http://www.michaelmoore.com/…

Goodbye, GM …by Michael Moore

1. Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices. Within months in Flint in 1942, GM halted all car production and immediately used the assembly lines to build planes, tanks and machine guns. The conversion took no time at all. Everyone pitched in. The fascists were defeated.

We are now in a different kind of war — a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call “cars” may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.

The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn’t give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true — that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.

President Obama, now that he has taken control of GM, needs to convert the factories to new and needed uses immediately.
Read More…

http://online.wsj.com/…

The White House is open to compromise on certain key elements of its climate-change agenda, including whether businesses could get some emissions allowances free, administration officials said Wednesday.

“[The president's] preferred approach was 100% auction to create incentives for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions,” said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. “Members of Congress are looking at a variety of policy options to help us make that transition, and the administration will be flexible during the policymaking process as long as those larger goals are met,” he said in an email.

Many lawmakers have warned that passing a climate bill will be difficult if the administration sticks to a position that all of the greenhouse-gas emissions allowances under a so-called cap and trade system would have to be purchased at auction. Recent Senate votes have indicated that proponents of an economywide cap and trade proposal don’t yet have the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Many of those same senators have written to Mr. Obama warning against trying to push a bill with 100% auction and outlining some of their concerns. Legislators are concerned that auctioning off so many credits would cost their industries too much and they want a larger portion of the revenues funneled into low-carbon energy technologies and energy-intensive sectors.

In the president’s fiscal year 2010 budget, the administration proposed cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 83% from 2005 levels by 2050, and auctioning off all of the credits that give the holder the right to emit gases such as carbon dioxide. Mr. Obama proposed distributing most of the revenues gathered in the auction as a tax credits to lower-income households, while siphoning off a fraction to fund clean-energy technologies.

If CO2 is truly a pollutant how is it legitimate that the government allows people to pollute? Giving them the permission to explicitly do so? Isn’t that exactly what lead to the polluted state we live in now? By going from upholding property rights to explicitly allowing others to infringe on them. It shows that they really don’t buy into the whole crisis thing. It’s just a way to gain more power and control and is heavily supported with the state socialist movements of the world. Cap and trade has shown to be at best ineffective if not an outright racket in which, as always, big business uses government as a means to keep out competition. Leading to corporatism, fascism, socialism.

http://lewrockwell.com/…

Just when you thought it was safe to drive in the People’s Republic of California–as long as your car isn’t painted black, here’s the latest “innovation” for “saving the planet” that is beginning to gain traction (pun intended) in our “most progressive” state: mandatory checking of tire pressure by auto repair shops every time a customer brings his car in for maintenance.

“An issue that briefly brought President Barack Obama ridicule on the campaign trail last year is gaining traction in California, where air regulators are seeking to mandate proper tire inflation as a way to reduce fuel consumption.The state Air Resources Board on Thursday adopted a resolution requiring auto repair shops to check tire pressure every time drivers bring in their vehicle for maintenance, oil changes and smog tests. The next step is to develop detailed rules to implement the mandate, which will take effect in July 2010.

Regulators say widespread awareness of having properly inflated tires could lead to California motorists saving 75 million gallons of gasoline a year and using 700,000 fewer tires.”

And that’s not all:

California Proposes Ban on Energy-Hogging HDTVs Starting in 2011

“The California Energy Commission is going ahead with a proposal this summer that promises to ban State shops from selling televisions not considered energy efficient.The proposal is set up as a two-tiered system. The first enforces efficiency standards beginning in 2011 and would save 3,831 gigawatt hours (and bring down overall TV energy consumption by 33%) by placing a cap on the active mode power usage (in watts) of individual TVs. Current standards in California only regulate TVs in standby mode, at a cap of 3.0 watts.”

It sure is going to be fun to watch the socio-fascist State of California collapse. Someone should send Schwarzenegger a copy of Human Action or Socialism. He’s Austrian… can read them in the original language.

From the Daily Mail:

Our movements are already tracked by CCTV, speed cameras and even spies in dustbins.

Now snooping on the public has reached new heights with local authorities putting spy planes in the air to snoop on homeowners who are wasting too much energy.

Thermal imaging cameras are being used to create colour-coded maps which will enable council officers to identify offenders and pay them a visit to educate them about the harm to the environment and measures they can take.

Read More…

http://www.nytimes.com/…

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.

He said that under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers, even bakeries, which has prompted some critics to call it the “Dunkin’ Donuts rule.”

But Mr. Bookbinder and other supporters say the regulations can be written to exempt these potential emitters. Ms. Jackson said that there was no timetable for issuing regulations governing carbon emissions and that her agency would not engage in “rash decision making.”

Either carbon dioxide is a “dangerous pollutant” there should be no exceptions. A 1 250 tons “polluter” is just as bad as 250 1 ton “polluters.” A law like this would incentivize businesses to build smaller emitters and more of them. At some point the limit would lower, covering more emitters and increasing the difficulty of enforcement. At 1kg / day and 305,837,000 individuals subject the this proposed regulation we get 337,127.584 short tons. Divided by 250 we get 1348.51 legally regulatable sources. The law should be consistantly applied. Proportional to output. That is assuming property rights are ignored and everything is treated as “commons.” When you account for private property rights pollution is a subjective designation. The only person or persons able to define what pollution is are those who OWN the property. If you are a farmer and believe the studies which show that increased CO2 percentages increase crop yield you may not care that the guy next door is allowing CO2 onto your property. If however he’s burning coal and covering the landscape in soot you have a clear, involuntary, property rights infringement which can be brought to arbitration and gives the infringed the legitimate use of force to prevent further infringement and cover damages.

This is of course ignoring any consideration that CO2 may in fact not be a significant contributor to global climate change. Given that H2O vapor and methane play far larger roles in being components of the earth green house gas composition either due to its increase heat retention per unit or due to shear quantity of the gas in the atmosphere.

Grabbed from Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis blog:

Things are looking pretty bleak. There is bad news in housing, the stock market, commercial real estate, jobs, and wages . Unfortunately, no matter how bad things are, someone always comes along to propose a “solution” that is guaranteed to make the situation much worse. Please consider the following ideas.

Punish savers and make them spend money: Near-zero interest rates and even a tax on bank deposits are necessary to force those with cash to use it productively

Assuming interest rates are reduced to about 1 per cent today, it will make little difference to savers if they fall all the way to zero. To all intents and purposes, income from bank accounts will be reduced to nil.

The next logical step, although it may be politically controversial, would be to do the opposite of what the Tories suggest. Instead of reducing taxes on interest payments, the Government could tax all bank deposits and other risk-free savings. This would create a negative risk-free interest rate, encouraging savers either to invest in property, shares and other productive assets – or simply to save less and consume more. In either case, the result would be more consumption and physical investment, less unemployment and faster recovery from the slump.

The Case for Bigger Government

Thirty years ago, Americans were told that government was part of the problem, not the solution. We bet on the magic of the marketplace, but the magic proved illusory. Every major part of the economy – health care, energy, transportation, food and finance – is deeply troubled. Now we are ready to invite government back in to help solve our problems, if the price is right and the strategies are convincing. By spending more through government and treating government as a partner rather than an enemy of the private sector, we can potentially save vast sums in the long run through a more efficient health-care system, safer climate, more competitive economy and more secure country.

A big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the rich world is that for the past 30 years or so, Americans consistently rejected “government solutions” to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment.

What Hath Big Government Wrought?

• It was big government that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• It was big government that sponsored the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq.
• It was big government that gave us nightmare problems we face with Medicaid and Medicare.
• It was big government that gave us overlapping hundred billion dollar systems in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
• It is big government that sponsored 10’s of thousands of pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere.
• It is big government that gave us the Davis Bacon Act and the insanity pf prevailing wages.
• It was big government sponsorship of the rating agencies that created the “AAA” rated securities that went to zero.
• It was big government that took us off the gold standard and illegally confiscated citizen’s money.
• It was big government that allowed fractional reserve lending and theft by inflation this is the root cause of a shrinking middle class today.
• It was big government that created the Fed, and it was the Greenspan Fed that blew serial bubble after bubble culminating in the housing crash we are in today.

Big government either created or made worse every problem we have today. Yet Time Magazine and free lunch proponents like Krugman propose an even bigger government is necessary to fix the enormous problems of an already too big government.

I’d like to add that the idea that “Americans consistently rejected “government solutions” to the problems of health, poverty, education and the environment” is completely fallacious and ridiculous. Medicare, medicaid, the war on poverty, from little or no federal involvement to No Child Left Behind, huge federal college subsidies, the increase of scope and power of the EPA, etc. Just because Americans didn’t jump on board as quickly as other socialist / fascist States doesn’t mean such ideas were rejected.