|
By Kyle Prast
Wednesday, Jun 18 2008, 10:30 AM
Today is your last chance to weigh in on the Governor's Global Warming Task Force. If you want to give the task force your 2 cents on ethanol, global warming, lifting alternative energy mandates or any other environmental issue the State of Wisconsin will be spending your money on and impacting your freedom to choose, email them now! (You can bet that all the corn farmers, ethanol manufacturers and those who lean Green will be flooding the task force with their point of view.)
The deadline for submitting comments on the Strawman Proposal has been
extended to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 2008. Comments can be
emailed to* DNRGLOBALWARMTFCOMMENTS@WISCONSIN.GOV *The email address I had before did not work, this one should be correct. Sorry. Hat Tip, Vicki McKenna. She talked about this at 10:25. FYI: Neighborhood Information Meeting tonight for Fire Station #3 move Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Jun 10 2008, 12:02 PM
Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column, GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.
No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.) We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!
More reading: George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Jun 3 2008, 01:04 PM
Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show. They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.) Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend
As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program
this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds
innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will
quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily
the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.
The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" "...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies. The
chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce
greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental
supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways.
Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It
would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market"
mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of
influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for
different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever
abstract advantages the system has. ...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The
program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment
would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs --
and multiply by 10.
After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet! Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill. Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards. Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where? That sounds like a tax to me! He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.) Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax. Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.
The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away. Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet. Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents. This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator Feingold (Office
of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.
More reading: George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World Links:
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Friday, May 9 2008, 02:12 PM
Wednesday, I caught a few minutes from Mark Belling's last half hour on the radio. He read this Wall Street Journal piece, The Biofuels Backlash. It is yet another condemnation of the whole biofuel fiasco--the food crisis, pollution, excessive water use, price supports, etc. You know, the usual complaints... (Let them eat and drink ethanol). The WSJ piece opened stating that for the past "30 years we...opposed ethanol subsidies. So imagine our great, pleasant surprise to see that the world is suddenly awakening to the folly of subsidized biofuels." Belling also mentioned that McCain and other senators were asking the EPA to waive some of their standards that have been pushing biofuels. That brightened my spirits, since McCain has been chanting the ethanol mantra like most of the other politicians. I found the article, Senators call for EPA to reconsider ethanol output mandate. Here are a few highlights:
Twenty-four Republican senators, including presidential candidate Sen.
John McCain of Arizona, sent a letter Friday to the Environmental
Protection Agency suggesting it waive, or restructure, rules that
require a fivefold increase in ethanol production over the next 15
years.
Congress passed a law last year mandating a ramp-up to 15 billion
gallons of corn ethanol by 2015 and 36 billion by 2022. But McCain and
other Republicans said those rules should be suspended to put more corn
back into the food supply for animal feed, and to encourage farmers to
plant other crops.
"This subsidized (ethanol) program _ paid for by taxpayer dollars _
has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table,
and a devastating food crisis throughout the world," said McCain, in a
statement. ...Analysts say lawmakers are unlikely to roll back popular ethanol subsidies during an election year.
Congress will not "turn on the corn belt" because of the significant
number of votes held by ethanol-producing states, Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co. analyst Kevin Book argued in a recent note to clients.
Ethanol subsidies could face greater risks, however, in 2009 and going
forward, according to Book.
The good news is political winds are changing a bit and promoting biofuel is no longer the slam-dunk it once was. Congressman Sensenbrenner just introduced his legislation, HR 5911, Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 against ethanol mandates. Wouldn't it be great to see some actual repeals? I hope people are contacting their senators and speaking out against S 2191, the Lieberman/Warner America's Climate Security Act of 2007.
The bad news is that, "Spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the Bush
administration remains committed to ethanol as an alternative fuel
because of its potential to 'get our nation off its addiction to
foreign oil.' " (Good reason to start producing more domestic oil!) Mark Belling expressed something to the effect that he wished Republicans* in our State Assembly would draft some sort of bill to state that Wisconsin wanted out of the ethanol mandates. It would have no teeth, but it would send a message. It will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates adjust their positions on ethanol in the next 6 months. Do I dare hope the tide is turning? *Maybe I should say Representatives who are anti ethanol since so many on both sides of the isle have sold their souls to King Corn. Since there are so many more food and fuel consumers than corn growers/ethanol processing plant owners, if the public would just bother to contact their representatives in all levels of government, maybe we could turn this around!
Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Thursday, May 8 2008, 10:39 AM
Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all. The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.
I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol! People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in
Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most
inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and
because it drives up the price of food." Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.) But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported
last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022
would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there." Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off. Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped
into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and
other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A
state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant
in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.
Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between
economic development and water conservation more evident than in the
push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of
water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants
together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.
Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol.
With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent
produced by the fermentation/distillation process. So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.) And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
Ethanol's Failed Promise Let Them Eat Cake
The World's Growing Food-Price CrisisHunger fuels food riots in Haiti Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included) Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Vicki Mckenna
|
By Kyle Prast
Wednesday, Apr 30 2008, 05:28 PM
Just heard this on Mark Belling, Sensenbrenner co-sponsored a bill to end ethanol mandates: "Congressman F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Menomonee Falls) is a cosponsor of HR 5911,
the Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 (RIPE Act),
introduced this week by Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona. This
bill will repeal the legislative provisions responsible for the
artificial demand for ethanol by:
- Repealing the renewable fuel standard;
- Repealing tax credits for ethanol producers;
- Repealing tariffs on importing ethanol.
“...The fact is, the
ethanol industry has been subsidized for twenty-seven years [51 cents/gallon] and claims
to still need the subsidies to survive,” Sensenbrenner added. “If an
industry cannot survive without government support after twenty-seven
years, there are more serious problems in place.” Mark Belling did not give the bill much chance to pass because of the powerful ethanol lobby, but hope always springs eternal in my heart. After all, Belling isn't omniscient; he did not think Gableman had a chance against Butler for State Supreme Court either. Almost every day we are seeing newscasts and articles on how biofuel has caused food shortages and food prices to rise. If the American public puts enough heat on their congressmen, who knows? Contact Congressman Sensenbrenner, Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101 Links: Update: "Creepy" picture Billy Ray cannot deny
Upcoming events in Brookfield 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park
Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Vicki Mckenna
|
More Posts
|
|