Not Just Audio but Video of Obama: Your Electricity Rate Would Skyrocket

Over the weekend we heard an audio recording of Barack Obama talking about bankrupting the coal industry--that powers about half of our electricity needs--and casually admitting that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his radical plan.

Now we have him on video (below) saying it.

"Free" healthcare and skyrocketing electricity rates. Good deal for you socialist-minded folks, huh? (Hint: "free" healthcare isn't free--you pay for it with your taxes).

Barack Obama: Same Old Socialist Snake Oil

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Description of the video:

In January, 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle: "When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

Coal Mining Up Close

My family and I took a field trip today to the Eagle Butte Mine north of Gillette, Wyoming today.

The mine is owned by Foundation Coal West, Inc. According to some of the figures supplied (which are a few years old), the mine has shipped over 43 million tons of coal and employs over 600 people. Their operation has contributed about $50 million in federal revenue, $37 million to the state of Wyoming, and $15 million to the local Campbell County.

According to our tour guide, the coal seam they're working on is buried under about 250 feet of dirt and the seam itself is about 120 feet thick. She said they expect to continue mining coal from this seam for another 30 years. They ship coal all over the Midwest and as far away as Georgia.

One thing I was struck by was the environmental impact. The pit is huge, looking like a miniature section of the Grand Canyon from a distance. There is an area adjacent to the open pit that has been "reclaimed," meaning the mine has put dirt back in over the open pit area and reseeded it with grass and trees. If you didn't see the open pit area nearby, you'd never suspect that tons of coal had been mined out of there and the dirt replaced.

Despite what the environmental extremists say, we really can utilize our natural resources for our energy needs without destroying the planet.

This is part of the reclaimed pit area, looking out the window of our tour van to the east. We saw a herd of antelope grazing along here, and along the open pit area itself. The wildlife seemed unperturbed by the mining operation.



This photo shows the black coal seem down in the pit.



Here you see one of the diggers scooping up coal to put in the back of huge dump trucks; above it is one which is digging away the dirt to expose the coal seam.


This is one of the huge dump trucks that takes the coal out of the pit and to the crusher to prepare it to be loaded onto rail cars. Each of those tires is 12 feet tall, and costs $35,000 each--and they last about a year.


Another dump truck getting ready to back up to the crusher and dump its load.



After the coal has been crushed into small pieces, it is loaded onto rail cars that move underneath the dispenser about about 1 MPH.

If you're within driving distance of Gillette, you can book a free tour by calling the Gillette Visitor Center at 307-686-0040. They give tours up to August 15.

Hyperion Refinery Opposition Dealt Legal Setback

From KELO, more sanity from the court system (will wonders never cease?).

Circuit Judge Steven Jensen has ruled that the group "Save Union County" has no legal standing in the court effort against the proposed Hyperion refinery near Elk Point.

Circuit Judge Steven Jensen said Save Union County cannot stay in the fray because it owns no land that would be affected by the proposed $10 billion Hyperion Resources refinery.

Ed Cable, who owns land about three miles away, was allowed to proceed with his opposition to a zoning change from agricultural to an industrial use.

I disagree with Cable, but at least he, unlike the radical environmentalist groups themselves, has justification to fight the effort legally. Even his concerns, however, must be grounded in the real world and not just "I don't like that."

Environmental extremist groups have gotten away with this kind of thing for too long. They interfere with projects that will benefit the entire country while hiding behind a do-gooder shield of environmental protection. In the end, their agenda has more to do with opposition to "Big Oil" and capitalism in general than it does concern over the plants and animals.

This Save Union County group is a local group, but they have the backing (or are the puppet of?) of the San Francisco National Refinery Reform Campaign.

Notice that everywhere Save Union County shows, up, The National Refinery Reform Campaign shows up to act as their mouthpiece. Coverage from Omaha.com, KELO, the Sioux City Journal, the Argus Leader and others illustrate this hand-in-hand "cooperation." This piece from the Global Community Monitor also lists the extremist Sierra Club is involved, as well.

If you check out the Refinery Reform Campaign website, apparently there isn't a good or acceptable refinery out there. The name of their group should more appropriately be "National Refinery Opposition Campaign.

From KELO, Denny Larson with the Refinery Reform Campaign claims they would support a "green" refinery, which is what Hyperion says the Elk Point facility will be.

Larson says, "A green refinery is great, we would support that, but it starts with the proper location, and this doesn't appear to be the proper location for this type of project."

Yet you see at Omaha.com that in the eyes of this extremist group, there is no such animal:

"A refinery that processes crude oil cannot be green. It can be greener," he said. "They emit millions of pounds of air pollutants that can pose a serious risk to human health and the environment, and impair the quality of life of nearby communities."

He's talking out of one side of his mouth over here, and the other side over there. A reasonable person would be for a facility that is as clean as possible, so Larson wants to appear "reasonable." Yet he slipped in the Omaha.com quote and revealed that there is no refinery he would support.

They also claim, "Oh, it's just the wrong location." What would be the right location? If we tried to put it in a more industrial area, the objection would surely be: "Oh, that would be too much concentration in an already over-industrialized area."

Nothing will please environmental extremists except successfully impeding progress.

Society's luxury of entertaining these extremists is over. Our $4.00 a gallon gasoline is finally starting to make energy the priority it always should have been.

It's time to push these anti-capitalist extremists out of the way and get about the business of bringing America's energy policy into the 21st Century.

Alaska Photos from Davison County GOP Chairman

After posting some pictures from Chris Lien's trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska yesterday, I received an email from Allen Lepke, the Chairman of the Davison County Republicans who shared some photos he took on a trip to Prudhoe Bay at a village known as Deadhorse.

The pictures (below) are from late 2003 when Lepke was on a business trip working on telecommunications equipment for a company called ASTAC (Arctic Slope Telecommunications). This company provides all communications in that area, including cell phone coverage for the rigs out in the oil fields.

Says Lepke of this first photo: "When most people think of Alaska if they have not been north, this is what they think of, it is very beautiful in the South, but the further north you get, the only thing there is tundra."




This one is of the Prudhoe Bay General Store:



Here is some of that "pristine land" that environmentalists fawn over, otherwise known as "barren tundra" to the rest of us.



Another picture of the tundra, with some of the oil-producing area in the background



Another shot of the town of Prudhoe Bay. The roads are marked with the orange sticks that are sticking out of the ground.



This is the ASTAC building where Lepke worked while he was in the area



After seeing these photos of how the area looks in the winter months, the place seems even more barren.

Chris Lien told me yesterday that the oil workers have to get most of their work done during the eight months of winter while the ground is frozen and there is ice on the watery areas. Once the few warm months roll around, the Coastal Plain turns into a big marshy area.

Thanks, Allen, for the great pictures!

ANWR: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Republican U.S. House of Representatives candidate Chris Lien visited several areas of Alaska last week including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

He went with six other House candidates: Luke Puckett of Indiana, Mike Sodrel of Indiana, Greg Goode of Indiana, Jason Chafets of Utah, Paul Stark of Wisconsin, and Craig Williams Pennsylvania.

I met with Lien at his campaign office in Rapid City yesterday where he showed me some of the pictures he took on the trip.

Several of those pictures are featured below because, as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words." This is even more true of the oil issue in ANWR, since a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation is presented by opponents.

When pictures of ANWR are actually shown by the "mainstream" media, they often feature the southern area of ANWR, which is very different than the Coastal Plain area where drilling is desired. While the southern area is very beautiful with lots of trees and vegetation, once you cross the mountains, the terrain quickly becomes barren marsh.

For perspective, this map shows the total ANWR area, which is roughly the size of South Carolina. Out of that area, the Coastal Plain is only the top edge, next to the ocean. And out of that Coastal Plain area, only a total of 2,000 acres (of the 19 million acres of ANWR) would be allowed for oil drilling.

Here we see an arctic village from the air in the southern part of ANWR.

This one is one of several shots of the Coastal Plain from the air. Isn't it beautiful? Teeming with life in a fragile, carefully balanced ecosystem? Doesn't it make one thing of a thriving South American rain forest?

This is another shot of the Coastal Plain area.

This is an illustration of the Coastal Plains area which is being considered for drilling.



This is the Coastal Plains area from the air.



Here, Lien is on the ground and looking at the tundra of the Coastal Plains area. If I remember correctly, this is at the village of Kaktovic.

This photo shows caribou at the existing drilling operation at Prudhoe Bay where we've been bringing up oil since the 1970s. They appear to be at peace with the oil operation.

Here you see a couple of caribou resting beneath Lien's hotel at Prudhoe Bay. They seem unperturbed by the human presence. Notice the columns on which the buildings are elevated. Lien says that practically all the buildings around the Coastal Plain are like this. This architectural technique leaves an even smaller impression on the land and, obviously, allows even greater access to the land for wildlife.

This is the village of Kaktovic on the northern edge of the Coastal Plain, one of several stops for Lien.

Here Lien meets with Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.

This is a picture of Lien with his fellow U.S. House candidates who accompanied him on the trip.

Chris Lien speaking at a conference in Alaska, Governor Sarah Palin to the left.

The Coastal Plain from the air.

Here Lien and his party listen to the concerns of a man who objects to drilling in ANWR.

Chris Lien with the arctic tundra in the background.



The North Slope from the air.

Lien says he supported drilling in ANWR before the trip, but wanted to see the area for himself and talk to the people who lived there.

The group of candidates didn't only hear from supporters of ANWR, but spoke with several people who were opposed to drilling in the area. Lien also made an effort to ask people on the street, at a picnic and other unscheduled stops what they thought of drilling for oil in ANWR.

Lien said that about 75 percent of the people he encountered were in support of drilling for oil there. "For many of them, it was a no-brainer," Lien said.

Yesterday Lien told me he is preparing a presentation of what he learned in Alaska and will send me a copy when it is completed. I plan to feature some of that information here.

In the meantime, you can see more pictures from Lien's trip at his campaign website by clicking on the Flickr "fr" button at the bottom.

One-Size-Fits-All Environmental Policies May Not Fit

GUEST COLUMN

BY ANTON KAISER

Sometimes, while sifting through the daily news, one comes across a sparkling gem. In this case, it is a news article written by Terry Dillman in the Newport News-Times. Newport is a small town of 10,000 nestled on the Oregon coast. Tourism, fishing and wood products are its major industries. Naturally these folks take a serious interest in the ocean’s environment.

Dillman’s article is titled “Scientists urge caution with sea fertilizing.” There are some scientists who believe that seeding the ocean with iron will improve phytoplankton blooms and thereby increase carbon absorption in response to alleged global warming. Scientists are testing the theory and Dillman has pieced together an excellently researched, entertaining, objective, and well written article that any layperson can understand explaining why it may not be such a good idea. Highly recommended reading.

It’s a fascinating look at how a local portion of the ocean works. More fascinating (at least to me) is how differently the Oregon and California rivers react with the same ocean. Unlike California rivers, Oregon rivers are rich in iron and feed onto an expanding continental shelf that actually traps more iron than is actually used by phytoplankton, suggesting that phytoplankton populations have their own growth limits despite the availability of excess iron.

But how often do we as a nation adopt California environmental laws and policies assuming they are applicable everywhere? Obviously, experimental geoengineering results from one place don’t necessarily apply to similar places on our planet, even where it concerns how phytoplankton and iron react with rivers and oceans.

Of course, the real danger from global warming alarmists is the greater danger that we might do something stupid to the natural processes of our planet.

Says Pete Strutton of Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences:

...it's possible to trigger plant growth in the oceans by adding nutrients, but...it's not easy to control what grows and what doesn't.

"We already know that adding iron to the ocean usually alters the species composition of the phytoplankton community...”

Like possibly creating toxic planktons, such as those of the notorious “red tide” variety.

Meanwhile we already have commercial businesses springing up, like the Ocean Nourishment Corporation (Australia), Planktos (US) and Climos (US), some of whom have already dumped nitrogen-rich urea into the oceans to promote plankton growth and “save the planet.”

Interestingly, those very same environmental activists who set off the global warming scare are the very same environmental activists now fighting against this unintended consequence from their extremist alarms. What’s that old saying: “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.” But isn’t that to be expected? First they cause the problem, then they fight the solution. It’s a highly lucrative business.

However, as concerns stopping sea fertilization, we can hope they win.

Anton Kaiser was born in Aberdeen, South Dakota, and retired in Rapid City after serving twenty-seven years as a U.S. Army infantry officer. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, and holds Masters Degrees in Business and in Public Administration from Webster College, St. Louis, MO. He is also a veteran of Vietnam, Berlin, Operation Just Cause (Panama) and an honor graduate of the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Report: Offshore Drilling Very Safe

The reason usually given for blocking the drilling of oil is environmental concerns, i.e. oil spills. This concern is so pervasive that some governors have opposed offshore drilling even though it would bring jobs to their states and improve the nation's domestic oil supply.

But is it a valid concern?

USA Today reports that the National Research Council found just a tiny percentage of the oil in our oceans come from offshore drilling:

A report by the National Research Council found that offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2% of the petroleum in North America's oceans, compared with 63% from natural seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Coast Guard reports show that the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters dropped from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 in the 1990s.

Even in the midst of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, seepage was kept to a minimum:

During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 115 oil platforms were toppled, but only insignificant amounts of oil spilled, says Roland Guidry, Louisiana's oil spill coordinator.

President Bush today lifted an executive order ban on offshore drilling that had been in place since his father occupied the White House. Now it's time for Congress to get in gear and open up offshore areas and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling.

With our nation so dependent on foreign oil, and with Americans paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas, isn't it time to tell the environmental extremists to go pound sand?

Isn't it time we went back to a sane energy policy in America?

Newsflash: Plants Grow Better With More CO2

Our planet has a wonderfully efficient recycling system (some might say "intelligently designed"). Humans and animals take in oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. It "so happens" that plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. What an amazing system!

It's also interesting, in these times when we hear daily of the horrors of CO2 and how our evil capitalist CO2-producing-ways will soon render our planet a burning ball of fire, that (amazingly) scientists are finding that increased CO2 is making plants grow better.

From Breitbart:

The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.

Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.

"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.

Could it be that, even if humans really are producing significantly increased amounts of CO2 with their evil capitalistic activity, that plants are maintaining a balance by taking in more CO2 and growing more and producing more oxygen?

Nah. That might be the result from natural processes, but such a thing couldn't possibly result from human-produced CO2. Al Gore would have told us if that could happen.

Right?

Energy Expert: Offshore Drilling Environmentally Sound

From CNS News, The Institute for Energy Research (IER) says offshore drilling for oil is environmentally sound:

IER's Senior Vice President of Policy Daniel Kish asked about the environmental risk of oil drilling, said, "There's always a risk in any kind of energy development. Windmills kill birds."

Kish also noted that offshore oil drilling is preferable to importing oil supplies in tankers that could leak or spill their contents.

Offshore rigs proved themselves in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina. "We actually moved oil wells rigs out of the Gulf; they were blown out of the Gulf, and yet (there were) no oil spills at all because of the new techniques that have been used ever since the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969," Kish said.

There's risk getting out of bed everyday. But the minimal risks increased offshore drilling would involve are worth it.

I remember when I lived in England looking off the east shore of that country and seeing numerous oil rigs in the North Sea; they were so close you could see them clearly. Yet the Brits aren't afraid to exploit their local oil resources like we've allowed ourselves to become in the United States.

It's time to tell the environmental extremists to go pound sand and get on the road to American energy independence!

Develop Oil Reserves Now

On Dakota Voice and other blogs and news sites, on Fox News and MSNBC I have noticed that when the subject of drilling for American oil comes up the Leftist spokesmen respond that the benefits of drilling at home will be too little too late.

As a recent example, Bill Dennison, responded to a Dakota Voice post “Half of US Oil is Off Limits to Drilling” by claiming the US oil reserves are not enough to make any difference.

"If U.S. oil reserves (Alaska, Bakken, offshore and everywhere on U.S. territory) total an optimistic 150 Billion recoverable barrels that would replace our imports -- only our IMPORTS -- for approximately thirty five years. Then what?"

Thirty-five years!? Only IMPORTS? That, Bill, is exactly what we want to replace. Besides,I don’t believe that is all the oil there is, but if so, I’ll take it! That would give America the time to defeat terrorism, develop yet additional petroleum reserves, build nuclear power plants and advance alternative technologies. If not greater energy independence what is our alternative? Continue to pay the price demanded by our enemies in the Middle East so that they will have the wealth to continue to wage Jihad against the West?

Notice that the Democrats and Leftists do not bring up environmental concerns in their arguments against developing known oil reserves. They know that Americans dealing with 4 and 5 dollar per gallon gasoline and rising prices on groceries and most everything else are a little inpatient with enviro-whackos constantly whining and getting in the way of needed energy and development policies. Americans of all political persuasions are realizing that we cannot be held hostage to unfriendly countries, paying whatever they demand, and maintain our sovereignty and way of life. That is why it is so important for Republicans to seize this issue now and become the party of American strength and independence. (Unfortunately, John McCain is not the man to lead such a movement.)

But we can readily see which party in Congress is on the right side of the issue. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

BY THE ISSUE

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

CORRECTION: This post has been edited to remove a reference to another website that was erroneously mentioned and had nothing to do with persons named in this piece. My apologies to all, especially to loyal readers of Dakota Voice.

Some Big U.S. Cities Among Lowest Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Michelle A. Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jun. 03 2008 12:35 PM ET

Some of the largest cities in America actually have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per capita, according to a recent first-of-its-kind study that ranks the nation’s top 100 metro areas based on their climate change-causing pollution.

Honolulu, Los Angeles, and Portland boast the lowest per capita levels of global warming pollution, discovered the study “Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America” by Washington-based The Brookings Institution.

In fourth place is New York City, followed by Boise, Idaho; Seattle; San Jose, Calif.; San Francisco; and El Paso, Texas. San Diego rounds out the top 10 U.S. cities with the lowest per capita world warming pollution.

"Large metropolitan areas give their inhabitants smaller carbon footprints," explains energy policy expert Marilyn Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and lead author of the study, according to Scientific American magazine. "Footprints are the smallest in areas with high density and good rail transit."

It’s worth noting that the study examined only fuel used in transportation and energy use in homes, and did not account for key contributors such as commercial buildings and industry, or transportation besides highways so as to ignore, for example, the air freight re-supply which Honolulu depends on, according to Scientific American.

It also failed to account for the mass suburban commuters in Los Angeles that contribute to the city’s carbon emissions.

Another key finding of the survey is that southern and eastern cities contribute the most to climate change because residents in these regions depend more on coal and cars than people in other areas of the country.

Residents in Lexington, Ky., Indianapolis and Cincinnati emit the most greenhouse gases per capita among the nation’s top 100 metropolises. But it’s important to point out that these cities also have the burden of being major transportation hubs where freights are shuttled off to other parts of the country.

Other big emitters are Knoxville, Tenn.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Oklahoma City; St. Louis, Nashville; Louisville, Ky.; and Toledo, Ohio.

Authors of the report say their goal is to help cities reduce emissions by learning from cities that already have low levels of global warming pollution.

The study recommends the federal government pass policies that promote more transportation choices including shifting funds from highways to mass transit; introduce more energy-efficient freight operations; require home energy cost disclosure when selling to stimulate energy-efficient remodeling; use federal housing policy to create incentives for energy- and location-efficient decisions; among other suggestions.

But while authors of the report push for policies to curb global warming, some are voicing their opinion that while the earth may be warming it is not as catastrophic an event as many claim.

In May, a group of conservative Christians launched the “We Get It!” campaign which seeks to gather one million signatures for a statement that encourages Christians to look at the hard evidence, which they claim does not support the devastating degree of climate change claimed by mainstream society.

The campaign seeks to inform Christians about the biblical perspective on the environment and the poor, and educate believes on the devastating effects that current proposed policies will have on the poor in the world.

“It isn’t as though we think that the earth is here to be abused. It is not,” said Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “It is God’s creation and we have a responsibility to care for it and to do all that we can to help it be the place that God wants it to be.”

But “if humans are not causing the problem then it doesn’t matter how much we reduce CO2 emissions. It won’t make any difference,” he said.

Signers of the declaration said while they do acknowledge, in varying degrees, that global warming is real and humans are partly to blame for the earth’s warming, they believe that, for the most part, the heating of the earth is due to the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet.

Some of the signers of the “We Get It!” declaration include Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, award-winning radio host Janet Parshall, and U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

'We Get It' Campaign for Christian Environmental Stewardship

WASHINGTON, May 15 /Christian Newswire/ -- Christian leaders have joined with pastors and legislators to put forth a new initiative on caring for the environment. Today marks the launch of www.WeGetIt.org, a website offering visitors the opportunity to sign up and be a part of an historic movement.

The reaction to climate change has reached deep into prevailing culture. Knee-jerk reactions with good intentions can harm more than help. The recent increase in the cost of food is one example of the consequence of diverting crops such as corn to the production of ethanol as a fuel source. The impact that steep corn price increases have had on food distribution to third-world countries has been profoundly negative. Keeping in mind this difficult lesson, the "We Get It" coalition offers recommendations by which we can honor and care for the environment along with the poor.

The "We Get It" campaign coalition includes Senator James Inhofe, Cornwall Alliance, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Wallbuilders. Janet Parshall, Joel Belz of World Magazine, Acton Institute and Dr. Richard Land have also joined this monumental movement.

The Rev. James Tonkowich, IRD President, commented:

"Rather than consumers and polluters, we maintain that humans are stewards and creators—co-creators with God himself in whose image we humans have been made.

"A biblical and historic Christian approach to the environment understands that Earth was shaped by a benevolent Creator to be the habitat that sustains and enriches human life. Human creativity and human industry sustain and enrich the Earth while allowing us to obey Jesus' command that we love God and neighbor.

"The 'We Get It!' campaign is nothing more than good theology, simply stated and applied to questions of the environment. It acknowledges the sovereign God as creator of all things, humans who are in God’s image as producers and stewards, the redemption available through Jesus Christ, and the obligation to love our neighbors wisely and appropriately."

www.TheIRD.org

The Horror of Hybrids in Airplanes

As Marlon Brando in "Apocalypse Now" said, "The horror!"

From the British Telegraph, Paul McCartney is said to be "horrified" that his new hybrid earth-saving Lexus was delivered by airplane, wreaking untold environmental damage and threatening to knock the earth out of its orbit, plunging it into the sun.

The Lexus LS600H, which costs £84,000, was a gift from Lexus to the 65-year-old former Beatle, who helped promote the hybrid vehicle.

But instead of arriving by boat as expected, the car was flown to Britain on a Korean Air flight, creating a carbon footprint almost 100 times bigger than if it had come by sea.

You might think that if Lexus was environmentally conscious enough to build a hybrid, they would have never dreamed of sending a car internationally by airplane.

This environmentally reckless act goes toward my contention that even many "green" companies aren't buying this environmental extremist garbage; they're just playing along to avoid political fallout from the followers of this earth-first religion.

Of course, if you can sell an extra vehicle or two by pandering to someone's environmental paranoia, I suppose that makes good capitalist sense.

Let's Celebrate Earth Day with NRO

Iain Murray has posted a piece on National Review on-line just for festivities today. It is another critique of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," but makes some novel points, especially regarding Mr. Gore's honesty. After reading this piece would be a good time to take another look at the reviews of Al Gore's movie written after its opening, noting the uncritical praise, admiration and hyperbole of virtually the entire MSM.

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

Read the entire article here.

Enviro-Blasphemy on Earth Day

Randy Rasmussen at the Rapid City Journal has gone and done it now!

He's blasphemed on one of the Left's most holy days: Earth Day.

Rasmussen posted on the Journal's Mount Blogmore blog that it's no coincidence that Earth Day takes place on Vladimir Lenin's birthday.

Whether that's the case or not, I don't know; haven't looked into it. But I do know that the goals and language of both environmental wackos and Marxists are similar. They both hate the West, they both hate the United States, they both hate wealth (unless your one of the privileged elite like Al Gore--but these exceptions for the "more equal animals" is also similar), and they both hate capitalism.

And I believe the pop enviro-doctrine of the day, man-made global warming, is simply a move to stir up hysteria against capitalism and the West. In case you haven't noticed, their planet-saving initiatives such as the Kyoto Treaty gives a pass to some of the biggest polluters on the planet like China (who incidentally are Marxists) while sticking it to countries like the United States.

(Another irony of the enviro-mania is that the United States, which didn't sign onto Kyoto, is doing a better job of controlling emissions than the socialistic European nations that DID sign on.)

The Marxists, er, liberals, er, "progressives" on the Mount are predictably stirred up that Rasmussen would dare speak such unholy blasphemy on the day they've set aside to worship the planet (and advance their agenda).

Even the predictably liberal Democrat mouthpiece blog Badlands Blue is joining the chorus of enviro-indignation by calling for retractions and apologies and supplications and humiliations and beatings.

And while they try to paint holiday founder Senator Gaylord Nelson as some kind of middle-of-the-roader, his record clearly shows he's one of these Malthusian population control environmentalist wackos (maybe that IS middle-of-the-road for Democrats). Nice try.

It sure is fun watching Leftists get in a lather when someone sees through their silliness (like "Expelled").

On Earth Day, Idiots Stop Hugging Trees to Come Out of the Woodwork

Well, it's time for another so-called "Earth Day" today. Today is the day the enviro-idiots take a short break from hugging trees, coming out of the woodwork for the most holy day in their religion of Gaia worship. Even Google, the ever-liberal search engine, is all greened-up with a vegetative logo complete with peaceful (clean) flowing streams.

As a Christian, I take stewardship of our world seriously. God, who created Earth and all that is on it, put humanity in charge of it. Anything God has created deserves a measure of respect, and God had made it clear that when He delegates authority, He expects that duty to be taken seriously.

The natural resources of Earth are ours to use, to make our lives better and more comfortable. As we utilize those resources, we should do so responsibly. We shouldn't take more than we need, and we should harvest those resources in the most efficient, responsible manner possible. If we make a mess in the harvesting of those resources, we should clean it up for the benefit of humanity the rest of creation, and also out of respect for the Creator.

But we should not worship this planet or anything on it.

I fear...no, I'm convinced that many in our culture have moved far beyond an emphasis on responsible use and care of Earth to a position which dabbles with or crosses the line into worship of created things.

We see this unbalanced view manifest across a broad spectrum ranging from an inordinate fear of using natural resources, to an outright worship of Gaia and even the belief by some that humans are a parasite on the planet that must be eradicated (thought I don't see any of them at the head of the line).

Environmental hysteria has become so overweening that we have former vice presidents fabricating sci-fi fantasies of man made "global warming" with unfounded pronouncements of global disaster foisted upon us.

Even Patrick Moore, one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace, came to a point where he couldn't stomach the environmental insanity anymore and left the organization. He now says of the organization he created: "Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas."

These eco-centric views are not only sacrilegious, they make things unnecessarily difficult for many people who are struggling to get by.

In fact, the economic prosperity which is fueled by the use of those resources is the best vehicle for a balanced environmental management program. Enviro-idiots cannot grasp this concept, but we have seen it played out over and over.

Despite the pronouncements of doom from the America-hating Left, the United States is one of the cleanest countries on the planet. On the other side of the coin, former communist countries (an ideology that most eco-idiots are in love with) were some of the dirtiest, most polluting places ever seen. The environmental damage seen in the former Soviet Union and former Eastern Bloc countries was appalling, once the Iron Curtain came down.

The same scenario has been played out in poor, developing countries around the world. Nations with faltering industry and economies are the dirtiest in the world. As Steven F. Hayward says in his column at Human Events today, "Economic growth turns out to be the prerequisite for environmental protection—a fact that most environmentalists now grudgingly admit."

It seems every time the tree huggers come up with a new idea to save the planet, it ends up causing more problems.

The recycling craze was supposed to save the planet. We were all supposed to buy our 48 different blue recycling bins (and put them where around our house, I'm still unclear about) and spend our massive amounts of free time cleaning out bottles and cans and separating paper, etc. And we are supposed to pay extra for trash pickup, or take our garbage down to a community collection center and ensure it stays separated there, or both. But as a recent article from the Ludwig von Mises Institute points out, this exercise tends to bring other problems like increased vehicle emissions and rat infestations, with reports of increased energy consumption to accomplish the recycling effort. And in the end, it only comes out on the plus side economically when landfill fees become exorbitantly high.

In the last couple of years we've seen a big push to switch from the incandescent light bulbs to the supposedly enviro-friendly florescent spiral bulbs. Though I'm the last guy you'd expect to sign up as an eco-warrior, I replaced all the bulbs in my house through attrition (I wanted to save some money). I then found out that the claims they'll last 5 years are hooey, having had to replace 2 or 3 in the first year. Then we learned that if one of the bulbs breaks, you have to call out a hazmat team to clean up the spilled mercury--the same mercury which they now say will doom the planet if we throw away our bulbs in the landfill.

Remember 20 years or so ago, the plastic bags at the grocery store were supposed to get us away from those evil paper bags and save the planet? Well now the latest enviro-cry is that the plastic bags are evil and are destroying the planet.

Enviro-insanity may have even contributed to the deaths aboard two space shuttles. According to the Heartland Institute and other sources, the O-rings which caused the 1986 Challenger disaster, and the foam which caused the 2003 Columbia disaster, were inferior enviro-friendly substitutes for superior technological methods.

Just like the other so-called scientific voices that can't decide from one day to the next whether something will kill us or cure us, so the environmental movement thrashes about in scientific and theological ignorance, leaving a trail of confusion and more challenging living behind.

God gave humans dominion over the earth and all that is in it. Accordingly, we have a right to use the trees God planted. We have a right to use the oil God put in the earth. We have a right to use the coal God put here. We should use them as responsibly as is feasibly possible, but we should use them without hesitation until a cleaner energy source is devised.

It's time to get back to worshipping the creator rather than created things.

If we'd kept our focus there in the first place, we wouldn't have to contend with all the environmental silliness plaguing our culture today. And we'd likely have a clean environment without paying $4.00 for gas.

Environmentalism as a Religion

Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

How to Be Environmentally Friendly

In this video, the BBC (not a conservative news outlet by any stretch) tells us how we can reduce our "carbon emissions" by 60%.




Are you ready to jump onboard? Is Al Gore?

Does Al Gore Walk the Talk That He Talks?

If you've been on earth long, you're familiar with Al Gore's wagging finger in our faces about the energy we use, our impact on the environment, and oh yes, that boogie monster global warming.

You would expect someone so concerned, so convicted about our planet and our "responsible" use of resources would be the epitome of environmental responsibility, right? Think again.

Did you know that President Bush's house in Texas is more environmentally friendly than Gore's?

Here's what a NewsMax article from a year ago reported:

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an 'eco-friendly haven.'

'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets,' it said. 'The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.'

In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume.'

Of Gore's house, that same article said

...the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

Now comes a new ad from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) which illustrates how Gore lives high on the energy "hog" while expecting us "little people," including those struggling to get out of poverty, to bite the bullet. Are the little people saving energy and resources so Al Gore and his privileged elites can use more?



This ad focuses on the impact that Al Gore's proposed energy restrictions would have on the world's poor, and highlights the hypocrisy of Mr. Gore's own high-energy lifestyle.

For more information, check out http://www.cei.org or our global warming info here.

Scientist Gathering Challenges Gore 'Science'

WorldNetDaily reports on the gathering of more than 100 scientists at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.

Environmental scientist S. Fred Singer and others gathered to shatter Al Gore's myth that humanity is causing global warming.

At the meeting, Singer presented a 40-page report on a study conducted over the past three years by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The findings of the study are reflected in the title of the report: "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate." A full copy of the report can be found at the Heartland Institute.

The report accepts that warming has occurred, but asks the all-important question: "How much is due to anthropogenic causes?" It points out that evidence of warming is not evidence that warming is man-caused. It also points out that the IPCC’s "hockey-stick" temperature analysis, widely cited as "proof" of man-made global warming, has been discredited. Also cited are warming and cooling trends which have occurred over the past 1,000 years.

Projections by computer models have also failed to hold up in the real world.

Ironically, the report says any modest warming is likely to produce positive economic benefits, not the disaster predicted by Al Gore.

The final word:

"Global warming is attributable to natural causes," Singer told WND, "so in that sense global warming is unstoppable, regardless what measures Al Gore or the U.N. want to impose on us with new international governmental regulations."

We should always be wary when business-loathing, Western-culture-hating environmental-extremist socialists come to us crying "The sky is falling."

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but any "evidence" they present should be examined with a wary eye and their motives in mind.