2008

Last month National Review Online contributor Lawrence Kudlow proclaimed that this was the "energy election." After seeing the Veep debate, however, I must disagree with Kudlow’s assessment. The contest between Arizona Senator John McCain and Illinois Senator Barack Obama cannot possibly be "the energy election" because both candidates have the same crummy energy policies.  

The similarity of the candidates' crappy energy plans was apparent last night during the vice presidential debate between Delaware Senator Joseph Biden and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. For one thing, the term “free market” was employed frequently by each candidate, but always as a pejorative. Accordingly, they both endorsed windfall profits taxes to punish “big oil,” and they both want the government to waste taxpayer money on dubious sources of renewable energy. Last but not least, while they differed on the causes of global warming, Biden and Palin championed energy rationing cap-and-trade schemes that would have the federal government seize the reigns of energy production in America.

So there's no choice. Both the Republicans and Democrats want statist energy policies that would increase energy costs and hurt the American economy.  

Wall Street is in chaos, and the U.S. economy may be entering a prolonged recession that could drag down the rest of the world with it. So why isn’t everyone celebrating?

The Democratic and Republican nominees also spoke at the annual pow-wow of the Clinton Global Initiative this week. Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Az.) presented almost indistinguishable plans to ration energy with a cap-and-trade program and save us from global warming.  They also both vowed to reduce global poverty and revive the U. S. economy. The little difficulty that no one asked them about is that cap-and-trade will create chronic economic stagnation and increase poverty around the world.

Two days ago, I happily blogged that the renewable energy tax subsidies were doomed due to a territorial dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate. This was good news because the federal giveaways are a waste of taxpayer money.

To add insult to injury, the energy tax provisions are being used as a means to pass the bailout, which is an even worse waste of federal dollars. Charity for renewable energy is popular among a bipartisan swath of Congress because the money gets spread around to boondoggle energy projects in Congressional districts across America. So Senate leaders added it on to the bailout to make the bill more attractive to their colleagues.

As Congress mulls egregious tax payer subsidies for wind power, it would behoove us all to learn more about this energy source that could eventually (and intermittently) suppy 20 % of our electricity, if a gaggle of special interests and their Congressional champions get their way.

Where was the press release from National Snow and Ice Data Center ?  In the past they had these breathless ones: “Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Extent for 2008”,  “Arctic sea ice extent at maximum below average, thin” and “Melt onset earlier than normal.”
 
However, yesterday’s statement was drearily entitled “Arctic Ice Begins Autumn Freeze Up.” On their website’s page with their list of “Milestones To Watch For”, they list the minimum sea ice extent date as important and whether it occurs earlier or later in the year, yet they don’t tell even tell us in their new press release when the minimum occurred or whether it was earlier or later this year. Yet from their graph, it was considerably earlier than last year. My sleuthing discovered that it was on September 12th.  And then with some more research I found this gem from an NSDIC press release in October of 2007: “In addition to the record-breaking retreat of sea ice, NSIDC scientists also noted that the date of the lowest sea ice extent, or the absolute minimum, has shifted to later in the year. This year, the five-day running minimum occurred on September 16, 2007; from 1979 to 2000, the minimum usually occurred on September 12.” So this year’s minimum occurred on the average minimum day from 1979 to 2000! You think their reporting is biased? Their new press release should have been titled: “Date of Minimum Sea Ice Extent Completely Normal.”
 
NSDIC does admit, though, that “perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 2008 melt season was the higher-than-average retention of first-year sea ice (see earlier entries, including April 7). Relatively thin first-year ice is more prone to melting out completely than older, thicker ice. However, more of this year’s first-year ice survived the melt season than is typical. Sea ice age maps from Sheldon Drobot, our colleague at the University of Colorado at Boulder , show that much more first-year ice survived in 2008 than in 2007. This is one of the reasons that 2008 did not break last year's record-low minimum. One cause of the high first-year ice survival rate was that this summer was cooler than in 2007.” I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath for articles on how those earlier alarmist reports were wrong.

Albert A. Gore, Junior’s $300 million dollar advertising campaign peddling global warming alarmism and energy rationing must not be convincing too many people. It’s no wonder. Have you seen any of the ads? This week the former Vice President and Senator and Representative called on the nation’s youth to block construction of new coal-fired power plants through civil disobedience. According to a Reuters story, Gore told the rich and the powerful meeting at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City: "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."
 
The problem with Gore’s "leadership" is always the same: it’s do as I say, not as I do. I have a suggestion. Before trying to stop new power plants from being constructed, why don’t young people concerned about greenhouse gas emissions concentrate on the root of the problem—energy consumers. They could start at the top with people who are using the most energy. For example, take Al Gore. He must use at least fifty times as much energy as the average person. Protesters could picket the several large houses he owns and could meet him whenever the private jet he uses for most of his frequent trips takes off or lands.