Timberlake loves the Pontiac GTO even though His Presidential Candidate wants to put us in Electric Cars and Hybrids

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2012

Week in Review

Justin Timberlake is an incredible talent.  One of the best hosts of Saturday Night Live ever.  He’s a true triple threat.  He can sing, dance and act.  And he’s funny.  He probably could go far on Dancing with the Stars.  And no doubt be a huge ratings getter for them.  His talent has made him super rich.  Which is okay.  He earned it.  The only thing to take issue with him is in his political endorsements.  He supports President Obama.  Despite his love for things the Obama administration and the Democrat Party want to take away from ordinary Americans (see Justin Timberlake falls for old Pontiac GTO by Bryan Alexander posted 10/5/2012 on USA Today).

Eastwood drives a classic Ford Mustang in the flick, while Timberlake drives a 1967 Pontiac GTO convertible. Their happy expressions inside the vehicles isn’t just acting. Timberlake loved his so much, that he just had to have it.

“I kept driving that car around, and driving it around and finally I just said, ‘yeaaaaahh,’ ” Timberlake tells USA TODAY.

Yeah, that’s a feeling a lot of Americans have had with their love of muscle cars.  But, alas, most Americans can no longer indulge in these passions.  First of all, the federal government has an all out war on cars with big engines.  And, secondly, they’re running up the price of gasoline so high that only rich people can enjoy these toys anymore.  Instead they push us into electric cars and hybrids that we don’t want.  While the super rich, like Timberlake, and other Democrat supporters in Hollywood and in the entertainment world and the mainstream media, can enjoy the cars they tell us not to drive.  Something isn’t right about that.

Americans should be able to enjoy cars like Justin Timberlake can without being as rich as he is.  Like our fathers did by working a job after high school so they could put gasoline into their beloved muscle cars.  That’s the America we want.  Not what the Left wants to impose on us.  We just want to enjoy the simple things.  Like Timberlake can.  Driving the open road with the top down.  With the noise of the engine playing sweeter music than any sound system has ever played.  But these sweet instruments are lucky to get 12 miles to the gallon.  Which makes it expensive to drive them when Democrat policies have raised gas prices up to $4 a gallon.  Or more.

The Democrats say they are for the working man.  But their policies definitely favor the super rich.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Using the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming to Acquire Money and Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 31st, 2011

A Company needs Government Help when they can’t Compete in the Market Place

The new green energy sector was going to make America energy independent.  And create jobs.  Good, high-tech jobs.  Building high-tech, expensive things.  Things we could charge lots of money for.  So we could pay high wages to all those new green energy workers.  And the Obama administration helped.  Poured federal money into green startups.  That are now failing left and right (see What went wrong at Solyndra by Barry Cinnamon posted 8/31/2011 on CNNMoney).

Chinese solar panels are 10-20% less expensive than U.S.-made panels; but by some estimates, Solyndra’s panels were 100% more…

For five years or more, the U.S. government was providing support for solar manufacturing in the U.S.  The DOE Loan Guarantee program provided critical funding for Solyndra’s manufacturing growth, supported by over $1b in private capital. Unfortunately, both these private investors and the DOE made a couple of bets on Solyndra that didn’t pan out.

A company needs government help when they can’t compete in the market place.  So they can continue to build a more costly and/or a more inferior product.  And even when they get that help they still can’t compete.  Which just means this was a bad investment from the get-go.  Only getting as far as it did because of government help.  Which was tax money poorly spent.

So why did they fail?  A couple of bad decisions by their CEO.

The first bad bet was that refined silicon, the feedstock for the solar panel industry, would stay expensive. Solyndra invented a solar panel that didn’t use expensive silicon. Unfortunately for Solyndra, and fortunately for all the silicon solar panel manufacturers and customers, silicon has gotten very cheap over the past few years…

The second bad bet was that Solyndra’s flat roof installation technology would make up for their relatively expensive panels.  Solyndra did indeed see big savings on flat roof installations, but the rest of the industry did not stand still. Other commercial flat roof products are on the market (full disclosure, Westinghouse Solar has an inexpensive and easy to install flat roof solar panel product) with similar benefits at much lower costs to Solyndra.

Of course, had they never had the government help they never would have gotten off the ground.  And anyone who would say otherwise needs to answer the logical follow-up question.  If they could have done this without government help, why didn’t they?

The Public Sector doesn’t know Squat about a Good Business Idea

But it’s just not Solyndra.  There’s green failure wherever you look in the unfolding saga that is the tragedy of green energy (see Green jobs only produce fiscal black hole posted 8/31/2011 on qcsunonline.com).

Lowlights of the saga include the recent bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar Inc. of Massachusetts, recipient of $58 million in direct subsidies and tax breaks, including federal “stimulus” funding, but which cut 800 jobs and is now $485 million in debt, with more job losses to come with the closure of a Michigan plant. Green Vehicles of Salinas, Calif., received $500,000 in city subsidies, but closed last month without having produced anything of significance, Human Events magazine reported. The company had promised to create 70 jobs and pay back local taxpayers $700,000 a year in taxes.

Seattle got a $20 million federal grant to weatherize 2,000 homes and create 2,000 jobs. After a year, three homes had been retrofitted and 14 new jobs created, many of them administrative. That’s a return on investment of about one job per $1.4 million. In Michigan, Fisher Coachworks is out of business two years after being touted as part of the state’s green future, and despite millions in state subsidies to sell buses bought with federal tax money.

The U.S. Forest Service awarded $490,000 in stimulus funding to Urban Forestry Revitalization Project in Clark County, Nev., to plant trees and other greenery in urban neighborhoods. It created 1.7 jobs, one of them a full-time temporary job, and 11 short-term and temporary.

Overall, estimates the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner, $30 billion in green handouts in the stimulus bill cost taxpayers about $475,000 per job.

These are good examples of why there is a private sector and there is a public sector.  The private sector aren’t experts on providing for the common defense or promoting the general welfare.  And the public sector doesn’t know squat about a good business idea.

Lobbyists’ Money influences Government Misdirection into Economic Affairs

The government is backing a lot of electric cars and hybrids.  They believe this is our future.  And, of course, ethanol.  So while they are interfering with natural market forces, good ideas may not get a chance.  Like, say, this one (see Old newspapers could make gas substitute by Colin Bird posted 8/31/2011 on USA Today).

The researchers have discovered a bacterial microbe that likes the taste of old newspapers — the cellulosic wood pulp that makes the paper, to be more exact. In the process of eating the paper, the microbes excrete a biofuel that can act as a substitute for gasoline, the Detroit News reports.

Such microbes aren’t new; we outlined their potential to make ethanol a few years ago. The difference here is the type of fuel that comes out of the microbes: butanol.

Butanol is better than ethanol because it doesn’t require any modifications to today’s gasoline-powered engines. (Many older cars can’t accept E15, let alone E85.) Also, butanol would generate similar gas mileage performance as gasoline. Ethanol has 27% less energy per gallon compared with gas.

It’s not yet known if this discovery is marketable or scalable, especially since alternative fuels are a bit out of vogue, with more attention focused on electrics, plug-ins and hybrids.

Anyone who has ever tried E85 that actually had a real commute to work saw what a bust E85 was.  There was no cost savings because you had to pump 27% more of it into your tank than gasoline.  Worse, the first time you found out about this you may have been driving home from work.  Late at night.  Going through an area not known for its bright lights and safety.  And have to stop.  To buy gas.  Not a lot of fun.  Especially if you’re a woman.

But the government is committed to E85.  Because, of course, of the powerful corn lobby.  Who is chopping in high cotton these days.  The price of corn has never been higher.  What with it being both a staple food and now a fuel.  So while the money will influence more government misdirection into economic affairs, butanol may die a quiet death.  For it has no lobby.

Global Warming may not be Man-Made, but the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming Is

All of this government malinvestment in products is one thing.  And a complete waste of taxpayer’s money.  But it’s ‘the why’ that they are doing this that really rubs the salt into the open wound.  To save the planet.  From man-made global warming.  Which, as it continues to be shown, is a myth (see Watching A Green Fiction Unravel posted 8/30/2011 on IBD’s Investors).

Experiments performed by a European nuclear research group indicate that the sun, not man, determines Earth’s temperature…

The results from an experiment to mimic Earth’s atmosphere by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, tell researchers that the sun has a significant effect on our planet’s temperature. Its magnetic field acts as a gateway for cosmic rays, which play a large role in cloud formation.

Consequently, when the sun’s magnetic field allows cosmic rays to seed cloud cover, temperatures are cooler. When it restricts cloud formation by deflecting cosmic rays away from Earth, temperatures go up.

Or, as the London Telegraph’s James Delingpole delicately put it:

“It’s the sun, stupid.”

Why, this seems to disprove much of what the global warming alarmist have been alarming us about for lo these many years.  And being scientists, of course you know what they will do.  Do everything within their power to hush things up.

This new finding of 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes from an experiment that’s been ongoing since 2009 is, if we may paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, a big deal. Which is exactly why the mainstream media, with so much invested in global warming hysteria, is letting last week’s announcement from CERN pass like a brief summer shower, ignoring it.

Even CERN’s own director general, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, is trying to avoid the meaning of the findings.

He told Germany’s Die Welt Online that he’s “asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.”

But, as British science writer Nigel Calder points out, Heuer would have no reservations about entering “‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided” his results endorsed man-made warming.

Of course, without global warming, the globe isn’t warming.  Even at the poles.  Where the icebergs are.  Which can mean only one thing.  Those icebergs aren’t melting.  And the sea levels aren’t rising.

And it’s not just the CERN research creating a problem for them. They also need to explain why sea levels, like presidential approval numbers and consumer confidence, have fallen. According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch this year compared to 2010.

Under the rules of climate change, sea levels, due to melting ice and water that expands as it warms, should be increasing in a way that we’re all supposed to believe is a threat. But NASA scientists say that El Nino and La Nina, weather cycles in the Pacific Ocean, have caused sea levels to fall.

So, yes, global warming is man-made.  The myth of global warming, that is.  Just like the billions of dollars the government has been throwing at these bad green investments.  The idea that these ‘investments’ will create jobs is another man-made myth.

Money and Power – the Driving Force of all Mankind and Governments

The green energy sector is based on man-made global warming.  Which real science continually disproves.  Man isn’t warming the planet.  The sun is.  As it always has.  And always will. 

And the scientists know this.  The real ones.  And the fake ones that have been pushing global warming.  Why do they do this?  Just look at what they have accomplished.  Costly new regulations.  And all that government spending on green energy.  Paid with our taxes.  Stifling real economic output.  And transferring a lot of wealth from the private sector to the public sector. 

And there it is.  Like it always is.  Money and power.  The driving force of all mankind.  And governments.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Problem with Building Car Batteries is that People aren’t Buying Electric Cars

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2011

The Dot-Com Bubble and Green Energy

Bill Clinton has all the answers.  He knows how to fix the economy.  How to fine tune it so it purrs.  Just like he did during the dot-com boom and bust (see It’s Still the Economy, Stupid by Bill Clinton posted 6/19/2011 on Newsweek).

When I was president, the economy benefited because information technology penetrated every aspect of American life. More than one quarter of our job growth and one third of our income growth came from that. Now the obvious candidate for that role today is changing the way we produce and use energy.

But most of it was just an illusion.  It was a bubble.  There was an explosion in dot-com companies trying to be the next Microsoft.  Investors bid Stocks up into the stratosphere.  Alan Greenspan called it irrational exuberance.  It wasn’t healthy economic growth.  It was only a bubble.  And the bubble eventually popped.  As they always do.  And with the bubble went a lot of those jobs.

Of course, when he says energy, he doesn’t mean drilling for oil.  He means green energy.  As in batteries.  For all those electric cars the president is urging GM to build.

On the day President Obama took office, the U.S. had less than 2 percent of the world market in manufacturing the high-powered batteries for hybrid or all-electric cars. On the day of the congressional elections in 2010, thanks in large part to the cash—incentive policy, we had 20 percent of global capacity, with 30 new battery plants built or under construction, 16 of them in Michigan, which had America’s second—highest unemployment rate. We have to convince the Republican Congress that this is a good thing.

One thing Bill Clinton is right on is the similarity between information technology and green energy.  One was a bubble.  And the other is sure to be one, too.

The Biggest Problem of Electric Cars is the Battery

The all-electric car is an elusive dream.  Hybrids have had some moderate success.  Because they come with a backup internal combustion engine that makes up for all the shortfalls of an all-electric car.  The battery (see Better Batteries Will Save the World by Farhad Manjoo posted 6/21/2011 on Slate).

If we had batteries that matched the price and performance of fossil fuels, we would not only have cleaner cars, but we might be able to remake much of the rest of the nation’s energy infrastructure, too. Wind and solar power are generated intermittently—sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine—and batteries can moderate that volatility. Stores of batteries placed in the electric grid could collect energy when the sun shines or when the wind blows and then discharge it when we need it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you might say that the future of the world depends on better batteries—a better battery would alter geopolitics, mitigate the disasters of climate change, and spur a new economic boom.

This glosses over an important point that few discuss.  Batteries are not energy.  They store energy.  Energy that we have to create.  And right now, because we don’t have a massive infrastructure to store energy when the wind does blow and the sun does shine, that leaves fossil fuels.  Which means there is no net saving in carbon emissions if we start driving electric cars.  This just transfers the pollution our cars emit to the power plants.  Most of which use the most polluting of all fossil fuels.  Coal.  So going all electrical in our cars may actually increase pollution.

This aside there are other problems with batteries that make gasoline a better choice.

The fundamental problem with batteries is the existence of gasoline. Oil is cheap, abundant, and relatively easy to transport. Most importantly, it has a high “energy density”—meaning that it’s phenomenally good at storing energy for its weight. Today’s best lithium-ion batteries can hold about 200 watt-hours per kilogram—a measure of energy density—and they might theoretically be able to store about 400 watt-hours per kilogram. Gasoline has a density equivalent of around 13,000 watt-hours per kilogram.

The only reason electric cars might one day compete with cars that rely on internal combustion is that gasoline engines are highly inefficient; nearly all of the energy stored in gasoline is lost to heat. But gasoline makes up for that flaw with another advantage: When your car’s out of gas, you can refill it in a few minutes. With today’s electrical infrastructure, batteries need many hours to recharge. There’s some hope that we might one day install fast-charging stations across the country, but the researchers Fletcher interviews point out that this is a daunting challenge. The battery in today’s Tesla roadster needs about four hours to charge. If you wanted to charge that battery in 15 minutes, you’d need a 200-kilowatt electric substation feeding the charging station. “Your house takes 1 kilowatt,” one expert tells Fletcher. “If you want to have something like a gasoline fuel station that is all electrical, you’re talking about multimegawatts of power at that station. And I just don’t see that happening.”

It’s that energy density of gasoline that lets you sit in rush hour traffic in February with your lights on and your heater keeping you toasty warm.  And alive.  But should you run low on gas you can always take 10 minutes and fill your tank.  Then you can rejoin that rush hour traffic.  And sit in it.  With your lights on.  And your heater still keeping you toasty warm.  And alive. 

The other nice thing about gasoline is that it’s pretty safe to handle.  Most gas stations in America are self-serve.  People pump gas without a second thought about safety.  For an electrical ‘quick’ charge, though, you’re playing with electrical energy that typically only skilled electricians work with.  After extensive safety training.  And while wearing special protective clothing and gear.  Probably not the kind of thing you want your daughter playing with on her way home from the big game.  Unless she is a highly skilled electrician.

In theory, the lithium-air battery could store 11,000 watt-hours per kilogram, which makes it, Fletcher says, “the best chance battery scientists have to beat gasoline.” A lithium-air battery could allow a car to drive 500 miles before recharging. With that range, you wouldn’t need a nationwide system of quick-charging stations. You could drive pretty much wherever you wanted all day, and then recharge your car at night.

But lithium-air is the cold fusion of the battery world—a would-be game-changer that has the unfortunate downside of being impossible to achieve (probably).

There is a battery technology out there in the research and development stage.  But it’s a long way from a manufacturing plant.  Right now the electric car is far inferior to the gasoline-powered car.  And if you want a car to take you to and from some place safely, you’re probably buying something with a gasoline engine.  A car where you can use the heat and switch on the lights without worrying if you’ll have enough juice to make it home.  And that’s just something the internal combustion engine will always be able to do better than the all-electric car.  Get you home.

Electric Cars not Selling Well

With Bill Clinton convinced that car batteries for electric cars are an important part of our economic revival, let’s take a look at some electric car sales numbers.  I mean, if everything is contingent on these things, let’s just make sure people are buying them to support this battery economy.  Before we build more plants that may end up building something people don’t want to buy (see Sales update: Nissan Leaf hits 573, Chevy Volt at 493 in April posted 5/3/2011 on Autoblog).

The latest cumulative U.S. sales totals for the plug-in duo, since launching in late 2010, has the Volt leading the pack with 2,029 units sold, while the Leaf comes in at 1,044. Year-to-date, Volt sales stand at 1,703, while Nissan says Leaf production had, as of April 15th, hit nearly 8,000.

And it doesn’t look like people want to buy these electric cars.  Nissan built 8,000 Leafs and only sold 1,044 of them.  That’s pretty bad.  There appears no point in building them anymore.  Not with a backlog of just under 7,000.  And with 87% of all Leafs built sitting unsold, there’s no point in building batteries for more of these cars.

Okay.  Let’s take a closer look at the Volt to see how viable a business model that is (see Will GM’s 2011 Chevy Volt Evolve Or Become A Costly Dead End? by George Parrott posted 6/20/2011 on Green Car Reports).

While the 2011 Chevy Volt will find its way to between 10,000 and 15,000 U.S. buyers, that’s far from enough volume to make any car a production success–or to make it profitable.

Most mainstream car models must sell 100,000 or more units a year to produce black ink.

No point in making batteries for these cars either.  No one’s buying them.  Other than then environmentalists.  Or rich people who can afford a toy car that they can take out for show while using their real internal combustion engine car to commute to work and take on vacations.  And it’s a money hole for GM.  Not exactly what they need while coming out of a ‘bankruptcy’.  If they’re smart they’d give up on the Volt before they have another round of financial problems.

The Irrational Exuberance of Green Energy

There’s a similarity between information technology and green energy.  And that similarity is irrational exuberance.  The market for all those dot-com companies was illusionary.  As is the market for electric cars.  So it makes little sense in building more batteries for cars people aren’t buying.

Adding batteries to our electric grid will be an enormous investment of tax dollars to improve the efficiency of some of the most inefficient energy sources.  Wind.  And solar.  Besides, for anyone who has suffered through multiple power outages each year, do you really want to add more complexity to the electric grid?  Something else that lightning can strike?  Something that is so complex that can’t be repaired or replaced as easily as a downed wire?  I shudder to think about waiting for that power restoration.

The point of green energy is twofold.  To get us off of expensive foreign oil.  And to stop global warming.  But the green energy solution is going to cost us more in the long run than foreign oil.  And with the science telling us sunspot activity may be heading towards a Maunder Minimum, we’re probably going to see some global cooling coming our way.  Not warming.  So what’s the point?  We don’t need green energy right now.   Especially if it costs more than foreign oil.  And we don’t need a bubble of green energy jobs to come back and bight us in the ass when that bubble pops.  As all bubbles do.

We use a lot of oil.  We should build on that.  For now.  Create some good, high paying jobs in the oil business.  Drill for more oil.  And bring it to market.  To meet a soaring demand.  You see, that’s an economic model that works.  Meeting demand with supply.  It works.  Always has.   And always will.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #57: “Environmental policy is a zero-sum policy; save the planet, kill man.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2011

DDT gets rid of Mosquitoes and Malaria

No one thinks much about malaria in big American cities.  Because they’re modern, paved cities.  So there aren’t a lot of mosquitoes.  At least, not like there used to be.  In colonial times, summers were bad.  Anywhere there was standing water.  Thomas Jefferson hated to be anywhere near tidewater areas during the summer months.  Because people got malaria.  He thought it was the air.  It wasn’t.  It was the mosquitoes.  Unpaved areas in tidewater streams just bred mosquitoes wholesale. 

As our concrete cities grew these wetlands went away.  As did malaria.  In the United States.  Other nations, though, were not so fortunate.  Especially sub-Saharan Africa.  Where malaria kills hundreds of thousands of children each year.  Why?  Because much of sub-Saharan Africa is impoverished.  With no modern, paved cities.  And it’s a mosquito paradise.  For awhile, that is.  Because man stepped in and used chemistry.  Created a miracle synthetic pesticide.  DDT.  And went to war against mosquitoes.  Campaigned especially fiercely in the tropical countries that really favored mosquito breeding.  Armed with DDT, it was a lopsided war.  Areas that saw millions of people infected by malaria each year had less than a hundred people infected after the DDT campaign.  It was a huge success.  Chemistry saved the children.  It was so successful they also used it in agriculture.  Food yields improved with the resulting pest elimination.  The mosquito and other pests were on the run.  But then an unlikely ally saved them.  Rachel Carson.

Carson wrote Silent Spring.  Published in 1962, she saved malaria.  And started the environmental movement with her attack against chemistry.  It was hurting the environment.  DDT was thinning egg shells.  And some other nasty stuff.  And perhaps it was.  But there were two uses of DDT.  Heavy agricultural uses.  And the lighter anti-malaria uses.  Some of the things she cited may have been more on the agricultural side.  In any event, environmentalism was born.  DDT fell out of favor and nations banned it or discouraged its use.  And malaria returned in force, killing hundreds of thousands of kids each year.

Firebreaks stop the Spread of Wildfires

Smokey the Bear says only we can prevent forest fires.  Well, that’s not exactly true.  We can’t change the weather.  Oh, sure, we can change the climate by warming the earth with manmade greenhouse gases, but we can’t make it rain.  Or stop the lightning.  Put the two together (a long time without rain then a lightning storm) and it will start a forest fire/wildfire.  And there’s nothing we can do about it.  Well, there’s nothing we can do to prevent it from starting.  But we can limit the severity of the wildfire.  By cutting firebreaks in the forest.

Dried trees burn very well.  And dried brush makes excellent tinder.  As a forest burns, the trees burn and flick off embers.  The wind blows the embers downwind.  Where they land on dried brush (i.e., tinder).  A fire smolders.  Then takes hold.  Flames grow.  And jump to the trees.  Which flick off embers.  That blow downwind.  And so on.  This is how fires travel.  And sometimes you can’t stop them.  They get too big to try and douse with water.  So they burn.  And the only thing that will stop them is the lack of fuel.  And this is where a firebreak comes in handy.  If you cut firebreaks into the forest at strategic locations the fire will spread until it comes to one of these fire breaks.  The embers flicking off of trees will then fall harmlessly on the firebreak.  Where there is no fuel.  And the embers will burn out.  Without starting a new fire.  Depending on the strength of the winds and the width of the firebreak, you can stop a lot of fires.  As long as there isn’t a rat living in the area.

Fire struck Riverside County outside Los Angeles in 1993.  It was huge.  And hungry.  That fire advanced and ate everything in its path.  Trees.  Brush.  And houses.  Homeowners in Riverside Country wanted to plow in some fire breaks to protect their homes.  Unfortunately for them, they shared their habitat with the kangaroo rat.  Which was on the Endangered Species List.  And plowing in those firebreaks may have harmed those rats burrowed shallowly in the sandy soil where all that tinder was growing.  So they were forbidden to cut in those firebreaks.  To save the rat.  And the fire burned through their houses.  And kept on burning.

The Food Chain Turned Upside Down

The San Joaquin Valley in central California is one of the most fertile farmlands in the world.  The Westlands.  Some call it the food basket of the world because they grow so much stuff there.  The San Joaquin River is fed from the snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and drains into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.  And it’s from this delta the government has helped the farmers pump water to irrigate their farmlands.  That is, until drought hit the area.  And a little fish.  A tiny smelt.

In the Delta there lived a fish.  This fish was on the Endangered Species List.  And this fish liked to hang around with man.  And the things man built.  Like water pumps.  With the prolonged drought, those irrigation pumps were pumping a lot of water.  And apparently killing a lot of smelt.  That were hanging around the pump inlets.  So a federal judge ruled in 2008 to shut off the irrigation pumps.  To save the fish.  And they did.

Without water farmers can’t farm.  So land went unused.  Farmers planted fewer tomatoes.  And fewer of their other crops.  Worse, some farmers had to destroy some of their healthy crops.  Such as almond trees that took 30 years to grow.  Without water they’d died.  And dead trees attract pests.  That can spread to healthy trees.  So it was either cut down some of their trees.  Or face pest infestation and lose all of their trees.  So food production in the fertile San Joaquin Valley dropped.  There was less food.  Which, of course, raised food prices.  All to save a small fish.

Diverting Corn from Dinner Tables to Gas Tanks 

Some say that we have to find an alternative to oil.  Because oil will run out one day.  Soon.  They’ve been saying this for decades.  And we haven’t run out yet.  But that’s beside the point.  The point is that they say it will run out because of our increasing demand for gasoline to drive our cars.  And that rising demand one day will exceed the oil supply.  One of their solutions?  BiofuelsEthanolFlex FuelE85.  Made from corn.  Our food.  And others.  For we feed a large part of the impoverished world with our surplus corn.

Back in the summer of 2008, gas hit $4/gallon.  That hurt.  The pain was so bad that it made people change behavior.  They bought smaller cars.  Hybrids.  And cars that ran on the ‘cheaper’ E85 (ethanol).  Which sold for something like fifty cents less than unleaded gas.  It seemed like quite the bargain.  Until you used it.  As those who had a significant commute to work soon learned.  One tank of gas let you commute to work for a whole week.  A tank of ethanol?  It didn’t take you quite as far.  People often learned this the hard way.  After having to stop in an unseemly part of town to refuel late night on the way home from work after hearing that ‘low fuel’ chime unexpectedly.  Those of us who did soon switched back to gasoline.  Why?  To prevent late night surprises like that again.  And because we just don’t like pumping gas.  Or, should I say, ‘fuel’.

You see, ethanol has less energy than gasoline.  So it takes more of it to go as far as gasoline takes you.  When you crunched the number you were actually paying more using the ethanol.  Because you were buying more of it.  Which brings us back to the interesting argument of why we have to replace oil.  Because our growing demand will eventually use it all up.  Now, let’s apply that logic to ethanol.  And the fact that it takes more ethanol to drive as far as with gasoline.  What does that tell you?  They will divert an enormous amount of our corn crop from dinner tables to gas tanks.  Making less food available for us.  And for export.  Which will do what?  That’s right.  Make some people go hungry.  And increase food prices.

Trading Humans for non-Humans

Advancements in environmental policy come at the expense of man.  Every time they protect an endangered species man has to yield ground.  When we fight global warming it is man who makes the ultimate sacrifice.  We have to lose some liberty.  Pay more for food.  Or eat less.  When they ban life-saving chemicals people die.  Hundreds of thousands of them.  Especially children in sub-Saharan Africa.  All in the name of saving the planet.

Environmentalists are okay with this.  For they must know about it.  And yet they pursue their agenda.  So they don’t mind the zero-sum game they play.  Trading humans for non-humans.  Because they favor the non-humans over the humans.  So when it comes to saving the planet or saving man, their choice is an easy one.  They save the planet.  And kill man.  For the human dead are acceptable collateral damage in their war to save the planet.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,