Now that Teddy Kennedy has moved to his eternal rest, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has approved the offshore windfarm that threatened to muss up the Kennedy compound view of the Atlantic.
Good for Salazar. I'm not a huge fan of wind power (simply doesn't scale well), but I am in favor of diversifying the supply to the electrical grid.
Showing posts with label green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
How Are Those "Green Jobs" Working Out For You?
Not too well if McKinsey Consulting is to be believed.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tom Friedman Annoys on Energy
Tom Friedman of the NYT has become a one-man garden industry of talking points for the Democratic Party. In today's bit of doggerel, he recounts an interview he had with SC Senator Lindsey Graham, who along with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman is attempting to put together a "bi-partisan" energy bill, presumably along lines of thinking with which Friedman is broadly in agreement.
This bit of ridiculosity from the first paragraph: "What is interesting about Graham is that he has been willing — courageously in my view — to depart from the prevailing G.O.P. consensus that the only energy policy we need is “drill, baby, drill.”
This is what passes for insight from a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist in America's "Newspaper of Record?" Does Friedman really believe that Republican energy policy is nothing more than "drill, baby, drill"? Didn't the President just recently make hay in his State of the Union Speech by offering support for New Nuclear Power as an olive branch to Republicans? Because Republicans largely are in opposition to the President's Cap and Trade initiative (which offered plenty of goodies for friends and industries favored by the administration and other Dems), does Friedman really believe that Republicans simply want to burn oil until its gone and then figure out the problem?
Friedman has been a leading thinker on matters dealing with the Middle East and with Islam--with good reason. That he has moved into adjacent markets to become seen as some kind of green-energy sage just doesn't hold water. He's a mouthpiece for the secular religion of Greenism and a reliable amplifier for whatever ideas rattle around Manhattan, Georgetown and Davos salons.
This bit of ridiculosity from the first paragraph: "What is interesting about Graham is that he has been willing — courageously in my view — to depart from the prevailing G.O.P. consensus that the only energy policy we need is “drill, baby, drill.”
This is what passes for insight from a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist in America's "Newspaper of Record?" Does Friedman really believe that Republican energy policy is nothing more than "drill, baby, drill"? Didn't the President just recently make hay in his State of the Union Speech by offering support for New Nuclear Power as an olive branch to Republicans? Because Republicans largely are in opposition to the President's Cap and Trade initiative (which offered plenty of goodies for friends and industries favored by the administration and other Dems), does Friedman really believe that Republicans simply want to burn oil until its gone and then figure out the problem?
Friedman has been a leading thinker on matters dealing with the Middle East and with Islam--with good reason. That he has moved into adjacent markets to become seen as some kind of green-energy sage just doesn't hold water. He's a mouthpiece for the secular religion of Greenism and a reliable amplifier for whatever ideas rattle around Manhattan, Georgetown and Davos salons.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Green v. Green
A delicious story from the "Green v. Green" file--a massive windfarm project threatened by an ardent "caver" concerned about the Indiana bat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)