Pope incites cultural revolution

Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix ‘perverse’ economy

VATICAN CITY (AP) — In a sweeping environmental manifesto aimed at spurring concrete action, Pope Francis called Thursday for a bold cultural revolution to correct what he described as a “structurally perverse” economic system where the rich exploit the poor, turning Earth into an “immense pile of filth.”

Francis framed climate change as an urgent moral issue in his eagerly anticipated encyclical, blaming global warming on an unfair, fossil fuel-based industrial model that harms the poor most.

Citing Scripture, his predecessors and bishops from around the world, the pope urged people of every faith and even no faith to undergo an awakening to save God’s creation for future generations.

More: AOL news

I’ve already sufficiently expounded on the subject, but the groans seem to be getting louder from the Vatican.

Alternatives and the reinvestment act

The $139 million Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt modernization was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, with all the trimmings. I wonder if they sent a thank you note?

Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Modernization Project

An American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project

The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in the heart of Portland, Oregon, is an 18-story, 525,000 square foot facility that is home to more than 16 federal agencies and 1,200 federal employees.

The building was originally constructed in 1974 and underwent a major renovation between 2009 and 2013. Today the building is a cornerstone of GSA’s green building portfolio with all new mechanical, electrical, plumbing and data systems designed to make it one of the most energy efficient office buildings in the country. The work was completed by a team of SERA Architects and Howard S. Wright Construction who were awarded the contract in 2010.

The newly-renovated Federal Building includes a number of efficient, sustainable and innovative technologies including:

  • solar thermal panels that will provide for 30% of the building’s domestic hot water
  • a 13,000 square foot solar roof that will produce 3% of the building’s electrical energy requirements annually
  • modernized elevators that generate power as they descend
  • unique shading devices on the south, west and east facades designed to respond to the sun conditions, maximize daylight and minimize solar heat gain during the summer
  • energy efficient electric lighting systems with advanced controls that will reduce light energy usage by 40% compared to Oregon code
  • a 165,000 gallon cistern used to flush low-flow toilets and irrigate native landscaping
  • energy efficient water fixtures, which in addition to rainwater reuse, will reduce overall water consumption by 60% compared to typical office buildings
  • a dedicated outside air system that provides 100% fresh air

The operationally and economically efficient high-performance building is expected to achieve a 50 percent reduction in energy use compared to the old building and a 60 percent water reduction compared to Oregon code. The facility is designed to meet the Federal Guiding Principles for High Performing Green Buildings and the Obama Administration’s directives for agencies to lead by example in environmental, energy, and economic performance. Through these directives agencies are required to meet a range of energy, water, pollution, and waste reduction targets. Additionally, the facility is expected to achieve LEED Platinum certification from the U.S. Green Building Council for its use of cutting-edge sustainable design and technology.

GSA was appropriated more than $5.5 billion under the Recovery Act to convert federal facilities into high-performance green buildings and construct energy-efficient federal buildings, courthouses, and land ports of entry.[snip]

The building “is one of 600 that the GSA owns or operates in the Pacific Northwest.”

More: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/252613

Well there is a lot you can do with 139 million dollars. But here is the GSA which manages or owns how many properties around the country, getting the benefits of tax dollars for the project. Large enough to have its own scandal.

Why does GSA have to be a great beneficiary of the spendathon? Surely it has assets of its own. Must have ‘mo money’ They have vacant properties sitting. And then they flaunt it as a great achievement. Still when the work stops those extra jobs are gone.

So they couldn’t have done this without the stimulus? It just pisses me off. Is GSA the sustainable ferry now, blessing all the people with their spending? Who will pay in the end? And they’re on the road to save resources.

Why couldn’t they prove “sustainability” and find the means to do it? That’s what anyone else would have to do. The irony that GSA is preaching sustainability. I guess Portland is now Porkland.

Climategate meets Brandenburg Gate – changing of the guards

Obama promises an end to cheap energy

The Left has shifted from being champions of the poor to being developed-world Progressives, comfortably ensconced in their own modernity

June 24, 2013 -by Marita Noon
A few months ago, in his State of the Union address, President Obama proudly pledged to tackle climate change—despite opposition from Republicans. To date, precious little action to combat climate change has been seen from the White House—which pleases most Republicans and angers the Left.
Environmental activists are some of Obama’s most ardent supporters, but they are frustrated and losing patience with the president. He hasn’t been definitive on killing the Keystone pipeline; as the Washington Post reports, he’s “fallen back from the broad clean energy agenda he envisioned when he first took office”—even to the point of supporting natural gas exploration and recently approving Liquefied Natural Gas export terminals that will increase demand by shipping U.S. natural gas to foreign markets; and he seems to have acquiesced to a fossil fuel future by proposing adaptations to make “coastal communities more resistant to increasingly severe storms and floods.” The environmental community wants to see bold steps toward a fossil-fuel free future ….
[excerpt]
Frank Ackerman, an economist at Tufts University who published a book about the economics of global warming, calls the social cost of carbon “the most important number you’ve never heard of.” According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, he said: “This is a very strange way to make policy about something this important.” And added, “The Obama Administration ‘hasn’t always leveled with us about what is happening behind closed doors.’”
Why bury “something this important” in an afternoon announcement about something that is virtually insignificant? The answer, I believe, is found in a small piece of the Washington Post story cited previously. Apparently, the White House’s own research found that when Obama, in his State of the Union speech, “vowed to act on climate change if Congress refused to do so,” a focus group’s “favorability” rating “plummeted.” White House transcripts reveal that Obama knows that “the politics of this are tough.”
At an April fundraising event at the San Francisco home of billionaire and environmental activist Tom Steyer, Obama defended his lack of action on climate change: “If you haven’t seen a raise in a decade, if your house is still $25,000, $30,000 underwater … you may be concerned about the temperature of the planet, but it’s probably not rising to your number one concern.”
As a result, his Organizing for America team—“formed to advance the president’s second term agenda”—has been laying the “groundwork with the American public before unveiling a formal climate strategy.” Teasing out the increase in the social cost of carbon was likely part of the strategy, intended to test the waters ahead of the planned climate announcements from the White House.
Likewise, his comments in Berlin, where he reintroduced the subject, calling climate change “the global threat of our time.” The next day, headlines read: “Obama to renew emissions push.” It is believed that the new “measures to tackle climate change” will “effectively ban new coal-fired power plants”—to which I add, will effectively ban “cheap electricity.”
– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/24/obama-promises-an-end-to-cheap-energy/#sthash.OHGMnFWP.dpuf

Good article on the politics of Obama’s weathered climate policy. And what do microwave ovens have to do with climategate? Who knew? This is the kind of politics and policies — no difference between them to Obama — we’ve grown to expect and detest. Ah yes, reintroducing the subject in Berlin, with the sun in his eyes and teleprompter issues.

In a related article, Paul Driessen fleshes out the big questions:

23) Shouldn’t Congress pass a cap-and-trade bill or carbon tax to help heal the climate? 
The climate bill that died in the Democrat Senate was a scientifically meaningless bill that Obama’s own EPA admitted would not impact global CO2 levels – let alone global temperatures.
The climate bill would only have raised the cost of energy for American families and businesses, and killed jobs, while doing nothing for the climate. A major Bloomberg News report revealed that U.S. oil companies would likely cope with the climate legislation by “closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.” Bloomberg also reported that “one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020,” and this could “add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline.”
EPA’s unilateral “carbon dioxide endangerment” regulations would have much the same effect.
20) Don’t graphs show that current temperatures are the highest in 1,000 years?
Penn State professor and UN IPCC modeler Michael Mann did publish a hockey stick-shaped graph that purportedly showed an unprecedented sudden increase in average global temperatures, following ten centuries of supposedly stable climate. However, Dr. Mann was at the center of the Climategate scandal. His graph and the data and methodology behind it have been scrutinized and debunked in peer-reviewed studies by numerous climate scientists, statisticians and other experts.
The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (also called the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that “the Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”
The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”

Figure Description: The distribution of Level 2 Studies that allow one to determine whether peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures were warmer than (red), equivalent to (green), or cooler than (blue), peak Current Warm Period temperatures.

Read more: http://papundits.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/climate-change-issues-for-2012/
And Read more excellent articles at CFACT http://www.cfact.org/
H/T PA Pundits-International

Off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Obamaland

Barry started his term out on a rocky road. That is if you call playing golf with a couple of big-oil guys in Palm Springs while his minions are screaming for ending the Keystone pipeline outside the White House, “rocky”.

So his sycophant, low information voters weren’t too happy with that news. Oh well, welcome to the land of disenchantment with the rest of us. Do they want to compare outrage? I don’t think so. His magical mystery agenda will not solve our country’s problems, nor will the Kool Aid.

Everyone who uses oil or its byproducts has seen the price tag double since he came to office. But that matters not to the anti-energy tyrant or his little green friends with their war on energy. They scream for more inaction. “Can we have LESS, please?”

It is entirely contrary to the needs of the nation, but that’s okay to the Left. They’ll run their cars on mushrooms and algae or nothing. Meanwhile, everyone on the Left is quite content to pay double for their fuel, triple if they could have their way. And they would praise the results, as people go to the poorhouse for their agenda.

If people cannot afford to heat their homes or neglect their other necessities to pay for their fuel, it bothers the Left about as much as a flea on a grizzly bear. Whoops, sorry to bring those poor bears into a matter of politics. Well, it is politics. Does anyone in Obama’s land of make-believe really think this is about the environment, climate, or being stewards of our resources? Of course it isn’t. It’s politics, pure and simple.

That’s why, in my opinion, it was good to see all the green hypocrites and all their friends out demonstrating for what they believe in. Remember they “believed” in Obama too. It must make any used car salesman drool with envy that there are still that many suckers. Why worry about a sucker being born a minute when there are already that many of them out there, probably multiplying too…even if it’s by accident. It only shows how out of step they really are.

Isn’t it convenient for the left that the mantra “drill baby drill” has been replaced with pay baby pay? They are ecstatic about what that does to consumers forcing cuts in use and choices. That’s what they wanted and they got it. The next time Obama tries to twist the oil issue into an illogical pretzel, remember who is getting what they want.

The who by the way applies to Iran too. While they talk about the tough sanctions, Iran knows the one thing that hurts their economy drastically is low oil prices. They need or want the price of Brent around 117 /barrel. And they are near enough to their optimal price it doesn’t hurt them much. We, however, are hurting. The economy is still sputtering. Do you think the high cost of oil and energy has anything to do with it? Not if you are in their land of make-believe. (it might be a nice place to visit, but you sure wouldn’t want to live there.)

Bloomberg.com

The rally in crude prices earlier this month was driven by renewed optimism in economic growth rather than “hard demand data,” according to a report by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Brent prices reached a 2013 high of $118.90 on Feb. 8.

“The current sell-off in oil is bringing prices more in line with the underlying fundamentals,” said the bank’s New York-based head of commodities research, Jeffrey Currie, in a report e-mailed today.

Price Outlook
WTI may fall next week after weak consumption boosted crude inventories, a separate Bloomberg News survey showed.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Pollution-Laws-Threaten-to-Drop-Britain-into-an-Energy-Crisis.html

It sort of makes you curious what other solutions may lurk along their yellow brick road in Obamaland?