« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Seriously, Sierra Club?

By: Steve Maley (Diary)  |  June 2nd, 2012 at 12:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

With the shale gas boom in full swing, gas prices are at 10-year lows. We have the realistic prospect of abundant domestic supplies of a clean-burning fuel for the foreseeable future, who doesn’t like natural gas?

Ask the Sierra Club. This week, the venerable environmental organization announced its “Beyond Natural Gas” initiative, to go along with their “Beyond Coal” and “Beyond Oil” campaigns. Of course, they hate nuclear energy too.

“Fossil fuels have no part in America’s energy future – coal, oil, and natural gas are literally poisoning us. The emergence of natural gas as a significant part of our energy mix is particularly frightening because it dangerously postpones investment in clean energy at a time when we should be doubling down on wind, solar and energy efficiency.”
—Robin Mann, Sierra Club President

The Sierra Club has over a half-million members (down from 600,000) and an annual budget of $100 million. They are arguably the most influential environmental lobby in the country. People take them seriously, and politicians listen.

With their opposition to the fossil fuels and nukes, the Sierra Club takes 91% of our current energy sources off the table (see EIA chart at the end of the post). And most of the remaining 9% they’re not too crazy about. Below the fold, we’ll take a closer look.

Youthful naïvete has an endearing quality. If their proposal were merely impractical, it would be naïve. The Sierra Club is not naïve. Their plan is physically and economically impossible. They have a willfully foolish, craven and destructive agenda. They are not looking for solutions. They wish an end to our industrialized civilization. They wish us to return to mud huts.

There are responsible environmental organizations. It should be an embarrassment that anyone should give the Sierra Club a nickel.

The Sierra Club’s ultimate goal, not surprisingly, is to save the planet from Global Warming. To that end, they wish to curtail 90% of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 – thirty-eight years from now.

How will they do it? In Robin Mann’s words: “[W]e should be doubling down on wind, solar and energy efficiency.”

Point #1: Everyone is for energy efficiency, and it happens naturally due to economics and technical advances. But “energy efficiency” is a strategy to use existing fuels more efficiently, not replace them. That means the only technologies on the table are wind and solar. So that leads to …

Point #2: This is not “doubling down”, it’s going “all in“. All in on a sucker’s bet. That’s because wind and solar would have to grow by a factor of 50 times their contribution in 2011. Not “grow by 50%” — 50 times. Even if we suddenly developed the will to do it, there’s not enough money/resources in the known universe to make it possible. And if we did it, what about the Chinese and the rest of the world? And what would be the environmental consequences of making the conversion?

See that little pink bar, way on the right? The Sierra Club loves that. Everything else, not so much. Not at all, in fact. And it’s even worse than that chart makes it appear — this is a graph of domestic sources. In addition to the 78 quads depicted here, we import another 20. And Geothermal has limited growth potential. So that little pink bar needs to grow from a value of 2, to 100.

Or more than 100, because the population is going to grow by 2050. And since wind and solar are not primary transportation sources, we’d need to generate even more to account for efficiency losses.

This radicalism can be understood in the context of a recent reorganization:

Carl Pope, who has led the Sierra Club for much of the last two decades, is planning to leave the organization next year as it struggles to redefine its mission in a tough economy, the organization said Friday. … Mr. Pope, 66, stepped down as executive director last year after 17 years, turning the job over to Michael Brune, 40, who came to the Sierra Club from the Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace, younger and politically more aggressive groups. Mr. Pope has held the title of chairman since Mr. Brune arrived and will remain a consultant to the club until the end of next year.

Has the Sierra Club jumped the shark? That happened long ago. My friend, with this natural gas pronouncement, the Sierra Club gave the shark a lap dance. And had its love child.

_______________________________________________________________

The Wall Street Journal reminds us that not long ago, the Sierra Club and natural gas were BFFs (to the tune of $26 million from Chesapeake Energy, never a shrinking violet when it comes to advancing its own interests):

Sierra Clubs Natural Gas (WSJ website may require subscription):

The political irony is that not too long ago the Sierra Club and other greens portrayed natural gas as the good fossil fuel. The Sierra Club liked natural gas so much (and vice versa) that from 2007-2010 the group received $26 million in donations from Chesapeake Energy and others in the gas industry, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Some of that money was for the Beyond Coal campaign. …

But now that the hydraulic fracturing and shale revolution has sent [wellhead] gas prices down to $2.50 [from $8 or more per million BTU in 2008], the lobby fears natural gas will come to dominate U.S. energy production. At that price, the Sierra Club’s Valhalla of wind, solar and biofuel power may never be competitive. So the green left has decided it must do everything it can to reduce the supply of gas and keep its price as high as possible.

_______________________________________________________________

According to the Sierra Club’s official energy policy directive (.pdf link), most recently updated by the national board in July 2011:

Resources Opposed by the Sierra Club:

  • Anything Coal (Conventional, Coal-to-Liquids, Coal-to-Gas, etc.)
  • Nuclear Power Plants
  • New Large Hydroelectric Plants
  • Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste
  • Landfill Gas to Energy Facilities

Resources Preferred by the Sierra Club

  • Community Renewables, Distributed Generation
  • Onshore and Offshore Wind [as long as it's sustainable and doesn't impact endangered species, etc.]
  • Central Station Solar
  • Combined Heat and Power [but not coal-based, so essentially natural gas]
  • Low-Temperature Geothermal

Resources Generally Acceptable to the Sierra Club

  • New Small Hydroelectric Plants
  • Ocean Energy Resources
  • High Temperature Geothermal

Ethanol? “Biofuels from sustainable feedstocks using appropriate production technologies and facilities can be an important ingredient in a clean energy future. Inappropriately located, poorly regulated or excessively large biofuel facilities can easily create environmental problems greater than those they solve.” Shorter answer: No, not in its current form.

_______________________________________________________________

The following EIA chart is kind of busy at first glance, but it contains a wealth of information on U.S. energy sources and uses.

Cross-posted at Maley’s Energy Blog.


Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • julianusrex

    ultimately led to tens of millions of deaths, but I guess that’s ok because, as we all know, there are too many people on the planet. If we go back to Romulan huts and a life expectency of 25 things will get balanced.

  • General_Confusion

    Environmentalist: Someone with no solutions, only problems.

    Environmental: To denote unworkable, uneconomical, unreasonable or all three. Also see Green.

    Environment: The place we all live but apparently can NOT be inhabited by humans.

    • Flagstaff

      (2) One who believes he can see into the future and identify the technology that will replace today’s energy sources.

      Environmental case: Frustrated environmentalist with a lawyer and/or a gun.

    • macbookben

      …signs and symptoms include wholesale belief that one can effectively manage bowel hygiene with four little squares of toilet paper and spare an acre of pulpwood harvesting at the same time.

  • acat

    The Anasazi used a mix of adobe mud and carving/expanding caves…

    Mew

  • talgus

    that knows where it is loved and wanted, and stays away from those that are its enemies. No cars for them, no oil, plastic, synthetics, housing, roads… Just the mud huts they want for all of us. This ability to strive for a change that you do not embrace yourself needs to be publicized. Oh ya, the media is their BFFs.

    • Dave_A

      Would allow them to live the life they enjoy…. Mud huts, no electric grid, limited vehicle transportation, no freeways, wood-fire heat, etc…

      Until the local ‘militant groups’ recognized that they were Americans & didn’t have any guns…

      • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

        to help them forget that they once lived in a civilized place.

        • checkmate2012

          great comments. Or utopiamentalists if you prefer!

      • GregInFla

        But instead, they fly around the world to attend conferences that could be done over the net. Justa buncha con men.

      • ceili_dancer

        .

  • DaveWT4

    [quote]But now that the hydraulic fracturing and shale revolution has sent [wellhead] gas prices down to $2.50 [from $8 or more per million BTU in 2008], the lobby fears natural gas will come to dominate U.S. energy production. At that price, the Sierra Club?s Valhalla of wind, solar and biofuel power may never be competitive. So the green left has decided it must do everything it can to reduce the supply of gas and keep its price as high as possible.[/quote]

    What the Eco-mentalists are really opposed to is cheap energy. If wind and solar were cheap and efficient they would find reasons to oppose them as well. They want us back in mud huts and subsistence living. Some how, though, I think just like in all Marxist utopias the political elite and their friends will get to keep their modern life styles. It will be the rest of us simple peons that will lose out.

    • acat

      That’s what the Sierra Club folks want to be.

      Mew

      • Flagstaff

        Early and often.

    • Frederick

      The environmentalists have begun to realize how much real-estate their renewable energy sources require. A solar farm can be over a square mile to supply a city of 50,000. Wind turbines cover the Midwest and California and provide just a tiny fraction of power (and look ugly).

      What they want is for unicorn farts and fairy dust to bring us magical energy to every home, which will be built by leprechauns and elves because they’ll consume 1kW per day each. We’ll drive around in solar cars that store their energy in dilithium crystals (because batteries have chemicals in them). The cars will be built in factories that float in the sky because Gaia forbid we should use any land for industry (or anything else, for that matter). We’ll spend all our time communing with the spirits of the animals because communism will provide for all our needs, and who really wants to work when we could be learning to braid ugly clothing from hemp?

      Seriously, environmentalists, the ones who really believe this stuff and live their lives to make it happen, and unhinged. They do not live in the real world.

  • Tbone

    have been co-opted by radical, leftist elements who have no continuous contact with reality. If its members actually read the policies many more would cancel. Instead, these soft-headed liberals still think it is cool to be a Sierra Club Member. They are, of course, useful idiots.

    • mndasher

      Yeah those radicals took over the Sierra Club about 50 years ago, or longer. Think of the simple equality; environmentalist = communist and you will have it down pretty good.

  • Dave Emanuel

    As with any group that strives to save us from ourselves, the Sierra Club never lets facts get in the way of its agenda. While the club’s agenda of reducing environmental pollution may be noble, its methods of doing so are not– as shown by its “interpretive” presentation of information and disregard of both facts and reality. Some inconvenient facts that environmentalists choose to ignore or alter-
    * Since 1959, world population has increased from 2.9 billion to over 6.7 billion. A more than doubling the world population impacts the environment even with absolutely no industrial activity.
    *According to a June, 2009 report by Greenpeace, (concerning deforestation in countries like Brazil), “Carbon released from slash-and-burn techniques, plus the loss of forest themselves, account for some 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the study notes, a larger share than that from all the world’s cars, planes, ships, trains, and trucks combined.”
    *CO2 concentrations increased less than 70ppm– roughly 22%
    Even at current levels, carbon dioxide accounts for only .04% of the atmosphere (that’s 4/100s of a percent– up 1/100 of a percent since 1959).
    Yet according to the Sierra Club, virtually all environmental ills stem from the greed of “big oil” and “big gas”– those same evil corporations that make mobility and tolerable indoor temperatures affordable. There’s no doubt that the world would be better off with less reliance on fossil fuels, and while the Sierra Club lives to beat that drum, it has no suggestions for viable alternatives, only hype an unrealistic dreams.

    • edintexas

      Please supply your facts for the following statement:

      “There?s no doubt that the world would be better off with less reliance on fossil fuels,…”.

      P.S. I doubt the world would be better off with less reliance on fossil fuels, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that doubt. Perhaps “I have no doubt…” would have been the factual statement?

    • ofug

      You state that the Sierra Club ignores the population of almost 7 billion. They are very aware of it. According to them, humans cause ALL pollution. The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, ZPG, every aspect of the eugenics movement, and Agenda 21 have a goal of one thing–reducing the Earth’s population to a “sustainable” level, somewhere between 1 and 3 billion. They just can’t state it publicly, otherwise people would figure out what they are up to. And they are not just about eliminating “unnecessary” people in third world countries. Agenda 21 is aimed at Europe and the U.S. Look at their own numbers, What size population can exist on their high-rise urban plantations they are already building? And apparently their deadline is 2030. Scared yet?

      • garfieldjl

        I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but we aren’t exactly dealing with rational individuals. I imagine many of Sierra Club’s members and/or donors have no idea what some people in their management really want.

        While there probably is an upper limit as far as population that Earth can support, there are probably a lot better solutions than what the eco-nuts are coming up with that do not involve Eugenics, population control, etc.

        Btw, increased carbon dioxide levels often cause an increase in plant growth.

  • zachv

    Growing Geothermal, Solar/PV, Wind by 5000% over the next 40 years! We can totally do that. [/sarcasm]

    Have you seen this TED talk by the way, Vlad? The presenter calculates how much land mass renewables would need to power different countries. He gets a bit lost at the end, but it’s still rather laughable when considered that it would take some renewables more land mass to power a country (like the UK) than the land the country even has.

    • acat

      can be put out to sea ..

      Look, if wind turbines were so great, oil platforms’d use ‘em!

      Mew

      • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

        …because power generation is so expensive.

        But I’ve never figured how offshore wind could work. It must cost the same or more to build/install/maintain/remove a turbine as a small platform for gas.

        For a tiny fraction of the energy output.

        • acat

          Solar isn’t nearly, even if every flat surface is covered, gonna produce enough juice to run a drill. Maybe a pump…

          Wind? I’m not an engineer, but .. for a true platform (i.e. not a fixed-position pylon in *very* shallow water) it sure looks like it can’t take less energy to hold position against the wind than one could extract from the wind …

          Mew

          • GregInFla

            thinking again. That is really a bad habit!!

        • funwithknives

          subject not so long ago.
          Costs are frightful, there’s more than a few problems with possible gearbox lubricant leakage, 25% more or less of the power generated is used by the windmill itself, and very few people wanna’ look at them.
          Take out subsidies and Gov’t renewable mandates , and you got nothin’ appreciable.

          But at least, “We’re Doin’ Sumthin” ……….

    • monolithic

      Hadn’t seen this one before, very informative. I wish more people would learn that its not as easy as just throwing up a few solar panels and buying a bike. Sheesh

  • Viet71

    Was trained as an electrical engineer. Then as a lawyer.

    Rachel Carson sounded a needed warning.

    We, as humans, need to try to understand this planet earth.

    As a youth, I loved the Fox River in Illinois. It had become polluted. I didn’t know. I rafted it. Waded it. Fished it. Then it died.

    Al Gore sucks. But not all environmental ideas are bad.

    Conservatives need to think.

    • renl57

      and I was sympathetic to the old-style environmentalists. Their argument was that the Earth is humanity’s home; and sensible homeowners don’t trash their homes.

      But environmentalism has left that philosophy behind. Now they seem to regard humanity as some kind of parasite or contaminant on the planet, altering its natural balance and driving many species extinct. (I’ve even heard scientists with Ph.D’s compare humanity to a virus that has infected the Earth.)

      They are no longer advocating preserving the Earth as the home of humanity. They are now trying to protect the Earth *from* humanity.

      And there I part company. I don’t want someone to actively try to protect my home from myself. Because it’s my home, not their home.

      • acat

        The two words are, you’ll note, rather different….

        The radical greenie “environmentalists” co-opted the latter, and – see also Pournelle’s Iron Law – drove them down to the bottom of the org charts.

        Mew

        • Frederick

          …lose touch, too. Conservationists are the ones who gave us the “build whatever you want here, preserve the rest exactly as it was and never allow it to change” that has given us some of the wildfires that were so destructive and protection of “wetlands” that stifles growth.

          What was once “environmentalism” and became “conservationism” has now been reborn as “stewardship”. I wonder what it’s next incarnation will be?

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      I’m old enough to remember when the sky was brown and the rivers sudsy & sometimes on fire. I like it better now.

      Tell the people dying of malaria by the millions in Africa about how Rachel Carson is a hero.

      We have been handed a gift in natural gas. A gift that environmentalists were high behind, until it became reality. I have nothing but contempt for these radical, pirate-loving watermelons.

    • PowerToThePeople

      but not with the article.

      You have to understand there is a big difference between conservationist and environmentalist, a big big difference. Until I got old and my body and mind quit working like they did 20 years ago, I loved to hunt. I owned and still own a few multi acre plots that are filled with numerous game types. I worked hard to keep these plots nice and free of any destruction. I would actually hire Clemson folks, God forgive me for doing that considering I am a true blue Gamecock, to come in and do animal counts, check soil, check the trees, etc just so I knew how much could be hunted without harming the species and what needed to be adjusted to keep the property pristine. I did this because it is our job to keep the land as pure as possible so that future generations can enjoy it as well. My kids and my grandkids now use the properties for hunting and camping and that would have not been possible had I not believed in conservation. BUT

      I always understood that man must come before animal and land, even my own land. One property I had was needed for a hospital in an area without one. I hated to do it, but gave it up because the reason was more important than my reasons to keep it. All the animals are gone now and that particular spot gave my some of my biggest kills including a 158 pound field dressed doe.

      Environmentalist do not want to conserve, they want to eliminate mankind. They want human rights for animals, they want to slam their ships into fishing ships because the fish have feelings, Damn who goes hungry as long as the fish keep swimming. The lady you mentioned, Rachel Carson, has the blood of millions on her hands and when she pushed her agenda, she knew millions would die. Hell has a special place for her and she will not enjoy it.

      Environmentalist are a lot like Ron Paul. Even when the basic point of their agenda or idea is good, they go so far our in left field with it, it no longer is valid and has become dangerous nonsense. They do nothing to save the environment, the conservationist is the one who saves the land. Environmentalist, each and every one of them, are hypocritical scumbags who do nothing but make life hard on humans, push false science, elevate animals to a human level, and push for regulations that not only hurt business and the worker, but the community and the environment as well. One prime example of their nonsense.

      While living in MI not so long ago, environmentalist decided the deer in MI deserved not to be hunted. MI was and is well known for their deer and the huge populations. They were able to shorten the cull season, lower the amount of tags, and actually were able to take out a large portion of hunt area out of the allowed hunt areas. The result was starving deer, people finding sick and dying or dead deer on the property, cars were hitting them left and right, and then TB broke out in many of the herds. The results of their agenda were awful and the deer suffered for it and yet they still to this day tout it as one of their best accomplishments in MI. It took massive killings and years of checking every killed deer to get past most of the damage they caused. Even with what happened and the lesson they should have learned, they did the same thing with doves. Yes I said doves, those always crapping over populated birds.

      You need to read up on Carson and see her for who she really is and the horrible loss of human life that occurred because of her and learn the difference between the true keepers of the land, conservationist, and the scumbag environmentalist.

      • aesthete

        Rachel Carson and her ilk are one of the biggest impediments to getting Africa and Central America out of their doldrums and onto the path of peaceful, productive society. If you want to take a look at what the environmentalists would have of America? Look to Africa, where warlords hungry for American funds raze farms and ban life-saving products at the behest of environmentalist lobbyists.

      • renl57

        I agree.

        Environmentalists won’t let go of an idea even after the adverse consequences become apparent.

        In MA where I live, we’re suffering from one such example: The protection given to Canada geese.

        True, there was a time when Canada geese were a threatened species. So conservationists put forward a set of regulations to ban hunting or killing of said geese.

        The Canada geese got the message and multiplied like crazy. Now they’re everywhere: Golf courses, condominium complexes, industrial parks, lawns of private homes–like a real-life version of Hitchcock’s “The Birds.” They wake you up in the early morning with their screeching and honking. Their feces are everywhere too–which is unhealthy and is polluting ground water.

        They are no longer considered a threatened species–far from it–but the regulations are still on the books.

        So we who live in MA can’t do a thing about it. We can’t hunt them, or trap them, or call pest controllers to deal with them. And they’re very aggressive.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMdhAFPWzFw

        At my former employer, a Canada goose insisted on building a nest and laying her eggs right in the driveway from the road to the building. My employer was forced to set up orange cones to direct road traffic *around her nest*, for months, until her eggs had hatched and she and her flock went elsewhere!

        • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

          Why not form a local PAC up there in Maine to collect money for overturning the protection of the feathered fiends and either lobby the lawmakers to repeal the law or take up a challenge the law in court?

    • rosegrower

      in believing that humans can change nature. Nature always wins, because it is more complex than even environmentalists can fathom. I find it ironic that the same people who slavishly believe in Darwinism – that is, the strongest and fittest survive – also believe that Western civilization has to modify its lifestyle in order to accomodate nature. Wouldn’t humanity and animal life be able to evolve in order to cope with whatever environmental changes the previous generations put into play? Environmentalism lacks substantive thinking and basic observation, and has attempted to spin the facts to shore up its core set of beliefs.

  • renl57

    …as other environmentalists already have, that we would have to pave over *many thousands* of square miles of fragile desert ecosystem with solar panels to generate enough power for America.

    At that point, the Sierra Club will undoubtedly launch a new “Beyond Solar” initiative too.

    Environmentalists have proven time and again that the only power sources they like are those that haven’t yet been developed. (I can still remember the early 1970s when they were advocating “clean, safe nuclear power.”) But once development actually starts, they freak out over the environmental impact.

    There already are environmentalists trying to block solar power in California deserts (where it’s usually sunny), other environmentalists trying to block windmill farms on Vermont’s mountainsides (where it’s usually windy), etc.

    • acat

      The smart ones know that .. and don’t care.

      It’s about fleecing the sheep, greasing the palms, and living well…. the environment is just the “guilt fetish” they sell to extract the juice….

      Mew

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      Covering the nearby mountains with rotating mirrors to put more sunlight on them…

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        .

        • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

          Just make sure all the mirrors are controlled by just one computer instead of acting independently so they “focus properly” at all times…

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    …experience their own tactics used against them. I am talking about every single Alinsky and Lenin action, from character assassination to physical intimidation to legal bombardment, personal and political. Break these people and destroy them as a political entity. Their time has come.

  • pacajka

    The Sierra Club and their misguided comrades would like to see the West go back to the Middle Ages like the Islamic world seems to desire. Except in the case of the Sierra Clubbies they would be the ones in the castles with first call on the windmill power for their remaining gadgets. The surviving public would be their serfs, existing on renewable resources left over from their benevolent SC lords.

  • cactusjack

    Independence. Back 30 yrs ago when wind generators were mostly in places like Holland and California ( = “cool” trendy places) the Left loved them as an Ideal and a panacea. So we built wind generator farms like crazy. But guess where most of the wind generators in the US are now located? In RedStates in the US like TX, OK,KS and from straight on up to the Canadian border thru the upper MidWest. The Left hates what it cannot control. Suddenly they are not cool. They are icky. They are bird cuisinarts. They bolster the bad RedStates with even more political/economic power. The Left has moved on to more trendy, cool, with it panaceas. Like cars that recharge by plugging them into the magic hole overnight. The above line of reasoning is ridiculous, of course, but it is exactly how the Left, the Sierra Club, and the Unicorn Fart group approaches issues.

    • Dave_A

      Because wind kills birds and makes ‘noise pollution’…

      And Hydro kills fish…

      The fact is, most of the ‘Environmental Movement’ is actually calling for legislated ‘zero human impact’ living…

      Not responsible conservation, but ‘leave no trace’ camping policies applied to daily life…

      • jmartin70

        I guess they just want us all to be dead so we leave no trace…….

        Wait a minute…… our dead bodies will leave a trace……

        Guess they didn’t think of that……

  • monolithic

    I really really can’t wait to see how the debates unfold, especially when they dive into energy policy, free markets, etc. Will Romney continue the Solyndra beatdown, or will he back off now that Konarka Technologies is the headline at the Boston Globe? Will Obama’s try to argue on taking credit for the expansion of oil & gas, directives that clearly predated his presidency?

    • Dave_A

      It will be up to Romney to bring up energy…

      Obama will be ranting about fairness, and ‘the 1%’ (nevermind he’s part of that group), and so on….

  • cactusjack

    from Energy if he can. He has a terrible, indefensible record in energy policy over the last 4 years. He has cost the US tens of thousands of jobs and weakend our national petroelum self sufficiency = national security. His people were and continue to be complete ignoramuses about hydrocarbon recovery and world energy dynamics. I hope Romney will pounce. He is not from the energy sector either, but he can understand the business aspects just fine.

    • davesinsanantonio

      His arrogance indicates he will try to convince the American people that his way is the only sane way. He will just try to weasel word it, or, if he wins a second term, just cram it down our throats as he did with Obummercare. Arrogance does not need “sense” to be convinced of its own omniscience.

  • jmartin70

    Beyond Coal……
    Beyond Oil……
    Beyond Gas……

    Beyond Sense……
    Beyond Civilization……

    Beyond…… Belief……

  • gmhunt

    Horse & buggy here we come………

  • siquijorisland

    Yes back to the past no need for universal healthcare, nor energy gobbling hospitals. Very progressive?

  • publious

    Tyler obviously doesn’t buy into the global warming scam.

  • ihateliberals

    If they had their way all people would be removed from the Earth so that it could remain in it’s natural state as determined by them. It is down right scary when insane people can obtain such clout and influence what hte majority of people want. What ever happened to majority rules?

    • cbartlett

      the environmentalists get laws passed by Congress that are later implemented by Federal Agencies. These agencies (EPA is the worst) are run by UNelected people with personal agendas who are not allowed to think. There is no “majority rule”. They have “checklists” to go by and they are not allowed to be reasonable or try to work with people attempting to solve problems. I work with civil engineers every day – they take an oath when they are licensed (at least in Texas) to “protect the health, life and safety of the public”. They must put that above their clients’ interests and their own profits. There are many, many laws (environmental ones are the worst) that have unintended consequences but when government employees are not allowed to think and be reasonable, it almost always cost more taxpayer dollars and usually limits liberty and freedom in some way. We conservatives have had our head in the sand ignoring environmentalist way too long – they got all of these ridiculous regulations passed while we had our backs turned working for a living.

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: Make Sure You Get The Best From Your Heating Oil Next Winter