$10 Gas? Absolutely!!!!!

Last week I posted a video of Senator Salazar of Colorado objecting to a trigger that would release more domestic oil production at $10.00 at the pump. Well today, Amanda Carpenter has video of the MoveOn protest from Monday that says the same thing.

A Washington-based anti-tax advocacy videotaped supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign who support $10 per gallon gas during a protest stand-off Tuesday.

Video here.

Ed Frank, vice president of public affairs for Americans for Prosperity, spoke to Obama supporters during an event organized on Capitol Hill by liberally-leaning MoveOn.org. According to an email MoveOn emailed to supporters the event was designed to “highlight the GOP’s extensive ties to Big Oil.”

There, AFP members handed MoveOn supporters a mock $8 bill and said “this is what Al Gore wants you to pay for gas.”

An older man dressed in an Obama shirt said, “This is too cheap! This is too cheap!” Waving the eight dollar bill he said, “Let’s get it up to ten! Let’s get it up to ten bucks.”

Frank asked the man, “How do you think that will affect the single mom who needs to fill up her minivan?”

The Obama-supporter replied, “A single mom probably doesn’t need a minivan.”

Another man, wearing an Obama pin, told Frank, “I’m hoping we have less supply and more demand, absolutely” because “then people won’t be able to afford it.”

I suppose that I should be happy to see that Obama's supporters actually have a grasp of the "supply and demand" law of economics. I should also, I suppose, be happy that these folks are finally showing their true colors. However, the absolute heartlessness of these folks overwhelms that.

Let this put to rest, FOREVER, the lie that the Democrats and their supporters "care for the little people". They don't care for anyone who stands between them and the power that they crave. They need to have that power in order to FORCE their ideological goals - which in this case is to drive the "little" people out of their cars. Let's not forget that the grand guru of the Global Warming movement flies around the world in a jet that uses more fuel IN ONE TRIP than the average Hummer uses in 2 years! If these people really believe what they say then let THEM be the first ones to sacrifice their lifestyles. As I said before, I have more respect (and will most likely listen to more) for Ed Begley Jr. because he actually walks the talk - unlike Al Gore and the MoveOn folks who drove THEIR SUV's (how else do you think they got all of their big signs and other protest equipment there) to Capital Hill to tell the world that $30.00 gas would be "phenomenal".

Energy Follies

I thought I would start this post off on a lighter note (HT America's Small City Mayor) since it is a very important issue for a lot of people. The high cost of fuel and what it adds to our everyday goods and services has become issue number 1 for most voters. While the average citizen is making daily sacrifices in order to be able to afford to eat, the prelate of "Green" is hoarding enough energy to heat and cool 232 average households a month....and that does not include the fossil fuels that he burns to jet off to exotic locations to preach the gospel of global warming either.

Of course our current legislators are not much better. While they are jetting all over the country telling us that the drilling for domestic oil is not the answer and there really isn't that much domestic oil to be had in the first place, the average Joe is taking a second and third job just so they have the money to pay the mortgage AND the fuel bill. Meanwhile, the people that these politicians work for - the American people - are overwhelmingly in favor of domestic drilling.

Here are a few fuel facts to ponder as we enter this election cycle.

First - technology has made nuclear and coal power cleaner and safer than it has been in the past. Countries like Japan and France have made nuclear power a priority. Earthquake prone Japan is currently getting 30% of it's annual energy requirements from nuclear power and plan to increase it to 40% by 2017. France, meanwhile, gets 75% of it's power requirements from nuclear plants - and has become the worlds largest exporter of electrical power thanks to nuclear reactors. They are world leaders in the treatment of nuclear waste and nuclear safety. Speaking of safety, did you know that since 1950 there have been less than 1 1/2 dozen nuclear accidents IN THE WORLD? And that counts Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. That should be food for thought right there!

Clean coal technology is another option that deserves our support. The World Nuclear Association has all the info you will ever need on clean coal technologies....many of which (like electrostatic precipitators and lo-NOx burners) are in proven technologies TODAY! Several countries (including the US) are working on "zero-emissions" technologies that are close to being science "fact".

Outer Continental Shelf drilling - While there is much discussion over just how much oil was spilled after Hurricane Katrina (offical sources say there was none, but there are others who say that there was oil spilled) the bottom line is that the ecological damage done was much less than the damage done by the Exxon Valdez. There have been and are continuing safety improvements being made so that the ecological damage is lessened with each passing year. This is again an option whose time has come.

Shale oil - there is much debate on how accessible shale oil is. Here in Utah, shale oil is a huge issue because there is so much here. The Deseret News did an in-depth piece on shale oil that is a must read if you want to quickly learn about the subject and the local pros and cons. The bottom line is that the technology to extract shale oil appears to be there and with oil selling for around $140 a barrel, it is an affordable technology.

Lastly is the Bakken Oil Formation and ANWR. The Bakken Formation has (by USGS estimates) 3-4 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in it. While that is less than half of what is available in ANWR, the logistics of getting that oil to market are better than what it would take to get ANWR's oil to market. IF as some say, Bakken holds up to 271 Billion barrels, (which is much, much more oil than ANWR) we are looking at a significant amount of oil that can get us off of imported oil altogether. True energy independence! What a novel thought.

We should not abandon all research in to alternative fuels - just to be clear. We will need alternatives as world wide demand for oil continues to grow. We can be a leader in alternative fuel technologies IF the state and federal governments would get out of deciding which alternative is the "preferred" one. This means (Governor Pawlenty) that we need to stop subsidizing corn ethanol and let the market decide if that is the best alternative fuel source or if sugar ethanol (cane or sugar beets Governor Pawlenty) would be a better bet. We need a national and a state legislature that is LESS in the pockets of environmental lobbying groups (like the Sierra Club) and more in the pockets of the poor beleaguered voters who are struggling to make ends meet today. We need a state and a national legislature that will do the RIGHT THING for the people. Is that too much to ask?

Unintended Consequences

I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a fan of ethanol mandates. Most of my objections come from the fact that it is the GOVERNMENT directing the direction and not the market. Well Logical Lady Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal and IBD last week that looks at the unintended consequences of the government interference in the market.

When Congress passed legislation to greatly expand America's commitment to biofuels, it intended to create energy independence and protect the environment.
But the results have been quite different. America remains equally dependent on foreign sources of energy, and new evidence suggests that ethanol is causing great harm to the environment.
In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable. At a time when the U.S. economy is facing recession, Congress needs to reform its "food-to-fuel" policies and look at alternatives to strengthen energy security.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article today that looks at the "80 by 50" targets (80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050) that Senator's Clinton and Obama and a score of environmental groups are pushing.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means... Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.
Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

What does this mean for the average American household? I'm glad you asked...

Consider the residential sector. At the present time, American households emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 – 20% higher than the entire nation's emissions must be in 2050. If households are to emit no more than their present share of CO2, emissions will have to be reduced to 204 million tons by 2050. But in 2050, there will be another 40 million residential households in the U.S.
Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or
John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average
household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.
You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won't come close....

The author then gets to the real point of the "80 by 50" movement.

The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.
Natural gas – the preferred coal substitute of the moment – won't come close. If we replaced every single existing coal plant with a natural gas plant, CO2 emissions from electric power generation alone would still be more than twice the 2050 target. Most environmentalists remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.
Suppose, however, that a breakthrough in carbon sequestration, a revival of nuclear power, and a significant improvement in the cost and effectiveness of renewables were to enable us to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity production. That would
still leave transportation.
Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn't it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we'd still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.

Emphasis mine. What this means is that our country would have to go back to living back in a pre-Industrial Revolution economy. Are you ready to give up every convenience you have now in order to save Mother Earth? Because that is exactly what this movement will require from you.

The author then gets to the million dollar question...

... However, claims on behalf of alternative energy sources – biofuels, hydrogen, windpower and so forth – either do not match up to the scale of the energy required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.
How on God's green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities.

How indeed. These are questions that Governor Pawlenty, President Bush and the candidates from President all need to consider before they start mandating these drastic, draconian cuts in energy output.

Governor Pawlenty goes to Vegas to make new global warming friends

More from Logical Lady Sue Jeffers

Minnesota has a growing budget deficit combined with an out of control governor and legislators who continue to regulate, mandate, tax and fee its residents. This legislative session promises much more and will continue to be the driving factor for the increased costs for food, gas, energy, health care and education for all Minnesotans.

Last years Renewable Energy Standards bill provided funding and courage to mandate and regulate unsustainable, unproven, unreliable and costly sources of energy. Environmental buzz words make politicians feel good but this type of legislation costs a lot of our tax dollars to pay for these useless good intentions. It should come as no surprise that our legislators, with the help of our governor, are not done yet.

In the State of the State speech Governor Pawlenty proudly proclaimed that Minnesota already ranks near the top in E-85 pumps, wind energy, renewable energy and recycling. We do. Governor Pawlenty said more must be done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, producing cleaner energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our republican governor called on Minnesotans to continue to “Americanize” energy production, grow green collar jobs and keep America from becoming an energy hostage.

If we the people aren’t willing to go green on our own, not to worry, the governor and the legislators will “help” us. One of the governor’s suggestions included another costly mandate; increasing the diesel fuel soybean mandate from 2% to 20% by 2015. In the first week of the session House Representatives Hortman, Tschumper; Faust; Hornstein; Liebling; Murphy E.; Loeffler; Morrow; Brynaert; Knuth; Davnie; Hilstrom; Slocum; Bly; Greiling; Paymar; Kahn; Ruud introduced HF 863 calling for the California vehicle emissions standards to be adopted, and updates provided to comply with the federal Clean Air Act.

Not to be outdone, and regrettably not up for reelection, the Minnesota Senate introduced SF 481 authored by Senators Marty; Carlson; Skogen; Doll; and Rummel calling for the similar mandates. Also introduced was SF 2818 calling for establishing principles of a cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, establishing a climate trust fund, requiring studies and appropriating money from the general fund. Yes, THAT $34.5 Billion general fund which could also be used to pay for oh maybe…. roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

The $650 per year out of pocket costs we can expect from this year's gas tax increase will be nothing compared to the legislation signed into law last session and is being considered this session. And just think of all the new ideas that Governor Pawlenty and Harry Reid can come up with together in Vegas with this group.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty will travel to Las Vegas next week to be a keynote speaker at a renewable energy conference that also will feature U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Pawlenty will address the Power-Gen Renewable Energy & Fuels conference on Tuesday afternoon. More than 3,000 leading players in the renewable energy industry are expected to attend.

Walking the Walk

During the last Legislative Session, the Minnesota Legislature adopted legislation that requires Minnesota to increase our use of alternative energy by 20% by the year 2020. It was hailed by the environmentalists as landmark legislation. One of the alternatives that the Legislature and the Governor are pushing hard is wind energy. Wind power is a favorite among the enviros, except for one itty-bitty, little problem...

There goes the neighborhood
Your Nov. 28 article "An energy model for all to see," about a wind turbine in Maple Grove, certainly tells it all! I am looking out my front window and see this eyesore!
My husband and I specifically chose to live in Maple Grove three years ago as we were very impressed with their "master plan" of residential and commercial. It was very well orchestrated. Note that I say "was." This vulgar wind turbine completely desecrates this once wonderful Arbor Lakes area. Now, don't get me wrong; I am not saying that I do not agree that wind turbines have their place and are certainly an alternative energy source, but the once-beautiful Arbor Lakes area is not the place.
We were recently in the Palm Springs, Calif., area. Take a lesson: Outside of the city, far away from any residential or commercial development, they had a large area of wind turbines. Great!
I can't believe that the Maple Grove City Council would approve this monstrosity. Maybe it was a very late night when it came on the agenda and they all just wanted to go home and so approved it. What will they approve next? A 160-foot giant donut for Krispy Kreme, or a 160-foot super-sized rack of ribs for Famous Dave's?
M. E., MAPLE GROVE

Emphasis mine. In all fairness to M.E. of Maple Grove, she is not the only one that objects to having a wind farm outside their front door.

Rich, oceanfront residents of Cape Cod do not want their view of Nantucket Sound
faintly obstructed by offshore protrusions of a proposed wind farm. So, they have hired high-priced lobbyists to kill Cape Wind, a project providing an environmentally sound source of energy. Their most important ally in this venture is a fellow wealthy Cape Cod landowner, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

This is the problem that I have with the "green" movement. From Al Gore to Barbara Streisand to the Kennedy's of Massacheusettes, they all want alternative energy until they are the ones that have to make the sacrifice and then forget it! It's ok to have a wind farm - unless it blocks their view and then it is an eyesore that must be eliminated. It's ok for the rest of the country to give up their cars, but they must keep their Gulfstream jets because they are "important".

Over at Anti-Strib we are having a discussion on the things that we do to conserve. It started off (as many AS posts do) with a gross over generalization, but... Many of us do don that extra sweater so that we can keep our home heating fuel use lower. Many of us do ride the bus when possible or ride bikes when appropriate - it is plain old common sense! The average Americans ARE doing their part....it's time for the elites to do the same. You want us to sacrifice our lifestyles in order to save Gaia? Fine....LEAD BY EXAMPLE....give up the 100 room mansion and move into an 2 room flat. Better yet - subdivide your mansion into individual "affordable" apartments. Sell the Gulfstream and start flying coach with the rest of the unwashed masses and THEN maybe the rest of the country will pay attention to what you have to say.

Gaia Worship Run Amok

The headline says it all...

Nevada man is guilty of killing trees

Then there is the opening paragraph...

Cloaked by darkness, a saw tucked under his jacket, Douglas Hoffman skulked through suburbia, methodically killing trees.

Or as one of the laywer in the article called it "arborcide"! Arborcide????? Good grief people they're trees not human beings! The vergiabe that is being used by the paper, the lawyers and the neighbors make it sound like this guy is a mass murderer and not a disgruntled long time member of a community who was mad that his view had gone away (that is another rant entirely...). Phrases like "foliage slaughter" and "tree-slasher" are designed to elicit an emotional response....a response that one normally should save for humans who have been attacked.

Now I can certainly see taking this guy to task for criminal trespass, destruction of private property, vandalism and any one of a number of other property charges - but to equate (as this reporter has done) the damage to murder is just another symptom of the devaluation of human life that the environmental movement and the animal rights movement have developed. All life is indeed precious BUT human life is most precious of all solely because we are supposed to have the ability to think, to speak and to reason. Sadly, it seems that reason is lost on the world today.

Updated to include the link which I forgot this morning!

Livin' la Vida...

I'm taking a break from painting and prepping the house to sell to post on a couple of things.

This first post is going to be a compilation of environmentalist insanity. First is the story out of Britian about a woman who had her self sterilized because she believes that having children harms the environment.

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

It should surprise no one that Toni works for an environmental charity...

Then there is this interview with environmentalist extraordinare Robert Redford where he calls the patron saint of the new environmental movement (Al Gore) a "johnny come lately".

Redford was an early convert to the environmental movement, and talks proudly of having campaigned on it since 1969. "It was not a happy easy time, because those were the days that the oil and gas companies pretty much controlled the show on propaganda. Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher or what have you."
He is notably cynical, however, about Al Gore's recent award of a Nobel Peace Prize. He's making a lot of money, he's having a belle époque, a heroic moment," he says. "It must have been really hard for Gore to suffer all that [losing the presidential election], so he found another thing to come back with: the environment. He had a lot of money behind him, because in Clinton's administration there was a lot of money. With that he was able to build himself a new campaign and pick an issue. And he picked an issue that just happened to arrive at its moment in time." The less-than-subtle subtext is that Gore is an arriviste, while Redford has been out there, a grizzled loner, bearing the jibes and right-wing clobbering before the environmental cause was fashionable. Asked why he thinks Gore is not going back into politics, he says: "What's most important - to be a hero to your country and go save it . . . or do you want to be happy and rich and be a hero and not get into the political scene?"

I have never had problems with environmentalists like Redford or Ed Begley Jr. They both "walk the walk?". If you have ever seen the lifestyle that Begley Jr. lives, you would have no doubts about his commitment to "the cause".

And lastly, speaking of the "jet setting" Al Gore (because you know he will be there).

Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas.
To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.

I have two words for the attendees and hosts of the UN Conference on Climate Change (and Governor Pawlenty).....tele-conference! The technology is there and it would certainly do wonders for the planet if you were all to (as Messers Redford and Begley Jr. have done) PARK.THE.JET! Or fly commercial.

Let them eat cake

This story should tell you all you need to know about George Soros and his "philosophy". He has his and no one else is allowed to get to theirs!

"Tonight, PBS will air "Gold Futures," a film by Hungary's Tibor Kocsis. The film focuses on residents in Romania's Rosia Montana, a rural Transylvanian town, who are divided over the benefits of a proposed gold mine. It also features Gabriel Resources, the Canadian mining company trying to convince them to relocate so it can dig for a huge gold deposit estimated at 14.6 million ounces, worth almost $10 billion. PBS describes the film as a "David-and-Goliath story."...The other side to the controversy is told in a new film that will never be shown on PBS, but is nonetheless rattling the environmental community. "Mine Your Own Business" is a documentary by Irish filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. They conclude that the biggest threat to the people of Rosia Montana "comes from upper-class Western environmentalism that seeks to keep them poor and unable to clean up the horrific pollution caused by Ceausescu's mining."
Mr. McAleer, a former Financial Times journalist who has followed the mine battle for seven years, says he "found that everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false." He produced his film on a shoestring $230,000 budget largely provided by Gabriel Resources, but says he was given complete editorial control."

What, you ask, does all of this have to do with Mr. Soros? His Open Society Institute is a large funder of some of the groups opposing the Rosia Montana mine.

"In April, Mr. Soros, the chairman of the Open Society Institute and a large funder of groups opposing Rosia Montana, wrote to Wayne Murdy, then CEO of Newmont Mining, the Denver company that owns 19% of Gabriel Resources. He urged him not to invest in "a dubious project such as Rosia Montana," citing "the social costs involved in involuntarily resettling hundreds of people" and "the potential for disastrous environmental impact." Mr. Soros did not respond to an interview request. "

Mr. Soros did not respond to the interview request....big surprise...

Here you have a villiage that is impoverished and already polluted by heavy metals due to Communist era mining projects. The group that wants to mine the gold is offering MORE than fair market value for the homes in the area, they will clean up the existing pollution AND they are going to be employing a large number of the remaining residents. People in the Rosia Montana area need jobs...they need FOOD and George Soros is activly working to keep them hungry and poor.

There is a way to balance protecting the environment and the people. Technology has gotten us there. However, if George Soros has his way, the only ones who will have access to that technology are people that already have it. Those that don't will never see it....

Unintended Consequences part deux

Here is another example of what happens when you try to make policy off of feelings rather than fact.



"The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says.
In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara."



Curbing emissions is not the flaw....the flaw is allowing "carbon credits"...



"At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM)." (emphasis mine)



Carbon offsets is nothing but a scheme....a scheme designed to line the pockets of people like Al Gore who are invested in carbon offset trading companies. It really does nothing for the environment.



"CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.
As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions."



All of this is being done in the name of curbing something that may or may not be factual. Rather than do more harm to the environment, we really need to find out first if global warming is man made and the what (if anything) can be done to curb it.

Red Tides

Red tide and the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone (aka the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone) are conditions caused by toxic algal growth in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Tulane University website (linked to above) these conditions are caused when "greater quantities of dissolved nutrients" are carried from the Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya Rivers into the Gulf of Mexico. What are these "dissolved nutrients"?

"The Mississippi River Basin covers forty-one percent of the continental United States, contains forty-seven percent of the nation’s rural population, and fifty-two percent of U.S. farms. The waste from this entire area drains into the Gulf of Mexico through the Mississippi River. Included in this agricultural waste are phosphorus and nitrogen, the primary nutrient responsible for algal blooms in the Dead Zone. Nitrogen and phosphorus were first used in fertilizers in the United States in the 1930s. Concentrations of nitrate and phosphate in the lower Mississippi have increased proportionately to levels of use of fertilizers by agriculture since the 1960s, when fertilizer use increased by over two million metric tons per year. Overall, nitrogen input to the Gulf from the Mississippi River Basin has increased between two and seven times over the past century."

The majority of the 41% of the Continental US that dumps into the Mississippi River basin is corn country. States like Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and Nebraska - to name a few. For a while, these algal blooms only took place every 2-5 years. Now however, it is a yearly event. What has changed to cause this? Some say ethanol production...

"What has caused this sudden ecological catastrophe? The culprit is believed to be the sharp increase in ethanol production in the Midwest -- 19% more corn in 2007 than in 2006."

Now I don't know if I am ready to go this far. This problem HAS been building for 30 years. However, there is no doubt that if ethnol production goes up, the use of phosphates and nitrates in fertilizers will go up. If that goes up, the run-off will end up in the Mississippi River and eventually it will end up in the Gulf of Mexico causing the Dead Zone to grow and last longer. That is not what I would call "conserving" the environment.

Another reason

Here is another reason to stop the illegal border crossings.

"After three years of cleanups, the federal government has achieved no better than a 1 percent solution for the problem of trash left in Southern Arizona by illegal border-crossers.
Cleanup crews from various agencies, volunteer groups and the Tohono O'odham Nation hauled about 250,000 pounds of trash from thousands of acres of federal, state and private land across Southern Arizona in 2002 to 2005, says the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
But that's only a fraction of the nearly 25 million pounds of trash thought to be out there.
Authorities estimate the 3.2 million-plus entrants caught by the Border Patrol dropped that much garbage in the Southern Arizona desert from July 1999 through June 2005. The figure assumes that each illegal entrant discards 8 pounds of trash, the weight of some abandoned backpacks found in the desert."

This also does not count for all the damages to vegetation from foot traffic and off road vehicles or the oil and fuel leaks from those poorly maintained off road vehicles.

"Here are examples of what the immigration invasion has wrought in publicly owned resources like the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the Coronado National Forest and the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area. Jesse Juen, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) Field Representative in Tuscon told the Senate Subcommittee that, over the past two years wildfires caused by immigrants smoking cigarettes or building fires to warm themselves at night have destroyed about 20% of the riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River in Cochise County. Plastic water bottles, food wrappers, toilet paper and human feces cover large areas where fences have been cut for the passage of human coyotes. Mr. Juen said the off-road vehicles of alien smugglers often go down steep embankments and motor oil and fuel leaks into streams and endangered species habitat. " (emphasis mine)

Yet for all of this damage, nary a peep has been heard from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. If they DO complain....it's about the border patrol agents!

If ever there was a compelling reason for serious border enforcement (including a real fence) protecting our fragile natural resources is one of the best. It's a no brainer for true conservationists and yet we only seem to be hearing silence out of the ones who are ideologically married to the Democratic Party. I wonder why that is...

Not so settled science

For something that is supposedly settled science there sure are a lot of important scientists that are coming out against global warming.

"NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.
In an interview broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming."I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

There is not a whole lot to add there. Other than maybe the comment (again) that global warming is something that needs a whole lot more study before we go making any more drastic changes.

Unintended Consequences

Here is another unintended consequence of our failed energy policies.

"Squeezed again by soaring gasoline prices, Chicago cabdrivers are demanding a $1 temporary surcharge -- and a permanent fare increase as high as 25 percent -- to ease the pain at the pump.
"We're spending $65 to $70 a day on gas. We need help like yesterday. It's killing us," said Steve Wiedersberg, president of the Chicago Professional Taxi Drivers Association. "We would like to do things through the proper channels. But if it doesn't work, we'll come off the reservation. We don't want to hurt the public. But if we need to call a boycott, we will."

If you think that the taxi drivers are hurting, imagine what trucking companies, delivery companies (like UPS), utility companies, pizza drivers, garbage collectors and the postal service are getting hit with. Now realize that those costs are passed on to the end consumer - that's you and me! Which means that we pay for our increase in gas costs and theirs!

If we had built more refineries since the 1970's, if our Senators voted to open up ANWR for drilling, if they had voted to drill off of the Gulf Coast maybe we wouldn't be in this straight. Now imagine, if you will, if these cabbies were in Minnesota with a $0.075 cent a gallon increase in the gas tax AND a higher annual license plate fee!

Now take a few moments to thank Governor Pawlenty for standing up for the Minnesotans and pressure the House and Senate Republicans to stand with the Governor. Minnesota's beleaguered voters will thank you for it!

Do WHAT to save the Earth?

There is so much material in this story (H/T Freedom Dogs and Michelle Malkin)....where to begin....

"Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion."



OK - do the math here. 5.5 billion people on earth now and this "person" wants to bring the total population down to 1 billion? And what are we supposed to do with the other 4.5 billion people? But wait....there's more!



"Watson urged some solutions for mankind as part of a process to “need to re-wild the planet”:

· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.
· “We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.”
· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”
· “Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.”
· At least Watson was generous and said people could still talk with one another across great distances. “Communication systems can link the communities,” he proclaimed from on high.

The Watson rant kept on going calling for everything from cutting down on the population of domesticated dogs and cats to cutting down on everything else in what he called “simplify, simplify, simplify.”

Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”




And just to make sure that we control population, having children could become criminalized!





"HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank. "


I suppose that these guys have not seen the statistics that show the British birth rate is a staggering 1.7 and the EU's is 1.5. That means the average British family has 1.7 children - the average EU family has 1.5 children.


And they wonder why people like Rush call them "enviro-nutters"! Criminalizing child birth or frequent long-haul flights? Did they have this man in mind when they said that? I'm just wondering.....