Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama Puts Reversing Global Warming on Top of his To-Do List

I just watched Obama's very brief briefing...

All I can say is- I'm good. What did I just say about Republicans needing to go back to energy policy? So now here's the opportunity. And what did I just say about Global Warming?

Obama just set out his plan to re-start the economy around his belief that catastrophic man-made global warming is "fact" (no, all scientists agree it's a THEORY not a fact), and the worst thing he could say about it is that it's going to cause a lot of storms. This man thinks he can stop devastating storms from occurring on our planet....messiah moment #2.

Even hard line Republicans like myself are open to the idea of investment in alternative energy technologies, but not without even a MENTION of nuclear energy (something that even Greenpeace activists support because it generates almost ZERO greenhouse gas emissions) nor a mention of drilling for our own resources.

This is what Republicans need to hit back with- if they play their cards right on this they could articulate what the vast majority of Americans has been thinking for years- WE NEED IT ALL ON THE TABLE. We all agree- for various reasons- that we need to me more energy independent (total energy independence is impossible, but Obama's too ideological to note that). Americans have almost been screaming to our public officials to fix this problem because it's something we can't fix on our own, we actually need government action on this and the frustration has been simmering.

This should be a no-brainer. If I were a House GOP member, I'd be out with simple charts, graphs and hold press-conference after press conference (even if the media doesn't cover it, get the bloggers on board- they will, so will talk radio). They need to show the exact amount of new jobs that would be created by announcing a plan to build say 20 new nuclear plants in 20 years and to begin more domestic oil exploration. They need to show the American people that this doesn't require any of their tax dollars, just the government stepping out of the way of private industry. This would draw out the way-left environmentalists who support Obama and most people are not interested in putting their agenda ahead of an economic turnaround right now.

Obama also announced that he was going to tighten the timeline for new CAFE (Fuel Efficiency) standards on American car makers. In 2 months, he will force U.S. automakers to increase their fuel efficiency for all 2011 model cars and trucks. NOW? When Detroit is just waiting to have the last nail put in their coffin- NOW?

He also said he was going to let the EPA re-consider California's request to raise it's own environmental standards (they are $42 Billion in the hole right now and about to go bankrupt and not be able to pay state employees, financial aid or unemployment benefits). Gov Schwarzenegger was lobbying to have some environmental restrictions lifted to get some new road projects going to create jobs, now there's an opening for liberal special interests group to lobby to ensure that doesn't happen. Normally I could care less what California does- but when they're talking about bailing that bastien of liberals out of their own economic crisis- then I do care.

Obama has made a major error here in thinking that we can bail ourselves out of an economic downturn by spending based on a scientific theory (have we ever proposed such drastic public policy based on theory?) He is also looking to tie an anchor onto our country when we are in a such weak position economically. He wants to work with the rest of the world on this project of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yeah, China and India are going to hamper themselves just to please us Americans.

He's overestimated his salesmanship.


Jim said...

He's got two flawed "theories" going. The first is the Keynesian myth that you can "spend your way to prosperity" and the second is the man-made Global Warming hot air.

Massive government spending can be used to take production and consumption from the future and do/use it now, but you have to eventually compensate in the future with some sacrifice/payback. With our monster credit bubble, we've been borrowing from the future for decades and the "payback" time is now.

Mish says it well:

Government cannot really "create" any jobs per se. It can raise taxes and shift private sector jobs creation to government jobs creation (typically a malinvestment), and it can bring production and consumption forward for those jobs that are genuinely needed (filling potholes), but once the potholes are filled, one has to ask the question, "What will we do for an encore?"

Once the useful work is done (potholes filled), they hope to get the unemployed into "green collar" jobs. A lot (not all, but a lot) of this "green" hype is extreme malinvestment. If it's economical to reduce power/fuel consumption, companies will do that on their own without bureaucratic goading. However, since there isn't enough of a realistic incentive to do a lot of this silly stuff, they're going to tax and mandate the behavior they need for this "green recovery." Since the amount of "green progress" they desire will probably never be economically self-sustaining, that means we can expect "carbon taxes," "energy incentives," and other big-government meddling in our lives to continue to expand and never go away. If they're ever able to create some "green industry" they'll never be able to stop subsidizing it no matter how false and unnecessary the original science was.

Much like the goofy hippies finally came around to the fact that nuclear power isn't some evil magic that creates three-eyed frogs and can be done cleanly and safely, the goofy hippies are finally realizing that corn ethanol is a horrible idea (as many non-government paid scientists and scholars had been saying for years). However, have we seen an end to subsidies for corn ethanol? Have we ended the requirements that it be added to our fuel? No, of course not.

Just like the corn lobby is entrenched in government and gets to fob off their junk science on simple-minded or corrupt politicians, so too will the new "green" lobby grow to be a force of unnecessary wealth-redistribution that's extremely profitable to a slim minority of well-connected people and companies while the rest of us get to foot the bill.

Sheila said...

Brilliant Jim

Goose said...

And Pelosi is putting population control on hers to help fix the economy. You can't make this stuff up. Makes her comments on abortion seem tame. What a great Catholic! Put on your Mao suits now!

Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.