Media Keeping Americans Uninformed (Part 2: Green Energy Failures)

EPA Green Regulations SC Media Keeping Americans Uninformed (Part 2: Green Energy Failures)

Concerned American citizens who don’t know the facts about how our government uses taxpayer dollars are being misled because the truth is not reported by the media. Before the massive economic stimulus bill passed in 2009, VP Joe Biden insisted “We have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.” That was three and a half years ago, and Americans are still paying the bills.

We have a consistently anemic economy and high unemployment as well as increasing energy and healthcare costs. Is the government corrupt, or is it incompetent where handling taxpayer dollars is concerned? That stimulus money was supposed to lead to shovel-ready jobs – immediate economic growth – but as the president himself chuckled, “Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.”

Just last week, Obama shut down the Jobs Council that apparently was created as a photo op used to dupe the public into believing they were trying to get people back to work and recharge the economy.

In the case of the energy market, the government’s decisions have cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Let’s look at some under-reported facts.

Ten months ago, another Obama-backed solar company in California, Solar Trust for America, declared bankruptcy after receiving $2.1 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE). According to the Wash­ington Examiner, Energy Secretary Steven Chu boasted the deal was “the largest amount ever offered to a solar project.”

Through the massive economic stimulus, the Obama administra­tion basically funneled money to their Democratic allies; and even with all the evidence of failure, the media protects the administration, disregarding American citizens in the process. It sounds good to ‘invest’ in green energy and the future of America, but government typically rewards companies that are loyal to those who make the policies. Crony Capitalism 101.

Reports have noted that $80 billion was set aside in the 2009 Obama stimulus; and instead of creating desperately-needed jobs, the administration funded politically preferred energy projects. The DOE immediately provided over $35 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and conditional commitments to renewable energy companies before the American public knew what was going on. Sadly, many still don’t know.

Money was poured into companies that had poor track records. More than 36 companies have received money from generous U.S. taxpayers and have either gone bankrupt or are in the process of major cuts and layoffs. One spectacular failure is Brightsource Energy, which used $1.6 billion in taxpayer money.

First Solar received $1.46 billion. Next, Solyndra, a solar manufacturer, received a $535 million loan guarantee from the DOE and went bankrupt. Fisker Automotive, the electric vehicle manufacturer, received a $529 million DOE stimulus loan and has gone through layoffs. Evergreen Solar received $527 million.

Abound Solar received $400 million and has declared bankruptcy. Battery maker A123 received a $249 million stimulus grant from the DOE and has had layoffs. Ener1 received a $118.5 million stimulus grant; now, they are bankrupt. (Ener1 was on the White House list of 100 Projects that are Changing America.)

A few other glaring green energy failures include: Johnson Controls ($299 million), A123 Systems ($279 million), Babcock and Brown ($178 million), LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million), ECOtality ($126.2 million), and Mascoma Corp. ($100 million). See Heritage Foundation’s extended list.

THIS ISN’T NEWSWORTHY? Even an AP report showed Solyndra hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars years before the Obama administration signed off on the $535 million loan! The California-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy. Obama looked at the “investment” into Solyndra as a model.

At the time, Michigan Republican Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, warned:

“In this time of record debt, I question whether the govern­ment is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat.”

Solyndra announced bankruptcy on August 31st, 2011; and in October, the Media Research Center released a study that exposed ABC, CBS, and NBC because they rarely mentioned it. It was just the opposite of their reporting on Enron, an energy company with Republican ties during the Bush administration:

“In just the first two months of 2002, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts cranked out 198 stories on the Enron debacle, compared to just eight (at the time of this study) on Obama’s Solyndra, which is a 24-to-1 disparity.”

How about investing in the private economy? There is no substantial proof green jobs are going to be successful in the near future. The green energy loan program was supposed to create 65,000 jobs, but reports could claim only 3,545 jobs.

The Obama White House and DOE stuck with Solyndra because its largest financial backer was George Kaiser, a major financial donor to Obama. Accuracy in Media’s Roger Aronoff stated: “This goes against the media narrative that Obama operates on a higher ethical plane than previous scandal plagued politicians.”

An entire month after Solyndra declared bankruptcy, a Pew survey found 43% of Americans “had never even heard of the scandal.” As for MSNBC, their primetime lineup went months without even acknowledging Solyndra.

Will this administration relent on its agenda? Just three months ago, Obama told an audience in Wisconsin that they’d continue to gamble with taxpayer dollars on green energy projects, confessing that “some of the businesses we encourage” with government loans “will fail” like Solyndra.

Bankruptcies and failures won’t diminish the Obama administration’s drive to keep spending our money as long as the media refuses to hold them accountable.

 

In Part 1 of this series on media malpractice, we noted the lack of truthful reporting on abortion, and an overall abuse of power.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

‘Independent’ Audience Asks Twice As Many Anti-Romney Questions

Mitt Romney speech 3 SC Independent Audience Asks Twice As Many Anti Romney Questions

Candy Crowley’s disgraceful performance tonight masked her true failure: her failure to pick questions outside the Daily Kos mailbag. Here’s the full list of questions she pre-screened from members of the “independent” audience. They got more and more egregious as the evening progressed.

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate? Romney answered this one easily, but the question itself was framed from a leftist point of view. It is no president’s job to guarantee anyone employment after they graduate. All a president can do is create the conditions for economic growth, which provides jobs. Score this one as a neutral question.

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department? This question was directed to President Obama, and it was clearly an anti-Obama question. This led to an exchange in which Obama ended up claiming that low gas prices lead to economic recessions.

QUESTION: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the — these various deductions, the mortgage deductions, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit? I forgot.

QUESTION: Oh, I remember. The education credits, which are important to me, because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class? This question was so great for Obama that he decided to help the questioner along with it. She was trying to get Romney to talk about how he was going to hurt middle income people by getting rid of deductions for them. Romney answered it beautifully, and took the bat out of her hands.

Read More at breitbart.com . By Ben Shapiro.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. Gingrich Group Asks Romney To Help With Ad Errors A group supporting Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says it…
  2. Schlafly: Grassley Asks The Right Questions Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a good friend of the Constitution…

Why Is Panetta Beating The War Drums On Climate Change?

Leon Panetta SC Why Is Panetta Beating The War Drums On Climate Change?

Global warming has been off the energy-news radar as high gas prices have usurped the spotlight—however Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has brought it back. “Defense Secretary?” you might ask. “Not Energy Secretary Steven Chu or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson?”

No. It was Leon Panetta, who, at an Environmental Defense Fund reception on Thursday May 3, declared “The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security.” (Are we going to declare war on countries like Canada for backing out of the Kyoto climate change commitments, or China and India for never supporting them in the first place?)

Panetta’s comments tell us two things. First, as I’ve stated in aprevious column, the environmental community is important to the president’s re-election efforts, and, second, global warming will be part of the debate in the coming months leading up to November.

President Obama campaigned with the promise that he would slow the rise of the oceans and enact cap-and-trade legislation. Talk of manmade climate change was central to his election efforts. Now we know it will still be a part of the re-election rhetoric.

Likewise, candidate Romney has also supported the theory of manmade climate change and was part of the founding of one of the original cap-and-trade programs. However, Romney has now, after seeing new data, admitted that he doesn’t know whether or not man’s activity plays a role in climate change.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney accepted what was the prevalent thinking on climate change at the time. Many believed that the “science” was “settled.” Scientists like NASA’s James Hansen and Penn State’s Michael Mann publicly proclaimed that global warming was a threat to all of humanity and the earth. But that was then. Leon Panetta’s comment reminds us that the Obama position on climate change has remained static, while Romney’s has matured with the latest findings.

Within the past few weeks, James Lovelock, a scientist and climate-change alarmist, who in 2006 wrote, “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” admitted he was wrong and acknowledges that he’d been “extrapolating too far.”

Lovelock puts himself in the same “alarmist” category as Al Gore. Now he sees that “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books—mine included—because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” Lovelock continues. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now. The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising—carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.” Despite rising carbon dioxide, sea levels are dropping—though it is doubtful that President Obama can take any credit for it since his promised cap-and-trade plan did not make it through the Democratic controlled Congress.

As Lovelock confessed, the dire predictions haven’t come true.

The polar bear, the mascot of the climate change crisis, believed to be drowning due to melting ice caps, is flourishing. Drikus Gissing, director of wildlife management for the Nunavut region, told theGlobe and Mail, “The bear population is not in crisis as people believed. There is no doom and gloom.” The Canadian study Gissing referenced found that the polar bear population was 66 percent higher than expected.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007 that “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Then, in 2010, they had to retract the estimate, admitting that it was based on “dubious scientific sources.” Time Magazine called the entire episode “a black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.” Now, there is a new study reported in Nature that points out that the contribution of melting ice “is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.”

As the Himalayan story exposes, some of the science behind the manmade climate change hysteria is “dubious.” And some is the result of scientific misconduct, as was revealed in the Climategate scandal that exposed falsified records and silenced scientists.

Add to the above the impact the general public is beginning to feel as climate change mitigation strategies—such as wind and solar power—are hitting their utility bills, and the disgust they feel over the president’s insistence that more taxpayer dollars be thrown at an increasing number of failing so-called renewable energy firms, and it is easy to see why support for manmade global warming theory has waned.

And, one has to question why the president is entrenched in ideology that has now been shown to be demonstrably deceptive. The issue of costly climate change mitigation schemes is about more than just our presidential candidates. More than half of the states have mandated requirements for expensive renewable energy that raises electricity rates for everyone. Each legislator who voted for the cost-increasing standards needs to be as honest as Romney, and admit that they were wrong and reverse the policies, or be voted out of office. Unless that happens, energy prices will continue to climb and will stunt the struggling economic recovery.

The combination of new data, dire predictions that were no more accurate than a carnival fortune teller, scientific misconduct, and harsh economic impacts don’t add up to a strong foundation for a presidential campaign—yet, as Leon Panetta exposed, President Obama continues to cling to claims of manmade climate change crisis while Romney, like former “alarmist” James Lovelock, admits he was wrong.

Thousands of scientists never believed the predictions put forth by computer models, and many more, like Lovelock, have begun to question the assumptions. Later this month, hundreds of them, from across the globe, will converge in Chicago for the world’s largest gathering of “skeptics.” There they will discuss and debate the science.

Over the next six months, we are bound to hear about climate change as an issue. Romney will likely be called a flip-flopper, while President Obama stands firm on his convictions—with one sounding shameful and the other honorable. In contrast, I believe it is honorable to accept new input and admit when we are wrong and shameful to ignore new evidence, putting ideology ahead of reality.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Related posts:

  1. Global Government: The Third Ring In The Climate Change Circus Environmentalism is the latest tool being used by globalists to…
  2. Chicken Little Climate Change Alarmists Are Shamelessly At It Again The Chicken Little’s are once again screaming about the end…

Video: Louisana Rep, Thank Obama for $4 Gas

Video: Issa Says Obama’s Deliberately Raising Gas Prices