Posted by Tina
President Obama has wasted millions and millions of taxpayer dollars (adding to the debt) on green energy projects that have failed or are failing. A better leader might have taken a wiser approach to the energy needs of the American people.
The recent storm that has devastated the east highlights the need for smart when it comes to energy. George Bush had a smart plan to improve our energy grid. Had it been adopted when it was proposed the conditions for recovery on the east coast today would be much more favorable. The East coast power grid has been in need of upgrade for many years.
The L.A.Times reported on the special interest push to defeat Bush’s plan:
WASHINGTON — Minnesota environmentalists will taunt and jeer from a block away when President Bush unveils his national energy strategy in St. Paul. A coalition of green groups is expected to purchase TV time to attack the administration manifesto in key markets. Congressional Democrats temporarily commandeered a Capitol Hill gas station to plug their competing energy initiative.
For the environmental community–and the Democrats in Congress who support their causes–Thursday’s roll-out of the Bush administration’s comprehensive energy plan will be the political equivalent of D-day.
“The environmental community is going to put more money into this than any other campaign in its history because there is so much at stake,” said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. “What they are assembling is an all-out attack on environmental protections.”
Nasty little creatures, they! What a difference a few years and a change in leadership can make…and not in a good way!
The Obama energy policy, praised and heralded by the greens, has left the American people broke and deeply in debt, out of work, paying high energy prices and, if you live in the flooded areas of New Jersey, Atlantic City and other towns and cities affected by Sandy, without much hope for a quick recovery.
The American people have an opportunity to change the direction of this country next Tuesday. Romney is prepared to change our energy policy. If you haven’t already done so be sure you vote. It’s time to get America back on track but we need adults with common sense in leadership positions. Its up to us Pilgrims.
The Bush plan document is here.
Tina, the Bush energy plan was all about sourcing: oil wells in national parks, expanded coal burning, and so on.
Nothing in it at all about burying power lines on a huge scale, which that Eastern Seaboard needs to start thinking seriously about.
And Tina, if the power plant is flooded … you’re cooked, or froze … making partisan policy squabbles entirely beside the point.
Not true Libby. If you read the proposal you will find it includes proposals for upgrading the grids in the east, in California (both have had brown outs and they’ve had blackouts in the east) and in other areas around the country.
If the power plant is flooded it will cause one local problem but an upgraded grid would allow for quicker response overall once that problem is fixed.
The larger point is the stupidity of throwing money at alternative energy companies that are now either bankrupt or failing badly or the stupidity of blocking coal and oil production. Another important point is the special interest politics that blocked improvements that would put Americans in a better position today.
Before you go preaching about partisan politics and natural disaster remind your self of the despicable campaign to destroy Bush over Katrina.
“The larger point is the stupidity of throwing money at alternative energy companies ….”
It’s called R&D, and it is risky, but a nation that don’t pursue it would be a very foolish nation.
“… or the stupidity of blocking coal and oil production.”
Where HAVE you been? Breathing burning coal makes you sick, and the oil’s done peaked. It’s time to look into other options.
“Before you go preaching about partisan politics and natural disaster remind your self of the despicable campaign to destroy Bush over Katrina.”
Bush was criticized, rightly, for putting a dilettante in charge of FEMA resulting in the horror that was the Super Dome.
Obama put a professional in the post and, so far, they’ve been really lucky. But it won’t last. There are indications today that lots of people are failing to come to terms with the fact that their “normal” life is over … for the time being. They will be running out of gas, food and cash, and are about to become extremely uncomfortable. And then they will misbehave.
Some thousands of rather stupid Brooklyners actually thought they were going to be able to take busses into Manhattan today. Nope. Maybe Monday … maybe.
Libby: “It’s called R&D, and it is risky, but a nation that don’t pursue it would be a very foolish nation.”
Since it is R&D “a nation” that doesn’t leave it to the private sector to bear the costs and face the risk is being foolish with the people’s money! Our leaders have a fiduciary responsibility that should dissuade them from taking risks on such projects or incurring the debt that failure inevitably brings.
“Where HAVE you been? Breathing burning coal makes you sick, and the oil’s done peaked. It’s time to look into other options.”
Where have YOU been! Oil has not peaked.
http://beforeitsnews.com/energy/2011/01/oil-oil-and-more-oil-america-has-more-than-any-other-nation-376642.html
Also oil is a renewable resource:
http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0915/Mrb07cp5.asp
And finally, the coal industry has already cleaned up its act in terms of pollutants and is willing to do more as it can. It does not appreciate the extreme position of Barack Hussein Obama who said about the coal industry four years ago, “…if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but youll go bankrupt.”
And he meant it! He has designed EPA restrictions to be so costly and burdensome that coal plants are closing as a result and all plans for building new more modern plants have been scrapped. Thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs unnecessarily. His is a cold and calculating approach and it has been bad for most of America.
“Other ” options were being explored before this dim bulb took office and they will be explored after he’s gone. Some of those exploring the alternatives are those in the oil and gas industries. A lot of the so called R&D the government has subsidized have been a complete debacle. It is better left to those who know the industry and have the resources to “explore” the alternatives without putting the American taxpayer in debt.
“Bush was criticized, rightly, for putting a dilettante in charge of FEMA resulting in the horror that was the Super Dome.”
If you think that then you should also hold Obama responsible for the deaths in Benghazi and whatever problems come down the pike (and they will) after Sandy. I won’t hold my breath on either count.
FEMA is a bureaucracy….Obama’s so-called “professional” will not run it any better than Brown did.
The Bummer man didn’t let this crisis go to waste. He jumped at the chance to look “presidential” even though going to the area, and dragging his security needs behind him, required local responders to stop and handle his security requirements when they could be helping those in need. What a doofus…a flyover inspection would have been more thoughtful…and less opportunistic.
Between the looters, the rats, the raw sewage and the shortage of energy this is going to turn into a hellish situation…and Obama will be praised for his brilliance by the sycophants in the media.
I understand another storm is brewing too (God help them).
What is your basis for the claim that “conditions for recovery on the east coast today would be much more favorable” if the Bush plan had passed?
I think it’s important to note that one of the concerns cited by the opposition to the Bush plan was global warming. There is growing evidence that global warming played a role in the severity of the hurricane.
http://www.google.com/search?q=hurricane+sandy+global+warming&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&oq=hurricane+sandy+global+warming&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I don’t see how Bush’s energy plan, which would have accelerated global warming, would make things better for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, or how it would make us safer from future climate catastrophes.
(This is your cue to make yourself look foolish by pretending global warming isn’t real.)
Your claims about Obama and green energy are breathtakingly dishonest. As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the failure rate for green energy companies that have received stimulus money is only 8% (not, as Mitt Romney has ludicrously claimed, “half”). 92% of green energy investments under Obama have been successful. To put that in perspective, 22% of companies that Bain Capital invested in while Romney led the firm went bankrupt, while only 78% were successful.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-25-2012/picking-winners—losers
But please, tell me more about how much better Mitt Romney and the private sector are at investing than President Obama and the government.
“FEMA is a bureaucracy….Obama’s so-called “professional” will not run it any better than Brown did.”
Well, Brown seems to agree with you. He has criticized the president for acting too “quickly” in response to the hurricane. Because, as we all know, Brown’s slow, bumbling and inefficient response to Katrina is the model we should all aspire to:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ex-fema-director-michael-brown-criticizes-obama-reacting-202803013.html
But Brown has already backed down from that criticism, and somehow made it even worse, saying that he was actually talking about how the president could have gotten more “milage” out of this tragedy:
“The President should have justhe could have just made a comment while he was in Florida that says, you know my FEMA director is on top of this and were gonna do everything we can when the states ask us to come in and help. Boom.
He would have been better served politically to let everybody elseBloomberg, Christie, Cuomo, ODonnell [sic] all of them make whatever statements they were going to make. Call for their evacuations. And then he could have stepped up, very presidentially, and said And by the way, I have instructed my FEMA director to give the states whatever they need as the storm approaches. I think he would have gotten more mileage out of it. In other words, he peaked too soon.”
When asked by Sirota whether he had any substantive criticism of the Obama administrations response, however, Brown replied the answer is: no, I dont.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/31/1114891/brown-says-obama-should-have-squeezed-more-political-mileage/
This might seem to add even further embarassment to Brown’s legacy, but it’s nothing that can’t be solved by him never speaking in public again.
“Between the looters, the rats, the raw sewage and the shortage of energy this is going to turn into a hellish situation…and Obama will be praised for his brilliance by the sycophants in the media.”
Yes, Obama’s comerades in the lamestream media like Chris Christie, Bob McDowell and Matthew Dowd. What a bunch of traitors, refusing to politicize the hurricane and giving credit where credit is due. Don’t they know there is an election coming?!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/storm-provides-obama-with-a-commander-in-chief-moment/2012/10/30/5e645952-22c2-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story_1.html
By the best sources, the Bush plan sucked and needed to be scrapped.
The document you link to is a report by the Department of Energy, not what was in the Bush plan. Were you being deceptive intentionally or was that a mistake?
Thanks for expressing your opinion R. Charan Pagan.
Would I be correct in surmising that you support alternative energy and perhaps even hate the oil industry? If so we are not at all surprised that you think his plan “sucked”. those who bought into the climate change lie are often against common sense approaches to our energy and infrastructure needs and you don’t mind throwing other peoples money down a rat hole to pursue alternatives that have not been proven or perfected.
If, on the other hand, you actually have information that would show that the Bush proposal “sucked” we’d love to discuss it.
Chris I have to leave now but will reply later tonight.
“FEMA is a bureaucracy….Obama’s so-called “professional” will not run it any better than Brown did.”
Ah, but he is. Corralling private sector, portable power sources; commandeering military cargo planes; suspending obstructive legislation … I’m damned impressed.
But I can see where you’d be sad.
Tina: “those who bought into the climate change lie”
When 97-98% of currently publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity, then the best bet is that it is not a lie, but…actual science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700085458/Global-warming-consensus-matters.html?pg=all
“are often against common sense approaches to our energy and infrastructure needs and you don’t mind throwing other peoples money down a rat hole to pursue alternatives that have not been proven or perfected.”
Again, money has not been thrown “down a rate hole.” Your favorite target, Solyndra, represented a mere 1.4% of the Dept. of Energy’s investment in renweable technologies. 8% of the companies the Obama administration has invested in have gone bankrupt, while 92% are still up and running. That’s a better success rate than Bain Capital’s. It is you who is letting irrational bias cloud your judgment, not those who acknowledge the reality climate change and the need for government investments in alternative energy.
Also, this “war on coal” crap is easily disproven by the fact that coal production and coal jobs in Ohio are up since the Bush administration.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/oct/31/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-says-coal-jobs-and-coal-production-b/
Now back to your regularly scheduled fearmongering narrative.
Libby by the time the weekend is over you may be more than embarrassed. The headlines this evening:
Drivers Waiting 6 Hours For Gas in NYC…
Tempers Rise in Wake of Storm…
‘Finding bodies left and right’…
Restaurant, hotel prices skyrocket…
CHUCK SCHUMER CONFRONTED: ‘We Are Gonna Die!’
Utility workers pelted with eggs…
Misery…
‘We have nothing’…
Residents Furious RED CROSS Offering Cookies & Hot Chocolate, Not Blankets Or Clothes…
Jet Fuel Supply Fast Becoming Concern At Airports…
Staten Islanders Plead for Help: ‘We Need Food’…
‘Please don’t leave us’…
VIDEO: Stranded New Yorkers Defecating in Apartment Buildings… (Oh dear)
DIRE…
NJ counties enact 70s style gas rationing… Developing…
You can read all of these articles simply by going to The Drudge Report:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
At this point in the aftermath of Katrina George Bush and FEMA were already being demeaned and excoriated because they hadn’t “done enough” to “help those poor people”…and you, like a fool, bought the entire spin that after something like this it is possible to take all the misery away…say by a President showing up for a photo op.
As I have recently written…all I expect is that those serving America be judged by the media using the same yardstick.
Chris: “(This is your cue to make yourself look foolish by pretending global warming isn’t real.)”
Could you be any more arrogant and childish?
Those interested in an alternative adult opinion can read these articles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/31/leave-it-to-the-global-warming-alarmists-to-make-fake-lemonade-out-of-hurricane-sandy/
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/despite-20th-century-minor-warming-ice-cores-indicate-earth-is-still-cooling-since-the-minoan-period.html
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/
“As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the failure rate for green energy companies that have received stimulus money is only 8%”
Jon Stewart huh? Big whoop.
A list of failed companies and other information is in the following article (scroll down for list)…and please keep in mind that we are talking about taxpayer money not private money…there is a very BIG difference:
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/
The crony capitalism in this flagrant spending is also disgusting (Obama against it in 2008)
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021612-601508-obama-green-energy-scandal-grows-deeper.htm
TAXPAYER MONEY! (Or debt to be born by…you!)
“But please, tell me more about how much better Mitt Romney and the private sector are at investing than President Obama and the government.”
The government doesn’t “invest”…it spends! If you can’t see that difference there is no point in discussing it further.
Regarding Brown, FEMA, Obama…its a bureaucracy and it will function as a bureaucracy, badly, and the media will give Obama and his director a pass because he is a Democrat. Obama needed the photo op badly so he flew to New Jersey like the self-centered progressive he is.
Brown is a victim of the vindictive smear machine media and he would have been such if the day after Katrina the entire area was back to normal. The real problems in Katrina, other than the structural problems with the levies and the criminal element, flowed from the poor response of the governor and the mayor (both Democrats). Neither had a plan for such an event nor did they know what to do when it happened.
Tina: “Could you be any more arrogant and childish?”
Yes. I could be a global warming denier. It is extremely arrogant and childish to pretend to know more than 98% of climate scientists on this issue, simply because you have a political agenda.
“Those interested in an alternative adult opinion can read these articles:”
One of the articles you linked to groups our president in with Osama bin Laden as “leftist-totalitarian progressives!” That is an “adult opinion” to you? You shame yourself. If you think it is even remotely accurate to call Osama bin Laden a “leftist” or “progressive,” then you simply lack a 12th grade literacy of politics, sociology, and history, and you are not qualified to give an “adult opinion” on any of these topics. Al Qaeda is, by definition, a radical far-right movement.
That article takes the dishonest tactic of implying that only Bad People We Don’t Like believe in global warming, completely ignoring the fact that a scientific consensus exists. That’s not “adult” argumentation, Tina, it’s an appeal to ignorance.
“Jon Stewart huh? Big whoop.”
Well, is he wrong? FactCheck.org has a somewhat different estimate, at 89% green investment success (which is still pretty damn good):
“Romney falsely claimed about half of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans have gone out of business. But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/
“A list of failed companies and other information is in the following article (scroll down for list)…and please keep in mind that we are talking about taxpayer money not private money…there is a very BIG difference:”
Unlike Jon Stewart, who you just mocked, your source fails to compare the number that have failed with the number that have succeeded. (You always have had trouble understanding that percentages matter.)
Furthermore, most of the loans were fairly low-risk, and many of them have been sold to private equity firms responsible for paying back the loans:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/25/marc-thiessen-distorts-success-rate-of-clean-en/186692
“The crony capitalism in this flagrant spending is also disgusting (Obama against it in 2008)”
There was no crony capitalism. From FactCheck.org:
“An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obamas political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees.
-It claims the inspector general said contracts were steered to friends and family. But thats not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged schemes, no public charges have been made, at least not yet.
-The ad highlights the struggles company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated.
-The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors…
…We found Schweizers $16.4 billion claim to be too high by nearly $6 billion. But that still leaves billions of dollars that went to companies run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers. Payola? One might expect that a healthy percentage of owners of green-energy companies might lean Democratic, so its not surprising that some loans and grants went to companies run by Democratic donors. Some went to Republican donors as well. The question is whether those federal dollars were improperly or unfairly steered to donors in a quid pro quo arrangement.”
Tina: “Regarding Brown, FEMA, Obama…its a bureaucracy and it will function as a bureaucracy, badly, and the media will give Obama and his director a pass because he is a Democrat.”
Are you honestly saying that Gov. Chris Christie is praising Obama because he is a Democrat? Jesus, Tina. If Chris Christie is praising the president the week of the election, it’s because he’s doing a damn good job!
“The government doesn’t “invest”…it spends! If you can’t see that difference there is no point in discussing it further.”
This is such a crazy and idiotic position, that I guess there is no point in discussing this further. If you are committed to the unreasonable position that government investment is literally impossible, then we can’t have a reasonable discussion.
Chris: It is extremely arrogant and childish to pretend to know more than 98% of climate scientists on this issue, simply because you have a political agenda.
A. You assume my position is based on politics rather than the opinions of scientists, highly regarded experts in the field.
B. You assume that the 98% of scientists you believe is made up of scientists that are experts in the field.
C. You assume that these scientists are in it for science rather than politics and/or money.
D. You ignore the evidence put forward by scientists that dont share the so-called consensus view of the 98%.
E. You ignore the evidence that key points in the man made warming theory dont hold up because key members in the 98% didnt follow the scientific method in their workthey doctored evidence and attempted to control peer review.
F. You assume I am pretending when I am not.
Al Qaeda is, by definition, a radical far-right movement.
Is it? Lets seethis radical movement wants government control over every aspect of life: social, business and financial, legal, religious, and governmental. That is big government in spades, something that is much more closely aligned to progressive thinking than it is conservatism…more left wing than right wing.
All of the totalitarian leaders of the 20th Century shared similar socialist goalsMarx, Lenin, Engels, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, Robert Mugabee, Slobodon Melosevic, Idi Amin, Sadam Husseinthe list goes on. They were different faces of socialist ideology and method.
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/fascism-a-socialist-leftwing-ideology-communism-fascism-labor-unions-workers-and-students-exploiting-crisis/
RE: Obamas green energy failures: You have offered percentages without naming a single company. Can you name a handful of successful green energy companies that received loans or money from Obama?
I havent heard him tout any specifically but I have heard about a lot that have failed or are failing and have sent tax money to other countries…and we are NOT talking pennies! Heres one example from media:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energy-projects/?tag=mncol;lst;2
There was no crony capitalism.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2012/11/01/emails_catch_white_house_lie_on_greenenergy_loans/page/full/
Are you honestly saying that Gov. Chris Christie is praising Obama because he is a Democrat?
I never mentioned Chris Christie; we were discussing FEMA and bureaucracy.
If you are committed to the unreasonable position that government investment is literally impossible, then we can’t have a reasonable discussion.
I told you there was no point in discussing it but it is, none the less, something you should considerit is your future!
When government takes money from its citizens and uses that money to prop up a company it is not an investment, it is an expense or it becomes debt which is future liability. The government will not realize profits or incur losses from the product or service of the company…the company will. The government also takes no risk, as private investors do, since it can print money or place the burden of the debt on the shoulders of taxpayers (and future taxpayers). Calling this kind of government spending an investment is purely political. It is designed to confuse people into thinking that government (under our free capitalist system) is equivalent to the private sector…possibly superior. It is a means to an end…convincing the citizens that government control of the private sector is good. That is socialist thinking. That this government is spending on green energy almost exclusively should be your first clue that something unseemly is afootit is simply a political ploy used to control the free market (socialism/fascism/corporatism) and pick who in the market will win and who will lose (totalitarian control).
Tina: “A. You assume my position is based on politics rather than the opinions of scientists, highly regarded experts in the field.”
All 2% of them? Many of the scientists cited by global warming deniers aren’t even climate scientists:
“Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors, said on national television, In the opinion of about 32,000 of the worlds leading scientists, yes (global warming is a hoax).
The 32,000 leading scientists 9,000 saying they have Ph.D.s come from a petition by the George C. Marshall Institute, an outfit funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exxon-Mobil that has helped create uncertainty over scientific consensus on global warming. The petition came with a cover letter by Frederick Seitz, a scientist who received much money from the R.J. Reynolds cigarette company and helped to create uncertainty over medical consensus on the harms of tobacco smoke.
To qualify as one of the worlds leading scientists, one merely needed to sign the petition. And anyone could sign it no affiliation is given so the names cant be verified. Hawkeye Pierce was one of the signatories.”
http://www.rgj.com/article/20101228/NEWS20/101228012/Fact-checker-Don-t-see-consensus-global-warming-Look-past-Fox-News
“B. You assume that the 98% of scientists you believe is made up of scientists that are experts in the field.”
This is not an assumption; it’s a fact:
“Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masters degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
“C. You assume that these scientists are in it for science rather than politics and/or money.”
I’d say you could say the same thing about the minority of scientists who deny global warming who are funded by big oil and other corporate interests, which pressure them to deny:
“In one example, New Scientist reported on congressional testimony in 2007 about 435 incidents where climate scientists say they were pressured to downplay global warming.
In another instance that came out in court documents, a fossil-fuel-industry group called the Global Climate Coalition asked its scientists about global warming caused by human activity and they reported back, The scientific basis is well established and cannot be denied.
Not only that, its scientists concluded that those who were skeptical of global warming do not offer convincing arguments.
Despite this internal document similar to actions by the tobacco industry the fossil fuel industry continued to sow confusion about climate change, until the coalition disbanded in 2002.
The New York Times noted last year, (Other fossil fuel companies and groups), like Exxon Mobil, now recognize a human contribution to global warming and have largely dropped financial support to groups challenging the science.”
http://www.rgj.com/article/20101228/NEWS20/101228012/Fact-checker-Don-t-see-consensus-global-warming-Look-past-Fox-News
“D. You ignore the evidence put forward by scientists that dont share the so-called consensus view of the 98%.”
I don’t ignore it, and it’s not a “so-called” consensus. I have seen the evidence from the few actively publishing climatologists who do not believe in global warming, and I have also seen their evidence debunked.
“E. You ignore the evidence that key points in the man made warming theory dont hold up because key members in the 98% didnt follow the scientific method in their workthey doctored evidence and attempted to control peer review.”
Debunked:
“A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
“F. You assume I am pretending when I am not.”
It was a generous assumption, given the alternative.
“Is it? Lets seethis radical movement wants government control over every aspect of life…”
*sigh* I’m not going to get into this with you right now. It’s stupid. Al Qaeda is a religious right organization. They are not “progressive” by any reasonable definition; they do not support rights for women, religious minorities, or anyone else who is not them. They are not “conservative” in the American sense, but in the sense that they want to return to a very traditional and regressive model of society.
Anyway, the main point was that you claimed it was an “adult opinion” to group in the president of the United States with the leader of the world’s worst terrorist group–which the president had killed, by the way!–in order to make people who agree with the scientific consensus on global warming look bad by association. That was shameful, Tina.
“RE: Obamas green energy failures: You have offered percentages without naming a single company. Can you name a handful of successful green energy companies that received loans or money from Obama?”
FactCheck.org has the deets about a lot of the companies that have been targeted by conservatives:
First Solar
The ads first example is First Solar, a global provider of solar modules. Of First Solar, the ad states: Three billion dollars in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Now theyre cutting jobs and their stock is near all-time lows.
Its true that First Solar secured federal loan guarantees of more than $3 billion for three major solar projects. (And got them after spending $2.2 million on Washington lobbying since 2007.) After arranging and negotiating financing options, all three projects were promptly sold, to NextEra Energy, NRG Energy and Exelon. So First Solar no longer owns the DOE loan guarantees (though it is building the plants for those companies so much of the federally guaranteed loan money is certainly flowing its way).
Ted Meyer, a spokesman for First Solar, said that despite the ads implication that First Solar was another Solyndra deal, the structure of the loans is very different. The loans for the projects are backed by long-term contracts from major energy companies in California to purchase the power generated by the solar plants.
Its true that First Solar is cutting jobs, but most of them have been overseas…
According to Meyer, more than 90 percent of the staff reductions from the April restructuring of the company were outside the U.S. Those layoffs are wholly unrelated to the three projects funded by DOE, Meyer said. Those three solar projects will employ about 1,200 people during the three-year construction phase, Meyer said, and about 12 people per site permanently.
As for U.S. jobs, Greentech Media reported First Solar furloughed 120 of its 240 employees at its DOE-backed Antelope Valley solar project in California. But contrary to a Fox News report that originally ran under the headline Obama-Funded Solar Firm Lays Off Half Its Workforce (it was later changed), thats just one project First Solar is working on. It is unrelated to the company restructuring, Meyer said, and is due to an unresolved code issue with the county. Once that issue is resolved, he said, First Solar plans to expand construction there again.
As for First Solar stock being near all-time lows, its true that the price is lower than it has been in more than six years. The crude graphic in the ad seems to suggest the stock has dropped to $4 per share, but thats not accurate. It was trading at $13.40 on May 30, but that is still down precipitously from its high of $311.14 in May 2008.
Meyer released this company statement about the ad: Its surprising a candidate that claims to support U.S. economic growth would criticize a great American success story like First Solar. First Solar has proven that an American company can compete and win in renewable energy globally, and our success supports almost 10,000 American jobs, more than $1 billion in U.S. purchasing, tens of millions of dollars in exports, and record-setting innovation that reduces pollution and enhances U.S. energy security.
ECOtality
The ad states that San Francisco-based ECOtality has received $126 million in taxpayer money. Lost $45 million, and currently under investigation.
Thats not quite accurate. In October 2011, ECOtality Inc. was awarded a $26.4 million contract from the Department of Energy to conduct advanced vehicle battery testing and evaluation for DOE. Previously, ECOtality was awarded a $114.8 million grant to install 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. As part of the arrangement, for every dollar spent by ECOtality, the federal government reimburses it 45.8 cents. The remainder of the cost of the project is picked up by private investment money from companies like Nissan and GM. To date, the company has received about $42 million from DOE. So the ad is technically incorrect to say the company has received all of the $126 million. But it will if the project is completed in 2013, as expected. Also, the ad doesnt mention anything about jobs in relation to ECOtality, but the Recovery Act website reports that the company projected the grant would create 144 jobs.
According to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company posted net losses of $22.5 million in 2011, and $16.4 million in 2010. But on a positive note, the company reported that the first quarter of 2012 was its first profitable quarter, with net income of $1.2 million.
On a decidedly less positive note, the company confirmed that it has received subpoenas from the SEC as part of a fact-finding inquiry related to the trading of shares between Aug. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. The Heritage Foundation obtained and posted a copy of the subpoena sent to the companys CEO. According to CBS News, the company is under investigation for insider trading.
SunPower
Lastly, the Romney ad targets the solar company SunPower, saying: More than a billion dollars in loan guarantees. Lost half a billion last year. Laying off workers.
On Sept. 30, 2011, SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to build the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, a 250-megawatt solar plant in San Luis Obispo County, Calif. And SunPower reported an operating loss of $534 million last year. But after that, the ads case starts to fall apart.
Before any federal funds were released, SunPower sold the project to NRG Energy. So NRG is the owner of the loan guarantees and the company responsible for repaying them. SunPower is now the lead contractor on the project.
Despite its losses, SunPower is financially solvent, and as the same KGO-TV report cited in the Romney ad notes the companys new majority stockholder is Total, a French company that ranks among the top oil and energy companies in the world.
As for SunPower layoffs, according to a public filing with the SEC last November, the company did announce that it would be laying off 85 employees. But as was the case with First Solar, most of those layoffs were overseas, and represented a small fraction of the companys global workforce. In its public filing, the company stated that it was consolidating or closing facilities in Europe in response to reductions in European government incentives, primarily in Italy, which have had a significant impact on the global solar market. The number of layoffs ended up being less, a company spokeswoman told us, and together with newly created jobs, the net reduction was 41 jobs.
More important, the jobs related to the DOE-backed California Valley Solar Ranch are unaffected. According to SunPower, more than 350 workers are currently constructing the solar power plant. The plant, company officials said, will begin generating 25 megawatts of power by September, and when completed will generate enough electricity to power 100,000 California homes (and is already contracted to do so).
According to Bloomberg News, even with the losses from Solyndra, the default rate for the DOEs loans to solar, wind and bio-energy projects is less than 3.6 percent, less than a third of what the White House anticipated. So Romney is using the same lemon-picking strategies that critics of his Bain years use choosing a few sour specifics to give a misleading picture of the larger reality. And hes straining facts and misquoting a leading investigator as well.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/
You link to Townhall to prove that there was crony capitalism, but a) Townhall is an extremely biased source and b) it doesn’t even show political favoritism! As FactCheck pointed out, it shouldn’t be regarded as strange that a lot of the green companies are run by Democrats, since Democrats are much more likely to support green energy. That hardly points to a conspiracy.
“I never mentioned Chris Christie; we were discussing FEMA and bureaucracy.”
You claimed that Obama would be praised undeservedly by the media because he is a Democrat, even though you don’t think he has done an impressive job. I pointed out that he has already recieved the praise of very conservative politicians who don’t want Obama to get a second term, who say he is doing a great job. That runs counter to your narrative. How do you explain that, Tina? You can’t, which is why you didn’t.
“When government takes money from its citizens and uses that money to prop up a company it is not an investment, it is an expense or it becomes debt which is future liability.”
This is just historically ignorant. The government has invested in companies since our country’s inception. These investments have given us railroads, streets, planes, military achievment, scientific achievment, NASA, the Internet…the list goes on. As a society, we got more than we spent; that is called a good investment. It is ridiculous to say that government doesn’t invest. In addition to these historical investments, I’ve told you how government has invested in me: because of my financial aid to college, I will be able to succeed and give back in the future.
“That this government is spending on green energy almost exclusively should be your first clue that something unseemly is afoot”
It is not exclusively. The Obama administration has also invested heavily in “clean coal:”
http://www.google.com/search?q=clean+coal+investments+obama&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&oq=clean+coal+investments+obama&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“it is simply a political ploy used to control the free market (socialism/fascism/corporatism) and pick who in the market will win and who will lose (totalitarian control).”
Every administration much choose what to invest in. Romney has said he will not invest in solar energy, but in traditional fuel sources. As Jon Stewart rightly pointed out, that is also picking winners and losers.
Chris: “Many of the scientists cited by global warming deniers aren’t even climate scientists”
Many of your so-called 98% (You have no proof of this percentage) are medical doctors and economists:
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/12/04/mikefox-the-ipcc-scandal-well-deserved-self-destruction-12042.aspx
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1
“Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masters degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes.”
In science when qualified scientists disagree as to a conclusion the theory has NOT been proven. this list of scientists agree with a conclusion that was arrived at fraudulently!
For the sake of argument can we agree to throw out scientists in unrelated fields that signed on to the opposing opinions? If so, we will be left with reputable scientists that disagree…which means the jury is out. There is no consensus!
Much of this movement has been political. The number of scientists from all over the world that are concerned for the integrity of the science community have made statements in opposition to the consensus opinion:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5771986038/m/2301930238/inc/-1
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/15128/mit-scientist-disputes-man-made-global-warming-in-sandia-labs-presentation/
Your success stories of clean energy spending can all be summed up in these suggested accomplishments:
Obama said that his green energy program would create five million new green energy jobs but few have materialized and at great cost to the citizen taxpayer:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/03/05/Obamas-Energy-Plan-Costs-Rise-Jobs-Decline.aspx#page1
“These investments have given us railroads, streets, planes, military achievment, scientific achievment, NASA, the Internet…the list goes on.”
The people have spent to have these things. they were taxed! I didn’t argue that all government spending has been wrongheaded. I argued that attempting to think of it as “investment” as if government had its own money is incredibly deceptive! It is particularly deceptive when it is pushed by an agenda driven president rather than passed in legislation by the people’s representatives.
“Every administration much choose what to invest in.”
Are you aware of what you are suggesting? That a president in America can spend the people’s money according to his own beliefs and agenda? That is not how our system works and that is one reason, come next Tuesday, this president will be shown the door!
“Romney has said he will not invest in solar energy, but in traditional fuel sources…”
That is not true. the Romney policy includes all forms of energy production including solar:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
“As Jon Stewart rightly pointed out, that is also picking winners and losers.”
Wrong again. Mitt’s plan takes government out of the mix to allow entrepreneurial effort a fair shot by removing obstacles to their success and development through private investment. (an example of a private sector rescue in your own examples: “SunPower sold the project to NRG Energy. So NRG is the owner of the loan guarantees and the company responsible for repaying them.”
A Fortune 300 company, NRG is at the forefront of changing how people think about and use energy. Whether as the largest solar power developer in the country, by building the nations first privately funded electric vehicle charging infrastructure or by giving customers the latest smart energy solutions to better manage their energy use, NRG is a pioneer in developing cleaner and smarter energy choices for our customers.
Our diverse power generating facilities have a capacity of more than 25,000 megawatts, capable of supporting more than 20 million homes. Our retail electricity providers Reliant, Green Mountain Energy Company and Energy Plus and thermal energy division serve more than two million residential, business, commercial and industrial customers in 16 states.
Who is NRG? a Fortune 300 company!
http://www.nrgenergy.com/about/index.htm
See a list of their assets here:
http://www.nrgenergy.com/about/assets.html
This demonstrates that privately owned companies with experience in the industry are the best candidates to INVEST in alternative energy. They take the risk (and can afford it) and the taxpayer is better served both inn terms of alternative development and in terms of the cost to them. Companies have the incentive of profit which they will earn by delivering viable energy sources, both alternative and traditional, at the lowest possible price.
In case you didn’t learn this in college, Chris…its the American way and it has worked very well for a couple of hundred years!
And that is the bottom line. I have nothing more to say on the subject.