The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

Can someone tell me the strategy here? 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/19/surprise-visit-by-bob-barr-at-netroots-conference/ 

Rush Limbaugh mentioned it this afternoon.  "Someone needs to tell Barr this is not a very Libertarian..."

I don't remember Barr official position on CO2, Global Warming, Etc.  It was not mentioned at the convention that I remember. 

Barry, 

It isn't mentioned in this article either.  I didn't find anything in this article to be offensive.  I'm not sure what the concern is.  I must be missing it.

David Jahn

Al Gore is completely insane.  Out in Northampton County the big issue right now is the "Not in my own back yard" mentality and local counties not allowing more power lines to be built.  We're staring at an energy crisis in the near future.  When the power companies de-regulate, the effect of these efforts to stop power companies from expanding and improving the gird is going to be enourmous.  Here in the Lehigh Valley we've seen a massive population explosion and so to in the northeast in general.  The end result of limiting power lines and not allowing for expansion will be a gigantic rise in prices.

We've seen this with regard to oil as well.  For as much posturing as environmentalists have done with going "carbon-free" and switching to windmills, et. al., it won't matter without an expanded grid and means to get the energy to where it needs to go.  The result of these actions has been a tremendous increase in the price of oil.  Windmills, solar, etc, are useless without a means to transfer it successfully.  The end result, with the dramatic increases in price, will destroy the middle class.  No one, is talking about domestic production, expanding capabilities and supply lies while changing energy sources responsibliy and in an economic friendly manner.  It's terrible.

Why is this not in the MSM?

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

Here is another story that you won't see in the news.  It's about small, self-contained, nuclear power modules that produce enough electricity to power 20,000 homes. Here's their web site and a few excerpts:

1) http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com

Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub" — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, “melt down” or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.

Perfect for moderately-sized projects, Hyperion produces only 25 MWe — enough to provide electricity for about 20,000 average American sized homes or its industrial equivalent. Ganged or teamed together, the modules can produce even more consistent energy for larger projects.  

2) http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about_finance.html

Each HPM provides 70 MW thermal energy or 25 MW electric energy via steam turbine for seven to ten years. This amount of energy provides electricity for 20,000 average American-style homes or the industrial or infrastructure equivalent. Each module will cost $25 to $30 million.

There are, of course, some matters of logistics.  Swapping out one module for another every seven to ten years.  Backup and duplication.  Site security.  Insurance and liability.  Financing.  Risks associated with a new vendor and a somewhat new version of an old product.  The "not in my backyard" resistance (when it probably will be buried in/near someone's backyard)! 

The real issue can be summarized in one question.  What type of power sources are more "compatible" with big government: (1) small, decentralized ones that local communities can fund and administer themselves, or (2) large trillion dollar programs that aren't even fully conceptualized yet let alone a product? 

To my way of thinking, this kind of a proposed energy option screams out for an honest assessment.  Unfortunately, energy has become a "national" issue and is approaching a "global" one.  Government along with its media cheerleaders have no intention of letting this be addressed, if not solved, completely at the local level.  It seems that energy production could be as local a matter as garbage pickup or ticketing cars during a snowstorm, but a big and growing federal government would have none of that.

Mark

Here is one of a growing number of articles that document how the man-made global warming theory has a few holes in it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Here are three key excerpts:

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.  

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.  

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.  

Incidentally, this kind of summary article forms the basis of several brief LTEs. 

Mark

There are alarmists in every camp. In the 1970's the climate alarmists were saying another ice age was coming. It is never a good idea to base public policy on alarmist projections alone.

In some cases, alarmist projections may be collaborated with other information. With global warming this has not been the case. Even indications of a consensus in the scientific community were overstated.

Even so, the alarmists have a political juggernaut rolling, and trying to derail bad ideas like Cap and Trade may be very difficult. Perhaps the economic climate may help bring about some reasonable assessment of the issue.