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

Advertisement
Who Could Oppose ‘Clean Energy’?
Written By : Dennis Avery

CHURCHVILLE, VA—President Obama didn’t mention carbon constraints in his State of the Union message. Such carbon constraints would force the nation to give up most of the energy that currently keeps us warm and productive. Instead, the President proposed a new “clean energy” program—which would force the nation to give up most of the energy that currently keeps us warm and productive. A study by the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston estimates the President’s “clean energy” proposal might well cost the economy $4 trillion over 20 years, and force huge numbers of U.S. jobs overseas.

Mr. Obama’s “new” proposal is obviously being offered as Plan B, since his cap-and-trade proposal failed in the Congress. He obviously hopes to lure some befuddled House Republican votes to pass it. The President is not “moving to the middle.” Instead he is playing bait-and switch. Either cap-and-trade or “clean energy” would cause chaos in the American economy. Remember his desperate efforts to pass Obama-care, complete with the payoffs to key Senators? He is rigidly persistent!

Now it gets even worse. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon just announced that he will quit pushing for an international agreement to ban fossil fuels. Guess what now rates as worthy of his efforts instead: a “clean energy initiative”! Ban says this is necessary to reduce climate risks, cut poverty, and improve global health. Does anybody think he means substituting kerosene stoves in Bangladeshi huts to prevent the lung diseases women get from burning wood and dung in open cook-fires?

The left has decided that global warming is no longer an effective rallying cry. The Pacific Ocean shifted into its cooling phase in 2007—predicting another 25 years of moderate cooling. So the left would like to “clean up” our energy instead. What about stack scrubbers on our coal-fired power plants? What about catalytic converters in the exhaust systems on our cars? What about a 95 percent improvement in U.S. air quality since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1972—though the EPA keeps moving the goal posts so they don’t have to admit this!

If Mr. Obama and the UN Secretary-General aren’t really worried about global warming, and aren’t really planning to make a billion women and children safer in their huts, what could possibly be triggering this “clean energy” focus?

They think we are all idiots. They hornswoggled the affluent world into fearing the finest weather the earth has enjoyed in the last million years, and they think they can now switch their alarmist campaign to a new target without breaking stride. The same cadre of green activists, unelected bureaucrats and willing dupes in the media will be just as happy to push “clean energy” as “global warming.”

The UN would love to be the energy rationing board for the world. The extra UN jobs and graft would make Saddam Hussein’s oil-for-food pay-offs look like small change. Does anyone remember gasoline rationing during World War II? The Rationing Board controlled the economy. They radically reduced “non-essential” gasoline use to make more gas available for the war effort.

But now we have no “war effort.” We have only a Green wish-dream that we humans will give up our abundant food supply, shift from autos to bicycles, and exist as 500 million hunter-gatherers using our cell phones to locate the nearest berry-patch.

Well, what reason have we given these people to believe we are not a bunch of idiots?

DENNIS T. AVERY, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

0
  • http://theatleeappeal.com/ David Atlee

    Well Global Cooling was going to kill us all back in the 70s. That flopped. Now that Global Warming has proved to be an unproductive method to control the lives of every human possible, “clean energy” is the next attempt. I will never forget this quote from Obama during his campaign regarding his energy policy: “You can build a new coal plant, but you’ll probably go bankrupt.” Now that’s the spirit! How about getting 1 million electric cars on the road in the next few years – even though nobody wants a damn electric car? Even better! People are starting to grow weary of this whole peachy, greeny, environmental bs – which is the main reason this administration has to continually change the name of their policy initiatives.

    theatleeappeal.com

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shawn-Boyett/100001238012899 Shawn Boyett

      I remember those days.

  • Anonymous

    Where are they going to plug in the electric cars? Where’s all this electricity going to come from? Ask questions about power plants shutting off their precipitators at sunset. They require power to run them that’s why. I see the feds leave the lights on in Washington all night.

  • Anonymous

    I love the idea of clean energy. So much so that I was willing to see past the propaganda of the environmentalist movement, do the research and conclude that nuclear is the way to go.

    Solar and wind work great, in some areas, for things that can function on small amounts of irregular energy. Like rural stop lights that are run on a battery hooked to a solar panel rather than running a line out to supply just that one point.

    And we can certainly work on making them more practical (cheaper, more durable) particularly solar, via research and development. But the technology just isn’t there yet and likely never will be in terms of being capable of providing the majority of our energy supply.

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

    The primary problem with what’s being touted as “clean energy” is that it is almost always clean but almost no energy. If you cannot produce enough power to replace the dirty stuff, you face a net loss. The only power that’s clean enough and powerful enough to do the job is nuclear, and the left hates that.

    • Anonymous

      And it’s not always that clean.

      The chemicals involved in producing, maintaining, and disposing of solar panels aren’t exactly harmless.

      Like their ‘pollution-free’ electric cars. Even ignoring the fact that they have to be powered by something the batteries are chock full of pretty toxic heavy metals that are extremely unsafe to living things (besides a couple of extremophile bacteria) and cannot be easily removed from the ecosystem once mined and processed.

  • Calypso Jones

    Environmental Economist and a former Senior Analyst for the Department of State. I’m a little taken aback at your article when i notice your credentials. NOT that i don’t agree with you, I think. What happened to YOU?

  • Cstraughen

    WHO can oppose it indeed. You can oppose it on any legitimate grounds but still a leftist is going to come back with…’don’t you care about our world?’ no win situation. They know this.

  • Snowcone679

    8=====D~~~~~~~ ;) ;) ;) ~~~~~~~~~(]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]8

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

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