What does the Sierra Club have in Common with Karl Rove? Both Support Wind Energy.
June 6, 2012
Renewal of federal tax credits for wind energy can save U.S. jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil, according to Karl Rove, an adviser to former President George W. Bush.
“We’ve got a growing economy that’s increasing energy consumption and wind energy should be part of the solution,” Rove said today on a panel at a wind conference in Atlanta. Extending the so-called production tax credit “should be a priority.”
A bill to extend through 2016 the 2.2-cent-a-kilowatt-hour credit for electricity produced by wind turbines, biomass, geothermal and landfill-gas plants has stalled in congress along with about 100 other expiring tax-related incentives.
The tax credit is one of the major topics of debate this week as executives gather for the Windpower 2012 annual conference.
There are about 75,000 U.S. wind-industry workers, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Letting the credit lapse will lead to the elimination of 10,000 wind- industry jobs this year and another 27,000 in 2013, the Washington-based trade group estimates.
ATLANTA, Ga., June 5, 2012 – A solid base of bipartisan support for wind energy will—and must—spur passage of a Production Tax Credit extension this year, policy and industry leaders said today at the WINDPOWER 2012 Conference & Exhibition.
Highlighting the bipartisan nature of wind power was an engaging dialogue between Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, and Robert Gibbs, former Press Secretary and advisor to President Obama. As American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) CEO Denise Bode commented in introducing them, both administrations supported wind energy and extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC).
“This is an industry that is not just accustomed to innovation – it thrives on it,” said Carnahan.
The panel also called for members of the industry to continue outreach efforts to educate members of Congress about the importance of the PTC to American manufacturing jobs.
“You look at poll after poll and Americans want wind energy,” said Blittersdorf.
Americans recognize the critical value of wind energy and the clean energy economy. That’s why almost two-thirds – 64 percent – of those surveyed in the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll agree with President Obama that the PTC’s vital job-creating benefits should be continued.
The Sierra Club disagrees with Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King on many issues. But we agree with him that the PTC needs to be renewed for the sake of American jobs, clean American energy, and American health. He deserves credit for standing up to those in his party who would sabotage the growing success story that is the domestic wind industry.
Still, many in Congress seem to have different priorities, and they might let these clean energy credits slip away – all while pushing for massive tax breaks for the same dirty energy industries that are raking in billions in profits while making our kids sick.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
June 6, 2012 at 3:55 am
Karl Rove has done a lot of good work over the years, but nobody’s perfect, and he’s dead wrong this time. The PTC is a massively wasteful, job-killing, bird-killing, boondoggle. The “renewable energy” mandates in at least 30 States are even worse.
June 6, 2012 at 5:45 am
‘Karl Rove has done a lot of good work over the years’
So says Dave ‘Halli’ Burton
June 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm
“Dave ‘Halli’ Burton” — I like that!!! 🙂
June 8, 2012 at 2:18 am
Wear it with pride 🙂
June 6, 2012 at 8:25 am
Shame on you, Dave; you forgot to mention wind turbines bursting into flames.
http://earthstonestation.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/wind-farm-cons-part-4/
June 6, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Most power plants have the potential to burst into flames.
June 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Not to mention the mines from which the coal comes…
June 8, 2012 at 2:26 am
Just a few years ago, I learned that there are thousands of coal seam fires burning around the world and they may contribute as much as 3 PER CENT of global CO2 emissions.
Only 5 countries exceed that output, and it’s as much as the CO2 output of the UK and Brazil combined, literally going up in smoke.
And there must be lots of other nasties being released at the same time.
June 8, 2012 at 7:04 am
CO2, CO, and CH4, apparently. My guess is that deep coal seam fires, because they burn in chronically O2-short environments, probably produce a lot of CO.
CO and CH4 are both flammable, of course, and even if not burned they’ll presumably end up oxidizing into CO2, eventually. My recollection is that the half-life of CH4 released in the atmosphere, i.e., the time before half of it oxidizes into CO2+H2O, is about 6 years. But I have no idea how long the CO lasts.
June 8, 2012 at 10:27 am
For once, Dave Burton makes a good point when he says (of combustion products), “they’ll presumably end up oxidizing into CO2, eventually.”.
And what happens to all that CO2 that can’t be taken up by the trees we’ve cut down and/or burnt in forest fires…? It either warms the atmosphere or acidifies the oceans. End of story.
June 6, 2012 at 7:46 pm
the difference with wind is, if one goes down, the array stays functional, and you don’t have to evacuate the nearest city.
hence, more resilient, more forgiving technology for the age of asymmetrical war and terrorism.
June 7, 2012 at 2:51 am
That’s true, but other kinds of power plants don’t go down all at once whenever the wind stops blowing.
June 8, 2012 at 10:29 am
Dave, other kinds of power go offline for longer and are much more expensive to fix.
June 6, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Yes Dave wind energy is a communist conspiracy…that’s why capitalist companies like GE are building them by the dozen!
And Patrick,
Dave ‘Halli’ Burton LOL!
June 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Not to mention liberal socialist conservative Republican Iowans like Tea Party backed Gov. Bransted and Rep. Steve King!
p.s. thanks!
June 6, 2012 at 4:06 am
The last thing we need is subsidies for coal, oil, and nuclear. Yet they are doing their best to hamper competition from wind energy, which is eating their lunch, by denying subsidies to wind, while fattening their larders on their own bloated subsidies.
The reason fossil fuel and nuclear are fighting dirty is because they are desperate, have no hope of winning, and realize they have no future. Their only tactic is to stall. Wind and solar will win in the end anyway.
Big Fossil is not going down without a fight. The writing is on the wall. We are nearing the end of fossil fuels. You don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
June 6, 2012 at 8:37 am
“The reason fossil fuel and nuclear are fighting dirty is because they are desperate, have no hope of winning, and realize they have no future.” Why would they be desperate? You can get all of the information that you will ever need at this site and you will find that as of March, 2012 that coal produced 40%; petroleum liquids, .3%; petroleum coke, .2%; natural gas, 26%; other gases,2%; Nuclear19%; hydroelectric-conventional, 7% and other renewable totaled 5% (This is a total of many different sources from wood waste, solar and wind.) of the nations electricity
It appears that the sources you mentioned have a future, if one looks at this in a rational manner. Why would they fight at all when there is nothing in the foreseeable future to take the place of fossil fuels or nuclear if you want the lights to come on when you move the switch?
Just to compare what has happened in a years time to the energy sector and this is the source for what I compiled above:
“Figure 2: Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors),
Year-to-Date through March, 2011”
(The pie chart shows this): “Coal, 44.7%; Natural Gas, 20.6%; Nuclear,20.5%; Hydroelectric Conventional, 8.4%; Other Energy Sources, 5.2% and Petroleum .8%”
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
This information makes me wonder how when Waxman was arguing for he and Markey’s cap and trade (Tax) bill & they maintained that the bill needed to be passed to help get the US off of imported oil and the bill was meant to do away with coal fired generators; so, how was it going to have anything to do “imported oil”?
June 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
Who is being irrational here? When you realise you are in a hole it is best to stop digging: We know burning fossil fuels and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (a thousand times faster than the Earth can recycle it) is changing the Earth’s climate. However, by treating fossil fuels the way climbers treat mountains (i.e. burning them because they are there) — rather than exercising some self-control (and/or concern for future generations) and investing in all the non-fossil fuel alternatives — we are making the runaway greenhouse effect that has crippled Venus more likely to happen here too.
As ever, this is not environmental alarmism, it is just basic physics: Those who deny it are picking a fight with science and history; a battle that cannot be won.
June 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Re: “…pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (a thousand times faster than the Earth can recycle it) is changing the Earth’s climate.”
1. The only major change resulting from the additional CO2 is improved plant growth rates & agricultural productivity. It is calculated to raise average temperatures by a fraction of a degree, but that’s probably for the good, considering that mankind thrives best when the Earth is warmest.
2. That “thousand times faster” bit is complete nonsense. If that were true, atmospheric CO2 levels would be going up twice as fast as they are. In any given year, about half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not contribute to elevating the atmospheric CO2 level, because they’re consumed by plants, dissolved in the oceans, etc..
It is estimated (very roughly) that about 200 gigatons of carbon are exchanged each year between the atmosphere and other sources and sinks, compared to just 7-9 Gt C emitted from anthropogenic sources.
Why do you think the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio is so little changed (other than the big atomic bomb spike in C14), as a result of humans putting so much C14-deficient CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere? Although mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by over 30%, nevertheless only a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin. That’s because there’s so much exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and other sources & sinks (such as the oceans, which contain about 50x as much CO2 as is in the atmosphere), that little of the CO2 that remains in the atmosphere is actually from our fossil fuels.
June 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm
The Earth will continue to absorb more energy than it emits because of the concentration of long-lived GHG molecules, especially CO2, in the atmosphere. GHG IR heating is significantly greater than “dimming” from short lived fossil fuel combustion related pollutants.
Emitted or exchanged, the atmosphere contains 390 ppm CO2 because of fossil fuel combustion. Emitted and exchanged CO2 molecules have the same basic spectroscopic profile.
The most probable way the planet will re-balance the energy flow is with an even hotter surface. 2011’s average surface temperature was 0.92 F higher than the mid 50s (and 0.22 F cooler than 2010). Why do you think that the average temperature, over time and space, will stabilize at a “fraction of a degree” warmer?
June 6, 2012 at 8:10 pm
…”The only major change resulting from the additional CO2 is improved plant growth rates & agricultural productivity. It is calculated to raise average temperatures by a fraction of a degree…”
Dave, I’m afraid the actual science on this subject does not agree with you. Most botanical studies show a minimal benefit to plants in higher CO2 concentrations, and only in greenhouse conditions where additional soil nutrients and water are also available – which in the real world they aren’t. Even then, the benefit is short-lived and does not result in significantly higher yields. Against that you have to weigh the increased incidence of drought – already an observed fact – which poses a far greater threat to plant life than anything else. The two recent droughts in the Amazon basin destroyed about a billion mature trees each – no benefit from higher CO2 there.
As for temperatures, the quantitative analysis on this has been around for over a century and hasn’t needed much alteration in the light of observation (check Guy Callendar’s projections from the 1930s indeed). We are currently on track for 4 degrees of warming over pre-industrial levels by 2060. That is not a ‘fraction of a degree’ in anyone’s language.
Worth noting too, I think, that thanks to thermal inertia, it takes about 40 years for alterations in greenhouse gas concentrations to effect any change to global surface temperatures. So if we want to avoid 4 degrees of warming – or worse – then the available window of opportunity to prevent it is closing rapidly.
June 6, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Philip, where do you get the idea that “it takes about 40 years for alterations in greenhouse gas concentrations to effect any change to global surface temperatures?” GHGs affect the relative amounts of energy received and emitted by the Earth’s surface, just like changes in solar insolation do. Haven’t you noticed that it is cooler at night than during the daytime, and warmer in the summer than in the winter?
The calculations for the warming effect of CO2 are reasonably well understood. At most we might see 1 C of warming when CO2 gets to 570 ppm (around 2100); 0.5 C is more likely. See:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/MODTRAN_etc.html
(The limited supplies of fossil fuels mean that it’s doubtful that we’ll ever manage to get CO2 much higher than that.)
June 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“Why would they fight at all when there is nothing in the foreseeable future to take the place of fossil fuels or nuclear if you want the lights to come on when you move the switch?”
Really? Your premise is FALSE.
Ever hear of solar thermal power plants with molten salt heat storage?
Base load solar power – day and night.
This, together with wind an PV solar can provide most of our energy needs.
What we lack is political will, not solutions.
Yes, more innovation will be welcome, but much can be done with existing technology.
Renewable energy doesn’t work?? Bullsh..t
“Europe’s renewable power continues to increase”
from Hot Topic blog, in New Zealand
” 9,616 MW of wind power capacity (worth some €12.6 billion) was installed in the EU during 2011, a similar figure to the previous year (9,648 in 2010);
Wind power accounted for 21.4% of total 2011 power capacity installations
The National Action Plans show that one third (34%) of EU electricity demand will be supplied from renewables by 2020
Renewable power installations accounted for 71.3% of new installations during 2011: 32,043 MW of a total of 44,939 MW of new power capacity;
68% of New EU Electricity Capacity Came From Wind and Solar in 2011
More renewable power capacity was installed during 2011 than any other year, an increase of 37.7% compared to 2010″
June 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Vested interests in fossil fuels are hell bent on making sure America is a loser, in the worldwide clean energy revolution.
Saudi Arabia recently announced that they will spend $109 billion to develop solar energy in their country.
That includes 25 GW of solar thermal
China will spend $450 billion supporting renewables in the next five years and $750 billion by 2020.
they have set a goal of 15% renewables by 2020
their new goal for wind power is 1,000 GW by 2050 and 150 GW by 2020
They have set a goal of 50 GW of solar by 2020
There is a city in China where over 800,000 people are employed in solar energy
There are 120 million installed solar water heaters in China.
June 6, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Don’t hold your breath for a response, sailrick.
When jdouglashuahin has no answer he does not waste time admitting it.
https://climatecrocks.com/2012/06/04/post-flood-midwest-farms-a-wasteland-deniers-they-need-more-co2/comment-page-1/#comment-10583
June 7, 2012 at 1:56 am
So, Martin Lack, when have you supplied a valid answer to anything? Besides natural gas there is at this time no alternative for petroleum for vehicles (I almost forgot the Chevy Volt & this little gem to help the American working middle class out, lots of jobs created with this one, in Finland & I just heard this morning that the whole project is probably going to be scrapped.)
“Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41545
I lived for 24 years in Alaska, 13 of those years 140 miles above the arctic circle, and now live in the tropics because anything that is alive knows that warm is better than cold any day, except for some of the alarmist on this thread. Point being hydro, is a big part of Alaska’s power supply, as well as coal from the Isabella mine at Healy and Alaska has hundreds of years worth of low sulfur coal.
“Hydroelectric power is Alaska’s largest source of renewable energy, supplying 21% of the state’s electrical energy. Currently 37 hydro projects provide power to Alaska utility customers, ranging in size from the 105 kW Akutan hydro project in the Aleutians to the 126 MW state-owned Bradley Lake project near Homer, which supplies 8% of the Railbelt’s electrical energy.”
http://alaskarenewableenergy.org/alaskas-resources/types-renewable-energy/hydroelectric/
“Tidal energy is produced through the use of tidal energy generators. These large underwater turbines are placed in areas with high tidal movements, and are designed to capture the kinetic motion of the ebbing and surging of ocean tides in order to produce electricity. Tidal power has great potential for future power and electricity generation because of the massive size of the oceans. These articles explore the potential energy of tidal power technologies”.
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydro/tidal-power/
“Testing the Waters with Tidal Energy
Tidal power may be destined to remain a niche player in the U.S. energy portfolio, but the low-carbon energy source has one key advantage over wind and solar–it’s as dependable as the moon’s phases ‘
http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=geothermal-power
“Advantages of Geothermal energy
Geothermal energy does not produce any pollution, and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.
The power stations do not take up much room, so there is not much impact on the environment.
No fuel is needed.
Once you’ve built a geothermal power station, the energy is almost free.
It may need a little energy to run a pump, but this can be taken from the energy being generated.”
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/geothermal.htm
There are many hot spots in the US that could utilize this form of energy for power. The US Navy uses geothermal for their power needs at China Lake, CA and sells power to the grid. I have been to one of the first commercial geothermal plants built near Taupo, New Zealand in the 1970s on three different trips to N. Z. and it is still producing reliable electrical power.
“Geothermal Energy on Department of Defense Lands
The report, in the form of a 36-slide PowerPoint presentation, also noted that on Department of Defense lands alone there is a potential for up to 926 gigawatts of geothermal power. It identified suitable lands at bases across the country, from the east coast to the west coast, and from Florida as far north as Missouri. While observing that there are some conditions for a successful geothermal program, at the bottom of slide 33 you can find the money quote with this modestly stated point: “Sell-back excess capacity.” It could be that the U.S. public is sitting on a renewable energy gold mine in the form of Defense Department property, which could play a critical role in our new energy future.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-energy-could-make-the-de-2010-07
Martin Lack; you and your kind have proven that you not only don’t have a clue to what is happening in the world of energy but also that you have no answers and your only aim is to create more problems than your wind mills do electricity and hopefully that will not be too many more. I would hope that even you can see that predictability and reliability are what the alternative sources that I have provided above can produce while wind and solar cannot do so.
Then of course there is always nuclear that the US Navy has used for 50 years and how could one have a smaller “back yard” than on a submarine or being on an air craft carrier?
I leave you with a few quotes to consider:
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmest. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken
June 7, 2012 at 2:56 am
Martin, that comment of yours deserved no response. Your “appeal to authority” was to the authority of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China! Do you think that was persuasive? Seriously?
June 6, 2012 at 4:09 pm
More unusual than Rove agreeing with the Sierra Club is Rove agreeing with a tax credit that Obama is advocating. Savor the moment.
June 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm
jdoug –
Why would they fight at all when there is nothing in the foreseeable future to take the place of fossil fuels or nuclear if you want the lights to come on when you move the switch?
Let’s talk reality here Doug. The lights have not gone out in Germany. Or Iowa. Or Spain. Or ….wait for it…. Japan, where 100 % of their nuclear is off line. Ok, well they did turn off unneeded lighting, yes. So where was this critical need for nuclear power? Was it to keep the neon glitz marque lights lit in Tokyo? Apparently so, since hospitals and airports are running fine.
The reason fossil fuel companies are fighting wind subsidies is because wind is growing fast and replacing them. Its all about the money. If they can defeat their competitors by legislation, they will do it. Just like they lobby to pass legislation to get the biggest tax breaks. Coal is doing a big lobbying push right now, some of it through Heartland. If you want to talk about he future, talk about how coal is down from 45% to 36% electrical energy generation usage in one year. Talk about how wind energy went from essentially zero to 20% of Iowa electrical generation in about 5 years. Then we can talk about the future.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=coal+usage+down&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=coal+usage+down&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&ei=8YjPT-iyE8fM2gXP5-S1DA&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f06d7eb5305be164&biw=1164&bih=693
If you ask for motivation, try laziness, greed, and selfishness, not to mention stupidity. Take a look at the smoke filled skies in China. Answer the question yourself.
June 7, 2012 at 2:29 am
Christopher:I doubt that you want to wonder about Al Gore’s Occidental Petroleum holdings that go way back in his family, his Zinc mine, or ask why RK Pachauri is still a director of GloriOil or bring up how Shell and BP founded the CRU in 1972.
As for your questions, have you not kept up with the government wanting to crucify and break coal producers? One need not be very astute to figure all of that out, I would have hoped.
I really fail to under stand why you people are so concerned about Heartland and why they are such a threat to you when you have all of the money in the world to promote your hoax of anthropogenic global warming and the media is helping you for nothing. Why the worry or is it something that goes deeper than that?
Entity
USD
Greenpeace
$300m
2010 Annual Report
WWF
$700m
($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust
$360m
2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club
$56m
2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example)
$750m
NSW Gov (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random govt example)
$360m
UK Gov (£234 m)
Heartland Institute
$7m
(actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology
$7,000m
“Climate Money” 2009
US government funding for “climate related appropriations”
$1,300m
USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets
$120,000m
2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy
$243,000m
2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0
Oh, BTW, I’m sure you are aware of this;
May 30 2012
“Green Energy Model Spain Drops Subsidies
Not being the first to go over the cliff into moonbattery-induced ruin affords us the advantage of benefiting from the expensive lessons of others:
Spanish renewable-energy companies that once got Europe’s biggest subsidies are deserting the nation after the government shut off aid, pushing project developers and equipment-makers to work abroad or perish.
From wind-turbine maker Gamesa Corp. Tecnologica SA (GAM) to solar park developer T-Solar Global SA, companies are locked out of their home market for new business. These are the same suppliers that spearheaded more than $69 billion of wind and solar projects since 2004 that today supply more than 50 percent of Spain’s power demand on the most breezy and sunny days.
Spain has figured out that even 50% green energy is economically unsustainable.”
http://moonbattery.com/?p=12323
I have been to China four times; therefore, I know all about their air and wonder why and how why China and India have been exempt from Kyoto type restraints?
I do not agree with this guy on basically anything; but, this is what he says:
“Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006”
Barry Saxifrage
Posted: Jun 4th, 2012
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/2012/06/04/climate-change-stunner-usa-leads-world-co2-cuts-2006
June 7, 2012 at 5:28 am
Dave: “The calculations for the warming effect of CO2 are reasonably well understood. At most we might see 1 C of warming when CO2 gets to 570 ppm (around 2100); 0.5 C is more likely.”
Indeed. Doubling of CO2 without any feedback and without any real world complexities is easy to calculate and widely agreed to. The incremental downward forcing from doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels is about 1.9 x 10^15 watts which would require about a 1.0 degree C rise in surface temperature to balance the energy flow.
Although you’re annotation/note describes the equilibrium temperate at current CO2 level as a baseline. You honestly included constant relative humidity to include water vapor feedback. However, you asymmetrically said that sensitivity represents an upper bound by listing a negative feedback and a possibly negative feedback while ignoring positive feedback of shrinking ice albedo and probable positive feedbacks of released methane and CO2 from melting methane clathrates and tundra. To be “symmetrical”, the lapse rate negative feedback (reduced temperate gradient) was also excluded. The point is that neither of us is qualified to do original climate science, but we can follow it.
June 7, 2012 at 5:33 am
Dave: “Martin, that comment of yours deserved no response. Your “appeal to authority” was to the authority of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China! Do you think that was persuasive? Seriously?”
Science doesn’t care about politics. It really doesn’t. Martin isn’t bowing down to the Chinese government. Being bad isn’t the same thing as being ignorant. He’s just noting their scientific risk assessment. And paying attention to Chinese industrial policy might not be such a bad idea.
June 8, 2012 at 6:02 am
doug – you don’t need to rant. Its just a Gish Gallup if you do.
“Besides natural gas there is at this time no alternative for petroleum for vehicles ”
So no electric vehicles exist? Tesla, Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi iMiev, Ford Focus electric, Honda Fit, Coda, …
I talked to a Leaf owner. Was paying 150 a month for gas. Now has a Leaf with a 400 a month payment, charging costs practically nothing by comparison with gas, virtually no maintenance either. So their costs are basically 250 a month. And gas is going up, up, up, up, …
You don’t know what you are talking about.
So what does your rant about funding have to do with global warming? Nothing, really. Nor do I think any of your theories of a diabolical conspiracy have anything to do with science or reason or whether or not AGW exists. Quoting Roman Emperors has nothing to do with anything, either.
So next time, please try to stick to some kind of point and state it clearly from the outset, so anyone else reading it can understand what all that long text following it has to do with the price of beans in China:)
June 12, 2012 at 9:17 am
[…] […]