Again... not a Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal issue... this is an American problem. Hannity did an amazing job tonight bringing this issue to light once again.
A small minnow outweighs hard working real Americans?
Envionmentalism has superceded Capitalism?
The Radical Left voting base is more important than the average American citizen?
What an outrage!
For starters, automobile emissions account for a mere 17% of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. These new CAFE standards will have a minimal impact on the environment.
The new standards will cause auto prices to rise $1300 more per vehicle. What is the cost benefit here? It's ridiculous.
In a nutshell, CAFE standards require any given auto maker to have an average Fuel Economy of a fixed number. So, an SUV which may get 15 -20 MPG must be offset by a "green" putt-putt car or hybrid which nobody wants -- one of the reasons why the auto makers are currently struggling.
"Partial Commen Sense"
The original Cafe Standards legislation was enacted to counter an OPEC oil embargo by making an effort to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.
Over 30 years later, we are still dependant upon foreign oil, if not moreso. So in that sense, CAFE has failed.
In addition, one major factor in producing more fuel-efficient cars is the cars become lighter and less safe. Auto fatalities in these types of cars have increased. So what is the benefit of "saving the planet" if people are not around to see it?
Finally, statistics show that the more fuel efficient a car becomes, the more the owner will drive! So any "per mile" savings in emissions will be offset with increased driving!
Obama's proposal has nothing to do with reducing energy Independence or protecting the environment and everything to do with pandering to a very powerful, very wealthy voting block -- the Environmental Wing of the Democratic party. Make no mistake -- while Obama continues to blast Wall Street and attack "greed" as wrong, he is helping out the industry of "climate-change".
Yet again, Democrats are placing politics over principle; garnering votes ahead of actually helping Americans.
History of CAFE Standards:
In 1975, the U.S. Congress assigned responsibility for setting automobile mileage standards to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is housed within the U.S. Department of Transportation.
In 2002, the State of California passed AB 1493, legislation which regulated auto carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel economy.
In 2004, the State of California finalized carbon dioxide regulations for automobiles. Automakers challenged the state action in federal court, saying only the federal government can set mileage standards to ensure a consistent fuel economy program across the country.
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)should review possible dangers from CO2 emissions.
In December 2007, automakers supported Congress passing the Energy Independence and Security Act requiring automakers to increase fuel economy by at least 40% to 35 mpg -- thereby reducing CO2 by at least 30% -- by 2020.
In 2008, the Bush Administration denied California's request for a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act to implement its own CO2 program.
In January 2009, President Obama directed EPA to review the waiver decision.
In March, NHTSA raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars in model year 2011 to 30.2 mpg, and a combined standard for cars and light trucks (minivans, SUVs, pickups) to 27.3 mpg. (The standard is based on what consumers purchase. That is, the standard represents the average mileage achieved by all vehicles sold by a manufacturer.)
In April, EPA issued a proposed finding that CO2 poses a danger to health and welfare, opening the door to federal regulation of CO2 from all sources. The U.S. House of Representatives also began hearings on climate change legislation during April.
Special Adviser for Green Jobs to the White House Council on Environmental Quality Van Jones talks about the Spanish study being used by conservatives to attack green job initiatives.
It's amazing that Jones claims the Wall Street Journal is pro-Green Jobs. Check out this WSJ article: "California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well"
The Spanish study he refers to illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.
Bloomberg reported in March:
Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one createdif Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.
For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.
“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” --Barack Obama, January, 2008
The congressional Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan to tax carbon emissions could cost every American family as much as $3,100 a year and is equivalent to a “declaration of war on the Midwest,” Republican lawmakers told CNSNews.com this week.
Unfortunately, the idea of government “job creation” is a classic example of the broken window fallacy, which was explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat way back in 1850. It is discouraging to think that, nearly 160 years later, politicians still do not understand Bastiat’s basic economic insight.
The idea of government ‘job creation’ is a classic example of the broken window fallacy, which was explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat way back in 1850.He explained the fallacy as follows: Imagine some shopkeepers get their windows broken by a rock-throwing child. At first, people sympathize with the shopkeepers, until someone claims that the broken windows really aren’t that bad. After all, they “create work” for the glassmaker, who might then be able to buy more food, benefiting the grocer, or buy more clothes, benefiting the tailor. If enough windows are broken, the glassmaker might even hire an assistant, creating a job.
Did the child therefore do a public service by breaking the windows? No. We must also consider what the shopkeepers would have done with the money they used to fix their windows had those windows not been broken. Most likely, the shopkeepers would have ploughed that money into their store: perhaps they would have bought more stock from their suppliers, or maybe they would have hired new employees. Before the windows broke, the shopkeepers had intact windows and the money to purchase more goods or hire new workers. After the windows broke, they had to use that money to repair the windows, and thus were unable to expand their business.
Now consider Obama’s “green jobs” plan, which includes regulations, subsidies, and
renewable-power mandates. The “broken windows” in this case would be lost jobs and lost capital in the coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and automobile industries. These industries currently employ more than one million people directly. Conventional power plants would be closed and massive amounts of energy infrastructure would be dismantled. After breaking these windows, the Obama plan would then create new jobs in the renewable energy sector. The costs of replacing those windows would ultimately be passed on to taxpayers and energy consumers.
In short, the Obama plan reflects fallacious thinking of the first order. There may be sound reasons to switch from existing energy sources to renewables, including the need to slash greenhouse gas emissions, the need to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and the need to meet growing energy demand. If Americans wish to pay for a wholesale transformation of the energy industry, that is their choice. But let’s not lie about the costs, and let’s not espouse an economic fallacy that is nearly 160 years old. Obama’s “green jobs” plan would indeed create jobs, but it would do so by killing other jobs. Is that really the type of energy policy Americans want?
Sean Hannity and Ainsley Earhardt report on California's radical, leftist environmentalism gone awry.
California's unemployment rate continues to sky rocket. As many as 80,000 California farming jobs may be lost to protect a 2-inch minnow. Food banks are also packed because the crop yield is down. Ridiculous.
Why is the left trying to save these "cuddly" savages again?
Long before the most recent polar bear attack of a Berlin Zoo patron who had jumped the enclosure wall, there was Binky the polar bear.
The keepers' bravery was praised after they dragged the 32-year-old out of a moat for the animals. They had to shove the animal out of the way after one of four polar bears dived into the water and attacked her, inflicting serious bites to her legs and arms.
Knut, the zoo's baby bear that became an international celebrity in 2007 after it was hand-reared by a keeper, was in the enclosure at the time. Germany went polar bear crazy after the birth of the cute animal.
Police did not say why the woman jumped into the enclosure. She had to climb over a fence, a line of prickly hedges and a wall to get in.
She suffered serious injuries after being bitten on her arms and legs.
"The pollution from cars in Boston or from factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the arctic. And that will disrupt weather patterns everywhere."
Fear-mongering? Nah, he's just making up shit now to pass his "cap and trade" energy plan.
Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America.
Last week, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to control the global economy.
A new study from Spain illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.
A recent Heritage study suggests that Obama's "Cap and trade" energy plan may cost upwards of $7 Trillion.
"Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.
The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.
Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said last week he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.
Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".
Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.
For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he
said in an interview.
Okay, now those radical environmentalists are taking this way too far.
Banning black cars? Gimme a freaking break! Who the hell do these people think they are?
Cap and trade: the UN world power-grab version.
When do we get to kick these A-holes at the UN out of our country? Seriously. Let Europe have them; they serve European socialism much better than our interests.
At least those of us not named Obama, Pelosi or Reid.
"Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.
The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.
Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.
Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".
Fox News reports:
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.
The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.
In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.
Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.
Just how ambitious the U.N.'s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.
How, exactly, does this improve the Obama Recession?
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.
The New York Times celebrates the plan as a victory for "climate change":
Full details of Mr. Obama’s budget for the 2010 fiscal year will be released in April. The outline on Thursday will make clear that he intends to push ahead on promises to contain health care costs and expand insurance coverage, and to move toward an energy cap-and-trade system for controlling emissions of gases blamed for climate change.
Department of Energy report on "cap and trade". Click to view (pdf).
Human Events reported on The Department Of Energy estimates for the severe economic cost of pandering to the far left radical climate change moonbats:
Dr. Winegarden notes that “Cap-and-trade has been such a dramatic failure in Europe, including forcing even “green” factories to fire workers. When asked whether America could learn enough from Europe’s mistakes that we could implement a cap-and-trade system that made sense; Winegarden’s answer was a resounding “no”. “Cap-and-trade is the politically expedient solution – it has great political merit but no economic merit. We’ll be revisiting this because, like Sarbanes-Oxley, it will create more problems than it will solve”, not least of which will be dramatically increased volatility of energy prices.
The potential costs to America from cap-and-trade policies are enormous. The Department of Energy estimates that S. 2191, the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal, will increase the cost of coal for power generation by between 161% and 413%. DOE estimates GDP losses (see chart) over the 21-year period they forecast, at between $444 billion and $1.308 trillion, with particular damage to the manufacturing sector. (This gives some hope that organized labor will, in a rare occurrence, oppose Democratic leaders on this issue.) Winegarden estimates that this bill could increase unemployment by 2.7% or about 4 million jobs. In fact, companies are already preparing to avoid increased level and volatility of American energy prices by setting up factories and partnerships in countries which won’t be subject to cap-and-trade restrictions…proving with real-world behavior of producers that no carbon-limiting regulation can succeed if it is not universal.
Read more:
Beware Of Obama's "Cap and Trade" Energy Plan
Proof That Obama's "Green Jobs" Plan Is A Joke That Will Hurt The Economy, Hurt The Environment
California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well
Surprisingly, Huffington Post supports "Green Jobs"
Why Obama’s ‘Green Jobs’ Plan Won’t Work
We mentioned last December that Obama's Environmental Policy was detrimental to our economy.
I noticed this yesterday while watching the press conference live and my ears perked up a bit when President Obama mentioned "cap and trade" as a possibility.
But at the time, I figured if it was that important, I would have heard more about it. What was I thinking in trusting the MSM to bring me a relevant news story?
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.
In the video you will find Baracks' response starting at about the 2:19 mark.
Jammie Wearing Fool sums it up this way:
The environmental and energy team that Obama has are all big advocates of this sort of approach along with all the environmental progressive weenies. It was tried in Europe and it has failed. Of course if there is one thing this new administration has shown us they are not about to let failed policies of the past stop them from adopting or proposing them again. Whether those policies belonged to FDR, Jimmy Carter, or the Europeans.
Namaste \’nah-mah-stay\:[Sanskrit] Greeting of great respect, celebrating the interdependence of all living things
Communism \kom-yuh-niz-uhm\ a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
(AP Photo) President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden tour the roof of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science with Blake Jones, president of a Colorado solar company, ahead of signing an economic stimulus package loaded with clean-energy incentives.
Did anyone find it curious that the "invite only" guest list at President Obama's signing ceremony for the CRAPulus Generational Theft Act was limited to 250 "green" technology gurus?
Blake Jones, the CEO of Namaste Solar Electric, introduced The President at the signing ceremony.
Based on comments from White House staff, the general reason we were chosen was because of our excellent reputation and company story. Namasté Solar is well-known in Colorado for extensive involvement in the Colorado policy arena, educational outreach, philanthropic activities (via our Solar Grant Program), and high profile solar projects in Colorado.
From WhiteHouse.gov On Green Jobs
Los Angeles, California has a new initiative underway called "Measure B" that would basically award a monopolistic, no-bids contract to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union (IBEW), the union that would be given the task to install the things in the city.
Obviously this is also a corrupt deal to give payback to the IBEW for supporting Mayor Villaraigosa. For sure it won't do any favors to ratepayers and taxpayers in L.A. The cost of the plan is "estimated" at 3.6 billion dollars, though as government waste proceeds you can be sure it’ll cost far more when all is said and done. As for ratepayers, it is estimated that DWP electric rates will go up 12% in the area if the plan is implemented.
Clearly she is neither "uniformed" nor "clearly unqualied".
Governor Sarah Palin's statement from Alaska Report:
Governor Sarah Palin today issued the following statement after members of Congress introduced a bill to permanently prohibit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
"I am dismayed that legislation has again been introduced in Congress to prohibit forever oil and gas development in the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America – the coastal plain of ANWR, in Alaska.
"Let’s not forget: Only six months ago, oil was selling for nearly $150 per barrel, while Americans were paying $4 a gallon and more for gasoline. And today, there is potential for prices to rebound as OPEC asserts its market power, and as Russia is disrupting needed natural gas to Europe , for the second time in three years.
"As I traveled throughout the country campaigning for vice president, I was glad to hear politicians, including President-elect Barack Obama, promise ‘everything was on the table’ to address America 's great challenges. I also found that when Americans were apprised of the facts, most people became supporters of responsible oil and gas drilling in Alaska . So, I want to remind our national leaders of this promise, and to make the case against this legislation that would permanently take off the table any consideration of responsible ANWR drilling."
The governor made the following points:
* Oil from ANWR represents a huge, secure domestic supply that could help satisfy U.S. demand for more than 25 years.
* ANWR sits within a 20 million acre refuge (the size of South Carolina ) but thanks to advanced technology like directional drilling, the aggregated drilling footprint would be less than 2,000 acres (about one-quarter the size of Dulles Airport ). This is like laying a two-by-three-foot welcome mat on a basketball court.
* Energy development is quite compatible with the protection of our wildlife and their habitat. For example, North Slope caribou herds have grown and remained healthy throughout more than three decades of our oil development. Most of the year, our coastal plain is frozen solid and thus characterized by low biological productivity.
* ANWR development would create hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, positively affecting every state by providing a safe energy supply and generating demand for goods and services.
* Development here would reduce U.S. dependence on unstable, dangerous sources of energy such as the Middle East , and would decrease our huge trade deficit, a large percentage of which is directly attributable to oil imports.
* Incremental ANWR production would help reduce energy price volatility. Previous price disruptions demonstrate how even relatively low levels of oil production influence world prices.
* Federal revenues from ANWR – cash bids, leases, and oil taxes – would help reduce the multi-trillion dollar national debt, and we'd circulate U.S. petrodollars in our own country instead of continuing to send hundreds of billions of our dollars overseas, creating jobs and stronger economies in other countries.
The governor went on to say:
"The development of oil and clean-burning natural gas isn't a panacea. However, this development should be authorized in comprehensive legislation that includes alternative fuels, fuel efficiency, and conservation.
"Americans know that gasoline and other refined crude oil products will keep fueling our transportation system for the foreseeable future. Further, the soaring prices of food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and other products illustrate the importance of petroleum to the health and well-being of America.
"Another important reality is that the location and quantity of oil production are drastically changing world geopolitics. Energy-producing countries are rapidly gaining world power. Several of these countries have objectives and value systems that are antithetical to U.S. interests.
"Washington politicians should be horrified as we become increasingly dependent on these insecure, foreign sources while our U.S. petrodollars finance activities that harm America and our economic and military interests around the world.
"If we don't move now to enact a comprehensive energy policy that includes domestic oil and gas production – including ANWR - we will look back someday and regret that we failed to perceive a critical crossroads in the history of America. It's not overly dramatic to say our nation's future depends on the decisions made by the federal government over the next few months.
"Polls show a majority of Americans now support responsible energy development in Alaska. Unfortunately, some disingenuous special interest groups are still fighting the public will in Congress.
"Americans, please contact Congress and ask that all options stay on the table as we formulate our needed energy plan. Remind politicians about their promises to increase domestic oil and gas production."
Click here to contact your Representatives and Senators.
See the full text of the bill, H.R. 39 `Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act' here.
Even the polar bears have had enough.
Santa Clara, CA - March 10, 2008 - APX, Inc., the leading infrastructure provider for environmental and energy markets, announced today that Carol Browner, former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has joined its Board of Directors. Ms. Browner, who has a distinguished career in public service, brings to APX's Board deep expertise in environmental policy, including climate change issues...
...Said Ms. Browner: "The explosive growth in environmental commodities trading will result in a greater need for market oversight. APX's cutting-edge technology provides integrity and transparency, which are essential to the efficient and effective operations of these markets. APX is a world-class environmental infrastructure company with a long history of public private partnership, and I look forward to helping them capitalize on the full potential of these markets."
(See larger image here.)
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.
Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.
The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.
Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.
Mrs. Browner ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton. Until she was tapped for the Obama administration, she was on the board of directors for the National Audubon Society, the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for American Progress and former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.
Her name has been removed from the Gore organization's Web site list of directors, and the Audubon Society issued a press release about her departure from that organization.
At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July 2, the organization all but announced its plan to mandate an international tax in the name of combating global warming. “Market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development,” according to the group.
“Again, that’s bureaucratese,” writes the DC Examiner, “It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the “resources necessary” to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a ‘regime” against “global warming.” By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration’s environmental policy. The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren’t really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.”
“Conservatives are often accused of scaremongering when they claim left-wing environmentalists are actually socialists hiding behind green disguises. But with Carol Browner, incoming President Barack Obama’s freshly appointed Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change – the so-called White House “Climate Czar” - there is no question about the socialism.”
Oddly enough, as soon as blogs began talking about Browner’s socialist affiliations, the Socialist International website scrubbed from its website the fact that President-elect Obama’s energy/environment czar was an official with SI.
As the Junk Science blog notes, “If there’s nothing wrong with an acknowledged socialist being a top Obama administration official, then what’s up with the mysterious and Stalinist-like disappearance of Browner from SI’s web site?”
From Newsbusters.org:On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate.
What? You see! This is what the Left is all about, folks! Scare us into believing in fallacies and using our fear and anxiety as leverage to use government to run every aspect of our lives.
Liberal environmentalism opened a new chapter this week in Seattle. Unusually inclement weather brought a big snow storm to parts of Washington State. The Liberal Seattle public works team refuses to use salt to clean its roads, relying instead on "snow packed" roads.
What does this mean? People slip and slide all over the place. Instead of properly removing the snow via normal means, Seattle prefers to let its citizens risk injury and damage to themselves and their cars
The Seattle Times reports:
The icy streets are the result of Seattle's refusal to use salt, an effective ice-buster used by the state Department of Transportation and cities accustomed to dealing with heavy winter snows.
"If we were using salt, you'd see patches of bare road because salt is very effective," Wiggins said. "We decided not to utilize salt because it's not a healthy addition to Puget Sound."
