Posted on 03/21/2014 8:27:38 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The same environmental groups that fought construction of Keystone XL are launching a new effort to prevent the United States from exporting natural gas. If they are as successful in this endeavor as they have been in delaying the pipeline, the consequences will not be limited to the U.S. economy. Preventing American natural-gas producers from doing business overseas will hamper U.S. foreign-policy goals and slow environmental progress worldwide.
On Tuesday, the Sierra Club, 350.org, and 14 other environmental groups wrote to President Obama, claiming that exports of liquefied natural gas would contribute to global warming. They called on him to oppose the exports and — “as a good-faith test case in this direction” — urged him to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct an in-depth study on the environmental impact of Maryland’s Cove Point export facility.
When projects can’t be killed outright, they can be slowly asphyxiated through years of laborious, redundant, and soporific study and review, as Keystone XL has proven. It doesn’t matter that, after five rounds of intense study, the State Department has still concluded that the pipeline would not have a significant environmental impact; it matters that, as the research dragged on, the pipeline was neither approved nor built. Green groups are trying out the same stalling tactics in their effort to prevent natural-gas exports.
But the timing of the anti-export letter is particularly gauche, given that Russian president Vladimir Putin has used his country’s energy wealth to support his aggressive foreign policy.
Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s radical executive director, claimed that “this letter is not in response to what’s happening in Crimea. But clearly it’s a big part of the conversation. The idea that U.S. gas exports could address the human-rights abuses that we’re seeing in Crimea reflects a lack of comprehension
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The greenies' outer-space stupidity on the energy front makes the Constitutional argument against the EPA's existence easier—just because people are so cold, so out of work, and so PO'd.
And all those big dams make d**n good trout tailwater fisheries.
Here in Michigan solar is fine for augmenting a traditional heating method. Most people call them south facing winders.
I’ve got pine trees on the north side of the house and leafy trees on the south. The leafy trees shade the windows during the summer and without leaves during the winter I get sunlight.
“What do these A$$H*LES think we should use instead?”
Pixie dust and dried unicorn poop. Both of which are in plentiful supply, in the alternate universe they seem to occupy.
As sholes? Is THAT what sholes are?
you forgot OPEC, they are the single largest contributor...
With modern generating technology many of the much smaller dams that were taken offline in the 40s and 50s could be returned to production greater than they were before.
From my reading the retrofits are about as expensive as erecting a windmill but the usable lifespan can be as much as 70 to 100 years with proper maintenance. You might get 10 to 20 years out of a $1.5 million windmill that produces electricity intermittently.
Dams also produce wealth through high dollar lake front property.
I’m all for using everything to produce power as long as it actually works.
...and that is always the conflict. They NEVER have an alternative solution. It's been shown clearly enough they have no interest in living in a world without electricity and modern conveniences. They just like to talk about it because it makes them feel good. That's the kind of people they are, purely selfish.
Counter intuitively Trout Unlimited spends huge bucks lobbying to get those smaller dams decommissioned and taken out, while singing the praises of tailwater fisheries below the big ones.
I’m guessing that as part of the refit the smaller dams could probably be made more efficient while also improving fish populations. You probably can have it all if people are just open to the possibilities.
The core to progressives of all stripes is they need to be needed.
The “Greens,” such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, are the agents of the People’s Republic of China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Those two entities have the most to gain from the United States not using its own plentiful natural resources. These front groups cannot finance their activities solely on grandma sending them $10 because she saw a photo of a sad looking polar bear in a mailer. Armies of lobbyists and lawyers pushing endless lawsuits cost way more than that will support.
Follow the money; I guarantee you will trace it back to foreign nations who are interested in preventing American prosperity. And those people are playing for keeps in a high stakes international game. Don’t think for a minute that they would not see support of the greens as a substantial investment, and they are getting a handsome return on it too.
Very nice. My wife and I fish the AuSable by Grayling every fall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.