59 thoughts on “Environmentalism”

  1. All politicians are for jobs for their base (i.e. cronies). Why would President Obama be any different than the Republicans on this? This is no different then Republicans like Sen. Shelby and Hutchison wanting jobs for their voters which is why they support SLS.

    Recognizing that ALL politics is partisan and focused on delivering to the base is the first step in being able to understanding political behavior.

    1. Tom, I’m disappointed that you don’t understand the difference between a political base and cronyism. Would you consider yourself one of Obama’s cronies? You talk to him regularly and he “scratches your back”? Maybe your are one of Romney’s cronies? I doubt either is true. It just makes your other postings even more meaningless when you head off into left field like this.

      1. Eric,

        I am using the word the way Rand choose to use it, so perhaps you might ask him if he knows the difference.

        1. I would suggest that Rand is right in his usage – while public sector unions and private union bosses might be cronies, Joe Average Union Worker is not. He just got stiffed on the Keystone XL construction contracts.

  2. Only in the highest echelons do we hear people say, “We don’t need to build any pipelines. We’ve already got enough energy. We can all sit around awaiting the day we live off wind and sunshine.”

    Except that last part is just noise. They don’t want wind or solar either. They have theirs, to hell with everyone else. Even when there is absolutely no personal impact, they will still be opposed. AND they will provide placating and soothing commentary to conceal their true motives (“we’ll one day live off wind and sunshine”) They are truly malevolently evil. And they have plenty of useful idiots to assist them, e.g. the housewife who dutifully sends her $50 in to the Sierra Cub every year.

    1. Your comment reminds me of the time I found myself at a dinner with some environmental activist types who were concerned about a coal-fired power plant proposed to be built in the desert not too far from their ranch. They talked about how they would resist the plant by proposing solar and geothermal as alternatives, and then they said, that if the power company tried to build a geothermal plant, they’d fight that, too. (The plant was never built, but this had nothing to do with their protest; the environmental regulators already entrenched in the Sacramento bureaucracy disapproved of the power being sold in their state, and as a California utility was supposed to be the plant’s primary customer, the proposal barely advanced from the planning stage.)

  3. If it wasn’t obvious during the year that he was totally focused on health care instead of fixing the economy

    The Republicans would have blocked his proposals for fixing the economy, as they have all along. How would pushing doomed proposals have shown that he gives a damn about jobs?

    If the Republicans cared only about jobs they wouldn’t have fought the payroll tax extension and they’d have passed the American Jobs Act last year. But that would have increased growth and employment in 2012, which would have increased the likelihood of Obama’s reelection.

    1. In Obama-speak, “fixing” the economy means screwing it up by ensuring that “the fix is in” and only Obama’s cronies in the unions, ACORN, and other such groups stand to benefit.

    2. This American Jobs Act?

      The Boondoggles in the prior stimulus included Infrastructure Investment, renewable energy investment, $100Bn in education spending, and numerous other proposals best forgotten. The new plan includes the following boondoggles: transportation infrastructure, school repair and modernization, and more house rehabilitation. It’s the same plan as the prior stimulus. It will give us the same result.

      I can tell you see real trouble ahead with this pipeline decision. Real jobs (many of the union type), lower energy prices, reduced dependence on middle east oil, and increased government revenues. All shit-canned. It will be an issue come November Jim. Bet on it.

      1. So building tens of billions of transportation infrastructure for cars and trucks is a boondoggle, but building $6 billion of transportation infrastructure for oil is job creation?

          1. In either case, the spender turns cash into valuable, income-generating infrastructure, and jobs are created. But for some reason the relatively small number of pipeline jobs are fetishized by the GOP.

          2. Yes, the GOP (and other sensible people) have a “fetish” about projects that are privately financed, create wealth and real jobs, generate tax revenue, and reduce the deficit instead of increasing it. Call us crazy.

          3. Public infrastructure doesn’t create wealth or generate revenue? Building a bridge isn’t a real job?

            Call us crazy

            Sounds about right.

          5. But I thought Obama himself said, “I guess those shovel ready jobs weren’t so shovel ready after all…” *queue laugh track*

            This is the problem we run into when we expect the federal gov’t to be responsible for things that by and large are taken care of on a state level. Sure the tunnel from NYC to Jersey sounds great at first and the federal gov’t says they will give you money to build it, but the state has to match funds. And then when timelines lag and resource costs begin to exceed projections (which was what was happening with regards to the tunnel) then it’s the state that is left holding the bag of overdue bills. Christie canned the project because it would have left their budget in the red and if actually completed would have taken people to a place in New York City that lacked sufficient infrastructure to handle the traffic. So much for reducing that congestion.

            Same is why Florida turned down the high speed train deal. It was only going to get the money through matching funds and the projections of cost were already making people loosen their collar and gulp at the pollyanna-ish assumptions. All for a train that had grossly exaggerated estimates for ridership and no meaningful connecting infrastructure at either end.

            Besides, roads are by and large paid for through taxes on gasoline. Seems to me if you want better roads, bigger bridges, and golly gee neat-o tunnels then hmm *scratches head* you’ll want more there of that them earl pipelines you see. At least that’s the way this here yokel from Texas reckons it “duh huh, that’s right that’s right”.

        2. Jim, is there somewhere that cars and trucks can’t get to that they currently, desperately need to go?

          Spending tens of billions on highways when you can find a path of land that isn’t already paved is a waste of money because it adds no incremental value, or very tiny one. Do I need a twelfth route to drive to Home Depot? Weren’t the eleven existing routes enough for me? How many seconds is the new road going to save out of my day?

          In contrast, we’re not adding yet another Keystone pipeline to ship oil from Canada to Texas, we’re building the first and only one. Without it the Canadian oil goes to China, not to the US. From an economic standpoint, Keystone should be compared to building the first transcontinental railroad, not the twenty-eighth highway bridge across the Ohio river.

          1. Jim, is there somewhere that cars and trucks can’t get to that they currently, desperately need to go?

            No, not if they’re willing to take inefficient routes, or wait in congested traffic, or sustain damage from poorly maintained roads. But for that matter, it isn’t as if there’s no way to move Canadian oil to US refineries today either. Both the pipeline and the infrastructure projects that the GOP has blocked are about improving efficiency, lowering costs and generating new economic activity.

            Just as a pipeline would be a more efficient way to get oil from Canada to US refineries, a new tunnel between NJ and NYC would be a more efficient way to move goods and people between those two places. Pity that Christie cancelled that project. Similarly, the country is covered with roads that could handle more traffic if upgraded, bridges that need to be built or repaired, airports that could use new runways, etc.

            But the GOP says no. So instead we will wait until those bridges are unsafe, and people will lose valuable travel routes while we get around to repairing or rebuilding them. We’ll be closer to full employment then, so labor costs will be higher, and we’ll pay more to finance the work. And we’ll look back and wish we’d done more when we were desperate for jobs and we could borrow money for zero interest.

          2. George,

            [[[In contrast, we’re not adding yet another Keystone pipeline to ship oil from Canada to Texas, we’re building the first and only one. ]]]

            Really? So you research.

            we ARE just adding another pipeline as there are already several existing pipelines for Canadian crude into the U.S. The difference is Keystone has decided to run this one through sensitive environmental areas that other firms have chosen to avoid before.

            This map from 2001 shows the major crude oil pipelines in the U.S. Note the red ones, they bring oil from Canada to the U.S.

            http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/crude-pl.html

            So its not like building the First Transcontinental Railroad, but like build just another transcontinental railroad but deciding to run it through an area others have avoided before.

          3. The difference is Keystone has decided to run this one through sensitive environmental areas
            Because that clearly is the most profitable way to do it. There were objections to that decision, but they were eventually identified and made to wear stupid hats.

          4. Jim, so you buy into the argument that Obama should build road infrastructure to improve the efficiency of transport.

            Just as a pipeline would be a more efficient way to get oil from Canada to US refineries, a new tunnel between NJ and NYC would be a more efficient way to move goods and people between those two places. Pity that Christie cancelled that project. Similarly, the country is covered with roads that could handle more traffic if upgraded, bridges that need to be built or repaired, airports that could use new runways, etc.

            And those projects would improve the efficiency of transport of what percentage of the traffic, and by what percentage. My guess is that it would affect about 5% of the vehicles (a few bridges here, a few there, an extra bypass in Dayton, a new tunnel in NY), perhaps improving their travel by 10% (the bridge, tunnel, or bypass are a vanishingly small part of a route’s distance, and the backup is only a part of the travel time).

            So you spend all those billions for a 0.5% improvement in US transport efficiency. And how is that efficiency felt? Lower transport costs, leading to lower priced products and increased traffic. I’m glad you realize how important that is!

            But we then take those efficiency gains and let Obama keep gas prices doubled, so instead of a 0.5% reduction in transport costs, his fuel insanity causes a 200% increase (cut by 1% because of his new highway projects) giving us transport costs that are only 199% higher than if Bush was in charge and letting the infrastructure rot.

            What Obama has done with energy is like ripping out half the highways and bridges in the US. Giving us a tiny percentage of it back, just to throw some money to the unions, is a cruel joke.

          5. Curt,

            If the Keystone Pipeline was allowed to continue through the permitting process their would probably be mitigation that would enable it to be build and those were probably factored into the cost.

            But what the folks at Keystone didn’t expect was that the Republicans would turn it into a political football in their war against President Obama.

          6. Tom, the map you posted is not accurate with respect to the locations of the pipelines. There ARE several existing lines from Canada to the USA, most of which have been in existence for decades. The original Keystone line was built in the last five years and only went into service around 2010. My buddy was a controller on this line for a while.

            There are already many existing pipelines that cross the so-called environmentally sensitive aquifer. No problems of note, again over decades of service.

        3. If this was for real, it -might- be useful depending on whether the new road as ‘needed infrastructure’ or a ‘road-to-nowhere’.

          The Seattle area “Road Spending!!!” was $60 million in roadway ‘readerboards’. Made in China. And installed by no-danger-of-losing-their-job DOT guys. On overtime.

          Keynes would be laughing his ass off at the notion that this was ‘Keynesian spending’. It’s a trifecta of FAIL.

    3. I’m sorry but the Republicans were not able to stop Obama from doing anything. The Democrats held majorities in both houses of congress until 2011.

      TARP had a greater effect on improving the economy than Porkulus.

      1. It takes a 60-vote Senate supermajority to do most things, and the Dems only had that for a period of months (between Franken being seated and Brown being sworn in).

        1. They had the super majority for a year in which time they refused to work with Republicans on bi-partisan solutions. It was only after they lost that compromise became the buzzword.

          IIRC there was some trickery to prevent Brown being sworn in so that he could not vote on Obamacare.

          Obama “I won” has never been interested in working with the opposition.

  4. The Republicans would have blocked his proposals for fixing the economy, as they have all along. How would pushing doomed proposals have shown that he gives a damn about jobs?

    Jim, ARRA passsed. The economy didn’t improve. Republicans couldn’t block Solyndra. Obama did block Keystone XL.

    If the Republicans cared only about jobs they wouldn’t have fought the payroll tax extension

    Jim, if you are so happy to defund social security to pay for Obama’s re-election, why have social security at all?

    1. ARRA passsed. The economy didn’t improve.

      When ARRA passed we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, and the job picture got steadily better thereafter. We’ve now gained private sector jobs in each of the last 22 months. The economy improved a lot.

      1. And you know that it wouldn’t be even better if it hadn’t passed because…?

        Given how far off they were in their prognostications about what would happen if it passed (unemployment wouldn’t go above sixe percent), why should we think they know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to economics.

        1. Leland said the economy didn’t improve; it did.

          And you know that it wouldn’t be even better if it hadn’t passed because…?

          The research says so.

          1. Well, Ezra Klein may do research, but I’ll just check Bureau of Labor Statistics. ARRA passed in February 2009. If we look at the seasonally adjusted numbers, the total number of non-farm employees in the US:
            When ARRA was signed: 132,823,000
            By December 2011: 131,900,000

            900,000 fewer people in the workforce than when it was signed.

          2. The article I pointed to wasn’t written by Ezra Klein, and summarizes 9 independent studies (none of which were done by Ezra Klein), all but one of which credit ARRA with improving the jobs situation.


            When ARRA was signed: 132,823,000
            By December 2011: 131,900,000

            900,000 fewer people in the workforce than when it was signed.

            When ARRA was signed we were in free fall, losing 700,000 jobs a month. Try dating your comparison from six months later, when ARRA had had a chance to kick in.

          3. Try dating your comparison from six months later, when ARRA had had a chance to kick in.

            Ok, again from BLS:
            Aug 2009: 129,962,000
            Aug 2010: 129,873,000

            Wow, 12 months after Jim claims ARRA kicked in, there was 80,000 fewer jobs. But wait, Jim said that jobs grew in each of the last 22 months! Wait, Jim gave a caveat of “private sector” jobs with out providing a source. Now, I’m sure Jim will tell us that the economy still grew 2,000,000 jobs in the last few months, but surely that’s not due to a Republican’s trying to curtail spending and regulations in the months prior.

          4. So Dec, 2011 jobs stand at 131,900,000, and when ARRA was signed in Aug 2009 there were 129,962,000 jobs. We’ve had a gain of 1,938,000 jobs over 2.5 years. During that 2.5 years the population went up by about 7.5 million, and it would’ve taken an increase of about 3.3 million jobs to hit the break-even point for a constant percentage of the population being employed. So we’re still 1.4 million jobs short of where we should be just to be as bad off as we were before ARRA was signed.

            Democrats used to know to adjust employment numbers for population increases back when Bush was in office. I guess Obama has made them stupid.

          5. Obama saved 133 million jobs doncha know? If you have a job know its because he saved it. YOU should be on your hands and knees you ungrateful bastards.

      2. 22 months?!

        Seriously? The numbers bounced up and down like a yoyo, a 1/10 of a point or 2/10 here and there, and all over 9% for a year. There was and is no 22 month steady gain. And private economists are still saying there are many people who have quit looking who are not being counted AT ALL that might make the numbers 3% to 5% higher than the Dept of Labor is stating. And they counted seasonal workers for the last 60 days and that might be why we are under 9% now.

        You seriously need to read something other than the talking points off Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s desk. Or is that you live on an alternate time line or drop in from another universe with this stuff?

        1. We’ve added private sector jobs in each of the last 22 months. When ARRA was passed we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month.

  5. The Republicans would have blocked his proposals for fixing the economy, as they have all along.

    ARRA and that Cash for Clunkers thing passed despite considerable Republican opposition. That indicates to me that genuine economic fixes would have passed. They would have found enough defectors to make it happen.

    If the Republicans cared only about jobs they wouldn’t have fought the payroll tax extension and they’d have passed the American Jobs Act last year

    Terrible law is not helped by politicians being “for” jobs. I used to buy into the Keynesian theory that governments spending borrowed money helped the economy. That’s before I saw the consequences of the Japanese recession in the late 90s. It’s a failed concept and the US just proved that over the past three years (actually much further since the huffing and puffing started after 9/11).

    If you want a “fixed” economy, you will need to a) allow businesses to fail and people to lose their jobs, b) greatly reduce the spending that government does, including entitlements to people who had or might have bad luck, and c) streamline the regulation that business has to endure.

    1. “That’s before I saw the consequences of the Japanese recession in the late 90s.”

      This made me flash back to when Obama said just before Stimulus I passed that we needed the government to spool up the printing presses to stave off a lost decade a la the Japanese. Then, you go and look at what caused the lost decade, and it was stimulus spending; this man’s an idiot or the World’s biggest con artist. Either way we need to cast him into the ranks of unemployed he oh so dearly loves.

      1. ” . . . [Obama is either] an idiot or the World’s biggest con artist.” I vote for the latter, although it’s clear he’s not all that bright. He’s sort of a dumb con man whose con is put over the rubes by some slick and/or moneyed shills (the MSM, Darth Soros, et al).

    2. The concept was effectively shown to be BS in the comment section by commenter Paul Rasko. thorium is not a power source unless fissioned.

      1. The only way I can even imagine it working is with an incredibly concentrated laser pulse that literally rips atoms apart, such as the one at Lawrence Livermore Labs. Normally they blast copper atoms and such into tiny fragments, but going past lead on the periodic table might provide a net gain in power without resorting to neutrons. But when the atoms fly apart there are going to be lots of neutrons and radioactive isotopes that will emit gammas, so I’m not sure why he thinks his power source will be clean and not require tons of shielding.

        The only possible way around this that I’ve thought of is if you hit the atoms hard enough so that all the daughter particles are blown downstream instead of randomly (more like a shotgun blast than a grenade), allowing your shielding to be a narrow cone instead of a thick spherical shell. If the light pulse can blast the atom to about 34% of the speed of light (either before or during fission), even fast neutrons should be confined to about a 10-degree half-angle cone which would have less than 1% of the mass of a full shell of equal thickness. The extra kinetic energy used gets dumped back into the shielding as heating, so it’s not really wasted. But if the daughter products and neutron bombardment make the cone highly radioactive, you have to shield it, too, eating into some of the weight savings.

        This system would also require LLNL’s lasers to shrink from the size of several huge buildings down to something more manageable, like the power supply on the Mr. Fusion that drives the flux-gate capacitor.

    3. I agree with George. This is a scam. There’s just so much wrong with it from a nonsensical explanation of how it works to the intended use of the device. If this guy really had figured out how to get power from thorium through use of a laser, the first thing would be to make a working, table top, power supply, not stick it in a car.

  8. Akshully Obama wasn’t all that focused on health care in Year One or much of anything else except hoops, golf, and Waygu beef. He let Reid and Multiple-Pelosis run the show and gave almost no input on the design of the steaming pile of ……

      1. There’s already plenty of people demanding coal and oil be banned (or taxed so much that it is uneconomical) so that solar can compete. When nuclear regains popularity as a result, you don’t think that’s next? When the fusion researchers start getting more funding as a result, you don’t think they are next? This isn’t even a slippery slope argument, it’s simply obvious that it would be the result of ignoring reality: solar can’t compete.

        1. Trent,
          sure it can.

          So long as the sun is up, there are no clouds, the plant is big enough and we all like candles and those little, Indian style, hand cranked TVs. You’re just not thinking outside the box.

        2. Trent, I’m saying that starvation has a way of focusing the mind. As Glenn Reynolds is so fond of saying, things that can’t go on won’t. At some point, maybe ten years down the road, nobody will claim any association with the CAGW crowd, sorta like how every Frenchman was in the Resistance after WW2.

  10. Why would Obama be interested in creating private-sector jobs? (Yes, I know presidents don’t actually “create” jobs in the way we’re talking about, but I’m speaking in the vernacular here.) Creating jobs isn’t the point of collectivism. Getting more and more people dependent on Big Brother is.

Comments are closed.