NBC Showcases Man “Changing Parties” Over “Bush Energy Policies”

Media Research Center ^ | 12-5-03 | Medial Reseach Center

[FlyLow]

Five months after President Bush issued an executive order to allow oil and gas drilling in some Western federal lands, NBC found it suddenly newsworthy -- just as soon as they located a single Republican guy in Montana upset about it. “If it passes as written, it could open up some pristine Rocky Mountain areas to oil and gas drilling,” NBC anchor Tom Brokaw warned before noting how NBC’s Jim Avila found “that has stunned even some of the President’s supporters in those areas.” Avila showcased “a lifetime Republican, one of the Westerners who helped George Bush win all but five Western states” who is “now changing parties because of Bush energy policies.”

Brokaw introduced the December 3 story, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: “The administration’s energy bill, which is now bottled up in Congress, is another flashpoint between environmentalists and the President’s supporters. If it passes as written, it could open up some pristine Rocky Mountain areas to oil and gas drilling. As NBC’s Jim Avila reports tonight, that has stunned even some of the President’s supporters in those areas.”

Avila found a disillusioned Republican: “Raw, untamed Montana. The Rocky Mountain front where flat plains crash into America’s highest peaks. Not a national park, no distinct boundaries. Just harsh land and wildlife from grizzlies to wolves, unchained since Lewis and Clark first saw it 200 years ago.” Carl Rappold, rancher: “This is wild country here.” Avila: “The Rappolds homesteaded here a generation later, now fighting to protect their Montana homeland from natural gas drilling. Energy companies want six to eight wells along the front.” Rappold: “I’m really mad about it. We need some of these places left just the way they are, just the way nature created them.” Avila: “Rappold is a lifetime Republican, one of the Westerners who helped George Bush win all but five Western states.” Rappold: “My family has always voted Republican.” Avila: “Now changing parties because of Bush energy policies.” Rappold: “I think it’s going to have a big impact on the presidential election.” Avila: “In fact, the August presidential order lifting environmental restrictions against drilling in seven Western areas, including the Rocky Mountain Front, has angered and now linked three very different interest groups: environmentalists, ranchers, and hunters.” Bill Orcello, hunter: “The first environmentalists, as they say, were hunters.” Avila: “Bill Orcello and Eric Grove, two of 47 million hunters in the United States, roaming the Front for pheasants.” Eric Grove, hunter: “If you’re going to support hunters, then you need to support wildlife habitat.” Avila: “The Bush administration and energy companies argue the nation can have its gas and wildlife, too, claiming wells cause no harm to wildlife. And unlike this Canadian gas field just across the border, will use new technology to leave just a small footprint.” Gail Abercrombie, Montana Petroleum Association: “Energy production and wildlife habitat can coexist. There are protections in place in the regulatory framework to protect the wildlife habitat. Energy production can be done so that the wildlife is protected.” Avila: “But for Carl Rappold, wilderness, by definition, is no longer wilderness when altered by roads, drills and wells.” Rappold: “If we’re this short of gas that we have to ruin every last piece of ground, it’s time we found a new source of energy.” Avila concluded: “The words of a former Republican now voting with environmentalists because he feels the land is threatened. Jim Avila, NBC News, Chicago.”

[tbpiper]

..enlighten all us poor white trash types as to just how the billions spent on the manned space program are responsible...

It was a forcing function.

[deport]

I think the problem with natural gas is the sudden increase in demand caused by dozens and dozens of gas fired power plants.

---

It was either gas fired or coal plants since I don't believe there's been a nuclear unit licensed stateside in the last 25 years or more. Natural gas offers ease of transport, clean, economical, etc but I still think it should be limited and reserved for the value it has other than heat.

At some point in time they will produce electricity off the coast of CA and other places in the ocean using the temperature difference top to bottom of the ocean water of just a few degrees. I think they have a few small units running in some places like Hawaii. I'm not sure what the break even cost is of that technology is today...

Passive solar is fine but it takes people who will adjust to using it rather than the normal mentality of flipping a switch for instant power/heat/cool.

Take care.

[Iconoclast2]

If that were true, the government wouldn't be subsidizing it with large tax credits. Nor is it competitive with base load power plants because it is intermittent in nature. It can never be more than a niche source because it cannot serve base loads without batteries/pumped storage or other things that make it even more expensive. Eventually, perhaps, there will be a hydrogen-based economy in which it can be converted to hydrogen, but that is decades or centuries away given huge, untapped petro sources.

What do you mean by "ptc"?

[Steve_Seattle]

I've always wondered why - for environmentalists - the sight of ten oil drilling rigs is a blight on the environment, but 4,000 wind-powered generators scattered accross the plains would be just fine.

[Flightdeck]

What is unconstitutional about the manned space program, newgeezer?

An often over-looked benefit of manned space flight is its purpose as fuel for development of the next generation of scientists. Thousands of intelligent people bust their ass getting PhD's and basically become model citizens in the hopes that one day they will be selected. A few do, and the rest become a decent portion of the top-notch people that make America the technology giant it is. Also, the argument of "What has it produced for us so far?" is historically a mistake. Mathematicians do completely useless stuff their whole lives, but nobody complains. You should know why, biblewonk: because years later completely useless expressions all of sudden describe exactly the algorithms used in microprocessors. Not that the manned space program has even been completely useless. The rocket technology developed during Apollo (specifically because we needed men on the moon) now protects us in the form of Tomahawk cruise missiles. In fact, the tragedy of Columbia overshadowed the great success they had on that mission in obtaining the first photographs of unknown upper-atmosphere electric discharges. Understanding and harnessing the power of the global electric circuit would make the program worth every penny in a single shot. When stupid liberals ask why we even think America is so great anyway, I just think "We put 12 men on &$%!& moon, that's why." The manned space program is the physical embodiment of the purpose of all education in every subject: explore and investigate what you don't know. Only good things can come out of it.

[biblewonk]

For some people walking on the moon is an exciting technological challenge. For others, like me, renewable energy is. Every piece of your rationale could just as easily be applied to the engineers who design windmills. If you did, I'd actually buy it.

The difference is that windmills are profitable and produce something. Walking on the moon is neither.

[Iconoclast2]

Actually, the enviros oppose windmills when in their own backyard. Most oppose everything, advancing alternatives only in the context of stopping something else.

They are crippling and de-industrializing the country, particularly in the Northwest where I live. And the unions whose jobs they are eliminating seem to be controlled by Commies who want to weaken America, so there is not even any political backlash from those most affected. It is all very depressing.

[newgeezer]

Your reflections on the space program were quite touching. But, especially with regard to continuation of the manned program, how is it Constitutional?

The powers of the Federal government are clearly defined (common defense, general welfare, regulate commerce, etc.). I find nothing to justify any spending on manned space exploration, especially now that we've all but perfected the art of remote control. And, Mars?! I say let the armchair Captain Kirks fund their own #@^% hobby, like (most of) the rest of us.

[newgeezer]

Your partial response would seem to imply that you were just blowing smoke with your previous statement, "If it weren't for the 'foolishly spent billions' of the manned space program, you would not now have the computer on which you bitch."

If so, thanks for admitting it. Aside from the occasional and/or accidental by-product, NASA's manned space program amounts to precious little more than publicly-funded, pork-barrel joyrides for a lot of so-called "conservative," armchair Captain Kirks.

But, if not, let's have those facts about how and why NASA's billions spent on manned space missions was the only way to get our bitchin' PCs.

[biblewonk]

If that were true, the government wouldn't be subsidizing it with large tax credits. Nor is it competitive with base load power plants because it is intermittent in nature. It can never be more than a niche source because it cannot serve base loads without batteries/pumped storage or other things that make it even more expensive. Eventually, perhaps, there will be a hydrogen-based economy in which it can be converted to hydrogen, but that is decades or centuries away given huge, untapped petro sources.

How do you define a niche source? By that I mean, what percent of the national power consumption must windpower be able to provide to not be considered a niche source. By the wording you use I believe you are describing the little toys the people use to power their houses to get "off grid". I'm speaking of utility scale wind farms with 50-90 meter windmills.

What do you mean by "ptc"?

Production Tax Credit.

[John Lenin]

May your next heart surgery be performed on equipment getting it's power from the wind. Pray for a windy day.

[Plutarch]

Newgeezer:

Below are photographs of windmills, and oil derricks. Is there an esthetic difference, aside from oil derricks tend to be in out of the way places, and windmills are prominently displayed on otherwise pristine hilltops?

These monstrosities are festooned all over what would otherwise be the scenic Altamont Pass. I suspect they generate more Govt. Subsidy $$$ for the owners than electricity for Californians.

Please disabuse me of my mistaken notion that windmills are ugly, noisy, subsidy dependent despoilers of our landscape.

[international american]

"That's not the point of the post. The point of the posting is the blatant bias in the reporting. Like the original poster asked, when will NBC feature some dude POed at the Democrats?"

NBC......fair and balanced.........ROTFLMAO!!

[biblewonk]

I was hoping for intelligent discussion. Could you have picked a bigger liberal for a SN?

[biblewonk]

It was either gas fired or coal plants since I don't believe there's been a nuclear unit licensed stateside in the last 25 years or more. Natural gas offers ease of transport, clean, economical, etc but I still think it should be limited and reserved for the value it has other than heat.

The fuel price alone for natural gas fired plants is 5 cents per kwhr. That price fluxuates wildly based on other demands. The fuel price for coal plants is probably about a penny per kwhr. Obvously it's free for wind power. Wind power is already competitive on price with gas but will have to be developed more to compete with coal.

Passive solar is fine but it takes people who will adjust to using it rather than the normal mentality of flipping a switch for instant power/heat/cool.

Passive solar just means your house is way cheaper to heat. My parents heat their house for about 150 bucks per year, with electricity, here in cold ole Iowa. That's about 1/10 to 1/20 as much as a standard house.

[John Lenin]

I'm just pointing out that wind power should only be used as a backup source for energy. Would you dare heat you home with windpower in Minnesota ? I didn't think so.

[biblewonk]

I'm just pointing out that wind power should only be used as a backup source for energy. Would you dare heat you home with windpower in Minnesota ? I didn't think so.

I can see right now yer mind aint right. First we don't heat with electricity, especially in Minnesota. Second we are talking about large windmills feeding a grid. Have you heard of the grid? It is a network that connects hundreds of sources of electricity to millions of users.

What do you suppose happens to that grid when your kid turns on a light in his bedroom?

[newgeezer]

I'm sure there was a time when people lamented the aesthetics of littering our pristine countryside (not to mention the wide swaths cut through the forests) with such mostrosities as those towers employed to support high-voltage electrical wires. D*mn those ugly things; why can't people just be happy with oil lamps?!

Same goes for highways, airports, etc., etc. Noisy, ugly, ruining good land, tearing down some beautiful old buildings, blah, blah, blah.

aside from oil derricks tend to be in out of the way places

With the exception of a few, all of the 500 or so windmills I've ever seen in person have been in out-of-the-way places in Iowa and Minnesota. The few were single turbines situated in or near small towns. But, Senator Kennedy, if you don't like the idea of having windmills in your backyard or in your "pristine" places, go ahead and fight to block their construction or have them removed. Let me assure you, just as there are those who think beachfront property is not spoiled by rocket launchpads and/or private boat clubs, there are plenty of us who think wind turbines are beautiful. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you'd rather pay higher and higher prices for natural gas and crude oil than look at a windmill, make your voice heard. By the way, my fossil fuel of choice for generating electricity is coal. How about that for ruining your landscape? Oh, you probably don't live near any sizable coal deposits. Nevermind.

As for the numbers and the noise and the subsidies, go look for some data from this century, and stop looking at those puny little toy antiques at Altamont Pass. Otherwise, you might as well be saying the automobile will never replace the passenger train for cross-country travel, based on your continuing experience riding in the back seat of a Model 'T'.

[deport]

Passive solar just means your house is way cheaper to heat.

---

Well where heating is important, but to some of us it's not... Cooling is the major item by far. Houses can be designed and constructed with todays technology to reduce the heat gain/loss to very minimal numbers... Almost to the point of an unsafe inside environment due to lack of air changes...

[John Lenin]

My mind isn't right ? Who is it that wants to count on a source of power that is not reliable ? Ever been to Palm Springs ? About 1/3 of the windmills are operating on any given day, with or without the wind blowing. And than lets talk about the visual pollution of seeing thousands of 200 foot high windmills trashing up the landscape. What happens at night when the wind stops blowing, do you go back to candles and a fireplace ?