Posted on 01/25/2007 9:15:05 AM PST by Matchett-PI
[In his SOTU speech] .. GW proposed to cut US consumption of gasoline by 20% in ten years, as an effort to combat global warming.
This was a stroke of genius, and I couldn't stop laughing!
So far, nobody seems to have decrypted the code. This has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
The US uses about 25% of global oil production now, and about 20% (or less) of CO2 comes from automobiles - more comes from cows (recent news) and the worst culprit is coal used to produce electricity, because the Dems and Greens have a severe case of nucleophobia.
Chopping US gasoline use by 20% will reduce global CO2 emissions by less than 1% - and Chinese and Indian emissions will continue to rise, as their economies expand. There will be no detectable effect on global climate, even if Al Gore thinks there will be. Assuming Al Gore thinks.
BUT - the US imports about 10% of its petrol from OPEC (our largest sources are Canada and Mexico, which is good for Canada and Mexico, and us) and chopping US gasoline use by 20% will reduce US reliance on OPEC oil to - ZERO!
The OPEC guys understand this perfectly, I expect - the US media, as usual, are totally clueless. This was GW's way of telling OPEC that "your days are numbered," while, at the same time, tossing a sop to the Dems and Greens in America!
Since the Dems and Greens will see this as GW joining their cause, they don't understand that this is a backhanded declaration of war on OPEC that will have the effect of putting a lid on oil prices (OPEC profits) beginning immediately, and continuing forever, as long as the Dems cooperate in this environmental endeavor to end Global Warming, or Global Freezing . . . whatever.
Bush Cons Greens, Knifes OPEC
Well, only the author has apparently. Makes one wonder.
One month before the SOTU speech, we have this:
Losing the Greens
Townhall ^ | December 25, 2006 | Bob Novak
Posted on 12/26/2006 10:10:53 AM EST by presidio9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1758528/posts
"I've never seen industry so deathly afraid of the current politics surrounding climate change policy," a Bush administration environmental official told me. With good reason. As Democrats take control of Congress, once firm opposition to the green lobby's campaign of imposing carbon emission controls is weak.
Panicky captains of industry have themselves largely to blame for failing to respond to the environmentalists' well-financed propaganda operation. One government official says "industry appears utterly helpless and utterly clueless as to how to respond." But the Bush administration itself is a house divided, with support for greens and severe carbon regulation inside the Department of Energy rampant, reaching up to the secretary himself.
None of this necessarily means climate change will become law during the next two years, with President Bush wielding his veto pen if any bill escapes the Senate's gridlock. Rep. John Dingell of Detroit, reassuming chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee after a dozen years' absence, will try to protect the automotive industry from Draconian regulation. But over the long term, industry is losing to the greens.
The stakes are immense, as shown by the impact of the bill to implement the Kyoto proposal co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain, front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the favorite Democrat of many Republicans. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates this measure would reduce gross domestic product by $776 billion, raise gasoline prices 40 cents a gallon, raise natural gas prices 46 percent and cut coal production by nearly 60 percent. Charles River Associates, business consultants, predicts it would kill 600,000 jobs.
Yet, Jonathan Lash of the World Resources Institute last week said McCain-Lieberman does not go far enough in reducing carbon emissions. Green extremists would prefer the severe legislation proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
According to industry sources, Dingell has privately advised auto industry lobbyists to prepare for the worst. House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi is making carbon emission legislation a priority, and Dingell has warned Detroit that she expects him to move a bill through his committee. He will do his best to modify legislation, but he is obliged to follow Pelosi's wishes and cannot play Horatio at the Bridge.
The same dilemma faces Rep. Rick Boucher, a staunch ally of the coal industry who will become chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and air quality. He must balance Pelosi's desires with the interests of the coal counties in his Southwest Virginia district.
Staunch foes of carbon regulation remain in the administration, headed by Chairman James L. Connaughton of the Council on Environmental Quality. But the Energy Department's top executive strata have gone green.
Since moving from deputy Treasury secretary to Energy secretary nearly two years ago, business executive and financier Samuel W. Bodman has kept a low profile. In a rare public utterance on global warning Oct. 5, 2005, he said an "increasing level of certainty" about global warming fueled by carbon dioxide "is real" and "a matter we take seriously." In private meetings, he has expressed dissatisfaction with administration policy. Bodman's under secretary, former Senate staffer David K. Garman, has shocked industry lobbyists with his criticism of the president's views.
In the background is a pending Supreme Court decision on what the Clean Air Act requires or permits the Environmental Protection Agency to do about greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the Court says the authority is merely discretionary, McCain or any Democratic president would then crack down on industry if nothing is passed before the 2008 election.
Ultimate salvation from U.S. self-destructive behavior may come from the real world. Most European Union countries, suffering higher energy costs and constraints on growth imposed by the Kyoto pact, cannot meet that treaty's emission level requirements. Furthermore, China is on pace to exceed U.S. emissions by 2010, meaning that unilateral U.S. carbon controls will have little impact on global emissions while driving American jobs to China.
This downside of Speaker Pelosi's green determination ought to resonate in union halls and coalfields of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. However, American industrialists, while wringing their hands, are not making their case.
I copied it just as it was written at the web site. I agree it is a little confusing the way it's written. The moderator may want to put a comma where you suggest.
Oil is fungible. It doesn't matter where the US buys its oil, because if tomorrow the Saudis stop producing, then the Europeans and the Chinese will start competing with US buyers for Russian, Canadian, Nigerian and Mexican oil leading to extremely high prices and shortages. Econ 101.
March 4, 2002
President Bush's $2 Billion, 10-Year Clean Coal Initiative Underway
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2002/tl_ccpi2002sol.html
Energy Department's Solicitation Calls on Industry to Match $330 Million in Federal Funding
Washington, DC - The initial competitive stage of President Bush's $2 billion, 10-year clean coal technology initiative officially begins today with the Department of Energy's release of a solicitation offering $330 million in federal matching funds for industry-proposed projects.
Earlier this year, President Bush traveled to West Virginia to talk about the importance of clean coal. "In order to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, we've got to find and produce more energy at home, including coal," said President Bush. "I believe that we can have coal production and enhanced technologies in order to make sure the coal burns cleaner. I believe we can have both."
"This solicitation signals our willingness to begin a new partnership with the private sector to enhance our energy supply," Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said. "Technologies like this will help us preserve our environment while we strengthen America's energy security."
Clean Coal Technology Benefits - Lower Costs for Consumers
Clean coal technologies represent a new class of pollution control and power generating processes that reduce air emissions and, in many cases, lower greenhouse gases to a fraction of the levels of older, conventional coal-burning plants.
Some clean coal technologies offer the potential for giving even high-sulfur "dirty" coals many of the same environmental qualities of natural gas. Others also greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by boosting power plant efficiencies and releasing carbon gases in a form that can be more easily captured and prevented from entering the atmosphere.
"America cannot afford to turn its back on the 250-year supply of secure, low-cost energy represented by the massive coal reserves that lie within our national borders," said Abraham. "Yet, it has been nearly a decade since the federal government joined with the private sector to move promising new concepts to the point where industry can decide if they merit commercial deployment. Today's solicitation tells industry we are ready to help share the costs and risks of new technologies that have emerged in the last 10 years but without our support, would likely remain in the laboratory."
Industry has until August 1, 2002, to submit proposals, and winning projects will be selected by late December.
The Energy Department is asking for projects that demonstrate or accelerate the commercial deployment of any technology advancement that "results in efficiency, environmental and economic improvement compared to currently available state-of-the-art alternatives."
Among the technologies expected to be proposed are innovative concepts for reducing mercury, smog-causing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and small particulate matter from existing and future power plants. New technologies that improve power plant control systems and permit plants to run more efficiently and reliably could also be proposed.
Technologies that permit better management and control of carbon emissions are being strongly encouraged. Roughly one third of the United States' carbon emissions come from power plants, and recently, as part of his National Climate Change Policy, President Bush placed a high priority on encouraging new technologies that can reduce these emissions while, at the same time, keeping energy costs affordable.
The competition is also open to new combustion or other technologies that produce combinations of heat, fuels, chemicals or other useful byproducts in conjunction with power generation. The Department will also accept projects that mix coal with other fuels, with only the provision that coal must represent at least 75 percent of the fuel energy input. The Department is also looking for advanced concepts for converting coal into a combustible gas that can be cleaned to extreme levels of purity.
Prospective projects must also show the potential to move rapidly into the market following the successful demonstration.
For each project selected by the Energy Department, industrial sponsors must be willing to at least match the federal funding share. There will also be a requirement that repayment from commercially successful technologies be used to underwrite future clean coal research.
Robert Porter, Office of Fossil Energy, 202-586-6503
DOE's Clean Coal Technology Program
Click above link for more:
More Clean Coal Power Initiative Techlines
Awesome stuff.
I've been a clean coal advocate for years now.
We have a 250 years supply of known reserves. We will keep all monies within our own country for transportation, production, distribution, purchase, etc. Jobs and spin-off jobs will all be internal.
We can let the islamofascists eat sand. These technologies will be used in other nations with great coal reserves.
He didn't "con" the Greens, that's for sure. Unless he agrees with their premise- (humans cause global warming) and adopts their "solutions" - (based on that straw-man) - he won't please the opportunists and their useful idiots in the environmentalist whacko movement:
bttt
I agree, but that doesn't alter the fact that we need to become energy independent to the greatest degree possible. I think we need to build more Nuclear Power plants including what we're doing with coal. (See my posts #1 & 7)
Also see:
Sunday, August 26, 2001 Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0826-02.htm
Going Backwards - Bush's Energy Plan Bares Industry Clout
Cheney-led task force consulted extensively with corporate executives. Its findings boosted their interests. Environmental groups had little voice. by Judy Pasternak
Excerpt:
"Under President Clinton, 'coal' was a dirty word," said John Feddock, an industry analyst based in Bluefield, Va.
Not so under Bush, whose U-turn on carbon dioxide was the coal industry's biggest victory in Washington in years. .." bttt
I agree. I used to be anti-nuke for a couple of reasons, one personal.
Politically, however, it was the safety issue that concerned me. As I thought about it, though, it occurred to me that it wasn't terribly safe to continue funding islamo-lunatics who were using oil money to pursue/buy nuke weapons.....truly UNSAFE and UNCLEAN nuclear power.
Better to risk responsible American scientists trying to make clean electricity, than trust one-eyed Imams trying to blow up the world.
Clean nuke, indeed.
Sweden's Royal Academy of Sciences named American scientist Wallace S. Broecker as the 2006 prizewinner in geosciences.
In spite of the UN scientists who say they have arrived at a "consensus" (a/k/a have agreed on their best guesses based MAINLY upon their computer models), Dr. Broecker says that climate scientists have greatly underestimated the complexity of the earth's climate system and that it is next to impossible to come up with reliable models to work with because there are too many IMPORTANT unknown variables and that complicates predictions of the consequences of the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Here he is excerpted:
"My lifetime study of Earth's climate system has humbled me. I'm convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. The importance of obscure phenomena, ranging from those that control the size of raindrops to those that control the amount of water pouring into the deep sea from the shelves of the Antarctic continent, makes reliable modeling very difficult, if not impossible. ... The climate record kept in ice and in sediment reveals that since the invention of agriculture some 8000 yr ago, climate has remained remarkably stable. By contrast, during the preceding 100,000 yr, climate underwent frequent, very large, and often extremely abrupt shifts. Furthermore, these shifts occurred in lockstep across the globe. They seem to be telling us that Earth's climate system has several distinct and quite different modes of operation and that it can jump from one of these modes to another in a matter of a decade or two. So far, we know of only one element of the climate system which has multiple modes of operation: the oceans' thermohaline circulation. ...Perhaps the mode shifts revealed in the climate record were initiated in the sea.
This discovery complicates predictions of the consequences of the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
....cold water is fed in from the thermoclines to the North and South Pacific. The now famous El Niño cycle involves a turning on and off of this upwelling. This cycle has a strong impact on today's global climate. So I think that somehow the change in the vigor of upper-ocean circulation must have altered the strength of upwelling into the equatorial region and, in turn, the delivery of water vapor into the atmosphere. .... In fact, the models are powerless to produce the large global changes that the paleorecords prove to have taken place. Why water vapor?, you might ask.
The answer is that water vapor is the atmosphere's most powerful greenhouse gas. If you wanted to cool the planet by 5°C and could magically alter the water-vapor content of the atmosphere, a 30% decrease would do the job. In fact, the major debate among atmospheric scientists regarding the magnitude of the coming greenhouse warming hinges on what's referred to as the water-vapor feedback. If the water vapor in the atmosphere were to remain exactly the same as it is now, then a doubling of CO2 would heat the planet only about 1.2°C. ...So the question naturally arises, What is the probability that through adding CO2 we will cause the climate system to jump to one of its alternate modes of operation? ...we can't yet reproduce any of these jumps in computer simulations, we don't really know how many modes of operations Earth has...Our climate system has proven that it can do very strange things. Since we've only recently become aware of this capability, there's nothing concrete that we can say about the implications. This discovery certainly gives us even more reason to be prudent about what we do, though. ..We must think all this through. .." ~ Wallace S. Broecker 05/97 http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/gsatoday/gsat9705.htm
bttt
Thanks for adding those valuable links to this thread. bttt
Interesting about the cold-water upwelling in the Pacific linked to El Nino.
There is a technique called "Ocean Thermal" that pumps the near-freezing water up from the ocean floor and uses the temperature difference between that and warm surface water to drive ammonia-vapor turbines to generate electricity. It is a form of soalr power, utilizing the sun's heating of the top layers of tropical waters.
Side effects are that the cold water brings with it a lot of nutrients that have fallen to the ocean floor. This causes plankton blooms, which in turn cause explosions in fish populations. The most productive fishing in the world is around natural upwellings, and this is creating an artificial upwelling. So you end up with a non-polluting energy source, fish farming, and plankton absorbing CO2.
Depending on the size of the operation, the volume of water moved can approach that of a large river. I wonder what effect it would have on the El Nino considering that the Broecker links the natural upwellings to El Nino.
I don't know. I just now saw your post. Very interesting, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.