Monday, November 19, 2012

Forthcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference:  Has the foolish fad finally faded fatally?

With little over a week to go until COP18 [18th Conference of the Parties] starts, there are increasing signs that the Anthropogenic Global Warming boondoggle is disintegrating at an ever increasing pace.

Attendance is down to a lower level than COP17, so slow has the take up for visas been that, the counter for visa applications was removed from the COP18 website.

Then in one of the strangest statements to ever come out of the UNFCCC, the COP18 President, Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah declared that Shale Gas was good news for the world as it would provide energy security for the next 300 years, which is poles apart from the UN official meme of abandoning the use of fossil fuels.

Now the United States has suggested that the UN is not the best place to ever achieve a climate deal:
US suggestions that the UN climate talks are not the best arena to address climate change just over a week before the next round of negotiations start in Doha have been branded “unhelpful” and “provocative”.

News agency EurActiv reports that Washington is increasingly keen to see some elements of the UN talks shifted to the 19-member Major Economies Forum (MEF).

The MEF’s members, which include Australia, the EU, China and India account for 85% of the world’s emissions. However, talks at this forum would sideline the most vulnerable with Small Island States and the Least Developed Countries omitted. These two groups frequently push for greater ambition at the climate talks.
So much for the warmists expectations and hopes that Barack Obama in his second term would push for a UN Climate deal, what however is more interesting, is the split developing in the Climate Talks between established economies with the fast developing economies like China and India, and the EU with its alignment with the  grasping for western money states like the Maldives and Tuvalu, neither of which are sinking beneath the waves.

The next event is even stranger, the IPCC, the UN’s own junk science outfit have not been invited to speak at COP18:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP18/CMP8) in Doha, chairman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has said. “For the first time in the 18 years of COP, the IPCC will not be attending, because we have not been invited,” he told Gulf Times in Doha.

OK so the organisation that produces the assesment reports warming alarmist bibles that are the backbone of the Great Global Warming Scam, and frequently quoted by all Greens is not going to Doha, the big question is why?

Could it be that even the warming alarmists are embarrassed by the IPCC?

As Greenpeace, WWF amd Foe will be sending huge delegations to COP18 the IPCC going would merely duplicate the presence already there from Green NGOs?

Finally all pretence at science is being abandoned and the real political agenda behind the AGW scam will from now on be publicly embraced?

Just a few years ago the MSM would have been full of climate of fear stories as a UN COP conference loomed, now there is barely a mention even in the UK Guardian about COP18.

Even the under 25s are losing their climate religion:
Young Islington environmentalist heads out to UN climate summit

“When I talk about my climate change campaign with my friends,” she says, “they tend to switch off – and I end up having to change the subject.” ...

People and Planet campaigns have included a “lie-in” outside a central branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland in protest against the bank’s funding of fossil fuel extraction. Dozens of protesters – including Sophia – dressed up as clowns.

However, she admits she was too embarrassed to tell some of her close friends: “It can be quite alienating when you have a passion your friends don’t share.”
That is the fundamental problem with belief systems that are based on a fad, and Anthropogenic Global Warming was just a fad,  the majority of people move on to a new fad,  and that usually leaves a minority of increasingly isolated zealots.


More on the BBC's *secret* list of climate advisers

Secrecy is chronic among Warmists and whenever that secrecy is finally busted we see why:  The facts are destructive to their scam

A list of attendees at a climate-change seminar the BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret has been unearthed on an internet archive. The listed names emerged after the publicly-funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list under freedom of information (FOI) laws.

This surreal story is only tangentially about climate change: the disclosure raises questions about the evidence submitted to the information tribunal by the BBC and Helen Boaden - its director of news who "stepped aside" this week.

The case also highlights once again the BBC's corporate strategy of using an FOI derogation, or legal "opt-out" clause, to withhold a wide range of material from citizens who wish to know whether the BBC is fulfilling its statutory obligations under its Royal charter.

And it raises further questions about the effectiveness of the BBC Trust. The trust, which replaced the Board of Governors, was created with a mission: an "unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency". It has yet to enquire into the corporation's use of FOI derogation to withhold data such as the BBC's US tax contributions, website statistics, and strategic policy-making decisions.

A 'brainstorm' that became historic

The seminar whose attendees the Beeb sought to keep secret was birthed by three organisations. In 2004, the International Broadcasting Trust - a lobby group funded by a number of charities, including many involved in campaigning on climate change - devised the first in a series of seminars on development issues, where the lobbyists could address broadcasters.

One event on 26 January 2006 was a "brainstorm", in the IBT's own words, "focusing on climate change and its impact on development". The BBC sent 28 senior staff, and 28 outsiders were invited. The event was also organised by CMEP, its second parent - a now dormant or defunct outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, and once funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC's head of news in the 1990s, Tony Hall, had invited him "to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialisms (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world".

The third parent of the seminar was the BBC.

Normally such a talking-shop would have no great significance. The 2006 seminar, however, subsequently became very important indeed. The following year a thoughtful BBC Trust report on impartiality cited the discussion there and said it had settled the argument - as far as the BBC was concerned - on climate change.

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]."

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the "brainstorm" a historic significance: the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime.

A blogger, Tony Newbery, was struck by the difference between contemporary evidence that the seminar was educational and composed largely of activists - as confirmed by Harrabin - and the trust's insistence that it was a sober scientific presentation that could justify a historic policy change. (The BBC Trust has done nothing to disown or qualify Bridcut's description of the event.)

Fresh light was shed on Harrabin's CMEP in 2010, in the second batch of Climategate emails. An email from Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change Research at UEA, complained about a BBC Radio 4 item broadcast in February 2002. The piece featured global-warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott and Sir John Houghton, who was a Met Office chief and the editor of the first three IPCC reports on climate change. Houghton came off worst, and an infuriated Hulme wrote:

"Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source."

Newbery filed his FOI request for the seminar's attendees to the BBC in 2007 and was rebuffed, setting him on a long path that culminated in a second round of information tribunal hearings a fortnight ago. The cross-examination of the BBC's Helen Boaden in a court room was reported here.

The BBC is regarded as a public authority by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it can withhold information held "for the purposes of journalism". But how wide should this derogation be?

In an earlier and separate FOI case against the BBC, Supreme Court Judge Neuberger argued the opt-out should be interpreted narrowly - otherwise the BBC could withhold information about "cleaning the board room floor" using the journalism get-out clause - an absurdity.

In the Newbery case, the BBC maintained that archival material on the seminar could not be found, but also it should not be found: as a back-up argument it argued that the seminar was held under the Chatham House Rule - an agreement of etiquette, rather than a law, to prevent quotes being attributed to particular speakers at a meeting - information that Newbery did not seek.

On Friday the tribunal ruled decisively against Newbery, and for the the BBC.

Case closed? Think again

However science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed a list - once hosted on the IBT's website and now stored in the Wayback Machine's cache of the internet.

It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin's description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are scarcely "some of the best scientific experts", whose input could justify a historic abandonment of the BBC's famous impartiality.

Intriguingly, Tony Newbery had been supplied with a later version of this document, he tells us - but with the attendee list stripped out.  Newbery says he has written to the BBC's solicitor to confirm whether the Wayback Machine IBT list is accurate.

The dramatic appearance of the list raises many questions. Did the BBC know the information was publicly available? If so, why were corporation lawyers spending thousands of pounds to keep a public document "secret"? (FOI requests for public information typically state, quite simply, "this information is public".) How much is this legal strategy costing TV licence-fee payers? (An FOI attempt to obtain legal costs in the similar case Sugar vs BBC was rejected by the BBC.)

Questions abound this morning on Twitter about the ability of the BBC Trust to maintain its duty to transparency. The BBC's legal strategy entails the indiscriminate application of its FOI derogation "for the purposes of journalism" - this effectively rewrites the 2000 Act, and redefines the BBC as a private body. The trust is surely aware of this; it has a small mountain of correspondence on the subject. But it has yet to enquire, let alone pronounce on whether this is healthy - or legal.


Popular British singer warns wind farms 'scarring' British countryside

 Bryan Ferry, the British rock star, has hit out at wind farms that are spoiling Britain’s countryside, warning that “enough is enough”.    In an outspoken attack, the 67 year-old, said he was left angry at the “scarring” of “breathtaking” views after he took a flight over Yorkshire.    “I absolutely hate them,” said the father-of-four adult children, whose current wife Amanda is 36 years his junior.

 “I was in a plane a while ago and I was flying over Yorkshire.  “It is possibly one of the most beautiful landscapes in this country and I looked down from the window and all you could see were wind farms scarring this gorgeous, breathtaking countryside. Enough is enough, when is this going to stop?”

 His comments in the Mail on Sunday’s Live magazine came amid a new debate over the role of wind farms in Britain.

 Last week a Conservative minister defied Liberal Democrat Energy secretary Ed Davey to insist no more onshore wind farms would be built beyond those already planned.  Energy Minister John Hayes said it was “job done” in terms of the number of onshore wind farms required to hit European Union renewable energy targets.

 Asked on Channel Four News whether more onshore wind farms were needed, Mr Hayes said: “With respect of what’s built, with what’s consented and with a small proportion of what’s in the planning system, we will have reached our ambition in respect of the renewables’ target – end of story.”    Almost 4,000 turbines are scheduled to be built across Britain in the coming years.

 Prime Minister David Cameron had appeared to back Mr Hayes when he was careful only to couch support for wind farms in terms of wind turbines sited off the coast of Britain and not on the mainland UK.

 Several senior Tories, including Owen Paterson, the new Environment Secretary, believe wind farm “blight” has not been properly considered before allowing development.   Mr Paterson will formally respond to a government review on the community benefit of wind farms shortly and is expected to warn about their impact on rural areas.

 Earlier this year, more than 100 Conservative MPs urged David Cameron to block the further expansion of onshore wind power.

 Also last week George Osborne’s father-in-law, Lord Howell of Guildford, said the Chancellor was the driving force behind an apparent policy shift against onshore wind farms.  The peer, a Government minister until September’s reshuffle, was secretly videoed by green campaigners suggesting that Mr Osborne was behind the about-turn.

 Eco-campaigners have been alarmed by an apparent policy shift, with sceptic Tory ministers like Environment secretary Owen Paterson and energy minister John Hayes appointed to key positions in the Government.

 A spokesman for Mr Osborne said: "The Chancellor supports Government policy which has helped secure record investment into the UK energy infrastructure."

 The Government is finalising a new energy bill which will replace existing subsidies in 2017, and add incentives for nuclear power stations.


Canadian boondoggle

Greenies do a good job of impoverishing the countries they parasitize

Ontario's Electricity Distribution Companies: Truth In Advertising
When ratepayers in Ontario opened their mail from Hydro One, Toronto Hydro or any of the other 75 local distribution companies (LDCs) over the past month they were offered free stuff like a free energy display or a free programmable thermostat. They also were offered 100 Bonus Air Miles. While the latter is worth about $10.00 the two former items are said to be worth $250.00, not including, in the case of the thermostat, installation costs which are also free.  The only condition attached to these free offers is that you must join “peaksaverPLUS” a trademark of the Ontario Power Authority. The peaksaverPLUS program is designed to; help you conserve energy and allow the LDC, for example, to remotely control your thermostat or refrigerator and reduce electricity demand on hot summer days.

So the question becomes, how can these LDCs give away all that “free” stuff? To put the potential costs in perspective; if all of Hydro One's 1.2 million customers joined, the costs would be quite significant. With installation costs of say $100.00 per thermostat the total costs ($250 + $100) to install them in all households would be a staggering $420 million dollars and represent about 65% of Hydro One's annual income for 2011. For Toronto Hydro the cost of those free energy displays would be about $155 million or $59 million more then they earned in 2011.

Further costs to the LDCs would be the loss of revenue as a result of the reduced consumption, through individual ratepayers conservation efforts, or the LDCs ability to remotely turn up air conditioners or turn off refrigerators during summer hot spells using the smart meters.

The Energy Minister (Brad Duguid) issued a March 31, 2010 directive that instructed the LDCs to reduce energy consumption via conservation by 1330 megawatts (MW) over the January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 period. If the target is achieved that would reduce consumption by about 12 million MWh per annum, which, at current delivery prices would reduce revenues of the LDCs by almost $1 billion and reduce revenue to Ontario Power Generation (with production of 60% of Ontario's consumption) by almost $400 million at 5.5 cents per kWh.

The optical effect of the directive from the Energy Minister coupled with the free handouts would appear, on the surface, to be bad news for the LDCs because of all that lost revenue however, shed no tears for them. What appears to be a weird economic theory is simply a government monopoly that will make up revenue losses by hitting up ratepayers for the lost revenues. Reflecting on the latter point the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) have an annual conservation program budget of $360 million funded by ratepayers. That budget is allocated to the electricity rates via the Global Adjustment that finances expensive renewable wind and solar projects and also pays the likes of Hydro One and Toronto Hydro for the “free” stuff.  In 2011 Hydro One received $39 million and Toronto Hydro received $13.7 million. That money takes care of the free stuff that includes; picking up that old fridge or freezer as well as the free thermostats and energy displays units.

The lost revenue from conservation is also clawed back. If the LDC can point to a reduction in consumption by their customers and label it as conservation they can apply for a rate increase to the Ontario Energy Board (OEB). The OEB generally blesses the request meaning the price for delivery of the electricity goes up to compensate for that lost revenue.

The almost $2 billion dollars spent on conservation over the past 5 years has partly gone to attract electricity consumers to the “peaksaver” programs which had about 185,000 members at the end of 2011. As a result the cost of attracting members to “peaksavers” is a big multiple of the cost of those free thermostats.

So, exactly, how does the conservation program make any sense?  The money spent on conservation could have gone to building the two gas plants that have so far, cost Ontario's taxpayers and ratepayers over $1 billion. Through the conservation initiatives, ratepayers have in effect paid for almost double the eventual cost of obtaining about 1200 MW of new gas generation without the benefit of actually having any new power or capital expenditures to improve the delivery of electricity by their local LDC. Ratepayers will now pay another $1.5 billion to hopefully save approximately the same amount of megawatts through conservation by 2014 and at that time still have no better delivery service!

As the foregoing demonstrates there are no free thermostats, there are no free old freezer pickups nor are there any savings from reducing our consumption. It is time to come clean and demand “truth in advertising” from our politicians and our publicly owned energy sector companies.  Its time to stop wasting taxpayer and ratepayer dollars on concepts that have no value; such as we have with wind and solar generation that must be backed up with gas plants because of their intermittent nature.

Save the ratepayer money and declare a moratorium on conservation!


USA would not be harmed by global warming

IN HIS victory speech, US President Barack Obama said: "We want our children to live in an America … that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

Someone should have told him that neither the US nor any other country is seriously threatened by global warming.

In a warmer world, less energy would be needed for heating and transportation, resulting in less air, land and water pollution. Snow and ice that seriously hamper movement and increase the costs of land and water shipping are reduced. Roads, bridges and other infrastructure maintenance costs drop as there would be less freeze/thaw and ice damage. Clothing expenses drop in a warmer world and construction costs plummet as less insulation is required in all buildings.

The benefits of warming are especially prominent in agriculture. Longer frost-free periods will extend growing seasons as well as the extent of agriculture in middle-and high-latitude regions. More and greater varieties of food are then possible in areas that are currently agriculturally marginal. A warmer world is a wetter world with less, not more, drought, as evaporation increases, putting more moisture into the atmosphere.

If the world warms significantly due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely scenario, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see less extremes in weather, not more.

Far more people die due to excessive cold than due to excessive warmth. Cold weather is much harder on our bodies.

History demonstrates that warming has been good and cooling bad for civilisation. That is why geologists named past warm periods "optimums" and cold times "dark ages". It was during the warmest period since the end of the last ice age, the Holocene Optimum between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, that the first civilisations flourished in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Other warm periods, climate optimums during Minoan, Roman and Medieval times, and of course, the modern warm period, have all resulted in increased food productivity, lower death rates and greater prosperity.

In contrast, cold periods have been rough on societies. The Dark Ages Cold Period from about 600-900AD was a time of great retreat of agriculture and depression of human activity. There were plagues and starvation in many regions and people had to migrate from farms in central Europe and Scandinavia.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) from about 1350 to 1850 was worse and there was great misery for people around the world. Alpine glaciers overran mountain villages in Europe and cold and wet weather killed millions of farm animals and ruined crops. With famine weakening the population, more than a third of Europeans died of bubonic plague. Later in the LIA, 1-million people died in Ireland and 1-million more left the country due to the potato famine caused by the cold weather.

We are the first generation to believe climatic warming is a bad thing.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 Working Group 2 report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" says "a focus on key vulnerabilities is meant to help policy makers and stakeholders assess the level of risk and design … response strategies".

It is impossible to do this without understanding the benefits of warming and the dangers of cooling. The experience of India, which has prospered while warming over the past 50 years, demonstrates how well humans, even those in hot climates, can adapt to warming. But, cooling is a killer, and, scientists increasingly say, a more probable event as well.

The earth is warmer when the sun is more active as indicated by sunspot count. Our planet is cooler when there are fewer sunspots. The current 11-year sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, is showing less spots than predicted and expectations are for lower numbers still in Cycle 25, expected to start in about 10 years. Not surprisingly, global temperatures have levelled and show signs of declining. By the mid to late 2020s, conditions comparable to the LIA are a distinct possibility.

We must forget about vainly trying to control the global climate and instead get ready for the destructive power of a cooling planet.


The Coming Environmental Battles

Paul Driessen

The United States is now Balkanized into five distinct voting blocs, says Joel Kotkin. Other political analysts see the nation bifurcating along “makers” and “takers” lines, while still others say 50.6% of the popular vote is hardly a mandate. In any event, when American voters reelected President Obama, they also returned his EPA, Interior, Energy and Justice Departments, and their wide-ranging agenda for “fundamentally transforming” our nation.

This won’t mean just Obamacare, higher taxes on businesses and families, rampant spending, and tens of thousands of pages of new regulations. It will also bring more disputes over energy and environmental policies, the vanguard of Mr. Obama’s determined campaign to eliminate hydrocarbons that power our economy and embrace more “green” energy. The conflict will be fought primarily on six battlegrounds.

Carbon taxes. Hurricane Sandy presented another pretext for regulating and taxing hydrocarbons. No respectable climatologist or meteorologist believes atmospheric carbon dioxide conjured up the destructive storm, but climate alarmism has always been about political science, not real science.

Rep. Jim McDermott’s Managed Carbon Price Act imputes a cost for CO2 emissions and compels energy producers and users to buy carbon permits. The President is considering a direct carbon tax that he says will raise billions of dollars annually and reduce deficits. Both ought to be DOA in the House, if only because taxing energy use will impose tens of billions of dollars in new expenses on businesses that are already struggling to pay for the Unaffordable Care Act and countless other new government programs.

Another round of probably pointless UN-sponsored discussions on climate treaties, emission reductions and carbon taxes will kick off later this month in Doha, Qatar. The real threat is Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting CO2 from power plants and other sources by executive fiat, and regardless of popular or congressional opposition.

With China, India and other developing countries massively increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, EPA’s actions would do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, by 2013, China will emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the United States. The EPA regs would, however, put government in charge of our entire economy, sharply increase energy prices for every business and household, kill millions of jobs, ensure that net tax revenues never materialize, and hurt poor families most.

War on hydrocarbons. The United States and North America still have abundant hydrocarbons, onshore and offshore, including centuries’ of natural gas for heating, petrochemicals, electricity generation and vehicles. The International Energy Agency says the U.S. could overtake Saudi Arabia, to become the world’s largest oil producer by around 2020 – if radical green politics don’t get in the way.

But with little to hold their pre-election anti-energy instincts in check, the White House, EPA and Interior could well continue opposing oil sands operations and the Keystone pipeline, further delay onshore and offshore drilling, and unleash a blitzkrieg of new rules on hydraulic fracturing and coal-fired power plants. That would further undermine job creation, revenue generation and economic growth, while leaving the nation dependent on despotic regimes and costly renewable energy schemes.

Renewable energy preferences. Anti-hydrocarbon policies remain one arm of a pincer move that also uses mandates, fuel standards and subsidies to advance wind, solar and biofuel power. The looming battle over the “production tax credit” for wind-based electricity will determine whether more billions will be taken from families and profitable sectors of the economy, and given to politically connected Big Wind.

Other battles will be fought over corn for food versus cars; growing opposition to bird-killing industrial wind facilities and habitat-smothering solar projects; the impact of carbon taxes and pricey renewable energy on families, schools, hospitals, factories, businesses and jobs; and corrupt corporate cronyism among politicians and the heavily subsidized campaign contributors who run wind, solar, biofuel and electric car companies.

Unequal treatment under law. Even “renewable portfolio standards” and huge subsidies are not enough to keep industrial wind facilities in business. Without exemptions from endangered species, migratory bird, environmental review and other laws, the companies would drown under fines and regulations.

Even wildly speculative environmental impacts can scuttle oil, gas, coal and uranium proposals – and oil companies are routinely assessed major fines if ducks die in uncovered waste pits. However, wind operators incur no penalties for killing thousands of eagles, hawks, whooping cranes, bats and other rare and vital flying creatures every year. Citizens and legislators are expressing increased intolerance toward this separate regulatory regime and unequal treatment under law, to prop up expensive, unreliable energy.

Agenda science. Science, sound risk assessment and honest cost-benefit analyses have been replaced by conjecture, exaggeration, and agenda-driven politicized science at too many federal agencies. EPA is the worst offender, but the Interior, Energy and even Defense Departments are also culprits.

Risks from climate change, mercury, soot and industrial chemicals are routinely inflated, as are the purported benefits of exorbitantly expensive regulations. Meanwhile, the rules’ impacts on energy prices, business profits and competitiveness, jobs, and thus overall human health and welfare are ignored. With total federal regulatory compliance costs now estimated at $1.75 trillion and 8.8 billion hours annually, this legislative and regulatory battle could determine the fate of countless jobs and small businesses.

Subsidized pressure and propaganda. Billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies continue to flow each year to bureaucratic zealots, environmentalist pressure groups, universities and other organizations – to fund junk science, strained justifications for indefensible rules, more pressure to regulate for increasingly diminishing returns, and outright propaganda.

More watchdog and citizen groups want federal and state legislators to hold investigative hearings, demand accountability, cut bloated agency budgets that enable such expenditures, and question why tax-exempt activist groups should receive taxpayer money funneled through government agencies.

Elections have consequences. The question for those who voted for Mr. Obama is whether they truly desire the unintended consequences that could well flow from this election. For instance, unemployment is 14.3% among blacks, 10% among Hispanics and 11.8% among young adults under 30. And yet these constituencies voted heavily for Obama: blacks 93, Hispanics 71, youths 60 percent.

Do they really desire the consequences that could easily flow from anti-hydrocarbon, anti-economic growth, anti-job creation policy choices that could easily result from this election?

America can continue paying billions in subsidies annually to finance “green” technologies and agenda-driven science. Or we can generate hundreds of billions a year in royalties and taxes, create millions of jobs, and rejuvenate our economy through hydrocarbons, nuclear power and commonsense regulations.

Will President Obama, Congress and Executive Branch agencies now be more receptive to bipartisan approaches – to institutionalizing all-of-the-above (and below) energy decisions that make scientific, economic, environmental and technological sense? Or will key factions be even more entrenched, knowing the White House can act via executive decree, if Congress does nothing?

The answer will determine whether the United States becomes an economic powerhouse once again – or an enormous Greece, blessed with more oil, gas and coal than almost any other nation on earth, but refusing to develop its resources.




Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here and here


No comments: