Environmentalists vs. Alternative Energy

As energy prices skyrocket, so does inflation. Our personal budgets, as well as our national economy, are shriveling up. While all Americans feel the pain of higher fuel prices, and most understand the correlation between energy prices and the inflation that’s eroding their buying power and chipping away at their standard of living, not nearly as many recognize the potential impact of energy dependence on national security. Much of the world’s oil is controlled by forces that are hostile to us. Our precarious energy position makes us very vulnerable.

We need to produce more energy at home. There are two reasons we aren’t doing that today. The first reason is the cost of R&D. The U.S. has a lot of shale oil, but it’s expensive to extract. However, with the prices of oil on the global market today, it’s getting to the point where the return will justify the investment. The other reason we aren’t producing more energy is counterproductive regulations and endless litigation brought about by environmental groups.

There may be enormous reserves of oil in ANWR, but we need to do exploratory drilling to find out where they are and assess how much oil there is. Environmentalists have stymied any attempt to do that, because it might disturb the polar bears. Other countries are taking full advantage of off-shore drilling but our government won’t permit that, because it might disturb the rich and powerful environmental lobbies that help our legislators get reelected.

The environmentalists claim they oppose drilling for oil because they favor alternative energy sources that are cleaner and safer for the environment. But it turns out that the greatest opposition to alternative energy production comes from environmental groups!

Wind power is about as clean as you can get. Environmentalists used to promote it but, once massive wind farms became a reality, environmentalist groups all over the country sprang up with injunctions and litigation to shut them down because of their impact on birds, bats, and even ground squirrels.

Hydroelectric power is another source of clean energy that environmentalists used to tout. But now they want to blow up dams, and have successfully lobbied and litigated to have dams removed, at tremendous taxpayer expense, because of their impact on fish habitats.

Natural gas burns cleaner, with lower emissions than petroleum products, and even the Sierra Club initially came out in favor of it. Yet, all over the country, wherever drilling for natural gas is undertaken, or a natural gas pipeline is proposed to be built, environmentalists rear up in litigation because of speculation about the potential harmful consequences of potential leaks.

Geothermal power is an interesting concept, because it’s clean and safe and permanent. It doesn’t vary with the weather, and it can never be depleted. Yet, the Sierra Club’s Juniper Group is litigating to prevent an exploratory project for development of a geothermal plant on a 5-acre parcel outside Oregon’s Newberry Crater, which is one of the most promising geothermal resources in the world. There is no specific threat to the environment or habitat of any particular species. They’re just concerned that having the project so close to a national monument might have a potential impact on forests or wildlife.

There are many more examples of environmentalists opposing alternative energy. But what does it all mean? They tout alternative energy until it starts to become a reality, and then they start backpedaling and litigating to thwart it. Is it just because they can’t accept the idea that any kind of energy production will necessarily entail environmental tradeoffs? (See What Have Progressives Got Against Progress?) Or is there some other agenda that motivates them to try to block every avenue of energy independence? I believe many of them are simply naive, and haven’t thought it through. But the consequences of their good intentions affect us all.

There’s a group in Oregon, called Lights On Oregon, that has launched a Campaign for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) in our state. If you’re a resident of Oregon, you might want to consider signing the petition. If you’re not a resident of Oregon, you can contact the national headquarters of FreedomWorks to see if they have a project like Lights On Oregon in your state.


Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it Stumble It! add to del.icio.us
Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/environmentalists-vs-alternative-energy/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

20 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. “But it turns out that the greatest opposition to alternative energy production comes from environmental groups!”

    Yet more Right-wing canards. The biggest opposition to the deployment & further research of alternative energies is the fossil fuel & nuclear industries and their Right-wing shills.

    “Environmentalists used to promote it but, once massive wind farms became a reality, environmentalist groups all over the country sprang up with injunctions and litigation to shut them down because of their impact on birds, bats, and even ground squirrels.”

    Baloney…a vast majority of the environmental community has embraced wind energy technology a looong time ago. The opposition that I’ve seen up close mostly relies on ignorance and “esthetic” concerns.

    “But now they want to blow up dams, and have successfully lobbied and litigated to have dams removed, at tremendous taxpayer expense, because of their impact on fish habitats.”

    This happens on a very, very small scale. In VT, I’ve never seen a dam removed that was actually producing electricity.

    “There is no specific threat to the environment or habitat of any particular species.”

    That’s certainly not what they say, but I’m sure the actual truth lies somewhere between their concerns and your non-concerns.

    FreedomWorks?!?!? LOL!!!! I am WELL versed in their opposition to everything that relates to alternative energy (due to their Big Oil & other fossil fuel contributors). They have yet to find an alternative energy project that they like at the federal level. You’ve got to *kidding* me by touting them as a source of real support for alternative energy…just read their national blog! What a joke…

  2. Just because someone supports drilling for fossil fuels doesn’t make them against alternative energy. It’s not an either/or situation. I support alternative energy, and I’m enough of a realist to understand that over 86% of our energy today comes from fossil fuels. We can’t change that overnight. Even as we invest in alternative energy sources, we need to continue to drill for fossil fuels to keep our economy running. As much as some people would like to see it come to a grinding halt, because they think that would make the switch to alternative energy happen faster, it wouldn’t. It would only slow down progress of all sorts. Also, an economic collapse would put us at the mercy of our enemies, in a very real sense.

    The production of energy from all sources available is necessary to sustain our economy for both the present and the future.

  3. “Just because someone supports drilling for fossil fuels doesn’t make them against alternative energy.”

    If you’re trying to speak about FreedomWorks, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about…they pooh-pooh every single form of alternative energy in existance and champion every fossil fuel or nuclear energy initiative.

    “I’m enough of a realist to understand that over 86% of our energy today comes from fossil fuels. We can’t change that overnight.”

    No one is proposing an “overnight” solution…that’s another strawman argument that’s meant to further push the USA getting off the finite energy kick further & further into the future. There are plenty of states & countries around the world that have a better record RIGHT NOW when it comes to alternative energy use.

    “As much as some people would like to see it come to a grinding halt”

    Like who?? We’ve been over all of this before NYD…

  4. Environmentalists used to promote it but, once massive wind farms became a reality, environmentalist groups all over the country sprang up with injunctions and litigation to shut them down because of their impact on birds, bats, and even ground squirrels.

    True.

    Baloney…a vast majority of the environmental community has embraced wind energy technology a looong time ago. The opposition that I’ve seen up close mostly relies on ignorance and “esthetic” concerns.

    False.

    Evidence has been mounting that, while seldom actually struck by turbine blades, incredible numbers of bats are killed by the sudden decompression; their lungs explode, and they drown in mid-flight. As bats are important pollinators and insect controllers, this development has begun to re-ignite opposition to wind farms. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080826/canada/us_science_bats

  5. Come on now…only the most extreme, unrealistic, tree-hugging “environmentalists” would embrace the kind of strawman argument that has been posed by NYD. Bats vs. clean, renewable energy…the vast majority of enironmentalists would choose the latter, period.

  6. I find it ironic that Obama’s largest campaign contributor for a long time was Exelon (they are no longer his largest contributor), the largest nuclear operator in the country, based in Chicago. Yet he opposes nuclear energy and opposes Yucca Mountain.
    The problem with the liberals is that they all will say “give us wind power” but as soon as a capitalist tries to put one up, the Sierra Club will fund a lawyer to try and kill it. Plus they are a bunch on NIMBYS.
    I’ll believe the liberals really embrace alternative energy when there are windmills on Martha’s Vineyard and when Al Gore’s house is more energy efficient that Crawford Ranch, where Bush stays (when he ought to be governing, but that’s another story)
    check it out:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
    Liberals need to STFU until they walk the walk. I’m tired of their talk, it’s hot air. Obama’s mouth alone could power a small town.

  7. “…the vast majority of enironmentalists would choose the latter, period.”

    Again, you are wrong, and only have your opinion to spout. If that were true, the Eastern New England seaboard would be covered with Windfarms, yet the Kennedys (‘lil Bobby leading the way) are the ones leading the fight to keep the wind farms away.

    http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html
    http://thissphere.blogspot.com/2006/01/bobby-kennedy-jr-and-bill-mckibben.html

    Note in the context of Kennedys own article, the number birds and ducks that will be killed by the blades, even your own people are divided on the notion of wind, you should check the accuracy of your talking points before posting them.

    The above links Comrade Guy, are known as “FACTS” which can be debated. You should try using some, is fun!

  8. “Yet he opposes nuclear energy”

    Wrong again Taco:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

    “-GovWatch: Supports nuclear power if it’s clean & safe. (Jun 2008)
    -Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism. (Sep 2007)
    -Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007)
    -Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
    -Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)”

    Ah, the Right-wing canard of Al Gore’s house…as it’s already been discussed here before in this very blog:

    bravenewfilms.org/blog/8163-debunking-the-bunk-the-truth-about-al-gore-s-lifestyle

    The Gores do, in fact, apparently use more energy each month than the average American uses each year…and it’s ALL green, renewable power…so what?? The Gores have signed up for a local program (like a lot of states have BTW) to get ALL of his power from green, renewable sources of energy. When you are generating some of your own power (using solar panels & a geothermal energy system) and using renewable sources of power otherwise, what you consume in terms of energy doesn’t really matter much IMO.

    “Al Gore’s family has signed up for 100% percent green power through Green Power Switch.” Can YOU say the same??

    Again, speaking about Gore:
    “He has created a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.”

    No one with any seriousness on the Left is advocating a “cap” on the amount of KWs that a person can use in a day/month/year or “downsizing our lifestyles”. What we would merely like is that our power be generated from renewable (non-finite), non-polluting (or minimally polluting) sources, and that, in the meantime, people are empowered to choose to not waste the “dirty” power that they are using. If someone (Al Gore for instance) is generating their own clean power for their own use, who are we to dictate how he uses that power? If we are getting our power from clean energy sources, whether you or I are leaving the lights on all day should be a function of how much we’re willing to pay on our respective electric bills, period. A clean, renewable resource is one that will NEVER run out…you can *never* use too much of it.

    “If that were true, the Eastern New England seaboard would be covered with Windfarms”

    It’s also too bad that this subject as well has been beaten to death in this very blog before…not that you would know or care about that “DJ”…lol…

    This from a Right-wing source:
    archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/27/113830.shtml

    “Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has called for a ban on all wind turbines within 1.5 nautical miles of shipping and ferry lanes, The Washington Post reports.

    Young cited research in Britain suggesting that the wind turbines’ huge blades could interfere with shipboard radar, and he singled out the Cape Wind site – close to sea routes between the Cape and the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard”

    “a contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers stated that the wind farm ‘is not expected to create negative impacts to navigational safety.’”

    I know that area around Cape Cod very well, and, personally, I think it’s kind of weird place for a wind farm. One good winter storm or a hurricane, and I those windmills would all be gone…better to locate them on land IMO.

    “even your own people are divided on the notion of wind”

    Bill McKibben is pretty much a fool IMO. Let me know when you guys have anything NEW to discuss…lol…

  9. From your article Comrade Guy;

    “…in 2003 a contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers stated that the wind farm “is not expected to create negative impacts to navigational safety.””

    “Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drum for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.””

    “Sen. Kennedy publicly called for further study of the project – but “privately, he tried to get the study canceled,””

    Yeah they REALLY support Wind Power-as long as it doesn’t interfere with their sailing…LOL.

    Face it Comrade Guy, the Kennedys talk a good game, but as with ALL Liberal policies, it is merely a game. THe Kennedy clan do not want Wind on the Eastern seaboard, they do not want Nuclear in New England, and they don’t understand what Solar power is. YOU, sir, may support all those forms of energy, as do I , but PLEASE quit trying to defend the Kennedys, they are not on your side on this.

    This link refutes your “belief” that Al Gore is Green,
    http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367,

    One thing I would like to point out, as long as the man is paying for what he is using, who cares how much he uses?

    Most Envoronmetalists praise the Toyota Prius as well as most (if not all Hybrids), here are a couple interesting articles that challenge the Eco-friendliness of Hybrids:

    http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental-damage/

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

    The whole Global Waming-Climate Change thing is a HUGE scam. People who live in the Midwest and on the East Coast experience “climiate Change” 4 times a year, the junk science used to “support” the climate-change-is-mans-fault mantra fails to acount for the signifcant changes the Earth has ALWAYS gone through. Here is a somwhat lengthy but VERY informative video for those with an open mind:

    http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

  10. “they do not want Nuclear in New England”

    We already have nuclear plants in New England you fool.

    “This link refutes your ‘belief’ that Al Gore is Green”

    LOL!!! Like I said before, this issue has been throughly discussed in this blog before, and you’re on the losing side. The “TN Center for Policy Research” is a Right-wing organization that was out to smear Gore with lies about how his house was powered, and the link that *I* posted was in repsonse to these baloney claims from that organization.

    “challenge the Eco-friendliness of Hybrids”

    You must be kidding me…hybrids are, at best, another stop-gap measure until we totally get off our “addiction to oil” (GWB’s words, not mine). They can, with some very small modifications, be turned into plug-in hybrids that basically use no gas at all. The idea that anyone in their right mind would favor a Hummer over ANY hybird in the long-run is simply ludicrous. If you want to listen to a bunch of bogus, Right-wing “futurists” on this issue…that’s your problem…

    “That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius”

    “their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America”

    This is all complete & total fiction. I also love how your second article almost completely contradicts the first one when it comes to the amount of environmental “destruction” that’s caused when assembling the parts for a Prius…LOL!!!

    “CNW’s study does not include any specific information on its methodology or data sources, and it does not at all agree with the bulk of scientific studies on vehicle lifecycle analysis, many of which conclude that about 85 percent of total lifetime energy use occurs in driving the vehicle.”

    “the study uses an unrealistically low estimated lifetime for hybrids, and that there’s no data to support its assumptions in this.”

    So much for your pathetic attempt to smear hybrids…what a joke! Thanks for wasting our time…

    “The whole Global Waming-Climate Change thing is a HUGE scam.”

    Did I ever say that I believed in it in the first place?!?! Again, this issue has been THOROUGHLY discussed in this blog before, and I DON’T believe in global warming tyvm. I also know a hell of a lot more about the issue of “climate” than you do “DJ”.

  11. “I also know a hell of a lot more about the issue of “climate” than you do “DJ”.”

    Perhaps you do, and it is irrelevant.

    I posted both articles to allow for a decent discussion on Hybrids, since decent discussion is WAY over your head Comrade guy, lets get into the nuts and bolts shall we, the only study I found was the one done by CNW, each and every “rebuttal” has nothing but leftist swill and the old “they lied” and “its all false” and “who can HONESTLY say a Hummer is better on the environment than a Prius” statements, again, NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY FACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED which refutes the article from CNW. Find some facts that say otherwise and lets debate.

    Face it Comrade Guy, you and your lefty friends don’t give a damn about the environment! Hell George W. Bushs house is as green as they get, yet no one seems to give him his props for that- lemme guess, he WAS given props at some previous time on this blog?

  12. “I posted both articles to allow for a decent discussion on Hybrids”

    YOU posted two articles that almost completely & totally *contradict* one another…did you even bother to READ them first?! The fact is that you just don’t know the difference between people that are obviously shilling for Hummers and an actual, scientific study. Once again though, that’s YOUR problem, not mine.

    “Face it Comrade Guy, you and your lefty friends don’t give a damn about the environment!”

    You’re projecting again “DJ”…

    “he WAS given props at some previous time on this blog?”

    For being someone that actually cared about the environment?? Not that I can ever remember…it’s not my blog…

  13. Where is your evidence FOR Hybrids Comrade Guy?

    “You’re projecting again “DJ”…”

    What am I projecting Comrade?

    “Not that I can ever remember…it’s not my blog…”

    Of course you don’t “remember” it is not in you DNA to remember a positive comment about W. Although, with EVERY other thing you “remember” being discussed here, it is quite shocking you fail to recall a positive comment regarding George W. Bush (no really I mean that…lol)

  14. “Where is your evidence FOR Hybrids Comrade Guy?”

    It’s in that second article that you posted…thanks for doing my work for me…LOL!

    “What am I projecting Comrade?”

    The fact that you “don’t give a damn about the environment!” Your side favors business interests almost the exclusion of everything else, period.

    “it is quite shocking you fail to recall a positive comment regarding George W. Bush”

    Well, NYD does not claim to be a huge fan of GWB…I’ve sure YOU are though “DJ”. Take it up with NYD then. As for everything else that’s been discussed here and elsewhere on this blog, I would point you here:

    notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/save-the-dinosaurs/

    The issues that you keep bringing up are, in fact, old issues that have been debated to the nth degree. You really have NOTHING new to say about them…

  15. Nice and usefull post, thanks, this is one for my bookmarks!

  16. A few years ago i got some of that junk mail from the SIERRA CLUB they wanted me to send in their stupid post cards to oppse oil drilling in the ANWR saying this poppycock bull kaka that its a fragile area WHAT A LOAD OF GREEN BULLS*** the area is not fragile and neither is the earth i support the alaskans not abunch of lying radical eco-freaks like the SIERRA CLUB or GREENPEACE

  17. Beware, European stupidity is coming to a city or state near you. Laws are passed to force the local utility to buy over priced green energy. The cost is naturally passed on to you. The green economists apparently have not learned from how much damage the recent high oil and gasoline prices did to the economy. Nor do they realize that the present weak recovery is due more to the drop in those oil and gasoline prices, than to the brilliance of Obama The Great. I offer the following site.

    http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=121334

    The green idiots believe that increasing electrical costs on consumers will create far more jobs than it destroys. Higher costs retard economic activity.

    Historically economic growth was fueled by new technologies which cut costs. Look it up Mister Guy. Now we are being told that economic growth will be fueled by new technologies which increase costs. If you believe that,I can sell you some Bernie Maddof shares at a really good price.

    Unfortunately the change that has come in the last election has been a collective lowering of IQ.

  18. Nice article Hope to visit again,,

  19. […] to generate alternative energy due to the equipment’s effects on local wildlife. (From the“Government is Not Your Daddy” […]

  20. […] local Oregon blog recently picked up on Lights on Oregon. This particular blogger leans to the right, however, […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: