Category Archives: Environmentalism

what green jobs?

Posted on by

This is just depressing.  Tell me again why we want government running our health care industry?

A new report by the Labor Departments Office of Inspector General examined a $500 million grant under the stimulus program to the Employment and Training Administration to “train and prepare individuals for careers in green jobs.” So far about $162.8 million has been spent. The program was supposed to train 125,000 workers, but only 53,000 have been “trained” so far, only 8,035 have found jobs, and only 1,033 were still in the job after six months.

via Review & Outlook: Green Jobs Brown Out – WSJ.com.

The problem with green energy

Posted on by

in short:  its prohibitively expensive… in almost all possible ways:

The Energy Information Administration estimates that new natural gas-fired plants will create electricity at a cost of $63.10 per megawatt hour, compared to the Administrations “green” favorites, offshore wind and solar thermal plants—like the one in Nevada funded yesterday—which cost $243.20 and $311.80.Even if you believe in the “green job” mantra, heres some more math: Yesterdays $737 million loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy will create “600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs,” according to the company. The $337 million loan guarantee to Sempra Energy “will fund up to 300 construction jobs.” Thats $1.1 billion for 45 permanent jobs.By comparison, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to carry crude oil from Western Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast would create some 13,000 union jobs and around 118,000 “spin-off” jobs—if the U.S. State Department ever gets around to approving it. And taxpayers wouldnt have to risk a dime.

via Review & Outlook: What Solyndra Fiasco? – WSJ.com.

Nobody wants to drive this car…

Posted on by

This from the green autoblog:

Once again, General Motors is burying the monthly sales totals for the Chevy Volt. In a press release headlined “May U.S. Retail Sales Rise 9 Percent on Demand for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles,” the Volt’s sales numbers are not disclosed. Instead, the total – 481 – is in the detailed PDF of the Chevrolet brand sales totals and shows the car is suffering from another month-to-month drop; GM sold 493 in April. Last month, GM told us that drop in Volt sales compared to March’s 608 units was due, in part, to the company sending 300 Volts to dealers to use as demo vehicles. We await word on what the reason for the drop is this time.

How much do you suppose GM has already LOST on this car (marketing costs, R&D, Labor, raw materials)?  The Volt might be one of the worst-performing models in GM history.  Someone explain to me who’s brilliant idea THIS was.

On a related note:  President Obama was here in Toledo just a few days ago and spoke about the auto industry.  Here’s the Washington Post’s analysis:

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech.

Those are their exact words… no joke.

via Electric Boogaloo: Nissan Leaf tallies 1,141 May sales.

“hubristic overestimation of human significance”

Posted on by

Wow… there are certainly benefits to having a sick day… with all this extra time on my hands I just keep coming across polemic GEMS like this:

Hubristic overestimation of human significance — in this case both for doing harm and correcting it by policy — may be the fundamental reason for broad acceptance of man-made climate change theory… In many ways, belief in climate apocalypse reflects similar moralistic disapproval of “materialist” Western society, and the claim that its wealth has been bought at the expense of others, including now that of “future generations.”

This quasi-religious belief is particularly appealing to the political and bureaucratic classes, because it provides new justifications for intervention to correct the imperfections and ongoing inequities of perpetually demonized capitalism. In a classic example of psychological “projection,” however, alarmists claim that it is their opponents who are tainted by “greed” and “self-interest.”

Read the whole thing here.

IPCC deniers

Posted on by

Wow.  Clive Crook literally destroys the IPCC in on ‘The Atlantic’ Blog.  Kudos for his honesty:

I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.

Read the whole thing.

Dangerous Cars – WSJ

Posted on by

Behold the folly of Central planning:

In today’s automobile fleet, the majority of the pollution comes from the oldest, dirtiest cars. In fact, the dirtiest 10% of the cars account for more than 50% of smog and carbon monoxide. The dirtiest one-third of the fleet accounts for more than 80% of the pollution… When it comes to smog, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates that new SUV is a lot cleaner than an old, poorly-tuned compact…

An economic phenomenon called “price elasticity of demand” is well established when it comes to automobile purchases. In other words, if you raise the price of new cars, people will buy fewer of them or, at a minimum, put off the purchase for a year or so while they drive the old clunker for a few thousand more miles. And fewer new cars means more pollution, which can cause significant health problems. Yet environmentalists and the press have ignored this issue, so as not to inject a note of complexity or doubt into the chorus of glee that greeted the president’s attack on greenhouse-gas emissions….

The Obama fuel efficiency plan may also contribute to a significant increase in highway deaths as vehicles are required to quickly meet the new CAFE standard and will likely become lighter in weight as a result… Specifically, the NRC estimated that in 1993 there were between 1,300 and 2,600 motor vehicle crash deaths that would not have occurred if cars were as heavy as they were in 1976…

Well, one might argue, this would not be the case if everyone drove smaller cars. The NRC study considered this countervailing fact and included it in its estimates. But nearly half of all car crashes (more than 48% in the years studied) are one-vehicle crashes. Put another way: If your car hits a tree or a post or a bridge abutment, you are most certainly better off in a larger car.

via Light Cars Are Dangerous Cars – WSJ.com.

ethanol shmethanol…

Posted on by

As usual… the “green” movement has some serious explaining to do:

California regulators have apparently discovered it ain’t easy being green…

  • “ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly.”
  • It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it.
  • It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous.
  • Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic “dead zones” in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.
  • It releases nitrous oxide as well as CO2, which is said to trap heat at a rate 300 times more than an equivalent amount of CO2.

Next time you hear an environmentalist lecturing you on how YOU need to adopt some new “green” solution… think beyond step one.

IBDeditorials.com: Will California Shuck Corn Ethanol?.