Category: Productive jobs

Biomass trash: It makes no gas, gas, gas?

It was scorned in the Katrina hurricane,
And we howled in the North Dakota rain,
But it’s all right now, it’s CO2 gas,
But it’s all right, biomass trash makes no gas, gas gas…*

* – Suggested shower lyrics for Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) sung to the tune of a Rolling Stones’ hit in wishful rationalization of why its OK to support global warming alarmism AND the burning of biomass for electricity.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) says that, “The climate crisis facing the world is no joke, and closing our eyes to the problems created by it doesn’t make them go away.” Rep. Baird is referring, of course, to the supposed problem of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide. So since he believes that we are a crisis caused by manmade CO2, you might reasonably think that Rep. Baird would be all for a climate bill that dramatically reduces rather than condones CO2 emissions.

Instead, however, Rep. Baird says that support from Northwest states for the Waxman-Markey climate bill is being “alienated” by the bill’s restriction on the burning of biomass (i.e., scrub wood and brush) from federal lands for electricity generation, according to a report from Carbon Control News (April 29). The Waxman-Markey-loving Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council oppose biomass burning as undermining the bill’s chief goal — that is, reducing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Rep. Baird calls the Waxman-Markey ban a

“bad, foolish, irresponsible policy”

that he will

“work to the utmost of my ability to defeat.”

About the greens, Rep. Baird says,

It’d be nice if some of these folks lived in reality for once.

A worthy wish for us all, Rep. Baird.

Maryland Steelworkers: Get New Leadership

The United Steelworkers are supporting a bill in Maryland to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, reports the Washington Post.

According to the Post, the greens bought the Steelworkers support with assurance that the bill,

… cannot cost manufacturing jobs, cannot “decrease the likelihood of . . . affordable electrical service” and must produce a net economic benefit for Maryland.

And they cannot require greenhouse gas reductions from the manufacturing sector, which produces between 4 and 7 percent of the state’s overall emissions.

Steelworker spokesman Jim Strong told the Post,

“We’re concerned about the environment. But as a labor organization, our primary concern is the jobs of our members.”

But if Strong was telling the truth — or knew enough to tell the truth — he would oppose the greens to the bitter end.

First, we all care about the environment — the greens don’t hold a monopoly on that. But greenhouse gas regulation has nothing to do with the environment. Greenhouse gas regulation will make no detectable difference to our environment.

Next, the greens care don’t for, or about, steel manufacturing or steel workers — except to the extent that blue-collar workers and their unions can serve as “useful idiots” who help achieve the green social and political agenda.

Sure the Maryland bill may not hurt manufacturing, but it will never really be implemented anyway — looming national legislation is the real threat. What the greens have accomplished is to lull Maryland steelworkers to sleep on the climate issue.

Greenhouse gas regulation can only hurt blue-collar workers. Maryland Steelworkers should unite to get rid of Jim Strong and anyone else in union leadership boneheaded enough to think that steel jobs can survive the green agenda.

Take action:

Contact United Steelworkers District 8 director, Ernest R. “Billy” Thompson, and tell him that if green wins, steelworkers lose:

USW District 8
85 C. Michael Davenport Blvd, Suite B
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-875-3332 – Telephone
502-875-2917 – FAX

You can also try to contact Jim Strong at:

Sub-District 1
8019 Corporate Drive, Suite H
Baltimore, MD 21236
Phone: 410-931-6900
Fax: 410-931-6904

Wells Fargo: Saving the planet or killing jobs?

Taking advantage of federal securities regulations that permit publicly-owned companies to transmit annual proxy statements to shareholders by e-mail rather than by mail, banking giant Wells Fargo stated in its preliminary 2008 proxy statement that,

Wells Fargo is also committed to promoting a clean environment and working towards a greener future. The SEC rule also allows us to reduce the environmental impact of printing and mailing hard copies of proxy materials to each stockholder. We printed 100,546,728 fewer pages of proxy materials for our 2008 annual meeting than we did for our 2007 annual meeting because we used the SEC’s notice and access rule. As a result, last year we saved the equivalent of at least:

  • 7,500 trees;
  • Greenhouse gas emissions of more than 250 cars driven for one year; and
  • Nearly 40 garbage trucks full of solid waste.

While the e-proxy may save Wells Fargo some money, its exaltation of its e-proxy’s green “benefits” is a bit unthinking, if not shortsighted:

  • Given that discarded proxy statements are only a small part of the waste stream, e-proxies won’t reduce garbage truck traffic or significantly increase landfill capacity. That’s good news for employees of garbage hauling companies and landfill operators./li>
  • Trees are a renewable resource. They are continually planted and harvested to make paper. Wells Fargo may have “saved” 7,500 trees, but how many jobs in the timber/paper industry will that cost? How many of those employees would have opened accounts at Wells Fargo?
  • Wells Fargo says it has saved the planet from the greenhouse gas emissions of 250 cars? Do you know how many cars Americans own? More than 250 million. Even if you buy into CO2 hysteria, trivial doesn’t begin describe the banks “achievement.”
  • And if we start applauding the removal of cars from the road, where will auto workers, gas station attendants, road workers, etc. work? Even Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is starting to figure this one out.

Wells Fargo is going to need a healthy, growing and jobs-producing economy for the sake of its own prosperity.

People can’t live on green.