Radioactive Communist Zombies

Save a Fish: Lose Your House

A federal judge has told the Forest Service that it needs to revisit the environmental impact of fire retardant drops to fight forest fires.  They judge said the current one isn't adequate.  The AP reports:

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., ruled that the current environmental assessment is inadequate in light of federal biologists' findings that fire retardant that lands in creeks and on rare plants jeopardize the survival of endangered species and their habitat.

How often does this happen? About 0.01% of the time.  But still, the judge ruled:

The judge also found Fish and Wildlife and the fisheries service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to include an "incidental take permit" in the biological opinion that would allow killing some endangered species. The agencies had argued they would consider permits on a case-by-case basis.

The Forest Service, for it's part, worries that if they don't do everything necessary to fight a forest fire, they could be liable for someone losing their house or their life.  Which sounds like a valid concern.

Luckily the judge hasn't said the Forest Service can't use fire retardant . . . yet.  He's given the Forest Service until the end of next year to do a more complete study on the impact of fire retardant.  Let's hope the Forest Service can placate the judge (and the environmentalist plaintiffs in the lawsuit that caused all this).  Otherwise, some people might lose their houses or their lives to protect a fish or plant.

Environmentalists always have their priorities straight and it isn't humans.

The Chevy Volt Doesn't Make Sense (or Cents)

I had planned to sit down and do the math today on the Chevrolet Volt's economics now that Government Motors has announced the sticker price of $41,000.  And let me add, that I think that's going to be low after destination charges, dealer markups, and if you want any options like, oh, leather seats (and leather seat warmers for those cold days that will cut the range substantially so they probably aren't even available).  But I digress.

I was going to do the math but (Hat Tip Instapundit) someone else already did it for me.

The bottom line (emphasis original):

Under these assumptions, best case (all electric Volt miles), you save $915/year driving the Volt. To gain back your $10,000 price premium, you will have to drive the Volt for 9.3 years, 1.3 year longer than the battery warranty.

And replacing that battery pack is going to be expensive.

 

So you're going to really want to show off your green cred or be bad at math to want a Volt.  Don't know how many folks there are out there like that (of course, the Prius doesn't pencil out, either, and Toyota is selling scads of them).

 

UPDATE: Planet Gore reports:

After driving GM’s new, plug-in electric Chevy Volt, Late Night funnyman Jay Leno quipped that “if you didn’t know, you might think it’s a Cobalt” — a reference to GM’s pedestrian, $15-grand, entry-level small car.

Ouch. Who would buy a $41,000 Cobalt? Or even a $33,500 Cobalt (federal tax credit included).

Does this mean no leather seat option?

Range Anxiety

As the push comes to put more electric cars on the road (Obama wants one million by 2015) one problem is going to rear its ugly head: range anxiety.

That is, fear that the car will not go as far as needed and charging stations are few and far between.  Joel Schectman, an AP writer, tells us what the problem is:

Drivers want electric cars but worry they won't have enough juice to make long trips. After all, what good is going green if you get stranded with a dead battery?

It's a fear that automakers must overcome as they push to sell more battery-powered cars. So government and business are taking steps to reassure drivers by building up the nation's network of electric charging stations.

Range anxiety is a legitimate fear.  And partly because "refueling" takes so dang long:

Most public stations will take eight hours to juice up a car all the way, about the same as chargers in individual homes. These plugs could work for people who have chargers near their offices, but wouldn't work for quick refueling. Even a partial charge will take awhile — two-and-a-half hours to get 30 miles. A limited number of the chargers will be fast-chargers. If you can find one, it will still take 30 minutes for a full powerup.

Thirty minutes isn't bad (but a lot longer than the few minutes it takes to put gasoline in a car) but an 8-hour stop for fuel just isn't practical.

And that's the problem with electric cars.  They can still only remain commuter cars, driven short distances.  But when the family wants to drive to grandma's house or Disneyland, they are going to need an internal combustion engine to get there.  Which is why the Chevy Volt makes a little more sense but still people are probably going to need two cars.  And a lot of folks (especially after paying the premium an electric car requires) aren't going to be able to afford it.

So Obama will reach his goal only if there's enough rich fools to buy one million very impractical cars.

Is Obama Trying to Make Gasoline Expensive?

Remember $4/gallon gasoline?  It looks like the Obama Administration would like to return us to those days.  According to Mario Loyola writing in the August 2nd edition of National Review (NRODT), Obama is taking steps to cause a fuel shortage:

The moratorium on offshore drilling; the browbeating of BP into disgorging assets regardless of actual liability; the EPA’s unjustifiable quashing of licenses for most of the refineries in Texas, supposedly over air-pollution concerns;the Interior Department’s failure to process license renewals for a slew of shallow-water wells, which are much less tricky than those in deep water—all these actions bespeak a desire to create a hostile regulatory environment for oil extraction.

Why would Obama do this?

Many of Obama’s supporters—those at the Brookings Institution, for example—seem to think that a severe oil shortage is precisely what we need to save the environment and kick-start the transition to green energy.

In other words, to shock the public into demanding we spend billions on "green energy" so we don't have oil shocks like the one Obama purposely created again.

He is trying to manipulate the economy, cause you pain and cost you money, to push his political agenda.  And manipulate you into supporting it.

Which is typical of Obama's "I know best for you" attitude.  If the American people don't support something he think is best, he'll make sure they will want to.  It's a planned gasoline famine . . . for your own good.

Government Cracks Down on . . . Shower Heads

Remember those low-flow shower heads?

In fact, you probably have some in your house.

But, evil of evils, some people have been getting away with shower heads that don't meet government requirements.

In its on-going effort to save the planet (from what?) the government is going to crack down on shower heads.  The Wall Street Journal has the story (sub probably required):

Regulators are going after some of the luxury shower fixtures that took off in the housing boom. Many have multiple nozzles, cost thousands of dollars and emit as many as 12 gallons of water a minute. In May, the [Department of Energy] DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term "showerhead" in enforcing standards that have been on the books—but largely unenforced—for nearly 20 years.

That means restricting shower heads to 2.5 gallons per minute flow.

"Did Congress limit consumer choice? Absolutely," the DOE's Mr. Harris says. "When you waste water, you waste energy." Each multi-head shower fixture uses an extra 40 to 80 thermal units of energy per year, equivalent to 50 gallons of gasoline, or one barrel of oil, he says.

In other words: if you want to pay extra to have an extra nice shower head that puts out more than 2.5 gallons per minute, you can't.  You have no choice.  The government has spoken and you shall obey.  So even if you can afford a 12 gallon per minute shower head, you are not allowed one.

Well, at least it's not fatal like CAFE standards.  Which also limits your choice in automobiles.  As the WSJ reports:

The showdown is a challenge to President Barack Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, as they try to cajole—or compel—Americans to use water and energy more efficiently. Mr. Chu, a self-described "zealot" for energy efficiency, says he crawls around in his attic in his spare time installing extra insulation.

If Mr. Chu wishes to be a "zealot" he should not be in government.  This is just typical of command and control leftist government that wants to run your life for the betterment of  . . . whatever they want.  "First they came for the shower heads . . ."

Green Economy: Green for Those Well Connected, Apparently

President Obama was in Michigan Thursday to give money to a Korean corporation.  Apparently the new green economy means green (money) for those who are well connected.  Henry Payne of The Michigan View reports:

The president handed $150 million in stimulus money over to Korean CEO Peter Bahnsuk Kim of LG Chem. LG Chem is an $11 billion Korean conglomerate that hardly seems a candidate for the American Recovery Act.

The stimulus which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% (and it's now at nearly 10%) is now being spent on corporate welfare for foreign corporations. 

But these are the foibles of Keynesian economics which states that the government can grow the economy by spending money and it doesn't matter, apparently, how the money is spent.  Even if given to a Korean company.

Obama said his benevolence would create 300 jobs in Holland – but that’s $500,000 per job. At least it’s a bargain compared to the $ $1.25 million per job Obama spent on two solar companies in Arizona over the July 4 weekend. 

So in a "green" economy some get taxpayer (or borrowed) money from the government, and some don't.  And why do we have to give government money to these businesses to create jobs?  Because they are jobs that wouldn't exist without government money.  Which means they are jobs that will continue to keep on needing subsidies in the form of infusions of taxpayer dollars from now on.

I've got an idea.  How about stop spending money we don't have, stop threatening to raise taxes, and stop passing 2,000-page bills to regulate the economy so businesses can thrive and employ people the old fashioned way: without a government handout.

The Next Environmental Threat: Milk

The EPA was last year proposing to exempt milk(PDF file) from the Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Program.  Which means the EPA currently is enforcing milk under the SPCC rules?

Well, milk has milk fat, which is a "non-petroleum oil" which is covered under the SPCC rules, as are vegetable oils.

And according to the July 19th issue of National Review (NRODT), the EPA's proposal was rejected and milk will be regulated as if it's crude oil.

Which is strange, considering that people consume it.

Your government, keeping the environment safe from . . . food.

New Climate Threat: Anesthesia

Remember the days before anesthesia?  No, you probably don't.  But maybe you've seen the military hospital scene in Gone With the Wind.

Anyway, little did you realize that this great medical achievement was contributing to climate change.  You go in for some needed surgery, come out a climate criminal.

HealthDay reports:

Researchers determined that the use of these anesthetics by a busy hospital can contribute as much to climate change as the emissions from 100 to 1,200 cars a year, depending on the type of anesthetic used, said University of California anesthesiologist Dr. Susan M. Ryan and fellow study author Claus J. Nielsen, a computer scientist at the University of Oslo in Norway . . .

These anesthetics undergo very little metabolic change in the body, the researchers noted. When they're exhaled by patients, they're almost exactly the same as they were when administered by anesthetist. The anesthetics "usually are vented out of the building as medical waste gases," the study authors wrote in a news release. "Most of the organic anesthetic gases remain for a long time in the atmosphere where they have the potential to act as greenhouse gases."

So putting you to sleep for surgery is contributing to climate change.  Seems nothing we humans do is not harmful to the planet.  Which may be why some envirowackos think we should all be dead.

Or, I supposed, dedicated environmentalists could refuse anesthesia.  We could give them a bullet to bite on, I suppose.

Presidential Aide Warns on Climate Change

A presidential aide warned that climate change is going to have real consequences in 30 years.  As the AP reports:

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent [in 30 years].

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Oh my.  We'd better get straight to work stopping climate change.

Only one problem.  The aide was Patrick Moynihan, the President was Richard Nixon, and the year was 1969.  And the year New York and Washington D.C. were to be gone?  The year 2000.

Last I looked, New York and Washington D.C. were fine.

But what does this tell us about the "science" of global warming climate change?  Forty years ago they were predicting 10-foot sea level increases by 2000.  Didn't happen.  They were predicting 7 degree increases in temperature.  Didn't happen.

So how should we respond to today's predictions of gloom and doom?  I'd frankly put as much credence into their predictions as I would Moynihan's.  That is: none.

Water Problems with Solar Energy

As Thomas Sowell reminds us: there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

For example (hat tip: Planet Gore), in arid Arizona, the building of solar energy plants is causing controversy over where will the plants get the water they need.  Water World reports:

A new congressional report outlining the "harmful impact" to Arizona's water supplies from concentrated solar operations has stirred debate over the degree to which solar energy development can proceed in portions of the arid Southwest.

The conclusions in the 21-page policy report, compiled by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and his staff, focuses on concentrating solar power (CSP) technology, which in most cases requires significant volumes of water to wash solar panels and cool equipment. . .

Yet despite the environmental risks, Kyl and his staff say proponents of the renewable energy technology have continued to press for building more solar plants in the desert. "Despite the seriousness of [the state's] water constraints, solar power companies have largely ignored water concerns and continue to propose water-intensive conventional CSP plants in Arizona."

Kyl is unhappy about this use of Arizona's precious water:

"Arizona lawmakers have an obligation to protect the state's limited water supply and put its water resources to their highest and best use," the report states. "Using Arizona's water supplies to produce conventional CSP that will most likely be exported out of state does neither."

So what are we to do?

Well, solar energy is expensive, inefficient, unpredictable, and now uses too much water.  But it is "green" and will thus help "stop" climate change (that has been going on for millions of years any way).  Seems to me Arizona should be able to decided what to do with their water.  And more energy could come from building nuclear reactors next to rivers.  Which would be cheaper, efficient, and predictable.

It wouldn't be the perfect solution (viz. Mr. Sowell) but it would be the better trade-off.