Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz


Archive for the 'Global Warming' Category

OBAMA’S STIMULUS PACKAGE REWARDS LONG SUFFERING GREENS

Posted in Alternative Energy, Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Clean Energy, Eco -Chic, Global Warming, News Brief, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Energy, Sustainable Living, Will Wonders Never Cease Department on February 16th, 2009

PACKAGE CONTAINS OVER 60 BILLION IN DIRECT SPENDING ON GREEN INITIATIVES AND ANOTHER 20 BILLION EARMARKED FOR GREEN TAX INCENTIVES

The final stimulus package which President Obama is expected to sign into law today, President’s Day, contains many victories for environmentalists with over $6o billion in direct spending on green initiatives and another $20 billion earmarked for green tax incentives.

While this package is by no means a cure-all, it is a vital he first step into a new green age and is necessary to combat the ever-worsening effects of Global Warming.

That being said, here in no particular order is the breakdown:

$11 billion for the construction of an advanced Digital Smart Grid and $7.5 billion for renewable energy and transmission-line construction, which will enable the renewable energy to be moved from the rural areas that best lend themselves to wind, solar and thermal installations, to the cities where the power is needed;

$2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable-energy research;

$6.3 billion for local government energy-efficiency grants;

$400 million for the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy for the development of alternative energy sources;

$500 million for green jobs programs through the Workforce Investment Act;

$5 billion to weatherize old buildings;

$4.5 billion to boost the energy efficiency of federal buildings;

$2.25 billion for the HOME Investment Partners Program to fund energy-efficiency retrofits for low-income housing;

$5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program to fund the retrofits of 1 million modest-income homes, saving the families living there an average $350 a year;

$6.3 billion to improve federally backed and public housing projects with new insulation, windows and furnaces. For every dollar spent, such programs are expected to produce about $3 in electricity savings. The legislation also provides tax breaks for higher-income households making similar improvements;

$1.2 billion to fund the Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental cleanup programs, including the long neglected Superfund;

$510 million for energy-efficiency retrofits for Native American housing programs;

$420 million for energy-efficiency improvements at the Department of Defense;

$300 million for Department of Defense research on energy efficiency at military installations;

$6 billion for cleaning up toxins on former military sites;

$6 billion for new loan guarantees for wind and solar;

The package also extends tax credits for wind-energy production for three years where previously they had to be renewed year to year. But more importantly, the legislation allows renewable-energy developers to get cash grants in exchange for the tax credits, which is crucial in light of the current economic downturn and the fact that many companies engaged in renewable-energy haven’t had the profits against which to take a tax credit;

Over $17 billion for public transportation;

$8.4 billion for transit capital assistance programs;

$9.3 billion for high-speed rail, intercity rail and Amtrak;

$27.5 billion for highways though some of that highway money could be redirected to fund public transit, if states and municipalities decide it should;

$300 million in grants and loans for technologies that reduce highly toxic diesel emissions;

$6 billion for improvements to drinking-water systems;

A tax credit of up to $7,500 for families that buy plug-in hybrids;

The new bill also allocates $300 million for a federal fleet of hybrid vehicles.

But perhaps the best of all is what was left out of the final draft of the stimulus package: the $50 billion in federal loan guarantees to the nuclear industry, as well as all money for coal and for the farce that is clean coal.

Denis

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

IT’S CHRISTMAS IN NOVEMBER FOR BUSH LOYALISTS

Posted in Administrative Arrogance, Eco Thugs, Global Warming, News Brief on November 5th, 2008

ON THE WAY OUT THE DOOR, THE BUSH ADMINISTRTION LAUNCHES ANOTHER BROADSIDE AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT

Not content to shuffle gently into retirement, the Bush administration has announced that it is putting the finishing touches on a series of environmental policy changes intended to reward Corporate America for their loyalty by relaxing numerous critical environmental restrictions that Bush loyalists have identified as standing in the way of their plundering what remains of our precious natural resources.

The so-called “midnight regulations,” named for the way that they are enacted by an administration as it scurries out the door include: rolling back protections under the Endangered Species Act; allowing power plants to operate near national parks; loosening regulations for factory farm waste, and making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations to destroy mountains and pollute nearby lakes and streams.

What sucks about the new restrictions is that if the Bush administration passes them in a timely fashion – - and there is no indication that they will do otherwise – - it will be hard for President Obama to do anything about them without a major investment of time and political capitol.

Now you would think in light of the way things turned out on Election Day that George Bush would be too concerned about his own potential for criminal prosecution on a wide range of issues to fuck with the American people any further.

But this is not the case. Perhaps this is a suicidal wish? Or maybe the son of a bitch has such total disregard for the American people that he just doesn’t give a damn and by these actions is challenging the American people to go after his ass?

Either way the bad news is that we have not yet seen the end of George Bush.

Now if only I could blink my eyes and it be the afternoon of January 20th, 2009.

- Denis

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

EU TO FORCE AIRLINES TO BUY EMISSIONS PERMITS

Posted in Conscious Actions, Global Warming, News Brief on October 27th, 2008

AIRLINES CRY POVERTY IN THE HOPE OF STALLING THE RULING

In one of the brighter recent strokes by a governing body, the European Union, on Friday, put in place legislation to force airlines flying into or out of member countries to join the emissions trading system. The measure, which is intended to cap the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, drew considerable criticism from airline industry executives for the timing of its passing, given the current global economic crisis. Estimates are that it will cost the airlines, which serve the European market, at least $4.4 billion per year to comply. The ruling is set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2012.

Many airlines have fought hard to avoid inclusion in the system, including American-based carriers who are maintaining that the ruling may violate international aviation agreements.

Clearly this is one that will end up in the courts.

Read on after the jump.

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

CALCULATING YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT: PART ONE

Posted in Ethical Living, Global Warming, News Brief on October 16th, 2008

ALL PRODUCTS HAVE A CARBON FOOTPRINT. SEE HOW SOME OF LIFE’S BASICS MEASURE UP

First came organic. Then came fair trade. Now makers of everything from milk to jackets to cars are starting to tally up the carbon footprints of their products. That’s the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that get coughed into the air when the goods are made, shipped and stored, and then used by consumers.

So far, these efforts raise as many questions as they answer. Different companies are counting their products’ carbon footprints differently, making it all but impossible for shoppers to compare goods. And even if consumers come to understand the numbers, they might not like what they find out.

For instance, many products’ global-warming impact depends less on how they’re made than on how they’re used. That means the easiest way to cut carbon emissions may be to buy less of a product or use it in a way that’s less convenient.

MORE AFTER THE JUMP

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

NEWS WATCH! CONGRESS SAYS ADIEU WITHOUT ADDRESSING GLOBAL WARMING

Posted in Global Warming, Government Shenanigans, News Brief on October 3rd, 2008

BUT THEY DID LEAVE BEHIND A SET OF PRINCIPLES TO AID THE NEXT CONGRESS IN CREATING COMPREHENSIVE GLOBAL WARMING LEGISLATION

The now empty CapitolWell friends, another legislative session has come and gone and still we don’t have a simple, coherent, well thought out plan to deal with Global Warming.

What we do have is a to-do list of principles; promises basically, intended to guide the next Congress when and if they finally get around to drafting comprehensive global warming legislation.

The principles, the brain child of House members Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA), and co-signed by 152 of their fellow members include:

Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming;

Transition America to a clean energy economy;

Recognize and minimize any economic impacts from global warming legislation; and

Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming.


Continue reading:

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

OZONE HOLE LARGER THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR

Posted in Global Warming on September 16th, 2008

COLD TEMPERATURES AND CHEMICAL POLLUTION BLAMED

Tantartic23.jpghe ozone hole is larger in 2008 than the previous year but is not expected to reach the size seen two years ago, the World Meteorological Organisation said Tuesday.

“In 2008, the ozone hole appeared relatively late. However, during the last couple of weeks it has grown rapidly and has now passed the maximum size attained in 2007,” the WMO said in a statement.

The hole in the layer over the Antarctic was discovered in the 1980s. It regularly tends to form in August, reaching its maximum size late September or early October before it fills again in mid-December.

Read On

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

CAMPAIGN 08: OBAMA & MCCAIN WEIGH IN ON THE KEY GREEN ISSUES OF THE DAY

Posted in Clean Energy, Global Warming, Sustainable Living on August 30th, 2008

CANDIDATES OFFER DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO THE SAME PROBLEM

obama-montage-large.jpgAfter eight years of the Bush administration deficating all over all things green, it is refreshing to not only have a presidential campaign where both candidates agree that global warming is real, that it is man made, and that it is the job of the Federal Government to play a part in reducing the threat, but one where both candidates are willing to get specific as to the steps that they will take to make our country a saner, healthier, more sustainable global citizen.

This being said, there are a rash of differences in the two men’s approaches to the crisis, which I, with the help of research from thedailygreen.com, have outlined below.

When I was putting this posting together, I could not resist from time time editorializing on some of the candidate’s positions. MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS!

GLOBAL WARMING

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would cut emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; NOT ENOUGH!

His cap-and-trade regulation would include an auction of all pollution credits;

Would use the money generated to pursue aggressive renewable energy and energy efficiency goals that would create millions of new “green collar” jobs. ‘BOUT TIME!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Would support a 60% cut below 1990 levels of pollution; DEFINATELY NOT ENOUGH!

Would allot credits to existing polluters, rather than auctioning them off. WHY SHOULD THE POLLUTERS NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE?

NATIONAL SECURITY

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would wean the nation off of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil within 10 years;

Would invest heavily in renewable energy technologies;

Would improve the energy efficiency of cars and buildings;

Would enact new rules to make burning coal more expensive and to encourage the use of alternatives. ALL GOOD IDEAS!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Would support drilling for more oil; VERY BAD!

Would support using more renewable and alternative forms of energy, including (so-called) “clean coal;” CLEAN COAL IS A FANTASY!

Would support greater use of nuclear power for electricity. WHAT ABOUT THE NUCLEAR WASTE?

NUCLEAR ENERGY

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

While he does not oppose the use of nuclear power, he always acknowledges the safety and radioactive waste arguments; NOT STRONG ENOUGH!

Would redistribute cash from the oil and coal industries to renewables. GOOD!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Has made expanding nuclear power a central part of his energy platform by calling for the construction of 45 new plants by 2030. 45 MORE CHANCES TO POISON US ALL!

OFFSHORE DRILLING

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would accept offshore drilling only as part of a compromise to achieve broader energy policy goals, which include massive investments in renewable and alternative energy. ENOUGH COMPROMISES!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Supports increased offshore drilling. “Drill here now” is his common refrain.A SERIOUS FLIP-FLOP FROM MAVERICK MCCAIN!

ETHANOL

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would maintain subsidies and tariffs that support the corn-based ethanol industry.
OLD BAD HABITS DIE HARD!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Talks about opposing subsidies for corn growers; GOOD!

Strongly opposes the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which protects domestic corn growers; BAD!

Supports the use of ethanol and the development of Cellulosic ethanol, but doesn’t get specific.
AT LEAST HE’S THINKING OF SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES

ENERGY COSTS

CANDIDATE OBAMA:

Would enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to give families a $1,000 “Emergency Energy Rebate;” GOOD!

Would invest in plug-in hybrid cars and boosting fuel economy, to help reduce oil imports; GOOD!

Would also take expensive grades of oil stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and swap it for cheaper grades; WHO CARES?

Would spend money generated by a cap-and-trade regulation designed to lower carbon emissions on projects to boost home energy efficiency, and to provide credits to people struggling to pay higher electricity bills; WISE!

Would require local utilities to derive 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025.
NOT NEARLY ENOUGH!

CANDIDATE MCCAIN:

Would expand domestic production of oil and natural gas; SO 20TH CENTURY!

Would offer a $5,000 tax break to those who buy zero-carbon vehicles, (which do not yet exist); COULD BE PROMISING!

Would eliminate the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, which experts say would have a modest effect on price; HURTS AMERICAN FARMERS!

Would oppose a windfall profits tax on oil companies; A PAYBACK TO BIG OIL FOR THEIR SUPPORT!

Would focus on improving the energy efficiency of the federal government, hoping to drive down price by slackening demand; WISHFULL THINKING!

Favors the installation of so-called “SmartMeters” so individuals can better monitor their energy consumption and its cost; GOOD IDEA TO MAKE PUBLIC CONSCIOUS OF USE!

Would create predictable tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
COULD BE GOOD!

- DENIS

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

NEWS WATCH! CLEAN GREEN RETRO MASS TRANSIT RE-EMERGES

Posted in Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Clean Energy, Conscious Actions, Eco -Chic, Global Warming, News Brief, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Transportation on August 15th, 2008

OVER 40 US CITIES CONSIDER RESTORING STREETCAR LINES AS SMOG -FREE MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE.

seattle-streetcar-opening-d.jpgMost of us are too young to remember streetcars; those early twentieth century train/bus hybrid vehicles powered by overhead electric lines that ran on rails flush with the pavement, stopping frequently to pick up and disgorge passengers from entrance/exits on both sides.

Well it appears that this novel, fun means of early twentieth century transportation is just what the doctor ordered to help relieve deadlock in today’s overcrowded clean-energy conscious world.

Citing reasons including spurring economic development, easing traffic congestion and as a way to draw hip young professionals and empty-nest baby boomers back from the suburbs, over forty US cities are considering reactivating streetcars, which for the most part fell victim in the late 1940’s through mid 1950’s to aggressive automobile and oil industry lobbying.

More than a dozen US cities already have existing streetcar lines, including New Orleans, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma and San Francisco, while Denver, Houston, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City and Charlotte, N.C., either have already introduced, or are planning to introduce streetcars.

At a cost of about $3 million dollars per streetcar and an average capacity of 130 passengers per car, it seems that this is a bargain that cities can not afford to let pass them by, particularly with all of the uncertainty surrounding future fuel prices and the crap that our country has to put up with from oil producing nations.

Now if we could only get the electricity to power the streetcars from clean renewable sources, it would be a win-win for everyone.

- – Denis

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

NEWS WATCH! AMERICANS SPEAK OUT ON GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Posted in Clean Energy, Conscious Actions, Corporate Polluters, Global Warming, Sustainable Living on August 11th, 2008

POLL REVEALS MORE AMERICANS THAN EVER BEFORE WORKING TO REDUCE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT” BY DRIVING LESS, USING LESS ELECTRICITY AND RECYCLING

airpollition4.jpg

Americans in record numbers are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint despite the stonewalling of major politicians and much of the corporate elite, according to the latest ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford University Poll.

Of those quizzed, the majority believe that Global Warming is real, that it is caused by the actions of individuals and businesses, and unless significant lifestyle changes are enacted will greatly impact the lives of future generations. To aid in the fight against Global Warming, most Americans polled support a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Not surprisingly, an overwhelming 64% of Americans polled now rate “finding new energy sources” as more important than improving conservation. Additionally, most Americans admit to supporting higher taxes on oil company profits, stricter fuel efficiency rules for cars, and legislative controls to prevent oil speculators from driving up gas prices.

For some reason, however, most of those polled – - a stunning 41% – - reject describing themselves as environmentalists. Among those distancing themselves from the trendy label are 70% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats.

Finally, on a disappointing note, 44% of those polled favor building more nuclear power plants, the most people to express support of nuclear power in 28 years.

POLL NUMBERS AT A GLANCE:

Ways respondents are reducing their individual carbon footprint:

71% of those polled are reducing their use of energy or goods whose production creates greenhouse gases.

59% are using less gasoline — driving less, or using smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, while others are carpooling or taking mass transit.

60% are cutting their consumption of power and water, and

33% are recycling.

Ways America can reduce it’s global carbon footprint:

78% of respondents support the institution of stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars.

61% would like the federal government to outlaw oil speculation by investors when the speculation results in higher prices at the pump.

55% would support a windfall profit tax on oil company profits, and

74% favor the institution of a “cap and trade” system with the government issuing permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can emit.

Of those supporting a “cap and trade” system, 57% would maintin this position even if it raised their electric bill by $10 a month, while a slightly smaller 47% would continue their support if the increase was $25 a month.

This system enjoys bi-partisan suport with 66 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans, and 60 percent of Independents expressing their support for the “cap-and-trade” system.

Why respondents conserve:

34% say it’s mainly to improve the environment.

25% acknowledge it’s to save money, and

41% attribute their actions to both reasons equally.

Why 30% of respondents are not conserving:

20% admit not knowing how to proceed.

50% consider it either unnecessary, too expensive, too inconvenient, won’t do any good, or they just aren’t interested.

GLOBAL WARMING:

80% of those polled acknowledge that global warming is occurring, with 25% of respondents listing global warming as the single biggest environmental problem in the world.

It’s effect on the planet:

74% of respondents blame Global Warming for causing the melting of polar ice.

Closer to home, nearly 60% of those polled credit global warming with increasing the frequency of extreme weather events like droughts and storms, while 43% blame unstable weather patterns in the area where they live on the phenomena.

Global Warming and the future:

81% of those polled believe that if significant action isn’t taken to address global warming, it poses a threat to future generations.

37% worry it will affect them in their own lifetime, and

73% worry that it’ll pose a serious threat in their children’s lifetimes.

Responsibility for Global Warming:

58% of those polled blame Global Warming on the actions of people. This number rises to 63% when commercial and industrial activities are added to the mix.

64% of women polled believe global warming is caused by human activity, as opposed to 52% of men.

Reducing Global Warming:

75% of those polled believe global warming will only be reduced if individuals make major lifestyle changes.

67% of respondents feel that the federal government should do more about global warming even if other countries do less.

Men vs. Women on Global Warming:

72% of women polled reported that global warming is “personally important to them, while

59% of men agreed.

Religion and Gobal Warming:

26% of those polled, who identified themselves as evangelical white Protestants, see global warming as very serious issue compared to 40% of non-evangelical white Protestants.

35% of those polled, who identified themselves as evangelical white Protestants, claim that global warming is “personally important to them” as opposed to 48% of of non-evangelical white Protestants, while

46% of those polled, who identified themselves as evangelical white Protestants, acknowledged that they would like to see the federal government doing more about global warming, compared with 64% of non-evangelical white Protestants.

Politics and Global Warming:

20% of those polled who identified themselves as Republican admitted that they consider Global Warming as very serious,

compared to 53% of Democrats for whom the issue is very serious.
polled.

Nuclear Power:

44% of those polled favor building more nuclear power plants.

Support for Nuclear by political party:

60% of respondents who support building more nuclear power plants listed their party affiliation as Republican; while

33% of Democrats stated their support for a greater use of nukes.

An Environmentalist for President:

42% of those polled say they’d be more likely to support a candidate who’s a strong environmentalist.

Buying Green:

75% of those polled believe buying environmentally friendly products is better for the environment.

67% try to buy them at least occasionally, while

46% try to buy them “whenever possible.”

Green’s meaning to America:

33% percent of those polled believe taking unilateral action actually would help the U.S. economy creating new businesses and jobs, while

22% believe such efforts will damage the U.S. economy.

On a less positive note, 44% of those polled worry that addressing Global Warming will cause them financial hardship.

Offshore Drilling and drilling in Nature Preserves:

63 percent of those polled favor oil drilling in coastal waters where it’s currently prohibited, and

55 percent favor drilling in wilderness areas.

My Notes! These last two numbers, while higher than normal in polls like this, are most certainly a reaction to $4.00 a gallon gasoline, and to the massive profits that the oil companies are enjoying as a result of the higher prices.

Sadly, the poll did not quiz respondents on how much oil they believed was in these currently protected areas? Had they done so, all parties involved would have been disappointed to learn that if all of the currently protected areas were drained dry of oil, there may – - and this is a very questionable may – - be enough remaining to supply the world for 5 or 6 months, tops.

So why then all of the interest from George Bush, John McCain and others of their ilk in drilling in and potentially damaging these areas?

What do the oil companies stand to gain from the tens, and perhaps, hundreds of millions of dollars that they are spending, and will continue to spend, on lobbyists and in the purchase of politicians to achieve this goal?

My best guess is that it is all about control. Most expert’s believe that short of a miracle occurring between now and Election Day, the Democrats will sweep all three branches of government come election day. And with the Democrats will come saner energy policy, and a government less willing to roll over and play dead at Big Oil’s beckoning.

So for those in the fossil fuel business, it’s now or potentially never. Let’s hope the latter comes to pass.

Till Soon!

- – Denis

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace

COMMENTARY: GREEN ENERGY’S LATEST FAIR WEATHER FRIEND

Posted in Alternative Energy, Clean Energy, Eco -Chic, Global Warming, News Brief on July 24th, 2008

OILMAN, T. BOONE PICKENS, ISSUES TEN YEAR PLAN TO PROMOTE WIND ENERGY AND REDUCE AMERICA’S DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

180px-turbine_aalborg.jpgLifelong oilman and deep pockets Republican money guy, T. Boone Pickens, has a new Beltway posse, and for once, there is hardly a Republican in sight.

To better understand the strange turn of events which has made Pickens a pariah among his one-time friends, one needs only to look at the Texas entrepreneur’s latest business venture promoting wind energy as a replacement for oil, and his controversial plans to build sufficient wind turbines throughout the country so that we will be able to draw as much as 20% of our power needs from wind by 2018. According to Pickens, reaching this goal would have the added benefit of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by at least a third in the same time frame.

To promote his plan, the outspoken Texas oil billionaire has launched a 58 million dollar, self-funded television and radio advertising campaign, the goal of which is to make Americans aware that not only is our energy situation critical, but contrary to Bush Administration and oil industry assurances, this is “one crisis that we cannot drill our way out of”.

It is this statement more than anything else that has caused Pickens’s the most grief from onetime friends and allies in big oil and on the political right. Of course, intelligent people can make the case that Pickens is better off without this bunch, as we all would be, for that matter.

Speaking of that which would make America better, seeing Pickens’s old friends being forced to “perp walk” for their part in the trashing of the American dream would definitely bring a smile to my face. Though the the pragmatist in me is forced to acknowledge that it is unlikely that the Democrats currently serving in Congress have what it takes to make this, or anything else relevant happen. This saddens me to no end, as so much about our country does these days.


BEWARE OF THE OILMAN BEARING GIFTS

One needs to remember that T. Pickens is an oil man used to buying and selling politicians and everything else in pursuit of the golden ring. In other words, beware of the billionaire bearing gifts. He is not your friend and will only appear to be so as long as you are doing his bidding.

In their rush to embrace Pickens, I can only hope that Democrats stand back for a moment and remember that the very same guy who is their hero of the moment, – Mr. Wind Energy – was the cash behind 2004’s infamous Swift Boat attack ads that attempted – with a certain degree of success – to destroy the hero status and character of Democratic Presidential Candidate, John Kerry, by lying over and over again about Kerry’s war record, sometimes going so far as to label the Vietnam war hero a coward and to insist that he fraudulently received his battlefield medals.

Much as he did at the time of the Swift Boat incident, Pickens claims his motives for promoting wind energy “are patriotic”, telling Vimal Patel of the Los Angeles Times that “I only have one enemy, and that’s foreign oil, I’m first an American, and second an oilman.”

I am sure that the people who authorized the internment of Japanese American citizens in the California desert during World War II had similar opinions about themselves.

- Denis


Read More about T. Boone Pickens’s, Pickens Plan

Share:
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Fark
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Netscape
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace