DOWNLOADS: (236)

PLAYS: (1681)

Embed

How mature of them! As we noted yesterday, on the day where Gina McCarthy's nomination for EPA head was to have been voted on in committee, Republicans decided a boycott was in order instead.

But not just any boycott. No, at least some of them decided it would be better to hang out with lobbyists at a nice lunch than do their damn jobs.

Weakening the EPA and obstructing its authority is a major priority for the polluting industries that fill many senators’ campaign war chests. At least three of the boycotting Republicans—Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)—won’t have to wait to hear the appreciation of their benefactors, since they’re raising money from the special interests impacted by EPA’s decisions on the same day as McCarthy’s vote.

Continue reading »

CBS:

Gas prices have retreated and that's a good thing...sort of. The average for a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.38, according to AAA, down from a high of $3.93 in April.

That's odd. I seem to remember the "record" gas prices being the fault of the President.

The Republican presidential candidate [Mitt Romney], speaking in an interview with Fox News, said he "absolutely" believes Mr. Obama is responsible for high gas prices, contending that "he has not pursued policies that convince the world that America is going to become energy secure, energy independent."

And,

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lays the blame for rising gas prices on President Barack Obama, saying "he certainly has participated."

"This administration has been shutting down wells," McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday."

And,

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blamed President Obama and “radical environmental groups” for high gas prices on Tuesday and said it was “about damn time” the United States had a national energy policy.

Love that one. Exxon Mobil and BP are absolutely powerless in the face of the all-mighty, tyrannical Greenpeace!

It would be nice if a few of the reporters that transcribed these baseless accusations just three months ago followed-up with Willard, McConnell and Boehner today and asked them if they want to take back all that stuff.

This morning as networks were setting their schedules to accomodate the President's economic policy speech in Cleveland, the Romney campaign decided they needed to try and upstage that by having their boy give one in Cincinnati at the very same time. How mature of them. As Martin Bashir notes, we're surprised they didn't put on some fake police uniforms and pull over the President's motorcade.

After other Romney campaign operatives demonstrated how utterly stupid and childish they were by driving their campaign bus around the venue for President Obama's speech, things got real. Let me just cut to the chase. Here's the President's vision for the economy: Education. Energy. Innovation. Infrastructure. Here's Mitt Romney's:

"You may have heard that President Obama is on the other side of the state and he’s going to be delivering a speech on the economy. He’s doing that because he hasn’t delivered a recovery for the economy," Romney said. "And he’s going to be a person of eloquence as he describes his plans for making the economy better. But don’t forget, he’s been president for three and a half years. And talk is cheap. Action speaks very loud. And if you want to see the results of his economic policies, look around Ohio, look around the country, you’ll see a lot of people are hurting."

Yes, well the thing is, a lot less people are hurting than were in 2008. Here are the 2008 numbers, taken from the text of the President's speech:

Continue reading »

The American Bridge 21st Century PAC has launched a new video showing the hypocrisy of Mitt Romney's current stances on energy and oil exploration. While Romney's campaign web site is somewhat vague on energy, using phrases like "Open America’s energy reserves for development," in interviews he has been more candid:

“Well, the best thing we can do to get the price of gas to be more moderate and not have to be dependent upon the cartel is drill in the gulf, drill in the outer continent shelf, drill in ANWR, drill in North Dakota, South Dakota, drill in Oklahoma, and Texas.” [Fox and Friends, 3/16/12]

But in his book released not even a year earlier, Romney was much more accurate in his assessment of the value of oil exploration:

“We consume roughly 24 percent of the world’s oil but possess only 2.4 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Even if we were to begin to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the continental shelf, it wouldn’t be enough to appreciably have an impact on our dependence on other nations for oil. And if we were to open the domestic oil spigot too wide and drain our last fields, we would risk leaving America even more vulnerable twenty-five years from now than it is today. But there should be no objection to preparing the energy infrastructure to tap known reserves and to discover more reserves: This is a vitally important insurance policy against future energy shocks or threats to national security. And it is always possible that new, very large discoveries could surprise us.” [No Apology, 2011, Pg. 247]

In addition to that massive short-term flip-flop, Romney's web site is loaded with false claims:

The Obama administration’s energy policy has been simply incoherent. For instance, it has blocked off-shore drilling in U.S. waters while applauding increased drilling off the coast of Brazil. Similarly, it has blocked construction of a pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to the United States, knowing full well that the result would be Canadian oil flowing to China instead. And it has pursued numerous regulations that would drive up energy prices while destroying millions of jobs.

As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of “green” jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation. The “green” technologies are typically far too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and studies have shown that for every “green” job created there are actually more jobs destroyed. Unsurprisingly, this costly government investment has failed to create an economic boom.

The first claim is that Obama blocked off-shore drilling in U.S. waters. The reality is that he temporarily blocked Gulf drilling after the BP oil spill, but has consistently championed expanded drilling in other circumstances:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (281)

PLAYS: (2339)

Embed

President Obama had some fun in his energy speech this morning, poking gently at Republican candidates who seem to think oil is the be-all and end-all of energy without alternatives by characterizing them as "founding members of the Flat Earth Society."

He specifically took aim at Newt Gingrich, who has repeatedly ridiculed the President for his stance on algae as an alternative fuel.

I've always thought it odd that Gingrich would call algae biofuel investments "cloud cuckoo land," but no low is too low for Newtie, I guess. Only, he might want to rethink that line of attack, given that ExxonMobil and Chevron have substantial investments and relationships in algae fuel development startups.

Oops, and as it turns out, it seems Newtie himself had an investment in "cloud cuckoo land."

You know what's coming next: Gingrich used to hold interests in a company that developed algae-based biofuels.

The Cambridge, Mass.-based startup was called GreenFuel Technologies Corp., which raised more than $70 million in venture capital funding before closing its doors in 2009. Among its largest backers was Draper Fisher Jurvetson, through a fund in which Gingrich was a limited partner.

It certainly is true that Gingrich didn't personally make the GreenFuel investment decision, but he did choose to back the DFJ management team that believed in GreenFuel. Does that mean Gingrich now believes folks like Tim Draper and Steve Jurvetson are "intellectually incoherent?" And, if so, doesn't that throw Gingrich's own judgment into doubt?

Might be time for Newtie to sail off the edge of that flat earth into the sunset.

The United Association of Plumbers, Fitters, Welders and HVAC Service Techs released the above video earlier this week, expressing support for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport dirty tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico across American soil. Their argument for the pipeline in the video, which is:

Focused partially on refuting claims of environmental danger beneath American soil, partially on the need to grow the union workforce through the pipeline’s construction, and partially on the ability to free the nation from international oil dependence, the UA supplies three sides of the argument not frequently articulated in media coverage of the project.

This stands in stark contrast to the strong opposition to the pipeline expressed by a host of progressive groups, including unions such as the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU). The presidents of those two unions issued a joint statement on the pipeline:

“We share the Environmental Protection Agency’s concerns conveyed to the State Department on two occasions (most recently on June 11, 2011). These concerns cover the potential impacts to groundwater resources from pipeline spills, the high levels of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, and the inevitable damage to the health of communities affected by the increase in refinery emissions.

Approval of this project at this time would therefore be reckless given the EPA’s own assessment of the environmental risks.

“We are also concerned that Keystone XL could double the amount of highly toxic Tar Sands oil being imported into the United States. The Tar Sands has destroyed vast areas of boreal forest and inflicted havoc on local communities. The expansion of the Tar Sands will inflict immeasurable harm on both people and the environment and impede our country’s and the world’s efforts to transition to a green and more sustainable economy.

“We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.

What's a little irradiation amongst the little people? Democrats and Republicans agree: the explosions at the Japanese nuclear power plants should not dissuade us from developing "clean" nuclear power. How reassuring. In fact, Republican Jeff Sessions is so eager for energy independence that he blames the Obama administration for not authorizing more of those deep water drilling permits for the Gulf. Because, you know, that's worked so well for us before. And since when is drilling for petroleum in a fragile eco-system somehow pursuing "clean" energy? I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

It's a long way from Carl Levin calling for a moratorium on nuclear power plant development as a freshman Senator because of the accident at Three Mile Island to assuring us that it's important to pursue nuclear energy as a clean energy. I'm sorry, but I know that nuclear plants don't create the emissions of coal plants, but can we call a moratorium on calling nuclear power "clean"? There are no "safe" power plants--no matter what Levin or Kerry say. One accident, one natural disaster and suddenly, safety and "clean" energy take on MUCH different definitions.

I have an idea: how about each of these politicians willing to put all their eggs in a nuclear power basket ("Europe" may look to nuclear power, but Denmark--which I believe is still very much a part of Europe--is on the forefront of green energy development), rather than advocating for truly sustainable energy and innovation be given lovely waterfront homes right next to the power plants? If they're so confident in the ability of the companies to keep the plants safe, let's see them be in the zone.

Now that Don Blankenship is out as head of Massey Energy and the company faces serious charges with regard to its safety record and last year's explosion, company executives have decided it's a good time to have the company sold to a company with better government...um..relations.

So Massey Energy will become part of Alpha Natural Resources, in a deal that will allow Massey to benefit from Alpha's better safety record while giving Alpha a hard lock on the coal mining business.

Massey Energy, the embattled coal mine operator, agreed on Saturday to sell itself for about $7.1 billion in cash and stock in a deal that will create a new giant in coal production — and could help Massey shed legal burdens arising from a marred safety record that includes the explosion last year at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia.

Under the terms of the deal, Alpha Natural Resources will pay 1.025 of its own shares and $10 in cash, for a total of $69.33 as of Friday’s market close, for each Massey share. That represents a 21 percent premium to Massey’s Friday closing price of $57.23.

The deal will unite two of the biggest American producers of coal, with more than 110 mines and about five billion tons of combined reserves throughout the Appalachian region, the Midwest and Wyoming. It will also bolster Alpha’s presence in the growing market for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel. Massey has enormous reserves of metallurgical coal, and it has increased its exports to countries like India and Brazil, where strong demand has driven up global prices for the material.

Massey agreed to the deal today, after stomping their corporate feet and singing "lalalalala" with their fingers in their ears to the government's findings that the cause of last year's blast was a combination of broken equipment, poorly maintained safety devices, and coal dust.

Massey Energy Co. on Friday rejected nearly every part of the federal government's theory on what caused the deadly explosion at its Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia last spring, killing 29 men.

The Richmond-based coal company doesn't think that worn shearer bits, broken water sprayers or an excessive buildup of coal dust contributed to the blast, Vice President and General Counsel Shane Harvey said.

Instead, Massey continues to argue that there was a sudden inundation of natural gases from a floor crack that overwhelmed what it insists were good airflow and other controls that should have contained the blast.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration has played down the significance of the crack, arguing that it was not venting methane and that any explosion is preventable with proper safeguards. It presented preliminary findings from its continuing investigation last week, saying Massey records and evidence from inside the mine point to poor maintenance as the cause of the blast.

Timing is everything.

Massey faces stiffening regulatory oversight, as well as several state and federal investigations into its operations. On Friday, the company contested the findings of a federal regulator’s inquiry into the Upper Big Branch incident, the worst mining accident in 40 years. A company executive rejected claims that the explosion arose from faulty equipment and excessive levels of coal dust.

Those legal troubles have weighed on Massey: After the Upper Big Branch explosion, the company tallied about $150 million in related expenses, and for for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, it reported $2.9 billion in net revenue but a $72.2 million loss.

Mr. Crutchfield said that he planned to draw on his company’s cleaner safety and environmental record to help resolve Massey’s legal issues, which he conceded would take time.

Which translated means this: Alpha knows someone who knows someone who will give them a break if they promise to clean up their act. And it only cost them a few billion dollars.

With U.S. gas prices above the $3 level, the conservative echo chamber is in overdrive. While the Heritage Foundation warns "Obama will make you pay more at the pump" and Americans for Limited Government decries "Obama's war on energy," Brent Bozell's Media Research Center simply asks, "How does Obama plan to raise prices?" Of course, as Paul Krugman pointed out this week, stagnant production and accelerating global demand for oil as the world recovers from the 2008 economic meltdown have much more to do with price increases at the pump. That, and oilman turned President George W. Bush's utter failure to "jawbone" his friends in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia into opening the spigots.

On May 7, 2001, Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer was asked "does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?" Fleischer's infamous response made clear energy conservation was off the table for President Bush:

"That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life."

Instead, George W. Bush promised to get biblical on OPEC.

His pledge to persuade, cajole and other twist arms dated back to his first run for the White House in 1999. As oil prices rose to the then-alarming level of $30 that December, then Governor Bush said President Clinton "must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices." At a New Hampshire Republican debate the next month, Bush claimed the mantle of the Great Persuader. Contending that his days in the West Texas oil fields made him uniquely qualified for the task, Bush proclaimed:

"What I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price...

...I used to be in the oil business. I was little oil -- really little oil. And so I understand the -- I understand what can happen in the marketplace."

By June 2000, the Bush jawbone pledge became a standard on the stump. As the New York Times reported, Bush foreshadowed future expenditures of political capital he would fail to accumulate:

"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. "Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot."

That November, of course, the American people were persuaded. Despite Bush's own personal record of busts and bailouts in the business, his family's close ties to Prince Bandar and the Saudi royal family, Americans must have reasoned, should count for something.

As it turned out, not so much.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (438)

PLAYS: (2042)

Embed

For some reason, Glenn Beck is at his utter wingnuttiest when he makes his weekly appearance on Fox & Friends. After all, it was on the Fox morning show that he declared that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. Likewise, this was where he first promoted those FEMA concentration camps.

Yesterday he was at it again:

Beck: Look, here's what we have. We have a government that has built a cage. We have Marxist after Marxist after Marxist after Marxist -- anti-capitalists everywhere. We have John Holdren, the science czar, who has come out and said that we have to deindustrialize or devolve or de-develop the United States of America. Well, how do you do that?

You now have the Department of Energy this week coming out and saying, 'Well, we're going to go, and go through all of the regulations on all appliances to figure out which appliances will be available in the future -- for the United States consumer.'

I mean, we're going down really spooky paths that don't make any sense, unless you understand the framework of global redistribution -- not from the wealthy to the poor in America, but from the wealthy America to the poorest nations, and a global governance structure.

Gretchen Carlson: So you're alleging a big whole plot by the Obama administration to do this.

Beck: No, I'm not alleging it. I'm pointing it out. I'm showing it. It's in their own words.

I have a theory: In the mornings, Beck's handlers at Fox haven't gotten up yet and figured out what crazy ass crap they going to have to prevent him from saying that day on his afternoon show; usually they let him air it on his radio show, then they apply the filters. But they haven't had the chance to do that yet when he goes on Fox & Friends.

So we get the Crazee Beck, unfiltered, on those mornings. Black helicopters and all.