The Prius Polluter?

According to Central Connecticut State University's The Recorder Online, the Toyota Prius causes more pollution than a Hummer.  Most of this is due to the materials used in its construction.  Also, it takes more energy to create and run one of these vehicles than a conventional car.

What is not addressed in the article is the question:  What do you do with the Prius batteries once they wear out?  Batteries can only be charged and recharged so many times, and the chemicals used in them will degrade over time.  And some of the chemicals used are pretty nasty.  And let's not forget the amount of energy that will be required to recycle the batteries as well.

I have my own ideas on what an economically-friendly personal transportation system could be in the future, and the technologies are being developed or are already here.  But that's a post for a later time.

In the meantime, remember that the hype on eco-friendly cars, global warming, and carbon-credits is not what it is cracked up to be.  More than ever, I believe that there are political agendas being addressed instead of real problems.

The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore

Unless you have been living under a rock, Al Gore is now the High Grandmaster for the Prevention of Global Warming. Although his movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award for a documentary (?), I call into question his real motives for jumping on this bandwagon. But first of all, let me clarify my position on the subjects of the environment and global warming.

We all should do our part for not trashing up or poisoning our world. I make sure that the cars are in good repair so they don’t belch blue smoke all over the place & get decent mileage. I don’t pour used motor oil on the ground, but make sure that it is properly disposed of. My trash is bagged accordingly, and that all recyclables are put in the recycle bin. I use the minimum of fertilizer on my lawn, and the same could be said of pest control methods that are used around the house (two cats help here). In general, my household generates as little waste as possible, and compared to several families around me, we generate the least (we would throw away less if it wasn’t for that damn junk mail…).

I do believe that the Earth is indeed warming up, and that it is part of a natural cycle. If this were not a natural cycle, then we would still be in an Ice Age with sheets of 50’ thick ice covering where I now live. I also believe that humans, for the most part, have a minimal impact on generating the so-called greenhouse gases. For instance, volcano eruptions will spew out thousands of tons of ashes and gases into the atmosphere at a level many times that of what the human population would be able to emit in the same amount of time (links here, here, and here).  If you believe that humans can control or have an effect on what Nature does do, then humans would have been able to control & predict the weather and all sorts of natural disasters such as volcano eruptions and earthquakes.

At this point in time, computer models vary widely as to the cause and effect of global warming, and thus, any conclusions that can be made from such models (and scientists’ opinions) must be considered suspect (i.e., junk science). I recall that these same scientific communities raised the alarm back in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s that the Earth was cooling, and they were warning of a new Ice Age that was coming hell-bent around the corner, and they had essentially the same data (minus a couple of decades) as they do now. This reversal calls into doubt the motives of these scientists as well, but that’s not the point of this post.

The real subject of this post is Al Gore. Can he be trusted? What are his motives? What is he really doing in the name of Global Warming? I think I may have him figured out, and of course, I have a little bit of help from my friends and the Internet. So let’s dig into this self-proclaimed savior of the Earth.

The first time I became aware of Al Gore was when he was selected and later elected to be the Vice-President opposite of Bill Clinton (just like the majority of you). With Hillary running most of the show with her health care and other initiatives, Al’s role in the Clinton Administration was minimal to say the least. But later actions and words, especially during his run for the Presidency and now during his campaign against Global Warming, showed the character of the man. Some prime examples that come to mind are:

During a photo shoot to promote environmental responsibility for water conservation, Al was photographed paddling around in a canoe, presumably to show that if everyone conserved water, everyone could enjoy the benefits of conservation. What was not widely reported was that there was a drought in the area, and that over 30,000 gallons of water was released into the stream to raise the water level 6 inches. The stream was too low, too many rocks were showing, and the canoe was bottoming out.  Not very photogenic...

During his campaign for President, Al made the claim that he invented the Internet. No, not quite, Al. Al voted on funding to expand what was then a crude communications network that was used between universities, research facilities, and the military. That expansion became the Internet that we all now use without a second thought. Fund, yes, invent, no.

During the class-action suits against the tobacco companies, Al came out and stated that tobacco was an evil curse. He carried on for several weeks until it was found out that part of the Gore fortune was made from the raising and selling tobacco leaf. He quieted down after that.

Recently, Al’s involvement in buying “carbon-offset credits” to offset the pollution from his private jet from a company that he owns in total or in part (haven’t established that yet) has been reported & commented on by various news outlets. Additionally, the energy inefficiency of the various homes that he owns throughout the country was also reported. This does not look good for a person that repeatedly states that he is for the environment and not for himself.

In understanding Al Gore, you must first understand that he is a politician through and through. He will state almost anything to garner attention, support, and accolades from the public. He is a career politician, and a shameless self-promoter, ready to favorably position himself on whatever issue that is in the public eye.

Another thing that you must understand about Al is that he is a hypocrite. It is that “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality that is revealed in the examples above. It is this elitism that is most disturbing about this man.

Finally, I believe that Al is a Liberal with a Socialist agenda. Consider this from the post Globalization:

Way back when Al Gore and Ross Perot were having a discussion (debate) on NAFTA, Al was trying to make the case for NAFTA by using the example of Valmont Electric moving their operations from Danville, Illinois to Mexico. He stated that Mexico’s standard of living would eventually rise to meet that of the United States, and businesses like Valmont would stop moving to Mexico.

Only a Socialist would want everyone to be equal in wealth, even if it is across an international border and to the detriment of your own country. Equal, of course, unless you are one of the elites calling the shots…

So what is his motive for becoming the High-Priest of Global Warming? In essence – power. He is still smarting from losing the election to Bush, and wants to stay in the public spotlight. The Democratic Party hung out the “do not apply” sign to Al after he lost the election, and this is a way of trying to get the sign taken down & back in the race for the President. But if he doesn’t get another shot at the Presidency, he can certainly get richer by speeches on Global Warming and buying carbon-offset credits from himself (of which I would almost bet that he uses as a tax-write-off). If he can swat a few noses along the way and exert power over those people who didn’t support him, then so much the better.

No, Al isn’t the wild-eyed environmentalist wacko preaching from the altar of Global Warming that some people portray him as. He is a smart & conniving man that has an agenda. And that agenda, which is to gain as much power and wealth as he can, will ruin this country and countless lives unless he is exposed for what he is – a shameless, greedy political hack. Only then will his quest for power be negated.

And no, I don’t trust him. Not one teeny bit…

Common Ground With Liberals?

This topic has been rattling around in my brain for a couple of weeks, and I finally had time to write it up.

In many respects, I can understand the Liberal mindset on issues. They have the same concerns that I have, even though I do not agree with their methods on how to accomplish the stated goal. For example...

The stated Liberal concern for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is their safety. I too am concerned for the men and women of our armed services, and do not want them to be killed or wounded. Our reasoning on how that may best be accomplished and whether Iraq is a lost cause or not differ (and I have written numerous posts on this subject), but we do agree that the sons & daughters of Americans need to be protected.

Let's next take a look at the educational system. Liberals want our children to be protected from bullying and harm. At the same time, our children need to be endowed with high self-esteem. While I agree with the need for zero tolerance for violence policies and our children needing high self-esteem, we differ on the methods. Where I believe that responsibility for actions and accomplishment lead to high self-esteem and social responsibility, the Liberals want to give unearned praise as the way for establishing this feeling and social attitude (I know, because I've seen it firsthand in my son's school). But again, we do agree that our sons & daughters should have the best school experience possible in as safe an environment as we can give them.

One of the most important topics that we agree on is our children's safety. Expanding on the above, we want our children to be safe no matter where they may be – in school, at the mall, driving a car, at a party, etc. As such, sometimes ridiculous policies are placed in the schools for their safety. One such example is the removal of pop machines from school property. I would much rather that the children take responsibility for their actions rather than the Liberal tactic of making excuses for their actions and removing the pop machines. While I do think that removing the machines was a good thing, it's the principle of the matter. But regardless of this Liberal victim mentality, we agree that the health and well being of our children is important.

We also agree that children need to be raised in a responsible manner. After all, a prominent Liberal wrote a book on how it takes a village to raise a child. I personally think it takes two committed and loving parents (man & wife) to do the job correctly. But again, raising children is important – after all, they are our flesh and blood.

Last is the issue of Global Warming. Liberals, by & large, state that man is creating the Global Warming situation. I do agree that the data shows that the Earth is on a warming trend, but I do not agree that it is man-made or if mankind is influencing this trend. Depending on which “expert” and model is being looked at, mankind’s activities are having no effect, some effect, or a huge impact upon the Earth’s weather. Some years ago, the scientists were concerned that the Earth was cooling down, and that a new ice age was just around the corner. Now these same scientists are concerned that the Earth will turn into the next Venus. But regardless of how you look at the data and which side of the issue you are, the main concern is that we both want to leave an Earth for our children and grandchildren to live in and enjoy.

I think that I've established some common ground on how important children are to both Liberals and Conservatives. They need to be nurtured and protected from the ills of the world until they are ready to take their place in it. They are to be given the best possible chance to succeed in life, to be happy and productive in whatever career they may choose. Which leads me to one question:

If children are so precious that they must be protected against all harm, real and imagined, then why, why, do you support, in any of its grotesque & horrific forms, the abortion of innocent unborn children?

Energy Independence

Note: I wrote the below before I heard that the President may speak on this topic tonight in his State of the Union Address. I can only hope that he does, and our elected representatives take heed.

=========================

We all know that there is an energy crisis. All we have to do is look at our natural gas, electricity, and gasoline bills to know that we are not going to get any relief any time soon. More importantly, the United States must reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, specifically petroleum, for our economic and social health.

One of the recommendations included in the May 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group is to increase the domestic energy supply by exploring & developing petroleum resources in protected areas. While the environmentalist groups will scream, this can be done with minimal impact given today's improved technology and procedures. It is also necessary.

The oil producing region of the Middle East is under an uneasy peace at best. Suicide bombers and the conflict in Iraq are the most visible and most reported violent incidents from the area. Alliances change without warning as Iran did during the late 70's. The Palestinians have elected a known terrorist group, Hamas, as their leaders. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is among those listed in Parade Magazine as being some of the most ruthless dictatorships known with multitudes of human right violations. Of course, there is Iran making noises about wanting to join the nuclear club even though the president of Iran is clearly advocating using any and all means to wage war on Israel to wipe it off the map. Lastly, Islamic terrorists such as al-Qaeda are constantly stirring up trouble for everyone in the region.

Whether we like it or not, the United States has a vested interest in the Middle East for national security reasons. Again, according to the May 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, the United States relies on foreign oil for 52% of its needs. Should the flow of oil be interrupted, then the United States would have a severe impact dealt to its economy as all sectors (transportation, manufacturing, & energy generation) would be affected. Those groups that have accused the United States government with trading blood for oil are partially right as the Government has the duty to protect the economic welfare of the country. However, these same groups do not take the time to understand the reasons for the foreign policy sometimes enacted in the Middle East. For example: The first Gulf War was waged for a singular purpose, and that was to secure valuable oil resources in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein's control. If those resources were under the control of Hussein, then he would have been able to economically cripple the United States and the rest of the world. Those groups decried the loss of life in this conflict. One wonders what they would do or say if Hussein had control of the oil fields and turned off the oil, thus depriving them of the ability to drive to the supermarket only to find empty shelves since the food couldn't be delivered...

There are billions of dollars being spent for the research into alternative energy sources. A renewed interest in nuclear power is underway, renewable energy sources such as ethanol & bio-diesel currently have limited use, hybrid & fuel cell vehicles are being tested, and wind power is starting to make an appearance. But all of these new technologies are years from being perfected and cost effective. Until these technologies are developed for widespread use, the consumption of petroleum in this country must be addressed. Thus, a domestic agenda for finding and developing petroleum resources within the borders of the United States must be enacted. So what is the hold up? To put it succinctly - Politics and Special Interest Groups.

The most powerful of these groups are the Environmentalists. Their stance is no drilling or exploration in protected areas. However, the proper use of the technology and procedures learned from various disasters and developments should reduce the risk to the environment. But there is the risk, and the Environmentalists do not trust the oil companies, and probably for good reason. With the Exxon Valdez disaster as well as other disasters in mind, they do have a powerful argument. While I'm in favor of a clean environment, some risk must be taken in order to secure these resources. Having the caribou running free is of little comfort if you are standing out in the cold because there is no heat in the house.

The other major factor in this equation are the politicians and the games they play. The mindset of politicians is usually short term, as in the next election. If their constituents do not directly benefit from a long-range policy or it is a political hot potato, they will vote against it or abstain. If the various special interest groups target key legislators with promises of campaign contributions, then the representatives will usually vote which ever way will contribute more to their campaign war chest while not getting them in trouble with their constituents. While I realize that this is a very cynical view of how our elected representatives behave, I would be extremely naive if I believed otherwise in light of numerous embarrassing political idiocies played out recently on national TV.

What is most disturbing is that while the political games are being played, our national economic security is at risk of a few nations. Worse, some of these nations may either covertly or inadvertently fund the terrorist activities which threaten our country. Think of it as the ultimate irony: We are funding our own destruction. Bin Laden's family got rich by various oil construction projects, and he has tapped into that money to fund al-Qaeda terrorist activities against the United States & other countries. So the sooner we reduce or eliminate our dependence on the Middle East and other sources of foreign energy, the better.

So now it is up to us, the Citizens of the United States, to vote our conscience & let our duly elected representatives know that a long term solution is necessary to solve the coming crisis. We have an election coming up this year. Find out where your representatives stand on this issue and vote accordingly.