One more reason why Environmental agenda hurts America

What would you do if there was a law on the books requiring gas companies to use a blend that included bio-fuel from corncobs and other similar material, but they couldn’t, because no such capability exists outside of labs?  And what would you think if our government fined them annually for failing to meet such a requirement?

Can we get to the point where we can say that fanatic environmentalism is destroying our nation, its ability to provide its own fuel, and protect itself economically and security-wise?

6 thoughts on “One more reason why Environmental agenda hurts America

  1. Doesn’t really seem like a story about fanatic environmentalism. After all, the law was signed in 2007 by hero of the environment, George W. Bush, and named the Energy Independence and Security Act, (although many of the Bush administration’s laws, it must be admitted, were named for the opposite of their effects).

    It appears Congress set an unreasonable target in this case. So change it. The $6.8 million in penalty fees, while obviously unfair, are a rounding error compared to the billions in tax breaks and subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives.

    Where the future of the country is concerned, I am much more worried about the fanatic anti-environmentalists.

  2. I wonder if this isn’t more about the corn industry than the “environmental agenda”. From what I have read bio-fuel from corn is a net-loss from an energy standpoint. As with so many things, this appears to be an industry promoting themselves as green in order to get preferential laws passed. I think cash-for-clunkers falls into a similar category. The problem isn’t the environmental agenda, it is industry exploiting environmental sympathies to give themselves a leg up.

  3. But that is part of the problem with the environmental agenda: every one calls him/herself an environmentalist and enact feel good legislation that often is unreasonable, harmful in the long run, or designed to benefit a group.
    I’m a strong environmentalist. I am NOT a feel good environmentalist. For example, I think we can manage the environment and have a good local energy program, as well.
    All this is is another big government push. Change it? Yes we need to. However, we are now several years past Pres Bush signing this, penalties are now being exacted, and no one in Washington is seriously talking about changing the law.

    For security reasons, we need to have national energy independence. Yet radical environmentalism is stopping it at every point. Fossil fuels damage, and so we cannot have new wells, new refineries, or build a pipeline. Nuclear power is protested. Solar power plants cannot be built in the sunny desert, because it disturbs the little desert animals. Wind mill farms kill birds or ruin the ocean view for the residents of Kennebunkport. I won’t even begin to speak on the issues regarding coal.

    Yes, these are issues that need to be addressed. But there has to be a balance between society’s needs and the sometimes twisted views of extreme environmentalism. And fining companies for not being in compliance, when there is no way for them to be compliant seems to be a radical departure from common sense.

  4. Rame, the answer to your question is surely, “yes.” If we were allowed to develop our own energy sources in our own country we would be free of Middle Eastern oil within a few years. We could move to the point where we didn’t have to threaten war against Iran because we would allow other countries dependent on the Straits of Hormuz to deal with that problem. So, clearly environmentalists are threatening the safety of the country.

    Wrong-headed environmentalism caused the implementation of the standards in the first place, just as wrong-headed environmentalism caused us to spend billions unnecessarily on ethanol. But it is also true that at the end of the day the politicians are responsible for not standing up to the corn industry and other lobbyists. We need to elect politicians who refuse to see the federal government as a revenue source for various causes, and unfortunately you can probably count the number of elected federal politicians who think that way on one hand.

  5. I think everyone can say they want to have a nice clean earth to be on. However, where the enviros get it wrong is that we shouldn’t use our resources. There are enough resources on this earth for the use of man, and with innovation (if the govt would get out of the way of innovators and the free market) we’d have our energy solutions. I agree with Geoff, that we need to use domestic sources that we have — coal, natural gas, shale oil etc, and make the Middle East irrelevant. Then they can just kill each other off, for whatever reason they have, and we can go on with our lives. I’m all for clean air and water, however, I think we’re to the point in this country where we’ve become our own worst enemy on enviromental issues.

  6. This seems more an issue about regulatory capture – often by certain businesses – rather than environmentalism per se. There are some really good places to attack the environmental agenda. It makes doing construction and infrastructure extremely difficult. But that’s less about environmentalism per se than it is some poorly designed bureaucratic structures that even a lot of environmentalists don’t like. One problem is of course how to make a general law that avoids tragedy of the commons issues yet is flexible enough to adjust for local differences. Think, for instance, laws about certain chemicals in water. How do you write a law that can stop chemical waste from entering ground water but simultaneously adjust for natural contaminates in certain locations? It’s a non-trivial problem.

Comments are closed.