Greedy Capitalist

Cow Burps, Methane and the Environment

An article appeared on Yahoo about cow burps, Methane and the farm lobby.

Belching from the nation's 170 million cattle, sheep and pigs produces about one-quarter of the methane released in the U.S. each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That makes the hoofed critters the largest source of the heat-trapping gas. In part because of an adept farm lobby campaign that equates government regulation with a cow tax, the gas that farm animals pass is exempt from legislation being considered by Congress to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA under President Barack Obama has said it has no plans to regulate the gas, even though the agency recently included methane among six greenhouse gases it believes are endangering human health and welfare.

So the EPA which wants and has the ability to regulate greenhouse gases, doesn't want to regulate cow or other farm animals burps or farts. The EPA says methane is a dangerous gas and endangers the health of humans but they don't want to regulate it because of the big farm lobby.

The message circulating in Internet chat rooms, the halls of Congress and farm co-ops had America's farms facing financial ruin if the EPA required them to purchase air-pollution permits like power plants and factories do. The cost of those permits amounted to a cow tax, farm groups argued. "It really has taken on a life of its own," said Rick Krause, a lobbyist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, which coined the term cow tax and spread it to farmers across the country. "This is something that people understand. All that we have to say is that (cows) are the next step with these proposed permit fees. And people are still talking about it." Administration officials and House Democratic leaders have tried to assure farm groups that they have no intention of regulating cows. That effort, however, has done little to ease the concern of farmers and their advocates in Congress about the toll that regulating greenhouse gases will have on agriculture. Lawmakers and farm groups are now pressing for the climate legislation to guarantee that farmers will be compensated for taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases. That could lead to farmers getting paid if their cows pass less gas.

So the farmers don't want to have to participate by purchasing permits to emit pollutants but they want to be able to benefit by reducing the emissions that their farm animals produce.

It is already bad enough that we subsidize farmers but now they want an increased subsidy for voluntarily reducing the emissions that their farms produce. If they really believe that they deserve money for reducing emissions, I say fine. We will pay you through the amounts that farmers should be required to pay by purchasing emissions allowances.

Regulations

With all the talk about changes to the regulatory system in the US, I think we need a new regulator. This regulator would monitor political interference between politicians and businesses. You had people like Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters sticking their noses where it doesn't belong by either pressuring Regulators or financial institutions themselves.

Personally, I think all politicians and their spouses should be required to disclose ALL financial holdings and investments, as well as what positions or affiliations they, their spouses and their relatives may have. If they do not want to disclose all their financial holdings, then to serve in Congress they would be forced to hold nothing except Government securities. 

I would also force politicians to reveal publicly every single meeting they have, whether it be with an individual or a company. There is no reason that people who are meeting with politicians should have any problem having the public aware of the nature of the meeting. Nothing big would be made public, just a name and a word or two about the bill or item discusses.

Unfortunately, money is and will continue to be the most corrupting influence on politicians. I wish it were possible to conceal donations so that politicians could not know the person, groups, or company who donated to the campaign of the politicians.

The absolute best thing would be if politicians could create bills in speak that the average joe could read and understand, but then again, the damn politicians don't even read their own bills.

Why does a Senator need 100 office staffers between his Washington, and his state office? It is outrageous. No Senator should be allowed to have more than 2 or three staff members. It is really stupid that Senators have spokesmen. Maybe you should not be a politician if you can't speak publicly for yourself. And especially if you can't even read the bills that are put before you to vote on. But no, you have people read them for you and then leave you a cliff notes version?

Politicians are utterly and totally useless.

Climate Change

In the WSJ, in the US Watch, where it mentioned brief stories, part of the story about the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill:

"polluters would have to hold allowances for each ton of carbon-dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Only a limited number of allowances would be available. The result would be to set a cap, or limit, on total emissions produced across the economy."

Oh, so is a number of permits to be allowed going to be arbitrarily decided by politicians? If not, then who will decide? Clearly if the real goal is to reduce pollution, then there has to be less than the amount that would be used in the normal course of business.

So, if all the allowances are used by August, then I guess all business, utilities, gas stations, etc. will cease operating until January 1st of the next year.Of course, if it is nothing else but a money grab, then the politicians will magically create more allowances once they realize that they are running out. And that is exactly what will happen. Politicians will NEVER allow a business to fail just to "save the planet" or a consumer to be too cold in the winter or too warm in the summer. It just won't happen.

Utilities (and consumers) have not cut CO2 emissions one single bit in the past 10 years. If the politicians really want people to cut their emissions, then the only way is by force: No air conditioning running all the time in the summer and no extreme use of heat in the cold. Clearly people, including environmentalist, are more interested in their own personal comfort, than they are about the environment.

So Palau may be willing to accept some of the Uighers but apparently we will have to pay them or give them some kind of financial or economic incentive to do so.

"Two of the officials said the United States was prepared to give Palau up to $200 million in development, budget support and other assistance in return for accepting the Uighurs and as part of a mutual defense and cooperation treaty that is due to be renegotiated this year."

That is absolute stupidity. You have China who is more than willing to retake them for absolutely no cost. If China tortures them, then so what? You have the world who whines and complains about how we are torturing prisoners at GITMO, then China's prisons should be like a resort in the Bahamas.

If all those countries that criticize GITMO are unwilling to take the inmates, what can and should we do? The only logical solution would be to return them to their own homelands or are you basically saying that the inmates GITMO holds might not be people you would like marrying your daughter?

Glenn Beck again

For like the past 3 or 4 weeks Glenn Beck has had stuff on Acorn EVERY SINGLE DAY. Sadly, the only thing I can do is fast forward through it or change the channel. I just get sick and fucking tired of hearing it EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY.

I did used to like Glenn Beck but he treats his viewers as if they are incompetent boobs. He has to make that stupid laugh of his and he feels the need to use food or other props because he thinks his viewers are too stupid to be able to view his complete show without loosing attention and switching the channel.I have to laugh when people like Neil Cavuto or Glenn Beck constantly harp over these "czar" post that Obama wants to create. I hope they realize that Bush started it with his intelligence or terrorism czar (I can't remember which). They imply that it is the same type of czar that Russia had but the reality is that when the Bush or Obama administration refers to a czar, it is just either another name or a nickname for the head of a agency or department.

I will agree that there is absolutely no reason to have a pay czar because the panel or person overseeing the TARP funds should already have the ability and authority to impose punishment and penalties over recipients for improper pay practices that are out of line with TARP rules. 

I realize that Glenn Beck has very little that he can talk about without repeating himeself but can he not talk more about government spending and how bad the economy is. Instead he talks about how bad Acorn, Progressives and Socialism is. I know it is but you could just record on show and repeat it over an over again. I can only watch about 10 minutes per day of Beck without getting angry at him.

GM Bankruptcy

I really do have to laugh when I hear government or GM executives speak.

"Small cars represent one of the fastest growing segments in both the U.S. and around the world," GM President and CEO Fritz Henderson said in a statement.

That may be true but I sure cant see it. In May 2009 they sold 110,000 trucks and SUVs or 57% of the total vehicles they sold. They only sold 81,000 cars or 42% of the vehicles they sold.

It may be the governments dream and the executives of GM's dream but just saying it won't make it true. They will have to do much more to convince people that they want to purchase small fuel efficient vehicles.I predict that the US taxpayers will NEVER be repaid for all the money thrown into GM and I also will make a prediction that GM will either be back in Bankruptcy court or will be bought out by another company and dismantled within 2 years.I believe that the Obama administration will apply so much pressure to the executives of GM to produce much more fuel efficient vehicles, which will be a flop with consumers, or they will need for GM to unload the trucks and SUV's that they sell, thereby forcing them to only sell fuel efficient vehicles. They may also attempt to accomplish this through large increases in the gasoline tax to force consumers into more fuel efficient vehicles. The consumer will buy fuel efficient vehicles when their choice of vehicle is taken away from them.

Will the taxpayer be repaid for the billions thrown at GM? That is unknown.

Hybrid Vehicles

For all the talk about hybrid cars, it would appear that nobody is purchasing them. Looking at how GM's hybrid vehicles that they delivered totaled approximately 18,000+ between June 2008- May 2009, that represented only 0.75% (not even 1%) of the vehicles they delivered to customers. The numbers for Ford is not much different. The most hybrids they have delivered in a given month is just 3906, and for most months it is less than 3420.

I see many articles on the strong demand for hybrids, of which most articles are from the period when gas prices were high, but this article said Toyota sold 180,000 Prius hybrids. Of course those numbers are probably world wide sales figures. Either the rest of the world are more interested in hybrids or they really give consumers very little choice. The only other thing I can think of is the US automakers don't make vehicles the consumer wants like Toyota must, or hybrid demand dropped off since the gas prices have fallen.

I see that Toyota apparently doesn't offer a non-hybrid Prius. It makes sense though. Why produce two of the same vehicle, it would cost less to just produce one hybrid version.

Clearly, If demand for hybrids exist, then the automakers should produce their biggest selling vehicles and most popular vehicles as hybrids.

Since the government now effectively owns Government Motors, how long before the government puts pressure on GM to cease most traditional vehicles and force them to produce 80% of their vehicles as hybrids. The only way to force consumers into hybrids is by not allowing them to have a choice and I am confident the Obama administration will eventually come to the same conclusion. With how concerned Obama and the Dems are with the environment, they will eventually have to move in that direction.

I personally don't have a position either way on hybrids. In fact it sounds nice to spend less money on fuel and have more money in my own pocket. However, that is not the way it will work. Just from reading the news, I can see that the politicians are already scheming to confiscate more and more of the money from the citizens, whether it be through higher fuel taxes or "sin" taxes on cigarettes, beer, chocolate or anything they deem unhealthy for us.

Brian Deese

What the hell qualifies Brian Deese, an almost Yale graduate, to be in charge of dismantling GM for the government? Has he ever run a business? Nope.

His qualifications? Working for Gene Sperling during the Clinton years... Oh, and once on a trip back to Washington he got tired and parked over night in a GM parking lot. That sure did it. That automatically qualified him for this job.

CO2 reductions

I was looking through the Energy Information Administration site and for all the talk of global warming and climate change, their has not been a reduction in CO2 emitted into the atmosphere with the exception of during economic downturns.

Here is a listing of the CO2 emissions for the various sources of energy.

Based on a table "Emissions from Energy Consumption at Conventional Power Plants and Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants 1996-2007' the average annual increase in CO2 emissions is 1.35%. The Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) have declined but not the CO2.

I would have thought that with all the promotion and public awareness of the environment, then surely the CO2 emissions would be falling but it appears to be increasing from 1 to 2% annually in Industrial, Commercial, Electric Utilities and Transportation.

With all the renewable sources of energy that have supposedly come on-line in the last 5 years, it apparently has done absolutely NOTHING to reduce the actual CO2 emissions.

You hear the environmentalist talk about reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels. The simple reality is IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN. The only way to achieve that is to stop all businesses from growing and even eliminating some existing businesses. Just look at the emissions that are emitted. They are not being reduced with the exception of periods of economic slowdowns or recessions.

Socialized Health Care anyone?

This appeared in IBD on Wednesday 5/27, 2009.

I truly do not understand how anyone can want socialized health care after seeing a chart like this. Oh, but then I forget. The US system will be better than Canada and Britain right? So we must care more about our citizens than they do right? Oh, we have a bigger population so it will work better right?

It does not matter to me as I am uninsured because I can not afford health insurance but whether Ted Kennedy wants to force me to buy insurance or not, I WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES BUY INSURANCE.

You say it is people like me who are costing you money? I am willing to die rather than have you pay for my health care. Yes, I am probably the only one.

I am 35 years old and since I have been 18, I have been in the hospital one time and that was to have my gall bladder removed. Did I have the money to pay the $18,000 to $22,000 hospital bill? No. Yes the hospital did have programs or write off about half of the bill and I made payment arrangements for about $11,000 of the bill and made payments of $300 per month.

Before enacting such drastic changes, I would like to see where the hospitals spend the money. They should be required to file monthly reports detailing every expenditure and money they have received or written off.

I do not disagree that their should be funds available to help people who truly through no fault of their own have lifetime illnesses such as people who develop health problems while they are children and will have those problems throughout their lives. But I am unwilling to pay for health care for people like me, who have smoked and done things unhealthy like eating junk food.

I do not expect anyone else to pay for my bad behavior and I am willing to deal with whatever consequences may result from my unhealthy lifestyle.

Now, Ted Kennedy plans to insert an automatic disability enrollment feature into any health care bill that emerges from his committee. Supposedly, under Kennedy's disability plan, "The money would be put into its own separate fund, not available to other government spending".

Oh, kind of like that Social Security lock box we have where the government can take the money out and just put an I.O.U in it's place. Oh but this time it will be different right? Yeah, sure.

I have no intention of paying $65 a month to the government for something that, if I wanted, I could purchase privately if I had a regular job. Since when did it become the government's job to provide either "health care" or "disability insurance" to people.