No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Day by Day cartoon

Archive for the 'Envirowhackos' Category

April 25, 2012

Crush your enemies, EPA edition

by @ 19:01. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

(H/T – Sean Hackbarth at the US Chamber of Commerce)

EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz was made “famous” today when a quote from his appearance at the May 10, 2010 Dish, TX town meeting was brought up by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) on the Senate floor today. The money quote:

I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement. “It’s kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them and then, you know, that town was really easy to manage over the next few years.

Do remember that the Romans didn’t give a damn whether the first 5 guys they ran into were part of that city’s military, political structure, or civilian population. They killed them using the most publicly-brutal method they had.

Sen. Inhofe tied that into the EPA’s war on fracking, specifically fracking on private lands they otherwise could not lock up and ban drilling upon:

Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.

It’s as good an excuse as any to play the full “best in life” scene from “Conan the Barbarian”, in which the environmentally-friendly answer was rejected in favor of the pure power grab and abuse:

July 18, 2011

Living with 56 mpg

by @ 12:33. Filed under Envirowhackos, Transportation.

After I read Jazz Shaw’s series of posts on the Obama administration’s plan to raise the CAFE average to 56 mpg by 2025 (part 1, part 2), I was reminded of a story Car and Driver did back in the day on life at 40 mpg. Let’s take a trip into the future with the vehicles from today that at least come close to 56 mpg.

Before I get to the meat of the matter, however, there’s a couple of explanatory notes that need to be made. First, there is a significant diference between CAFE mileage and the mileage one sees on the sticker of the car. Last year, Popular Mechanics estimated that 35 CAFE mpg, a bit higher than the 34.1 CAFE mpg that is mandated for 2016, translated to between 26 and 27 mpg on the EPA combined sticker. That would suggest that 56 CAFE mpg would translate to about 42-43 mpg on the EPA combined sticker. That’s a good thing because nothing on the lot today gets 56 combined EPA mpg.

Between 2011 and early 2012 models, the Department of Energy says there are exactly three gasoline/diesel models, plus 3 electric-only models that will be ignored as Obama famously said “…electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” and (possibly, depending on the mix of electric- and gas-powered driving) one plug-in hybrid model, that meet the 42 combined EPA mpg standard. Even after knocking down the standard to 40 combined EPA mpg, we have added one more model (plus the 2011 version of a 2012 model that is rated at above 42 combined EPA mpg). Therefore, I’ll “cheat” some more and consider cars that are rated at a minimum of 35 combined EPA mpg (plus the 2011 Volkswagen and Audi diesels that get a 34 combined EPA mph rating based on the fact that the one 2012 VW diesel model in the database, which is larger than any model in the 2011 VW non-SUV TDI lineup, barely cleared the 35 combined EPA mpg mark).

There are three things that you won’t find in this lineup – SUVs, pick-up trucks, and minivans. The highest-mileage SUV is the Ford Escape Hybrid (and its rebadged siblings), which gets 32 combined EPA mpg in front-wheel-drive and 29 combined EPA mpg in all-wheel-drive models. The highest-mileage minivans are the 6-passenger “micro-van” Mazda 5 (24 combined EPA mpg with no cargo capacity if more than 4 passengers are in the vehicle), the 5-passenger cargo-minivan-based Ford Transit Connect Wagon (23 combined EPA mpg) and the “traditional” 7-passenger minivan Honda Odyssey (22 combined EPA mpg with the optional 6-speed automatic transmission). The highest-mileage pickups are the compact 2WD Ford Ranger (24 combined EPA mpg with the manual and 4-cylinder), the lighter-duty-than-its-full-size-suggests Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra 1500 Hybrid (21 combined EPA mpg in both 2WD and 4WD configurations), and the compact/mid-sized 4WD Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon (20 combined EPA mpg in either manual or automatic 4-cylinder versions).

None of the 16 models (plus siblings) that meet the mileage mark appear to be rated for towing, so the biggest water craft that they can transport is a canoe tied to the top (which really kills the aerodynamics and thus mileage). None of them can carry more than 5 people, so large families are out of luck. The highest-capacity version offers but 67 cubic feet of cargo capacity, so if you want to move that couch from one place to another, call up U-Haul.

I don’t have the budget that the car magazines do, so I’m going off their driving impressions. Now, let’s see what’s left to ply the roads in the ObamiNation:

Jr’s first car – Smartfortwo pure coupe (36 combined EPA mpg)

I’ll ignore the fact that this cheap little two-seater requires premium fuel to get its 36 combined EPA mpg. It is, by at least $6,000, the cheapest car of the contenders. Of course, the fact that it is literally half a car might have something to do with that.

Parents will like the fact that there isn’t a back seat and that Jr. can’t get the 70-horsepower car going fast enough to get into serious trouble. The problem is that it is entirely unsuitable for domesticated life with just the two seats and the tiny trunk.

The family sedan – Toyota Prius (50 combined EPA mpg)

Like the gang at the original version of “Top Gear”, I hate this car with a passion. Testers who care about performance have, until the latest version with the handling option, uniformly ripped the sterile driving environment. Other contenders, like the Ford Fusion hybrid and the Hyundai Sonata hybrid, offer more passenger room, especially in the back seat. However, the Fusion and the Sonata give up a lot of trunk space to accomodate the battery pack, while the Prius’ purpose-built hatchback trunk has 21.5 cubic feet of space. That allows for easier re-creations of “National Lampoon’s Vacation”.

The commuter car – Honda Civic hybrid (2012 version, 44 combined EPA mpg)

The first rule of commuting is to have a balance between city and highway mileage. One can’t get more balanced than the 44 EPA mpg city and 44 EPA mpg highway the 2012 model is rated. The second rule is that it be big enough to actually handle a carpool, which rules out the Smart. The third is that it be bland, and recent Civics are, outside the Si, bland. It’s also not the family hauler, so you won’t have to get the “My other car is also a Prius” bumper sticker (assuming, of course, you can afford 2 cars in the ObamiNation).

For just the briefest of moments, I had considered the Chevrolet Volt. However, once the electricity runs out, the EPA estimates that it would get a mere 35 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway. Besides, there’s this little matter of necessarily-skyrocketing electric rates.

The “Mid-Life Crisis” car – Volkswagen Golf TDI (34 combined EPA mpg)

This is an exceedingly-hard category to fill as neither of the two contenders that actually get 35 combined EPA mpg are worthy of being called sports cars. The Smartfortwo cabriolet has the same wimpy drivetrain as the coupe. The CVT-equipped Honda CR-Z couldn’t break 9 seconds in the 0-60 mph test, and only Motor Trend found a way to get the manual version (which gets only 34 combined EPA mpg) to do that. Worse, while the manual version felt somewhat like a car that was comfortable being tossed about, the CVT didn’t exactly like it. Fortunately, the just-shy-of-35 combined EPA mpg (34) Golf TDI picked up the slack. Both Car and Driver and Motor Trend noted the TDI acted a lot like the sporty GTI in the twisties, and nothing that qualifies for the ObamiNation roads gets to 60 mph faster.

For those of you about to complain about whether the VW TDIs belong in this group, I can only offer an ancedotal bit of evidence that suggests the EPA is a bit conservative in their estimation. My father owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and in the 6 months he doesn’t have to use the winter blends of diesel, he’s able to average better than 35 mpg in mostly short-distance suburban driving and bump it up to over 40 mpg on the highway. Of course, once the temperature drops and the service stations have to throw additives into the fuel to keep it from gelling, the mileage drops like a rock.

The light-duty cargo hauler – Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI (manual only, 34 EPA combined mpg)

Again, I had to cheat on the 35 combined EPA mpg by one to get something with hauling capacity, and I had to toss the automatic because its 33 combined EPA mpg is too low. If the upcoming Toyota Prius V wagon’s stats were verifiable instead of being estimates obtained by Edmund’s (44 EPA mpg city/40 EPA mpg highway/34 cubic feet behind the back seat/67 cubic feet behind the front seat), it would have won the category by default.

Instead, we’re left with another of Volkswagen’s oil-burners, at least for those who can handle a clutch. Its 32.8 cubic feet of cargo space behind the back seat easily beats the next-best Prius’ under-22 cubic feet behind the seat and comes close to the 39.6 cubic feet Edmund’s measured behind the Prius’ front seat. Fold the Jetta’s seats down and that expands to 66.9 cubic feet.

The personal luxury car – Lincoln MKZ Hybrid (39 combined EPA mpg)

How did Ford take a rebadged version of its small family hauler, hybridize it, and beat two Lexus hybrids? The trifecta of “mainstream” car magazines unanimously say that it feels more like the standard MKZ than the Lexus hybrids feel like “real” Lexuses. It doesn’t hurt that the base Fusion Hybrid is a very competent car (more on that in a bit).

The limousine/taxi – Volkswagen Passat TDI (35 combined EPA mpg)

It’s all about the rear seat, and nothing in the group comes close to the 39.1 inches of rear-seat legroom in the Passat. Add in a group-leading 57.0 inches of shoulder room and a not-exceeded 37.8 inches of headroom, and a sedan-leading 15.9 cubic feet of trunk space, and the few people who can afford to be driven around might for just a second forget the Crown Vic, the Town Car and the DTS that currently serve these roles.

The cop car – Ford Fusion Hybrid 39 combined EPA mpg)

This one is pretty much by default – only the Fusion (and its corporate siblings) and the Chevrolet Volt are from the Big Three, and the Governmen..er, General Motors entry is rather lacking in both size and performance. That isn’t to say it’s a bad default from the performance side – the Fusion is able to hit 60 mph in about 8.5 seconds, hang onto the skidpad to the tune of around 0.8 g, and, unlike Car and Driver’s choice back in the day of the Honda CRX HF for this role, transport prisoners. Of course, the 11.8-cubic-foot trunk is barely half the 21 cubic feet found in the Ford Police Interceptor (and also smaller than that in the Dodge Charger or Chevrolet Impala), so some of the gear the average officer hauls around “just in case” won’t be there.

July 4, 2011

Yes but No

by @ 19:40. Filed under Global "Warming".

It’s been a lot of fun watching the contortions the folks invested in global warming have been going through the past couple of years.  Begin with the stolen emails that showed severe credibility questions with foundational AGW research, add the recent lack of high count hurricane seasons and double it with increasing studies that tie Earth’s temperature changes to solar activity and you get AGW scientists chasing theories looking like the Keystone Kops chasing a petty thief. Yet, for all the pretzel logic moves employed in an attempt to keep AGW alive, I can’t remember any as wacky as this from Reuters:

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study

According to this study, sulphur from coal burning plants in Asia have offset the increase we nasty humans have created in carbon dioxide. The result is that global temperatures are no longer rising!

Oh, lucky us! Now we don’t have to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions! Wait, not so fast! The article goes on to say that as the nasty coal plants are cleaned up and sulphur is reduced, we’ll go right back to sending our temperatures towards those of Mercury. Damn, we can’t win!

Let me see if I have this correct:

  1. If we pollute the world with carbon dioxide, we’ll all burn up…
  2. If we pollute the world with sulphur, the world is fine…
  3. But we can’t pollute the world with sulphur because it’s bad?  Can it be worse than being burnt to a crisp by our own sun?

I thought pollution was bad but now pollution is good, right?  Well yes, but no!

I’m so confused!

Update 7/5 -If the above irony isn’t enough, glance through this article and you can see why the logic has gotten so contorted.  Some people will tell you anything you want to hear if their…livlihood depends on it.

February 17, 2011

Who’s That Man in the Black Fedora?

by @ 7:44. Filed under Envirowhackos.

Oh, as an added bonus, an envirowacko gets their own hypocrisy exposed and in turn, their head handed to them!

H/T Redstate.com

February 1, 2011

Speaking of Demon Snow…

by @ 18:57. Filed under Global "Warming".

The second greatest job in the world is to be a media weather forecaster. All you do is spend a few minutes a day getting a forecast from the national weather service and spend a few minutes more repeating that forecast. The best thing about being a media weather forecaster is that you never have to be right. After all, if you’re wrong you just say “Weather can be unpredictable.”

The best job in the world has to be a global warming evangelist. With this job, you don’t have to do any analysis. You just take any weather oddity and explain it as caused by global warming. Doubt me?

Here’s a video of global warming evangelists telling us how the lack of snow is sure proof of global warming:

Oh, and that “Governor” that Amy Klobuchar was referring to is my former Governor Tim Pawlenty. Yes, he was a global warmist which is a key reason why I could never see him as a viable Presidential contender.

And…….here is Al Gore telling us that snomageddon is a sure sign of global warming.

It’s hard to wrong if your central theory is based on change.  Then again, it appears pretty hard to be right as well.

H/T:  Instapundit

July 27, 2010

Envirowhackos and Government Motors thank you for paying half the lease on the Volt

by @ 17:31. Filed under Business, Envirowhackos.

(H/T – Will Collier)

CNN reports that Government Motors announced the price structure for the 2011 plug-in “hybrid” Chevrolet Volt, a 4-seat plug-in “hybrid” that is smaller than the Honda Insight. The retail price will start at $41,000, which after the $7,500 federal tax credit on plug-in vehicles, would create an effective price of $33,500. Even at the full retail price of $41,000, the Volt is going to be a money-loser for GM.

That is bad enough a business deal. What is worse is the 3-year lease terms – $2,000 $2,500 down, $350 per month, which CNN helpfully notes puts it in the ballpark of the all-electric Nissan Leaf. The bad part for the taxpayers is that we’re going to be paying just under half the $15,100 that Government Motors will get for the lease.

It gets worse for GM. At the end of the 3 years, GM would need to get $25,900 on the used-car market to get the full retail value of the car back. Meanwhile, used (and larger, and longer-ranged) Honda Insight and Toyota Prius hybrids will likely be going for $15,000-$17,000, and similar-sized conventional cars will be going for less than that. Something tells me that GM won’t get the $10,000 premium they think they’ll get for a plug, which only increases the losses.

Revisions/extensions (10:16 am 8/1/2010) - Corrected the down payment on the Volt lease. The rest of the numbers are unchanged.

July 20, 2010

Killing Two Birds With One Stone

by @ 21:34. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

We all know about President Obama’s concern regarding global warming.  We all know he blames whatever warming he alledges on the use of fossil fuels.  To put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, President Obama has told federal workers to cut down on their travel and commuting by car:

In a statement, Obama noted that the government is the biggest energy user. “The government has a responsibility to use that energy wisely, to reduce consumption, improve efficiency, use renewable energy, like wind and solar, and cut costs,” he said.

By doing this, President Obama has set a goal of reducing greenhouse emissions by 13% a reduction by 2020.

President Obama for once, is practicing what he preaches and I applaud him.  In January, 2009 when President Obama took office, there were approximately 2.772 million federal government employees.  As of June, 2010 the Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are now 3.227 million federal government employees, an increase of over 16%!  I suggest that rather than chide employees to drive less, President Obama simply reduce the federal employee employment level back to 2008. By doing so he would not only reduce the greenhouse gasses, perhaps as much as 16%, but also reduce the budget deficit…another goal that President Obama tells us is important to him, and you know how fervent he is in achieving his goals.

Go ahead President Obama, use my idea, I won’t even charge you for my consulting time!

April 26, 2010

Ummmmmmmmm

by @ 12:37. Filed under Envirowhackos, Global "Warming".

Just one question:

Will Sting be returning the wealth he’s amassed from selling his music on all of those highly ungreen records and CDs?  Oh, maybe he’s planning on donating it to pay for his “bigger government?”

March 9, 2010

Fishing soon to be banned?

by @ 9:04. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

(H/T – Marcus Wilder)

ESPN reports on what is likely coming down the pike for anglers on virtually every body of water in the United States:

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is “fluid” and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn’t issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning….

Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for “marine spatial planning” by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.

Led by NOAA’s Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.

Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.

Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced “Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy.” This document makes repeated references to “overfishing,” but doesn’t once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

As a reminder, fishermen and hunters have done more to protect the environment than the EPA, the environment-enforcement part of the DNR, Greenpeace, the WWF, et al. We have a unique stake in a clean environment. In fact, when I go canoeing, I drink right out of the lake.

Revisions/extensions (6:20 pm 3/9/2010) - Allahpundit tracked down an old campaign promise Obama made to Sport Fishing (emphasis in AP’s post):

My administration would place the emphasis in fishery management where it belongs: in ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of stocks through the use of effective and appropriate conservation measures. Such an approach would not provide a preference for one management tool, such as a marine reserve, over another. Given sufficient management controls and data, a fishery can meet conservation objectives through a variety of catch controls and habitat-protection measures, including gear restrictions, bag limits or closures. In some cases, additional conservation measures may need to be taken to ensure a positive recreational marine-fishing experience for future generations of Americans. Recreational fishermen have not shirked from embracing such measures when needed to achieve long-term stock sustainability, as long as measures are matched to the problem. While marine reserves may be an effective means of achieving important goals, their use and design must be based on an assessment of impacts and balanced by a strong respect for the ability of recreational anglers to practice their sport. In my view, we need to be open to the use of a variety of innovative conservation tools and be prepared to use them if the science justifies their establishment, and if it has been determined that less-restrictive options will not achieve critical goals like rebuilding fish stocks. The decision to establish marine reserves should be made as a result of a transparent, science-based process and be the least intrusive possible to get the job done. Such a process should include outreach to the sport-fishing community to explain both the scientific basis for the action and the expected conservation benefits to future fishing generations if it is to gain the community’s active support.

As AP notes, it is an “official Barack Obama campaign promise”, which means that under the Jim Geraghty Principle, sooner or later, it will reach its expiration date.

It likely won’t happen all at once, but it will happen in bits and pieces, with the ultimate goal of no legal fishing happening if Obama stays in office the full two terms.

February 14, 2010

Snow on the ground. Acting like a fool with all that snow on the ground.

by @ 21:15. Filed under Global "Warming".

(H/Ts for the retreat by the acolytes – Ed Morrissey, and H/T for the sea-level mismeasurement – JammieWearingFool)

There have been three four items of interest over the weekend regarding the implosion of the religion of Gorebal “Warming”:

That first item is significant because it blows up one of the “other” indicators the IPCC is using to justify their warming claims while admitting to the contamination problem in the third item – the amount of snow cover.

Also note that none of the sources are from American media. To be fair, USA Today noted the snowfall that I sourced directly from the NWS (though they excluded Hawaii because the search hadn’t been completed). The other two items both come from British media. Interesting, isn’t it?

Revisions/extensions (9:28 pm 2/14/2010) - And the hits just keep on coming.

February 1, 2010

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth – Number 3,287

by @ 5:57. Filed under Global "Warming".

I told you last week about a new problem that that IPCC had with it’s MMGW “documentation.”  That problem was that they had folks speaking as “experts” when in fact, at least one was a journalist!

WattsUp.com has the latest IPCC gaffe.  It turns out that their claims of ice reductions on mountain tops was based on an article from a climbing magazine!  Yup, again, no scientific measurement.  Again, nothing but anecdotal hearsay by a people who no ability to comprehend that yes, climates do change but that doesn’t mean the change is caused by man.

I’m pretty sure that we are now just days away from finding that the core theory that global warming comes from CO2 emissions, was originally published in a 1930 Buck Rogers episode and in fact, has never been factually examined!

January 26, 2010

Yet Another Inconvenient Truth?

by @ 5:28. Filed under Global "Warming".

First it was the “hockey stick.” Next was the “historical” data.  Following that was the glaciers melting.  Now it appears that all the concern about the horrors of glorebal warmings impact on the Amazon forest was…….wait for it…………….. Also made up!

Watts up has the story.  It’s a story that is beginning to sound vaguely familiar:  Data “gathered” by advocacy groups, the “peer reviewers” had no knowledge of the Amazon, one of the “peer reviewers” was actually a journalist.

Net result of the recent revelation is that no one can find any basis for the IPCC’s claim that “40 percent” of the Amazon is at risk due to global warming.  Is nothing sacred?

A recent Pew poll showed that of 20 potential topics, Americans ranked global warming dead last in importance getting only 30% of those polled to think it had top priority.

In 1996 a Newsweek poll found that 29% of Americans believed that we had made contact by aliens and that the truth was being covered by the government.

If the number of people who are really concerned about global warming are now equal to the number of people who think we’ve been visited by alien, maybe man made global warming has finally reached the point where those who believe in it can show unity by wearing the international symbol of farcical thinking the tinfoil hat!

November 21, 2009

Old Dogs…

by @ 11:05. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

No, I’m not referring to the new movie out starring Robin Williams, Seth Green and John Travolta!

Of the many reasons that I was opposed to John McCain’s nomination last year, one that stood out towards the top, was McCain’s position on Global Warming.  You may remember that McCain was one of the authors of the Lieberman McCain Climate Stewardship Act, more commonly known as the McCain/Leiberman bill.  The bill assumed that carbon dioxide was the cause for global warming.  It further assumed that by limiting or capping the amount of carbon dioxide released, the earth would cease its warming trend.  The method for “capping” the gas was to provide a series of disincentives for creating the gas through a mechanism known as cap and trade.  Fortunately, the bill was unable to pass the Senate in 2003 and subsequent attempts to pass similar legislation have also failed in the Senate.

Earlier this year the House passed its version of Cap and Trade legislation.  Thus far, the Senate has not offered a bill for debate that would marry with the House bill and allow Cap and Trade to move forward. 

While Cap and Trade is generally not supported by Republicans because they know the global warming science is junk and that Cap and Trade is just one more way for government to regulate significant portions of our liberty, there are a few Republicans who have sided with the alarmists.  Lindsey Graham has always looked to support Can and Trade and until recently, so did John McCain.

Huh?  Until recently you say?  Yup!

Politico is reporting that John McCain has done an about face on Cap and Trade:

McCain has emerged as a vocal opponent of the climate bill — a major reversal for the self-proclaimed maverick who once made defying his party on global warming a signature issue of his career.

Further:

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

The Politico article goes on to attempt to figure out why McCain has changed.  Most of the article is focused on McCain’s staff changes, arguing that the new staff doesn’t have the history or passion for the global warming issue.  They get quotes from a professor, lobbyists, former aides and even Graham himself that express their confusion over McCain’s change in position. 

Maybe, just maybe, I was wrong about McCain.  Maybe, John McCain can be the Right’s most notable example of an old dog learning new tricks….maybe.

Most of the piece on the suggestive picture that McCain’s change is the oddity not that other folks who still buy into a theory who’s only truth is that by its perpetuation, Al Gore increases his income, are the oddity. However, in the near middle of the piece, as an almost throw away paragraph, The Politico hits on this:

Arizona politics could be another factor. Republicans hope to use the cap-and-trade bill to attack Democrats on economic issues by saying it will raise electricity costs for businesses and spike electric bills. Those attacks could resonate in Arizona, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

In a poll released by Rasmussen this week, McCain is leading J.D. Hayworth by only 2%, within the margin of error, in an Arizona Republican primary for McCain’s Senate seat.  In an earlier poll, Rasmussen found that 61% of Arizona Republican voters believe that McCain had lost touch with the Republican party.

Learning new tricks?  Probably.  However, I don’t believe for a minute that the “new trick” is a core change in belief of global warming.  

In last year’s Presidential election, McCain saw what happens when the Republican base abandons you.  What was a problem in a Presidential election would be political death to McCain in an Arizona primary.  With the rise of the teaparty movement and the subsequent desire for candidates who are more conservative, McCain has a problem.  In a state where illegal immigration is a significant issue and you supported amnesty, where the independence of the wild west still lives and you supported McCain/Feingold to limit free speech, McCain has a problem.  He can’t undo McCain/Feingold and no legislation is pending to “correct” his position on amnesty.  John McCain has thrown Cap and Trade under the bus in an effort to establish some conservative bona fides and keep the the torches and pitchforks at bay.

Old dog and new tricks?  Nope.  Just the same old dog using the same old political tricks in an attempt to keep his cushy job!

September 29, 2009

Unpatriotic AND Selfish!

It’s been just over a year since Joe Biden called 95% of Americans unpatriotic:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people. It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Apparently, Biden wasn’t the loan wolf that I thought at the time.

In a recent poll, Rasmussen found that 29% of Americans believe that you are selfish if you put the economy ahead of global warming.  Fortunately, there are a whole lot more people, 49% who disagree with this assessment.  Additionally, 65% believe jobs are more important than global warming.  It’s good to know we still have a plurality, if not a majority of sanity yet in this country.

In case you missed it, the $1,761 annually per family that cap and trade will cost us will mostly go back to the government.  While President Obama isn’t able to determine what is or isn’t a tax, I can.  If you pay the government, you can call it what you want but it boils down to a tax.

Don’t like increased taxes?  Want more jobs and a better economy?  Not only are you unpatriotic you’re also selfish!

September 9, 2009

Cap-and-tax would hurt Wisconsin says…Russ Feingold?

WisBusiness.com reports that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) admits at a WisPolitics.com (sister web publication) luncheon that the cap-and-tax (H/T for the term – the muzzled Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI) scheme before the Senate would hurt Wisconsin:

I’m not signing onto any bill that rips off Wisconsin,” Feingold declared, arguing the bill’s mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions could put the coal-dependent Badger State at an economic disadvantage compared to other regions and nations….

At the same time, Feingold said he’s “troubled” by some of his constituents’ refusal to accept the principles of global warming, but agreed with some critics who have said the bill could stifle job growth in the industrial sector and increase energy prices.

“Western Wisconsin is particularly strong in being concerned about this because of their reliance on coal,” Feingold said of the bill, which has already passed the House. “There is a real possibility … that it will be unfair to Wisconsin and Wisconsin ratepayers.”

As the selected excerpt shows, it is not all rainbows and roses. Feingold merely wants to spread the pain of “dealing” with a non-problem around, not remove the pain. There is no such thing as man-caused global “warming”, or even man-caused climate “change”.

August 28, 2009

Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too!

Do your remember all of those great arguments for support of the Waxman-Markey “let’s rush back to the 1500′s bill?”  We were going to save mother earth, we were going to increase jobs, we were going to be less dependent on foreign oil.

Not so much!

A new study done by Ensys Energy finds that rather than import less oil, if Waxman-Markey is passed, we will actually import MORE oil.  In fact, the study shows that by 2030 we would likely need to DOUBLE the amount of imported oil!

How can that be?  Simple.

If we start taxing production and processing of fossil fuels, less investment will be made into production and processing of fossil fuels.  If less investment is made, less outcome will result.  All of this is pretty much in line with the designs of the Waxman-Markey bill.  The problems comes in that there is no magical product available that can replace fossil fuels in the vast majority of it’s uses.  Thus, we dramatically reduce supply but have little reduction in demand.  Unless we actually do chose to go back to the 1500′s, we’ll need to replace the production that is no longer happening in the US.  According to the study, the shift in production looks like this:

U.S. refining throughput, a measure of productivity, could plummet by as much as 25% (4.4 million barrels per day) and investment in U.S. refining could fall by as much as $90 billion, a decline of 88 percent, by 2030, the EnSys study forecast.

Well, I guess that shoots one of the reasons for the Waxman-Markey bill.  Would you like a quick second?

According to the same study, because no magical new power source will be available, the effect of the Waxman-Markey bill will not reduce carbon emissions.  All Waxman-Markey will do is shift the carbon emissions from the US to other countries around the world.  In other words, only the NIMBY people will get anything out of Waxman-Markey.  Yeah, they’ll get something right up to the point that the US economy is hammered because we have a dramatically increasing negative trade balance because we have to import twice as much energy as we used to!  Oh, and we’ll lose a bunch of jobs too!

 

July 22, 2009

Tom Petri thinks you drink and crap too much, and don’t stink enough

(H/T – Van Helsing)

Tom Petri is an original co-sponsor to an abomination of an act called the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009, authored by Earl Blumenauer (D, or is that Moonbat-Oregon). According to the short summary provided by Blumenauer, the various local units of government can’t come up with $534 billion in “needed” drinking water/wastewater infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years without raising taxes incredibly on the locals. So, what’s Blumenauer’s and Petri’s solution? Raise $534 billion in federal taxes over 20 years (or $26.7 billion per year) on those same locals! The dirty details:

  • A 4-cent-a-bottle tax on water-based beverages because, as the summary says, they “rely on drinking water as their major input and result in both increased flows and increased waste in our waters.” Surprisingly, alcoholic beverages, the number one cause of public urination, are not included in this tax. Beverages made from concentrate also escape the tax man.
  • A 3% excise tax on toilet paper, soap, detergent, toothpaste, perfume, sunblock, shaving cream, hairspray, water softener, and cooking oil because they all end up in the water. That’s right, cooking oil is on the list despite every homeowner knowing that simply dumping the oil down the drain only clogs it. Guess Petri hates fish frys.

    Oh, and don’t think you can make your own soap and escape the tax man like “Big Alcohol” and “Big Juice”. They’ll tax you on the estimated retail value of your homemade soap.

  • A 0.5% excise tax on pharmaceutical products because people are too stupid to not throw their pills in the toilet and because Big Pharma is an easy target, but mostly because Big Pharma is an easy target.
  • A 0.15% tax on corporate profits over $4 million because they use water too and because it’s just soooo unfair that the Superfund tax sunsetted, but mostly because the Superfund tax sunsetted.

Is there nobody in east-central Wisconsin that will challenge Petri?

July 21, 2009

The Natives are Even More Restless Than First Thought!

by @ 11:36. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

I gave you a video earlier from a town hall meeting in Delaware hosted by Republican Congressman Mike Castle.  The previous video showed him getting grilled about health care reform.  Here’s another piece from the same meeting.  This time the natives are upset about Cap and Trade. 

Listen as Castle tells the forum that the Cap and Trade bill was really too complicated for anyone to “absorb” and that he relied on what Democrat leadership told him about the bill. 

Listen as people laugh at Castle as he states that “he reads all legislation.”

Listen as Castle states that he received more calls in opposition to the bill than for it yet he still voted for the bill!

Folks, the August recess will be here in just a couple of weeks.  Many of your Congresscritters and Senators will be holding similar townhall meetings during this recess.  Make sure and attend these.  If you’re folks have been voting properly, make sure and give them positive reinforcement.  If they haven’t, take some notes from the folks in Delaware!

Finally, note to the GOP:  If you think folks are safe just because we’re so pissed off with the Democrats, think again.  We don’t care what party you belong to.  If you are stupid enough to support the government take over of America, whether it be Cap and Trade, health care, auto manufacturers or any of a number of other areas, repent now because you are just as useless to us as any Democrat!

July 2, 2009

Attention outstate Wisconsin residents

by @ 9:45. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - Wisconsin.

(H/T – The Lake-Dwelling Paul)

The Lakeland Times reports that the Department of Natural Resources (or as Dad29 aptly calls the agency, “Damn Near Russia”) has submitted the final draft of its rewrite to administrative rule NR115, the “Shoreland Protection Program”, to the Legislature, triggering the 30-day review process before it has the full force of law. For those of you city-slickers who don’t know what this will do to Wisconsin, let’s compare what the DNR is about to do to the current version of NR115:

  • Big item #1 – instead of merely applying to unincorporated areas (i.e. townships) of Wisconsin, it will also apply to those areas annexed by a city or village after May 7, 1982, or incorporated as a city or village after April 30, 1994.
  • Big item #2 – it creates a fresh limitation of a 15% impervious surface limit (including rooftops, i.e. structures, and driveways) without stormwater mitigation and a 30% impervious surface limit with mitigation. That applies to both riparian (shoreline) and nonriparian properties within 1,000 feet of the high-water mark (i.e. shore) of lakes and within 300 feet of the shore of rivers. Routine maintenance of structures, as well as in-kind replacement of walkways, driveways and patios on lots which are in noncompliance, would be allowed.
  • Instead of the boat hoists, piers, and boathouses currently allowed to be constructed within 75 feet of shore, some gazebos/decks/patios/screen houses, fishing rafts only on the Wolf and Wisconsin Rivers, small-diameter antennas, walkways, stairways and rail systems for pedestrian access to the shore, ultility structures that cannot be placed elsewhere can be constructed. While one section of the new rules does allow boathouses without plumbing and entirely above the high-water line, another prohibits all boathouses above the high-water line.
  • Within 35 feet of shore, instead of allowing up to 30 feet out of every 100 feet, regardless of lot lines, to generally be cleared of vegetation, the lesser of 30% of the shore frontage or 200 feet per parcel can generally be cleared. That clearance is now called “access and viewing corridors”.
  • Instead of allowing counties, at their discretion, to prohibit alteration/addition/repair of existing nonconforming buidings within 75 feet of shore if the cost is more than 50% of the assessed value of the structure, it allows alteration/addition/repair of existing nonconforming “principal structures” regardless of cost as long as they are at least 35 feet from shore, no expansion towards the shore happens, and the new impervious-surface limit is not exceeded. If any portion of an expansion is within 75 feet of shore, a mitigation plan would be required. Nonconforming “temporary” structures may be orderd to be removed.
  • It also creates a new requirement for the replacement or relocation of a nonconforming “principle structure”, which includes a mitigation plan to be in place, a requriement that the new/relocated structure be no closer to shore than the structure to be replaced, and the removal of all other nonconforming structures.

It isn’t quite the complete fallow prairie shoreline they wanted, but it’s a big step in the wrong direction. Given the Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, and the DNR has been trying to get this done for a decade, we’re going to be stuck with it for a while.

June 26, 2009

Paul Ryan’s reaction to the Cap-and-Tax passage

by @ 19:13. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

The following just came into the comm-box:

House Passes Punitive Cap-and-Tax Bill

New energy tax “demonstrates just how distant and out of touch

Washington is from Wisconsin,” says Ryan

WASHINGTON – Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan today spoke out on behalf of the families and small businesses that would be on the receiving end of a massive new energy tax. Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212, with bipartisan opposition. Ryan voted against this legislation.

The center of the deeply flawed H.R. 2454 is a cap-and-trade scheme aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy costs on all Americans. The complicated cap-and-trade program would require all energy producers to purchase expensive government permits in exchange for the right to produce energy from certain natural resources or to produce certain goods like steel, aluminum, or cement. Without regard for the detrimental economic consequences, the proponents of the legislation believe this unilateral energy tax would help reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree by the end of the century.

Ryan’s vote against the 1,200 page bill came after only three hours of general debate, with Majority rejecting the single amendment they allowed. In addition to the job losses that would result from the smaller economy, Ryan raised concerns with the impact on the budgets of individual households. Families would face increasing costs on not only energy – but all products that require energy to make them (i.e., everything). Various nonpartisan studies have estimated that average annual household cost increases would range from $425 per household to over $4000 per household. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimate that Wisconsin families will pay an extra $230 million in energy tax once the bill is fully implemented in 2012.

Congressman Ryan fought against this draconian energy tax and supports H.R. 2828, the American Energy Innovation Act, a commonsense alternative to promote a cleaner environment without causing further economic devastation in the middle of a painful recession.

Following today’s action of the House floor, Congressman Ryan issued the following statement:

“Today’s vote reminds me of just how distant and out of touch Washington is from Wisconsin. At a time when jobs are increasingly scarce across Southern Wisconsin, Congress passed legislation explicitly designed to shrink our economy and increase energy costs on all Americans. Wisconsin is one of the nation’s top manufacturing States. Wisconsin entrepreneurs, small businesses, and workers shouldn’t need permission from the federal government to produce, grow, and create jobs, yet that is exactly the paternalistic message sent by Congress today.

“The Majority added a 300 page amendment to the 1100 page bill at 3:09am this morning which effectively regulates the national energy sector (8% of the U.S. economy), and no member of Congress has even read it. This bill is the biggest federal power grab of the American economy this year and that’s quite a statement.”

“Should this bill become law, Wisconsin would suffer a disproportionate economic blow. As the legislation’s authors and chief advocate reside far from the Midwest, the cap-and-trade legislation wasn’t primarily concerned with cold-weather, manufacturing States that get most of their energy from coal. Families in Southern Wisconsin don’t have the luxury of turning off the heat in the winter.

“What’s worse, because we are imposing this energy tax unilaterally, the legislation will actually hinder the environmental goals we’ve set out to achieve. By making manufacturing more expensive here in America, this bill would send our manufacturing jobs overseas to our competitors like India and China. For every ton of emissions we reduce, India and China will produce several tons more. Under this bill, we will send our competitors American jobs while they are negating the minimal environmental gains made here at home.

“There is a better way forward. I was proud to support a substitute energy reform – the American Energy Act – on House floor today, which focused on an all-of-the-above approach to creating a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. Rather than lock-up domestic energy supply, we should expand our use of American-made resources as we encourage the use of renewable and alternative energy sources, including nuclear, wind, solar, and more. Environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals, and I will continue to fight for both of behalf of those I serve in Southern Wisconsin.”

For the want of 4…

by @ 18:43. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

The following 8 “Republican” members of the House just enabled passage of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade-Tax bill:

Remember those names well, as had only 4 of them not wished for the largest and costliest intervention in manufacturing and energy production and usage in the history of this country, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, and the interventionists would have failed as 44 Democrats saw this for what it is. Or, at least they would have forced 8 of those 44 to do what Jeff Plale did late last night in the state budget and sell out their principles.

Revisions/extensions (7:00 pm 6/26/2009) - My friends at The Heritage Foundation here’s what those 8 have done to their districts (in Castle’s case, the entire state). Nothing like dooming one’s district/state to billions of lost wages and tens of thousands of lost jobs.

John Boehner reading the entire cap-and-tax amendment

by @ 17:16. Filed under Global "Warming", Politics - National.

In case you don’t have C-SPAN on, you might want to turn it on right now. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is reading the entire 300-page amendment to the cap-and-tax Waxman-Markey bill that was introduced at 3:09 am this morning. He’s just over halfway through as I type.

Did you know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made it into this amendment?

In other news,…

I’ve been focused on the state budget almost as much as the national presstitutes have been focused on Michael Jackson’s death, but Ed Morrissey has been keeping eyes on the larger picture. First stop – government-run health care. Our friends at ReasonTV have created a commercial on that…

YouTube Preview Image
Next stop – Iran. Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami called for death to protestors. Things are going to get even bloodier.

Last, but definitely not least, is a familiar battleground, Gorebal “Warming”. The tactics employed by the Dems, including a last-second 300-page amendment to a 1200-page bill, are all-too-familiar. Just as a reminder from Ed, “This bill will lose the US 2.5% of its GDP each and every year in the years after the first decade of implementation.” (emphasis in the original)

June 24, 2009

Must-watch Wednesday – Mary Katharine Ham tries to read Waxman-Markey

by @ 17:38. Filed under Energy, Envirowhackos, Politics - National.

It may no longer be called HamNation, and she doesn’t do videos nearly as often as she used to, but Mary Katharine Ham is back with a vengeance on the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade-Tax bill about to be rammed down our throats…

YouTube Preview Image

The 1,201-page version that just got marked up (as H.R. 2998) isn’t even the final version that will be rammed through on Friday, but it will be at least a not-at-all-reasonable facsimile.

Revisions/extensions (7:22 pm 6/24/2009) - I hope MKH doesn’t get laryngitis reading the bill. So far, she made it through the table of contents. Instead of posting videos, I’ll direct you to her YouTube page.

June 1, 2009

300,000 deaths per year from global warming?

That’s what the United Nations would have us believe, in their continuing campaign to convince us that global warming is real and that something must be done about it NOW. (Said something including crippling the most productive economies in the world and giving national and international bureaucrats more power.) Here’s what Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General and head of the Global Humanitarian Forum, had to say:

A report by the Global Humanitarian Forum, led by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, says that the effects of climate change are growing in such a way that it will have a serious impact on 600 million people, almost ten per cent of the world’s population, within 20 years. Almost all of these will be in developing countries.

“Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide,” Mr Annan said.

“As this report shows, the first hit and worst affected are the world’s poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem.”

What gets buried at the end of the article is this:

Mr Annan said the report could never be as rigorous as a scientific study, but said: “We feel it is the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change today.”

Emphasis added. In other words, the report is guesswork – garbage. It is a fraud, the sole purpose of which is to get people to agree to the climate-change alarmists’ agenda either through fear or guilt: “If we don’t do something now, all these deaths will be on our hands!” If global warming is a problem and if it is anthropogenic in origin, both of which leave me gravely skeptical, this “report” contributes no light to the debate, just smoke and heat. It is worse than useless, it is misleading, dishonest, and potentially harmful.

Of course, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the GHF would issue a report that essentially makes up facts to further the agenda of transnationalist bureaucrats. Its head is, let me remind you, Kofi Annan. Yes, that Kofi Annan, under whom the UN was wracked by the Oil-for-Food scandal, scandals involving sexual abuse by peacekeeping troops, and a Human Rights Commission that had become an international farce.

And we’re supposed to trust him now? Not talking

(hat tip: Watt’s Up With That)

(cross-posted at Public Secrets)

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]