June 21, 2008
Speaking of Joel Connelly and Global-warmist hypocrisy...

One wonders how many tons of greenhouse gasses the professedly anti-gasoline Connelly blows out of his automobile every year while commuting between his neighborhood in Seattle and his "REAL home" on Whidbey Island.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 21, 2008 11:08 AM | Email This
Comments
1. So...the question that remains and is unanswered in the response from JC is....
Why in the heck was his "hiking buddies" Ellen and David Lawsky from WA, DC registered in the state? And are they still registered and are they now citizens?
And...who is Virginia Snyder? is she also from another state and registered here?

Posted by: Cliff on June 21, 2008 11:25 AM
2. Leave it to a classless scribe like Joel Connelly to use the word "ratf*&k" in his e-mail dialogue...and for that matter, not even in the right context. Somehow, I'm not surprised.


Posted by: Rick D. on June 21, 2008 11:40 AM
3. Not to mention the smoke and soot from the ferry he rides to work, subsidized by you and me.

Oh, and Washington wouldn't be worrying a lick about electricity if WSSPPS had been built -- due to the Seattle Libs who now say we "didn't do enough"...enough being defined by Europeans:

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5482

At the same time, the environmental movement began to question the wisdom of nuclear power. The Washington Environmental Council filed suit to require City Light to produce an environmental impact statement on the nuclear plants which would have delayed the process five years. The environmental group dropped its suit when City Light Superintendent Vickery opened up the decision-making process. He established a 27-member Citizens' Overview Committee, made up of citizens and including environmentalists, to look at the needs for power and the best ways to provide it. City Light produced a study, Energy 1990, which examined ways to meet future power needs.


Posted by: John Bailo on June 21, 2008 02:58 PM
4. These same "environmentalists" would have fought hydroelectic power with the same fervor. As a result none of the dams that give us clean, renewable power would have been built. Instead we'd probably be burning coal and oil like much of the rest of the country does.

Sometimes it just makes my head hurt.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 21, 2008 05:21 PM
5. John Bailo:

You forgot to mention that the story about WSSPS goes on to say that plant 1 at Hanford was completed and produces nuclear electric power for 40% cheaper than Seattle pays. And that include, I presume, all the costs of the screw ups in the 80's.

Posted by: deadwood on June 21, 2008 06:12 PM
6. Joel Connelly's column in the P-I is just another Progressive blog.

Complete bias and irrationality that almost no one is reading.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 21, 2008 11:51 PM
7. Last hour the infuriating Limbaugh promised to knock down the fat-cat Democrat litany or liturgy re drilling our way out of our energy crisis du jour. He promised specifically to blow apart the green lib canard that American companies don't need more leases opened to them in Alaska and off the continental shelf because American companies aren't using millions of acres of leases they have now. Then, before saying anything worthwhile, Limbaugh muddled off as he always does into nonsense about grabbing ankles and glorious naked bodies.

Yesterday on post-Russert Meet the Press, Biden (D) kicked in the teeth of Graham (R) about unused leases. Graham correctly said that Bush and McCain are right about off-shore drilling, but he never broke into Biden's fillibusters to address Biden's repeated assertion that oil companies have refused to develop leases they have now.

The only refutation or explanation I've heard so far is that oil companies don't develop what they have now because the green litigation lobby stops them before they get started. That's a reasonable explanation, but it raises a reasonable question: Why would the granting of new off-shore and AK leases not suffer a more reasonable fate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: sandalista on June 23, 2008 11:00 AM
8. Sandalista @7: The spittle of liberal Democrats that the oil companies have "refused to develop" present leases is a canard. First of all, please remember that an oil company must first explore for oil before you can begin to drill for it or pump it. That is what is going on with the leases now extent. They are looking so that they can drill. Drilling where there is no oil or the reasonable knowledge that oil may be there is kind of stupid and costly. On top of that, any oil company CEO that wouldn't be drilling for available oil at these prices would have a board of directors clamoring to hang him high from a tree.

You see, what the Democrats need right now is to shift the blame about present gas prices to some other bad guy as, right now, they are it and elections are just around the corner (lying quotent up). Every action concerning energy that Democrats in the House and Senate have taken has made the cost of fuel higher and ultimately the cost of everything from soda pop to water to hamburger more expensive and/or scarce. First they tried to blame it on oil companies but with only a an 8 percent profit (less than most any business you can name) that doesn't quite wash. Next it was Bush but that didn't work as Bush decided to stick up for himself for once. Then it was "speculators" but as soon as anybody dialed into Econ 101 that BS blew away. Now we're back to oil companies again not "developing leases" when not much developing can happen until exploration fully takes place. But who cares about details. Surely not that serial bloviator Biden.

Which brings to mind the Carter years. The Democrats are now singing the same songs that Carter did during his administration ("excess" profits tax, government funded alternate energy projects and creation of a "we can't" miasma that crushed the economy and gave us "the misery index") and gas got so high at that point the we had rationing and high prices, the amount which hadn't been surpassed until recently (inflation adjusted dollars).

If the Democrats weren't in the hip pocket of the green lobby 10, 20, 30 years ago (like they are now), we would have plentiful cheap energy now that would pollute less. And there just isn't much you can point to that shows any different.

Posted by: G Jiggy on June 23, 2008 01:12 PM
9. Re the unused oil leases.

Don't the drilling companies have to get a Federal permit to drill on those leases, once they find indications there might actually be oil or natural gas on the lease?

Posted by: pyotr on June 23, 2008 01:57 PM
10. It's pretty simple really and works like most any minerals contract. The Feds offer the lease and the interested parties purchase the lease. They can do nothing until they acquire the lease. They have 10 years to explore, drill and then bring the oil to market before the lease expires. If nothing develops in the "explore" portion the lease it usually lays fallow until it expires. If oil is found before the 10 year limit the lease continues past the 10 yaers.

And Joe Biden knows that but, it's politics you see.

Posted by: G Jiggy on June 23, 2008 02:08 PM
11. The truth will show through in time and Global warming will be dust. For an interesting and intelligent view on the scam that traditional libs like Connelly still buy in to, check out MichaelCrichton.com

Joel, you and your cohorts on the left are dead wrong on this one - you either don't want to or have not considered the big picture. The average global temp leveled off from 1998-2007 and has dipped some this year.

Posted by: KS on June 23, 2008 09:00 PM
12. #7 - Right about Meet the Press. Graham did not bring up the fact that the leases need permits before they are able to be developed and the environmental regulatory permit process (influenced by the green lobby) can tie them up for some time. Biden went unchecked with his demagoguery, but did not offer any viable solutions either. It did not help that the moderator, Brian Williams is no Tim Russert, besides being in the tank for Obama.

Posted by: KS on June 23, 2008 09:05 PM
13. Connelly is just a name caller and a buffoon. I contacted him a few months ago to ask him a question about global warming and he replied but never answered the question. It's kind of funny because the question was a pretty simple one. And it also gives you an good idea how arrogant he is.

http://mezzanineview.com/mzv/Archives/enviro0011.html

Posted by: G Jiggy on June 24, 2008 02:29 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?