Is Obama Actually Doing Something Right?

Barack Obama actually seems to be following through on one of his statements from the State of the Union: he is announcing an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the building of new nuclear power plants.

While this is good news, I'm still skeptical as to whether Obama will follow through: for starters, the US government does not have the money (not that that would stop them from borrowing it from China), though it is a loan program, which means that the energy companies will need to pay the money back...but the second thing that makes me skeptical is that Obama is such a stereotypical left-winger, it wouldn't surprise me if he made this announcement and then bowed to the anti-nuclear lobby and didn't follow through.  After all, as the article points out, there are no timelines for the loan guarantees, which would make it quite easy for Obama to make the announcement and then never follow through.

I'll believe it when I see it, but if it does happen, this will be a step in the right direction.

Greening California To Death

California has long been a leader in the environmentalist/global warming movement, often to its own detriment.  While it's true that California has its share of environmental problems (some of America's most polluted cities are in California - I know, I live in one), California's politicians are setting the state up for failure.

Due to California's environmental movement, forests cannot be cleared of underbrush, which regularly results in out-of-control wildfires nearly every summer (which inevitably lead to mudslides nearly every winter).  Due to the environmental movement, pumps that provide the state's agriculture center with badly-needed water have been shut down to protect the Delta smelt, a fish that lives in the Sacramento Delta.  This has cost California hundreds of jobs.  The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates the trucking industry, driving up the costs for any companies that rely on trucking to get their products from place to place, which in turn drive prices up for consumers.

The latest travesty in Californian environmental regulations is a plan to adopt a "green" building code, which no doubt will make it more difficult and more expensive for home builders to build houses and businesses to expand.  This is just what California needs: yet another regulation that will hurt businesses and drive up costs for consumers.

In a down economy, in a state that is worse off than most of the rest of the nation, more regulations are just what we need.  This is why liberalism doesn't work (by the way, Arnold may have run as a Republican, but he's never been anything approaching conservative).  It doesn't matter how bad the economy is, the government isn't going to stop spending, taxing and regulating until it's too late to fix the problem - and for California, "too late" is approaching fast.  For California, the only difference between Arnold Schwartzenegger and Gray Davis is how quickly the state goes bankrupt.

Food Shortage Problems Worsening

Food prices continue to rise, and the shortage in staple foods is having far-reaching consequences.

Now, the United Nations is getting in on the act, urging nations across the world to increase food production as food riots threaten to destabilize many already unsteady third-world nations.

Why are we having these problems? Today's food shortages are a direct result of the growing demand for ethanol for use as fuel for cars. Ethanol made from corn is in high demand, and the more farmers sell their crops to make biofuels, the less staple foods there are for the rest of the world.

These shortages are even effecting the US, the so-called "Breadbasket of the World." Unfortunately, it will likely take more than a few miffed shoppers to make the people of America wake up and smell the wheat...or lack of wheat.

On top of all of that, the shortage in food staples has driven many manufacturers of processed foods to turn to genetically engineered or altered grains in the name of saving money. With the worries around the world as to the potential side-effects of these engineered foods, this brings up even more concerns as to the true practicality of turning to corn-based ethanol for fuel.

The simple truth of it is that using corn-based ethanol was and is an ill-conceived idea, and has far-reaching side effects that will eventually cause a major backlash. No one can fault farmers for turning to crops that will make them the most money, but we can blame the green movement and the leaders in our government for encouraging the burning up of our food supply.

The United States used to literally be the Breadbasket of the World. Nations the world over depended on the United States' grain exports to feed their citizens. Now the US is burning that food in the name of energy independence and is importing grain to feed its citizens. Widespread use of corn-based ethanol is a mistake, but it's not too soon to correct that error. We can stabilize the world's food supply by turning away from this foolishness and eating our food, rather than burning it.

After all, who will benefit from cleaner air if we all starve to death?

Global Warming Movement Screws the Little Guy

The "green" movement has gotten bigger and bigger in US politics, with public schools brainwashing our children and politicians grubbing for more and more power, all in the name of "saving the planet."

Now we're starting to see the real fruits of their labor.

The push toward biofuels has driven up food prices across the globe, the green movement is having a negative effect in third world nations the world over. With heightened awareness of ethanol, farmers have been growing more and more corn, with the crops going toward ethanol production instead of food. The shortage is driving up food prices and is creating social unrest in Haiti, the Phillipines, and many African nations whose nations depend on staples such as corn and wheat for their survival.

The American Left often accuses the US of arrogance, but now again we see that true arrogance resides on the Left. They have used the green movement to justify their continued push toward socialism, and now, in their blind push toward "saving the planet," they are driving up food prices for people who already had a hard time affording enough food to survive.

By utilizing corn-based ethanol, the green movement is advocating the literal burning of our food supply, to the detriment of millions of Americans, as well as millions more across the world who depend on American food production and low food prices.

Liberals say that the world hates us because we pissed off a bunch of Islamic radicals (who were pissed off anyway) when we invaded Iraq and liberated millions of oppressed people there. Now they're poised to give the world a real reason to hate America, when the Left makes food unaffordable in the name of clean air.

We should take care of our environment, but we cannot afford to sell our souls in order to decrease pollution. We need to approach environmentalism logically, not emotionally. We need to look at all sides of the issue before handing more and more power to the government in the name of environmentalism. We need to look at how our actions will effect others, as well as how they will effect our children. Will cleaner air truly help our children if they can't afford to eat?

Absolutely Disgusting

As I was logging on to Blogger today, something caught my eye: the latest Blogger Buzz (aka "something I usually ignore altogether but caught my eye for some reason).

They are calling it the "Environmental Blog Roundup," and normally I would just ignore it as yet more global warming propaganda, but one particularly disgusting blog jumped out at me: the Rachel Carson Centennial Blog.

I have major problems with Rachel Carson. For anyone who doesn't know, Rachel Carson was a marine biologist/environmentalist who is given credit for helping to start the modern enviro-wacko movement.

Carson's defining work is a book called Silent Spring. In this book, she argues that pesticide use will inevitably lead to the deaths of animals, birds in particular, through a process called "bioaccumulation." DDT was in widespread use across the United States in an attempt to wipe out malaria. One of the side-effects of DDT was the weakening of the shells of birds' eggs. Carson argued that through bioaccumulation, birds would build up DDT in their systems, leaving their eggs constantly vulnerable to breakage, which would lead to the extinction of birds (hence the spring is silent).

The problem with Carson's premise: studies have showed that DDT does not accumulate in birds' systems. Use of DDT does temporarily weaken the shells of birds' eggs, but the problem does not persist over the long-term. In response to Carson's book, however (before these studies were completed), DDT was banned. When it comes to Rachel Carson, the most important question is this: how many people have died from malaria needlessly due to Rachel Carson's book?

Because of the ban on DDT in the US, the manufacture of DDT came to a screeching halt. US policy has worldwide effects, and the US's perception of DDT (and refusal to donate money for DDT use for malaria control in African nations...though the US would give money for other, less effective measures) has prevented effective malaria control in third-world nations across the globe. Since the publishing of Silent Spring, millions of people have died needlessly from mosquito-borne malaria.

Yes, we need to be responsible stewards of our environment...but what the enviro-wackos don't seem to understand (and haven't since Carson's day) is that overreacting based on false evidence (aka lies) helps no one.

For more information on this, I recommend the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.