Obama Solves Global Warming

He made short work of it! Almost as good as God creating the earth in six days, really.

Now if he could find some patriotic (tax-paying) cabinet nominees…the first Jesus actually picked a few tax collectors for His cabinet. The Second Coming must have gotten his wires crossed because he instead chose a few tax cheats.

I still can’t believe the Senate confirmed a Treasury Secretary who couldn’t properly do his taxes. Secretary of he TREASURY! Can’t. Do. His. Own. Taxes!

The Jesus parallels are abundant. Two years ago Colts owner Jim Irsay “gave all the glory to God” after the Colts’ win. This year, who is the first person winning Steelers owner Dan Rooney thanks? President Obama. Bizarre.

This idolatry is surreal, especially coming from the left, who for eight years so ominously warned us that America was one step away from being a “theocracy.”

It should also be noted that Obama’s global warming solution is also helping reduce our dependence on foreign energy. By cutting more than a million home and business consumers off their electricity in Arkansas and Kentucky, Obama has dramatically reduced consumption quickly and efficiently!

It is the height of scientific ignorance to regard short term weather as a valid indication of a long term trend.

Disappointed Republicans will go to any lengths in their despair.

And you think that the reigning body of authority, like the CDC, is always right? Gee I remember Tobacco and for many years the so called experts said no connection with lung cancer, or how about Asbestos, for years the government claimed it was a great product used on everything from insulation to fire proof blankets.

What I read is that many experts do not see a direct correlation to Autism and vaccines but most also agree that more studies have to be done to explore the possible connection. Is it the does, the region, the parents genes, environmental or a combination of many factors. It is clear that the rise in Autism deserves the attention and the research. If children were being abducted at the rate we are diagnosing Autism we would be calling out the National Guard.

So the alarm is loud and the only clear direction is more research on this condition that costs us dearly in both money and emotional strain on the many families living with an individual with this condition.

Though the above sarcastic post is pointed at “Obama-mania” (which I get a kick out of too) and not the issue of climate change, many of the comments contained within are going in that direction. I have some questions that I really need to understand the answer to when it comes to this spirited debate on climate change.

• I can understand the passion behind either those who believe by scientific affirmation, or some other means that the actions of man are contributing to the gradual warming of the earth. There may be potential for widespread flooding in some areas that previously had none, or long lasting drought in populated areas that previously had none. If climate change is happening because of us, we need to take steps to stop it before it’s too late. It’s natural for many to want to protect their homes and children’s future from disasters and mayhem wrought from what they feel is the height of irresponsibility.

• I can understand the passion behind the global warming dissenters who have business, livelihood or other monetary interests that would be greatly affected by adopting policies that reduce or eliminate greenhouse gasses. If there is climate change happening (a big if to this group), it’s just “natural” fluctuations and has nothing to do with man’s influence. It’s natural to protect your interests when the alleged bad results from your business’s products are subtle and the fingers are still pointing in many directions. It’s natural to want to keep business as usual until things become much more obvious than they are.

• But how does this debate become politically and emotionally charged for the average person on the street, at the water cooler or in debate forums? Isn’t this strictly a scientific or fact based question? Is the earth gaining in overall average temperature or not? Do greenhouse gasses emitted by man contribute to this rise in temperature or not?

I guess I’m having trouble understanding the motivation behind stubborn skepticism for the average man when by all accounts at least the news of glaciers melting, or lakes drying up, ought to arouse suspicion that something might be going on that warrants further thought. Is it simply someone’s political or social affiliations that drive the aversion towards these considerations? (For instance, I know Al Gore might not have been a favorite amongst some for other reasons before he became involved in his high profile publication on climate change.) What is the base reason for maintaining this skepticism? What losses are incurred on the dissenters if steps were to be taken to reduce greenhouse gasses and pursue alternate energy? (Assuming you are not tied in with an oil company or something.)

It seems to me there are many reasons to reduce what at the very least amounts to pollution of our air. Miners are extremely careful to monitor CO2 levels underground because ‘lo and behold’ CO2 above certain levels are rather poisonous to humans and other animals. Yet we (me too) emit 20 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gas we burn. All I’m saying is that it seems like it would be a good thing to reduce these emissions a little out of just plain common sense, or, alternatively, find a way to absorb it as fast as we emit it.
I hope we won’t let the back and forth politics of climate change get in the way of seeking alternate energy technologies when it makes a lot of sense to do so for more reasons than keeping the earth at it’s optimal average temperature; whatever science or opinion deems that temperature to be.

President Barack Obama recently asked Congress “to act without delay” to pass legislation to double alternative energy production in the next three years and build a new electricity “smart grid.” This smart grid would be an updated digital version of the electric wires strung across our country in the past century. What makes it “smart” is that the lines would be buried and more efficient and would give homeowners feedback on how efficiently they were using the power inside their homes.

This new smart grid would cost about $400 billion over 10 years but would save between $46 billion and $117 billion over the next 20 years by reducing inefficiencies and power failures, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It also would help to make us less dependent on imported energy and to reduce climate change. For example, if the smart grid were even 5 percent more efficient, it would keep as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as eliminating 53 million cars.

A smart grid allows power from residential solar panels, small wind turbines, and plug-in electric vehicles to be fed into the grid. This would encourage the green energy industry by allowing small players, such as individual homes and small businesses, to sell power to their neighbors or back to the grid. It would provide another source of income for larger commercial businesses that have renewable or backup power systems that can provide clean energy for a price during peak demand, such as midday in July when the air conditioning is cranked.

Another brilliant feature of the proposed grid is the potential to use cars to store electricity and then feed it back into the grid during times of peak demand. “Vehicle to grid,” or V2G, technology helps balance energy loads by “valley filling” (charging at night, when demand is low) and “peak shaving” (sending power back to the grid when demand is high). This would help utility companies keep voltage and regulation stabler. It would be especially useful when more of our power came from intermittent power sources, such as solar panels, which only produce power during the day.

Power outages are less problematic for a smart grid because it quickly can isolate the problemand create energy pathways around it. This makes a smart grid “self-healing” by reducing power outages and saving money. Buried power lines also would reduce outages caused by harsh winter storms, when tree branches are likely to down power lines. In my community, residents are concerned about proposed power lines that would stretch through the centers of many small downtowns and across lovely vistas. If these same lines were buried, there would be fewer objections from the community.

The smart grid could help consumers use that energy more wisely and save money, as well. A sensor in your home can tell you the price of electricity when the demand is highest. This allows you to set priorities so that you use more energy when the price is lower and less during peak demand. You also can find out which appliances are energy hogs and identify energy vampires that you may not have known about.

Austin, Texas, has been working on a smart grid since 2003, when its utility company first replaced a third of its manual meters with wireless smart meters. Austin currently manages 200,000 smart meters, smart thermostats and sensors across its service area and expects to be supporting 500,000 devices this year. Boulder, Colo., started a smart grid project in August 2008. The smart grid extends into homes through home automation network devices. These devices automatically set thermostats, reduce energy loads during peak times, and shut off lights in rooms when no one is in them.

By investing in our infrastructure, we also would stimulate economic growth and increase green jobs. Thousands of peoplewould be put to work across the country designing, building and installing smart grid technology. Having the grid in place wouldmake electric carsmore feasible and affordable. Renewable energy would become more viable, and demand would increase as more electric carswere added to the grid. It also would bring the price of homeand business-scaled renewable power systems down because the payback periods would decrease. Businesses may make tidy profits by selling excess power back to the grid.

Want to learn more about the smart grid? The U.S. Department of Energy has an easy-tounderstand publication you can download online called “The Smart Grid: An Introduction.” The DOE is conducting a series of smart grid e-forums to discuss issues surrounding the smart grid, including costs, benefits, implementation and deployment. Thank you !