Henry Lamb
Where the jobs are
By Henry Lamb
Everyone agrees that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Everyone agrees that we need to increase American jobs.
Everyone, except perhaps the President and his minions in the majority, agrees that the government cannot afford to subsidize either of these goals.
Both of these goals can be achieved quite easily with no government subsidy: drill here; drill now!
Congress could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in the twinkling of a Senate vote. This would pave the way to upwards of 10 billion barrels of new crude for America. Paving the road to this new inventory would provide employment for as many as 735,000 people — at no cost to the government.
Congress could open the oil-rich areas off shore, where as much as 85 billion barrels of oil is waiting for our use. Every new barrel produced provides new jobs for America — at no cost to the government.
Instead of choosing this perfectly logical course of action, the President, and his minions in the majority, chose to spend $159 billion to create 640,000 jobs.That's $248,000 per job, for a job that typically pays much less than $100,000 per year, and in many cases, will last only a few months. How dumb is that?
When a stupid program doesn't work as well as was projected, the only thing to do is to up the ante and do it again. That's why the President wants to spend another $100 billion doing what didn't work last time. How dumb is that?
This stupidity cannot be laid at the feet of this President alone. Democrats, and a few Republicans, in Congress have justified this wrong-headedness on the U.N.'s threat that the continued use of carbon fuels would sink the continents and fry the Polar Regions. Anyone who still believes this nonsense has refused to read the preponderance of evidence that is now available.
Global warming that may have occurred over the last century is well within the range of normal variability.
The global warming that occurred leading to the Medieval Climate Optimum (800–1300) was not caused by human use of carbon fuel. Yet, the earth was much warmer then than it is now. Global temperatures then plunged to what scientists call the "Little Ice Age" (1650–1850). The earth was much colder during this period than it is now. Fossil fuel had nothing to do with the change.
The history of global temperature drawn from proxy data in ice cores and tree rings reveals a timeline of peaks of warming and valleys of ice ages. Even a casual look at the history of global temperatures demands recognition that after the "Little Ice Age" the temperature must rise. It did, but began to plateau at about mid 20th century. Many scientists predict that the earth is entering a new cooling period. Given a choice, any right-thinking person would choose global temperatures experienced during the Medieval Climate Optimum rather than the temperatures experienced during the Little Ice Age.
There is no choice. The climate will do whatever the climate does — despite the predictions of Al Gore or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It shall be as it has always been: people and all other life forms will adapt to whatever the climate does — or not. Neither increasing mileage requirements for toy cars, taxing smoke-stack emissions, nor all the other foolishness contrived by the global warming enthusiasts will make one degree of difference. Were all the goals of the Kyoto Protocol fully met, the result would be a reduction of about one part per million in atmospheric carbon — about as noticeable as spitting in the ocean.
Why do Al Gore, the IPCC, and the Democrat leadership insist on demonizing the use of fossil fuel and imposing some kind of emissions control legislation on the world? There are two reasons: money and power. Literally billions of dollars have flowed into global warming research and global warming projects of various sorts. The global warming myth has become so pervasive that the Center for Biological Diversity has collected $6,709,467 in attorney fees from tax dollars by suing the federal government for not protecting alleged endangered species from alleged global warming.
Other environmental groups have collected billions of dollars in attorney fees and direct grants for activities related to what has been touted as "man-made" global warming. The money that has been wasted on global warming since Al Gore invited Jim Hansen to testify before his Senate Committee back in 1988 would have been much better spent had it been used to help third world countries build electricity generating plants and municipal water and sewer systems.
Aside from the wasted money, the entity that controls the use of fossil fuel controls the entire economy. That's real power — worth all the lying and cheating that may be required.
It is nothing short of stupidity to throw good money after bad. Therefore, Congress should forget about the House-passed Cap & Tax Bill, and turn to the obvious path toward more domestic energy production and the creation of more American jobs. Both are available by opening ANWR and the other oil reserves within American jurisdiction.
© Henry Lamb
February 7, 2010
Everyone agrees that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Everyone agrees that we need to increase American jobs.
Everyone, except perhaps the President and his minions in the majority, agrees that the government cannot afford to subsidize either of these goals.
Both of these goals can be achieved quite easily with no government subsidy: drill here; drill now!
Congress could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in the twinkling of a Senate vote. This would pave the way to upwards of 10 billion barrels of new crude for America. Paving the road to this new inventory would provide employment for as many as 735,000 people — at no cost to the government.
Congress could open the oil-rich areas off shore, where as much as 85 billion barrels of oil is waiting for our use. Every new barrel produced provides new jobs for America — at no cost to the government.
Instead of choosing this perfectly logical course of action, the President, and his minions in the majority, chose to spend $159 billion to create 640,000 jobs.That's $248,000 per job, for a job that typically pays much less than $100,000 per year, and in many cases, will last only a few months. How dumb is that?
When a stupid program doesn't work as well as was projected, the only thing to do is to up the ante and do it again. That's why the President wants to spend another $100 billion doing what didn't work last time. How dumb is that?
This stupidity cannot be laid at the feet of this President alone. Democrats, and a few Republicans, in Congress have justified this wrong-headedness on the U.N.'s threat that the continued use of carbon fuels would sink the continents and fry the Polar Regions. Anyone who still believes this nonsense has refused to read the preponderance of evidence that is now available.
Global warming that may have occurred over the last century is well within the range of normal variability.
The global warming that occurred leading to the Medieval Climate Optimum (800–1300) was not caused by human use of carbon fuel. Yet, the earth was much warmer then than it is now. Global temperatures then plunged to what scientists call the "Little Ice Age" (1650–1850). The earth was much colder during this period than it is now. Fossil fuel had nothing to do with the change.
The history of global temperature drawn from proxy data in ice cores and tree rings reveals a timeline of peaks of warming and valleys of ice ages. Even a casual look at the history of global temperatures demands recognition that after the "Little Ice Age" the temperature must rise. It did, but began to plateau at about mid 20th century. Many scientists predict that the earth is entering a new cooling period. Given a choice, any right-thinking person would choose global temperatures experienced during the Medieval Climate Optimum rather than the temperatures experienced during the Little Ice Age.
There is no choice. The climate will do whatever the climate does — despite the predictions of Al Gore or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It shall be as it has always been: people and all other life forms will adapt to whatever the climate does — or not. Neither increasing mileage requirements for toy cars, taxing smoke-stack emissions, nor all the other foolishness contrived by the global warming enthusiasts will make one degree of difference. Were all the goals of the Kyoto Protocol fully met, the result would be a reduction of about one part per million in atmospheric carbon — about as noticeable as spitting in the ocean.
Why do Al Gore, the IPCC, and the Democrat leadership insist on demonizing the use of fossil fuel and imposing some kind of emissions control legislation on the world? There are two reasons: money and power. Literally billions of dollars have flowed into global warming research and global warming projects of various sorts. The global warming myth has become so pervasive that the Center for Biological Diversity has collected $6,709,467 in attorney fees from tax dollars by suing the federal government for not protecting alleged endangered species from alleged global warming.
Other environmental groups have collected billions of dollars in attorney fees and direct grants for activities related to what has been touted as "man-made" global warming. The money that has been wasted on global warming since Al Gore invited Jim Hansen to testify before his Senate Committee back in 1988 would have been much better spent had it been used to help third world countries build electricity generating plants and municipal water and sewer systems.
Aside from the wasted money, the entity that controls the use of fossil fuel controls the entire economy. That's real power — worth all the lying and cheating that may be required.
It is nothing short of stupidity to throw good money after bad. Therefore, Congress should forget about the House-passed Cap & Tax Bill, and turn to the obvious path toward more domestic energy production and the creation of more American jobs. Both are available by opening ANWR and the other oil reserves within American jurisdiction.
© Henry Lamb
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
