Features

President Barack Obama’s frantic efforts to deflect blame for rising gasoline prices continued this week and became even more incoherent and contradictory.  Following up his speech on energy policy last week at the University of Miami in Florida, on 1st March the President spoke at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire.

President Obama repeated some of the same points that he made in Miami, but dropped any mention of the promising research in using algae to produce biofuels.  He took credit for increasing domestic oil and gas production, but argued that “…anybody who tells you that we can just drill our way out of this problem does not know what they’re talking about or they’re not telling you the truth.  (Applause.) One or the other.”

According to the President, that’s because the United States consumes 20% of the world’s oil production, but has only 2% of the reserves.  “And no matter what we do, it’s not going to get much above 3 percent.”  This is a simple misunderstanding that anyone who knows anything about oil statistics could correct.  The U. S. has only 2% of the world’s proven reserves.  The U. S. also has more areas of high potential reserves that haven’t been explored than any other country.  Until those areas are explored, the oil that they possibly contain is not included in the estimate of proven economically recoverable reserves.

The President went so far in taking credit for recent increases in U. S. oil production that he had a chart handed out to those attending his Nashua speech.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, increasing domestic oil and natural gas production has come entirely from private lands.  Production from federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf areas has declined and is forecast to continue to decline as a result of Obama Administration policies.

[click to continue…]

Conservatives often complain that government shouldn’t be “picking winners and losers” in the market, by for instance, lavishing some politically favored and connected constituencies (solar companies, unions, et al) with subsidies that give them an advantage over competing interests.

True enough.  Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers.  But that never stops the Feds from trying…and now, they have gotten into the business of pickling the winners and losers in the game of life itself.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed new measures to save the endangered Northern Spotted Owl, that bane of loggers and rodents from the Pacific Northwest.  Science Insider fills us in on the FWS’s new pro-owl/anti-owl campaign:

The proposals include designating more critical habitat, encouraging logging to prevent forest fires, and an experiment to shoot a competing owl species.

Wait, come again? What was that last part?  “An experiment to shoot competing owls.”  OK, I did read that right.

Wow.  Science Insider gives the gory details:

The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ran into trouble in the 1980s as its old-growth forest was severely logged in Oregon and Washington. Even though destruction of its habitat slowed dramatically after the owl was placed on the endangered species list in 1990, its numbers have continued to decrease by an average of 3% a year. A major problem is competition from barred owls, which have invaded its territories.

How dare those Barred Owls out-compete rival species by being more productive and intrepid!  That’s the kind of success Obama loves to punish.  (The Administration’s attitude toward the Second Amendment appears to go something like this:  Guns are bad, unless you are 1) a Mexican drug lord or 2) an Elmer Fudd wannabe out for Barred Owl blood.  In either case, you have the Feds’ full support.)

[click to continue…]

The pay roll tax cut package managed to escape the grasp of renewable energy stage-5-clingers as President Obama signed it into law on Wednesday.  Unsurprisingly, wind farm hopefuls still remain committed to making this relationship work.  Proponents of the government-funded windustry are now frantically searching for an extension of the wind production tax credit (PTC) which is set to expire at the end of the year. After twenty years of government dependency, wind energy still cannot compete without the taxpayer crutch; it’s time to throw in the towel.

Government has been playing matchmaker with its insistence that wind energy is a complete catch: it’s clean, comes from an elite family (the Renewables) and will be good for you (i.e. the environment) “in the long-term.”   But from the get-go, there are several reasons why taxpayers wouldn’t want to take this industry to the prom.   Modern wind turbines are very large, expensive, visually unappealing permanent structures that inhibit land use and create a loud drone when in operation.  When the wind is actually blowing, the spinning wind turbines end up accumulating a massive death count of thousands of birds and bats.

Beauty isn’t everything, you say? Well, even if wind farms were a total fox, wind energy is inseparable from its inherent baggage.  For instance, if you’re looking for that long-term special some-energy to see you through the good times and bad, wind energy is risky.  It only can only sustain itself when there is—wait for it—wind!  Consequentially, it must have the constant back-up connection with the grid, depending on generators or batteries (that use fossil fuels) to keep you satisfied.  Wind turbines (produced with the aid of fossil fuels) can be quite the intermittent diva too: when the wind current isn’t strong enough, it is unpractical to operate them; if the wind is blowing too fast, it completely shuts down to avoid damage.  Wind farms can only thrive in specific geographic settings, usually in remote areas that require the expensive construction of transmission lines.  In the end, with its absolute dependence on alternatives, wind farms are not taxpayer-healthy to pursue at all.

[click to continue…]

The president sneers at drilling for domestic oil. After all, it wouldn’t be to market for a few years. It won’t do anything to alleviate the pain you feel now.

Which is what the same crowd said when vetoing opening ANWR in 1995. And in opposing opening ANWR in 2000. And in 2002. And, per him in a speech in Miami the other day, in 2007. And again today.

So, here’s a challenge, Mr. President.

Let’s have a race.

Allow for more drilling. And, since you’re going to do so anyway, you go spend a bunch of our grandkids’ money on putting some algae in our tank.

Might work as well as Solyndra. Or Synfuels. Who knows?

First one there wins.

You’re a confident guy. That sarcastic speech in Miami, dripping with condescension at your fellow countrymen who would like to tap domestic resources indicates, wow, he must really know something. We’re impressed. We want to believe you.

Whaddyasay. Deal?