Alleged Crowd of 1,000 Protests Against Jobs, National Security
By D.J. Spiker | Sunday, June 27th, 2010 | PolicyIn a stellar example of the left’s short-sighted vision for the future of our nation, a ‘protest’ was organized yesterday by the Sierra Club and other ill-willed organizations who have the national security of the United States firmly outside their primary interests.
Thankfully, the Virginian-Pilot was willing to cover and embellish accordingly: (amazing how the Tea Party gathering is ‘a few hundred’ but the Pilot managed to get a hard number, must have been counting as they stretched out along the boardwalk)
To protest of offshore drilling and to promote clean energy, about 1,000 people held hands along the Oceanfront on Saturday.
…
“The Gulf Coast oil spill disaster provides a vivid reminder that the price of offshore oil is far too high,” said Chelsea Harnish, a regional campaign coordinator for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.“What our great commonwealth needs is a permanent ban on offshore drilling.”
Actually, what our great commonwealth needs is more jobs, something that offshore drilling will bring, along with billions in infrastructure, private investment and growth. Clean energy is decades and tens of billions of dollars away from being a feasible alternative, while we have countless natural resources that will help wean our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, making ignoring or refusing to consider offshore drilling a national security risk. And, most importantly, what we don’t need is hollow protests from individuals who utilize fear and substitute it for logic.
Yes, there was a spill. Yes, it’s been a problem. But we don’t ban flying after a plane crash. We don’t ban automobiles after a car crash. We didn’t ban New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
So why exactly would we ban something that will bring thousands of jobs, billions of dollars and potentially provide a realistic financial windfall for transportation after one incident?
Wake up.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...entrenched on the right as a member of the Establishment, proudly tattooed member of the Republican Party, bartender by trade serving both sides the libations needed to continue the debate and discourse. College student, ten years late, majoring in Public Policy and Administration with an eye to serving the conservative and Republican movement in the public or private sector. ducit amor patriae You can find D.J.on facebook, Twitter, or contact via email at gosport.conservative@gmail.com. You can find D.J.on facebook, Twitter, or contact via email at gosport.conservative@gmail.com.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
10 Responses to "Alleged Crowd of 1,000 Protests Against Jobs, National Security"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by virginiaBNN, bearingdrift. bearingdrift said: Web: Alleged Crowd of 1,000 Protests Against Jobs, National Security http://bit.ly/95lzto [...]
They’re not the ones sleeping.
So.. I guess you did not tune in to WYRM AM 1110 today at 1pm. Dr. Ronald Kander, JMU Dean of engineering was interviewed on the show for the full hour.
Feasible clean energy technology is here now today. And with a little foresight it will be made by Hampton Roads ship builders and serviced by our dry doc ports. Groton CT and Bath Iron Works is going to beat us to it if we do not get on the ball pronto. Whoever gets there first wins. We will add wind power to our energy portfolio because large scale wind power IS cost competitive with oil and coal power. Additionally, there are two Va zones identified for harvesting wind energy and the eastern shore is Va’s saudi arabia for big wind power. Dr. Kander will be on again so we will let JR know and he may make an announcement for those interested. There will also be a senior engineering director from the worlds largest wind power company as my guest this september making an executive summary style presentation on wind energy at Golden HQ.
“So why exactly would we ban something that will bring thousands of jobs, billions of dollars and potentially provide a realistic financial windfall for transportation after one incident?”
to send our oil rigs to Brazil’s Petrobras to help Soros make millions, who then funds MoveOn.org
I
Hands Across the Sand Linked to Brazil’s Oil Company Petrobras?
By Dr. Richard Swier |
I recieved an e-mail invitation from MoveOn.org to attend a Hands Across The Sand rally on June 26th at the Cape Coral Yacht Club in Cape Coral, Florida. The invitation states:
“In the wake of the giant BP oil spill, tens of thousands of people are getting together on beaches around the world for a massive event called ‘Hands Across The Sand.’ We’ll join hands and draw a literal line in the sand to say “yes” to clean energy and “no” to more offshore drilling.”
Hands Across the Sand was founded in Florida by Dave Rauschkolb. Their mission, according to its website, is:
1. To organize a national movement to oppose offshore oil drilling and champion clean energy and renewables. These gatherings will bring thousands of American citizens to our beaches and cities and will draw metaphorical and actual lines in the sand; human lines in the sand against the threat oil drilling poses to America’s coastal economies and marine environment.
2. To convince our State Legislators, Governors, Congress and President Obama to stop the expansion of offshore oil drilling and to adopt policies encouraging clean and renewable energy sources. America needs legislation that creates tax incentives and subsidies to encourage the growth of clean energy and renewable industries for America’s future.
I found this invitation most interesting considering who helped found and funds MoveOn.org – George Soros. In 2003 alone Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $5 million to MoveOn.org, and $10 million to America Coming Together.
Now how can Hands Across the Sand possibly be linked to Petrobras the Brazilian state owned oil giant? Well, it is via George Soros.
You see George Soros is a major stock holder in Petrobras. According to the Investor’s Business Daily June 23rd editorial, “Salazar’s Ban is Soros’ Bonanza”:
“Last August, the U.S. Export-Import Bank issued a ‘preliminary commitment’ letter to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion, with the promise of more to follow. . .
These [U.S.] taxpayer dollars finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. . .
The irony is that most of the deep-water rigs idled by the moratorium may shortly be snapped up by a Petrobras apparently undeterred by images of tar balls on Rio’s beaches. Petrobras plans to drill to a depth of 14,022 feet, a depth that makes our 500-foot limit laughable.”
So who benefited from the U.S. taxpayer investment in Petrobras? Of course George Soros.
Investor’s Business daily goes on to point out, “While we track the trail of oil gushing from Deepwater Horizon, we should also follow the money that will be gushing into George Soros’ bank account, courtesy of the U.S. government and the American taxpayer.”
According to Front Page Magazine, “Within 48 hours after President Obama issued the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, the George Soros-backed Brazilian oil company, Petrobras, contacted a large New Orleans company, Laborde Marine, which services the deep-water drilling market. The company was seeking to lease all its vessels. ‘If the moratorium on deep-water drilling is not lifted, 33 semi-submersible rigs and/or drill ships affected will simply go to other countries where they will be well received, such as Brazil,’ Cliffe F. Laborde and J. Peter Laborde, Jr. wrote in a June 4 letter to their Louisiana Senators.”
George Soros has $811 million invested in Petrobras.
The other laughable part of Hands Across the Sand is its push for, “legislation that creates tax incentives and subsidies to encourage the growth of clean energy and renewable industries for America’s future.”
President Obama, his administration and MoveOn.org have been pushing for “green jobs”. President Obama pointed to the success of Spain in creating these new green jobs. According to Dr. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez’s report, “Study of the Effects on Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources” Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country more than 2.2 jobs for every green job “created” by the state. The report found only one in ten green jobs created wound up being permanent.
According to the Washington Examiner, “They tried to crucify Gabriel Calzada for pointing out that their wind and solar programs were a big waste of money. But even the Spain’s socialist government recognizes economic reality when default comes knocking. You can’t keep spending $750,000 per ‘green’ job created when you’re going broke.”
So Hands Across the Sand is helping push the moratorium on offshore drilling, to send our oil rigs to Brazil’s Petrobras to help Soros make millions, who then funds MoveOn.org, which sent out the e-mail invitation to me. All in the name of losing jobs in a green economy.
Makes your head hurt doesn’t it?
http://redcounty.com/hands-across-sand-linked-brazils-oil-company-petrobras/41302
One problem with your article James.. if government offers 30 year unrevokable tax credits for research w/ live demonstration projects and gets out of the way, private industry will succeed. Real economic studies show that with comparable economies of scale, wind power is the second most cost efficient source of electricity only to nuke when all costs such as maintenance, transmission, etc. are accounted for. While domestic oil drilling continues, the unconventional energy we have at hand must be harnessed if the enabling technology is available.
Hydrogen and several other energy sources are still “someday if” and nowhere near comercial viablility as a prime mover due to the high production and storage costs but solar and wind have reached a state of comercial viability that few in our region seem to be be willing to acknowledge.
Long term cost per kw/h using wind is attractive especially during the winter when air density is up and lower relative wind speeds offer greater generating efficiency. Solar works best during the summer but well designed systems offer plenty of solar radiation absorption during most of the year here in VA.
Virginia, Hampton Roads in particular has been the birthplace for some of Americas and the worlds best alternative energy technologies and we are uniquely equipped for the largest scale offshore wind manufacturing. Manufacturing a turbine blade is not the problem though, shipping it is. Big turbine blades can be launched into the water like a boat and towed to the tower right from our ports, hauling them via freight train is an expensive option. Trucking is worse.
Either we face the music and lessen our dependence on imported energy and by default put a lot of virginians to work or watch our idled sub and ship building neighbors north of us in Groton, Connecticut and Bath, Maine beat us to the market. Only two choices James.. which one makes more sense to you?
send our oil rigs to Brazil’s Petrobras to help Soros make millions, who then funds MoveOn.org
That was my real point. I was considering removing the part about Spain but I ran out of time when I was editing.
However since you said “Real economic studies show that with comparable economies of scale, wind power is the second most cost efficient source of electricity only to nuke when all costs such as maintenance, transmission, etc. are accounted for.” ; would you please show your data so I can answer you.
Please show the web address for the studies and I will be quite happy to read them. It would be helpful to include the names of the authors and the actual study name. These studies usually have a certain error in them so I need to read the studies before I can answer you.
I am considering adding solar panels to 2 of my houses and perhaps a wind generator to one of them. However the use of renewable energy in the real world is like a flying hummingbird.
Mr Cohen, still waiting for you to show your data.
Mr Cohen, you said “Real economic studies show that with comparable economies of scale, wind power is the second most cost efficient source of electricity only to nuke when all costs such as maintenance, transmission, etc. are accounted for.”
Not quite, usually the studies show the cost of solar and wind when the sun shines and the wind blows.
However that is not the true cost.
You need a “back-up” system to provide power when the wind is not blowing.
So the true cost of wind needs to include both the cost of the wind system AND the cost of the “back-up” system, which changes your numbers a bit.
The fact is that wind and solar farms can’t harvest enough energy to replace the energy density of coal or oil to support the current population much less the projected growth. The projected energy production of either wind or coal is mostly inflated and projected on expectation of delivery.
Fact is they have been working on solar for over 60 years now and it has not become an economical reality. Without subsidies and tax breaks solar and wind would not be undertaken by investors as mainstream power sources. A residential solar energy system typically costs about $8~10 per Watt. Where government incentive programs exist, together with lower prices secured through volume purchases, installed costs as low as $3~4 watt, 10~12 cents per kilowatt hour can be achieved. Without incentive programs, solar energy costs (in an average sunny climate) range between 22-40 cents/kWh for very large PV systems. And currently, wind receives 14 times and more the subsidy paid for nuclear and a whopping 53 times that of coal.
Currently this is the return we get on our investment in Congress. A Berkley professor even admitted that he found the cost for a PV installation ranges from nearly $86,000 to $91,000, while the value of the power produced ranges from $19,000 to $51,000. And solar and wind probably won’t be cost efficient over fossils for the next ten+ years.
That leaves nuclear which can supply us with energy for the next 100+ years if done right with level IV technology. When properly managed they are safe, efficient and reliable.
But when was the last nuclear reactor built in the US. Will over regulation by the EPA prevent new ones?
That leaves coal to provide the power we need NOW.
However I have always liked renewable solar.
I am willing to provide money for research and live demonstration projects for both solar and wind. I am sure that we would disagree on amounts and duration.
We may disagree on certain aspects of energy production, but if you wish to make Hampton Roads the leader in research and production for alternative energy technologies; I am more then willing to support you.
And yes I do have great admiration and respect for Mr Golden.
The dollar cost efficiency of closed loop steam turbines via the miracle of uranium is unmatched. But as with any stationary energy source, the cost comes with a managed risk. Relying on 400-500 nuke powerplants for about 80% of our electrical needs makes plenty of sense to me and the reason we are not there today is purely a case of political failure due to an outright lack of visionary leadership. Do not lay the blame on enviros, that is a cop out.. the failure is political leadership or the lack of it. The technical challenges are well understood and the designs are mature so there remains no excuse for our next congressman not to champion the cause of true stationary energy independence using more nuclear power. So, what about the remaining 20%? Should we burn more coal? More oil? Use more wind, more solar, more geothermal, more hydro, more biomass..? What makes the most economic sense is usually in some conflict with what is practical. When studying the case for any energy technology, the near term impediments to market entry have to be accounted for but to make a long term assesment, the technology that works which has data generated from best case live demonstrations helps form the model for a cost/benefit basis. Real world costs per megawatt have precipitously dropped in the past decade so may I respectfully request that you recheck your cost figures for accuracy.
You stated, “Fact is they have been working on solar for over 60 years now and it has not become an economical reality. Without subsidies and tax breaks solar and wind would not be undertaken by investors as mainstream power sources”.. They? They who? Mainstream? not in all places but as part of a portfolio of energy sources that do not require imported energy. Subsidies and tax breaks? No, Tax Credits. Offer manufacturers tax credits and get government out of the way. Innovation is not free but if Tax Credits are offerred, hundreds of companies will find a way to install solar panels that were built by companies that use tax credits to offset the losses they will incurr for decades before reaching the economies of scale required to compete dollar for dollar with conventional energy. Solar has been in use for hundreds of years. Practical solar voltaics have been in development for space use and are now becoming so cheap and conformable that they can be cost effectively incorporated into roofing systems. Future automobiles will use solar hoods, roofs and trunks panels to supplement battery power using color coordination so sophisticated that they will not be very visible if noticeable at all.
“I am willing to provide money for research and live demonstration projects for both solar and wind. I am sure that we would disagree on amounts and duration.” Let tax credits for manufacturers and service providers generate the stimulus and let people keep their pay.
Ditto on Mr. Golden. Few politicians make much sense when discussing practical energy technology and Kenny has impressed me with his capacity to grasp technical aspects related to energy better than the vast majority of politicians who visited the dyno emissions labs I worked at/with years ago. I would welcome a 3 way energy topic debate between all 3 candidates.. that would be interesting.
Will try to answer you as I have time to do the research, however to be blunt; I have a lot of important matters to handle in the next couple of weeks.
However I see one glaring difference in the way we think.
Tax Credit.
Tax credits, subsidies, and tax breaks are all the same to me. If you give a company a tax credit then you are are still giving them public money.
Leave your response