.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

0
  • Pacifismfailed

    Planning for the future?!?! that cannot be allowed, we must continue to use fossil fuels FOREVER(even after they run out)

    • UFKA_Smithwick

      Or simply allow other forms of energy to come to prominence when they are economically viable due to advances in technology, increased demand, and increased costs of traditional sources.

      Eventually we will probably move from cars to some other form of transportation. To follow the same logic being applied to green energy that means we pour trillions in to questionable research projects on alternative means of transportation and begin smashing all existing cars while no real alternative yet exists.

      • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

        What's that? Use what's best and replace it when something better comes out? That's just CRAZY talk!!!

        • UFKA_Smithwick

          It is craziness to our leaders. Such a policy would leave no reason for expanding the scope of government, raising taxes or granting federal agencies ever greater authority over their subjects.

          Oh and of course we'd lose out on those hundreds of thousands of high paying green jobs!

          Ignore of course the millions of jobs lost due to taxes and regulations, increased costs of living for those who do manage to keep their jobs, and decreased competitiveness for surviving American businesses.

  • Recklessprocess

    Obama payed our money to enlarge several solar panel factories. He imagines that will spur buyers to buy solar. He must be the stupidest man in the world. If there were more demand for the things then the factories would be able to pay for their own growth. But spending taxpayer money on privately owned factories will not spur demand.

    • UFKA_Smithwick

      An easy method I use to seperate people who honestly do care about preserving the environment from unhinged ideologues/green fascists is to ask their opinion on nuclear power.

      If they are at least willing to discuss the various merits and concerns of nuclear energy then they are probably genuine. They don't have to be pro-nuclear, because there are some legitimate concerns, but they do have to be at least willing to consider it.

      If on the other hand, they start screaming slogans and completely refuse to discuss it then they are ideologues/fascists.

    • Fiza1

      “He must be the stupidest man in the world”

      No, there are much more “stupid” men & women backing alternative forms of energy. A few examples of “stupid people” are Angela Merkel (PhD in physics), Stephen Chu (PhD in physics), Bill Gates (college dropout), the founders of Google, T. Boone Pickens, both the President & Premier of China (engineers) of & many other top political leaders of China (many of whom have backrounds in science & engineering), & on & on.

      • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

        Solar takes up acres of space and provides trickles of power, even when there's a good steady supply of sun (you can get solar power when its cloudy but its much less). Solar sucks, and in the foreseeable future it will continue to suck. It doesn't matter how many people you line up saying “its great!” you cannot change reality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

    Join conservationism! Support nuclear power!

    Conservationists tend to be against so-called “renewable” energy sources because of the massive amount of land they take up, destroying massive levels of the natural world. Hydro power destroys huge areas of over land migratory routes and kills hundreds of square kilometers of forest.

    Nuclear power? Pop one plant down in the middle of nowhere, you pollute nothing, and you produce massive levels of electricity.

    • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

      Hydro is okay but nukes are better. Mostly we oppose “renewable” energy because it doesn't work.

  • Fiza1

    “Comrade Obama has promised to create lots and lots of jobs by flushing $billions we don't have down green energy boondoggles:”

    Only $billions? Is this any worse than “blowing” a $trillion+ we don't have in Iraq and Afghanistan? We “broke” Iraq, so now we are stuck with the bill. I guess you can claim that the Bush administration produced a lot of jobs to find those “phantom” WMD.

    • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

      If you really cared about deficits you'd be upset at the “stimulus” package Obama pushed and passed as president and TARP spending which Obama pushed and voted for as a senator. Instead you are acting like an idiot:

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j24uCNMZoG8/THfb4wGhA

      Ooops.

      Oh, and we all noticed how suddenly the “good war” you used to support has gone bad suddenly.

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info