Did you hear about Obama's claim that if driver's just inflated their tires properly, we would save as much oil as we could from drilling off-shore?
Two things amaze me about this. First, its hard to believe that a guy running for President could make a statement so utterly and demonstrably false. He also made it as an offhand manner, which is not consistent with the seriousness of this problem.
The bigger issue for me, though, is the fact that the media has said virtually nothing about this blunder. It is incredible how far the media is going to protect him from his many gaffes. His goofs make Dan Quale look like a brain surgeon.
Moreover, the media is giving the democrats cover on their incredibly stubborn refusal to vote on drilling. Americans clearly want to drill for oil but the Dems are completely in thrall to the environmental lobby. They won't allow a vote. Democrat leaders are trying to recess without the vote and the media is keeping the ploy a secret for them.
The free press has become the free pass for Obama and the Democrats.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Bush League
Some of you who know me, know I'm from Pittsburgh and that I am a long-time (and long suffering) Pirates fan.
Over the past week, the Pirates made some personnel moves that have probably cost them quite a number of fans. They certainly have lost the respect of any knowledgeable observers of baseball.
The Bucs traded three of their best players (Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte to the Yankees; Jason Bay to the Red Sox) for eight minor leaguers. I guess the Pirates figure this is their best shot at a baseball record. They are on their way to tying the record for the most consecutive losing seasons (16, if you are interested). These trades may well insure that they get the record all to themselves after the 2009 season.
Actually, having been to PNC Park a few times, I must say the Pirates put on a good between innings show. They have the Pirogi race, hot dogs shot out of a cannon into the stands, fan contests, etc. It is very reminiscent of the way minor league teams entertain the fans when the baseball just isn't that good.
Maybe that explains the trade. Perhaps these 8 minor leaguers can give the Pirate management some new ideas for between inning fun that they have picked up in Altoona, Omaha, Las Vegas, Pawtucket, Scranton and all the other cities they have played in.
Over the past week, the Pirates made some personnel moves that have probably cost them quite a number of fans. They certainly have lost the respect of any knowledgeable observers of baseball.
The Bucs traded three of their best players (Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte to the Yankees; Jason Bay to the Red Sox) for eight minor leaguers. I guess the Pirates figure this is their best shot at a baseball record. They are on their way to tying the record for the most consecutive losing seasons (16, if you are interested). These trades may well insure that they get the record all to themselves after the 2009 season.
Actually, having been to PNC Park a few times, I must say the Pirates put on a good between innings show. They have the Pirogi race, hot dogs shot out of a cannon into the stands, fan contests, etc. It is very reminiscent of the way minor league teams entertain the fans when the baseball just isn't that good.
Maybe that explains the trade. Perhaps these 8 minor leaguers can give the Pirate management some new ideas for between inning fun that they have picked up in Altoona, Omaha, Las Vegas, Pawtucket, Scranton and all the other cities they have played in.
Friday, July 25, 2008
NY Times Takes Gantt to the Woodshed; Sheds No Tears For Upstate
The New York Times published an editorial yesterday morning sharply critical of Assemblyman David Gantt and his "iron-fisted" control of the Assembly Transportation Committee.
The editorial was complaining about Gantt's blockage of legislation which would allow New York City to install cameras on street poles to catch red light violations. The Times had strong words about Gantt:
"Mr. Gantt is a Democratic assemblyman from Rochester. That’s the Rochester that is 333 miles from Times Square. He has long controlled the State Assembly’s Transportation Committee with an iron fist, micromanaging New York City’s traffic from afar and for bewildering reasons. At one point this year, when journalists asked him why he was blocking a particular city traffic bill, he said: “That’s for me to know and you to find out.” So much for transparency in Albany".
The Times should have called Ralph Esposito and asked him what he thought about Gantt's behavior. Ralph would have told them that sounds like the David Gantt he knows all too well.
There were three things that really struck me about the editorial, though. One is the fact that the Times was so hard on a Democrat. They will probably use this editorial to prove that they are "issue oriented" not "agenda oriented". Yeah, right.
Second, I had to laugh at the suggestion that Sheldon Silver should (or would) do anything about Gantt. The editorial called for Silver to remove Gantt, stating:
"It makes no sense for one upstate legislator to strangle progress — and safety — in New York City. This should be a matter decided by New York’s mayor and City Council. Since it is not, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his Democratic majority should replace committee chairmen like Mr. Gantt who have clearly been there too long. If he won’t, the voters should".
Sheldon Silver doesn't do anything he doesn't want to do. David Gantt is on Silver's team and that's all that counts. Which, relating to my previous post, questions the sincerity of Richard Dollinger's call for "change" in Albany. Can he get Shelly to sign on?
Finally, I was amazed at the fact that the Times' editorial board so openly displayed their disdain for "Upstate". While I can understand their impatience with Gantt, their umbrage at the fact that a legislator from Rochester (which is, apparently, 333 miles from Times Square) could impact the mighty Gotham, was surprisingly blunt. I don't recall any editorials lamenting the fact that 99% of the time NY City legislators force their will on Upstate residents.
Oh well, at least they didn't leave any doubt about how they feel about us hillbilly's.
The editorial was complaining about Gantt's blockage of legislation which would allow New York City to install cameras on street poles to catch red light violations. The Times had strong words about Gantt:
"Mr. Gantt is a Democratic assemblyman from Rochester. That’s the Rochester that is 333 miles from Times Square. He has long controlled the State Assembly’s Transportation Committee with an iron fist, micromanaging New York City’s traffic from afar and for bewildering reasons. At one point this year, when journalists asked him why he was blocking a particular city traffic bill, he said: “That’s for me to know and you to find out.” So much for transparency in Albany".
The Times should have called Ralph Esposito and asked him what he thought about Gantt's behavior. Ralph would have told them that sounds like the David Gantt he knows all too well.
There were three things that really struck me about the editorial, though. One is the fact that the Times was so hard on a Democrat. They will probably use this editorial to prove that they are "issue oriented" not "agenda oriented". Yeah, right.
Second, I had to laugh at the suggestion that Sheldon Silver should (or would) do anything about Gantt. The editorial called for Silver to remove Gantt, stating:
"It makes no sense for one upstate legislator to strangle progress — and safety — in New York City. This should be a matter decided by New York’s mayor and City Council. Since it is not, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his Democratic majority should replace committee chairmen like Mr. Gantt who have clearly been there too long. If he won’t, the voters should".
Sheldon Silver doesn't do anything he doesn't want to do. David Gantt is on Silver's team and that's all that counts. Which, relating to my previous post, questions the sincerity of Richard Dollinger's call for "change" in Albany. Can he get Shelly to sign on?
Finally, I was amazed at the fact that the Times' editorial board so openly displayed their disdain for "Upstate". While I can understand their impatience with Gantt, their umbrage at the fact that a legislator from Rochester (which is, apparently, 333 miles from Times Square) could impact the mighty Gotham, was surprisingly blunt. I don't recall any editorials lamenting the fact that 99% of the time NY City legislators force their will on Upstate residents.
Oh well, at least they didn't leave any doubt about how they feel about us hillbilly's.
Dollinger on Lonsberry
Democratic State Senate candidate Richard Dollinger filled in today on Bob Lonsberry's show broadcast by WHAM radio.
I wished I could have listened to all of the show and had time to call in. Dollinger spoke approvingly of Barak Obama and indicated his belief that electing Obama would result in "the change we all need" in Washington.
I would loved to have asked Mr. Dollinger what specific changes he was expecting as a result of an Obama presidency. It would be good to hear someone articulate just what specifically Obama should be reasonably expected to do as President.
Mr. Dollinger also spoke of needed changes in Albany. I guess he hopes to be part of the change. I'd like to know if Mr. Dollinger thinks that we should expect anything new from Sheldon Silver, or if the only change really needed in Albany is a turn to complete Democrat control of State government.
Dollinger spent much of his opening remarks talking about the Hilton Fireman's festival. He lauded the Village of Hilton and the Hilton firemen. He spoke of how vital they were to creating the sense of community in Hilton. I wonder if he has an opinion on local government consolidation? The Democrats in Albany and in the County Legislature and the Democrat & Chronicle editorial page, regularly insist that we have too many local government units, like the Village of Hilton and the Hilton Fire District.
So which is it, Mr. Dollinger? Do you support these entities or do you support consolidation? Or, do you have one view as a candidate but plan to act on a different one if you are elected? Maybe that would explain why you are so supportive of Mr. Obama. Running one way but planning to govern another is right out of Obama's playbook.
I wished I could have listened to all of the show and had time to call in. Dollinger spoke approvingly of Barak Obama and indicated his belief that electing Obama would result in "the change we all need" in Washington.
I would loved to have asked Mr. Dollinger what specific changes he was expecting as a result of an Obama presidency. It would be good to hear someone articulate just what specifically Obama should be reasonably expected to do as President.
Mr. Dollinger also spoke of needed changes in Albany. I guess he hopes to be part of the change. I'd like to know if Mr. Dollinger thinks that we should expect anything new from Sheldon Silver, or if the only change really needed in Albany is a turn to complete Democrat control of State government.
Dollinger spent much of his opening remarks talking about the Hilton Fireman's festival. He lauded the Village of Hilton and the Hilton firemen. He spoke of how vital they were to creating the sense of community in Hilton. I wonder if he has an opinion on local government consolidation? The Democrats in Albany and in the County Legislature and the Democrat & Chronicle editorial page, regularly insist that we have too many local government units, like the Village of Hilton and the Hilton Fire District.
So which is it, Mr. Dollinger? Do you support these entities or do you support consolidation? Or, do you have one view as a candidate but plan to act on a different one if you are elected? Maybe that would explain why you are so supportive of Mr. Obama. Running one way but planning to govern another is right out of Obama's playbook.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
D&C Double Talk on Oil
This morning's editorial in the Democrat & Chronicle really rubbed me the wrong way. It was typical of the D&C's editorial board (and was clearly a Tom Tobin piece) in that it included both a cheap shot at George Bush and hypocrisy on oil prices.
The editorial ostensibly commenting on the President's decision to lift the executive ban on off-shore oil drilling, quickly launched into the obligatory criticism of George Bush. In this case, his order is "too little, too late". For the D&C, there is nothing George Bush can do that gets praise. If there is a story or editorial comment which mentions the President, it contains some criticism. If Bush discovered a cure for cancer, the D&C would find a way to diminish the discovery. I don't know what Tom Tobin will write about once Bush is out.
Equally annoying was the part of the editorial which contains the standard liberal hypocrisy on gasoline prices and energy policy. Tobin's editorial contains these paragraphs:
"And the history, to be complete, would have to detail how the American consumer time and again took the gas-guzzling path even in the face of global warming and an unhealthy dependency on imports.
There are consequences to inaction of this kind, and America is seeing them now. Presidents don't pump their own gas every morning or shop for products whose prices have spiked in part because of fuel costs. Ordinary Americans do. As always, the pain of poor policy is visited on those who had the least to do with devising it."
This is vintage Tobin and vintage "progressive". Tobin claims to decry high gas prices and the "pain" they cause consumers. Yet, he also criticises those consumers for using too much gasoline. Moreover, he, like most liberals in thrall to the environment lobby, actually supported high gasoline prices as a way of forcing consumers to change their ways.
This is the "big lie" for liberals. For years they supported higher gasoline taxes to raise the price of gasoline to encourage development of alternatives. They apparently did not care about "the pain" those higher prices would cause consumers. Now that consumers (read "voters") are angry about the price of gas, liberals cry crocodile tears about those prices and try to blame others.
Finally, regarding the Democrats argument that drilling now won't help with oil prices now, recent events may already be proving that wrong. The mere discussion about drilling has had an effect on the oil futures market, part of the cause for the downtrend in the price of crude oil.
The editorial is correct about the need for a comprehensive energy policy. But that policy needs to include drilling for and producing oil in the US.
The editorial ostensibly commenting on the President's decision to lift the executive ban on off-shore oil drilling, quickly launched into the obligatory criticism of George Bush. In this case, his order is "too little, too late". For the D&C, there is nothing George Bush can do that gets praise. If there is a story or editorial comment which mentions the President, it contains some criticism. If Bush discovered a cure for cancer, the D&C would find a way to diminish the discovery. I don't know what Tom Tobin will write about once Bush is out.
Equally annoying was the part of the editorial which contains the standard liberal hypocrisy on gasoline prices and energy policy. Tobin's editorial contains these paragraphs:
"And the history, to be complete, would have to detail how the American consumer time and again took the gas-guzzling path even in the face of global warming and an unhealthy dependency on imports.
There are consequences to inaction of this kind, and America is seeing them now. Presidents don't pump their own gas every morning or shop for products whose prices have spiked in part because of fuel costs. Ordinary Americans do. As always, the pain of poor policy is visited on those who had the least to do with devising it."
This is vintage Tobin and vintage "progressive". Tobin claims to decry high gas prices and the "pain" they cause consumers. Yet, he also criticises those consumers for using too much gasoline. Moreover, he, like most liberals in thrall to the environment lobby, actually supported high gasoline prices as a way of forcing consumers to change their ways.
This is the "big lie" for liberals. For years they supported higher gasoline taxes to raise the price of gasoline to encourage development of alternatives. They apparently did not care about "the pain" those higher prices would cause consumers. Now that consumers (read "voters") are angry about the price of gas, liberals cry crocodile tears about those prices and try to blame others.
Finally, regarding the Democrats argument that drilling now won't help with oil prices now, recent events may already be proving that wrong. The mere discussion about drilling has had an effect on the oil futures market, part of the cause for the downtrend in the price of crude oil.
The editorial is correct about the need for a comprehensive energy policy. But that policy needs to include drilling for and producing oil in the US.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Oil And Politics: Part Two
To my mind, there has been no greater failure on the part of our national government than its failure to enact a viable energy policy. Given the impressive number of failures of our government, that's saying something!
Since the 1970's, we have known that our economy was at risk of being "held hostage" by our dependence on foreign oil supplies. Yet, we have fiddled, Nero-like, as Rome burned.
Who is "to blame"? Well, there's plenty of blame to go around, but its not really relevant anymore. The real issue is what can we do now. Part of the reason for the current inaction in Washington is that desire to "pin the blame" on one side or the other. We need to demand that our so-called leaders stop playing politics and start doing their jobs.
Mortimer Zuckerman, editor of The U.S. News & World Report, has written a very compelling article which appeared in Real Clear Politics. In it, he points out that both reductions in consumption and increases are required. He forcefully opined that its time that a bi-partisan plan be enacted, stating:
"The clear implication for the United States is that the age-old standoff on whether domestic drilling or conservation is the solution is now irrelevant. We must have both."
Zuckerman believes that we should enact serious CAFE standards to reduce consumption of oil, similar to those in Europe. He points out that Congress would have passed such standards in 1990 but for the efforts of Michigan politicians to thwart such action. Had they been enacted we would now be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day.
He also calls for more domestic production and refining capacity. He explains the immediate, as well as longer-term benefits of doing so. Further, he criticised over-zealous environmental advocates, who he believes fail to acknowledge advances in technology which reduce risk of harm to the environment. An example of his views in this regard as to drilling in ANWR:
" This would do no permanent damage to an environment in one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent—except to inconvenience some caribou that might have to find a different place to mate. We cannot lose over $40 billion a year to serve the caribou."
In conclusion, Zuckerman offered five more steps to take in conjunction with the above-referenced efforts:
"1. Reallocate resources to concentrate funds on providing the necessary R&D support for energy efficiency. We must do this with the real menace of global warming in mind. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, frames the issue this way: Our biggest worry is not what we put in our cars but what we put in our power plants. He believes that we should stop the use of coal by 2030, except with those power plants that can capture the carbon dioxide.
2. Fix our mass transit system for both freight and passengers. When you consider rail in terms of energy, steel wheels on steel rails are some 10 times as efficient as rubber on roads. A real rail program could probably have the single greatest impact on our oil consumption and on the release of carbon dioxide. A single locomotive run by two men can haul the same amount of freight as 70 modern semitrailer truck rigs with 70 drivers. One passenger train can take 1,000 cars off the road.
3. Raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks immediately.
4. Substantially increase the gas tax, offsetting it with other tax cuts to induce people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.
5. Pursue alternative energy technologies within the limits of the market."
Victor Davis Hanson also has similar views regarding Washington's failure to address these serious problems. His July 8th "Works And Days" blog post included these paragraphs:
"Worried about Congressional rankings in the single digits, Democratic Senators and Congress people are parading out to news conferences to assure us that “we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis” (who said we could?), and that what little oil we would find off our coasts (no mention of the natural gas) would “take ten years” and only shave “pennies” off a gallon of gas. Examine the logic: we don’t develop these resources because of the time lag? But isn’t there a time lag in creating a viable electric battery, a hydrogen car, solar and wind farms, a new nuclear plant? And the logic is puerile: we simply freeze and assume a fetal position since the results of our labors are only of long-term use?
As for a “few pennies.” Well, a few pennies here, a few there really do add up. In other words, a million barrels in ANWR, a million off our coasts, a million from tar sands, a million in shale, a million on the continental shelf, a million from conservation and pretty soon we have saved trillions in imported oil costs, and provided the necessary bridge, the critical breathing space for electric cars or flex-fuels, or whatever. No supporter of drilling thinks we are going to return to the days of the gas-powered Yukon and Hummer. But we need to preserve our civilization and not mortgage it to the Arabs, Russians, Iranians, and Venezuelans in the process of going green."
It has been 35 years since the OPEC oil embargo. Can it be that our leaders have failed to take the steps needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It is failure of the greatest magnitude. There is no easy solution now, but its time to start.
There is no reason to believe we will get any relief, at least on the domestic production side, if Obama becomes President. The Democrats are wholly committed to over-zealous environmentalism. Nancy Pelosi was quoted in the New York Times as saying ... "if Democrats relented on drilling, 'then we might as well pack it up and go home'.” Given that view, our only hope is John McCain.
McCain has been almost as bad as the Democrats on domestic production. He only recently came around on off-shore drilling. He needs to move farther and be bolder on this issue. It is perhaps the only issue on which the GOP can have the upper hand over the Dems in the minds of the public.
As things stand now, it is my view that Barack Obama will be elected President. McCain needs something to change that dynamic. $5.00 gasoline may do it. McCain needs to take the position that the price of gasoline and our dependence on foreign oil are threatening our economy, indeed, our very way of life in America. He needs to propose steps similar to those outlined by Zuckerman. Obama and the Democrats are wedded to their enviro-zealot supporters. The average American will welcome the chance to assert American determination to solve this problem and to stop pouring money into our enemies coffers.
I hope McCain is smart enough to seize the opportunity.
Since the 1970's, we have known that our economy was at risk of being "held hostage" by our dependence on foreign oil supplies. Yet, we have fiddled, Nero-like, as Rome burned.
Who is "to blame"? Well, there's plenty of blame to go around, but its not really relevant anymore. The real issue is what can we do now. Part of the reason for the current inaction in Washington is that desire to "pin the blame" on one side or the other. We need to demand that our so-called leaders stop playing politics and start doing their jobs.
Mortimer Zuckerman, editor of The U.S. News & World Report, has written a very compelling article which appeared in Real Clear Politics. In it, he points out that both reductions in consumption and increases are required. He forcefully opined that its time that a bi-partisan plan be enacted, stating:
"The clear implication for the United States is that the age-old standoff on whether domestic drilling or conservation is the solution is now irrelevant. We must have both."
Zuckerman believes that we should enact serious CAFE standards to reduce consumption of oil, similar to those in Europe. He points out that Congress would have passed such standards in 1990 but for the efforts of Michigan politicians to thwart such action. Had they been enacted we would now be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day.
He also calls for more domestic production and refining capacity. He explains the immediate, as well as longer-term benefits of doing so. Further, he criticised over-zealous environmental advocates, who he believes fail to acknowledge advances in technology which reduce risk of harm to the environment. An example of his views in this regard as to drilling in ANWR:
" This would do no permanent damage to an environment in one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent—except to inconvenience some caribou that might have to find a different place to mate. We cannot lose over $40 billion a year to serve the caribou."
In conclusion, Zuckerman offered five more steps to take in conjunction with the above-referenced efforts:
"1. Reallocate resources to concentrate funds on providing the necessary R&D support for energy efficiency. We must do this with the real menace of global warming in mind. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, frames the issue this way: Our biggest worry is not what we put in our cars but what we put in our power plants. He believes that we should stop the use of coal by 2030, except with those power plants that can capture the carbon dioxide.
2. Fix our mass transit system for both freight and passengers. When you consider rail in terms of energy, steel wheels on steel rails are some 10 times as efficient as rubber on roads. A real rail program could probably have the single greatest impact on our oil consumption and on the release of carbon dioxide. A single locomotive run by two men can haul the same amount of freight as 70 modern semitrailer truck rigs with 70 drivers. One passenger train can take 1,000 cars off the road.
3. Raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks immediately.
4. Substantially increase the gas tax, offsetting it with other tax cuts to induce people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.
5. Pursue alternative energy technologies within the limits of the market."
Victor Davis Hanson also has similar views regarding Washington's failure to address these serious problems. His July 8th "Works And Days" blog post included these paragraphs:
"Worried about Congressional rankings in the single digits, Democratic Senators and Congress people are parading out to news conferences to assure us that “we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis” (who said we could?), and that what little oil we would find off our coasts (no mention of the natural gas) would “take ten years” and only shave “pennies” off a gallon of gas. Examine the logic: we don’t develop these resources because of the time lag? But isn’t there a time lag in creating a viable electric battery, a hydrogen car, solar and wind farms, a new nuclear plant? And the logic is puerile: we simply freeze and assume a fetal position since the results of our labors are only of long-term use?
As for a “few pennies.” Well, a few pennies here, a few there really do add up. In other words, a million barrels in ANWR, a million off our coasts, a million from tar sands, a million in shale, a million on the continental shelf, a million from conservation and pretty soon we have saved trillions in imported oil costs, and provided the necessary bridge, the critical breathing space for electric cars or flex-fuels, or whatever. No supporter of drilling thinks we are going to return to the days of the gas-powered Yukon and Hummer. But we need to preserve our civilization and not mortgage it to the Arabs, Russians, Iranians, and Venezuelans in the process of going green."
It has been 35 years since the OPEC oil embargo. Can it be that our leaders have failed to take the steps needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It is failure of the greatest magnitude. There is no easy solution now, but its time to start.
There is no reason to believe we will get any relief, at least on the domestic production side, if Obama becomes President. The Democrats are wholly committed to over-zealous environmentalism. Nancy Pelosi was quoted in the New York Times as saying ... "if Democrats relented on drilling, 'then we might as well pack it up and go home'.” Given that view, our only hope is John McCain.
McCain has been almost as bad as the Democrats on domestic production. He only recently came around on off-shore drilling. He needs to move farther and be bolder on this issue. It is perhaps the only issue on which the GOP can have the upper hand over the Dems in the minds of the public.
As things stand now, it is my view that Barack Obama will be elected President. McCain needs something to change that dynamic. $5.00 gasoline may do it. McCain needs to take the position that the price of gasoline and our dependence on foreign oil are threatening our economy, indeed, our very way of life in America. He needs to propose steps similar to those outlined by Zuckerman. Obama and the Democrats are wedded to their enviro-zealot supporters. The average American will welcome the chance to assert American determination to solve this problem and to stop pouring money into our enemies coffers.
I hope McCain is smart enough to seize the opportunity.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Developing Nations Cool To G8 Global Warming Trend
The world leaders at the G8 summit espoused their commitment to cutting global carbon emissions. China and India demurred.
As noted in this Daily Telegraph editorial, the leaders of the G8 appear totally committed to slashing carbon emissions, even though scientists are starting to have second thoughts. Calling their views "cuckoo" the editorial noted:
"If the G8's leaders genuinely wanted to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent over the next 40 years, this would mean taking steps they haven't even begun to contemplate. It would require such a drastic cut in our energy use and standard of living that their peoples would have risen up in mass revolt long before the target was reached."
Shockingly, George Bush was given the only accolade the editorial had for the summiteers, stating:
"And nothing better shows up the unreality of all this - as President Bush tried to point out in the summit's only flash of honesty - than the fact that China (not represented at the G8, although it now has the world's fourth largest economy) is already putting out more CO2 than anyone else. As it builds two new coal-fired power stations a week, China has no more intention than India of joining the Western economic suicide club."
Just what is the optimum temperature of the Earth, anyway? Are we really sure enough of the science on this to risk crashing the economies of the major Western powers? Its not as though our economy is in such great shape that we could risk an additional setback.
Frankly, most people won't long stand for policies that stunt economic growth and cause energy prices to rise. There have already been signs that Americans are beginning to move away from radical environmentalism.
Not a moment too soon.
As noted in this Daily Telegraph editorial, the leaders of the G8 appear totally committed to slashing carbon emissions, even though scientists are starting to have second thoughts. Calling their views "cuckoo" the editorial noted:
"If the G8's leaders genuinely wanted to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent over the next 40 years, this would mean taking steps they haven't even begun to contemplate. It would require such a drastic cut in our energy use and standard of living that their peoples would have risen up in mass revolt long before the target was reached."
Shockingly, George Bush was given the only accolade the editorial had for the summiteers, stating:
"And nothing better shows up the unreality of all this - as President Bush tried to point out in the summit's only flash of honesty - than the fact that China (not represented at the G8, although it now has the world's fourth largest economy) is already putting out more CO2 than anyone else. As it builds two new coal-fired power stations a week, China has no more intention than India of joining the Western economic suicide club."
Just what is the optimum temperature of the Earth, anyway? Are we really sure enough of the science on this to risk crashing the economies of the major Western powers? Its not as though our economy is in such great shape that we could risk an additional setback.
Frankly, most people won't long stand for policies that stunt economic growth and cause energy prices to rise. There have already been signs that Americans are beginning to move away from radical environmentalism.
Not a moment too soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
