US gets ready to blow its economy away

[audtatious]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opi...8.xml

Visiting America last week to talk to audiences across the country about "global warming", I was struck by television commercials for the two presidential candidates.

Senators McCain and Obama were each shown in front of film of the same giant wind farm, to lay claim to virtually identical "green" credentials. Since America has already built five times as many wind turbines as Britain, covering thousands of square miles, I checked out how much electricity all those 10,000 turbines actually produce. The answer is around 4.5 gigawatts - not much more than a single large coal-fired power station.

After years when America was vilified for not taking "global warming' seriously, it was a shock to find how "environmentalism" is now threatening to transform what is still the largest and richest economy in the world.

Both candidates favour a version of the proposed "cap and trade" scheme to slash US greenhouse gas emissions to 63 per cent below 2005 levels, at an estimated cost by 2030 of more than $600 billion a year - representing a cumulative loss to the US economy, within 22 years, of $4.8 trillion.

Although America is still dependent on coal for around half its electricity, with reserves estimated as likely to last 200 years, state after state is proposing to ban new coal-fired power stations.

Environmental groups, with powerful political support, are now lobbying equally fiercely against natural gas or any new nuclear power plants.

Most dramatic of all are the implications of a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Massachussets v the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which ruled by a single vote that the EPA must treat any greenhouse gases as "pollution", to be regulated under America's Clean Air Act.

The EPA is thus mandated to impose drastic new limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from pretty well any source, not just industry and transport but schools, hospitals, even lawn mowers.

The implications are so immense for almost every sector of the US economy that government departments -commerce, agriculture, energy and others - have been queuing up to protest, arguing that the effects of such regulation would be so damaging that it should be regarded as unthinkable.

But politicians of both parties, led by the two men vying for the presidency, are so carried away in the rush to appear "green" that it seems there is no longer any national voice powerful enough to question the sanity of such measures.

All the fashionable talk is of how fossil-fuels must be replaced by massively subsidised sources of "renewable" energy, such as vast arrays of solar panels, even though a recent study showed that a kilowatt hour of solar-generated electricity costs between 25 and 30 cents, compared with 6 cents for power generated from coal and 9 cents for that produced by natural gas.

What is terrifying is the extent to which America's leading politicians seem oblivious to the economic realities of what they are proposing. The readiness of Messrs McCain and Obama to posture in front of pictures of virtually useless wind turbines symbolises that attitude perfectly.

Here, in the EU we are only too sadly familiar with politicians floating off into cloudcuckooland over our future energy policy, with the virtual certainty that before many years this may leave us with a colossal shortfall in our electricity supplies

. But "the lights going out all over Europe" is one thing: if they go out in the richest economy in the world - while China cheerfully continues to build one new coal-fired power station a week - we may look back on the US presidential election of 2008 as a time when history really did reach a watershed; the moment when the nations of the West finally signed up to the most bizarre suicide note the world has ever seen.

Those in peril from seizure

Readers have expressed outrage at my recent story of the three small-boat fishermen around the Thames estuary who were punished by a judge as if they were international criminals. They had caught 19 tons of sole for which they did not have EU quota - even though, under the rules, they should have been allocated a share in 346 tons of quota which remained unused.

Judge Neil McKittrick imposed fines and costs on the three men totalling £104,000. In addition, at the instigation of the Marine and Fisheries Agency, he levied confiscation orders on their assets totalling £213,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act, originally designed to recover the illegal profits of drug dealers.

If the men cannot pay within six months, they face two years in prison, even though this is far more than they can raise without selling their homes and their boats - none of them the "proceeds of crime".

There have been two follow-ups to this story. One came from a reader pointing out the startling contrast between Judge McKittrick's severity in this case and his seeming leniency in a string of others - as when a paedophile and a sub-postmaster who had stolen £15,000 were given only suspended sentences, while a thug who had seriously injured a 76-year old pensioner was sent to prison for only six months.

It also emerges that the case I reported was by no means the first in which the MFA has invoked the Proceeds of Crime Act against fishermen guilty of breaking quota rules.

In Liverpool last December, the Crown Court granted confiscation orders against three fishermen and two companies from Kilkeel in Northern Ireland totalling £1,075,056.

This appears to mark a new phase in what many fishermen regard as the "war" being waged against them by the UK authorities in their ruthless enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy in what were once British waters.

First the fishermen are given quotas too small for them to earn a living, even though fish may be abundant and the quota allocated to larger vessels unused.

Then, when they break the law to survive, they are treated worse than thieves, thugs, paedophiles and drug smugglers.

Mean streets of Frisco

It's interesting how fast the world's officials learn from each other's ingenuity in finding new ways to persecute us to make a better world.

Here in Britain we are now familiar with stories of householders faced with fines of £80 for not closing their rubbish bin lids properly, or for putting a stray envelope in a bin for bottles.

But in America I noticed that the Mayor of San Francisco now proposes a similar crackdown on anyone putting garbage in the wrong bin - except that he wants fines up to $1,000 (£500).

As one American explained to me, "San Francisco is a very liberal city". We see what they mean.

[rn79870]

I don't think the sky is falling at all. The US needs to move more towards Nuclear energy, along with improvements in security for the plants and the spend fuel.

What's wrong with using our technology to clean the environment and make life better for all. I'll bet it adds more jobs than it eliminates, and more likely than not, those are jobs that can't be outsourced overseas.

[OriginalWheelman]

I'll bet it adds more jobs than it eliminates, and more likely than not, those are jobs that can't be outsourced overseas.

So what are betting vs our economy?

[rn79870]

So what are betting vs our economy?

?

[OriginalWheelman]

So what are you betting vs our economy?

Fixed

[AZhitman]

I don't think the sky is falling at all.

Congratulations. You're a Conservative.

[rn79870]

Congratulations. You're a Conservative.

Wow, Sunday morning smack down. Thanks Greg.

[Soravia]

Obama is the biggest hurdle of the economy. His libral postition runs ENTIRELY against all his lies about unity and working across the table.

Here's how Japan (a tiny nation) is powered by nukes.http://www.japannuclear.com/nu....html

Here's how they get rid of it.http://www.japannuclear.com/nu....html

I'm not saying wind farms and solar plants are rubbish. I'm very much for them. But they can only provide regional solution, not national solution.It should be just like McCain said for energy solution, 'Above All'. If half of a state gets by with solar and wind, that's half a state less to be powered by coal and oil. If the other half takes up nuke, that means more coal and oil for OTHER states. That'll drive the energy prices down by the laws of supply and demand.Once coal, oil and natural gas prices comes down, so will the gasoline prices. When the electric and gas bills goes down, there's less cost for the businesses and less living cost for the people which means less for the businesses to have to put in the pay check for as well as more money left after bills to spend on.

Everything is connected together in the economy. Spending a few billions to jump start nuke plants would provide jobs and more relief than Obama's '$1,000' gas check for lower income people.

[rn79870]

Obama is the biggest hurdle of the economy. His libral postition runs ENTIRELY against all his lies about unity and working across the table.

You keep saying lies, but you've never pointed out a single lie. Kind of makes your position much less creditable.

[Soravia]

Did you get to see his primary campaign speech describing how he would get everyone in Washington come together? Did you read all the blogs and CNN, MSNBC news comments posted by Obamites about how polarizing Hillary is?

Guess who is the most liberal now? No Nukes, 'limited off shore' (since like a couple of weeks ago', '$1,000' gas checks, more tax above $250K and less tax for those below. I can keep the list going but let's keep it to the economical ones.

Obama ran on black appeal and independent appeal. Most hard core Dems and non-black women actually went for Hillary.Now Obama's actual plans for the government actually comes out as a lot more liberal and he doesn't want to do much CHANGE about his stance.

Do you know why the Republicans are fighting for congress to get into session? The Obamites on the web well tell you that it is just a show.Well it is not. The Republicans know that between a Dem senate, Dem congress and Democrat president who is more liberal than Hillary, there will be no off-shore drilling and no nuke plants. The US will still rely on foreign oil for the economical and transportation infrastructure (I'm not even talking about yuppie soccer mom's Prius) and pay so hundreds of Billions of dollars each year for oil.If the oil supply to the US gets cut even to a decent amount, the Russians will win us without so much of a shot being fired at us.The Georgian invasion is more than just a tiny piece of the land. Putin wants to see what kind of chain reaction there will be when the Georgian oil supply is cut and how the Poland and their missile shield plans would react.Unlike President Bush, Putin is very smart. That's why he has a lot of support by his own people.

[rn79870]

I see a lot of opinions, but I still don't see any lies or links to lies.

Don't worry about the gas (fuel) so much. Do you have any idea how much refined gasoline the US exports each year? Think about that one for a while.

[audtatious]

Exports: 1.048 Million bbl/day as of 2004Imports: 13.15 Million bbl/day as of 2004

So, we need to drill deep and start coming up with 12 Million Barrels a day so we can ensure no issues with foreign oil dependancy.

[Soravia]

We can reduce that import by having EVERYONE drive a Prius hybrid. But we'll still need oil for UPS trucks, Farm and construction trucks, transport trucks (how do you think food gets there to grocery stores and restaurants?), air planes, fire trucks, medical helicopter, ships, military air planes, etc.

Suddenly all the yuppie soccer moms and still ride bicycles and we still need foreign oil to do anything at all. It's not about the prices really, it's much more about available supplies. That's why there is strategic reserves. Without the reserves, a month of oil blockade from Iran and Russia will send the entire US down to dust. Even WITH the reserves, if there is such a blockade, China, India and the rest of the world won't stop using oil to help the Americans. The entire nation's business are already suffering from oil at current prices, if there are ANY shortage at all, airlines will go out of business, hotels and restaurants will follow, carriers like UPS, FedEx will lay off people, the list goes on.

It is more than just oil prices, we NEED drilling off shore.

[rn79870]

Gee, the funny thing is that Obama said the same thing too about off shore drilling.

And we also need to look at ANWR, or as your Republolican president said..."It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). I think it's a mistake not to. And I would urge you all to travel up there and take a look at it, and you can make the determination as to how beautiful that country is."—Press conference, Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001

If you decide to go and see it, I'd make reservations really early as it's fairly congested in those wildlife refuges.

[Soravia]

Mind giving a link to Obama supporting offshore drilling? If anything about off shore drilling, he usually tried to paint it as if McCain supports off shore drill AND ANWR drilling to get people confused and put McCain in the same boat as President Bush.

Nice video on ANWRhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMKcxVdju8Q&NR=1

Oh, here's the classic. Obama wants to Oil Wind Fall tax for $1,000 gas check. Hillary already had Oil Wind Fall tax for Gas Tax for Highway fund. Very original Mr. Obama. He also wants more Natural Gas from Alaska. Isn't it where the wild life protections are?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QjJjlLuzGA

Here's Obama's take on Hillary's gas tax 'GIMMICK'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF-HsaeJhb0

Here's Obama supporting Gas Tax cut.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abU4509w39s
Modified by Soravia at 4:36 PM 8/17/2008

[audtatious]

Sure, go see it. The area that we are wanting to drill at, which was put aside by the gov for future drilling, is a flat nothing. From the big picture

I like your game too. Side step an issue while using Bushism for a target.

Who knows, maybe this time the environmentalists, who show only portions of ANWR (which is 19 MILLION acres of land) to get sympathetic Americans to cry a tear of shame, will get something right. The Alaska pipeline was supposed to kill off the Caribou but it has instead had the opposite effect.

When was the last time you went to a beach along the coast and found tar balls? I'm curious. I'm surprised the environmentalists are not actively trying to sue big oil over them.

[Soravia]

Here's a fabulous speech made by Obama, saying nothing about how his vote for oil companies bill by Cheney but slamming McCain for not supporting it.Also listen how he perfectly painted McCain as 'Only Offshore drill' while saying nothing about McCain's 'Above All' policy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...lated

Mr. Obama is very smart, not like president Bush. But that's for his own good, not for the people of United States of America.

If Obama actually wanted to help the entire nation and not his own political gain, instead of $1,000 check for lower income people, he could have helped the people who actually use gas for a living, like truckers and the like. Gas-Tax holiday would have helped them tremendously. But there are more lower income people than truck drivers. Obama knows that, so he is going out to get more votes than actually help the nation.Suddenly, the messiah looks more like anti-Christ.
Modified by Soravia at 5:08 PM 8/17/2008

[audtatious]

Obama is untried and untested. He makes statements that try to paint him as having some huge background that does not exist in real life. His most gut-wrenching decision was not supporting the Iraq war effort while in the IL legislature; nice to say for brownie points because there is no real negative impact to taking that stance since he was a little minion at the time and his "opinion" was not based upon any of the physical evidence (lies say the lefties) that those in Congress had during the war vote. He has not been involved with anything at all that would show what his true colors are when it comes to true US issues.

[skylndrftr]

so was Bush...but Im guessing you voted for him.

The Honestly the republicans have lost the right to have an opinion in the last 8 years. I don't care if the guys you elected doesn't represent your views...your just saying you voted for someon strictly because of his party not his views.

[Soravia]

This is so Nazi.

[rn79870]

Mind giving a link to Obama supporting offshore drilling? If anything about off shore drilling, he usually tried to paint it as if McCain supports off shore drill AND ANWR drilling to get people confused and put McCain in the same boat as President Bush.

First off, McCain is in the same boat as Bush, not Obama. In fact, 95% of McCain's votes were in fovor of Bush's policies. That's why they call him McSame.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/l....html

[ishkabibble]

his "opinion" was not based upon any of the physical evidence that those in Congress had during the war vote.

What physical evidence is that? The stuff the Bushies manufactured?

I don't care what anyone's status was at the time... there were gullible people who were duped, and intelligent people who weren't.

[audtatious]

so was Bush...but Im guessing you voted for him.

The Honestly the republicans have lost the right to have an opinion in the last 8 years. I don't care if the guys you elected doesn't represent your views...your just saying you voted for someon strictly because of his party not his views.

I voted for Bush because of Gore and Kerry. You want people to vote more for your candidate then put someone up who is worth a damn. Clinton wasn't too bad, just stupid. Obama reeks.

[skylndrftr]

Why you voted for him is kinda irrelevant...you still voted for him.

Bush is the WORST president we have ever had. Voting for more of his policies (read:McCain) should be a sign of mental defect. You want people to vote for your candidate...don't run people that are criminals and cheated on their disabled wife.

[audtatious]

You must have a Napoleon complex.

[Soravia]

First off, McCain is in the same boat as Bush, not Obama. In fact, 95% of McCain's votes were in fovor of Bush's policies. That's why they call him McSame.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said today he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more oil drilling if it meant winning approval for broad energy changes.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/l....html

That's AFTER Poll shoot up the sky in FAVOR of off-shore drilling. If the same thing happens with ANWR, Obama would change his stance as well.

Here's my favorite piece.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0b1LtsfKNU

He has been like family to me. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n33uGIYOz3s

The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NvQ_AO0Wg4

[skylndrftr]

how dare the president listen to public opinion!

[Soravia]

Next thing you know, he'll withdraw from Europe and Middle East because Russians and Middle Eastern people don't want the US there. (Russians and Muslims combined number more than Americans)

More doesn't mean good. What is good is always good. If Obama can't make a good decision in the first place and just swings around depending on polls, how will he make strategic decisions and policies?

[ishkabibble]

What is good is always good.

Well stated.

[rn79870]

That's AFTER Poll shoot up the sky in FAVOR of off-shore drilling. If the same thing happens with ANWR, Obama would change his stance as well.

2 things. Change involves thoughtful consideration, even reconsideration of important issues. Obama has the mental facilities to do this. To quote Obama, the best debate is the McCain vs. McCain debate as he tries to determine what his handlers told him his position was.

Oh, the last thing. "Stance" is a word that applies to republicans, only republicans. Ask Sen Craig, he'll tell you.