This week is our 5th annual “Conservative Awareness Week”.  The week
signifies a public declaration that contrary to conventional wisdom,
conservatism is alive and well on college campus.  We have a slate of
fun events throughout the week that celebrate conservative principles
of free-markets, freedom, patriotism, and activism  on campus.  Here
is a list of the great events we have for the week.  All events will
have food provided for attendees.  Join us and other conservatives on
campus to keep this great tradition alive.

Conservative Awareness Week
Everyone is invited!

Monday: Mississippi River clean-up and BBQ
3:30pm-6:00pm at East River Flats (behind Coffman)

Tuesday: Poker Tournament (GREAT prizes like a 24″ T.V., 2 TB external
hard drive, and more)
6:00pm Coffman President’s room

Wednesday: Watch the presidential candidates debate
Campus Club in Coffman (4th floor) at 7:00pm

Thursday: Dinesh D’Souza lecture
8:00pm in Smith 100 (East Bank)

Friday: Issues and Policy Workshop
12:15pm-1:20pm in Mondale Hall 50

Visit our facebook group at:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=223017151097445

Moreover, a Las Vegas Review-Journal article added that this figure is barely over half of the number of jobs brought to the Las Vegas area when The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, a luxury casino resort, opened late last year. In regards to specific segments of the green industry in Nevada, a 48-megawatt solar plant in Nevada received $55 million in federal and state tax credits to hire five new employees while $61.5 million worth of stimulus money was granted to Enel Green Power’s geothermal projects.

However, the geothermal projects only employ 25 people. The anemic number of jobs created and saved combined with the high amount of capital invested in them is certainly not what Senator Harry Reid had envisioned when he declared his state the Saudi Arabia of solar and geothermal energy.

Such figures only reveal a fraction of a national phenomenon of waste.

The BlueGreen Alliance, which is composed of labor unions and environmentalists, has found that the Obama Administration has spent $93 billion saving or creating 1 million green jobs across the nation. Thus, each green job in question has required $93,000 to be created or saved from the budgetary ax. Amazingly, this is a low estimate.

The Washington Post has estimated that only 225,000 green energy jobs have been saved or created with $90 billion, at the rate of $400,000 per job!

While these green jobs do benefit the planet and are positive presences in and of themselves, the ridiculously high amount of financial subsidies that have been used to create and keep these jobs indicates governmental irresponsibility. Just as well, the shockingly small amount of green jobs created and kept with such a high price tag points to the severe need for the green energy industry to go through many more years of innovation until it can provide a sufficient number of jobs with minimal government intervention.

In a summer that provided record breaking heat and plenty of stormy weather around the country a Detroit Edison executive noted that the utility’s ability to prevent blackouts will be strained.

Despite the heat this year Detroit Edison has produced 26 percent more energy than demand requires.  To date Detroit Edison has been extremely well-equipped to overcome strain on the power grid. As a result Michiganders suffering from this summer’s extraordinary heat have been free to let their air conditioners run cooler, longer, and cheaper.

Once Detroit Edison shuts down 10 power-plants plants, instead of putting them through a very expensive renovation process to meet overly-strict new EPA standards, the 26 percent surplus will shrink to a mere six percent surplus, well below the average industry-wide energy reserve of 12 percent.

Because DTE, Detroit Edison’s parent utility company doesn’t want the excess production capacity to drop to such a low level it plans to replace the shuttered plants-to-be with natural gas plants, as they comply with current EPA standards.  Still, these plants will be more expensive to run, placing a burden on consumers across the board. Business owners and manufacturers will have their profit margins reduced and the handicapped and elderly many of which may no longer be able to afford air conditioning and/or other even more vital electronic services.

Such is life in today’s era of environmental alarmism, where reducing environmental impact takes precedence over job retention and quality of life, and sadly, even life itself

Radical Environmental Law Pulls the Plug on Nations Most Vulnerable

.

Light Bulb Bullies

The impending congressional ban and phase-out of the sale of incandescent light bulbs has met opposition from CFACT since its inception.  It opposes three of CFACT’s four tenets: Prospering Lives, Promoting Progress, and Protecting the Earth.  This is because the ban and the resulting prominence of Mercury-containing compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) creates a two-fold violation of the tenants: 1. A CFL bulb breakage in the home will become more dangerous to humans than in the past with incandescent bulbs due to Mercury exposure; and 2. Careless disposal of CFL bulbs will be detrimental to the environment.  Not to mention, the last of the American incandescent light bulb factories are being shuttered, while CFL factories are being established abroad.  The EPA has chosen to overlook the environmental concerns that arise from CFLs in deference to the popular term in our political lexicon, “energy efficiency.”

The Better Use of Bulbs Act, or BULB Act, was an attempt within the House – led by Representative Joe Barton of Texas – to repeal the ban and allow consumers to purchase incandescent bulbs after this year.  Unfortunately, it did not gain the required two-thirds majority to pass.

I have two slight, and I mean slight, grievances with Rep. Barton’s bill, and they relate to both the timing of its proposal – during a heated federal budget debate – and the message brought forth by the bill’s author and co-sponsors.  In regards to messaging, the BULB Act seemed to be advertised as a chance to usurp the power of a malevolent, industry-constricting government.  While such a message is not necessarily bad, those that advocated for the BULB Act (almost exclusively Republicans) allowed that message to dominate.  This paved the way for the BULB Act to be trivialized by the media as well as some Democrats who may have otherwise voted for it.  Fewer references were made to the environmental hazards that CFL bulbs create as well as how CFLs and incandescent bulbs should continue to be sold together in stores under the auspices of a free market, allowing competition to improve both products.  If these concerns were emphasized more heavily, and brought forth in less politically tense times, bi-partisan support may have resulted.

The most important thing to notice in this case is the footnote: ‘The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.’  This shows a change in the court’s dynamic.  In 2007 the court ruled that the EPA could regulate green house gases to combat global warming.

Supreme Court justices vote based on a number of factors.  First and foremost, they vote for what they believe, but they are restrained in what exactly they do.  For an opinion to become precedent, at least 5 justices need to sign on to it.  Since all justices believe different things, the opinion needs to be crafted in a way that they can all support.  In this case, taking a neutral stance on climate change was needed to gain a majority support.  This is significant, and just the beginning.

Our boat’s low height above the water – freeboard, in technical terms – meant that we usually could fit underneath the bridge without needing to wait for the middle section to lift.  In fact, the only times we ever needed to wait for the bridge to lift was in the spring, when the last of the melted snow water and heavy rains temporarily swelled the river.

Obviously, news that the Stillwater Lift Bridge will remain raised and closed to traffic in the event of a state shutdown has a personal connection to me.  I am dismayed to hear that this will be the case if the government shuts down, mainly due to the fact that a Minneapolis Star Tribune article states that 18,000 vehicles cross the bridge daily, while “dozens” of large boats cross beneath it each day.  This is because the state considers river navigation to be more important than traffic.  I shouldn’t consider this much of a surprise considering the fact that the state seems to currently prioritize rail transit over roads, but that’s another issue.  The river navigation that occurs underneath the bridge is recreational in nature.  The river is a federally protected waterway and tugs and barges are nonexistent.  It’s ludicrous to prioritize recreational travel and recreational use of the environment over work-based travel.  If the state government shuts down, I would prefer to see the bridge remain down so that a bad commute is not worsened for those that use the bridge on a daily basis.  It would allow those who dock their boats north of the bridge to have a reason to explore the wonders of the vacant, serene, and absolutely gorgeous stretch of river north of the lift bridge.

Currently the government spends huge amounts of money on ethanol subsidies.  Their logic is, that if they incentivize farmers to produce corn for use as ethanol, then our dependence on oil will end.  There are a couple problems with their logic, however.

The government is spending a lot of money on this project.  This adds to our national debt, and disrupts the flow of the market.  None of this is beneficial.  In the government’s push for renewable energy, they have only added to the 14 trillion dollar deficit our country faces.  With a deficit this large, private sector investment decreases.  Decreasing investment means less money being put into reliable energy research.  Our dependence on foreign oil will never end if this continues.  Ethanol subsides need to be cut.

Additionally, this attributes to rising food prices.  When it suddenly becomes more profitable to produce corn for ethanol rather than food, farmers follow the money.  Generally, if something is more profitable it is because there is a demand for it. By following the demand, the farmer would simply be giving the public what it wants.  In this case, however, there is not overwhelming demand for ethanol.  Rather, it is a government created demand that is causing a misuse of supply.  With more corn going to ethanol production instead of food production, corn prices rise.  Corn is a common ingredient in many food products and the rising price contributes to food prices across the board being raised.

The government needs to cut ethanol subsides and let our farmers produce what the people demand.  Disrupting the economic flow is counterproductive, and this needs to be changed.

How our government subsidizes job, wealth, revenue and people-killing energy policies

Paul Driessen

President Obama’s speeches sum up his views on oil, natural gas and energy prices in just 44 words.

“We have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. We’re running out of places to drill. We’re running out of oil. We need to end our $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy.”

As Congressman Joe Wilson would say, That’s a lie! Or at least a deliberate distortion of facts.

Oil “reserves” are what can actually be produced at today’s prices, with existing technologies, and under current laws and regulations. America has vast oil, gas and coal resources – centuries of potential hydrocarbon energy. We certainly have the technology to extract it, especially at $100 a barrel. What we don’t have are laws and regulations that allow us to do so.

If the President were honest, he would say: “We’re running out of oil that Democrats, my Administration and our radical environmentalist allies will let this country produce. We’re running out of places we’ll let companies drill. We have 2% of world oil reserves, because we’ve made most of our resources off limits.”

If he were honest, he would also say: “We will demonize, penalize, hyper-regulate, tax and kill hydrocarbons. But we will mandate and subsidize wind, solar and ethanol, ignore their environmental and human costs, and extol the measly, expensive, unreliable energy they produce.

“We oppose subsidies for oil and coal companies (even in the form of tax deductions for actual expenses), because they promote drilling – and their CEOs and workers rarely vote for us. We support huge subsidies for wind, solar and ethanol, because those guys help keep us in power and drive a transition to renewables.

“We know oil, gas and coal generate royalty and tax revenues, and provide 85% of the energy that powers America and supports jobs, commuting, factories, transportation, tourism, hospitals, ambulances, churches and living standards. But we don’t care about that or about revenues, except when they come from higher taxes on corporations – or rich families that make over $250,000 … $150,000 … $65,000 a year. We detest free enterprise, and think government should control more of your energy, economy and lives.

“And we love the way supply and demand laws drive prices up. DC area gasoline is already $4.25 a gallon. That’s about half of what Energy Secretary Chu and I would like it to be: European prices. And we know restricting energy supplies even further will send all prices skyrocketing even higher.”

As crazy as they sound, these ideologies are even more frightening and demented in practice.

Oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is projected to drop 240,000 barrels a day this year. That’s $9 billion more that America will have to pay this year to import replacement oil … $1.3 billion we won’t collect in federal royalty payments … thousands of jobs that won’t be “created or saved” … and billions in corporate, personal income and sales taxes we won’t collect.

The US Geological Survey says upwards of 90 billion barrels remain to be discovered in the Arctic. ANWR alone could hold 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, producible from areas totaling 1/20th of Washington, DC. But it’s all locked up, off limits to We the People who own it.

Meanwhile, the huge Prudhoe Bay field is slowly running dry. So the Alaska Pipeline is operating at a fraction of its capacity, which increases corrosion and blockages in the pipe, magnifies the risk of ruptures and spills, and threatens the future of all Alaskan oil. Shell Oil spent $3.5 billion acquiring and exploring leases in the Chukchi Sea – but Interior and EPA refuse to issue drilling permits, because diesel emissions from the rig could cause global warming or affect the health of Natives 20-50 miles away! It all adds up to less oil, less royalty revenue, fewer jobs and more imported oil. Just as Obama & Co. intend.

Made in America technology and innovation have unlocked centuries of new natural gas in US shale formations (and similar deposits all over the world). This game-changing development has reduced gas prices … completely unhinged Obama, Democrat and other environmental ideologues … and devastated their “we’re running out” mantra. So they’ve rallied the troops, to produce a bogus “documentary” film (“Gasland”), a sloppy Cornell University “study,” and reams of new EPA regulations, to stymie shale gas. A thorough analysis by science writer Matt Ridley provides much needed facts and perspectives. (The same horizontal drilling and “fracking” technologies are also unlocking eco-nightmarish new oil riches.)

Coal generates half of all US electricity, and 70-98% in twelve states – sustaining jobs by keeping AC, heating and machinery operating costs at about half of what is typical in states that get little or no electricity from coal. But EPA has issued 946 pages of new air quality rules and launched a massive propaganda campaign against mercury emissions – even though those power plants account for barely 0.5% of all mercury in the air Americans breathe. President Obama has said he wants to “bankrupt” the industry.

All told, over a billion acres of onshore and offshore energy prospects are locked up – costing us centuries of fuel, millions of jobs, and hundreds of billions in bonus, royalty and tax revenues. Of course, there are “no quick fixes” for our energy problems, as President Obama loves to remind us. But if we’d begun drilling in some of these places 10-20 years ago, we wouldn’t be in this fix today.

As to subsidies, even the alleged billions for oil companies are a pittance compared to subsidies for wind, solar and ethanol. Subsidies per unit of energy actually produced are even more shocking. According to the Energy Information Administration, gas-fired electricity generation received a mere 25 cents per megawatt-hour in 2007 subsidies; coal got 44 cents. By comparison, wind turbines got 23.4 dollars and photovoltaic solar received 24.3 dollars per mWh.

Moreover, oil and gas is 24/7 – with 95% reliability. The industry supports 9.2 million jobs, directly and in companies that depend on reliable, affordable oil, gas, gasoline, fertilizer, plastics, pharmaceuticals and electricity. It generates federal revenue, paying billions in taxes and royalties. The same holds true for coal.

By contrast, wind and solar produce electricity just two to eight hours a day – with backup generators making up the monumental shortfall. That means we must duplicate every megawatt of wind and solar with a MW of (mostly gas-fired) backup power – which requires even more land and raw materials to support the government-mandated transition to “eco-friendly” renewable energy systems.

More appalling, instead of generating tax or royalty revenues, wind and solar require perpetual subsidies. Solar panel maker Solyndra got a $535 “stimulus” loan in 2009; then, the day after the 2010 elections, it announced it was laying off 190 people. In April 2011 alone, the Department of Energy poured $9 billion in loan guarantees into wind and solar projects that will blanket large swaths of crop and habitat land.

Ethanol receives subsidies of $5.72 per million Btu (190 times what oil and gas companies get), so that we can burn food to make fuels that government won’t let us drill for. In 2010, American farmers turned 36% of their corn crop into ethanol, which provides 30% less energy than gasoline – meaning cars get less mileage per tank for more bucks per gallon. Making one gallon of this substandard fuel also requires some 1,700 gallons of water and large quantities of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides. Worse, energy economist Indur Goklany calculates, biofuel policies cause up to 200,000 deaths a year in poor countries, by raising food prices, increasing malnutrition and making people more vulnerable to disease.

Overall, since assuming power in Washington, the Obama Administration has channeled over $60 billion into the “green jobs” sector. And the renewable energy subsidy train rolls on, with tanker cars of red ink bankrolled by US taxpayers and consumers – to provide less than 1% of the energy we use.

If Congress still refuses to hold inquiries and end these tax-subsidized scams, perhaps the most we can hope for is that a few courageous and publicly spirited governors and AGs will step into the breach.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.