The Enviros Are Winning...Big Time

All of this is just something else to distract the public from the real problems we face and deal with every day in the here and now that controling our borders would have a signigicant impact on.

Farmers are cashing in in other ways, subsidies!  Getting paid to grow corn to be used for ethanol is making it difficult for other farmers to feed their livestock, and corn for human consumption is becoming more expensive.

Besides that, it is taking a gallon and a half of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol.  Go Figure!

I do not recall writing my Senator (Jim Inhofe-R.OK) about global warming.  (I did write him to oppose the stimulus package.  Someone who wrote him about global warming probably received his reply meant for me)  I did receive this reply from him today:

Dear Ms.________

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding climate change.  As a father of four and a grandfather of 12, I am extremely concerned about the issue of global warming.  What concerns me the most is that imposing certain measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions would lower the quality of life and economic well-being for future generations.

There have been many bills introduced in the Senate this year that would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted in the United States .  Those who champion these bills fail to realize the dire economic consequences from imposing such a program.  We are living in a time where energy demand is constantly growing while supply remains flat, and as a consequence, pr ices are rising rapidly.  If these bill s were to be adopted, conservative estimates indicate that electricity prices alone would rise between 35 and 65 percent, and 1.2 to 2.3 million jobs would be lost by 2015. 

Another problem associated with imposing such climate legislation on the American people, in addition to higher prices and lost jobs, is that it would do nothing to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases.  China has already passed the United States as the leading GHG emitter and continues to build a new coal plant every three days.  India is not far behind them.  Without equivalent efforts to limit these gases among China and India , the United States stands to lose many hundreds of thousands of jobs to these countries, which will profit from unilateral action by the United States . In short, unilateral action would result in increased emissions globally, not decreased, because efficient manufacturing in our country would be exported to less efficient countries, thus increasing carbon emissions.

Even if global warming was a result of anthropogenic (man-made) gases, which has been challenged by many international scientists, recent attempts to curb greenhouse gases would fail miserably to accomplish anything.  Studies have found that if the Kyoto treaty had been fully implemented the amount of averted global warming by the year 2050 would be 0.07  C. 

My job as a United States Senator from Oklahoma is to represent the interests of American workers and families, and most importantly those workers and families of Oklahoma .  Aside from losing American jobs to other countries, American families would suffer under a cap-and-trade system.  An economist from the respected Charles Rivers Associates International recently stated that welfare losses alone would be $4 trillion to $6 trillion dollars over the next few decades under a cap-and-trade system.  From rising electricity prices, to decreased purchasing power, and a loss of millions of jobs, the average American cannot withstand the burden of such a program

While the science of climate change is unsettled, the economics of enacting climate legislation is not. I can state with certainty that the economic consequences stemming from such a law would be devastating to the American people.  I want only the best for the jobs and families in Oklahoma and in all of America . Passing legislation purely for symbolism will hinder that effort. I will not sacrifice our way of life for a climate plan that neither can, nor is designed to, work.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me, and I hope you find this information useful in your evaluation of the climate change debate.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sen Inhofe is one of the very few who is trying to combat this farce. He is on the Senate Environmental and Public works committee. He sends out article and info in a vain attempt to educate people.

 BTW: a new report came out last week warning of risk of famine in Africa(/), due to all the food now being used for biofuels. The government cure is almost always worse than the disease

Good Morning ya'll, and may the Lord bless you this fine day.

Since food is getting/still is in short supply,as usual in Africa, here is some food for thought:

We are not to use fossil fuels, for named reasons.

We are not to use nuclear power, for other reasons.

We are not to use wind energy for yet more reasons.

Ya can't burn your wood stove, for yet even more reasons.

And biofuels are a no-no, for even more reasons.

Why then don't we all stick our head in the sand, cry, and then shoot ourselves in the head, because breathing alone increases global warming.

And there are so many more of us now..................................... 

Adam was commanded to "subdue the earth." Dead people can't do that.

Good day.

There is food enough for all on the planet. The problem is about 1% of the population has it all, and they are not about to share any of it with the poor and starving.

The Love of money is the root of all evil.

FeedFwd said: I'm not a big fan of ethanol, but I'm not sure it takes a gallon and a half of gasoline to produce a gallon of EtOH.  Have you got a source for that?

There are some big problems with ethanol.  Cato.org is a good place to research many of its problems.  Here's a little info from them:

 According to a 2005 report issued by the Agriculture Department, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce, or several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. Without the subsidies, costs would be higher still. A study last fall from the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to $1.05-$1.38 per gallon, or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price. 

 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308

I'm not against being environmentally friendly.  I think if a person wants to invest in alternative energy sources, that's good.  However, using a carbon tax to invest in carbon exchanges just to make folks like Al Gore even richer is nonsense.  I have a huge problem with my tax dollars being used for this purpose. 

Nancy Morgan said:

Sen Inhofe is one of the very few who is trying to combat this farce. He is on the Senate Environmental and Public works committee. He sends out article and info in a vain attempt to educate people.

 BTW: a new report came out last week warning of risk of famine in Africa(/), due to all the food now being used for biofuels. The government cure is almost always worse than the disease

There is food enough for all on the planet.

Sad the food production in this country is slowly but surely being taken under  control by large corporations...more of that corporate welfare in the form of subsidies among other evil endeavors. It's all about control and yes Love of money. 

The ethanol boondoggle has been pushed on the American public like it is the saviour of our high energy needs, at least fuel needs for our automobiles. Amazing how this "myth" has been pushed off on us. I too thought it a good idea until I started looking into what ethanol production is about. I'm no rocket scientist but do understand one of several pitfalls of this "fad" , for lack of a better word, is the amount of water used in processing ethanol. I'm no "tree hugger" but I do have respect for the environment. After all, I LIVE IN IT! Water is a resource taken for granted. Water will continue to cost consumers more and is it not interesting that yearly I receive a report from my water source  company that lists all the contaminents in the water. I am told the water contains certian amounts of lead and other pollutants but these are within "safe" levels for consumption.  

Again, I don't wear the "tree hugger" stamp rather the "common sense" stamp. Common sense tells me commercial fertilizers that end up in our streams and rivers cannot possibly be healthy for human beings and wildlife.

Our natural wetlands are being destroyed. Wetlands are mother earth's way of natural filtration of contaminents in our environment.  I am not sure there is common sense left in many people anymore. People seem to be way far to the left with brainwashing from the global warming pundits or they are far to the right in capitalistic mentality that none of our endeavors used to produce and bring in the  almighty dollar bill have any consequences on human health or environment. 

Concerned Mom,

I have consulted to the corn milling industry for years.  I have also consulted to the refining industry for years.  I have consulted to the corn-to-ethanol industry since its infancy.  I am quite familiar with the problems of ethanol production, especially economic.  Like most alternative energy choices, it wouldn't be happening without government subsidy.  That alone, tells you everything you need to know.  The whole agribusiness has been sucking the govt teat since FDR and they have no interest in being weaned now.  We have tariffs on cane sugar to keep cheap foreign sugar out and turn our great midwest farmlands into sugar producers at much higher cost displacing more valuable crops or uses for corn.  Then we try to blend gasoline with EtOH wich required absolutely dry EtOH.  Getting it dry requires more energy than just getting it concentrated by far.  We could run on straight wet ethanol, but it would require some re-engineering of engines and development of an ethanol distribution system to be practical.  Everybody has their hand out for a government subsidy or tax break and they are getting it.  Meanwhile the taxpayer gets to grab their ankles, as usual.  Careful... don't get me going, or I might get on my soapbox and never get off!

MGO,

Pretty well said.  I do note though, that pollution and resource depletion/abuse is greatest where property rights are weakest.

Here in Colorado there are places that natural gas wells were put on or near people's homes and ranches, causing their well water to stink like farts and ruin the beautiful scenery.  They are going all over BLM land destroying the natural scenery in those public areas we own.  The subsidies are out of whack.  Mineral rights trump owners' right to quiet enjoyment of their property, and do not go with the land, and water rights are contentious.  A lot of property owners have been screwed big time, and so has the taxpaying public who supposedly are owners of Public Lands like BLM and National Forests.        A lot of neocons are mad they can no longer rip up some BLM areas, but years of abuses by abusers has caused that.  Some National Monuments have been turned over to greedy private companies and you have to pay the same for 15 minutes as all day, and they don't care if you are a disabled veteran or senior citizen--like Mount Rushmore.  While others like Badlands National Park actually let a homeless family living in their car stay for months without paying.  What an eyesore in our National Park there.  Those are supposed to be our pristine lands, and some you have to get on a waiting list far in advance because of overpopulation driven by immigration we do not need.  While Glacier National Park is losing its glaciers rapidly and un-naturally.  Others have invasive species, and still others outlaw pot plantations, poachers, squatters, or illegals ruining fragile landscape or starting forest fires.  Again, this is our public land we as taxpaying citizens have rights to.  The Supreme Court ruling on taking your land with eminent domain for making more tax dollars is a roaring travesty.  There again we have big uncaring business in cahoots with corrupt government just like the fart smelling well planted right on your formerly happy homestead, or they give you under real market value or personal value for land to build a giant highway for Mexicans and later, Chinese to invade in the name of commerce only beneficial for corrupt big business and their government patrons.

MGO,

I think you just made my point.  If somebody owns property, they are motivated to improve it or at least protect it from overuse and abuse.  When everybody owns property communally, the only incentive is to get as much out of it as you can before the other guys do.  It's a well known and documented phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons.

I've had a lifelong involvement with the Boy Scouts and the outdoors.  In fact, it was Boy Scouts that brought me to Grass-fire and ultimately to FireSociety.com, when they were disenfranchised by the United Way.  I enjoy public parklands and have been involved or led many conservation projects on both public and private lands over the years.  Still, I believe the government is a poor steward of public lands in general and I don't agree with Teddy Roosevelt on the role of government and public parks.  That is just one man's opinion and I realize I am in a small minority.  I can tell you the Boy Scouts, who have always been conservation oriented, were nearly driven out of using public parks because they were overusing them... scavenging too much firewood, and other problems.  It led to a "leave no trace" approach.  But the general public is not so interested or trained to behave that way.  The government (or the taxpayers, anyway) cannot afford to maintain the parks and public areas unless they are willing to raise fees.  Nobody wants fees raised, but it will reduce the demand/load on the parks and provide revenue from the users to actually maintain the places properly.

Of all the conservation, ecology and green groups out there, I will only support ones that use money to buy property so that private owners can maintain and protect it rather than groups who only lobby for more legislation with various conflicting regulations and hidden agenda to give some special interest group more access to nature at lower cost to them personally.

FeedFwd, as usual, your ideas and information are right on target.  If something needs a subsidy to exist, it obviously is not worth it.

I also believe in private ownership of lands.  The government really does not do a good job of being a steward because they're so full of red tape and regulations, which are counterproductive.

On a slightly related note to subsidies, I really miss having real cane sugar in Coke.  High fructose corn syrup doesn't taste nearly as good.

I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, we do need public lands protected by government. If they were not public owned the Motel, and Hotel industry would build on them, and the price per visit would be so high average americans couldn't afford to visit them.

Roosevelt is also my hero because he broke up the monoplies, that's something that despeately needs done today. If it were multinnationals wouldn't be running our government today.