Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post: CIA Terrorist Interrogations Saved Lives

Next post: Pelosi Lies About Waterboarding Knowledge

Green Energy Economics

by Da King on April 23, 2009

in Uncategorized, energy, global warming

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" – Barack Obama, 2008

Candidate Obama wasn't kidding when he made the above statement, and now President Obama and the Democrats are preparing to raise consumer energy prices through the roof. It isn't only their cap and trade proposals that will drive up energy costs either. Alternative energies will have the same effect. As the New York Times reports:

experts…estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant… The cost of solar thermal electricity, made by using the sun’s heat to boil water and spin a turbine, would be nearly three times that of coal and more than twice that of natural gas. (It would be almost double the cost of wind energy, too.)

Carbon dioxide regulations will also drive up the costs associated with producing coal-based electricity, which will be passed along to the consumers as well. Jason Furman, deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council, has said the annual costs of cap and trade could be $250 billion (other cost estimates are MUCH higher). Government mandates on green energy usage also increase the price. It's no coincidence that California, the state with the highest renewable energy mandates (20%), has the highest energy prices in the nation.

Naturally, those hardest hit by the skyrocketing energy prices will be those among us who can least afford it, the poor and the middle class (but, don't worry, Obama is only raising taxes on the rich ! LOL. Some people will believe anything).

So, what can we do about these skyrocketing future energy prices ?

Not much. You see, our fourth branch of government (and you thought there were only three branches, didn't you ?), the Environmental Protection Agency, has ruled that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health by causing global warming. This gives the EPA the power to control energy under the Clean Air Act. Our cars, homes, and businesses are all subject to EPA regulations and mandates now. Through either EPA mandate or Congressional legislation, the greenies have us boxed in. As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) put it, "It is now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between legislation and regulation. The EPA will have to act if Congress does not act." Game, set, and match. Get out your wallets, America. It's a darned good thing our economy is humming along so nicely, isn't it ? I'm sure we'll hardly feel the pinch, right ?

As for those "millions of green jobs" President Obama promised, consider this, from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK):

“It’s estimated by the Heritage Foundation that if they are successful in their [CO2] endangerment findings in the White House, it will cost us 800,000 jobs almost immediately. The jobs, where would they go? They would go China, India, Mexico. They’d go to places where they don’t have any emissions restrictions.

“Consequently we would have a net increase worldwide in CO2, so it just doesn’t make any sense. But when you’re dealing with the Hollywood elitists, the extremist environmentalists, you don’t have to make sense.”

A Spanish study indicated that there were 2.2 jobs lost for every job created by wind and solar power.

If we're not careful in what we are doing in the energy sector, we could jack up consumer energy costs, jack up taxes, lose jobs, and after all that…HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING.

Other than that, I guess there's no problem.

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

alchemist April 23, 2009 at 11:11 am

I agree we must be careful and know what we are doing instead of listening to every special interest that wants to maintain the old ways of doing things so their own little personal world does not change. I am not sure the inhabitants of this world are capable of working that well together. I am sure it is a lot more complicated than just changing the energy we use. To quote an old song "we take paradise and put up a parking lot." All those plants we obliterated no longer use CO2 and produce O2 and there are lots and lots of other things we humans have done to upset the balance of nature. As far as jobs — there will be lots of jobs available when it is time to move all those seaboard homes, cities, and businesses inland — AND I am sure we cut down more trees to do that too.

Da King April 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm

As an environmentalist, I am concerned with a lot of what humans are doing – the mountains of waste, the pollution of the oceans and fresh water sources, air pollution, cutting down forests…but I'm still skeptical over the idea that man is causing significant global warming due to an increase in a minor greenhouse gas. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm not completely buying into it either. The climate of the earth constantly changes. The planet is always warming and cooling. Classifying CO2 as a pollutant seems bizarre to me, when all life on earth respirates CO2 and CO2 is required for our very survival, as is the greenhouse effect. When considered over the long term in earth's history, today's CO2 levels are very low and the earth is relatively cool.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

But I don't want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot either.

alchemist April 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Read Collapse — how societies choose to fail or succeed by Jared Diamond. I read it 2-3 years ago and still think of something from it nearly every day. Read about past environment, societies, egos …… and then challenge yourself to imagine our future.

The Reverend April 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm

I believe it was the current conservative Supreme Court who agreed with the EPA over CO2.

The Reverend April 23, 2009 at 2:27 pm

I don't trust the writer, Wald, from the NY Times….and statements like this are why….

"Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm."

This is bullpucky. There will be initial costs to get started….but ain't no way that wind power is more expensive than coal power. Ain't no way. In addition, a "smart grid" system would not require backup generation.

To show you what I mean….Wald could have said that wind power costs more because not only are backup gas-powered plants necessary, but also backups for the backups, you know, in case one breaks down, and then contingency backup production methods to boot, in case of an emergency.

Village spin.

Da King April 23, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Rev, are you still trying to sell the idea that the NY Times is rightwing ? Oh, my. You destroy your credibility before you even begin to address the facts.

It seems to me you are criticizing Wald for NOT engaging in the normal, NY Times liberal spin (the Times has been a hair better lately. Maybe imminent bankruptcy has forced the Times into the last gasp drastic step of honesty).

I'm the first to question the NY Times, but overall, wind power is far more expensive than coal at this point. Wind is not competitive in the market. If it was, it wouldn't have to be subsidized. As for the wind backup facilities, you can't have substantive wind power without them (and you barely can WITH them). The wind does not produce constant energy. You're in fairy tale land about the smart grid, unless you're on board with the idea that the government should control your house's thermostat, and if they could, they could also do it with COAL, nullifying wind's advantage.

Tbomb April 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Judith Miller….NY Times…

angry conserv April 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm

King,
You are stuck in the old way of thinking. The issue had been decided do not dredge up useless facts or question the consequences of the correct actions. Join the 21st century and accept the fact that the old ways destroyed the earth and oppressed the people and is responsible for all the misery. The new sustainable economy will repair the earth, create a
world without poverty. Even if it doesnt work it will punish those that have profited from the commerce that has enslaved so many.
Beware the day is not far off that if you oppose the correct path you will be branded as a hatemonger that is intent on destroying the earth and attempting to contiune the enslavement of the people throughout the world.
Our new world has no place for hatemongers.

Da King April 24, 2009 at 10:38 am

What about Judith Miller ? She's no conservative. She has worked for The Progressive, National Public Radio, and the New York Times, liberal media all.

Da King April 24, 2009 at 10:42 am

angryc,
Between this blog and my Tea Party attendance, which was monitored and filmed by the FBI, I'm probably already on the "rightwing extremist" enemies list.

Which is fine with me. I am an enemy of the far left loons.

http://www.therightperspective.org/fbi-spied-on-tea-parties/

I just wish those black helicopters would stop flying over my house.

Leave a Comment

Previous post: CIA Terrorist Interrogations Saved Lives

Next post: Pelosi Lies About Waterboarding Knowledge

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).