For sure an environmental disaster-- which then becomes an economic disaster, as real estate values dive, health problems suck up alot of money, farming and recreation areas become contaminated. It is wrong to pose environmental and economic as opposites. An environmental problem always becomes an economic problem.

Hydrofracking:Not only economic boom and jobs but necessary for national defense as a means towards energy independence.

---------------------------------------

Fracking: The Radical Left's Latest Weapon of Fear:

1/20/2012

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter warned Americans of a pending "national catastrophe" in a prime time nationally televised speech. "The Oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out." Resources were being depleted so fast that the world "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade," Carter said.

Rather obviously, Carter's end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it prediction didn't happen.

Had Carter been right, by now much of the agenda of the radical environmentalists would have been a fait accompli. Weaning America off oil, natural gas, and coal to heat our homes, power our cars, and run our factories would have taken care of itself due to a scarcity of the resources. But, Carter was wrong – dramatically wrong.

Since America and the World didn't run out of fossil fuel resources shortly after Carter made his doomsday prediction, the anti-oil, gas, and coal crowd lead by Al Gore moved on to the threats of global warming claiming we were doomed to drown from rising seas created by global warming. The culprit again was fossil fuels, of course. Much of that prediction has been debunked or at least greatly minimalized, too.

Instead of running out of oil and gas as Carter predicted, the inventory of America's recoverable domestic reserves has increased dramatically. During the past three decades, scientists and energy industry experts continued to improve techniques to harvest known reserves and discover new ones. A Congressional Research Service report to Congress in late 2009 indicated that America's combined supply of recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal exceeds every other nation on earth; even far greater than Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined!

The CRS report was independently confirmed last month by the Institute for Energy Research with the release of the North American Energy Inventory. The IER study says the U.S. has more than 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil reserves; 1.7 trillion barrels when combined with Canada and Mexico. That's enough for 250 years of U.S. consumption according to the IER, and more than the entire world has used in the previous 150 years.

Additionally, the North American continent has 4.2 quadrillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas reserves – enough to last the next 175 years at current rates of consumption according to IER. Once upon a time, back in the days of Jimmy Carter, the environmentalists were encouraging more usage of natural gas as the "clean" alternative to coal and oil. However, that has grown out of fashion with the go-green purists including Barack Obama, who prefer to funnel hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into pie-in-the-sky green energy boondoggles like Solyndra while discouraging and even eliminating oil and gas production at every opportunity.

Since we didn't run out of oil and gas, and the whole global warming thing stalled, the latest fear-strategy adopted by the radical environmentalists is to attack the technology – hydraulic fracturing – that is behind our ability to harvest the massively greater amounts of energy resources.

Hydraulic Fracturing – or "fracking" – has greatly expanded the recoverable reserves of oil and gas. Fracking has been used since the 1940s in over a million wells, and the technology continues to be improved and refined.

As defined by The Geological Society of America, fracking involves pumping liquids down a well into subsurface rock units under pressures that are high enough to fracture the rock, creating a network of interconnected fractures that will serve as pore spaces for the movement of the oil and natural gas to the well bore to be lifted to the surface.

When combined with horizontal drilling, fracking has turned previously unproductive reserves into some of the most abundant fields in the world such as the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania, the Bakken in North Dakota, and the Niobrara in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas. (See a brief animated demonstration of hydraulic fracturing here.)

In recent years, environmentalists have relentlessly attacked fracking claiming it might cause groundwater contamination, even though in virtually all cases the fracking is done hundreds or thousands of feet below ground water levels. And, since few people have even a slight understanding of the geology or the technology, public perception is easily influenced and the media is often a willing co-conspirator in fanning the hysteria.

To be sure, there is some risk involved with fracking as with any mechanical process. However, when asked directly during a Senate Committee hearing in May, 2011 even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified that she was "not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water." Jackson came to the EPA with a well established reputation as an environmental activist and has pursued that agenda aggressively at the agency. Other EPA officials have previously offered the same testimony to Congress.

Still, the radical left's quest continues with a public relations war raging against fracking technology. Jackson's EPA is moving forward toward new federal regulations, even in the face of heavy pushback from states that historically regulated energy development operations within their borders.

The liquids used in the fracking process are virtually all water and sand mixtures – as much as 99.5% according to published reports. The Geological Society of America explains that the small amount of chemicals are used to thicken the water into a gel that is more effective at opening fractures, reduce friction, prevent corrosion of equipment, control pH, and kill bacteria. "Proppants" – usually aluminum or ceramic beads – are also added to "prop opened" the fractures once the fluids are removed so the oil and gas can escape. Until recently, energy companies have guarded their formulas as proprietary secrets, but public pressure and new regulation are causing them to make public their ingredients.

That ground water can be and has been contaminated is a given, and in many cases, fingers have been pointed at the energy industry and specifically at fracking technology. But, as EPA Administrator Jackson admitted, in spite of scores of investigations, there is no scientific evidence linking any ground water contamination to fracking. But, that doesn't stop some in the Obama Administration from pushing their agenda forward to satisfy a core constituency.

In west-central Wyoming, the small town of Pavillion has complained about water quality and possible contamination for years. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey detected organic chemicals in Pavillion's well water 50 years ago, long before any fracking was done in the area. But, when somebody suggested the water quality problems might be linked to the gas wells the EPA jumped in and started a study three years ago.

On December 8, 2011 the EPA published a "draft report" of findings suggesting that there may be a connection to Pavillion's water problems and fracking. Why the agency chose to publish a report that had not been subjected to independent peer review or even by state officials in Wyoming is a question that answers itself. "The agency is dominated by anticarbon true believers, and the Obama Administration has waged a campaign to raise the price and limit the production of fossil fuels," opined the Wall Street Journal. Environmentalists and many in the media rejoiced – and the movement got the headlines they longed for:

EPA Lowers the Boom on Fracking in Wyoming
EPA Finds Hydrofracking Chemicals Contaminate Drinking Water
Gas-Fracking Chemicals Detected in Wyoming Aquifer, EPA Says
EPA says 'fracking' probably contaminated well water in Wyoming

The Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead, was quick to respond and he certainly should have both the health of his citizens and the state's industry paramount in his mind. On the day the EPA report was released, Mead called it "scientifically questionable" and said more and better testing was needed before anyone could reach a definitive conclusion. Most concerning to Gov. Mead was that the EPA based their conclusions "on data from two test wells (not operating water wells) drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells," the Gov. said, causing him and others to wonder how the EPA could reach their conclusion.

Mead had appointed a working group to study the Pavillion problem that included local residents, state agencies, Indian Tribes, the EPA and the BLM. But, the EPA didn't even make their report available to the rest of the group until shortly before releasing it to public. A highly critical house editorial in the Casper Star-Tribune on Dec. 26 said, "…process and politics have trumped good science…The EPA's process-oriented almost ho-hum approach does a disservice to Wyoming whose residents need answers about their water, and whose economy hinges on the safe and successful practice of fracking."

In a feature editorial, the Wall Street Journal stated the obvious, that everybody wants clean drinking water. "But we also need to be sure that regulators aren't spreading needless fears so they can enhance their own power while pursuing an ideological agenda." The WSJ summarized many of the same questions and concerns that Gov. Mead and others have raised about the EPA report:

The EPA study concedes that "detections in drinking water wells are generally below [i.e., in compliance with] established health and safety standards." The dangerous compound EPA says it found in the drinking wells was 2-butoxyethyl phosphate. The Petroleum Association of Wyoming says that 2-BE isn't an oil and gas chemical but is a common fire retardant used in association with plastics and plastic components used in drinking wells.

The pollution detected by the EPA and alleged to be linked to fracking was found in deep-water "monitoring wells"—not the shallower drinking wells. It's far from certain that pollution in these deeper wells caused the pollution in drinking wells. The deep-water wells that EPA drilled are located near a natural gas reservoir. Encana Corp., which owns more than 100 wells around Pavillion, says it didn't "put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA's deep monitoring wells. Nature did."

To the extent that drilling chemicals have been detected in monitoring wells, the EPA admits this may result from "legacy pits," which are old wells that were drilled many years before fracking was employed. The EPA also concedes that the inferior design of Pavillion's old wells allows seepage into the water supply. Safer well construction of the kind normally practiced today might have prevented any contaminants from leaking into the water supply.

The fracking in Pavillion takes place in unusually shallow wells of fewer than 1,000 to 1,500 feet deep. Most fracking today occurs 10,000 feet deep or more, far below drinking water wells, which are normally less than 500 feet. Even the EPA report acknowledges that Pavillion's drilling conditions are far different from other areas of the country, such as the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania. This calls into question the relevance of the Wyoming finding to newer and more sophisticated fracking operations in more than 20 states.

Of the EPA's report, the Star-Tribune said, "If it's not sloppy science, it's poor policy." And, the editors go on to make the damning accusation that "the Pavillion study is not about science, (but) about politics."

For an administration committed to perverted energy policies that drive fossil fuel prices higher in hopes that increased energy costs will make green-energy more attractive, all this increased oil and gas production creates a real problem. Just last week the press was reporting that because of increased supplies, natural gas prices fell to their lowest level in over two years. You might think that lower consumer costs would be well received at the White House, but not in an administration committed to implementing policies to get America's energy prices "to the levels in Europe," as Energy Secretary Steven Chu admits.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has banned drilling on millions of acres of federal land. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe says 83 percent of all federal land is already off-limits for energy development, and Salazar is constantly adding more. Where he can't ban it, he makes it ever more difficult to get leases and permits to drill. Legislation passed by Congress in 2005 reaffirmed that Congress wanted the states, not the federal government, to regulate gas drilling, but that doesn't stop this administration. As mentioned above, the EPA wants to muscle the states out of the way, and assert federal control and restrict fracking. The Pavillion report helps them make their case. North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple says the proposed EPA rules restricting fracking "would have huge economic impact on our state's energy development. We believe strongly this should be regulated by the states."

That more is in play with the Pavillion report than just clean water for 160 Wyoming residents is pretty obvious. Steve Forbes says the Obama Administration is repeating all the mistakes of the Carter Administration's failed energy policies, and has already established "the most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history." While there may eventually be proven some connection between gas wells and water contamination in Pavillion, we have to wonder if the Administration hadn't already reached a conclusion about fracking and the energy industry, and was just looking for a convenient excuse to help them make the case.

Tom Doll is the Supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and as such is the state's top regulator. Doll is also a native of Wyoming, graduate of the University of Wyoming as a petroleum engineer, and has more than three decades of field experience in the industry. According to Doll, the contamination EPA found in the Pavillion monitoring wells could be explained by natural causes or by the EPA because of the way the agency drilled, completed and tested the wells. "We really raised a lot of questions, provided four pages of questions on the monitoring wells: How they were drilled and completed, how they were sampled," Doll told the Casper Star-Tribune. Those questions were submitted to the EPA on Nov. 22, less than two weeks after the state and the Pavillion working group got a look at the draft report, but 16 days before the EPA released it to the public. "We posed all those questions to the EPA and they haven't gotten answers back yet on those concerns," Doll said.

As a candidate for President, Obama pledged that good science would guide policy in his Administration, but his actions belie his words. He says he's for jobs and for economic recovery, yet he dithers on approval of the Keystone Pipeline. Obama claims that, "Last year…oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time time high," but his own energy department reports production in the Gulf is down by 300,000 barrels per day after his misguided moratorium. He spews the radical left's lie that "we only have 2 percent" of the world's energy reserves when numerous government and independent reports prove America has vast resources if only our government would let them be harvested.

My dad often warned me about people who "would say one thing, but do another." That's the kind of President and Administration that is in Washington now. So, if you heard Barack Obama last month at a press conference say that his administration is "all in" for domestic energy production; believe just the opposite. Expect more debilitating, delaying, costly regulation. Expect more federal land and off-shore reserves to be put off-limits. Expect more "sloppy" reports like Pavillion designed to move a political agenda. And, expect billions more of borrowed dollars to be squandered on false green-gods like Solyndra in order to mollify and reward his political cronies. This isn't about science, and it isn't about good government. It's just politics; Obama style.

"It is wrong to pose environmental and economic as opposites. An environmental problem always becomes an economic problem."-Marian

And a moral problem, and consequently a social problem. Economic principles are useful tools for people, if controlled, like the useful tool of fire. The environment is even more of a good for people. Forcing a shootout between them is a dirty trick, as Marian says, that cannot have good intentions.

BTW: Check out Hacker and Pierson's book, WINNER TAKE ALL POLITICS.

I am a practical independent on this subject. If fracking was our only means of survival or the only thing preventing us from reverting back to Ancient times, then I would defend it. But how is it possible, with all of our technological advances the only thing modern man can do is completely deplete our national resources without any concern for environmental risks? We can put men on the moon, split the Atom, discover the existence of Black holes, tell us when and how the Universe was created but there is no possible way we can practically and economically harness the power of the Sun? If we suddenly discovered we had only 3 months of oil left on this Earth, I guarantee you in less then that time, we would have a viable alternative to fossil fuel. But the powers that be only care about money and control and not about what is truly in the best interest of mankind.

My man, MikeG. Bravo!!!

My man, MikeG. Bravo!!! - John

Thanks John but it is just what I believe to be the obvious truth. If the question was, "should we limit carbon dioxide by adding a tax, in order to protect us from man made global warming." Then I would feel the same way about those over reaching governmental powers that would insist on that tax, as I do about the over greedy Corporate powers when it comes to fracking.

The truth is revealed when we look objectively and don't take sides and don't have an agenda. We seem to be lied to in so many ways these days. Some obvious and some less obvious. Keep the faith.

Drilling and Killing: As President Bush Meets with the CEO of Chevron Texaco in Nigeria, a Look at Chevron’s Role in the Killing of Two Nigerian Villagers / July 11, 2003 / http://tinyurl.com/6gyxkv
President Bush arrives in Nigeria today.
As he wraps up his five-day Africa tour, he is accompanied by a large entourage of corporate executives. Front and center are the oil executives. Bush is set to meet with Chevron Texaco CEO and chairman Dave O’Reilly. Other transnational corporations attending include Exxon-Mobil and Shell Petroleum.
Bush is joined by his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. Rice is a former board member of Chevron. The company named an oil tanker after her, the Condoleezza Rice.
Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer, cranking out more than 2 million barrels a day. Nearly 750,000 barrels of Nigeria’s oil go to the United States every day. That is 8 percent of total U.S. crude oil imports.
http://www.democracynow.org/2003/7/11/drilling_and_killing_as_president_bush

"If fracking was our only means of survival or the only thing preventing us from reverting back to Ancient times, then I would defend it"


The opposition to fracking, off shore drilling, new and modernized nuclear plant construction, expanded low sulfur coal usage or even natural gas utilization as well as a quagmire of other assorted, so called, environmental regulations manufactured by the liberal left are purposely made to make it impossible for this country to ever become energy independent while solar or wind technology climbs out of its infancy and can offer a serious alternative, which may be not even in our lifetime. What will become of this country in the meantime? Anyone concerned about jobs, over dependence on foreign energy sources, avoidance of future wars, as well as a healthy environment wouldn't go out of their way to shut down the only viable solution of the means to an end.

"What will become of this country in the meantime?"

Rather, what have we done in the meantime, since Carter, to find a better way?

My point is not to agree with Carter's doomsday prediction or the green energy politically motivated agenda. My point is why have we not been able to harness the power of the Sun? Why can't we find a cleaner, better, cheaper way? Why must we be dependent on costly foreign AND domestic oil company's when the power of the Sun is clean and free?

I don't believe it's because we were not and are not capable. I believe, we just don't care enough about changing because of money, power and control.

You gotta believe!!!
GIANTS
GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL !!!

Great Game.

It's been a long time since I watched a whole football game.

Caspian: Our guardian angels must have been working overtime for us. No pun intended.

Check out this post to MikeG from last night.

Permalink 01/21/12 @ 19:38

"Why can't we find a cleaner, better, cheaper way? Why must we be dependent on costly foreign AND domestic oil company's when the power of the Sun is clean and free?"

This is not only about oil.
Expanded use of all cleaner burning fossil fuels, nuclear energy and solar and wind power must be allowed to grow together in order for solar and wind and other unexplored environmentally friendly power sources to be fully developed in order to some day phase out the more objectionable forms of power.
In the meantime the economy gets back on track, national debt and deficits are much easier to cut and jobs begin to likewise grow as we become more and more energy independent.
Its taken about 150 years of development of the gas engine to get to where we are now, so do you really believe solar or wind can come close to replacing it anytime soon? And the answer is certainly not to stifle the use or development of other forms of energy in order to create an emergency that would only end America up as a third world country and do little else.

"Caspian: Our guardian angels must have been working overtime for us. No pun intended." - John

John, you had it pegged exactly special teams won the game. Super Bowl Giants Baby!!

"Its taken about 150 years of development of the gas engine to get to where we are now, so do you really believe solar or wind can come close to replacing it anytime soon?"

Yes, absolutely I do. With the invention of the computer, technology and knowledge is advancing at a faster and faster rate then ever before. From the 1900's to the 1970's we made more technological advances then we did for thousands of years prior. In the last 30 years we advanced more then we did in all other years combined. In other words, what took 150 years of development would take much less time using today's knowledge and technology. The point is, we have to want to focus on that development.

Bill F: From your post, straight to God's ears. Here you go. You gotta believe!

Breakthrough in "seaweed" biofuel reported
AFP – Fri, Jan 20, 2012

..."Seaweed is seen as an appealing option for biofuel because, unlike corn and sugar cane, it does not use arable land and so does not compete with crops grown for food.

***Less than three percent of the world's coastal waters can produce enough seaweed to replace some 60 billion gallons of fossil fuel, according to background information in the article.

At peak production, seaweed could produce 19,000 liters per hectare annually, about twice the level of ethanol productivity from sugarcane and five times higher than the ethanol productivity from corn.

FUNDING FOR THE RESEARCH- came from the ---> "US Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency", a grant from InnovaChile, and Norwegian oil giant Statoil."

Hmmmmmmm! Government "can work" for "all of us" when given the tools to seek to make the world a better place.

GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

Bill F: From your post, straight to God's ears. Here you go. You gotta believe!

Breakthrough in "seaweed" biofuel reported
AFP – Fri, Jan 20, 2012

..."Seaweed is seen as an appealing option for biofuel because, unlike corn and sugar cane, it does not use arable land and so does not compete with crops grown for food.

***Less than three percent of the world's coastal waters can produce enough seaweed to replace some 60 billion gallons of fossil fuel, according to background information in the article.

At peak production, seaweed could produce 19,000 liters per hectare annually, about twice the level of ethanol productivity from sugarcane and five times higher than the ethanol productivity from corn.

FUNDING FOR THE RESEARCH- came from the ---> "US Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency", a grant from InnovaChile, and Norwegian oil giant Statoil."

Hmmmmmmm! Government "can work" for "all of us" when given the tools to seek to make the world a better place.

GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

Caspian: Our guardian angels must have been working overtime for us. No pun intended.

Check out this post to MikeG from last night.John

============

Yes you had it right and thank GOD for number 10 on SF. lol

"Less than three percent of the world's coastal waters can produce enough seaweed to replace some 60 billion gallons of fossil fuel, according to background information in the article."

To John and Mike:

By all means go with it! That's exactly what I'm talking about, but for God's sake don't artificially cripple the other sources of energy in the meantime in order to sell another that may, or may not be feasible in the long run. This country can no longer afford that type of destructive logic anymore. A truly viable bio-fuel alternative wouldn't wreck the world's economy the way converting to solar would. Can one only imagine dismantling 100% of the world's industry and technology in order to utilize only solar energy??? Even if solar were developed tomorrow it would take a lifetime of destruction for the world's industry to make the switch. At least a bio fuel alternative could take the place of oil without having to completely rebuild industry from scratch.

GREASECAR VEGETABLE FUEL SYSTEMS
http://tinyurl.com/6th4e
http://www.greasecar.com

Here's a fuller study. All the energy alternatives that are in the works, those being blocked and by whom. The Pros and Cons.

For now, I'll go along with the hydro and seaweed alternatives but would draw the line at placing all of the worlds hopes in one single basket.
Energy alternatives should be regional to insure that the best methods and highest values are placed on safety,the environment and cost effectiveness. MOST OF ALL HAVING RTHESE RESOURCES BASED UPON REGIONAL ABUNDANCES PROVIDES JOBS FOR THE COMMUNITYS THEY SERVE.
Nonetheless, the private sector should be free to carve out any niche they are willing to provide to those consumers across the nation, who prefer to retain today's status quo fossil fuels as long as they clean up after themselves.

Don't be discouraged by the PDF format. It will take you a awhile to page down to the real meat and potatoes, BUT, IT IS WELL WORTH THE EFFORT- FOR EVERYONE TO BECOME WELL INFORMED RATHER, THAN COUNTING OF MSM TALKING HEADS AND THEIR SPONSOR GROUPS TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR OUR BEST INTERESTS.
http://www.humanityunitedforum.com/Free%20Energy%20Projects%201.pdf

WHY I HATE RELIGION, BUT LOVE JESUS.
16million hits in 3week. That's no coincidence. It's a message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Yes, the "hate" expression could be modified to fit todays accepted norms. But, consider this, if it were not part of the poets stark and vivid title would anybody have taken the time to notice?

PS- The CBS damage control interview found on RNN's main page does nothing but, have its sales promotion agent encourage subserviance of one's healthy vibrant soul to another imperfect human beings or organizations' phoebias, dictates and agendas.
The clergyman has no right to chastize, or make light of this man's brilliant homage to the Son of Man by merely citing a list of the good things that have been done and associated to institutional religions. He doesn't seek to remedy any of the ills associated w/ organized religion. He merely fluffs it off as aberrations.

IMO Father Beck more closely resembles a lobbyist fund raiser for the institutions of religion. Whereas the messenger, "free spirit" for spiritual awareness and true enlightenment has clearly shattered the facades.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

How Marxism Killed Keystone:

January 23, 2012

The global warming apocalypse and its Elmer Gantry, Al Gore, may have faded from public view lately, but that old-time green religion is still making mischief. President Obama has just delayed until after November’s election a decision on the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline. This truly shovel-ready project would create thousands of blue-collar jobs, help hold down the price of gasoline, and lessen our dependence on oil imported from thugs like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

The administration’s excuses for this move are preposterous. The State Department sniffed that it needs more time “to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest” and, as Obama said in his announcement, can “protect the American people.” But three years, nine public meetings, and reams of reports have already shown that the pipeline’s alleged dangers to the Ogallala aquifer, or the malign effects of “dirty” crude oil, or the threat to endangered species, are specious pretexts. Like his slow-down of oil drilling permits and reduction of oil production on federal lands––down 40% compared to ten years ago––Obama’s decision is in fact both political and ideological, a mollifying bone tossed to the bicoastal progressive elites on whom Obama depends for campaign contributions and political support.

For these affluent urban-dwellers, the cult of environmentalism is a cheap way to indulge a vaguely leftist dislike of industrial capitalism while enjoying all the benefits that a high-tech, oil-fueled, free-market economy confers on them. Like the “telescopic philanthropy,” to use Charles Dickens’ label, directed at distant ghetto-dwellers or the Third World poor, the urban nature-lover conspicuously displays his concern over a natural world under assault by capitalism’s depravities. But he does so only from within a cocoon of technology that assures him a reliable, safe supply of food, freeing him from the drudgery of wresting sustenance from a hostile natural world; and that protects him from the disease, drought, famine, predators, malnutrition, and the other natural evils afflicting our ancestors and those living in the Third World today.

Equally hypocritical is the Marxist agenda lurking in environmentalism, which blames the degradation of the environment on the same free market capitalism and economic globalization that have created blue-state wealth. Given communism’s abject failure as an economic and social system, contemporary Marxism has insinuated itself into environmentalism as a way of wielding influence and recruiting adherents from among those dissatisfied with modern life and the trade-offs required by a free economy and its creative destruction. Issues such as pollution or species extinction are thus explained as the consequences of an evil capitalist empire that oppresses the international proletariat and the natural world alike. That’s why at most protests against the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank or Wall Street, the hammer and sickle can be seen flying beside the banners of Greenpeace. Forgotten, of course, is the fact that communist regimes like the old Soviet Union and today’s China are some of history’s worst polluters.

What gives this strange Marxist nature-love wider political traction, however, is the patina of science that disguises its mythic origins. Sentimental idealizations of nature as our true home, a superior realm of peace, harmony, freedom and simplicity destroyed by civilization and technology, are as old as the Greeks and their myths of the Golden Age and the Noble Savage. But today’s modern environmentalist cloaks these ancient myths in the robes of science. Overpopulation, pesticide pollution, resource depletion, extermination of species, and of course global warming have all over the years been presented as scientifically established facts that show the destructive consequences of modern capitalism. But in each case, the apocalyptic predictions have all ended in a whimper, and the science supposedly supporting them exposed as partial, incomplete, politically motivated, and riddled with unexamined assumptions and at times outright fakery. Nonetheless, politicized nature-love camouflaged with “science” permeates popular culture and our public schools, where kids are taught lies about drowning polar bears and melting ice caps, the quasi-pagan cult celebration Earth Day is solemnly celebrated, carbon-based fuels are demonized, and driving a Prius is a sacrament.

Of course, more grubby concerns lie behind progressive environmentalism. As Al Gore demonstrates, thundering against the “dysfunctional” modern world and its “technological hubris,” “increasingly aggressive encroachment into the natural world,” and “froth and frenzy of industrial civilization,” as he wrote in Earth in the Balance, can make one rich––Gore’s net worth increased from between $1 and $2 million in 2000, to around $100 million today. The sermons condemning our destruction of the natural world can provide the political rationale for taxpayer-funded subsidies for “green energy.” Indeed, Gore’s investments in companies that benefit from green crony capitalism may make him the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” as the New York Times’s John Broder put it. More recently, the collapse of firms like Solyndra, beneficiary of half a billion dollars worth of now-vanished taxpayer money, has illustrated just how lucrative apocalyptic environmentalism can be. As Investor’s Business Daily described Gore’s unholy alliance of federal subsidies and environmental catastrophism, “The American consumer and taxpayer are on the wrong end of his green Ponzi scheme.”

Crony capitalism aside, the Keystone decision reflects Obama’s larger progressive ideology that sees America’s free-market economy as inherently unjust, and our reliance on fossil fuel as the enabler of this oppressive system, as well as being a danger to the environment. Indulging Disneyfied fantasies about nature is merely the honey that helps this anti-capitalist, redistributionist poison go down more easily. Thus delaying the Keystone pipeline fits in with the class-warfare rhetoric that for now is the central narrative of Obama’s reelection campaign. Just as attacks on “income inequality” and the “greed” of the “1%,” along with debt-financed, multi-trillion-dollar increases in social-welfare transfers, serves his aim to redistribute income and increase government power, so too weaning us off oil is part of Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform America” by attacking the engine of American prosperity, power, and national self-reliance. In this way he can move us closer to an America more like Europe: just one unexceptional pole in a multi-polar world.

WHY I HATE RELIGION, BUT LOVE JESUS.
John.

---------------

Seems accurate too me. Good vid.