Obama Exploits Gulf Suffering For Political Brownie-Points
It is despicable that Obama wants to present his energy tax “cap & tax” at the highest moment of frustration with the Gulf oil spill, by exploiting the untold losses of $millions in the Gulf area, to use that frustration to help him pass cap & tax. It is unconscionable that Obama has allowed the oil spill to continue unabated, while holding the Gulf hostage by withholding competent leadership and skillful professionals to effectively take on the oil spill efforts. Senator Reid (and Obama/Pelosi) will soon launch a drive to pass Obama’s cap & tax scheme. Reid is fighting for job-killing, oppressive drilling regulations, which include completely banning deep-water, offshore drilling. Such imprudent & egregious legislation will kill innumerable businesses & jobs, virtually guaranteeing the country will suffer a deep, double-dip (“W” shaped) recession, or worse.
Please do not allow Obama/Reid/Pelosi to further injure Gulf businesses & residents, or damage our economy further by Obama dragging his heels on resolving the Gulf spill in order to exploit this disaster for political advantage. Forcing passage of the Democrats’ energy bill, “cap & tax”, would dramatically raise the cost of energy to people and businesses, would further stifle the economy and worsen unemployment. In the mean time, because of restrictive policies on drilling, we get a continually higher percentage of our energy from foreign sources, many of which are not necessarily friends of the USA. We need to be drilling (safely) everywhere, building nuclear power plants, continuing work on solar, wind, wave and geothermal, developing oil shale lands and continuing the development & utilization of clean coal.
Building toward energy independence is a worthy goal, as long as the strategy involves an “all of the above” approach: until solar and other types of “green” energy technology catch up with the demand for power, we should drill wherever oil may be found, extract & refine it so that we no longer rely on foreign oil or refineries. Nuclear plants should be built. The use of fossil fuel energy sources should continue, until alternative sources can supply a significant amount of the energy we need each day. As these green energy technologies begin to account for an ever larger percentage of practical, reasonably priced energy, fossil fuels will be phased out by the marketplace.
Goal # 1: Become energy independent in 5 years—do whatever it takes to accomplish this; this issue is tremendously important to our national security/defense.
Goal # 2: Become non-dependent on (not abolish) fossil fuels in 20 years—this must occur only as market forces make the use of fossil fuels irrelevant. Only when alternative sources of energy are available that sufficiently meet consumer needs & means, will this be possible.
A lot is also riding on battery technology. Ideally, solar roofs or windmills would charge the battery when they’re active, at the same time providing home power, then when they’re not active (no sun, no wind), the battery supplies power to the home. Off-grid, you’re essentially dependent on your own equipment & batteries. Power could be supplemented with a gas, propane or biofuel generator.
On-grid, if your electricity generating methods don’t produce enough electricity to run the home and keep your batteries charged, you draw the electricity you need, and pay for electricity from the local utility grid. If your electricity generating methods produce more energy than you need, the excess is sent back to the utility grid, and you get paid for this excess energy.
The most ironic thing about cap & trade is that it is supposedly based on the concept that accumulation of “harmful” emissions (such as carbon dioxide), given off as fossil fuels are burned, lead to “global warming” or “climate change” that can be avoided only if the United States adopts cap & trade. As it turns out, pro-global warming, international ”scientists” overseeing research grants & scientific publications in this field, favored researchers & authors who were proponents of global warming and whose publications were consistent with the prevailing views.
Only work that agreed with these views, that drastic reductions in our collective “carbon footprint” are needed to avoid global warming, could get funding to do the research, or get their articles published. The vast majority of researchers who received funding for their climate change research, and subsequently had scientific papers peer reviewed & approved for publication by respected journals, reported that their research confirmed the belief that global warming was man-made; there was no room for contrary ideas. Recently, the EPA issued a statement that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a toxic pollutant that the EPA must regulate. In point of fact, CO2 is the main component of each exhaled human breath, is neither toxic, nor a pollutant, but its presence is a normal part of every life. Trees & plants require CO2 for life, and must absorb CO2 out of the air for photosynthesis.
In addition, almost all of the work done on global warming was ultimately based on the same flawed data set, and a great swath of research at the core of pro-global warming evangelism has been discredited. With the heart of the “man-made caused”, pro-global warming literature, torn out, the remaining reliable articles are inconclusive & contradictory with regard to global warming and climate change. Since there is no reliable research confirming man-made climate change, global warming cannot be presumed to be a scientific fact at this time. Government action to set up a cap & trade (cap & tax) scheme would increase the cost of doing business, such that companies will be laying-off another round of workers, would considerably raise the cost of all energy to the consumer, and would irreparably damage almost all sectors of our economy. In the end, no one believes that cap & trade will lead to lower atmospheric CO2 levels, so, why is it that the Obama Administration and the Democrat leaders in Congress, are so determined to pass cap & trade?
The answer to that question, is the usual answer to most political questions: money & power. Obama’s corporate cronies will be well rewarded. Obama has already made plans with GE to manage a portion of the program, with Fannie Mae (Franklin Raines, former CEO; and Scott Lesmes, former VP) having recently purchased the software patent needed to process carbon trades. Others on the list of those who have a financial interest in cap & trade include Barack & Michelle Obama, Goldman Sachs (the largest single shareholder), Mayor Richard Daley, former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other Chicago associates.