California global warming law may lead to job losses, report says

May lead to job losses? Look, you don't have to be an economist to understand that channeling money from efficient to inefficient uses is going to have negative consequences:

"The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst's office examined 2008 economic modeling by the California Air Resources Board and concluded that it "may overstate the number of jobs" attributable to future implementation of the 2006 climate law..."

Anyone can make a predictive model say anything they want by changing the underlying assumptions to produce the desired result. But the real purpose of these predictions by the so-called smart people is to convince us to suspend common sense.

"The report came in response to a query from Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), a critic of the law. Released by Cogdill on Monday, the report emphasized that job effects are "difficult to accurately predict . . . with gains in some occupations (including so-called green jobs) and losses in others (primarily involving fossil fuel-related energy production)."

Gee, no kidding. If we were to dictate that all farmers stop using tractors and go back to horse drawn plows, there would certainly be an increase in jobs for blacksmiths and plow makers, along with a decrease in energy usage. But farming will now be less efficient and productive as it will take more time and money to grow the same amount of produce. That has the net effect of killing jobs as capital that would have been used by the farmer to save, invest and spend in the larger economy is now being wasted on an inefficient technology.

The same holds true for alternative energy. Wind and solar are grossly inefficient as compared to fossil fuels, and the free market would never use them without a combination of government force and taxpayer funded subsidies. The only real increase in jobs is for the non productive bureaucrats that will now be needed to administer these stupid schemes.

"Asked about the legislative analyst report, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cited new solar facilities and biofuel plants in the state and said, "I'm absolutely convinced that AB 32 will create more jobs than kill jobs."

I'm sure you are, Arnold. That's why you should have stuck to acting.

Drilling Bans Cost Trillions

Do the Hands Across The Sand knuckleheads know this or even care? Probably neither. Math is hard, but it will be illustrated perfectly when no one can afford to come to Florida's beaches. We're the only country in the world that deliberately leaves energy resources in the ground and off limits. Countries from Canada to Saudi Arabia are more than happy to enable our stupidity by selling us theirs:

"From trying to stimulate jobs in nonexistent ZIP codes at great expense to worshiping the false gods of climate change, our biggest deficit these days may be in the area of common sense. A new study shows that many of our wounds are self-inflicted as we forgo the wealth and jobs to be found in our waters and under our feet.

The study by Science Applications International Corp. at the request of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Gas Technology Institute and others shows the U.S. economy will suffer $2.3 trillion in lost opportunity costs over the next two decades, monies that would go a long way to reining in runaway deficits and creating economic growth.

Critics will say this is another self-serving study paid for by oil industry groups, but unlike the climate change fantasies concocted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Britain's Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the study's data can survive fact-checking and the conclusions are rooted in reality.

Drilling restrictions in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in offshore areas such as the Chukchi Sea and Outer Continental Shelf, the report says, are denying us access to at least nine years' worth of total U.S. oil and gas consumption...

...These are not climate fantasies derived by running faulty assumptions and bad data through inaccurate computer models. This is simple math, common sense and Economics 101. Energy is expensive. We're leaving vast amounts in the ground while importing it from others. In a word: duh."

Obama: Bankrupt 49% Of Our Energy

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted."

When a Presidential talks about bankrupting any U.S. company or industry, it should disqualify him for any high office, much less the Presidency. Unfortunately there may be a majority of Americans who either A) Don't know anything about The One other than he's The One or B) Are ignorant of economics, history and just about everything else and actually think his statist philosophies are a good idea. Or C) Do know all this and will vote for him anyway because they don't believe a collectivist dictatorship could happen here. Yeah, well they thought that in Russia, Germany, Cuba, Zimbabwe and hundreds of other places.

The coal industry has responded:

"Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it...

"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Gee! Ya think?

Moving on, Obama tells us that he actually does understand something about economics:

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.

And then from the above video we have more plans from Lord Obama to dictate how we should live.

Q: How do you convince people to change their lifestyles, to live differently, or to turn the question on its ear, are voters ahead of the politicians on this stuff? Do they get it, and maybe the politicians don’t?
A: Well, I think, uh, I think voters do understand it. I think it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior.

This is the crux of Obama's economic philosophy. Use the tax and regulatory structure to force individuals into behaving the way the anointed believes they should. It will never stop, it never does. Statists like Obama see individualism and free will as a threat to their power and their unrelenting quest to re-order society to their liking.

If you accept the notion that it's government's role to tell you how much energy to use, then why not the food you eat, the place you live or the things you say or believe?

Here's more from Comrade Obama telling us that Electricity will "necessarily have to skyrocket".

Mere Threat of Drilling will bring down Oil Prices

Don M. Chance at IBD has an excellent response to those who ignorantly tell us that attempts to increase supply will have no effect on prices. It's simple enough that even guys like Paul Krugman can understand it:

"Certainly increased drilling will not bring an immediate increase in the
supply of oil. But many people, even so-called experts, believe that the effect
on the pump price would not be felt until the oil is actually at the pump,
possibly years later.

In fact, the price will fall well before the first hole is drilled.
Even the possibility of increased drilling will bring down the price of oil. It
already has.

Almost everyone knows that supply and demand determine price in a
market. But that knowledge seldom goes beyond understanding how supply and
demand themselves are determined.

The belief that the current quantities demanded and supplied are the
sole determinants of price misses an important point. Both current and expected
future demand and supply interact to determine the quantity demanded and
supplied in the current marketplace.

That is true because oil, and indeed almost everything else, is
storable."

A Letter To My Congressman

The following was emailed to my congressman, CW Bill Young, serving Florida's 10th District in Pinellas County, Fl. Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez were CC'd.

Dear Congressman Young: If you are already on the house floor this week, please disregard this mail. If not, then I urge you to go there immediately. I am expecting your support of increased drilling for oil and natural gas throughout the United States, wherever those resources may be found. That includes The Gulf Of Mexico up to 25 miles from our shore, which is well over the horizon. As a resident of your district who lives on the Intracoastal Waterway and a stone's throw from the Gulf, I obviously have a direct interest in this matter. However, I can find no rational basis for opposition to exploration and drilling in our waters and remaining the only country that places its oil and gas resources completely off limits.

The hundreds of rigs already in the Gulf have proved to pose almost no environmental threat, despite being battered by numerous storms. Indeed, far more oil and other pollutants enter the Gulf every day due to mere runoff from everyday activities on shore. Our tourism industry would not be harmed but helped, in that people could actually afford the fuel to get here. Additionally, oil exploration in our waters would not only provide greatly increased economic activity at the Port of Tampa, it would bolster our commercial and recreational fishing stocks as these rigs invariably become huge havens for marine life.

We must couple this with exploration and drilling throughout the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR, additional nuclear power, coal to liquid, shale oil and any other technology that will increase domestic energy supplies.

This is not only an economic issue but one of national security. It is inherently dangerous to depend on oil supplies from governments that at best don't like us very much and in many cases are outright hostile toward the U.S. I'm old enough to remember what happened to this country during the Arab oil embargo of the 1970's. No matter how much we conserve at home, countries like China and India will continue to increase their energy usage at a rapid pace. That's over 30 per cent of the world's population. World demand for oil will go up drastically, no matter what we do or wish would happen. It will also go up here if we still want to grow our economy. Alternative sources such as solar and wind are at least decades away from becoming an efficient substitute for current technologies and as of now are nothing more than a pipe dream and a distraction.

Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat Party have obviously been co-opted by Eco-Marxists whose goals have far more to do with damaging our free market economy than protecting the environment. Democrats are unwilling to do anything that will help the little people they purport to care about and are just insulting our intelligence with silly platitudes and scapegoats.

Pelosi is vulnerable in that her refusal to allow a vote on this issue reveals an admission on her part that she will lose when many Democrats defy her will for their own political survival. As you are well aware, this is winning political issue for your party.

As a congressman whose district is literally on the front lines of this issue, your vocal and unqualified support will prove invaluable in moving this issue forward. I am confident that you have the courage to do what is right for Florida and the Country.

Very Truly Yours,
Cliff Waldron http://www.radclown.com/

American Oil Hypocrites

From The American:

"If you think that the issue of offshore drilling is only a matter of
interest to American environmental groups and the U.S. Congress, think again. At last month’s World Petroleum Congress in Madrid, the blatant
hypocrisy of U.S. energy policy—demanding that OPEC members expand their oil
drilling efforts while restricting offshore drilling here at home—was a
prominent topic of discussion. Indeed, the U.S. ban on drilling in the
Outer Continental Shelf was mentioned by three of the most powerful people in
the global energy business: the head of OPEC; the chief executive of Brazil’s
national oil company, Petrobras; and the Saudi oil minister. All of them said
the United States should start drilling in its offshore areas.

During a press conference in Madrid, Chakib Khelil, the Algerian
oil minister and president of OPEC, was asked what the United States could do to
lower oil prices. He mentioned three things: stabilize the value of the dollar,
increase energy efficiency, and “open up your exploration. In Algeria, we have a
bidding round going on. We are open. The U.S. also needs to open…offshore
Florida, offshore Alaska, need to be opened to exploration.”

The environmental movement's lack of interest in these other countries is rooted in both cowardice and the common ground they find with the the heavy handed governments in OPEC. The Eco-Marxist's focus on the U.S. is has less to do with the environment than it does with crippling the American economy.

H/T to Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

Tax Oil to Pay For Oil

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.
-- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Friday pushed for a windfall profits tax to
fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy
costs...

Can you feel the stupidity? It's a thrill running up my leg!

Wow! Can I really take money from a seller and give it to the buyer in order to pay the seller? "Won't the seller raise the price?" says the buyer? "Oh no", says Saint Obama. "For I have repealed the laws of supply and demand and have abrogated the human condition!"

Hypocrites and Idiots

Great video of the scene surrounding one of Al Gore's Snake Oil pitches. There's seems to be a lot of people who talk a great game and not much else. Al obviously believes some are more equal than others.

Dumb Reporter Gets a Lesson on Liberty

President Bush shot down the entire premise of a media moron question from someone who was either not around or drunk during the 70's:


Q Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and will continue long through the campaign and into the next administration -- one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?

(He could also put on a stupid cardigan sweater and berate us for our malaise a la Jimmy Carter. Or maybe impose price controls and a windfall profits tax. That worked out well, right? )

THE PRESIDENT: They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done, is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars, they want to conserve. But the consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works.
Secondly, we have worked with Congress to change CAFE standards, and had a mandatory alternative fuel requirement.
So no question about what you just said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to save, is to conserve. And as you notice my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks.

Q But you don't see the need to ask -- you don't see the value of your calling for a campaign --

(Translation: Mr. President, don't you see that the people are a bunch of ravenous stupid children? Obviously I and the rest of the anointed can be trusted to think for ourselves and do the right thing, but surely you're not -snort- suggesting that the masses should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of what we no know to better for them and the country, are you?)


THE PRESIDENT: I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there's some easy steps people can take. You know, if they're not in their home, they don't keep their air-conditioning running. There's a lot of things people can do.
But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money, or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.
And as much as I regret that the gasoline prices are high -- and they are -- I also understand that people are going to make adjustments to meet their own needs. And I suspect you'll see, in the whole, Americans using less gasoline. I bet that's going to happen. And in the meantime, technologies will be coming on the market that will enable them to drive and save money, compared to the automobiles they're using before. And as you notice, the automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home as consumer demand changes. And the great thing about our system, it is the consumer that drives our system; it's the individual American and their collection that end up driving the economy.