In the Pipeline: 4/1/13

Freedom of expression is now freedom of coercion. Sierra Club(3/31/13) reports: “As the effects of climate change cause hardship for families across America, we need better coverage if we want people to connect the dots and demand real action to curb global warming pollution… That’s why we’re launching a petition to the executive producers of ABC, CBS, and NBC’s evening news programs, demanding more — and better — news coverage on climate change this year. Will you add your name to help us reach 60,000 signatures in the next two weeks?”

Shocker. Who could have foreseen that all of this would be a disaster? I mean, except for the morons who are trying to run the country. National Legal and Policy Center (3/28/13) reports: “Those interviewed cited predictable reasons for their regret, hesitance or refusal to accept government funding, including bureaucratic red tape, reporting requirements, uncertainty about credit subsidy costs, lengthy review times, and the expenditure of time and resources for an uncertain outcome. But now – with the benefit of hindsight of so many that went before them into the tortured realm of government dependency – apparently many have been deterred by bad publicity surrounding previous loans.”

Fisker possibly going bankrupt… Is it wrong to say it’s karma?Reuters (3/28/13) reports: “Fisker Automotive, the green-car company that has not built a car since July, has hired law firm Kirkland & Ellis to advise it on a possible bankruptcy filing, a person close to the matter said on Thursday.”

I am a little unclear. Who decides who might be “undesirable”? Because in the past people like Charlie Crist have been desirable while people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have been undesirable. Washington Post (3/30/13) reports: “NRSC officials say they are also taking a new approach to contested primaries… In 2010, the committee endorsed preferred candidates, only to see five of them defeated. In 2012, the NRSC chose to make no endorsements and provided only behind-the-scenes guidance to its preferred candidates… This time, the committee intends to stay neutral unless a particularly undesirable nominee begins to emerge. In addition, if Democratic groups wade into GOP primaries to help a candidate they deem weaker and easier to beat, the NRSC promises to fight back.”

For instance, after his horrible plan to raise energy taxes on consumers and families, which is a disaster for the Commonwealth and gave cover to collectivists like Governor O’Malley, I think that Governor Bob McDonnell (Bishop Ireton, Class of ’74) is undesirable. Very undesirable. Washington Post (3/29/13) reports: “Under the bill, which passed the Senate 27 to 20, motorists can expect to pay between 13 and 20 cents more per gallon by mid-2016, according to legislative analysts. The increase would be phased in, with the first bump of about 4 cents a gallon coming in July… The vote came just a month after a transportation plan was approved in Virginia, a state led by a Republican governor that competes for jobs in a region with some of the nation’s worst traffic congestion… The two plans share some features, including a new wholesale tax on gas that is intended to keep pace with the price of fuel… In an interview, O’Malley acknowledged that higher gas taxes would not be politically popular: “It’s not the kind of stuff people throw you bouquets for.” But he argued that funding more projects would create jobs and that the action was long overdue. He credited passage in Virginia for stiffening the spines of some lawmakers in Maryland.”

So if you start with global cooling, switch to global warming, rebrand as climate change, and then start beating your chest to climate disruption, does that mean we’ve come full circle? Or are there a few more PR tricks left in the bag? Powerline (3/29/13) reports: “The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.”  The question in my mind at the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world… That day appears to have arrived.  The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity.  That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.  A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.”

We’re guessing the Obama administration is spinning this E15 thing as the knight in shining armor for emissions reductions. But the joke is on us – ethanol is a less efficient fuel than gasoline and is more damaging to the environment when you factor in its production. But hey, at least ethanol mandates aren’t bad for poor people and food prices, right? Energy Guardian (4/1/13) reports: “The Obama administration’s new proposal to reduce sulfur in gasoline has the oil industry concerned about refinery costs, but that’s not the only challenge it has to overcome in the draft rule… The Environmental Protection Agency also proposed moving to 15 percent ethanol blends as its test gasoline for emissions tests, a clear rejection of the oil industry’s public effort to stop the E15 blends and the Renewable Fuel Standard.”