Marita Noon: What’s The Real Deal With The Bundy Fight

Image

Greetings!

On Friday, I was planning to write on the status of the Production Tax Credit for wind energy. Late Friday, I received an email alerting me to some buzz about the Bundy standoff and fracking. I perked up and did some quick research. Wow! I was off and running. What I found became the impetus for this week’s column: Was stopping Nevada’s fracking rush behind the Bundy Showdown? (attached and pasted-in-below).

As I like to do, I connected a bunch of dots that, to my knowledge, no one else has connected to put together my theory that stopping Nevada’s fracking rush is what was behind the Bundy Showdown. I know it sounds a little out on a limb, but those who have read it so far find it very plausible. As this topic is still big news, I hope you will help me by spreading this piece as far and wide as possible.

Sadly I ran out of time (and word count) to get in the Reid solar project in there and the fact that the enviros allow solar projects—after huge sums are offered to protect the tortoises—but when other industry spent $26 million to protect the habitat of the lesser prairie chicken, the effort was rebuffed. But I did stay focused on my premise.

Thanks for posting, passing on and/or personally enjoying Was stopping Nevada’s fracking rush behind the Bundy Showdown?

 

Marita82313Marita Noon

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Was stopping Nevada’s fracking rush behind the Bundy Showdown?

The story of rancher Cliven Bundy has captured an abundance of media attention and attracted supporters from across the West, who relate to the struggle against the federal management of lands. Bundy’s sister, Susan, was asked: “Who’s behind the uproar?” She blamed the Sierra Club, then Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), and then President Obama. She concluded her comments with: “It’s all about control”—a sentiment that is frequently expressed regarding actions taken in response to some endangered-species claim.

 

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An Associated Press report describes Bundy’s battle this way: “The current showdown pits rancher Cliven Bundy’s claims of ancestral rights to graze his cows on open range against federal claims that the cattle are trespassing on arid and fragile habitat of the endangered desert tortoise.”

 

Biologist Dr. Paula Khan weighs a desert torto...

Biologist Dr. Paula Khan weighs a desert tortoise before release as part of the Fort Irwin, Calif., tortoise translocation. U.S. Army Environmental Command photo by Neal Snyder (neal.snyder@us.army.mil) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bundy’s story has been percolating for decades—leaving people to question why now. The pundits are, perhaps, missing the real motive. To discover it, you have to dig deep under the surface of the story, below the surface of the earth. I posit: it is all about oil and gas.

On April 10, the Natural News Network posted this: “BLM fracking racket exposed! Armed siege and cattle theft from Bundy ranch really about fracking leases.” It states: “a Natural News investigation has found that BLM is actually in the business of raking in millions of dollars by leasing Nevada lands to energy companies that engage in fracking operations.”

This set off alarms in my head; it didn’t add up. I know that oil-and-gas development and ranching can happily coexist. Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, told me: “The ranching and oil-and-gas communities are the backbone of America. They are the folks who allow the rest of the nation to pursue their hearts’ desire secure in the knowledge that they will have food and energy available in abundant supply. These natural resource users have worked arm-in-arm for nearly a century on the same land. They are constantly developing and employing technologies for ever better outcomes.”

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wouldn’t be enduring the humiliating press it has received, as a result of kicking Bundy off of land his family has ranched for generations and taking away his prior usage rights, just to open up the land for oil-and-gas—the two can both be there.

 

BLM Cows

BLM Cows (Photo credit: ScottSchrantz)

The Natural News “investigation” includes a map from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology that shows “significant exploratory drilling being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870s.” It continues: “What’s also clear is that oil has been found in nearby areas.”

Nevada is not a top-of-mind state when one thinks about oil and gas. Alan Coyner, administrator for the Nevada Division of Minerals, describes his state: “We are not a major oil-producing state. We’re not the Saudi Arabia of the U.S. like we are for gold and geothermal production.” The Las Vegas Review Journal reports: “When it comes to oil, Nevada is largely undiscovered country…. fewer than 1,000 wells have been drilled in the state, and only about 70 are now in production, churning out modest amounts of low-grade petroleum generally used for tar or asphalt. Since an all-time high of 4 million barrels in 1990, oil production in Nevada has plummeted to fewer than 400,000 barrels a year. More oil is pumped from the ground in one day in North Dakota—where the fracking boom has added more than 2,000 new wells in recent years—than Nevada produced in 2012.”

 

Mackey School of Mines Building, University of...

Mackey School of Mines Building, University of Nevada , Reno, Nevada (Photo credit: Ken Lund)

But, Nevada could soon join the ranks of the states that are experiencing an economic boom and job creation due to oil-and-gas development. And, that has got to have the environmental groups, which are hell-bent on stopping it, in panic mode. Until now, their efforts in Nevada have been focused on blocking big solar development.

 

Solar Two Power Tower Project

Solar Two Power Tower Project (Photo credit: GoShows)

A year ago, the BLM held an oil-and-gas lease sale in Reno. At the sale, 29 federal land leases, totaling about 56 square miles, were auctioned off, bringing in $1.27 million. One of the winning bidders is Houston-based Noble Energy, which plans to drill as many as 20 exploratory wells and could start drilling by the end of the year. Commenting on its acreage, Susan Cunningham, Noble senior vice president, said: “We’re thrilled with the possibilities of this under-explored petroleum system.”

The parcels made available in April 2013 will be developed using hydraulic fracturing, about which Coyner quipped: “If the Silver State’s first big shale play pays off, it could touch off a fracking rush in Nevada.” Despite the fact that fracking has been done safely and successfully for more than 65 years in America, the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Nevada-based senior scientist, Ron Mrowka, told the Las Vegas Review Journal: “Fracking is not a good thing. We don’t feel there is a safe way to do it.”

The BLM made the leases available after someone, or some company, nominated the parcels, and the process to get them ready for auction can easily take a year or longer. One year before the April 2013, sale, CBD filed a “60-day notice of intent to sue” the BLM for its failure to protect the desert tortoise in the Gold Butte area—where Bundy cattle have grazed for more than a century.

Because agencies like the BLM are often staffed by environmental sympathizers, it is possible that CBD was alerted to the pending potential oil-and-gas boom when the April 2013 parcels were nominated—triggering the notice of intent to sue in an attempt to lock up as much land as possible before the “fracking rush” could begin.

A March 25, 2014 CBD press release—which reportedly served as the impetus for the current showdown—states: “Tortoises suffer while BLM allows trespass cattle to eat for free in Nevada desert.” It points out that the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan purchased and then retired grazing leases to protect the endangered tortoise.

Once Bundy’s cattle are kicked off the land to protect the tortoise, the precedent will be set to use the tortoise to block any oil-and-gas development in the area—after all environmentalists hate cattle only slightly less than they hate oil and gas. Admittedly, the April 13 leases are not in the same area as Bundy’s cattle, however, Gold Butte does have some oil-and-gas exploration that CBD’s actions could nip in the bud. Intellihub reports: “The BLM claims that they are seizing land to preserve it, for environmental protection. However, it is obvious that environmental protection is not their goal if they are selling large areas of land to fracking companies. Although the land that was sold last year is 300 and some miles away from the Bundy ranch, the aggressive tactics that have been used by federal agents in this situation are raising the suspicion that this is another BLM land grab that is destined for a private auction.”

The Natural News Network also sees that the tortoise is being used as a scapegoat: “Anyone who thinks this siege is about reptiles is kidding themselves.” It adds: “‘Endangered tortoises’ is merely the government cover story for confiscating land to turn it over to fracking companies for millions of dollars in energy leases.” The Network sees that it isn’t really about the critters; after all, hundreds of desert tortoises are being euthanized in Nevada.

Though the Intellihub and Natural News Network point to the “current showdown” as being about allowing oil-and-gas development, I believe that removing the cattle is really a Trojan horse. The tortoise protection will be used to block any more leasing.

On April 5, 2014, CBD sent out a triumphant press release announcing that the “long-awaited” roundup of cattle had begun.

What I am presenting is only a theory; I am just connecting some dots. But over-and-over, an endangered or threated species or habitat is used to block all kinds of economic development. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the lesser prairie chicken and the huge effort ($26 million) a variety of industries cooperatively engaged in to keep its habitat from being listed as threatened. The effort failed and the chicken’s habitat was listed. In my column on the topic, I predicted that these listings were likely to trigger another sage brush rebellion that will challenge federal land ownership. The Bundy showdown has brought the controversy front and center.

For now, southern Nevada’s last rancher has won the week-long standoff that has been likened to Tiananmen Square. Reports state that “the BLM said it did so because it feared for the safety of employees and members of the public,” not because it has changed its position.

While this chapter may be closing, it may have opened the next chapter in the sage brush rebellion. The Bundy standoff has pointed out the overreach of federal agencies and the use of threatened or endangered species to block economic activity.

Chuck’s Note: Look for related articles below Ms Noon’s Bio:

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Related articles

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Roger Mickelson’s History Today 4.12.14

Image

Ordinarily I post Roger’s stuff to Sandia Tea Party only.  However, today was a long day with around 8 hours of Edgewood Town Council and Community meetings.  My pace has changed for today … I hope you won’t mind a change of pace.

Chuck

 

Fourth Crusade:    in 1204, Alexius V, the last Greek emperor of a united Byzantium, fled Constantinople in the face of the attacking zealots. The Fourth Crusade had been called by Pope Innocent III to reconquer the Holy Land, but it was diverted to Constantinople. Following the Crusaders’ seizure and sack of the city in 1204, the European territories of the Byzantine Empire were divided up among the Western magnates. Whereas Byzantine resistance in Asia Minor was successful, so that two independent successor empires were established (those of Nicaea and Trebizond), most of Greece was quickly and effectively placed under Frankish (Western Christian) rule.

 

Innocent III marble bas-relief, one of 23 reli...

Innocent III marble bas-relief, one of 23 reliefs of great historical lawgivers in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives in the United States Capitol. Sculpted by Joseph Kiselewski in 1950. Diameter 28 inches. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In 1606, the Union Flag, precursor to the Union Jack, was adopted as the national flag of Great Britain.
This earliest form of the flag used during the reigns of James I (1603–25) and Charles I (1625–49), displayed the red cross of England superimposed on the white cross of Scotland, with the blue field of the latter. Because in heraldry a red on blue is not considered permissible, the red cross had to be bordered with white, its own correct field.
American Civil War:    In 1861, active hostilities began when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, which was garrisoned by United States Army troops commanded by Major Robert Anderson. Sumter was of no strategic value to the Union; it was incomplete and its 60 guns pointed out to sea, but it assumed critical value as a symbol of national union. When President Abraham Lincoln took office in March, he was faced with the Confederate demand for evacuation of the fort, which was threatened by other fortifications erected by South Carolina in the harbor area. Lincoln had either to attempt resupplying the fort, then in danger of being starved out, or to abandon it and accede to disunion. The president determined to prepare relief expeditions, but, before the arrival of supplies, Confederate authorities demanded Fort Sumter’s immediate evacuation. When this was refused, the South’s batteries opened fire at 4:27 am on April 12, and Anderson was forced to surrender after 34 hours of shelling. On April 14 Fort Sumter was evacuated by federal troops, who marched out waving the American flag to a gun salute; on the 50th round of a 100-gun salute, an explosion occurred, causing the only death of the engagement.
Fort Sumter Centennial

Fort Sumter Centennial (Photo credit: b316728)

American Civil War:    In 1864, Confederate Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest captured Union-held Fort Pillow in Tennessee. Almost half of the Union troops were black soldiers, and the Confederate troops proceeded to kill all the black troops within; some were burned or buried alive. A Federal congressional investigating committee subsequently verified that more than 300 blacks, including women and children, had been slain after the fort surrendered. After the incident, black soldiers going into battle used the cry “Remember Fort Pillow!”

 

1885 color poster of the "Fort Pillow Mas...

1885 color poster of the “Fort Pillow Massacre”. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In 1945, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia, at the age of 63.

 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prohibited...

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prohibited racial discrimination in the military. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In 1961, Russian cosmonaut Yury Alekseyevich Gagarin became the first human in outer space.

In 1981, NASA launched the first space shuttle, Columbia, which was designed to orbit Earth, transport people and cargo to and from orbiting spacecraft, and glide to a runway landing on its return to Earth.

Space Shuttle Columbia launching edit

Space Shuttle Columbia launching edit (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Regards, Roger Mickelson
Source material includes Associated Press International and Encyclopædia Britannica.
“Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.”         Samuel Goldwyn
Enhanced by Zemanta

Conspiracy Brews 4.12.14

Image

Well it looks like someone penetrated my list this week.  I changed the password quickly.

 

If you like your coffee and your politics flavorful, served with a heaping dose of civility by a diverse group of interesting people from all parts of the political spectrum then you should be joining us every Saturday. Started in 2007 over coffee and lively conversation by a group of concerned friends and neighbors, ‘Conspiracy Brews’ is committed to finding solutions to some of our State’s toughest problems. Our zest for constructive political discourse is only equaled by our belief that the only way forward is to exchange our views in a relaxed and friendly setting.   For additional information or to be added to our e-mail list contact:  ConspiracyBrews@aol.com.

Conspiracy Brews  

 

Not your average political discussion group!

April 12, 2014

9:00 AM - 12:00 PM
at
Southwest Secondary Learning Center
10301 Candelaria Rd NE
(northwest corner of Candelaria and Morris)

We think that government should be open and honest at all times.
People from all political parties are welcome.

 ***Quotes of the Week***

 

“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.”

Plato

 

“Well done is better than well said.”

Benjamin Franklin

 

Suggested Topics

 

– Where does NM rank on a most dependent list and why?

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal-finance/10-states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government.html/?a=viewall&ref=OB

 

— Shall we discuss the DOJ report on APD?

http://krqe.com/2014/04/10/justice-dept-investigative-findings-on-apd/

 

– Is passenger traffic slowing at the Sun Port due to Albuquerque’s weak economy?

 

(Light Quotes of the week)

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”

Neils Bohr

 

“Democracy is the name we give the people whenever we need them.”

Marquie de Flers Robert and Arman de Caillavet

 

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

Ernest Benn

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America?

Image

Greetings!
When I sat down to write this week’s column in Austin, TX, where I’ve been on a long personal weekend, I thought it would be short and easy to write. I had all my ideas developed. I’d received a copy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee “2014 Priority Issues Survey” and intended to use its energy question as my framework—which I did. I tore into each survey point and exposed what it really meant and how it did—or, more likely, did not—lead to “energy independence.”

While writing If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? (attached and pasted-in-below) was fairly easy, it did take me almost the entire day Friday to write—and it didn’t end up being short. When I sent it to my proofreader first thing Saturday morning, I told her that it was too long and that I was going to have to cut some of the section on CAFE standards. I asked for suggestions on what to cut. She sent the corrected version back with no cuts and added that she thought it all needed to be there. So, it is all there and If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? is long. Sorry.

But here’s what I found most interesting. As a part of my preparation, I posted a question on my Facebook page about energy independence (which, just so you know, I don’t really think is the goal, but it was the survey question). As I address in the column, the answers were most interesting and revealed a total misconception of energy independence—even among my Facebook friends who generally read my work. The misconception is my particular pet peeve. I frequently state that wind and solar have nothing to do with getting the U.S. off of foreign oil, yet even on my Facebook page when asked the title question, many offered solutions that pertained to electricity. Argh!

So, while If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? offers an interesting glimpse inside the ideology of the DCCC, more importantly it points out what really will, and will not, move the U.S. towards energy freedom—the ability to use energy freely without peoples hostile to America using it as a weapon against us.

Please help me spread the word by posting, passing on, and/or personally enjoying: If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America?
Thanks!
Marita Noon

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, Inc.
PO Box 52103,
Albuquerque, NM 87181
For immediate release: April 7, 2014
Commentary by Marita Noon
Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.
Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America?
Recently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a “2014 Priority Issues Survey.” In addition to the obligatory Tea Party bashing: “help the Democrats protect the progress we have made from Tea Party radicals, deliver the positive changes America needs and help Democrats win a Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives!” and the fundraising requests to “help protect House Democrats against Republican attacks”—there is a section on energy.

Section VII, asks: “Which of the following will help America achieve energy independence?” It offers five options that do little to move America toward energy independence—which isn’t even a realistic goal given the fungible nature of liquid fuels. Additionally, most of the choices given on the DCCC survey actually increase energy costs for all Americans—serving as a hidden tax—but hurt those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale the most. The proposals hurt the very people the party purports to champion.

The survey asks respondents to “check all that apply.”
Raising gas mileage standards for all new cars and trucks
This choice presumes that making a law requiring something will make it happen. Sorry, not even the Democrats have that kind of power. Even the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025—finalized on August 28, 2012 and called “the largest mandatory fuel economy increase in history”—will be tough to hit.

The CAFE standards mean that a carmaker’s passenger vehicle fleet average must achieve 54.5 mpg. To meet that, and produce the big pick-up trucks and SUVs Americans like to drive, the manufacturers must also produce the little itty-bitty cars with mpg above 60 and the more expensive hybrids (not one of which was on the top ten best-seller list for 2013)—or have a loss leader like the Chevy Volt to help bring down the average.

Suggesting a forced raising of gas mileage standards implies that auto manufacturers are in collusion with oil companies and are intentionally producing gas guzzlers to force Americans into buying lots of gasoline.

With the price of gasoline wavering between $3-4.00 a gallon, most people are very conscious of their fuel expenditures. If it were technologically possible to build a cost-effective truck or SUV that had the size and safety Americans want and that got 50 mpg, that manufacturer would have the car-buying public beating a path to its door. Every car company would love to be the one to corner that market—but it is not easy, it probably won’t be possible, and it surely won’t be cheap.

When the new standards were introduced in November 2011, Edmonds.com did an analysis of the potential impact: 6 Ways New CAFE Standards Could Affect You. The six points include cost and safety and highlights some concerns that are not obvious at first glance.

Achieving the higher mileage will require new technologies that include, according to Edmunds, “turbochargers and new generations of multispeed automatic transmissions to battery-electric powertrains.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have estimated that the average new car will cost $2,000 extra by 2025 because of the proposed new fuel-efficiency standards.

Additionally, new materials will have to be used, such as the proposed new Ford F-150 made with aluminum, which is predicted to add $1500 over steel to the cost of a new truck. Aluminum also complicates both the manufacturing and repair processes. Edmunds reports: “Insurance costs could rise, both because of the increased cost of cars and the anticipated hike in collision repair costs associated with the greater use of the plastics, lightweight alloys and aluminum necessary for lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. (Plastics, lightweight alloys and aluminum are all more difficult than steel to repair.)”

Another concern is safety. “The use of weight-saving materials will not only affect repair costs but could make newer vehicles more susceptible to damage in collisions with older, heavier vehicles, especially SUVs and pickups. Their occupants could be at a safety disadvantage.”
One of the subtle consequences of high mileage vehicles is the probable increase in taxes.

Edmunds points out that lower driving cost may increase wear-and-tear on the nation’s highway system as consumers drive more freely. “Declining gas sales mean a further decrease in already inadequate fuel-tax revenue used to pay for road and infrastructure repair and improvement. … As more untaxed alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas and electricity are used for transportation, fuel tax revenue falls even farther. All of this is likely to lead to calls for a road tax based on miles driven and not the type of fuel used.”
Instead of increasing costs by forcing a higher mpg, a free-market encourages manufacturers to produce the cars the customers want. The Wall Street Journal story on the Ford F-150s points out: “In 2004, as the auto market soared, Ford sold a record 939,511 F-series pickups. That amounted to 5.5% of the entire U.S. vehicle market. But four years later, gas prices rose above $4 a gallon, sales of pickups began tumbling.” Then, consumers wanted small cars with better mileage. I often quote an ad for Hyundai I once saw. As I recall, it said: “It’s not that complicated. If gas costs a lot of money, we’ll produce cars that use less of it.”

In response to an article in US News on the 5.45-mpg CAFE standard, a reader commented: “ALL CAFE regulations should be repealed. Let the market and fuel prices decide what vehicles are purchased. The federal government should not be forcing mileage standards down the throats of the automaker or the consumers. This is still America, right?”

 Develop Renewable Energy Sources
There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea renewable energy. However, the cost factor is one of the biggest problems. When I do radio interviews, people often call in and point out Germany’s renewable energy success story: “The share of renewable electricity in Germany rose from 6% to nearly 25% in only ten years.” While that may be true, it doesn’t address the results: “Rising energy costs are becoming a problem for more and more citizens in Germany. Just from 2008 to 2011 the share of energy-poor households in the Federal Republic jumped from 13.8 to 17 percent.”

Germany has been faced with a potential exodus of industry as a result of its high energy costs. For example, in February, BASF, the world’s biggest chemical maker by sales, announced that for the first time, it “will make the most of its capital investments outside Europe.” According to the Financial Times, Kurt Bock, BASF chief executive explained: “In Europe we have the most expensive energy and we are not prepared to exploit the energy resources we have, such as shale gas.”

Throughout America people are beginning to feel the escalating costs of the forced renewable energy utility companies are required to add as a result of Renewable Portfolio Standards that more than half of the states passed nearly a decade ago.

But the cost is not where I take issue with the DCCC’s inclusion of “Developing renewable energy sources” in its survey. The survey question is about achieving “energy independence.”
In preparation for writing this column, I posted this question on my Facebook page: If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? The first answer posted was: “Smart grid and fast ramp natural gas turbines.” Another offered: “High efficiency appliances and lights. I am a LED FAN!” Yet, another: “Solar, tidal, water.” Bzzzzzzt, all wrong answers.

All of the above suggestions are about electricity. The U.S. is already electricity independent. We have enough coal and uranium under our soil to provide for our electrical needs for the next several centuries. Add to that America’s newfound abundance of natural gas and we are set indefinitely. By the time we might run out of fuel for electricity, new technologies will have been developed based on something totally different, and, I believe, something that no one is even thinking about today.

Developing more “solar, tidal, water” or wind energy won’t “help America achieve energy independence.” Nor will a smart grid or natural gas turbines. High efficiency appliances or LED light bulbs won’t either.

 Encouraging consumer and industrial conservation
Consumers are already feeling the pinch of higher energy costs—both electricity and liquid fuels. When possible, people are restricting driving by taking a stay-cation rather than a traditional vacation. Many people who can afford the option are switching to more energy-efficient light bulbs.

As the BASF story above makes clear, most industry is energy intensive. In the story about the Ford F-150’s use of aluminum, the WSJ says that the new manufacturing process requires “powerful and electricity-hungry vacuums.” Industry cannot stay in business without profit. Therefore, in interest of preservation, energy conservation is virtually an instinct.
The cost of energy drives conservation.

Including this question in the survey is a red herring that would lead the respondent to think conservation is a big issue.

 Investing in energy efficient technology
When the word “investing” is used in reference to a government document or program, it always means spending taxpayer dollars. In a time of ongoing economic stress, we don’t need to borrow more money to spend it on something of questionable impact on energy independence.

Remember, much of the “efficiency” numbers bandied about refer to electricity, which has nothing to do with energy independence. Energy.gov states: “Every year, much of the energy the U.S. consumes is wasted through transmission, heat loss and inefficient technology…Energy efficiency is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways to … improve the competitiveness of our businesses and reduce energy costs for consumers. The Department of Energy is working with universities, businesses and the National Labs to develop new, energy-efficient technologies while boosting the efficiency of current technologies on the market.” Among the “solutions” presented on the page are “developing a more efficient air conditioner” and “a new smart sensor developed by NREL researchers that could help commercial buildings save on lighting and ventilation costs.” Nothing is offered that will actually impact energy independence.

 Increasing offshore drilling and oil exploration in wilderness areas
Respondents are discouraged from selecting the one item on the list that could actually lead to “energy independence” by the inclusion of the words “offshore” and “wilderness areas”—as if those are the only places drilling could take place.

Yes, we should increase exploration and drilling—and, while there are risks, it can be, and has been, done safely in offshore and wilderness areas. But there are vast resources available on federal lands that are either locked up or are under a de facto ban due to the slow-walking of drilling permits.

Instead of phrasing the choice “Increasing offshore drilling and oil exploration in wilderness areas,” if the goal is energy independence, the option should have read: “Release America’s vast energy resources by expediting permitting on federal lands.”

~~~

While the options on the DCCC survey, even if a respondent checked them all, will do little to “help America achieve energy independence,” the survey didn’t include any choices that could really make a difference in America’s reliance on oil from hostile sources.

Some selections that would indicate a true desire to see America freed from OPEC’s grip should include:
 Approving the Keystone pipeline;
 Revising the Endangered Species Act so that it isn’t used to block American Energy Development;
 Encouraging the use of Compressed Natural Gas as a transportation fuel in passenger vehicles and commercial trucks;
 Expediting permitting for exploration and drilling on federal lands;
 Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and
 Cutting red tape and duplicative regulations to encourage development.

The fact that not one of these options that would truly make a difference was included belies the ideology of the Democrat Party. Its goals do not include energy independence. Instead it wants to continue the crony corruption that has become the hallmark of the Obama Administration as evidenced by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz’s April 2 announcement that: “the department would probably throw open the door for new applications for renewable energy project loan guarantees during the second quarter of this year.”

Like the Ukraine, until there is a change at the top, the U.S. will likely remain dependent on the whims of countries who want to use energy as a weapon of control. The goal should be energy freedom.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Warmists: We’re Gonna Sit Right Down And Write Ourselves Some Emails

Image

This is a repost of an article we posted back in November 2011.  It was the second post we made about deceptive practices and fraud indicated by emails taken from Climategate 1.0 (2009) and a batch of 5000 (2011) exchanged between climate scientists connected to the United Nations, other government entities and private businesses.  The posts do not paint pretty pictures for the global warming and climate change “scientists,” as they continue to kick the can down the road of global climate deception. So,we are posting this piece again after yesterday’s post to demonstrate that the UN, their panel of scientists and folks such as Al Gore just do not care for the truth, or won’t admit it, when it comes to their livelihood and their faux wrapped science.

Al Gore discussed global warming at TED 2006. ...

Al Gore discussed global warming at TED 2006. You can see the movie at TED’s official site. here (Photo credit: Wikipedia

Here’s The Repost:

More Global Warming Twists Revealed

More e-mails have surfaced purporting to show that climate scientists “reveal” using false and/or incomplete information.  This must be such a disappointment to all those folks in global “swarming” communities; especially those trying to convince everyone of the validity of fake processes and hidden lies.  The report we’ll focus on today will be one from FORBES in an article by James Taylor,  a contributor to Forbes:

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

The article jumps right into what the newly released e-mails seem to show, and it has to be said that followers of the scientists involved, and supporters of the “absolute truth” of global warming will be struck frigid by revelations found in the e-mails:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

In addition to the above, the author of the article quoted in this blog accuses the actors of (that is, those acting as real climate scientists) have little or no compunction toward using deception in their publications; nor do they appear to suffer any guilt in impugning the reputation of their detractors:

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

Not only does Jones appear to be supportive of hiding information and deceiving skeptics; he also has no problem with bringing a United States agency (Department of Energy) into the conspiracy:

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

These people, i.e., Mann, Jones, and some others seem to place themselves above the law and above common decency in their quest to appear adequate among their peers … instead they come out as pompous fleas, contemplating the rape of an elephant, through their overblown imaginations:

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

 

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I

don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

A further email reveals a desire for outright destruction of one skeptic through investigation of the individual by an “investigative journalist:”

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting  that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

We are going to stop here, but you can read the rest of Taylor’s article and any related articles by following links found below.  If you wonder what all of the above has to do with the Sandia Tea Party and other Tea Parties, you only have to think about our desire to hold government spending and waste down and to have a government and affiliated agencies that are transparent and not politicized.  Folks from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (to name two such conjoined agencies) do not fulfill either want.

Read The Rest Of Taylor’s  Article

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Warmists & Alarmists … Refuted Again?

Image

Fair Use Notice

According to an OPED by Joseph Bast in Forbes online, a group of climate scientists has refuted the latest pile of findings from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC chairman is the same chairman that released the same type of alarmist documents in past “findings.”  Get ready for it and the refutation from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC):

 

English: Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman, Inter...

English: Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A note before the OPED: There is an email component to a IPCC report from 2011, but the details on that will be posted tomorrow (4.3.14).

 This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent. Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31). So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings. Here’s what the reports say:

Related articles

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Repost: Not April Fool’s … But Close

Image

English: I took photo with Canon camera in Lib...

English: I took photo with Canon camera in Liberal, KS. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

In an online article San Diego NBC television reports scientists (my emphasis) at Harvard and University of California at San Diego have reported the discovery of a Liberal gene. Now, I have often pondered the amazement of it all; that is, why anyone would choose  a Liberal conscience.  Now science purports to provide me an explanation to the puzzle and the Liberals an excuse for being.  Eric S. Page in his reports says:

Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults’ political leanings.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, “ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.” That and how many friends you had during high school.

Looking at the last sentence just above, I have to admit that not all the young women in my high school class asked me to escort then to the prom (in fact none did) and I never was placed in the role of a hero, mentor or good-time Charlie by my male counter-parts.  But, I was well-liked and respected most of the time, so I have to take exception to the sentence.  Although I am not a trained scientist, I am a trained country boy  and I have to say this finding is complete and utter (possibly udder) bull butter.  In my mind there is simply no valid excuse for anyone to be cited as a Liberal or Progressive.  I do not believe, and my mind is closed to the possibility that our Creator would be so cruel as to make a Liberal on purpose.  It could be that the scientists aren’t blaming the Creator or even giving Him a role in the Liberals’ manufacture or heaven forbid, even know Him.  Yet, one of the scientists has the following to say:

“It is the crucial interaction of two factors — the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence — that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.
Look, it is hard enough for me to accept anthropological (anthropogenic, as my scientist friend corrects) climate change/global warming and I sure have difficulty accepting this report as anywhere close to valid.  What I do count it as is a monumental waste of your and my money.  I wonder how much was spent on the study?  We know a penny would have been too extravagant.  Here’s the last paragraph of Mr. Page’s story:

“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.

The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

I keep waiting for someone to slap me to wake me from this horrible dream.  So much for that, it’s not going to happen.

Thanks and a flap of the cap to Mr. Page and NBC San Diego.  Read the complete story here.  And follow the Fox News link below for a broader story.

Related Articles

This article was first posted in 2010.  But it was not posted on April 1, 2010.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Watchdog.org Says, “Suspicions Confirmed”

Image

Confirming Suspicions

The following is used with permission from Watchdog.Org

The author of the article is Larry Benson.  Mr. Benson’s e-mail address link can be found just below.  The complete article can be accessed at the end of this excerpt.

By   /   March 21, 2014  /

 Massachusetts is reaping the rewards of taking steps to crack down on fraud, waste and abuse within the commonwealth’s food benefit program. A story in The Boston Globe states that the success rate has increased due to quadrupling the number of investigators assigned to search out fraud and the use of a new streamlined system to report suspicious activities.

According to the article, more than 14,000 cases of potential fraud or abuse of food benefits had been reported to the commonwealth’s Department of Transitional Assistance in the first 10 months of 2013. This is an increase of 87 percent over the same time period in 2012, due in part to a computer system that makes it easier for case managers to report potential fraud.

Read More on Fraud of the Day

Enhanced by Zemanta

Old Friends Reunited

Image

Fair Use Statement

These two old friends show their love for each other as they are reunited after over twenty-two years of having been separated. This was first posted in 2011, but it will still affect you in a most touching way.

We could say something about how this video demonstrates the reason republicans chose this animal as their mascot,  but we wont.: