In the Pipeline: 6/3/13

This is fun. It’s like an 8th grade math question: “If Bob Inglis is running for elected office, is it wise for him to support a carbon tax?”. R Street (5/31/13) reports: “The R Street Institute and the Heartland Institute cordially invite you to a debate among friends on the question: Are there any circumstances under which conservatives should support a tax on carbon emissions?”

Gee, now they admit it. The Hill (6/1/13) reports: “Environmental lobbyists are pressing President Obama to turn more western lands into national monuments to prevent oil-and-gas companies from drilling there… The Sierra Club is leading the charge and is sweetening its message with political sugar, saying Obama could thereby help Democrats win House and Senate seats in midterm elections year.”

Stewart Udall was right. The environmental movement is fundamentally anti-people and mostly racist. But the Sierra Club and the rest of the leadership are now just adjuncts of the Democratic Party. Politico (6/1/13) reports: Environmentalists are getting off the sidelines and backing immigration reform — but it wasn’t easy… During the Senate’s last go round on the issue in 2007, greens stayed silent to avoid airing their dirty laundry — an internal dispute that some in the movement feared would be seen as racist… Their family feud was so rough that it twice nearly ruptured the Sierra Club when a vocal faction — including some of the movement’s leading luminaries — argued too many new immigrants living the American dream could spell doom for the planet.”

While your flight was in a holding pattern due to FAA furloughs, which oh by the way means the plane was burning fuel unnecessarily, the federal government was busy patting itself on the back with “green energy scorecards”. Maybe His Majesty’s jesters wouldn’t have to make embarrassing stunts to justify their bloated budgets if they spent less time handing out participation trophies at frivolous conferences and conventions.PoliticoPro (5/31/13) reports: “As part of the Obama Administration’s initiative to reduce energy use, pollution and waste and save money in Federal operations, Federal agencies today released annual updates that show significant progress toward energy and sustainability goals. Under Executive Order 13514, President Obama directed Federal agencies to reduce their carbon pollution, increase renewable energy use, and meet energy and water efficiency goals. These annual performance scorecards benchmark agencies’ progress and help them to target the best opportunities to improve their energy efficiency and reduce costs and waste in their operations moving forward.”

We took a shot at the ski industry last week, but our friends kick it up a notch and really stomp the point home. POWERLINE (5/31/13) reports: “Skiers use energy to haul mass uphill, only to slide back down hill, over and over again. They fly or drive long distances to get to places that are cold (requiring heated facilities). While there, they consume goods that are hauled long-distances and up hill. The perishable goods have to be refrigerated (think about that for a minute). Virtually everything they wear (and their gear) is made from petroleum. From a thermodynamic perspective, you would have a hard time designing a more greenhouse-gas-intensive activity than skiing. Vanity space flight, perhaps… But the companies involved would like some green-washing courtesy of the government: they want legislation that would let them claim they’re doing good (“We’re paying our carbon tax!”) when in reality, they’ll pass their direct costs onto the skiers (who can afford it), while the majority of the costs of carbon control imposed on the general public

Speak Your Mind


Anonymous says:
Your email has been received. Thank you for signing up.