Joust The Facts

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day" - "It's Not Easy Bein' Green" edition

Robert Tracinski writing on the electic car, that preposterous amalgam of fossil fuel snobbery and environmental ignorance foisted on Americans by modern green alchemists who seem to think fuel, in the form of electricity, miraculously appears in your house from the "ether".

Electric cars never really made any sense. They are cloaked in the sanctimony of the green movement, because they don't use nasty fossil fuels like gasoline. Instead, they use electricity, which is sent out through power lines from big power plants, which generate this electricity—how? Oh yes, by burning fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas. This is known as the "long tailpipe," which goes from the car charging up in your garage all the way back to the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant. And don't forget, electric cars also have giant batteries made from nasty toxic metals like lithium and cobalt, the manufacture of which frontloads carbon dioxide emissions.

So the electric car was always more an exercise in green paternalism—it is the future, as selected for us by our betters—than a serious attempt to solve any real or imagined problem.

And after discussing the Tesla and it's less-than-road-worthiness:

But this misses the biggest point: since when is driving a car supposed to be so complicated? The whole point of technology is to use the machine's energy and yes, to burn up natural resources, in order to save human effort. The machines are supposed to work for us; we don't work for them. This is especially true of the automobile, which is all about freedom, independence, going out on the open road and deciding on the spur of the moment where you want to go—not about filing a flight plan and having technicians talk you through your trip.

Read the whole thing at Real Clear Politics.

Related articles

The electric car mistake

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

From Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, on this snowy New England Saturday, comes a pithy summary of the mindless ideology that pervades Obama decision-making.

His final point highlights the amazing reverse logic which seems to be in play here, once again comparing the Keystone XL project to California’s high speed rail line. In the latter, the White House is continuing to push a project which virtually nobody seemed to have wanted by tossing vast amounts of taxpayer money into a plan which seems almost predestined to fail. In the former, they are fighting tooth and nail to stop a project which would have been paid for by private investment and created jobs in states which desperately need them, costing the taxpayer nothing and resulting in a downstream flow of cash back into government coffers through increased commercial activity and employment.

What is to be gained from this general approach unless you’re actively looking to turn out the lights?

You can cue up Dandy Don Meredith from the early days of Monday Night Football at this point.

 

Shorter Andy Stern; Even Shorter F. A. Hayek

Mr. Stern, former head of SEIU: Central planning is good.

Mr. Hayek, economist: No, it's not.

I might remind Mr. Stern that China's 5 year plan is just that, a "plan."  Remember that Mr. Obama also had a "plan" for a boatload of "green jobs."  How's that workin' out for you?

Oil, Oil Everywhere

If only American oil companies could benefit from some of the nearby deposits.

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil major BP Plc said it has made an oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, which analysts believe could contain over 1 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, reaffirming the Gulf's strategic importance to the industry.

BP said in a statement on Wednesday that it had made the "giant" find at its Tiber Prospect in the Keathley Canyon block 102, by drilling one of the deepest wells ever sunk by the industry.

British Petroleum.  In the Gulf of Mexico.  Which, curiously, is conveniently located near several oil refining states.  One of the other companies drilling in the Gulf is Petrobras.

BP, the biggest oil producer in the U.S. and biggest leaseholder in the Gulf of Mexico, has a 62 percent working interest in the block, while Brazilian state-controlled Petrobras owns 20 percent and U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips owns 18 percent.

Petrobras, you'll recall, recently received $2 Billion in loan guarantees from the Obama Administration for offshore drilling.  Allowing Americans to drill offshore, and funding American energy projects that don't involve the wind and the sun?  Not so much.

Traded, For A Few Barrels Of Oil

There have been some bad trades in history.  Babe Ruth traded for financing for No No Nanette, Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson, Curt Schilling for Mike Boddicker, John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander, Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe for Heathcliff Slocumb, and "who can forget Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson, for gosh sakes".  But baseball is a game, and a bad trade offends the fans, but doesn't devalue their lives.  Other trades can.  I don't think I've seen a worse trade than this.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

After less than 12 days per murder the convict is set free, based upon the false representation of impending death and for the commercial interests of BP.  My brother's life, traded for a few barrels of oil.  Before I was disturbed.  Now I'm pissed.  British PM Gordon Brown should be ashamed, and I, for one, want an abject apology.

8/30/09 1235: At Protein Wisdom, Darleen Click points out that this really is, finally, blood for oil.  And Jules Crittendon wants everyone to consider the possibilities.  Also: Moe Lane

... Megrahi’s back in Libya and Gadaffi doesn’t particularly care what Brown thinks about things.  And if you’re wondering why they waited two years… well.  Gadaffi cared a great deal about what George W. Bush thought about things.

This new guy in the Oval Office?  Eh.  not so much.

Pathetic.

8/30/09 1320: After reading, for example, Eleanor Clift and Melissa Lafsky excuse Ted Kennedy in the matter of Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick because, politically, he did so much with which they agreed, perhaps it's just a leftist flaw that considers human life only worth as much as any other political football, to be punted around for field position.

8/30/09 1345: Ed Morrissey, who has been right on top of this:

What happens to Brown’s government now?  Will Parliament issue a vote of no confidence and force his resignation and new elections?  After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace, not just for the grubby commercial bargain but for their contemptuous lies afterward.

He should resign in disgrace, but only after issuing that abject apology.

9/6/09 2315: First we find out from that the Obama administration was kept in the loop throughout on the negotiations for the release of al-Megrahi.  Via Allahpundit at Hot Air:

The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’

Mr Obama said Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds was a ‘mistake’ while Mrs Clinton phoned the Scottish administration to complain in person.

This doesn't make the case that the release was approved by the Obama administration, though I do note that when the documents relating to this matter were released, those involving the US were held back at the request of the administration.

Here's a photo essay on the 20th anniversary of the bombing, at TIME.

The First Step ...

... is admitting you have a problem.  It looks like the house Democrats just admitted they have one.  They're on the wrong side of the energy production issue, and they know it.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow...

Now that Democrats are introducing their own proposal to allow drilling of the coasts of a handful of Gulf Coast states, they believe they can hold back the GOP energy bill, which calls for opening up both the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Despite this tacit admission of a political liability, this will be dicey politics for Republicans.  If they can't get their wider bill passed but go along to get some additional drilling allowed then they'll take the drilling issue off the table for November.  If they hold out for ANWR and the OCS then Democrats will demagogue them as blocking drilling.

It may be too much to ask for a majority of American people to recognize just who's being cynical here.  Republicans will have their work cut out for them in educating the public.

Drilling Ban Lifted?

The President removed the Executive Branch's ban; now it's up to Congress.  The writers at al-Reuters rush to call it "symbolic" - twice before the first paragraph is over.

Bush lifts offshore drilling ban in symbolic move

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday lifted a White House ban on offshore drilling to try to drive down soaring energy prices, a largely symbolic bid unlikely to have any short-term impact on high gasoline costs.

What is this fascination with short-term results?  If it takes five or ten years we've only ourselves our Congress to blame, as we should have been accessing these resources all along.

And that's not to say that alternative cleaner energy sources should not be sought, that nuclear power shouldn't be reconsidered and developed, that research into development of hydrogen engines ... or anti-matter warp drives, for that matter ... shouldn't proceed apace.  Hey, if we can stop buying oil from nations where the leader despises us (Venezuela) or the people think we're infidels deserving death (Saudi Arabia) I'm all for it.  However, both sides of the equation can be adjusted; we can produce more of our own energy, and we can reduce our demand.  The Nancy Pelosis of the US Congress would have us drive to work by burning the hope for miracle breakthroughs.

"Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court," Bush said after signing a memorandum reversing a presidential ban that was instituted by his father, then-President George Bush, almost two decades ago. "The time for action is now."...

House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's plan a "hoax," joining a chorus of condemnations from environmental groups. The business-friendly U.S. Chamber of Commerce hailed the move as a step toward alleviating high gasoline prices.

She also needs to learn the meaning of the word 'hoax', unless she can show there's no oil there.  Which she can't, because she's been part of the group blocking surveys of the reserves.

Based on data more than 25 years old, the department estimates that drilling on closed federal tracts off the U.S. coasts could produce 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Congress has blocked many attempts to allow updated surveys on the amount of oil and gas reserves in the banned areas.

And the head of the National Wildlife Federation needs an economics lesson.

Environmentalists said more drilling would not end U.S. dependence on oil or cut gasoline prices.

"Calls for more drilling will only increase the already record profits of big oil and will do little to reduce the costs of gas at the pump," said Larry Schweiger president and chief executive officer of the National Wildlife Federation.

Actually, Larry, the drilling would be a large sunk cost that the companies would be investing toward future production, decreasing their current profits.

So the ball's in the Democratic Congress'' court.  And with 67% of voters favoring drilling there is a not insignificant incentive for them to do the right thing.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.