The Green Agenda… Solyndra… and the Price

Just like the view below, the American economy and way of life are casualties of the left’s Green Agenda… or will be if we don’t stop them! And Solyndra is just the latest example of the lengths the left will go to, to achieve their desired ends: the fundamental  transformation of America, global distribution of wealth and the demise of our way of life. The green agenda or Green Hell are very much part of that plan!!

Lovely Mountain View… Or It Would Have Been ;-)

Freedom Works: Every day in Washington D.C. is filled to the brim with sound bites delivered by our incompetent leaders, devoid of any facts or reason, but fit for media consumption. The Obama administration is no exception to this unfortunate, but ironclad, rule of politics. Take the predictable spiel about “green jobs,” for instance we always hear rosy scenarios of a growing green industry, flush with high-paying jobs. A solar company touted by Obama as “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism” merely a month ago has just shut its doors. Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the inefficient Department of Energy, closed shop without warning two weeks ago, ordering confused workers to vacate the premises. The unholy connections between Solyndra and the current administration, though, run deeper than a loan gone sour. Indeed, it is curious that George Kaiser, a large contributor to the failing company, was also a high-profile bankroller for Obama’s 2008 campaign.

            Dubious handouts from the government to favored businesses are nothing new, however. As many political observers of the 1980s could tell you, the subsidization of synthetic fuels was similarly a disaster. Originally an attempt by the Carter administration to promote “energy independence,” the Synfuels Corporation received a hefty $15 billion appropriation. Although it began with the noblest of intentions, it wandered from its original purpose and became mired in cronyism and corruption. High-profile resignations and repeated claims of mismanagement led Democrat Howard Wolpe to remark that, “We have created a fiscal Frankenstein that is beyond the control of the Executive and Legislative branches." Although many lawmakers may use the “job creation” line as a last ditch defense of their failed pet initiative, they fail to mention jobs that are indirectly lost. A recent study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid finds that every “green job” will result in the loss of 2.2 other jobs on average. Why is that? As the author of the report, Gabriel Calzada, explains, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices.”

            The question that naturally arises is why failure inevitably plagues government initiatives and “investments”? As we have seen in both the Solyndra and Synfuels saga, the government is more interested in promoting political ends rather than economic expansion. Whether a subsidy’s aim is to pay back a loyal supporter, or to attract more supports in the name of a vague ideal, power-plays and political considerations are the sole focus of activity. If the government were to simply yield to the private sector in matters of energy policy, America would be able to achieve “energy independence” quickly and more efficiently than it would under a stifling bureaucracy. In the case of Synfuels, even the Energy Secretary of the time admitted that "drilling in America would produce much more oil" than handing the corporation a blank check. Even today, political leaders fail to acknowledge the benefits in unleashing a dynamic free-market in the energy sector. Despite the millions of barrels of oil that could be obtained through off-shore drilling and the abundant supplies of natural gas, the government imposes a daunting regulatory approach to producing energy. Also, the government inefficiently subsidizes deep-shore drilling, which collects less oil on average and leads to the dangerous conditions present in the BP Oil Spill. These missteps, though, are merely a few of the plethora of unintended consequences that haunt every government action.

Government Picks a Loser

We now know that Valerie Jarrett, Pete Rouse Joe Biden and Obama knew there was a problem with Solyndra… if not worse. (Obama visited the facility at least twice and gave a speech from there.) 

From their own website:  Fremont, CA, March 20, 2009 – Solyndra, Inc. announced today that it is the first company to receive an offer for a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Solyndra, a Fremont, California-based manufacturer of innovative cylindrical photovoltaic systems, will use the proceeds of a $535 million loan from the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank to expand its solar panel manufacturing capacity in California.

“The leadership and actions of President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the U.S. Congress were instrumental in concluding this offer for a loan guarantee,” said Solyndra CEO and founder, Dr. Chris Gronet. “The DOE Loan Guarantee Program funding will enable Solyndra to achieve the economies of scale needed to deliver solar electricity at prices that are competitive with utility rates. This expansion is really about creating new jobs while meaningfully impacting global warming.”

But now Hillary??

Hillary Clinton and Solyndra

One of the things liberals used to say about the Obama regime was that it was squeaky clean.  We knew that was not true, but Obama seemed lucky enough not to have any scandals stick. 

Until now.

Solyndra may be a name that follows Barack Obama throughout 2012 and a name he may end up wishing he had never heard of. 

The Obama regime began hyping Solyndra as the great green hope.   Solyndra’s biggest attraction to Obama was money.  The investors of Solyndra donated personally or bundled large amounts of money for the Obama campaign.  Who needs a good business plan when you can just give money to a candidate for the Party of Treason? 

The net result was a  $535 million dollar loan guarantee to Solyndra.  While alarm bells were being rung by the government employees who actually understood what was going on, and did not receive campaign contributions, those who did receive the contributions, pushed the project. 

One email between the White House and an agency staffer said it best.  “This deal is not ready for prime time,” the email announced.

In 2010, Obama visited the plant to tout it.  Perhaps he was just looking to start lining up 2012 campaign contributions.  Joe Biden slobbered, “This is what the Recovery Act was all about!”

The warning signs were there.  Auditors who had looked at the company raisedserious concerns. 

An audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence.

The auditor noted that Solyndra "has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

Why was the Obama regime so concerned about pushing this “Green company?”  It is simple.  Money.

One of the major investors for Solyndra was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire and Obama campaign contributor.  He invested only after demanding that his investment be given priority over other investors, including the government.

With Republicans in control of the House, more of the actions of the Obama regime and Solyndra are going to come out and 2012 is going to be a bad year for Obama.

With his popularity plummeting and his chances of getting anything else done growing dimmer by the day, along with his reelection chances, Obama cannot be a happy camper.  Now, he can count on hearings running through next year featuring every detail of how the regime ignored the warnings of auditors and experts and pushed this risky loan guarantee through, which will now cost the tax payers half a billion dollars.

As the Obama regime demands higher taxes, we should all ask the question, “why?”  Why do we need to pay higher taxes? So Obama can send more money to companies like Solyndra?

All of this brings us around to Hillary Clinton.

If 2012 is going to be tough on Obama, it will be the 7^th circle of hell for Hillary Clinton.

Since she was young, Hillary has always dreamed of being the first woman to be President of the United States.  She still thinks she should have won it in 2008 and in her heart thinks she should be the one running for reelection in 2012. 

Had John Edwards beat her, she would already be out there as a primary challenger to a “President Edwards.”   Unfortunately for her, Barack Obama won.

Hillary was relegated to be Secretary of State.  As such, she has had the thankless job of traveling the world and doing very little.   She is chomping at the bit to take on Obama, who she believes she can take down, but she knows she cannot.

If she takes on Obama and beats him, black Democrats will abandon her and possibly even abandon the party, creating a rift which could totally destroy the party and which would guarantee a Republican win in 2012.  Actually given the magnitude of the anticipated Republican victory in 2012, the only difference would probably be the size of the victory.

If she takes on Obama, loses and then Obama loses, she knows the Clintons will be blamed, thus destroying the Clinton legacy and still possibly splitting the Democrat Party.

In the end, she knows even if she could beat Obama, almost any Republican picked out of the phone book will be able to beat any Democrat candidate.  For Hillary, her future is simply a retirement. 

She knows it and for her, that is a worse fate for her than it is for Obama.

Related:

ABC News: Solar Scandal Threatens to Engulf White House, Impact Election

Solyndra Not the Only Company Who Benefited From Democrat Ties

Whoa… RNC: “Obama Isn’t Briefed on Loan?” – Does anybody really believe that??

Solyndra Officials Made Numerous Trips to the White House, Logs Show

Yes… Bush Administration Looked at Solyndra and Turned Them Down

Oh My Emails Show White House Knew Solyndra Was a Disaster Before It Issued $535M Crony Loan

So will it be Operations Fast and Furious/Gun Walker or Solyndra Scandal that stick to the second Teflon president.  It was a cigar and a blue dress that stuck to the 1st!

Perhaps the most amazing part of all this is that in the midst of the unfolding Solyndra scandal, the Obama administration announced this week that they plan to finalize 15 additional green projects in the next two weeks… really???

Scientist Tied to Global Warning Being Investigated for ‘Scientific Misconduct’

JUNEAU, Alaska (The Blaze/AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Newser has more:

Charles Monnett is being investigated for unspecified “integrity issues” apparently linked to his report that polar bears could face an increased threat of death if they’re forced to swim farther as Arctic ice recedes.

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

--> (Related: New study of NASA data may debunk global warming predictions) <--

On Thursday, Ruch‘s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett’s computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an “ongoing internal investigation.” Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and “suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said “anything really” about global warming.

“It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he said. Gleason said others put their own spin on research or observations.

The complaint alleges Gleason and Monnett were harassed by agency officials and received negative comments from them after the article was published. Gleason eventually took another Interior Department job; he didn‘t respond to an email and a BOEMRE spokeswoman said he wouldn’t be available for comment.

Ruch also claimed the investigation is being done by criminal investigators with no scientific background, even though the case is an administrative matter.

Source:  The Blaze  - Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

So… What Else Do They Not Tell Us …Or Lie About?

Cap and Trade Rears Its Ugly Head Again…

Senate climate bill tougher than House version

Boxer, Kerry Set to Introduce Climate Bill in Senate

Kerry: "I Don't Know What 'Cap And Trade' Means"  Somebody need to tell both Senators John Kerry, whose if a major player in the Corrupt Tide Foundation and Barbara Boxer who is busy selling American parent’s right to ‘parent their own’ children to the United Nations that “We don’t know what ‘Re-Election people who ignore their constituents and work for their own ideals and gains means!”

Time to turn up the heat again against Cap and Trade, but these two really have to go!!

Ending some nine months of closed-door deliberations, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) will release global warming legislation Wednesday that they hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and an eventual conference with the House.

The bill's authors said last week that they expect to start hearings early next month on the bill, with a markup in Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee to follow soon thereafter. They also acknowledged that their legislation is just a "starting point" in a bid to win over moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as Republicans.

"I hope what we've done is constructive and well-received," Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday. "I have no pretensions, and neither does Barbara, that this will be the final product. It is a starting point, a commitment, full-fledged, across party lines to do what we need to do to protect the planet for the next century."

The Boxer-Kerry bill will build in large part off H.R. 2454(pdf), legislation approved in June by the House following several marathon months of negotiations that involved lawmakers representing coastal and industry-heavy districts. Exactly what is the same in the two bills remains to be seen. As for differences, Senate Democratic aides say they expect the legislation to divert from the House bill's 17 percent emissions target for 2020 and go with an even more aggressive 20 percent limit. The bill also will stay silent on exactly how the Senate should divide up emission allowances.

At least five other Senate committees are also expected to contribute to the climate debate. The Foreign Relations and Agriculture committees are preparing language without convening a markup.

Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he will hold votes on his pieces of the global warming bill. And the same goes for Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who last week told reporters that provisions on international trade and the allocation of emission allowances would be marked up provided Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says the bill is "clearly moving."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has already approved legislation (S. 1462 (pdf)) out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that includes a nationwide renewable electricity standard and a raft of other energy incentives, including a provision that could bring oil and gas rigs closer to Florida's Gulf Coast. Bingaman is also planning a hearing Thursday on several competing cost estimates associated with the House-passed climate bill. The session, which was postponed once earlier this month, now gives senators an early public forum to sound off on the Boxer-Kerry bill.

Already last week, several Democratic senators working outside of the Boxer-Kerry camp said their ideas would be melded into the legislation at a later date. "It's going to need a lot of work," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Brown said he did not expect the Boxer-Kerry bill to include language adopted in the House that tries to assist energy-intensive manufacturing industries, including steel, pulp and paper and cement.

"My understanding is they did not include the House language on manufacturing," Brown added. "But I've been talking to them about it. They are very open to it. They are in no way dismissive."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said she also does not think her concerns will be addressed in the initial draft from Boxer and Kerry. That means further efforts on issues related to agriculture, offsets and energy intensive industries.

"We will have to take a look at the language and then determine it from there," Stabenow said.

Kerry last week sought to change the vernacular surrounding the climate bill and sell its concepts more broadly, insisting it is not a "cap and trade" proposal but a "pollution reduction" bill. "I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does," Kerry said. "This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill" (E&E Daily, Sept. 25).

But a leading GOP opponent to the Senate climate effort quickly pushed back on the Democrat's strategy.

"No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap and trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers," said EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.)."

Both Brown and Stabenow said they would welcome the release of the Senate bill even though it will give critics something tangible to target.

"It always does," Brown said. "There is always something to shoot at. But I think it is the right step, and then we start working to improve it."

Senate Democratic leaders, including Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have said that they do not know if there will be enough time to get to the climate bill on the floor this year. But Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the lead authors of the House bill, said that he is not giving up yet.

"At this stage in the House no one was predicting we could be successful," Markey told reporters. The lawmaker said he expected the Senate to closely follow the House bill's outlines, especially "once people sit down and begin to understand we have dealt with the major interests in the country.

Schedule: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing is Thursday, Oct. 1, at 9:45 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.

Witnesses: Douglas Elmendorf, director, CBO; Richard Newell, administrator, EIA; Larry Parker, specialist in energy and environmental policy, Congressional Research Service; and Reid Harvey, chief, climate economics branch, climate change division, U.S. EPA.

Reporters Allison Winter and Katherine Ling contributed.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN of ClimateWire

Published: September 28, 2009

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net. 

Related Resources:

Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan 

Senators to Unveil Draft Climate Bill 

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation? Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? America Needs To Know!

The Goal…

Green Hell

Red Hot Lies