The Bottom Line For What Green Energy Folks Seek
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Coming through the nip-and-tuck decision by the U.S. House to approve the legislative proposal designed to force us away from the energy we can afford for now to the more costly energy that those who wish to social engineer us to being required to buy – we have to wonder what the future will hold.
At some point in time the U.S. Senate will be taking up the issue and we’ll see the same arguments raised as we witnessed in the House debate (although we probably won’t have the potential for a coup from within the ranks of the majority party in an effort to work out arrangements that might cause fewer segments of the economy to be quite as damaged).
A recent sound clip from President Obama suggests that the benefit from the Cap & Tax legislation will come in the form of “polluters” being made responsible for paying for their ill-begotten gain.
As you turn the light on in your home, or perhaps adjust the thermostat to make it cooler or warmer (depending on the season and the need) or possibly climb behind the wheel of your vehicle to run an errand or go to work – you should appropriately note “the polluter” our President is seeking to charge. That person is the one who will be picking up the tab for saving the planet from the imagined crisis we’re supposed to be paying the price to resolve.
It has not gone unnoticed that in chasing the politically-correct grail of green, supporting green energy as a concept and actually being willing to accept green energy projects are two different things. The Las Vegas Review Journal, in their Sunday editorial drew attention to the way our environmental elite keep directing us down a road they aren’t willing to have us go either.
In sorting out the conflicts to reach a plausible conclusion for the likely bottom line is as the editorial notes -- “The answer is that the green extreme doesn't care if we starve in the dark. They think there are too many humans on the planet to begin with.”
Coming through the nip-and-tuck decision by the U.S. House to approve the legislative proposal designed to force us away from the energy we can afford for now to the more costly energy that those who wish to social engineer us to being required to buy – we have to wonder what the future will hold.
At some point in time the U.S. Senate will be taking up the issue and we’ll see the same arguments raised as we witnessed in the House debate (although we probably won’t have the potential for a coup from within the ranks of the majority party in an effort to work out arrangements that might cause fewer segments of the economy to be quite as damaged).
A recent sound clip from President Obama suggests that the benefit from the Cap & Tax legislation will come in the form of “polluters” being made responsible for paying for their ill-begotten gain.
As you turn the light on in your home, or perhaps adjust the thermostat to make it cooler or warmer (depending on the season and the need) or possibly climb behind the wheel of your vehicle to run an errand or go to work – you should appropriately note “the polluter” our President is seeking to charge. That person is the one who will be picking up the tab for saving the planet from the imagined crisis we’re supposed to be paying the price to resolve.
It has not gone unnoticed that in chasing the politically-correct grail of green, supporting green energy as a concept and actually being willing to accept green energy projects are two different things. The Las Vegas Review Journal, in their Sunday editorial drew attention to the way our environmental elite keep directing us down a road they aren’t willing to have us go either.
In sorting out the conflicts to reach a plausible conclusion for the likely bottom line is as the editorial notes -- “The answer is that the green extreme doesn't care if we starve in the dark. They think there are too many humans on the planet to begin with.”
Comments