The Piercing Truth

This is right from the dictionary and seems to describe Albuquerque, Berry and Schultz. Fascism (f ash ,izem) noun An authoritarian right wing system of government and/or social organization. (in general use) extreme right wing, authoritarian, chauvinistic and/or intolerant views or practices. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one group over another, national, ethnic, especially social strata or monetarily; a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Compliments of one of our Eyes

Nov 6, 2009

Congressman Teague Has A Split Personality On Energy

Marita K. Noon

If there is one thing T. Boone Pickens knows how to do, it is make money. When T. Boone gets behind something, financial gain is the incentive. There is nothing wrong with making money, but his motives cannot be viewed as purely altruistic. When the price of natural gas was high, he advertised converting the world to wind power as wind power needs back-up base-load power and the only source that can ramp up and down quickly is natural gas. Now that natural gas prices are lower, he no longer promotes wind power. He is, however, pushing a new scheme to increase natural gas usage. Natural gas is a clean-burning fossil fuel, so using more natural gas is good.

However, when T. Boone partners with Congressman Harry Teague, one has to look askance. At best, Teague appears to be a bit schizophrenic.

While we do not currently know what version of cap and trade will pass through Congress-or even if any form will pass, we know that Teague voted for the Waxman/Markey Bill (AKA cap and trade). The purported goal of cap and trade is to get America off of fossil fuels by making their emissions taxable in some form-and therefore more expensive for the consumer. One variant of cap and trade basically eliminates coal from America's energy portfolio, which means our coal-fired power plants that provide about half of our base-load energy needs will all have to be converted to natural gas--additionally upping the price. So Teague has essentially voted to make natural gas--a fossil fuel his company helps produce--more expensive and then supports a bill (H.R. 1835) that would use taxpayer money to underwrite the conversion of vehicles from gasoline or diesel to natural gas. We the taxpayers will get hit on both sides of his efforts.

In addition to his apparent split personality, the opinion editorial produced jointly by the Teague/Pickens team has several other flaws.

In their proposal, they recommend tax incentives for converting fleets to be fueled by natural gas. On the surface this sounds good-we trade an imported fuel for a domestic one. The use of natural gas has already been tried in agricultural and oil field vehicles since the 60's and was not reliable.Yet, this is being tried in several government agencies as a way to be more environmentally friendly--even though the infrastructure is not there. To solve this, Teague/Pickens then encourage opening more NGV fueling stations. This will take years and years to make happen due to right-of-way issues, environmental regulations and excessive costs--which their approach would have underwritten by the taxpayer (as are, or course, the aforementioned tax incentives). By the time a NGV infrastructure could be functional, something totally different could be in place.

Another flaw is their idea that NGV will reduce our dependence of foreign oil. We currently use foreign natural gas and their plan would increase natural gas use--therefore using more from foreign sources. I am all for natural gas use and I support getting off of foreign fuels of all kinds. But switching our vehicles to NGV will not do that. What we need is to open up drilling options-for both natural gas and oil! Their op-ed cites a study indicating that the continental United States has enough natural gas reserves to last 118 years. That may be true, but how much are we currently allowed to access? Much of America's natural resources are off-limits due to environmental NIMBYism! With all of the nonconventional fuels coming online, I believe we could be almost energy independent now--or at least have energy security (meaning we get our fuels from friendly countries such as Mexico and Canada). But we must be able to access them.

Additionally the Teague/Pickens piece claims that natural gas burns cleaner and produces "virtually no particulate emissions." I agree that natural gas burns cleanly, but so do most other fuels today. America and Canada derive the largest single percent of energy from coal, yet they both have some of the cleanest air of the industrialized world. Wasn't Waxman/Markey about CO2, not particulate emissions? Come on Harry, make up your mind.

Teague's action in voting for Waxman/Markey was a vote to shut down fossil fuels when the next generation of fuel--whatever it may be--is not yet available. After all, as they state, "Wind and solar are not helping you drive to work in the morning."


Marita Noon is the Executive Director at CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the nonprofit organization working to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom and the American way of life. Find out more at www.responsiblenergy.org. Note: The above is in response to a previously published op-ed

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

We went to Iraq for OIL. Terrorists are funded with OIL. Chavez is a problem south of the border because he has an abundance of OIL. We need to diversify our energy portfolio for national defense. If progressives want us to stop using oil because of global warming, who cares. They come to the same conclusion on a different path.

We are funding both sides of the war on terror. Our taxes pay for our military and filling up our cars transfers our wealth to nations that fund terrorists.

OIL is bad for America

Anonymous said...

When the US was attacked we should have spent $1 trillion to free us from our dependence on oil, not to get Saddam. This would have severely diminished the power of those who desire to destroy the US and it would have saved Americans money in two ways. Future taxes would not need to finance our ever increasing and permanent presence in the Middle East, and we would not be financing Lee Raymods 400 million retirement package every time you pull up to the pump to put more money into Exxon's coffers. Lower taxes and stable fuel prices are both good for economic prosperity.

Keep pumping readers full of S**t and we will never win again.

Anonymous said...

We went to Iraq for OIL. Terrorists are funded with OIL. Chavez is a problem south of the border because he has an abondance of OIL. We need to diversify our energy portfolio for national defence. If progressives want us to stop using oil because of global warming, who cares. They come to the same conclusion on a different path.

We are funding both sides of the war on terror. Our taxes pay for our military and filling up our cars transfers our wealth to nations that fund terrorists.

OIL is bad for America

Anonymous said...

Iraq is part of most American's vocabulary because the country is home to the second largest proven oil reserves. If Democrats ever start talking about oil in terms of national security, Republicans will be a permanent minority in the US. We need to get off oil.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of corruption:

Marita Noon is Executive Director of Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy, a lobby group funded by New Mexico oil and gas industry interests.[1]

A biographical note states that Noon "spent the last twenty-five years as a professional speaker and writer. She is the author of 19 books (written under a pseudonym) and has served as the president of a communications company."[2] Her pen name is Marita Littauer with most of her books on communications and Christian living
↑ Mark Mathis, "Richardson Should Do a 180 on Energy Plan", Albuquerque Journal, October 19, 2005.
↑ "About Us", Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy website, accessed June 2008.
↑ "Marita Littauer", accessed June 2008.

Anonymous said...

When the US was attacked we should have spent $1 trillion to free us from our dependence on oil, not to get Saddam. This would have severely diminished the power of those who desire to destroy the US and it would have saved Americans money in two ways. Future taxes would not need to finance our ever increasing and permanent presence in the Middle East, and we would not be financing Lee Raymods 400 million retirement package every time you pull up to the pump to put more money into Exxon's coffers. Lower taxes and stable fuel prices are both good for economic prosperity.

Anonymous said...

Osama bin Laden financed his terrorist organization with oil money paid to his family by the Saudi royal family for constrution in Saudi Arabia. Iran is financing its nuclear weapons program with oil money.

When we start using new sources of energy, we can leave the Middle East. Conservatives need to wake up and put national security before the needs of a few large oil companies.

Anonymous said...

I care more about our soldiers than I do about gas. This site only cares about profits. Those that die for oil are considered collateral damage to the people who write this dribble.

Get rid of oil and we get rid of terrorism. Keep oil and Republicans can continue to exploit La Raza

Anonymous said...

IT IS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. OIL MAKES US WEAK