The Liberty Tree Lantern » cars

Life Blood of Freedom Found in Gulf And Available Around America

Capt. Karl — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:28:27 +0000

God created all sorts of energy resources, only a few of which have been developed and utilized to drive our economy. Energy is the life blood of freedom and it is what allows our economy to produce individual wealth for all Americans. And, this is why energy, in all forms, is so very important to the average working American. Cheap inexpensive oil is what results in the costs of everything to go down to reasonable affordable levels for us all. When energy is inexpensive it is also an incentive for Americans to start new small businesses, because then it is easier to make a good profit, and therefore lower energy costs results in hundreds of thousands of new jobs and allows for significant increases in money available for wages on the shop floor or out in the field.

Energy prices, like prices for everything, are determined by the principles of supply and demand. The more supply of energy the United States has available to meet the demand of our large and small businesses and individual needs and desires the less it costs. That is why we the American people have so much power to lower the cost of our energy and make ourselves individually more wealthy.

The fact is that there are HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of barrels of oil and vast volumes of natural gas available DOMESTICALLY right here in and around America. In addition America has vast resources in coal energy. Combining the unfathomable quantities of these resources with new developing energy sources would immensely improve all of our families’ economic conditions. The Liberty Tree Lantern is astonished at how little the mainstream media is reporting all of the new and existing volumes of domestic energy available for us. We also find it interesting how little it is reported that the Obama Administration is standing in the way of releasing the leases necessary to drill and harvest these vast resources that would so greatly improve our economy and restore the prosperity of individual citizens.

What we need to do as Americans is to get together and with one Tea Party like voice demand that Obama and his Secretary of The Interior release the leases that our Oil companies need to drill for oil out west on federal lands and offshore all around our country and Alaska so that we can build up America and strengthen our freedom through massive infusions of domestic energy.

The Liberty Tree Lantern is happy to provide just one story, of dozens of available, regarding domestic American energy just waiting for the Obama Administration to let us produce the energy we so desperately need to lower our costs of everything. Please send a personal message to Congress via, paper, e-mail and phone that you want Obama to release the drilling leases immediately. Tell them to DRILL HERE AND DRILL NOW! (Do you know that Obama is stealing American taxpayer money to “give” to Brazil for ‘them’ to drill for oil offshore? See: U.S. Taxpayers to Provide Financing To Brazil for “Their” Offshore Drilling)

When you write or talk to your Congressman, make sure that you mention that the LAST thing we need are taxes on energy that will increase costs on every single thing the American family needs to live and businesses need to create well paying jobs. Reject Cap-n-TAX in any form, folks, because such taxes will set our entire country back by decades destroy jobs, wealth, savings and create poverty.

The Liberty Tree Lantern has a few questions for our readers to ponder:

Why, after the people of America demanded that the ban on offshore and western Federal Lands expire, which it did some months ago now, has the Obama Administration withheld exploration leases and not allowed oil companies to go where they know the domestic oil likely is for exploration and harvest?
Why is the Obama Administration keeping America from our own domestic energy instead of depending on and importing energy from other countries?
Why doesn’t the majority of mainstream media report on the Billions of Barrels of crude oil available in Western Federal Lands and offshore when this energy would obviously improve the lives of so many Americans?
America is in a horrible recession RIGHT NOW that could OBVIOUSLY be greatly remedied by dramatically increasing that availability of our own massive volumes of domestic energy, doesn’t the Obama Administration care about the average individual American who is out of work and quickly running out of money due to job loss and increased prices on utility bills, gasoline, food and just about everything else?

Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill

Capt. Karl — Sun, 24 May 2009 13:14:45 +0000

by William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Ben Lieberman

WebMemo #2450

Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) modified their global warming proposal from the draft version published on March 31. For the most part, the changes focused on the distribution of the allowance revenue–the equivalent of tax revenue.

There was also a slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020, which resulted in a marginally lower economic impact. However, the new distribution of allowances created a less efficient pattern of government expenditures and more than offset the gain from the lower cap for 2020.

The economic impact of the new draft varies from that of the original draft in several major ways:

Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

Though the proposed legislation would have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job losses, income cuts, and a sharp left turn toward big government.

Ultimately, this bill would result in government-set caps on energy use that damage the economy and hobble growth–the very growth that supports investment and innovation. Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill would:

Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion;
Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500; and
Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Waxman-Markey Basics

The bill discloses a basic two-pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The first prong is a set of mandates forcing efficiencies independent of any cost-benefit calculations on the part of industry or consumers. These mandates include a requirement for low-carbon motor fuels and a tenfold increase in the production of electricity from renewable sources.

The second prong is cap and trade. With cap and trade, absolute limits on total emissions of greenhouse gases are established. Before those in a covered sector can emit a greenhouse gas, they need to have the ration coupons (also known as pollution permits or allowances) for each ton emitted. Because the ration coupons will have a value, and therefore a cost, cap and trade becomes a tax on fossil fuels and the energy they generate.

The intent of cap and trade is to impose a cost on CO2 and allow businesses and consumers to adapt as well as they can to this new cost. The mandates of the first parts of Waxman-Markey are counterproductive because they force choices on the economy that might not be the most efficient and inexpensive ways to cut CO2. That said, this paper’s analysis looks at only the cost of a simple cap-and-trade approach. Consequently, the economic impact estimates reported here will likely be lower than the economic cost of cap and trade hobbled further by mandates.

Baseline Assumptions

To establish a benchmark against which to measure the impact of Waxman-Markey, this paper assumes an economic recovery from the current recession and the subsequent smooth type of economic growth that all major economic forecasts must make. A more rapid economic recovery would make the costs of meeting the CO2 restrictions even greater.

What Is in the Baseline? The baseline energy projections come from IHS Global Insight’s latest U.S. Energy Outlook.[1] The highly respected and widely used Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic model was used to prepare the estimates employed in this paper as well as data from Global Insight’s November 2008 long-term model, which makes economic forecasts through 2038. Use of the November 2008 macroeconomic model aligned this paper’s economic forecasting with Global Insight’s October 2008 energy baseline.[2] The baseline assumptions include:

A near doubling of light-vehicle fuel efficiency by 2030;
Non-hydro renewable electricity reaching 17 percent by 2030–a more than fivefold increase; and
36 billion gallons per year of ethanol production, with 20 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol.

Though these goals and mandates will be costly to meet (if even they can be met), the costs will occur with or without Waxman-Markey. Therefore, these costs are not counted in this paper’s economic impacts of the Waxman-Markey bill.

Addressing Offsets. Waxman-Markey provides emitters with an option to substitute some allowances with certified CO2 reductions by other emitters that are not covered by emissions caps. These offsets can be purchased from domestic or international sources. On the surface, Waxman-Markey’s treatment of offsets is generous to the point of eliminating constraints on fossil-fuel CO2 for decades. However, closer examination reveals multiple catches, costs, and impossibilities.

For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that domestic offsets simply do not exist anywhere near the magnitude nominally allowed by Waxman-Markey.[3] Driven, perhaps, by the concern that existing offset programs suffer from fraud, Waxman-Markey includes significant hurdles for those wishing to use offsets.[4] The EPA administrator “may at any time, by rule, remove a project type from the list.” Further, the administrator shall establish “policies to assign liability and responsibility for mitigating and fully compensating for reversals.” That is, using an offset may leave a firm with an open-ended liability. Finally, offsets require 1.25 tons of CO2 reduction for each ton of offset credit.

This analysis assumes that allowances will increase the effective CO2 caps by 15 percent. Recent prices of offsets for the Kyoto program have been between 10 and 15 euros per ton. Given the exchange rate, discount (the 1.25 ton reduction per ton of credit), and likely increase in demand, the initial price of $20 per ton is conservative. After the first five years, this price increases by the expected rate of inflation.

Carbon Capture and Storage. One hope for those who want to see continued access to U.S. coal reserves is carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS attempts to remove CO2 from the effluent before emission. This captured CO2 would be compressed into liquid form and injected into deep saline aquifers and deep ocean waters or used for enhanced oil recovery.

Serious obstacles to large-scale commercial deployment of CCS have yet to be overcome. CCS requires roughly one-third more energy to generate electricity than processes without CCS. Viable commercial CCS does not yet exist, though the bill does provide funding for three commercial-scale pilot projects. Along with the technological challenges, a massive pipeline system must be created virtually from scratch. But it is the political and environmental obstacles that may prove most daunting. CCS must be proven to be effective in preventing moderate leaks over long periods of time. In addition, community concern with the possibility of catastrophic local release of large quantities of CO2 could provide the ubiquitous not-in-my-backyard opposition that bedevils many waste disposal problems.

This paper’s analysis of Waxman-Markey assumes that CCS will not be available in significant quantities for the years analyzed.

Renewable Energy Goals. The renewable energy targets already established by current laws will be challenging to meet. This paper assumes no additional renewable energy beyond these significant baseline increases of 36 billion gallons of renewable motor fuels and the existing state-level renewable electricity requirements. The current baseline projects 18.3 gigawatts of increased nuclear power capacity. The history of nuclear construction in the 1960s through the 1980s shows that a much more aggressive nuclear build-out is technologically possible, but political and other factors make the likelihood of a “nuclear renaissance” highly uncertain. Therefore, this study assumes no additional nuclear capacity beyond the baseline increase.

Results of The Heritage Foundation’s Analysis

It is no surprise that the economy responds to cap and trade as it would to an energy crisis. The price on carbon emissions forces energy cuts across the economy, since non-carbon energy sources cannot replace fossil fuels quickly enough. Energy prices rise; income and employment drop.

The current recession diminishes near-term projections for aggregate economic activity. As this activity drops, so does energy use. Though a recession is bad news, it has the effect of moving the economy closer to the energy cuts needed to meet the emissions targets. Nevertheless, the income (GDP) losses are nearly $200 billion out of the gate and average over $380 billion per year. As the economy recovers and the caps tighten, the detrimental effect of cap and trade gets more and more severe. In the worst years, GDP losses exceed $700 billion per year.

Waxman-Markey will cause higher energy costs to spread throughout the economy as producers everywhere try to cover their higher production costs by raising their product prices. Consumers will be most directly affected by rising energy bills. Even after adjusting for inflation, gasoline prices will rise 74 percent over the 2035 baseline price. Compared to the baseline, residential natural gas consumers will see their inflation-adjusted price rise by 55 percent. Because of its reliance on coal, the cost of electricity will rise by 90 percent–again after adjusting for inflation and in addition to what the price would have been anyway in 2035.

As President Obama pointed out, cap and trade can work only when energy prices “skyrocket.” To force consumer-energy cutbacks, the prices need to rise to painful levels. This paper’s analysis shows the results of this strategy. By 2035:

The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.
Pain at the electric meter will cause consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,200 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $7,500 more between 2012 and 2035.
In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $22,800 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment will take a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 1,105,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception: Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.

Is It Worth It?

Is all of this economic pain justified by gains against global warming? Waxman-Markey raises energy prices by 55-90 percent. These higher energy prices push unemployment up by 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peaks over 2,479,000. In aggregate, GDP drops by over $9.6 trillion. The next generation will inherit a federal debt pumped up by $29,150 per person. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[5]

The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is $1,500 per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. Furthermore, the recently proposed modifications to Waxman-Markey only make these problems worse: By devising a less-efficient pattern of government expenditures, this new draft would more than offset the gains from the proposed slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020.

And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable.

William W. Beach is Director of, David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change in, and Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, and Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]IHS Global Insight, U.S. Energy Outlook 2008.

[2]Though this paper employs the model and data developed by Global Insight, the analysis is the authors’ and should not be interpreted as representing that of IHS Global Insight.

[3]U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, “EPA Preliminary Analysis of the Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft,” April 20, 2009, pp. 3, 14, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs
/WM-Analysis.pdf (May 8, 2009).

[4]For discussions about the concerns with the effectiveness of offsets, see Joseph Romm, “A Good Reason We Shouldn’t Love Trees, at Least Not in This Case,” Grist.org, July 2, 2007, at http://www.grist.org/article/the-first
-rule-of-carbon-offsets-no-trees (May 8, 2009); Patrick McCully, “Kyoto’s Great Carbon Offset Swindle,” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, June 9, 2008, at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/06/kyotos
-great-carbon-offset-swindle-52713 (May 8, 2009); Michael Wara, “Is the Global Carbon Market Working?” Nature, Vol. 445, No. 7128 (February 8, 2007), pp. 595-596, at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128
/abs/445595a.html (May 16, 2009).

[5]For instance, see Chip Knappenberger, “Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain),” MasterResource, May 6, 2009, at http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 (May 12, 2009).

Democrats Plan Big Things!

Capt. Karl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:19:43 +0000

Democrats plan big things

“Democrats are suggesting, however, an even more ambitious reason to nationalize [the auto industry]. Once the government owns Detroit, it can remake it. The euphemism here is ‘retool’ Detroit to make cars for the coming green economy. Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it. In World War II, government had the auto companies turning out tanks. Now they would be made to turn out hybrids. The difference is that, in the middle of a world war, tanks have a buyer. Will hybrids? One of the reasons Detroit is in such difficulty is that consumers have been resisting the smaller, less powerful, less safe cars forced on the industry by fuel-efficiency mandates. Now Detroit would be forced to make even more of them. If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, but now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to fit five-year plans to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards — to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

U.S. Auto Industry – The Living Dead

Capt. Karl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:36:34 +0000

The Living Dead

By Robert Romano

“For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment. So it’s my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can’t be a blank check.”—President-elect Barack Obama, 60 Minutes, November 16th, 2008.

To hear Barack Obama tell it, the U.S. auto industry is too big to fail. Really, it’s the living dead. And it’s not worth saving.

With a lame duck Congress still in town, Congress is set to vote on a $25 billion bailout of U.S. automakers on Wednesday. The plan, which Mr. Obama supports, would provide loan guarantees to Chrysler, Ford, and GM. It would ostensibly allow the auto industry to limp along like a zombie seeking its next meal.

For how long is anyone’s guess. Our guess is it would buy the industry a few months, if that. It will look like AIG, who first needed an $85 billion loan, then another $38 billion a month later, until finally these were consolidated up to $150 billion last week under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, and by the Federal Reserve adjusting the terms of outstanding loans.

Under the latest deal, the Treasury wound up purchasing the preferred shares of the insurance giant’s stock. In the end, the company has wound up practically being nationalized just to stay afloat in its bloated form, with no guarantee that it won’t continue to fail, necessitating yet more taxpayer aid.

Is this the direction Congress wants take the auto industry? Only time will tell, but look for members favoring the bailout to argue that it is only a “temporary” loan, as if the automakers will not be coming back for more down the road. Make no doubt: They will, and watch out for lawmakers to looking to lay on the lie.

Although Mr. Obama said he wants to make sure “that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan [that answers the question] ‘What does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?’”, he fell short of calling upon the labor contracts, salaries, and benefits of the UAW to be renegotiated.

The whole reason the industry is failing is because of the obscene union contracts and legacy costs that inflate the cost of the vehicles, making them uncompetitive compared to foreign competition. Just simply doing business outside of Michigan could make the cars more affordable for consumers. Certainly scaling back is in order. All of the above can be addressed with a bankruptcy, and those arguing against bankruptcy are simply shills for Big Labor.

To answer the question, a sustainable auto industry will be one that is not so hampered by the cost of labor. It will be one that does not overproduce. It will be one that is profitable.

And it will be one that is not dependent upon federal welfare to stay afloat.

In this case, failure is an option. Bankruptcy would allow the automakers to can management and work out terms with labor that will not bury the new companies, or if that fails, to find new labor. It would also allow companies to be purchased by private investors. They could be recapitalized without any government aid. New, modern factories could be built, and the U.S. auto industry could enter the 21st century, instead of perpetuating obsolescence.

On the other hand, Congress voting to give extended loans to the automakers would in essence be a vote for the status quo. The same status quo that has over the past many decades produced a hobbled industry that now cannot sustain itself, and only now has a ceaseless appetite for taxpayer treasure.

Failure will produce a far better outcome than feeding the living dead. Like a zombie, the auto industry—in its current incarnation—will not be satiated by its first meal. It will come back for more, and eventually, the U.S. will wind up with an auto industry that is nationalized, instead of modernized.

Robert Romano is the Editor of ALG News Bureau.

The Liberty Tree Lantern would add that another problem that U.S. Auto Industry has to deal with are all the rules and regulations that both houses of Congress has placed on them, cafe standards and the like. Many of these things fall outside of the power of normal market forces which subverts the power of the market to control forces in a positive way for our American companies. Just another nail in the coffin in addition to those stated in the article above.

The Lantern would also point out that the money going to “bailout” these huge failing companies is literally going to come out of our paychecks in the form of “Federal Withholding” with in the next two years. So our “take home” pay is going to be less, because the Government is giving our earnings and apart of our paychecks to these companies whether you like it or not. This is the way of tyrants and despots stealing money from us and putting it where they want instead of us using it for our families and our needs.

When your paycheck goes down and down and down, next year and the year after and the year after, if you want to know where your earnings went, just look at your check stub; that is if you are lucky enough to even have a job; because the Federal Government will also be making “payroll” taxes on businesses so expensive per employee that thousands upon thousands of companies will no longer be able to afford employees and will, therefore, have to lay off people, in order to just survive, if they can.

In order to turn this around we all must put forth an effort to educate our population with regards to FREEDOM and economics. Stay abreast of The Liberty Tree Lantern for your economic and topics of freedom to develop your education in these vital areas; so that you can help others to learn these matters of critical importance that Government sponsored public school have purposely left out of the curriculum.

The Republicans are Selling US DOWN THE ROAD, Permanently

Capt. Karl — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:11:44 +0000

I have been one of the biggest backers of the Republican Party you could ever imagine. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER Again! They are selling us a bill of goods, folks. Smoke and mirrors with regards to THE BIG LIE that they have a “bi-partisan” bill to drill offshore. I just can not take this U.S. Congress any more! Just when I think the Republicans are fighting to save us financially and for freedom they rip out our throats with Judas type legislation, kiss us on the cheek and hand us and our future over to the Democrat Socialists in a hand basket!

Boy am I hot now! One week I am writing about our Republican heroes, standing in the dark fighting for our rights to drill for our own oil and now they stick me and all of us in the back with the knife of never ending high gas prices by making sure that we will never get to our oil and gas. They are going to literally kill us! NPR had a report yesterday morning that stated that natural gas heating bills are going to double from last year. The report indicated that even some middle class Americans will not be able to pay for heating their homes and will have to deal with the cold without heat. Do you hear that people? Gasoline prices are a cake walk compared to what heat is going to cost us. Like a few frozen pipes bursting folks?

How come people just sit there like idiots and take this? Why aren’t we all in the streets, raising all hell and protesting and screeming? I just don’t understand, how did we, the most powerful individuals on Earth become so stupid mind-numb robots? While there are some who I talk to who want to discuss this, there are others who just don’t want to hear about it. Well those folk deserve what’s coming to them! The rest of us have to gather together PHYSICALLY and demonstrate that we are not going to take it any more!

I don’t know about you but my pitchfork is really getting sharp now. Everytime I read about the workings of Congress I go out to the garage and sharpen my pitchfork. It makes me feel better. It has quite a nice balance now. I seem to have developed an uncontrollable twitching forward thrusting motion when I have it in my hands though. Maybe that physical symptom is caused by “Global Warming” too?

I will help you not have to excersize today by bringing up your heart rate a few dozen notches. It worked for me, I have blood shooting out of my eyes now; look at how the ”Republicans” sold us out:

POTOMAC WATCH

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Republican Energy Fumble
August 8, 2008; Page A13

Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election.

It’s taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found — in energy — an issue that’s working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer’s headlines.

Members of the “Gang of 10″ discuss their energy plan, Aug. 1.

Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson — alongside five Senate Democrats. This “Gang of 10″ announced a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break Washington’s energy “stalemate.” What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That’s because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast — putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska’s oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn’t have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Sen. Obama was thrilled. He quickly praised the Gang’s bipartisan spirit, and warmed up to a possible compromise. Of course, he means removing even the token drilling provisions now in the bill. But he’s only too happy for the focus to remain on the Gang’s efforts, and in particular on the five Republicans providing his party its fig leaf.

Equally gleeful was Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production — a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with “five Republicans” to “lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home.”

Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn’t more enthusiastic about a “bipartisan” effort on energy, especially one that includes “drilling.” His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn’t sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain’s good friend Lindsey Graham considers “helping,” somebody might want to ask him to stop.

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer “Big Oil Bob” — hoping to smear his oil industry career. “Big Oil Bob” has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall’s lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. As two of the GOP’s most vulnerable senators, both might well have run for cover with the Gang of 10. Instead they’re fighting on the merits.

The “bipartisan” Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They’ve even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s face. He’d been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He’s now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue “negotiations” straight through the Senate’s short September session and solve his problem for him.

Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That’s the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.

Write to kim@wsj.com

See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Republican Energy Fumble

Capt. Karl — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:34:36 +0000

POTOMAC WATCH

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Republican Energy Fumble
August 8, 2008; Page A13

Members of the “Gang of 10″ discuss their energy plan, Aug. 1.

Write to kim@wsj.com

See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

China Workers Buy SUV’s, While Democrats Want Americans in Rickshaws

Capt. Karl — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:27:33 +0000

Here is an article for you. Chinese workers are buying SUVs and big sedans while the U.S. Congress is demanding that we use rickshaws, bicycles and walking. The Democrats in Congress are happy that the price of gasoline is so high. They do not have to pay for it, because we pay it for them.

Meanwhile, China is drilling for oil not far from off our Atlantic coast to harvest our domestic oil out from under us while the U.S. Congress keeps it illegal for our companies to harvest our oil off shore.

China’s Cars, Accelerating A Global Demand for Fuel
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 28, 2008; A01

SONGJIANG, China — Nodding his head to the disco music blaring out of his car’s nine speakers, Zhang Linsen swings the shiny, black Hummer H2 out of his company’s gates and on to the spacious four-lane road.

Running a hand over his closely shaved head, Zhang scans the expanse of high-end suburban offices and villas that a decade ago was just another patch of farmland outside of Shanghai. To his left is a royal blue sedan with a couple and a baby, in front of him a lone young woman being chauffeured in a van.

“In China, size matters,” says Zhang, the 44-year-old founder of a media and graphic design company. “People want to have a car that shows off their status in society. No one wants to buy small.”

Zhang grasps the wheels of his Hummer, called “hanma” or “fierce horse” in Chinese, and hits the accelerator.

Car ownership in China is exploding, and it’s not only cars but also sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks and other gas-guzzling rides. Elsewhere in the world, the popularity of these vehicles has tumbled as the cost of oil has soared. But in China, the number of SUVs sold rose 43 percent in May compared with the previous year, and full-size sedans were up 15 percent. Indeed, China’s demand for gas is much of the reason for the dramatic run-up in global oil prices.

To read more as to how nice the Chinese have it and how wealthy they are getting because of freedom / capitalism in business there read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/27/AR2008072701911_pf.html

When will we Americans demand the same “business” environment, rights and resulting prosperity as the Chinese worker has? When are We The People going to demand that we be able to harvest as much as a TRILLION barrels of crude, according to some reports, from our own domestically available sources? We all must remember, it is all up to us individually to decide to do something about this. The U.S. Congress is not going to do us any favors.

The Liberty Tree Lantern believes that as soon as China feels that they have enough wealth, they will use the prosperity to resolve pollution problems, but with in the realm of reality and common sense, not insanity or baloney of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” by mankind which we have provided evidence in other posts simply does not exist.

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, Global Warming and Gasoline

Capt. Karl — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:48:52 +0000

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a master scam. Americans will now lose their prosperity and there FREEDOM.

See: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Drill bits: The uphill battle to lift domestic restrictions

Capt. Karl — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:25:07 +0000

Update: McCain. Ugh.

By Michelle Malkin • June 11, 2008 02:41 PM

GOP Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania offered an amendment a year ago to permit offshore natural gas drilling. It was defeated 196-233 by do-nothing Democrats now panicked over high gas prices and forecasts of declining energy supplies from non-OPEC nations.

Peterson is pushing his amendment again today before a House Appropriations subcommittee, but it’s another uphill battle. For the Dems, you see, doing something about energy independence ain’t as fun as whining about it:

Supporters of a proposal to allow drilling for oil and gas off the U.S. coastline are expected to make their case to a House panel Wednesday.

Offshore oil and gas production has been banned off most of the U.S. coastline since Congress approved the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium in 1981, which prevented the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., wants to change that with an amendment to the Interior Department spending bill to be considered by a House Appropriations subcommittee. The amendment would lift the prohibition on exploration 50 to 200 miles offshore but continue to ban drilling within 50 miles of the coastline.

“For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked-up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves,” Peterson said. “With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves.”

He cites estimates from the Minerals Management Service that there are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas located offshore.

The Senate and the White House, kowtowing to California and Florida electoral interests, actually oppose the measure. So does Barack Obama. McCain is straddling with a “let the states decide whether to drill…unless it’s too ‘ecologically sensitive’” response and is more comfortable peddling Hillary/Edwards-style demagoguing of the oil industry’s “obscene profits.”

Promising on-shore areas also remain untouchable. Background via the WSJ:

A century and a half after oil production began, there is ample evidence that a lot of oil — and natural gas — remains to be found in the U.S. and its territorial waters. Some of those areas are wide open to oil companies, including most of the Gulf of Mexico where deep-water floating rigs now routinely drill wells hundreds of miles from shore. Even in the gulf, areas are off limits, including most of the waters off the Florida coast. The entire East and West Coasts are off limits for new drilling.

Last week, Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson chided President Bush for asking Saudi Arabia to boost its production, while not doing more to increase production at home in the U.S., particularly off the coasts of Florida and California.

“There is no question in my mind that there is significant conventional resources available,” Mr. Tillerson said in an interview last week. “If you are looking for larger fields, they will probably be found in the offshore areas that are currently off limits.”

Those offshore areas are closed to exploration and drilling under congressional moratoriums and presidential executive orders that command broad support among elected officials in the politically powerful states of California and Florida. Opening these areas up could prove nettlesome.

Little data exist about how much oil and gas might be found under the waters now closed for exploration. Federal agencies are prevented from doing rudimentary geological surveys in most areas to pinpoint areas of interest. The last time the industry shot seismic imagery was in the 1970s when this widely used search technology was in its infancy.

Other promising areas onshore also are off-limits. In a report last week, the federal Bureau of Land Management stated that at current U.S. consumption levels there are four years worth of oil and 10 years worth of natural gas under federal lands. However, more than 90% of that energy was under lands either closed to development or open with significant environmental restrictions. The federal Minerals Management Service said an additional three years worth of oil and gas is in offshore areas where drilling isn’t allowed.

***

Latest from the Energy Department: Oil and gas prices are staying up.

Update: McCain. Ugh.

The Liberty Tree Lantern » cars

Life Blood of Freedom Found in Gulf And Available Around America

Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill

Democrats Plan Big Things!

U.S. Auto Industry – The Living Dead

The Living Dead

The Republicans are Selling US DOWN THE ROAD, Permanently

Republican Energy Fumble August 8, 2008; Page A13

Republican Energy Fumble

Republican Energy Fumble August 8, 2008; Page A13

China Workers Buy SUV’s, While Democrats Want Americans in Rickshaws

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, Global Warming and Gasoline

Drill bits: The uphill battle to lift domestic restrictions

Update: McCain. Ugh.

Republican Energy Fumble
August 8, 2008; Page A13

Republican Energy Fumble
August 8, 2008; Page A13