Obama’s legal problems

By now most Americans are familiar with the legal challenges to President Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. In March, the Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the various aspects of the law including the government’s mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance. Although the Court has not yet ruled on the case, pointed questions from the justices lead many observers to believe that at least part of the law will be struck down.
If the Supreme Court does rule that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, it will not be the first time that the Obama Administration has been chastised by the judicial branch. Last year, President Obama’s Interior Department was held in contempt for violating a federal judge’s ruling striking down the moratorium on offshore oil drilling imposed after the BP oil spill in 2010. After the judge ordered the moratorium lifted, the Interior Department continued to refuse to issue drilling permits for months. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar also imposed onerous safety rules on drilling that the judge ruled were in violation of federal law.
The Obamacare case is not the first time that the Obama Administration has found itself in legal trouble. In February 2011, a federal judge held the administration in contempt for continuing its deepwater oil drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down. According to Bloomberg, the government acted with “defiance” and “determined disregard” in refusing to issue drilling permits even after a court struck down Obama’s ban on offshore drilling.
President Obama’s EPA has suffered several defeats recently. In a March 2012 Supreme Court ruling, an Idaho couple was building a house when the EPA ordered them to restore the wetlands on their property and threatened fines of $75,000 per day according to the Washington Post. There was no noticeable water on the property. Lower courts ruled that EPA compliance orders were not subject to judicial review, but the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the couple could challenge the EPA’s order in court.
Another EPA case involves the agency’s refusal to approve a Texas plan for implementing air quality standards. According to Businessweek, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA had “no legal basis” to reject the Texas standard after it failed to identify where federal standards were not met and missed a deadline to rule on the plan by three years according to the Austin Statesman.
The EPA has recently lost another case to Texas as well. In December 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a stay on an EPA rule regarding cross-state air pollution that was set to take effect in January. The ruling means that the EPA regulations will not take effect until the court makes a decision on the case. Arguments in the case were heard in April, but the court has not issued a decision yet. Georgia is also a party to the cross-state lawsuit.
In more litigation relating to the EPA, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a Marietta, Ga. based group, is challenging the Obama EPA’s decision to unilaterally amend the Clean Air Act to allow it to regulate carbon. On April 2, Shannon Goessling, the executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, was interviewed about the lawsuit on the Michael Medved Show. (Listen in Atlanta on AM-920. The interview is archived at MichaelMedved.com and the SLF website.) Goessling said that 15 Georgia businesses and business associations as well 7 members of Congress from Georgia are among the parties to the lawsuit.
According to Goessling and SLF court filings, six million businesses would potentially be subject to EPA carbon rules under the new regulations. The expansion of EPA regulatory power would have a devastating effect on the economy, dramatically increasing the cost of energy and costing millions of jobs. The result of the regulation would be to reduce the world temperature by 0.00071 degrees Celsius, “70 times smaller than the smallest change that can be detected” according to the SLF brief. The annual emissions reduced by the regulation would be replaced by China in 13 days.
The question is whether the EPA had the right to regulate carbon at all. Congress failed to pass cap-and-trade carbon regulation in 2010. Since Congress did not pass the legislation, President Obama’s EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, decided to bypass Congress and regulate carbon as a pollutant in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, which directed the agency to review whether it could legally regulate carbon. According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, EPA regulations will take effect on power plants this month and refineries in November 2012. If the regulations are allowed to take effect, energy costs are poised to skyrocket. The case was recently heard by a federal appeals court which has not yet ruled.
The rash of cases against the EPA for unconstitutional and illegal overreach reflects the attitude of EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz who recently surfaced in a video favorably comparing EPA enforcement actions to Roman crucifixions. Armendariz implied that he felt the need to make an example of a few companies in order to intimidate the rest. He resigned after the video went public.
Other members of the Obama Administration have their own personal legal problems. Attorney General Eric Holder may be held in contempt of Congress for his role in the cover-up of the Fast and Furious scandal according to ABC News. Holder’s Justice Department has not complied with congressional requests for many documents detailing the failed gun sting. In Operation Fast and Furious, federal agents allowed straw purchasers to smuggle thousands of guns purchased in the U.S. into Mexico. The guns were used in several murders, including that of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
Finally, the Obama Administration was the plaintiff in a case against Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The administration sued to block implementation of the law on the grounds that only the federal government has the right to set immigration policy. Nevertheless, according to Yahoo, the Supreme Court appeared ready to uphold at least part of the Arizona law. At times even liberal judges were critical of the government’s case.
President Obama’s legal problems reflect a disregard for the letter of the law and an arrogant attitude that the government always knows best. Ironically, the disregard for constitutional principles and the rule of law may sink his signature legislative accomplishment and be the ultimate undoing of his presidency.

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-legal-troubles?cid=db_articles

Obama’s green war on jobs and energy

In spite of acknowledging the need to wean the United States off of Middle Eastern oil, the Obama Administration, prompted by core supporters in the environmental lobby, is waging a job-killing war against two projects that would help the economy, produce jobs for Americans, and, perhaps most importantly, reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly foreign countries.

The first issue is the EPA’s proposed regulation of fracking. “Fracking” is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting fluids, primarily water, into rocks to create larger fissures. The larger fissures allow more oil or natural gas to flow into the well. The process makes it possible to tap into previously unreachable oil and natural gas reserves. The debate on fracking centers on the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and Ohio and the Dakota oil and gas fields. Fracking has also been used safely in Texas since the 1950s.

Opponents of fracking are concerned about the impact on air and water quality. Opponents will likely be heartened by the recent release of an EPA report that suggests that fracking may contaminate groundwater. The Wall Street Journal notes that the report, which has not been peer reviewed, admits that chemicals detected in the water in Pavilion, Wy., where the tests were done, are within acceptable limits. Further, the problematic chemical detected is not used in fracking at all, but is a common fire retardant used in plastic components for drinking water wells. This leads many to believe that the contamination is not from fracking at all.

The decision on whether to allow fracking in the Marcellus Shale is important because of the size of the field. It contains an estimated 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The amount recoverable, estimated at about ten percent of the total, is almost equal to two years of natural gas production for the entire rest of the country. As technology advances, more oil and gas that was previously unreachable can be recovered.

Allowing fracking would not only create jobs in the natural gas and oil industries, it would be a boon to the rest of the economy in the form of cheaper energy costs as well. When energy costs go down, manufacturing costs decrease as well. This makes American products more competitive and helps American businesses grow.

The second project that President Obama’s administration is intentionally delaying is the Keystone oil pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would run from Canada’s Athabasca oil sands in Alberta to American refineries in Texas.

The benefits of the pipeline are easy to see. Most obviously, it would relieve U.S. dependency on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil and contribute to national energy security. The additional supplies of oil should also help drive down energy costs. Further, TransCanada, the pipeline’s owner, estimates that construction of the pipeline would create 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Other jobs would be created in other industries, such as restaurants and hotels, as well. The effect of lower energy prices would create positive effects across the economy. Total value to the U.S. economy is expected to exceed $20 billion.

The pipeline was proposed in 2008 and approved by Canada’s National Energy Board on March 11, 2010. Since then, the proposal has been winding its way through a labyrinth of state and federal bureaucracies. Almost two years later, no final decision has been made at the federal level.

President Obama had previously announced his intention to delay making a decision on the pipeline until 2013, but a provision in the payroll tax extension bill forces him to make a decision in 60 days, moving up the deadline to late February. Given the enormous economic benefit in a time of economic crisis, why is President Obama delaying the approval of the pipeline?

The answer lies in the makeup of President Obama’s base. Environmental groups that are key supporters of President Obama oppose the pipeline over concerns about global warming, possible groundwater contamination in the event of an oil spill, and basic opposition to any development of the oil sands.

There are problems with this position. One is that if the Keystone pipeline is canceled, the oil sands are still likely to be developed. If the United States does not gain access to this Canadian oil, it will, in all likelihood, go to the Chinese. If the Chinese buy Canadian oil, it will be transported via tankers to China, which is a far less safe mode of transportation than a pipeline.

Even though the United States still imports almost half of the oil that it consumes according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2011 the U.S. became a net exporter of fuel. With additional Canadian oil flowing to U.S. refineries combined with a weakening dollar, U.S. export numbers should continue to improve.

Ironically, Obama’s base is becoming split over the pipeline issue. While environmentalists oppose the project, unions have voiced their support for the pipeline on the grounds that it will create jobs and help the economy. If he decides against the pipeline, President Obama risks losing support to a pro-growth candidate. On the other hand, if he approves the pipeline, environmental activists may support a third party candidate, such as a Green, or stay home.

The interference of President Obama’s EPA with fracking and the president’s long delay in approving the Keystone pipeline are two examples of how President Obama’s commitment to a future green energy system and his environmentalist supporters are hurting the United States today. High energy costs could be somewhat reduced by more oil supplies and more jobs could be created if the president approves these projects.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/obama-s-energy-policies-cost-jobs

Is there an alternative to oil?

In the wake of BP’s disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, many politicians and environmentalists are renewing calls for alternate energy and electric cars to relieve the United States from our dependence on foreign oil. Energy independence would have many advantages, from decreasing pollution to depriving terrorist-supporting Arab states of revenue. Even without environmental considerations, the high price of gasoline, especially for summer road trips, gives many car owners the urge for a cheaper alternative, but is a short-term transition to other sources of energy realistic?

The journey away from oil began in earnest a few years ago with the introduction of the Toyota Prius, the first popular hybrid auto. The Prius combines a gasoline-powered engine and two electric motors. The gasoline engine powers the car for highway driving and the electric motors. The car often runs on battery power with the gasoline engine switched off.

Another popular alternative auto is the Smart Car. This two-seater is a product of Daimler and is known for its fuel economy. The tiny car is unique on American streets. Its small size and distinctive round shape make it stand out. One red Smart Car seen around my home town of Villa Rica, Georgia has a vanity license plate that reads “TMATER.” The Smart Car is powered by a traditional gasoline engine.

There are problems with these new cars. One problem is that although they do offer high gas mileage, fuel economy is only marginally better than traditional compact cars. The Prius advertises a fuel economy of 51 mpg in the city and 48 on the highway (http://bit.ly/9Luzbf ). The Smart Car reports 33 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway (http://bit.ly/c0FRsJ ). In contrast, a new traditional compact car such as the Ford Fiesta measures in 29 mpg in the city and 40 on the highway (http://bit.ly/bY0kNs ).

For this marginally better fuel economy, the car buyer must pay a premium. MSRP for the Prius is between $21,000 and $28,000 (http://bit.ly/cOs1Qn ). The Ford Fiesta, a car of equivalent size to the Prius, has an MSRP of $13,000 to $17,000 (http://bit.ly/cjOnQI ), almost $10,000 less. The Smart Car has approximately the same price as the Fiesta (http://bit.ly/ctZ3YR ), but at half the size. It would take years or thousands of miles to pay for the increased cost of the car in fuel savings. Of course, if gas prices increase sharply, the math would shift in favor of the Prius and Smart Car.

These new cars are also clearly not designed with large families in mind. The Prius and the Smart Car are practical for commuters, but not people who travel with children and the assorted paraphernalia necessary for a family trip. There are a variety of hybrid SUVs on the market, but again there is a tradeoff. A premium in price is added to an already expensive vehicle in exchange for modest increases in fuel economy.

The prospect of completely electric cars would face the same problems as well as additional ones. When Chevrolet’s corporate officers came to congress for a bailout, they touted the upcoming release of the Chevy Volt, a totally electric car. One obvious problem with the Volt is that its battery power will only take you 40 miles (http://bit.ly/bPC2l2 ). If you need to go further, a gasoline engine takes over.

For many commuters, such as those driving to Atlanta from outlying suburbs, forty miles is close to a one-way commute. To take full advantage of the Volt, they would have to charge the car at night at home before driving to work. Once at the office, they would have to find an outlet to plug in the car to let it charge for the trip home.

Additionally, people without a garage may have trouble finding a place to plug in their Volt. Although it is capable of charging from a common household 120-volt outlet, outside outlets are not common at many apartments. Even at a house without a garage, it might be difficult to find an outlet that won’t require the use of very long extension cord. The exact price of a Chevy Volt hasn’t been released, but Chevrolet has indicated that the car will cost over $30,000 (http://bit.ly/9AilVS ). This is even after tax credits are taken into account.

Another electric car with better performance is the Tesla Model S. Tesla Motors is partnering with Toyota to produce a high performance electric roadster. The Tesla is a two seat open top sports car that accelerates from 0-60 mph in less than 4 seconds (http://bit.ly/9AnZ2d ). Its estimated 245 mile range is six times that of the Volt. Nevertheless, after 245 miles, plan on a long lunch. It takes three and a half hours to recharge. This is much more inconvenient than pulling into a gas station for a quick fill-up. The Tesla’s price tag is also impressive at $100,000. For those on a budget, you can also lease a Tesla for just over $1,500 per month. (For more information, see www.teslamotors.com.)

The Volt and the Tesla share common disadvantages in price and range, but what makes them really impractical is their small size. Like the Prius and the Smart Car, the Volt and Tesla are meant for commuters. A successful family electric car will must have room for a family. To be widely accepted, electric vehicles will not only have to have the range to run errands around town, they will have to have the seating and cargo capacity of a minivan or an SUV.

Even if such an electric vehicle were available today, it would be years before we could transition completely away from gasoline powered cars. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that there are more than 135 million passenger autos in the US (http://bit.ly/9fL3uR ). Many, if not most, of the owners of these cars would not want to incur a mortgage-sized car payment for a new electric car. The market for used electric cars is thus far nonexistent.

Consumer demands aren’t the only limits for the growth of the electric car market. At this point, the electrical infrastructure of the US is not prepared to handle the power demands of a transition to electric cars. While electricity is cheaper than oil at this point, increased demand for electricity would drive up its price. This is especially true if congress passes a cap-and-trade energy tax since much of our current electricity is generated by coal, one of the cheapest sources of electricity.

New and alternative sources of electricity such as solar and ocean wave capture are expensive when compared to coal, natural gas, and nuclear generated electricity. The cost of wind energy has decreased in recent years, but these alternative sources of energy face the problem of intermittent wind and sunshine. To be practical, alternative energy sources would have to include a back-up storage system for when the wind is calm or clouds block the sun. At this point, massive batteries or some other technology that can back up large scale alternative energy sources have not been developed.

A final alternative to oil is to use ethanol in gasoline powered autos. There are several problems associated with ethanol use however. For example, when the government increased the mandated amount of ethanol production in 2007, it caused a worldwide spike in food prices the next year (http://n.pr/bbJPHL ). Even if the total US corn crop was used for ethanol production, it would only account for 12% of American gasoline requirements (http://bit.ly/9zhJIE ). Additionally, ethanol can damage engines.

Another newly cost-effective technology converts coal into gasoline. The Germans developed a process to transform coal into gasoline in response to fuel shortages in WWII. Since then, low oil prices have made the process too expensive to compete with oil-based gasoline until recently. Coal-based gasoline does not resolve concerns about pollution and carbon emissions. Similarly, as oil and gasoline prices rise, new advances in biofuels and biomass-based gasoline may become more practical.

Although there is already progress with new technology and even more advances are on the horizon, the United States, along with the rest of the world, remains firmly in the grasp of oil. For the foreseeable future, we will need oil rigs to provide the fuel for our national economy.

Sources:

http://www.toyota.com/compare/?modelCode=prius#h_overview
http://www.greencar.com/articles/smart-car-offers-drivers-new-high-mpg-option-top-crash-rating.php
http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-allnew-ford-fiesta-delivers-40-mpg-32663
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-toyota-prius.htm
http://www.hybridsuv.com/
http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/volt.do?seo=goo_|_2009_Chevy_Awareness_|_IMG_Chevy_Volt_Phase_2_Branded_|_Chevy_Volt_|_chevy_volt
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1041733_update-low-thirties-2011-chevrolet-volt-price-is-after-tax-credit
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2170
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93293391
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-10-ethanol-study_x.htm
http://environmental-engineering.suite101.com/article.cfm/coal_gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogasoline

Fort Myers, FL
June 19, 2010

Photo Credit:
In the wake of BP’s disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, many politicians and environmentalists are renewing calls for alternate energy and electric cars to relieve the United States from our dependence on foreign oil. Energy independence would have many advantages, from decreasing pollution to depriving terrorist-supporting Arab states of revenue. Even without environmental considerations, the high price of gasoline, especially for summer road trips, gives many car owners the urge for a cheaper alternative, but is a short-term transition to other sources of energy realistic?

The journey away from oil began in earnest a few years ago with the introduction of the Toyota Prius, the first popular hybrid auto. The Prius combines a gasoline-powered engine and two electric motors. The gasoline engine powers the car for highway driving and the electric motors. The car often runs on battery power with the gasoline engine switched off.

Another popular alternative auto is the Smart Car. This two-seater is a product of Daimler and is known for its fuel economy. The tiny car is unique on American streets. Its small size and distinctive round shape make it stand out. One red Smart Car seen around my home town of Villa Rica, Georgia has a vanity license plate that reads “TMATER.” The Smart Car is powered by a traditional gasoline engine.

There are problems with these new cars. One problem is that although they do offer high gas mileage, fuel economy is only marginally better than traditional compact cars. The Prius advertises a fuel economy of 51 mpg in the city and 48 on the highway (http://bit.ly/9Luzbf ). The Smart Car reports 33 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway (http://bit.ly/c0FRsJ ). In contrast, a new traditional compact car such as the Ford Fiesta measures in 29 mpg in the city and 40 on the highway (http://bit.ly/bY0kNs ).

For this marginally better fuel economy, the car buyer must pay a premium. MSRP for the Prius is between $21,000 and $28,000 (http://bit.ly/cOs1Qn ). The Ford Fiesta, a car of equivalent size to the Prius, has an MSRP of $13,000 to $17,000 (http://bit.ly/cjOnQI ), almost $10,000 less. The Smart Car has approximately the same price as the Fiesta (http://bit.ly/ctZ3YR ), but at half the size. It would take years or thousands of miles to pay for the increased cost of the car in fuel savings. Of course, if gas prices increase sharply, the math would shift in favor of the Prius and Smart Car.

These new cars are also clearly not designed with large families in mind. The Prius and the Smart Car are practical for commuters, but not people who travel with children and the assorted paraphernalia necessary for a family trip. There are a variety of hybrid SUVs on the market, but again there is a tradeoff. A premium in price is added to an already expensive vehicle in exchange for modest increases in fuel economy.

The prospect of completely electric cars would face the same problems as well as additional ones. When Chevrolet’s corporate officers came to congress for a bailout, they touted the upcoming release of the Chevy Volt, a totally electric car. One obvious problem with the Volt is that its battery power will only take you 40 miles (http://bit.ly/bPC2l2 ). If you need to go further, a gasoline engine takes over.

For many commuters, such as those driving to Atlanta from outlying suburbs, forty miles is close to a one-way commute. To take full advantage of the Volt, they would have to charge the car at night at home before driving to work. Once at the office, they would have to find an outlet to plug in the car to let it charge for the trip home.

Additionally, people without a garage may have trouble finding a place to plug in their Volt. Although it is capable of charging from a common household 120-volt outlet, outside outlets are not common at many apartments. Even at a house without a garage, it might be difficult to find an outlet that won’t require the use of very long extension cord. The exact price of a Chevy Volt hasn’t been released, but Chevrolet has indicated that the car will cost over $30,000 (http://bit.ly/9AilVS ). This is even after tax credits are taken into account.

Another electric car with better performance is the Tesla Model S. Tesla Motors is partnering with Toyota to produce a high performance electric roadster. The Tesla is a two seat open top sports car that accelerates from 0-60 mph in less than 4 seconds (http://bit.ly/9AnZ2d ). Its estimated 245 mile range is six times that of the Volt. Nevertheless, after 245 miles, plan on a long lunch. It takes three and a half hours to recharge. This is much more inconvenient than pulling into a gas station for a quick fill-up. The Tesla’s price tag is also impressive at $100,000. For those on a budget, you can also lease a Tesla for just over $1,500 per month. (For more information, see www.teslamotors.com.)

The Volt and the Tesla share common disadvantages in price and range, but what makes them really impractical is their small size. Like the Prius and the Smart Car, the Volt and Tesla are meant for commuters. A successful family electric car will must have room for a family. To be widely accepted, electric vehicles will not only have to have the range to run errands around town, they will have to have the seating and cargo capacity of a minivan or an SUV.

Even if such an electric vehicle were available today, it would be years before we could transition completely away from gasoline powered cars. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that there are more than 135 million passenger autos in the US (http://bit.ly/9fL3uR ). Many, if not most, of the owners of these cars would not want to incur a mortgage-sized car payment for a new electric car. The market for used electric cars is thus far nonexistent.

Consumer demands aren’t the only limits for the growth of the electric car market. At this point, the electrical infrastructure of the US is not prepared to handle the power demands of a transition to electric cars. While electricity is cheaper than oil at this point, increased demand for electricity would drive up its price. This is especially true if congress passes a cap-and-trade energy tax since much of our current electricity is generated by coal, one of the cheapest sources of electricity.

New and alternative sources of electricity such as solar and ocean wave capture are expensive when compared to coal, natural gas, and nuclear generated electricity. The cost of wind energy has decreased in recent years, but these alternative sources of energy face the problem of intermittent wind and sunshine. To be practical, alternative energy sources would have to include a back-up storage system for when the wind is calm or clouds block the sun. At this point, massive batteries or some other technology that can back up large scale alternative energy sources have not been developed.

A final alternative to oil is to use ethanol in gasoline powered autos. There are several problems associated with ethanol use however. For example, when the government increased the mandated amount of ethanol production in 2007, it caused a worldwide spike in food prices the next year (http://n.pr/bbJPHL ). Even if the total US corn crop was used for ethanol production, it would only account for 12% of American gasoline requirements (http://bit.ly/9zhJIE ). Additionally, ethanol can damage engines.

Another newly cost-effective technology converts coal into gasoline. The Germans developed a process to transform coal into gasoline in response to fuel shortages in WWII. Since then, low oil prices have made the process too expensive to compete with oil-based gasoline until recently. Coal-based gasoline does not resolve concerns about pollution and carbon emissions. Similarly, as oil and gasoline prices rise, new advances in biofuels and biomass-based gasoline may become more practical.

Although there is already progress with new technology and even more advances are on the horizon, the United States, along with the rest of the world, remains firmly in the grasp of oil. For the foreseeable future, we will need oil rigs to provide the fuel for our national economy.

Sources:

http://www.toyota.com/compare/?modelCode=prius#h_overview
http://www.greencar.com/articles/smart-car-offers-drivers-new-high-mpg-option-top-crash-rating.php
http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-allnew-ford-fiesta-delivers-40-mpg-32663
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-toyota-prius.htm
http://www.hybridsuv.com/
http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/volt.do?seo=goo_|_2009_Chevy_Awareness_|_IMG_Chevy_Volt_Phase_2_Branded_|_Chevy_Volt_|_chevy_volt
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1041733_update-low-thirties-2011-chevrolet-volt-price-is-after-tax-credit
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2170
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93293391
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-10-ethanol-study_x.htm
http://environmental-engineering.suite101.com/article.cfm/coal_gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogasoline

Fort Myers, FL
June 19,

Photo Credit:
m_bartosch
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=681

Whatever Happened To Global Warming?

"...for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)."
-UK Telegraph

Recently, the question of whether the US should face higher standards of environmentalism and carbon reductions than the rest of the world has been raised. Politicians have suggested massive increases in gasoline taxes, the introduction of carbon taxes, and draconian restrictions on carbon emissions.
Ironically, as I sit at my computer, my home state of Georgia is undergoing the second snowstorm of the week. In a state, which has, over the last few years, received almost zero snowfall, this is certainly big news.

When I was growing up in Georgia in the 1970s and 1980s, Georgia typically got about two or three snows each winter. These snows would get us out of school for a couple of days (since Georgia has virtually no road clearing equipment) and would stay on the ground for several days. Over the past several years, when Georgia had snowfall, it came only once or twice a year and, if it accumulated at all, would be usually be gone by lunchtime. When I examined this anecdotal data from my own life, I was hard pressed to argue with global warming activists, at least on a local scale.

The news of flattening global temperatures comes at the same time that many parts of the United States are experiencing record winter storms and, coincidentally, at the time of the two major winter storms that swept Georgia. If I didn't doubt before, I certainly would now.

Global warming has always been a rather theoretical. It is based on short data trends and computer models. Even the data on which the short trends are based is suspect. Most automated weather stations that climate data are based on have serious quality problems (see surfacestations.org). As a professional pilot, I can tell you that we take the information that we get from automated weather stations with a large dose of salt.

Assuming that the global warming activists are right, the problem is a world problem, not just an American one. In 2006, China surpassed the United States in carbon dioxide emissions, and combined, the two nations make up less than half of the total. Developing nations make up an even larger share of other forms of pollution. It is clear that the problem is not the United States alone and the solution cannot focus solely on the United States.

Additionally, there is a lack of scientific evidence to show that carbon dioxide is responsible for warming the earth at all. Data indicates that there is indeed a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, but not the one that you would expect. In the past, temperature increased first, then carbon dioxide increased several hundred years later. If temperature changed first, then carbon dioxide cannot be responsible for the change.

It seems that the recent information would indicate that it would at least be a good idea to wait and see if which trend continues before we make major changes in an attempt to prevent global warming. If it does, we should look at alternative explanations for warming, such as changes in solar radiation. Temperatures of other planets are also increasing, but their warming definitely cannot be attributed to earthly carbon emissions.

Let's not ban carbon based fuels or initiate massive taxes on carbon until we find out for sure what kind of problem we are facing. Our economy is based on carbon fuels and such legislation would almost certainly slow the economy to a recession. This would be especially tragic if the destruction of the economy did nothing to solve the warming problem. A safer approach would be to begin a change to alternative energy sources, such as cheap, reliable nuclear power, as we continue to research global warming.

Granted, the climate is changing, but how is it changing? The new data questions whether the earth is still warming. Even environmentalists are speaking less of “global warming” and more of “climate change.” The climate is always changing, however. There have been numerous ice ages and warm periods throughout recorded history.

Might we be better off by focusing on adapting to climate change rather than preventing it? Previous warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period around AD 1000, were a boon to mankind. Warm temperatures and increased carbon dioxide were so helpful to agriculture that the Vikings were even able to cultivate now frigid areas of Greenland. Warm temperatures might even mean less energy use for heating, which would also save money for individual families.

Environmental issues are a global concern. Regardless of whether carbon is at fault for global warming, global initiatives should be taken to reduce pollution. These initiatives should focus on developing nations as well as nations that are already industrialized, such as the United States. We should be careful not to take curative steps that would be worse than the climate change disease.

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth