Would you believe?
Would you believe that Hillary Clinton qualifies as tough on foreign policy because she came under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia 12 years ago as First Lady? Or that Obama was conceived as a result of Martin Luther King’s march in Selma, Alabama and President John F. Kennedy’s efforts to bring African students to this country? When the media caught Hillary’s lie about her Bosnian visit, she copped out with the excuse, "I misspoke." Obama has yet to respond to his falsehood. The bumbling spy, Maxwell Smart, who often tried his "Would you believe?" line on his boss in the TV comedy GET SMART, was never believed. How does one know when a politician lies? The lips are moving.
So... would you believe we need alternative sources of energy because of global warming? Should you believe a meaningless propaganda phrase that America can’t "lose the global race for energy?" No. There’s no stopping a bad idea - energy independence - whose time has come even if it is based on a lie. Our economy runs on oil and will continue to do so for a long time. Energy independence is "hogwash," says Robert Bryce who has investigated the issue. American oil companies own only 10% of the world’s oil reserves and America has plenty of oil off Florida, on the East and West coasts and especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
The environmental impact and economic cost of global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases like CO2 from fossil fuels (oil and coal ) are deceptions. We Americans live under the smog of toxic environmentalism. Ethanol is more expensive to produce, pollutes the environment just as much or more than existing sources of energy and raises the cost of foods and commodities ( grains). Have you noticed the prices of groceries such as milk, chicken, beef and eggs lately? Britain’s swine production is literally pigging out because global wheat prices have doubled since 2006. American farmers can’t be blamed for following the money by growing corn for ethanol, but would you believe that with present subsidies and future subsidies for corn, this year’s average income for American farmers is $80,000? Robert Bryce calls ethanol, the "largest scam in our nation’s history." It has become "entangled with that other impossible-to-repeal boondoggle, agricultural subsidies." Auto manufacturers and cleanup operations also stand to profit from our phoney "global race for energy." The vice-chairman of GE has called the global warming idea "bunk," yet he will not resist taking its rewards to the bank. A print ad for GE reads that "more and more, the global economy needs energy alternatives." The ad shows GE’s advanced biogas engine using "organic agricultural materials." It might produce lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels, but at what cost to the company, the stockholders and the consumer? Of course GE stands to profit handsomely from the mandatory conversion to the new more expensive light bulbs that are also a greater pollutant that the old ones.
Would you believe the government is capable of efficiently running any program of research, development, implementation or marketing alternative sources of energy? Only if you buy into another delusion. If government wastes 76 cents of every dollar collected from the American public via taxes, how can we allow the feds to manage environmental spending? Scot M. Faulkner points out in his new book on government spending that government waste results from inefficiency, poor administration, questionable procurement policies, and fraud. Presidential candidates want to add health care and product safety to extant, failed programs ( think our public schools) that give back to the public only $.25 of every $1. Since government never makes a mistake and a program once begun rarely dies, we’re in for more abuse with a bad idea like alternative energy.
Would you believe that many environmentalists, who formerly demanded the immediate use of biofuels, now think they contribute substantially to greenhouse gases? What irony! Worldwide CO2 is increasing CO2 because farmers clear forest land to grow biofuel crops. Deforestation causes a large, quick release of carbon into the atmosphere when existing plant life is destroyed.. Alternative energy sources such as jatropha (a shrub), miscanthus ( a grass), corn (you know this American savior) palm oil or pampas grass are - would you believe - inefficient? It is unclear whether there is enough land or water to keep boosting biofuels’ production at its current rate around the globe. The law of unforseen consequences is at work in the global warming religion. We may be Hell-bent on alternative energy sources, but we cannot control the future use of coal in China (90% of its electric source ) or India or their carbon emissions. The Devil will be in the details.
If you believe that consumers ( taxpayers) in general are willing to pay additional monies for the questionable benefits of energy solutions, you approve of a lose/lose situation. GE calls its biogas engine, "part of the blueprint for a better world." What we are building from a faulty blueprint, unfortunately, is a house of cards. Oil, coal and gas are world-wide, plentiful gifts to be utilized responsibly. Windmills, solar panels and ethanol waste the energies of politicians, scientists, pundits and the monies of Americans on false promises and premises. Why fall for a bad idea whose time has come?
Would you believe that Hillary Clinton qualifies as tough on foreign policy because she came under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia 12 years ago as First Lady? Or that Obama was conceived as a result of Martin Luther King’s march in Selma, Alabama and President John F. Kennedy’s efforts to bring African students to this country? When the media caught Hillary’s lie about her Bosnian visit, she copped out with the excuse, "I misspoke." Obama has yet to respond to his falsehood. The bumbling spy, Maxwell Smart, who often tried his "Would you believe?" line on his boss in the TV comedy GET SMART, was never believed. How does one know when a politician lies? The lips are moving.
So... would you believe we need alternative sources of energy because of global warming? Should you believe a meaningless propaganda phrase that America can’t "lose the global race for energy?" No. There’s no stopping a bad idea - energy independence - whose time has come even if it is based on a lie. Our economy runs on oil and will continue to do so for a long time. Energy independence is "hogwash," says Robert Bryce who has investigated the issue. American oil companies own only 10% of the world’s oil reserves and America has plenty of oil off Florida, on the East and West coasts and especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
The environmental impact and economic cost of global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases like CO2 from fossil fuels (oil and coal ) are deceptions. We Americans live under the smog of toxic environmentalism. Ethanol is more expensive to produce, pollutes the environment just as much or more than existing sources of energy and raises the cost of foods and commodities ( grains). Have you noticed the prices of groceries such as milk, chicken, beef and eggs lately? Britain’s swine production is literally pigging out because global wheat prices have doubled since 2006. American farmers can’t be blamed for following the money by growing corn for ethanol, but would you believe that with present subsidies and future subsidies for corn, this year’s average income for American farmers is $80,000? Robert Bryce calls ethanol, the "largest scam in our nation’s history." It has become "entangled with that other impossible-to-repeal boondoggle, agricultural subsidies." Auto manufacturers and cleanup operations also stand to profit from our phoney "global race for energy." The vice-chairman of GE has called the global warming idea "bunk," yet he will not resist taking its rewards to the bank. A print ad for GE reads that "more and more, the global economy needs energy alternatives." The ad shows GE’s advanced biogas engine using "organic agricultural materials." It might produce lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels, but at what cost to the company, the stockholders and the consumer? Of course GE stands to profit handsomely from the mandatory conversion to the new more expensive light bulbs that are also a greater pollutant that the old ones.
Would you believe the government is capable of efficiently running any program of research, development, implementation or marketing alternative sources of energy? Only if you buy into another delusion. If government wastes 76 cents of every dollar collected from the American public via taxes, how can we allow the feds to manage environmental spending? Scot M. Faulkner points out in his new book on government spending that government waste results from inefficiency, poor administration, questionable procurement policies, and fraud. Presidential candidates want to add health care and product safety to extant, failed programs ( think our public schools) that give back to the public only $.25 of every $1. Since government never makes a mistake and a program once begun rarely dies, we’re in for more abuse with a bad idea like alternative energy.
Would you believe that many environmentalists, who formerly demanded the immediate use of biofuels, now think they contribute substantially to greenhouse gases? What irony! Worldwide CO2 is increasing CO2 because farmers clear forest land to grow biofuel crops. Deforestation causes a large, quick release of carbon into the atmosphere when existing plant life is destroyed.. Alternative energy sources such as jatropha (a shrub), miscanthus ( a grass), corn (you know this American savior) palm oil or pampas grass are - would you believe - inefficient? It is unclear whether there is enough land or water to keep boosting biofuels’ production at its current rate around the globe. The law of unforseen consequences is at work in the global warming religion. We may be Hell-bent on alternative energy sources, but we cannot control the future use of coal in China (90% of its electric source ) or India or their carbon emissions. The Devil will be in the details.
If you believe that consumers ( taxpayers) in general are willing to pay additional monies for the questionable benefits of energy solutions, you approve of a lose/lose situation. GE calls its biogas engine, "part of the blueprint for a better world." What we are building from a faulty blueprint, unfortunately, is a house of cards. Oil, coal and gas are world-wide, plentiful gifts to be utilized responsibly. Windmills, solar panels and ethanol waste the energies of politicians, scientists, pundits and the monies of Americans on false promises and premises. Why fall for a bad idea whose time has come?
posted by CAROLYN at 6:51 AM
0 comments
