$4, $5 Per Gallon of Gas...McCain Was Right

In 2008, John McCain predicted that if Barack Obama was elected president, Obama's energy policies would see $4 +  per gallon of gas...McCain was right...




Obama's energy policies are predicated on the proposition that expensive costs would make 'green' energy sources financially viable. That's the only way that solar-wind production system will break even. That's why the Obama administation has enforced a moritorium on energy production off the coasts of the Carolinas and in the Gulf of Mexico as well as shale oil in western states, much less Alaska.

In 1995, the Clinton administration denied further exploitation of Alaskan oil fields on the rationalization that it would take 10 years for those fields to produce oil...that was 17 years ago.  The current administration is content to deny the construction of the Keystone pipeline that would rapidly bring Canadian shale oil to refineries along the Gulf coast.  I suspect that's because a number of his larger donors (George Soros being one) own stock in the rail companies what are currently making huges sums of money in shipping that oil via the more expensive rail routes.

We Need A Rational Energy Policy

Some day here in America we're going to have get some semblance of sanity and develop and adopt a rational national energy policy. As a country, we can no longer afford to continue to fund OPEC countries to the extent we are today. Before we can begin to develop a "greener" infrastructure, as a nation we must take advantage of the natural resources that we have here.

Recently the Obama administration decided to invest $2 billion dollars in offshore drilling in Brazil. That would be good for America, but the entire production of the proposed drilling field has been dedicated by Petrobras to the Chinese. The only American to benefit from this will be George Soros, who is a large shareholder of the company.

The Obama administration is going to fund this huge project while forbidding the exploitation of the huge deposits in the Gulf of Mexico, off the eastern US coasts of North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. This while we import more than 70% of our petroleum products from OPEC. That's a luxury we can no longer afford. The gradual rise in petroleum prices has forced this country to an untenable position. Especially when you consider the present sharp rise in the national debt.

Simply stating that we must have a "green" economy and implementing any sort of "Cap & Trade" scheme will destroy and already fragile economy. While I would love to see this country redevelop our industrial base but we have to face facts and realize that without a huge investment, "green jobs" will not come to America. A recently developed wind farm in Wyoming was built with Chinese wind turbines because the only othe source of turbine production, Germany, has a backlog of years for their production lines. This administration wants to develop green jobs here in America, at our present rate of industrial decline, there will be no "green jobs" here.

Because our economy has more than a century on the path of petroleum dependence, it will take decades to wean ourselves away from them. In the mean time, instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars permanently out of our economy, we must begin developing domestic supplies of oil. Alaska, the continental shelves of both coasts as well as the shale oil deposits that stretch from Colorado to the Yukon. Thus, we reinvest much of those profits into alternative sources of energy.

Research must be intensified in making solar panels more efficient. At present the average efficiency of solar panels is about 5%...that's not nearly good enough to be genuinely cost effective. But it is unrealistic to believe that either wind generation or solar power will ever be sufficient to provide this country's electrical energy needs. At best these sources will only supplement our needs, not fulfill them.

While our country does this we can begin to build the network of nuclear power plants that the "green" movement has forbidden us from developing. After all, if France and Japan can get 75% or more of their electrical energy needs from nuclear power, why shouldn't we do so as well. While coal is relatively inexpensive, it is an inefficient source of electrical production. Nor do we have to build huge terawatt production facilities. There are two companies who have developed small 5 megawatt reactors that are very nearly maintenance free and can literally be buried underground until they need to be refueled.

These are just the sorts of solutions that this country needs, but unfortunately, our political masters are not intelligent enough to implement them. So we will continue to bleed our treasure off shore...eventually, it will stop, but by then, we'll be bankrupt.

EPA Declares CO2 Harmful To Humans

The EPA and the Obama Administration in an effort to circumvent Congress has unilaterally declared that CO2 is harmful to humans. CO2 if you will recall is a NATURALLY OCCURRING gas. By declaring it harmful, the EPA may now begin to regulate (i.e. tax/fine/fee) emissions. This means that in order for you to drive you car, you can, and probably will be fined for doing so.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Bullshit! The "scientific evidence" is far from certain, especially since the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia's emails and data have clearly shown an attempt to block any publication of articles and papers that take a contrary view of the "settled science". Since "Cap & Trade" bills passage has stalled and are likely to go nowhere, the Obama Administration is attempting to do an "end run" around Congress and desires to seize control of energy production in this country. During the campaign, Mr. Obama repeated stated his desire to drive the production of coal, as well using coal as a means of energy production out of business by making it prohibitively expensive to use this for energy. This is a blatant power grab by this administration.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

The action by the EPA, which has been anticipated for months, clearly was timed to add to the momentum toward some sort of agreement on climate change at the Copenhagen conference and try to push Congress to approve climate legislation.

"This is a clear message to Copenhagen of the Obama administration's commitments to address global climate change," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lead author of a climate bill before the Senate. "The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving."

Unfortunately, it seems that the Obama administration won't be happy until it not only controls the production of energy, but that of health care as well. This is nothing more than a bald attempt to completely restructuring the United States into a socialist/statist economic model. If the government controls the production of energy, it will be able to dictate to companies who is permitted to do business and more importantly who is not. Additionally, it will have the ability to dictate who gets health care...and who does not.

The time has already arrived that bureaucrats are deciding upon a political basis who is permitted to work in government by not hiring anyone with a conservative background...in the very near future you can bet they health care (with the passage of the government's plan to seize control of health care) your political party will be a deciding factor if you receive good care...or not. Now the government will dispense energy upon those corporations (by giving thee "exemptions") who are politically approved of, and those who are not. Now, Mr. Obama's enemy list begins to take on whole new meanings.