Sunday we returned from a few days in Dearborn Michigan touring the Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, and The Rouge Ford Factory. The Rouge Factory Tour was new to us. There was Bill Ford, the great grandson of Henry, up on the BIG screen telling us how Ford created this new Rouge factory to be friendly to the environment.

Much like our proposed Fountain Brook Crossing, The Rouge Ford Factory* has Gone Green. The roof is a garden roof, planted with sedum plants to absorb the rain water. They are increasing plantings wherever possible on the grounds; nets are strung up on the factory exterior for climbing vines.

Even their parking lots are water permeable. No more run-off. The paving material looks like asphalt but is a porous material that has sand and gravel below. The guide said that the water that runs through the pavement is filtered and very clean. It requires vacuuming twice a year to keep pores open and calcium chloride must be used instead of sodium chloride in winter.  The porous pavement is more expensive to install and maintain but lasts twice as long as conventional asphalt. Plus, no detention pond is needed...and it's good for the environment.

It seemed everything about The Rouge Factory was good for the environment or good for the employees. You could watch some of the assembly line in action. The workers were poetry in motion each doing their specific little jobs. While they are always under the time constraint of the moving line, it did not seem any were really hustling to keep up the pace. Some workers were on the cell phone, playing a hand held game, or even had newspapers there to catch a snippet of an article.

I asked a tour guide how much money these people made. She did not know specifically but said from what she read in the paper, it was around $20.00 per hour for new hires. Workers with more seniority were higher.

Another guide told us that Ford recently closed 2 other factories in other states, I believe, and now consolidated all of the work here at The Rouge. That sounded efficient. The Rouge's specialty was trucks**. Wonder where the other cars are made?

Monday's Investor's Business Daily answered part of that question: Movin' To Mexico!:  (My emphasis)

Ford's investment of $3 billion in two auto plants near Mexico City is the largest foreign company investment ever in Mexico. As oil prices soar and new climate-change rules are readied in Washington, Ford must shift from its reliance on trucks and SUVs to lighter, more energy-efficient vehicles.

This should be something that workers in Michigan and other Midwestern states with decades of automaking experience should excel at doing. Instead, Ford and other automakers are pushing more and more investment abroad — especially to Mexico.

The editorial cites reasons for an auto sales slump and the US losing jobs--mainly the UAW forcing higher wages and benefits--but increasing climate change rules and higher oil prices aren't helping the industry.

Like a coyote caught in a trap, U.S. automakers have been desperately gnawing off a leg to escape certain death. They're closing plants and slashing jobs in Michigan, Ohio and other U.S. union havens, in favor of non-union, foreign places. Like Mexico and China.

Meanwhile, foreign companies have no problem making cars here. They do it in the non-union South, where the UAW is weak.

So foreign companies can get around our high wages by being non-union, but even they and their products are subject to U.S. emission standards for factories and cars.

You would think that with our ailing auto industry our government would be doing all it could to help encourage instead of hinder. Yet Washington continues to hamper oil exploration and increase auto emission standards (i.e. new diesel emissions will be cleaner than intake air.) 

Add to automakers woes, both U.S. and foreign made here, the latest millstone around the neck: Cap-and-Trade, and I think we have the recipe for outsourcing more industry of all kinds.

Ford may have greened up its Dearborn plant and created an ideal work environment, but if more industry follows suit in exporting jobs to countries that don't care about workers or the environment, what good paying jobs will be left in America?

This was written before Tuesday's post Kohl, Feingold, and Doyle's reaction to GM closing Janesville plant

Related articles: Toyota workers in Kentucky plant made more than UAW members last year

More handwriting on the wall, GM closing Janesville assembly plant by 2010 

*The Rouge Factory was named for the Rouge River in Dearborn. The banks of the river were red clay, hence the name Rouge (French for red). 

**A guide told us this was the last year they would be making Mercury trucks. 

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all.

The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.

I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol!

People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."

Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.)

But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. 

Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there."

Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off.

Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.

Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between economic development and water conservation more evident than in the push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.

Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol. With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent produced by the fermentation/distillation process.

So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.)

And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) 

Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! 

Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

Ethanol's Failed Promise

Let Them Eat Cake

Hunger fuels food riots in Haiti 

Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included)

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Congressman Sensenbrenner brought up Senate bill S. 2191, the Lieberman/Warner "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" at his Town Hall meeting Sunday. He described it as a "disaster for Wisconsin."

Information on S. 2191 from Congressman Sensenbrenner's website:

“S. 2191 proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, an important component of the manufacturing industry.  By setting a limit and capping carbon dioxide emissions by businesses, the Lieberman/Warner bill would thrust a highly regulatory regime on our nation’s economy, making electricity more expensive for businesses and consumers.  In Wisconsin, which relies heavily on the use of coal for electricity, this bill would have a catastrophic effect as we would be especially hard hit.

“This point is underscored in a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers to assess the potential impacts of S. 2191 on Wisconsin’s economy…and the results are scary.

The Congressman discussed that study at the meeting and on Charlie Sykes show. The predictions were "scary."

“According to the study, electricity rates in Wisconsin could increase by as much as 163% in 2030 - nearly tripling today’s costs - and gas prices could increase by as much as 176% in 2030, again, almost tripling today’s cost of natural gas.

Not only will we be paying more for utilities, a figure of a 145% increase in gasoline prices was also given on Charlie Sykes show Monday, April 28, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

So not only do we get to pay for higher energy costs for our own use, but we will pay more for every item and service produced in Wisconsin too.  

Who would ever want to live in Wisconsin or locate their business here if that is the case?

The National Association of Manufacturers report estimated that by 2030, 74,000 jobs would leave Wisconsin and a whopping 4 million jobs would leave our nation, because businesses naturally seek the cheapest and easiest place to manufacture their products.

What exactly is a cap-and-trade and why does it have such a negative impact on Wisconsin? 

Cap-and-trade is another term for Carbon Credit (or indulgences). Congress or bureaucrats set a cap or maximum on greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company--be it a corporation or a utility company. Companies that do not comply with the standard must then have to purchase carbon offsets from companies that do comply. It is like a type of stock market that deals in these special credits.

According to Congressman Sensenbrenner, since Wisconsin gets 2/3 of its electrical power from coal fired plants, but Illinois obtains 60% of its electric power from clean nuclear power plants that emit 0 CO2, we will have to purchase these carbon offsets from Illinois just to keep producing our needed electricity! Illinois in effect gets their energy costs subsidized by Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ends up paying 176% more for our electricity. OUCH! (At present, only 20% of Wisconsin electric comes from nuclear plants.)

Think no one in their right mind would agree to a system like this? Think again. Europe has been doing this for nearly 3 years now. Europe's greenhouse gases continue to rise as do their electricity rates. It has done nothing to lower emissions according to a publication from Sensenbrenner's office. I believe Australia just signed on to a system of carbon credits too.

Since businesses will just relocate to third world countries to manufacture their goods, these carbon credits will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions worldwide. The pollution will just move to the far east.

The increase in costs due to cap-and-trade fees are estimated at $1,300 a year / household for Wisconsinites.

Please contact Senators Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill. 

Representative Zipperer informed the Town Hall meeting atendees that the Wisconsin Assembly recently passed legislation that lifted the moratorium on nuclear power plants last session. The Senate however did not. He said they would try again next time. 

Contact your state representative and senator about the moratorium.

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120

Congressman Sensenbrenner's contact info:Email  Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Now we are rationing limiting food?

I just heard on a news blip that Sam's Club was limiting the amount of bulk rice you could buy at a time. (The news man first referred to the limit as rationing.) Reason? Because of growing shortages of rice on the world market.

The news bit included a sound bite from a woman from some national bakers association. She said rye is already in short supply too and that by summer, it may be hard to find at all. That is not good news for me because I love rye bread!

None of this bodes well for future food supplies and prices here in the U.S. or in the world.

A friend I spoke with yesterday mentioned that she was going to plant a larger vegetable garden this summer. Seems it is time to bring back the Victory Garden.

Links: 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Oh, did you think I was talking about gasoline?

Maybe this is not the all time high for milk, but I do not purchase it very often. The $4.00+ price tag surprised me.

These days, I pity the family that has lots of teenage boys to feed.

It is no secret that the stampede to bio-fuels is leading to increased food prices.

In the meantime, we have politicians, ethanol plant owners, and farmers trying to sell the public on the idea that bio-fuel are the way to go to save the planet.

The following are just a few excerpts from a great article link I found on Jay Webber's website (do I call that an Ear Tip?), Earth Daze, Courtesy of Al Gore. Do take the time to read it.

The Gore-induced rush to biofuels has diverted crops such as corn, soybeans and palm oil from food to fuel. Vast swaths of rain forest in places like Malaysia and Indonesia have been cleared to provide farmland not to feed the hungry but to fuel our cars. Our own grain belt has been increasingly diverted to ethanol over corn flakes.

This has pressured food prices while damaging the environment. In the U.S., more cultivation has increased runoff from pesticides and fertilizer, creating dead zones for aquatic life from Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico.

"Climate-change remedies can lead to greater poverty, starvation and disease, as well as widespread ecological destruction — some of the very misfortunes that they're supposed to prevent," Goklany [Cato Institute] wrote in the New York Post. "In our haste to address global warming, we have yet to think seriously about our policies' unintended effects."

For a while it seemed no one was going to speak out that the Emperor has no clothes (a.k.a. Global Warming). Thankfully, as time goes on, more and more people are speaking out against the ridiculousness of using food for fuel and the whole concept of CO2 causing global warming. I hope it is not too late.

Check out these other editorials from Investor's Business Daily too:

The Environmentalists' Real Agenda "Once in a while the truth accidentally tumbles out on global warming activists' real agenda...ending capitalism to save the planet."

Time Bomb "Time...likens global warming to the fight against Nazism"

The Torch Has Been Passed "China is the world's No. 1 polluter...why does the U.N. want it exempted from carbon restrictions?"

The Nerve Of ABC "The mainstream media were taken aback by some of the questions asked of Barack Obama..."

The Green Zone "The president's plan to reduce carbon emissions legitimizes the environmentalist agenda of destroying the earth in order to save it...one scientist says we need more CO2 emissions, not less", 

The Chill Is On "Global warming? Don't worry about it. It's over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private gets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from -- greenhouse gases.", and more!

Links: 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Kinsey Park Clean Up and Pier

You may have thought this post was going to be about the rapidly spreading religion of Islam, but it is not.

This fastest growing religion I am referring to is the religion of Global Warming, and its most recent, prominent convert is the President of the United States.

I call Global Warming a religion, and rightly so, because in its present form, it is not science.

Religious beliefs require faith: faith in something not seen or provable.

Science is defined by Encarta as: "the system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer." "Science, limits itself to what can be observed, measured and verified." Scientists use the Scientific Method to "explain the events of nature in a reproducible way."  In other words, you test the theory and if it is repeatable, then the theory moves ahead to be considered true science.

Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the idea that man made greenhouse gases cause Global Warming, but we don't hear much about that! The website ICECAP does an excellent job of presenting a different view of Global Warming.

At best, when scientists first observed a warming trend, Global Warming could have been called a theory. But in recent years, people have bypassed the theory adjective and jumped toward embracing Global Warming as an undebatable fact. This transition from theory to fact was done without any scientific proof. Those who promote Global Warming no longer even refer to it as a theory.

As more and more data is collected, most of the Global Warming alarmist predictions are not proving to point to the doom and gloom that the planet is warming. In fact, temperatures this past year point to something else: a cooling of the planet.  

It seems however, that no matter how much counter Global Warming evidence is presented, the faithful and most politicians are still blindly chanting the mantra that the planet is doomed to heat up unless we do something to control CO2 emissions soon. 

According to an article in the Washington Post today, our President is now chanting the mantra too--Bush prepares global warming initiative: (Emphasis added)

"This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something," said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week...

...Still, Republican members of Congress who were briefed last week let top administration officials know that they think the White House if making a mistake, according to congressional sources and others familiar wit the discussions. Opponents said Mr. Bush could be setting off runaway legislation, particularly with Democrats in control of Congress." 

One of the things we are doing at present is jumping on the ethanol bandwagon to reduce our carbon footprint. In fact reducing the carbon footprint is one of the cornerstones of this new religion.

Like another religion in bygone years, this Global Warming religion also provides the opportunity to purchase Indulgences to atone for breaking the rules. In our new Global Warming religion, we call these Indulgences, Carbon Credits. 

All 3 of our Presidential candidates favor the practice of using Indulgences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, they do not call them as such, they call them, "a cap-and-trade system, such as the Europeans have. The system sets an overall limit on carbon emissions and allows polluters to buy credits from companies that stay below their carbon targets."

"..Congressional and administration sources said it's not clear whether Mr. Bush will go that far this week." So we don't know how deep President Bush's conversion is.

Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research stated the US is already ahead of Europe:

"US taxpayers are already spending more than $40 billion a year to address climate change, and to date we're achieving better results than the Europeans... ...That should be kept in mind before any rash--or political--decisions are made inside the White House. Excessive regulations would come with significant economic consequences and additional costs for consumers." 

Considering fuel and food prices are already through the roof, our economy does not need the further encumbrance of mandates and extra fees.

Thankfully, not all politicians are being indoctrinated into the new religion, but because there is so much political pressure to jump on the bandwagon (become a believer), resisting is difficult. Our Congressman James Sensenbrenner and Illinois Congressman John Shimkus "told the White House it was making a mistake" to call for congressional action on this.

You may wish to drop Congressman Sensenbrenner an email or give him a phone call, (262) 784-1111, to encourage him in his fight against global warming initiatives. Or, tell Congressman Sensenbrenner in person. He will be hosting a Town Hall meeting on Sunday, April 27th at 1pm at the Brookfield Safety Building.

Links to counter Global Warming articles. There is still very much room for debate:

ICECAP A great source for alternative views  

2008 Climate Debate: "Over the past few years, more than 19,000 American scientists have signed a dissenting petition coauthored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, renowned physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (www.oism.org/pproject)". The petition urges political leaders to "reject the Gore-supported Kyoto Protocol or other similar proposals that would mandate draconian tax and regulatory measures aimed at virtually all human economic activity"...

..."As the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change) report, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, points out, the hard data from satellites and weather balloons shows the exact opposite of the predictions of the IPCC and the climate alarmist choir: a slight cooling with altitude in the troposphere and slight warming on the surface."

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact 

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History' 

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for US, Globe 

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find

Surprise! There's an active volcano under Antarctic ice 

Links:

A: A commercial for Governor Doyle's Global Warming Task Force probably funded by OUR tax dollars.

Have you heard this ad? I caught it twice on the radio yesterday. It really sickened me.

The commercial features a little child asking her mom a question. (Read this in your best concerned innocent child voice.) Mommy, What's Global Warming?

The mother then answers, It's the way we're leaving the planet...But there are things we can do. She then starts with touting compact fluorescent light bulbs, reducing this and that, not building coal fired power plants, etc.

The commercial is really promoting the Public Hearings today on Doyle's Global Warming Task Force. The ad does not state where and when, at least not that I could catch from the commercial.

I googled the task force and found the cleanwisconsin web page. None of the recommendations look favorable to Wisconsin businesses. One included a "Carbon Tax: a tax on all significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions that are not large stationary sources covered by the cap and trade program."

The web page urged, "The Task Force needs to hear from the public; if you support Wisconsin doing its share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level needed to avoid disastrous effects of climate change it will require a great deal of public involvement."

Following a link from that page, I found the Task Force Meeting Date page. If you had any interest, our area's hearing is at MATC from 4-7pm. 

Another related web page from John Vrieze, member of Gov. Doyle's G.W. Task Force was full of doom and gloom predictions for Wisconsin's future. One prediction in particular was laughable when put into the context of our snowiest winter in years, "Popular winter pastimes in Wisconsin such as ice fishing and snowmobiling will be reduced or eliminated."

But this statement really concerned me: "To prevent the worst impacts of global warming, Wisconsin, the United States and the world must act.  There is broad scientific consensus that to avoid the worst impacts of the problem we must reduce global warming emissions in the United States at least 15-20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050." (Emphasis added)

Now I don't believe in Global Warming (or as they now call it, Climate Change as being caused by carbon emissions) any more than I believe in the Great Pumpkin. I am grateful that as more and more data comes out, some scientists finally are feeling free to speak out against the concept of Global Warming. In light of the true scientific data, all of this government interference and expense becomes all the more irritating.

Maybe the mother should have answered, Global Warming is why we now have an increase in mercury poisoning as a result of the CFL mandate, or Global Warming was a hoax fostered by people who could make a lot of money by promoting bio-fuels.

How would you answer the question? 

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe 

The Great Global Warming Swindle 

The Faithful Heretic-A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions 

UPDATE: The Ethanol bill is on the Senate floor right now. Reportedly, Senator Jim Sullivan is on the fence regarding this bill. Please let him know what you think. If passed, the bill goes to the Assembly. There Assembly Speaker, Mike Huebsch is said to also be on the fence.

I heard that Senate Bill 380, commonly referred to as the Ethanol Bill, made it out of State Senate committee with a 4-1 vote. State Senator Ted Kanavas cast the only NO vote on the measure. (Thank you, Ted.)

The bill now heads to the Senate possibly as early as this Thursday, January 31st.

"This bill generally subjects a refiner to a penalty if the percentage of renewable fuel sold by the refiner, beginning in 2009, is less than a percentage set in the bill. The percentage of renewable fuel sold is determined by dividing the total volume of wholesale sales of renewable fuel in a year by the refiner’s five year rolling average volume of wholesale sales of all motor vehicle fuel, other than diesel fuel, and multiplying by 100. The percentage begins at 10 percent and increases to 25 percent in 2025 and thereafter." (Emphasis added)

Like so many of these Going Green bills and measures, they sound good but are NOT environmentally friendly--nor are they practical or economically feasible. Ethanol is not an efficient fuel*. In fact, many scientists believe it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it provides.The miles per gallon with ethanol are not as high as without ethanol.

The only thing Green about this renewable fuel bill is when you follow the money to the ethanol manufacturers and corn growers.

If contacting your state representatives about ethanol mandates seems familiar, it is because we defeated this once before back in 2006(?)

Sometimes I feel like we are playing that old arcade game called Whack-a-Mole with these bad bills that keep returning. (Whack-a-Mole is a game where the player takes a mallet and tries to hit a plastic mole who pops out of various holes in the game play field.) But call or email we must; it is only weapon against oppressive legislation like this. 

Contact your representatives:
State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

State Senator Theodore Kanavas, Republican, 33rd District
Sen.Kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9174, 800-863-8883

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-282-3614

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120 

Governor Doyle
608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Minority Leader), from Juneau. Counties: Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Jefferson, and Waukesha

With gas prices rising, people naturally are looking toward purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. The free marketplace is addressing fuel efficiency and experimental fuel vehicles. We don't need to mandate the use of such an expensive carbon footprint fuel like corn ethanol.

And let's not forget that taxpayers (us) subsidize the price of each gallon of ethanol blended gasoline. From the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

"Motorists pay 51 cents less in federal gasoline taxes for every gallon of ethanol purchased, and Wisconsin pays ethanol makers 20 cents for every gallon produced. If ethanol were such a great deal for consumers, it would not need market-distorting tax breaks and subsidies, much less a market-rigging mandate, to compete with conventional gasoline."

 Be sure to read The Ethanol Fallacy in February 2008's Popular Mechanics issue.

* "Among the various ethanol sources, sugarcane is by far the most efficient in both land and energy use. The ethanol yield of sugarcane per acre is roughly 650 gallons, whereas for corn in the United States it is 350 gallons, scarcely half as much. The net energy yield of 8 for sugarcane offers an overwhelming advantage over that of the 1.5 for corn."

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

You just cannot depend on common sense any more. Last year, I remember hearing that California was thinking of banning the incandescent light bulb and mandating more energy efficient fluorescent lamps. I was not too concerned; I just chalked that up to another nutty Californian idea.

But just before the end of 2007, President Bush signed onto the United States Congress' energy bill phasing out most incandescent light bulbs! (Sensenbrenner, by the way voted against this ridiculous piece of legislation, but 314 of his fellow representatives lacked the backbone to oppose it--too afraid of committing heresy against the new religion of global warming.)

What? How did that happen? Did you even know that incandescent ban was in the works? How many people still don't know that C.F. (compact fluorescent) mandate is coming down the pike?

Now I had made my own little attempt at "going green" during the summer of 2006. I installed a 4 lamp exposed bulb light fixture above my kitchen sink. (The proper term for a light bulb is a "lamp".) 

I'm not ashamed to say it, I am well over 50 years old and I need more light--the eye, as it ages, does not receive light as well as it once did. Since I seem to spend most of my time in the kitchen, I thought I would live it up and enjoy the equivalent of 240 watts of light for the energy cost of 60 watts by using the decorator type compact fluorescents (round globe style).

My foray into going green, however, has been an abysmal failure. I can barely get 4 months of use out of these decorative type compact fluorescent lamps that are to last 7 years! Instead of saving energy, I am wasting energy when you consider the 14 mile round trip trek to the store to exchange them. How is that helping the environment?

Speaking of the environment, what about disposal? These lamps contain mercury, a very toxic substance. Mandating these lamps makes about as much sense as mandating lead paint. All of that mercury will end up in the landfills and heaven help you if you break one of them.

I am going back to the decorative round incandescent bulbs lamps. It makes me sick that in a few years I will have no choice but to use the horrid compact fluorescents that don't last. I guess that is what happens When Politicians Make Engineering Choices.

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

P.S. The price tag for these lamps is about 3X the cost of the incandescent even with the rebate. And by the way, who do you think is paying for that rebate? Yup. It is us.

I do use the squiggly compact fluorescents in the basement, on porches, lamps on timers, and closets. There, the ugly style lamps work fine--hanging upside-down I might add. They do not work for automatic motion sensor applications though. 

Another P.S. My decorator globe style CF fluorescent lamp packaging pictures one in a ceiling fixture hanging upside down! That is not the problem. The voltage is not the problem--this is the only place I am having this problem (did not have this problem with incandescents either).