Another call for action

While Newt and his “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign has created the most buzz, the folks at Freedom’s Watch are also on the petition bandwagon:

It’s now been two years since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Americans that Democrats had a commonsense solution to high gas prices. Average price per gallon when Democrats took control of Congress? $2.32. Now, as the price of gas reaches another record high of $4.11 per gallon (a 77% increase in the last two years!), Americans are growing tired of Congressional leaders twiddling their thumbs while drivers shell out more and more of their income at the pumps.

Senator Barack Obama would’ve preferred a more “gradual adjustment” in fuel prices. Senator Harry Reid believes all fossil fuels are “dirty” and need to be eliminated. But what these liberal leaders aren’t offering is a solution to skyrocketing fuel prices while alternative sources of energy can be developed – and their hand-wringing is having a devastating effect on the American economy.

The liberal ‘plan’ for alleviating fuel costs seems to be nothing more than twiddling their thumbs while Americans continue to suffer. Watch this video (that I embedded below) outlining their inaction, and then sign the petition urging Congressional leaders to stop twiddling their thumbs and take action to lower high fuel prices.

What makes their point especially well is pointing out that gas has increased by nearly $2 per gallon on average since the Democrats took over Congress after the 2006 temper tantrum by voters. I did sign the official-looking petition myself, but one thing I’d like to know is how many others have. Granted, this is also a way for the group to bolster its e-mail list but I’m already on it anyway.

Now, the video I promised.

It’s actually pretty humorous as these things go, and only 54 seconds long so it may just make it to network TV sometime, who knows.

By the way, yesterday President Bush undid what his father was responsible for and rescinded the Executive Order that prohibited oil exploration on the outer Continental Shelf. So the ball is now definitely bouncing around the court of Congress and every little bit of public pressure will help.

What truly would help is relief that cannot arrive until November, that being throwing out all of the obstructionists who are preventing us from securing our own energy. The message would be loud and clear if spoken at the ballot box.

Almost on cue

It’s been less than 24 hours since I asked the question whether First District Congressional hopeful Frank Kratovil would risk alienating environmental voters and instead side with those of us fed up with $4 a gallon gas. Courtesy of my cohorts at the Maryland GOP, we may have some of the answer:

In an hour-long interview on the Delmarva Today radio show on WSLD 90.7 FM, Frank Kratovil showed his out-of-touch values when discussing the rising energy costs. Kratovil stated he opposes domestic exploration and a gas tax holiday and would rather support more funding for mass transit. “Kratovil’s pro-tax, anti-consumer stances are out of touch with the voters in the 1st Congressional District,” said MDGOP Chairman Jim Pelura.

Kratovil rejected the idea of a gas tax holiday outright, saying that it would be an insignificant help to consumers. Dr. Pelura responded, “I don’t think paying $.42 less a gallon would be viewed as insignificant by Maryland’s working families.” Kratovil also seemed to celebrate the high gas prices. “We have an opportunity with gas prices being as high as they are to actually make a change.” Kratovil said. “We have the opportunity to use the high gas prices to do what we should have done before, to invest in alternative energy, to invest in alternative vehicles, to look at public transportation again.”

“Mr. Kratovil should remember that he is running for Congress in the Maryland’s rural Eastern Shore and not the DC suburbs where he was raised,” replied Chairman Pelura. “Voters on the Eastern Shore and other parts of Maryland are tired of their gas tax money going to fund mass transit in the Washington suburbs.”

While a vast majority of Americans are calling for the United States to decrease its dependence on foreign oil, Frank Kratovil opposes expanding domestic oil production. “Frank Kratovil’s lack of concern on the rising costs of energy shows he lacks the leadership and understanding that the people of the 1st District need in a congressman,” concluded Chairman Pelura.

Granted, this statement is cherrypicked from an entire hour-long interview (one I’ve not listened to as I write this) but I’m fairly confident that what’s being said by Pelura and company is fairly representative of Frank Kratovil’s philosophy insofar as energy policy goes.

While I think a gas tax holiday isn’t a bad idea, I can understand the argument of opponents who claim that prices won’t necessarily fall by the full amount of the taxes deleted from the price. It may serve as an opportunity for long-suffering station owners to recoup some of their expenses as oil prices continue around their all-time peak, so the price may initially drop by 40 cents or so but slowly rise back to a smaller decline from the original pricing point. Conversely though market pressures may allow the price not to go back up the full 42 cents once the holiday comes to an end. Either way, it’s academic because we know that government is the last entity to do without.

More telling to me is the insistence by Kratovil that we need to turn our back on a resource which is still in ample supply domestically and artificially game the energy market by subsidizing alternative sources. There’s already a plethora of incentives for investing in alternative energy to those who wish to do so; apparently Frank thinks they’re not robust enough. He’s backing what amounts to a shell game in taking the tax money that we already pay into the system through gasoline taxes, adding any windfall profits tax on oil companies that he can help shepherd through Congress, and redistributing it to those whose behavior he and the Democrats seek to reward (mainly large energy companies who are looking for a rent-seeking opportunity to increase their bottom line at our expense.)

Pelura brings up his best point in bringing up Kratovil’s advocacy of mass transit to cure our transportation ills. Certainly some commuters have shifted over to taking the bus or Metro when possible to save a few dollars, but even with the increased ridership these services depend mainly on subsidies from government to stay financially afloat. And those transit authorities also have to deal with the rising cost of fuel, meaning that fare increases are likely. Then we’ll hear the sob stories about poor working people now being priced out of mass transit, which will mean government will have to step in and figure out another way of redistributing wealth in order to allow the poor working folks to maintain their “right” to transportation.

To me, a much simpler long-term solution is allowing the energy companies who already know best how to deal with the problem to do so. Allow them to domestically drill for oil, mine the oil shale, get back into nuclear energy, and if those companies see a viable market for a particular technology, pay for their own research into alternative forms of renewable energy. Government needs to step back and let the real experts in the private sector work their magic, not overrun the market with incentives targeted to those areas which need a taxpayer-funded subsidy just to maintain a tiny market share and survive. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the Democrat who’s seeking your vote here in the First Congressional District trusts a free market enough to allow the proper solution to be put into place.

Perspective and theory

Earlier today, I wrote about the historically high gas prices and how each party inside the Beltway is blaming the other. This is the second part of what might be called a rant, but it’s not totally of my doing.

Yesterday I found another interesting perspective courtesy of a blogger associated with the trade magazine Engineering News-Record. His suggestion? Quit whining.

But while Tom Armistead has the correct title, he comes about his solution from the wrong perspective:

(A)n honest look at the car, oil, electric and other energy-intensive markets over the last 35 years will unveil another culprit: you, me and all the other consumers who have taken advantage of the unjustifiably cheap energy we’ve enjoyed and come to expect as our birthright.

I’d truly like to know what price he thinks is justified for energy. Somewhere in the back swamps of my mind I recall reading that, in its infancy, nuclear power was supposed to become available so cheaply that there would be no need to meter it. Obviously that didn’t turn out to be the case.

Instead of answering, Tom points the finger at the usual suspects:

Look out the window at rush hour on your way home tonight and note all the SUVs and even Hummers inching along the highway. Without high prices squeezing us, we don’t moderate our energy demands. We have met the enemy and he is us.

It’s that evil capitalism and wanting to enjoy those things you’ve coveted and purchased via a free market! Damn, I hate it when actually living a semi-affluent lifestyle in a thriving economy creates a demand for energy.

And once again, Arnistead proves that hindsight can always be considered 20/20:

Taking the long view, we might have acknowledged that any fuel that formed deep in the earth over millions of years eventually will be exhausted if we keep extracting it at the current rate. After admitting that and agreeing that it means we need to reduce our consumption and invest in research and development of technologies for renewable energy and renewable fuels, we might have formulated policies that would require us to pay a premium for using gasoline instead of renewable fuels. Europeans have paid far higher prices than we do for years. The policies also might have encouraged the R&D over an extended period, allowing us to spread out the cost. That we did not is a failure of leadership by our government supported by a craven short-sightedness of our people. We could have demanded action; we did not.

(snip)

I read in the paper today that opponents of the Climate Security Act now being debated in Congress are not questioning the science behind theories of climate change, but are basing their opposition mainly on the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. My question is, what is the cost of NOT reducing CO2 emissions? I believe an honest look at the answer will show it’s time to start paying our way. (Emphasis in original.)

Actually, I DO question the science behind the theory of climate change, a point I’ll expand upon shortly. For the moment, I have to question whether Tom knows much of anything about a free market. Obviously the cheapest method of getting the most energy for transportation needs is through oil refined into gasoline, with another drilling by-product, natural gas, priced by the market in such a way that it’s commonly used for both heating homes and producing electricity.

Unfortunately for Tom’s theory, the cost of renewable energy remains prohibitive enough that much of its use depends on government subsidy to skew the market in its favor. Arnistead would have us believe that placing a punishing premium on using oil would force alternatives to be used, but all that would accomplish is fattening the coffers of those who levied the fees. Think of cap and trade.

And then there’s the question of reliability. One example can be found in neighboring Delaware, where Bluewater Wind has been in a protracted battle with Delmarva Power over a proposed offshore wind farm. While Bluewater claims that they would be able to maintain a set price of 12.535 cents per kilowatt hour for 25 years, Delmarva Power contends that an onshore wind farm would be able to create the same kilowatt hour for just 8.55 cents. Apparently neither of these factor in the backup sources (e.g. fossil fuels) which would be required when the winds don’t blow, and both of these bids beg the question: if wind blows for free, why should we pay anything? Just like sunshine is free, it’s obvious that alternative energy must be expensive because either it’s unreliable or the required infrastucture to convert one energy source to a more useful one isn’t cost-effective without a government subsidy, or both.

I think I have a better idea, and I’m going to couch it in much the same terms as Al Gore hyped global warming in An Inconvenient Truth – basically saying that we can’t conclusively prove it exists but we need to do something about it and quickly!

My theory is that we should just go right ahead and try to exhaust all of those resources which Arnstead frets are finite as quickly as possible, because if we do nothing our economic doom is nigh. We may not even last 20 years if nothing is done.

And I have plenty of evidence that this theory is valid. Look at what the cost of gasoline is doing to the economy. Can we sustain our living standard on $4 a gallon gasoline?

For those who say that the potential for environmental disaster awaits if we drill and transport more oil, let me ask you when the last large oil spill was? Prince William Sound isn’t the barren wasteland for wildlife many feared, and even the most pessimistic prediction is for full recovery in 30 years. Meanwhile, the mistakes made became lessons on how to transport oil more safely, and what doesn’t make news are the millions of barrels of oil which arrive safely at their destination.

While some tout the green-collar jobs that await once the movement toward alternative energy kicks in, we have a number of companies with a lot of capital to invest right now, particularly with the price for their product at a peak. Even a 50% drop in the price of oil from current levels would place the black gold at about $69 a barrel, certainly worth the risk in exploring domestically and bringing a much better stimulus to the economy than a government check which is simply like a payday loan against next year’s tax liability. Oh, and it might put some engineers to work as well.

Thus, instead of going hell-bent down a road to address a theory with little evidence but a lot of opportunity for an ever-expanding federal and international government to get its claws deeper into the American taxpayer’s wallets, why not work with my theory – one that looks to the private sector to create jobs and insure a more stable energy supply that’s tried and true.

Then we won’t be looking at the SUV as an evil, but a choice made in the best interest of its owner. 

This post is also my debut crosspost on That’s Elbert With An E.

Temporary reprieve?

I guess the panic in an e-mail alert I received the other day wasn’t quite justified. I edited this a little bit since today’s events obviated the need for any links. The e-mail came from my friends at Freedom’s Watch:

At $4 a gallon, Americans are hurting at the gas pump. Higher gas prices are affecting every part of our life. We’re paying more for food, milk, clothes, and cooling our homes. Even summer vacations are in jeopardy.

Yet the Senate is about to vote on a bill (S. 2191) that would make things worse by raising gas prices, increasing home energy bills, and slowing the economy, and we need your help to stop it.

Sponsors say their bill will reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. They call their plan “cap and trade,” but it is really a huge hidden carbon tax on our economy that will have devastating consequences.

This bill could not come at a worse time. Last week General Motors announced it was closing four plants, putting nearly 5,000 Americans out of work. Thousands more in supporting industries will also lose their jobs.

Meanwhile, United Airlines announced it was slashing 1,600 jobs, idling older planes, and cutting routes – all because of skyrocketing gas prices.

Is your job next?

Incredibly, the bill before the Senate is estimated to raise the price of gasoline $1.10 a gallon, raise taxes, and increase your home energy bills.

This bill is so bad the Wall Street Journal called it “the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.” That’s saying something.

You’ll notice in the FOX News story that both the major party Presidential hopefuls are behind the bill, though:

The 48-36 vote fell short of a majority, but Democrats produced letters from six senators — including both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain — saying they would have voted for the measure had they been there.

Something tells me that the Democrats only had one GOP letter; unfortunately it came from the party’s standardbearer. The other sick feeling I’m beginning to get is that come early 2009, this terrible bill will manage to get through both houses of Congress because there’s a few GOP members of the Senate who will cave to the will of the new President. If it’s Barack Obama, passage may be part of the honeymoon voters and the media give to most new Presidents, while if John McCain gets the nod these Senators will be loyal to the party but not the principles which make up the party.

History has shown that in many cases new programs such as these end up with less than promised benefits at higher than expected costs. More important to me is the assumption made by the Warner-Lieberman bill is that we as Americans can do a damn thing about the climate one way or the other, because the reality is that global temperatures are steady or even declining slightly – and have for almost a decade. I know Americans have a “can-do” attitude when faced with a problem, but some problems are beyond our ability to correct and in this case there’s no problem to address! Based on the actual temperature evidence (and not computer modeling that doesn’t take all possible factors into account in an attempt to predict future climate in 50 years), you can call me a climate change skeptic.

In short, Americans just received a stay of the execution of our standard of living. Unfortunately, this year’s Presidential election will almost certainly place a man who’s convinced – despite the evidence to the contrary – that placing another huge tax burden on the energy business would make energy cheaper and more plentiful. It will be up to right-thinking Americans to stop this mad race toward a more primitive lifestyle, and it’ll have to be fought in Congress. We’re not getting much leadership from the top of the tickets on this issue.

Crossposted on Red Maryland, where Mark Newgent also wrote an excellent summary on the bill’s impact for Maryland.

Tired of gas prices?

So’s Newt Gingrich, and since he pays a little more attention to the goings-on in Congress than even I do, he’s playing the modern-day Paul Revere and letting us know that the Warner-Lieberman global warming bill is coming up for debate in the next few days:

There must be something about springtime in Washington that makes Senators forget where they came from.

Next week, the Senate is set to begin debate on a bill that will raise the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil and aviation fuel. (View this Heritage Foundation state-by-state breakdown to find out how much Warner Lieberman will cost you). It’s the Warner-Lieberman global warming bill, and its supporters are as misguided and out-of-touch with the American people as the supporters of last spring’s immigration amnesty bill – and we all remember how that turned out.

There are two things you can do now to fight back.

First, call or email your Senator and tell him or her to vote “no” on Warner-Lieberman – “no” on raising the cost of driving to work, heating your home, and feeding your family.

Second, visit americansolutions.com/drillnow and sign our “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” petition.

The petition is simple but powerful. It says:

We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.

In just a few short days, over 45,000 Americans have signed the pledge. (Note: as of Sunday, June 1st that number is now north of 275,000.)

And with your help, as the Senate begins to debate Warner-Lieberman, American Solutions will present the names of 100,000 of their constituents who will hold them accountable if they fail to allow America the freedom to use its own energy resources instead of relying on foreign dictators.

Americans truly have a choice – a choice between the Pay More, Send More Money to Foreign Dictators and Cripple America Left and the Produce More, Enjoy More, Pay Less, Stengthen American Center-Right Majority.

Make your choice by visiting americansolutions.com/drillnow.

And you know how I am, I agree with Newt about 150 percent on this issue. The more exploration we do, the more oil and natural gas we find. The more oil and natural gas we find, the lower the price should become. Needless to say, doing more searching for oil and refining the results would mean more good-paying jobs in America, beginning in the construction trades and moving along to the actual work of converting the crude oil found into gasoline, jet fuel, and the like.

On the other hand, passing Warner-Lieberman would likely lead to much more government regulation and interference in the free market, neither of which produce desirable results. In Great Britain, which has gone farther into the realm of carbon taxes, a recent poll found 72% oppose paying higher taxes to fight climate change and 67% believe the government’s entire “green” agenda is just a ploy to raise taxes.

They’ve figured it out across the pond, but too late. Of course, maybe that’s why the Tories won big in local elections over there and should Warner-Lieberman pass a large backlash may occur at the ballot box soon after the impact hits Americans in the wallet. In the meantime, I have a petition to sign.

Whine about what you have and beg for more

That was the attitude I picked up in a recent article by Alec Appelbaum from the GreenSource magazine website:

When the feds pass a law to fight climate change, you would expect architects, builders, and facilities managers on the front lines. After all, buildings produce 40 percent of our nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions, and since more than half the buildings likely to be in use in 2030 don’t yet exist, more robust government regulation could help spur needed innovations. But effective lobbying by the homebuilders’ industry made the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law in December, more tentative about efficiency than green-building advocates had hoped.

Let’s set a couple things straight here. First of all, the federal government can pass all the laws they want about climate change and it would mean diddly-squat as far as actually changing the earth’s atmospheric temperature. (Passing all those regulations, though, would mean much more in terms of destroying a once-robust economy.) The climate was warmer in the 1930’s than it is today and no one blamed those inefficient and polluting Ford Model A’s for the long hot spell of a decade – it was just Mother Nature doing her thing.

More troubling to me is the advocacy of more “robust” (read: oppressive) government regulation to spur needed innovations. A far better method of innovation is called the marketplace, unfortunately those who feel as Appelbaum does that the government can actually make a dent in our climate (and notice it’s not about “global warming” now because the evidence of the last decade that the planet is cooling put the kibosh on that term) have no concept of what constitutes a free market.

Of course, my fellows in the American Institute of Architects lead the way in being suckered by the hype:

Along with five industry organizations, (the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) founded a group called the Commercial Buildings Initiative (CBI) in 2006. The CBI coalition includes the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the U.S. Green Building Council, the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. This group plans to support the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to help carry out the mission of the federal net-zero initiative. “A collaborative could span near-term deployment and long-term R&D,” Selkowitz says. “We’re advocating a system of real-time reporting that owners can compare to [performance] targets.”

Aside from ASHRAE, none of these groups truly represent the building industry. In fact, the thrust of Appelbaum’s moaning is that the home builders’ lobby watered down the so-called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (it provides neither) to insulate themselves from expensive regulation. With that industry already in the tank because of financial problems, an increase in the price of new homes because of overzealous government regulation would have further depressed the sector.

In looking at the idea of energy efficiency, I’m certainly for it IF it’s cost-effective (e.g. a fairly short payback period – my yardstick is generally 5 years or less.) Unfortunately, many in the green movement cannot justify their schemes to save energy with such a short payback so they turn to an entity well known for butting into markets and making unproven technologies “cost-effective” with taxpayer money. Yes, it’s called taxpayer subsidy. Why work to make a product more competitive when the government pays an owner to install it?

But don’t worry, Mr. Appelbaum, I’m certain that once the election has passed that there will be many legislators tucked firmly in the pocket of the radical green organizations who will seek to “improve” the EISA with even tighter restrictions and possibly even funding courtesy of those greedy oil companies. I’d bet the bottom dollar that’s going into my gas tank because of onerous restrictions on oil exploration and subsidies to agribusiness for ethanol creation on it.

Pull him back from the abyss

I don’t know if Justin Ready of the Maryland GOP intended for me to comment in this way, but when he sent out this article by Foon Rhee of the Boston Globe regarding a statement by Presidential hopeful John McCain regarding his energy policy, it raised my hackles a little bit. Here’s two excerpts:

“We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them,” he plans to say, according to excerpts provided by his campaign. “Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.”

(snip)

McCain says he would set limits on greenhouse gases and allow the sale of rights of excess emissions — what is known as a cap and trade system. “By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050,” he says.

You know, we just got finished with this argument in Maryland and what killed a similar bill proposed by the O’Malley Administration was the prospect of losing a large number of union jobs in a steel plant. Thus, it follows that enacting such legislation on a national scale would drive the already-shrinking number of manufacturing jobs that we have offshore, probably to China.

What’s even more unfortunate is that Senator McCain is listening to scientists with a political agenda and not looking at the actual facts to see that the global temperature peaked 10 years ago and this past winter was among the coldest on record in a number of locations. In fact, yesterday as I read this we had a howling nor’easter going and it was just 45 degrees out – in the middle of May!

Unfortunately, none of the three leading contenders for the presidency seem to have the sense to figure out that mankind could do very little with the climate and nature in general even if they tried – in just the last week, thousands lost their lives in Asia during two separate catastrophic but natural events.

I will grant Senator McCain one point, part of his presentation was spent advocating the expansion of nuclear power and I’m not opposed to that. But I think our energy policy should focus on securing and using resources which are commonly available domestically, not bending to the will of a small group of politically-motivated scientists and others with a radical agenda.

Drill and save the planet

Farmers grow corn. Corn feeds animals and people, or at least it used to. Now it feeds your SUV and a lot of people are starving.

But there’s alternatives, as blogger Hans Bader notes at the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Openmarket blog:

In the American Spectator, Iain Murray notes that ethanol production has caused “food shortages and massive increases in food prices around the world. There have been food riots in Indonesia, Mexico, Egypt, and most recently, Haiti — where the poor have been reduced to eating cakes made with bleach and are on the verge of bringing the government down. Even in America, some grocery stores have begun to institute a form of rationing.  Meanwhile, massive tracts of rainforest are being cleared in Indonesia to produce biodiesel, threatening the orangutan and other magnificent animals with extinction. In Brazil, the growth of sugar cultivation for ethanol is forcing food producers into the Amazon.”

By contrast, one of the Audubon Society’s chief bird sanctuaries (the Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana), has 37 oil wells on site, and has produced natural gas for 50 years without harming the environment.  Drilling for oil hasn’t harmed the birds a bit.  But ethanol production causes environmental destruction, mass hunger, starvation, and rioting worldwide.

Disclosure: like many Americans, I have a retirement plan (both a 401(K) and an IRA).  Like most retirement plans, it contains mutual funds.  And most of those mutual funds own some stock in oil companies.  So when politicians demand that the government impose a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies, what they are really trying to do is take money from my retirement plan — and your retirement plan, too, if you have one.  That’s not going to encourage exploration for new sources of oil, or reduce our dependence on foreign oil. (Emphasis mine.)

He’s right on the money, because Hans and I agree on the point of getting our own supply. It was nice to get the fact about the Louisiana wells, particularly in the wake of incidents like the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. So let’s get out and drill!

It all starts here

Since I started on the subject of incrementalism at the tail end of last night’s post, I’m going to follow with my thoughts on this news item from my associates at the AIA.

After months of consultation with AIA federal relations staff, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) will soon introduce comprehensive legislation aimed at promoting energy efficiency in residential buildings. The bill would provide incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy, or remodel their homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency.

Rep. Perlmutter, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, was asked by Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) to craft legislation aimed at promoting energy efficiency in the residential sector. The legislation will likely be introduced in the coming weeks, and Chairman Frank has indicated that the Committee will take swift action to advance the bill.

On April 22, AIA President Marshall E. Purnell, FAIA, spoke at a forum addressing the current state of energy consumption in buildings and how Rep. Perlmutter’s bill will provide greater tools for homeowners, lenders, and government-sponsored enterprises (such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) to improve energy efficiency. “Last year we advocated strongly for energy-efficiency requirements for federal buildings,” noted Purnell at the forum. “This year we are working with the Financial Services Committee to craft legislation that will create federal incentives for energy-efficient residential projects. This is a necessary step to ensure that we continue making significant reductions in the amount of fossil-fuel generated energy our nation consumes through its homes and buildings.”

The legislation would provide incentives, grants, and educational opportunities to encourage the construction and renovation of energy-efficient homes and buildings and the development of sustainable communities. Specifically, the bill would require residential single-family or multifamily structures constructed using federal monies (such as housing built under Section 8, Hope VI, or the Federal Housing Administration) to meet more stringent energy-efficiency standards.

The bill would also encourage the use of energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages (EEMs and LEMs). Under the legislation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to promote and facilitate the use of EEMs and LEMs. The bill would mandate that Fannie and Freddie purchase a certain percentage (in comparison to total mortgages purchased) of EEMs and LEMs every year.

We started down this road with requiring “green” LEED-certified federal buildings a few years ago, after some states and municipalities made this a requirement for their buildings. And as the square footage threshold for LEED certification requirements continues to shrink and place more and more construction into that realm, this represents the first time the camel’s placed his nose under the residential tent – certainly it won’t be the last because government can never leave well enough alone.

Especially worrisome are the new mandates on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s bad enough that the federal government is expanding their reach in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, but this foray into EEM’s and LEM’s is certain to become a boondoggle in and of itself – something tells me that the price of energy-efficient construction is getting ready to spike once the federal government starts throwing money that way. If you want an example of this ask yourself how much college costs go up each year and compare that to the rate of inflation. Colleges feel free to raise prices where they can because the financial aid is lucrative, regardless of the amount of education provided.

So Congress, with the full support of an organization that obviously doesn’t take my views into account, is going to move full steam ahead into wrecking two more markets. It’s just like they’ve done with ethanol requirements – managing to foul up the energy picture, the cost of food, and a few car engines as well in one fell swoop of regulations and laws. Instead of alternative fuels, can we get an alternative Congress?

Wicomico Neighborhood Congress – April 2008

People may be shocked at me, I actually skipped a Shorebirds game to attend the meeting. Even Rick Pollitt mentioned that when we spoke briefly afterward. And when I saw a table like this, I thought I’d need to be loaded for bear:

A table full of everything you wanted to know about local environmental issues and then some.

Surprisingly, it wasn’t all that bad of a meeting, or at least they brought down the level of radicalism to something tolerable. After some welcoming remarks by Orphans Court Judge Bill Smith, who is a resident of the Mallard Landing development where the meeting was held, and Rick Pollitt speaking briefly about the “successful first year” of the Wicomico Neighborhood Congress, Jim Ireton came on to introduce the evening’s first of three speakers.

Margaret Vivian came to us from the local branch of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation known as the Heart of the Chesapeake. Here she introduces the audience to rain barrels and rain gardens.

As outreach and media relations director for the local Heart of the Chesapeake branch of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Margaret Vivian went through some of the “challenges” facing the Wicomico River basin and took a quick look at results of the Creekwatchers’ 2007 water quality survey. I will give the Creekwatchers credit for being pretty thorough as they take samples and check site conditions from 26 locations in the watershed on a regular basis.

Obviously their concern was water quality, and the “biggest culprit” she named for the dismal results of the 2007 Creekwatchers Wicomico watershed survey was the amount of nitrogen getting into the water, mostly from waste products and fertilizer (to some farmers and gardeners, those are one and the same.) But with 16 million people living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, development in general was not spared blame. Vivian pointed out that, despite the fact that 2007 was a dry year with rainfall well below normal, the water improvement that can be expected in those conditions didn’t materialize. This anamoly was theorized to occur because of human activity such as wastewater and runoff from paved areas. None of the factors they measured met the CBF’s quality standard, although it wasn’t made clear how these standards were determined.

Margaret explained that the excess nitrogen in the water led to algal blooms and “dead zones” which at one point affected 35% of Chesapeake Bay, mostly along the Western Shore. Locally some assistance in reducing the nitrogen number could be expected upon the completion of upgrades to Salisbury’s wastewater treatment plant, cutting the nitrogen from that source by over 2/3, to an estimated 103,000 pounds from 330,000 prior to improvements.

She also took a brief look at rain barrels and rain gardens, which are steps homeowners can take to improve water quality with the possible benefit of reusing graywater for irrigation or other non-potable uses. (This is a feature found on many LEED-certified buildings.) Vivian pointed out that the CBF offices in Annapolis saved 90% on their water bill by the installation of three large rain barrels on their roof. It’s a pity she didn’t stay around because I wanted to ask her what the payback period was for the installation when you factor in the extra structure required and other construction costs, while accounting for whatever power is saved in pumping because of the gravity feed. But when a 1″ rainstorm creates 600 gallons off a 1,000 square foot house (about the size of mine) you need a bunch of barrels!

Fortunately, she stayed pretty much within the purview of items that can be classified as “personal responsibility.” It’s something I’ll return to as I wrap this post up.

E.J. James of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance discusses his group's purpose at the April WNC meeting.

A much more brief presentation was made by E.J. James of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, which is an umbrella group of entities with interest in the river. Those run the gamut from business to environmental and also include several NGO’s like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

He focused mainly on their volunteers, which NWA notes have “transformed into citizen scientists”, who participate in their testing program in the field – or, in this case, in the creeks and streams that make up the Nanticoke’s wide watershed. While James said that the group only “moves with the guidance of its organizations”, I found it noteworthy that while its funding comes from both Maryland and Delaware, the “root” of the money is the federal EPA. The NWA is working on becoming a certified data collector for the EPA, and with its emphasis on equipment that can measure data in the field rather than needing to collect samples for a lab to evaluate, may have a leg up on that goal.

In response to a question from the audience (of the 60 or so there, a large part appeared to be Mallard Landing residents), James felt that the Nanticoke was the most “pristine” of the Chesapeake watersheds because it was among the least developed and had the added benefit of a large swath of marshland around its mouth. There was no major city along its banks so cleaning the river wasn’t looking like a “rear guard” action.

David Curson of the Audubon Society notes that, indeed, some bird species are declining.

Our final speaker was David Curson, who serves as the Director of Bird Conservation for the National Audubon Society. Obviously his task is to save the birds native to our area from the twin endangerment risks caused by loss of habitat quantity (another way of saying suburban sprawl) and habitat quality (where larger swaths are subdivided into smaller ones and certain species who rely on deep forestation lose their ground.) By “prioritizing sites for conservation,” Curson hoped to identify a network of sites with sufficient habitat and focus on them. Possibly most important among the sites in this region are the salt marshes, where some species and subspecies unique to that type of area live.

I noticed that one large piece of assistance with regard to identifying sites was provided by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, since they classify “green infrastructure areas” that closely relate to the “Important Bird Areas” the NAS identifies. In Wicomico County, much of the southeast corner of the county is in what’s known as the Pocomoke-Nassawango IBA, while the areas along Chesapeake Bay are called the Somerset-Wicomico Marshes IBA and a tiny bit in the northeast corner falls into the Cypress Swamp IBA. In all, there are 26 “Important Bird Areas” in Maryland and David placed the overall goal at around 40 when evaluations are finished in coming years. While being in an IBA places no legal restrictions on land use and is voluntary, Curson did take some time to speak out on Wicomico County’s practice of cluster zoning, calling it “harmful.”

Further in that vein, David remarked that, in general, “development is going on at an alarming rate” and that we needed to “keep new developments in town.” He even used a graphic from anti-growth zealot Eben Fodor to assist his argument, one that compares the cost per dwelling to the number of houses per acre. I will give him his due, though, since I asked him afterward where he lived and he indeed lives in an urban area rather than out in the suburbs like some of the NIMBY anti-growth folks around here do.

Unlike prior meetings of the WNC, there was no breaking up into sub-groups to discuss local problems and suggest solutions, and this is where the WNC is beginning to fall short of its goals in my opinion. Certainly it’s not a bad thing to have speakers who are experts in the field, but in my neighborhood the environmental concerns have more to do with drainage and the occasional leaky septic system, or the person who doesn’t take care of their lawn (maybe they were trying for their own rain garden – who knew?)

And while I applaud the groups who sent their representatives to speak to us showing relative restraint and making this more or less about individual responsibility, I know that many among the groups they represent have no objection to government running roughshod over private property rights. One recent example brought up at last night’s WCRC meeting by Delegate Elmore was the compromise that “only” extended development buffer zones to 200 feet instead of 300 feet – still, that’s twice as much land placed off limits because the law was originally set for a 100-foot buffer zone. The secret weapon of bigger, more intrusive government is incrementalism and if the radicals in groups like the CBF don’t get their way in a particular session they don’t seem to get the hint that maybe what they’re asking for is too much – they just lay low until a more friendly Governor or General Assembly is in place, or ask for just a little less the next time.

We’ll see if that trend toward picking speakers representing left-of-center organizations continues in the remaining two WNC meetings that have topics selected for this year – next up is housing (so look for an emphasis on affordable housing with the WNC’s Debbie Campbell influence) and later on will be senior issues.

Sick of that green thing too

The other day I came across this article by Eric Adler that originally appeared in the Kansas City Star. While the couple described in the piece as “young”, “smart”, and “green” thinks they do their part in saving the planet, you can also color them skeptical about a number of the so-called “green” products out there. The article also goes on to describe how picky consumers are about the sincerity of corporate America in embracing this trend.

Of course if you’re a skeptic like me you never bought into the hype anyway. Sure, I do a little bit of recycling now and then and don’t drive an SUV, but I’m not going to run out and buy a Prius either. (For one thing, they’re butt-ugly.)

When Senator Gaylord Nelson first inaugurated Earth Day in 1970, there wasn’t too much concern about climate change. It was more about things like recycling, reusing, and preserving open space – things that aren’t too bad on their face. Unfortunately, what once was a nice idea in the spirit of volunteerism turned quickly to lobbying and advocacy. Cars polluted too much, so we needed to get rid of leaded gasoline. Then they used too much gasoline so we had to regulate how many miles to the gallon they had to achieve. Next came the idea that gasoline taxes shouldn’t go to highway maintenance but to bikeways and mass transit. Then the gasoline had to be made at least in part from renewable sources and it broke the food chain. Do you see how things progress on a slippery slope?

Unfortunately, the Hambrechts are well-meaning but may be contributing to their own misery later. It’s one thing for them to choose to have one car, ride a bike to work, clean with soap and water instead of detergent, etc. but if they vote for certain politicans as part of that commitment they may be contributing to taking away the choices others have, like those who may prefer to drive solo to work via car or think as I do that detergent is a much better product for cleaning because it’s made for the purpose.

When the nation was founded, many folks recycled and reused out of necessity. As prosperity took hold because of the freedoms afforded by our method of government, people found they didn’t have to do that as much and eventually the pendulum swung over to the throwaway society we have today. While in my opinion there is some excess to our lifestyle, I’m not one to begrudge another’s choice to live that way. Although I may suggest otherwise they do have that right to carry on with life as they wish.

What makes me sickest about the green thing is the idea that our choice needs to be taken away because we’re not making what some deem as the proper one. It’s time to stand up to those American watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) and demand more choice and less regulation in our lives.

My April 22 tribute

One of my best friends back in Ohio was a gentleman named Bob. I have him to thank for making me a dittohead since he made the little studio he and I shared with two other people a Rush room. (At the time, we called it the “Rebeldome” since it was at the south end of the building but separated from our main office at the north end. It’s called quick growth and needing space fast.)

Anyway, we lost touch for awhile but ironically it was Rush who brought us back into communication since he heard me on the program last October (my “big show business break“) and because of it he found monoblogue. Recently Bob passed along this e-mail to me and today was the appropriate day to publish it:

Greetings Mike,

I see from one of your blogs (or response thereto) that you now are a “public figure”. Congrats! Or condolences… whichever is more appropriate.

In review of your “leaving (most) of the lights on” blog, I felt compelled to bring you into the loop of a new way to measure your contributions to the earth. We call it “Cylinder Appreciation Day.” Quite simply it is our way of paying tribute to the wonders and contributions the internal combustion engine has made to modern society. But I did mention “measuring your contribution” didn’t I? Yes, that is where your own personal “Cylinder Appreciation Index” comes into play.

On the national “Cylinder Appreciation Day” one takes measure of all internal combustion engines within their household. If the total number of cylinders does not meet or exceed your chronological age, you are immediately to head off to your local Home Depot to buy the required gas-powered chainsaws, weed-whackers or other such equipment as needed to bring your CAI into good standing. In extreme cases we recommend heading off to the nearest Hummer dealership for those with large discrepencies in their CAI.

Personally I am proud to say I am good for over a decade to come…CAI of 53!  Those twin-engined boats do come in handy!!!

Oh, by the way, Cylinder Appreciation Day occurs this year on April 22, 2008. In searching the calendar we couldn’t find anything of value being honored on this day.

Your NW Ohio bud,

Bob

You know, it’s pretty sad that I’m far short of that mark because the only gas-powered implements I own are my car and my push lawnmower. I have an electric trimmer but aside from that I’m just not much into yard work and I really have to stay away from things like boats, ATV’s, motorcycles, etc. because I’m sort of a klutz.

So my CAI is pretty low. However, I think I qualify for a CAI offset because I frequently attend places where dozens of kWh of electricity are “wasted” amplifying musical instuments to loud volume; meanwhile there is additional wastewater generated from the copious amounts of beer and spirits consumed by those in attendance, not to mention the hundreds of automobiles that converge onto the site of the concert in question burning gasoline. It’s a reach but if Al Gore can sell it so can I.

On the whole this is the perfect counterpoint to what would otherwise be a lovely spring day has become. Maybe I need to fire up the charcoal grill!