Former Legislator Amanda Reeve Endorses Mark Brnovich for Attorney General

Mark Brnovich- skinny horizontal logo

Former Legislator Amanda Reeve Endorses Mark Brnovich for Attorney General

Today, Republican candidate for attorney general Mark Brnovich received the endorsement of former State Representative Amanda Reeve. Reeve remarked:

“Integrity in character, intelligence in reasoning, passion in morality, fairness in representation, and value in actions…these are the characteristics of a great Attorney General.  As its chief legal officer, Arizona needs these qualities in its Attorney General to fight for the rights of its citizens, protect the state and businesses from overzealous federal agencies; and provide guidance to the legislature and state agencies in the drafting and implementation of constitutional laws and sound rules. Mark Brnovich is this Attorney General and it is my great honor to endorse his candidacy.”

During her tenure in the Arizona House of Representatives, Reeve served as Chair of the House Environment Committee, and as member of the Energy & Natural Resources, Higher Education & Innovative Reform, Military Affairs & Public Safety, and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees. She is well-versed in Environmental and Natural Resources litigation and regulatory matters, as well as a vast array of other complex litigation and policy issues.

Mark remarked, “I am grateful for Amanda’s support. She is a well-respected policymaker – from her time spent as a State Representative to her current position where she researches, drafts, and advocates for issues important in the lives of Arizonans, including the environmental issues we face. I am encouraged by the diverse group of individuals supporting my campaign.”

Former Representative Amanda Reeve joins a quickly growing list of support, including that of former U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, U.S. Representative Trent Franks, former State Senators Linda Gray, Barbara Leff, Dean Martin, and Kathleen Dunbar, County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Representatives Debbie Lesko, Paul Boyer, T.J. Shope, Brenda Barton, John Allen, Nancy Barto, Karen Fann and Warren Petersen, Mayor Tom Shope, Len Munsil, former Congressman David McIntosh, and more than 120 grassroots leaders throughout Arizona in endorsing Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General.

For more information, please visit www.Mark4AZ.com

 

###

Martha McSally: Who does Ron Barber Really Stand With?

Martha McSally

TUCSON – Martha McSally, Congressional candidate for Arizona’s Second District, released the following statement today after the Obama Administration announced new energy regulations on states. The regulations are expected to increase energy prices on families and businesses while eliminating jobs across the country.

“At a time when both parties should be working together on bipartisan efforts to empower small businesses and get people back to work, President Obama appears to be pushing a hyper-partisan agenda to please his campaign donors over the needs of hardworking families. Plain and simple, this is a betrayal of middle class families who will be paying more in energy costs and will see many well-paying jobs disappear. What’s more, the poor and struggling who have the least ability to afford these higher costs will be hardest hit. I call on Congressman Barber to join bipartisan opposition to these harmful regulations and stand up for families of the Second District against his party’s job-destroying agenda.”

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced draft rules that would require 30% reductions in CO2 emissions across the country over the next 15 years. Under the proposed rules, Arizona would be forced to cut emissions by 52%, the second-highest mandate for any state in the country.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated last week the new regulations would cost the U.S. economy $50 billion and eliminate 224,000 jobs. The EPA also has admitted the new regulations will increase energy costs for American consumers.

Will Kyrsten Sinema Support Obama’s Job Destroying Cap-and-Trade Scheme?

NRCC

Kyrsten Sinema Will Have to Choose Between Saving Jobs or Backing her Friends in D.C.

WASHINGTON – Is Kyrsten Sinema going to listen to Arizona voters and save American jobs, or will she fall in line with her Democrat allies and support President Obama’s latest cap-and-trade scheme that could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year and eliminate an estimated 224,000 jobs?

A recent study, issued by the United States Chamber of Commerce, found that President Obama’s new cap-and-trade edict will force more than a “third of the coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030.”

“Not only will this new Obama regulation cost billions of dollars for taxpayers, but it will limit American energy production and spike electricity prices – hurting families across America,” said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek. “Arizona families deserve a Republican leader in Congress that will stand up to President Obama and his Administration’s job-destroying regulations.”

Will Kyrsten Sinema Support Obama’s Job Destroying Cap-and-Trade Scheme.
(Michael Bastasch, EPA To Unilaterally Push Cap And Trade On Carbon Emissions, The Daily Caller, 5/27/14)

“President Obama’s climate rule change will force more than a “third of the coal-fired power capacity to close by 2030.”
(Mark Drajem, Chamber Study Predicts Obama Climate Rule Will Kill Jobs, Bloomberg, 5/28/14)

Cost nearly $50 billion and eliminate an estimated 224,000 jobs
(Energy Institute Report Finds That Potential New EPA Carbon Regulations Will Damage U.S. Economy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 5/28/14)

It will limit American energy production and spike electricity prices.
(Ralph Vartabedian, U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good, LA Times, 4/25/14)

ELECTRICITY: “U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. … ‘We are now in an era of rising electricity prices,’ said Philip Moeller, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission…” (Los Angeles Times)

HEALTH CARE: “More employees are getting hit with higher health insurance premiums and co-payments, and many don’t have the money to cover unexpected medical expenses, a new report finds. More than half of companies (56%) increased employees’ share of health care premiums or co-payments for doctors’ visits in 2013, and 59% of employers say they intend to do the same in 2014, according to the annual Aflac WorkForces Report.” (USA TODAY)

FOOD: “Rising food prices bite into household budgets. Prices are rising for a range of food staples, from meat and pork to fruits and vegetables, squeezing consumers still struggling with modest wage gains.” (USA TODAY)

FLYING, THE MOVIES, OIL CHANGES, AND MORE: “David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff, said other areas beyond food and energy … are getting costlier as well. ‘Airline fares are on the rise,’ he said in his morning note Tuesday. ‘Movie tickets and other such recreational services are on the rise. Repair service fees are on the rise. Shelter costs in general are on the rise. Tuition costs are on the rise. Medical service prices are on the rise.’” (NBC News)

Rep Brenda Barton Applauds Recent Reversal in USFS Hunter RV Enforcement

Representative Brenda Barton (R – Payson) said that she was, “greatly pleased ” at the sudden change of heart by the United States Forest Service (USFS). “This is a wonderful example of how federal agencies can work with local communities to resolve issues like these.  It’s the holiday season and the Forest Service has finally gotten into the spirit. ”

The USFS has recently reversed its seemly sudden policy of restricting hunters to a 72-hour rule.  Instead, they have made it clear that sportsmen may keep their trailers set up for the regular two-week period, and in many cases covering the term of their hunting permit.

Many local economies in Barton’s sprawling rural district rely on the revenues brought to their communities by sportsmen and hunters.  Barton concluded that “…this could have had negative economic impacts on several of the local communities in my district and I truly applaud the Forest Service decision to reverse their previous action.”

About Brenda Barton:

A 5th generation native of rural Arizona, Representative Barton retired from municipal service after over 21 years. First elected to office in 2010, she now chairs the important Agriculture and Water committee in the House. Brenda has made Arizona’s agriculture industry and securing our water supply a main focal point of her work in the Legislature.  A graduate of the Dodie London Excellence in Public Service Series program, and past state director of the Arizona Federation of Republican Woman, Brenda also serves on the North American Council of the State Agriculture and Rural Leaders Legislative Summit.

Governor Jan Brewer: Arizona to Keep Grand Canyon Open Amid Continued Federal Inaction

Governor authorizes state funding for additional 9 days           

            PHOENIX – Governor Jan Brewer today announced the State of Arizona will continue funding Grand Canyon National Park in light of the continued federal government shutdown.

“Grand Canyon’s importance to Arizona’s tourism industry and overall economy cannot be ignored,” said Governor Brewer. “While I am pleased the state is able to ensure the Canyon remains open during this critical season, it is well past time for the federal government to end this shutdown and pay its bills. We are doing our job. It’s time the President and Congress do theirs.”

On Friday, the governor negotiated an agreement to reopen Grand Canyon for up to at least seven days using state and local monies. Under the terms of the agreement, the State of Arizona is paying $93,000 per day to the National Park Service to fully fund park operations. Governor Brewer today authorized the use of state dollars from the Arizona Office of Tourism to continue funding the Canyon for up to an additional nine days, through October 27, if the federal budget stalemate in Washington persists. If the shutdown ends prior to then, Arizona will be refunded for any unspent days.

Visitors to Arizona’s national parks have spent an average of $2.5 million a day during October in recent years – $1.2 million per day at Grand Canyon National Park alone.

The State of Arizona will seek support from members of its congressional delegation to authorize federal reimbursement of any state dollars expended to fund park operations during the shutdown.

Andy Tobin: Ann Kirkpatrick Chose Obamacare Over The Grand Canyon

Andy-Tobin

In announcing bid for Congress, Arizona House Speaker says: 
“The truth is, I’m just sick of Washington, D.C.”

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin announced his candidacy for U.S. Congress today, calling out Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick for voting to close down the Grand Canyon this week in order to protect ObamaCare (H.J. Res. 70, Oct. 1, 2013). The vote is just another example, Tobin said, of Washington’s assault on Arizona.

“There could be no harsher reminder of why we need new leadership in Washington,” Tobin said. “Arizona is under attack by the federal government, and Ann Kirkpatrick is part of the problem. Kirkpatrick is so committed to protecting ObamaCare and supporting Nancy Pelosi, she has literally voted to shut down the Grand Canyon.”

Tobin’s remarks came as he announced his candidacy for Congress in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, launched www.AndyTobin.com and released a web video. Tobin plans to continue visiting every corner of the vast district in the days, weeks and months ahead.

“The truth is, I’m just sick of Washington, D.C.,” Tobin said. “From ObamaCare to over regulation of our small businesses and our lives, it’s clear that President Obama and Ann Kirkpatrick are totally out-of-touch with rural Arizonans. In Congress, I’ll stand for the same conservative principles I always have and fight back against Washington’s assault on our state.”

ABOUT ANDY TOBIN:

Andy Tobin is a dad, husband and small business owner who has devoted his life to job creation, public service and advocating for conservative principles. Tobin has built successful careers in the real estate, banking and insurance industries, creating jobs and helping small businesses grow and expand.

Tobin has been elected four times to represent rural Arizona in the Legislature since 2007. As Speaker of the House, he has overseen the largest budget reductions in the history of Arizona and led the fight against ObamaCare in Arizona.

Tobin and his wife Jennifer have five children.

YouTube Preview Image

AZ Electric Utility Rates: Regulated Monopoly or Free-Market Competition?

gavel1-300x223In May, 2013, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) opened a docket to gather information on how Arizona might allow competition among electric companies. On September 11, they shut down the docket with a 4-1 vote, citing “legal issues” that were apparently just too much trouble to tackle. Maybe the ACC will tell us more about that later(?).

So until & unless a new docket on the subject is opened, it’s over.  Of course, Arizona residents do still have a choice: either sign up with the one company legally allowed to provide electric service in your area or go without electricity altogether.

APS and SRP are regulated monopolies. The ACC sets the rate of return that they are allowed to earn on their capital investment in generating stations, transmission lines, and so on*. Their day-to-day operating expenses, depreciation expenses, taxes, etc. are fully covered, dollar-for-dollar, by their customers (you and me). That’s the law.

power-transmissionIs that so bad? Yes, it can be. This is the classic problem of regulated monopolies. While their rate of return is firmly capped by ACC, what are the incentives these monopolies have to hold down their capital expenditures on which they earn that guaranteed return? And what are their incentives to minimize expenses such as payroll? Technically, there aren’t any, other than their own good will and the ACC looking over their shoulder.

So can’t the ACC guarantee that the monopolies are run efficiently?  Oh, would that it were!  No, ACC politicians can’t hope to micromanage a monopoly for efficiency.  On the other hand, if there were competition, the utility would have to run itself efficiently or lose customers to a more efficient competitor that could charge lower prices.

Even when the monopolies are run by people of good will and good intentions**, they can easily slip into inefficient behaviors when there is no overriding free-market, profit-motivated, competitive incentive to stay efficient and keep prices down.

Bell_System_1939I’ve been through deregulation before. From 1969 to 1984, I worked at Bell Laboratories, the research arm of the biggest regulated monopoly ever — the old Bell System (“Ma Bell”).  We even had our own tightly coupled manufacturing arm called Western Electric.  The old Bell System was heavily regulated at the federal, state, and (in some states like Texas) local level.

In the old Bell System our advertising proudly claimed that we provided the world’s best telephone service at the world’s lowest prices. And we really did. But the DOJ Antitrust Division broke up AT&T anyway in 1984, opening the long-distance and equipment manufacturing businesses to competition. It was traumatic for us.  It was complicated.  But the job got done, and today’s telecom industry is much more competitive, innovative, entrepreneurial, and a lot cheaper than it would be if we still had one grand national monopoly.

powerlinesWouldn’t it be nice if the same thing happened with electric power in Arizona?  It could — but not until the ACC opens another docket and attacks those “legal issues” anew.

————————————————————

*Correction: As shown on the ACC website, ACC regulates rates for APS, but on SRP, ACC is only involved when SRP wants to build large power plants (100 Megawatts) or very high voltage transmission lines (115 kVolts.)  ACC also regulates Tucson Electric Power (TEP).

** Regarding good intentions:  A look at the SRP and APS websites will show that these utilities are indeed responsible corporate citizens, offering ratepayers tips, a choice of rate plans, rebates, and other assistance to help customers lower their electric bills. Both utilities and their employees are involved in conservation, and I know first-hand of their contributions to public education in Arizona. But business is business, and there’s nothing like the pressure of competition and the incentive of higher profits to drive a company to run the most efficient operation and offer the lowest prices possible.

EPA overreach at Navajo Generating Station yields bad energy policy for Arizona

By Douglas Little, Phoenix Conservative Examiner

In one of the most egregious abuses of it regulatory power, the EPA is forcing the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) located near Page, AZ to make unnecessary and costly modifications to the generation facilities that would have no measurable effect on emissions in the region.

Using the Clean Air Act as its regulatory authority, the EPA claims that emissions from NGS are contributing to haze in the Grand Canyon area and in February of this year, proposed a regional haze restriction that would require NGS expenditures of $1.1 billion on additional emission reduction controls. This claim also ignores the fact that prevailing winds in the region result in plant emissions being blown away from the Grand Canyon, not towards it.

At the same time the EPA issued their ruling, a U.S. Department of Energy study concluded there would be no visibility improvement at the Grand Canyon after the controls were added. Why would the EPA pursue such a expensive and punitive rule when it would have no perceptible effect on haze at the Grand Canyon?

Opponents of the EPA action are reporting that the EPA doesn’t care about haze at all. They say what the EPA really wants is to provide a precedent for shutting down coal-fired electric generating plants. The Obama administration has a stated objective to reduce carbon emissions and last year attempted to implement a “cap and trade” approach to regulating fossil fuels. Republicans in the US Congress voted down the enabling legislation, with some calling it a “war on coal”.

Why is the EPA going after NGS and why is NGS so critical to Arizona?

The Navajo Generating Station was constructed at a cost of $650 million beginning in 1970 and ending in 1976 when the last of the three generating units was completed. The project was sited in its current location based on readily available coal fuel, a reliable source of water for cooling and the proximity of the city of Page which could provide for many of the project’s infrastructure needs, including an available skilled labor pool. The plant is located approximately 100 miles northeast of the Grand Canyon.

The primary purpose of the NGS was to provide power to support the Central Arizona Project (CAP) which is responsible for supplying Arizona’s share of Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona. To get water from the far northwest corner of Arizona to the rest of the state, CAP built a network of pumps, pipelines and and surface canals over 336 miles in length to transport Arizona’s annual allocation of 1.5 million acre-feet of water to Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties. The pumps must raise the water over 3000 feet to allow it to flow into central Arizona. The majority of the power generated by NGS powers the CAP pumps.

NGS has a long history of taking a proactive approach to emissions reduction. In 1999, NGS completed a $420 million retrofit that reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from the plant by 90%. In additional overhauls conducted between 2003 and 2005, electrostatic precipitators were overhauled for reliability and performance gains. In 2007, the Salt River Project, the plant operator, conducted studies on how to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions to reduce haze in the region and voluntarily installed emission reduction equipment on each of their three plants between 2009 and 2011.

Apparently, the best efforts of NGS were not good enough. The EPA rule proposed in February is one of the most stringent regional haze rules in the entire nation. It imposes a standard that is more rigorous that the standards for a brand new coal plant. At the 1600 megawatt Prairie State Energy Campus which first came online in 2012, the permitted level of NO emissions are 0.07 parts per million (ppm) while the standard for NGS, a 37 year old plant, is 0.055 ppm.

In an attempt to find a reasonable middle ground, a working group consisting of the EPA, U.S. Department of the Interior, the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Gila River Indian Community, the Navajo Nation and the Western Resource Advocates began negotiations to find a “Reasonable Progress Alternative” to the BART rule issued by the EPA in February.

These negotiations were closed-door sessions and while the working group included non-stakeholder environmental activists like the Environmental Defense Fund, they did not solicit or accept input from important stakeholders like the Arizona Corporation Commission, which is the primary regulatory body for energy and water resources in the state. Arizona’s Attorney General was also excluded from legal review and comment on the proposed agreement.

Under the proposed settlement, visibility standards and haze causing nitrogen oxide standards are not even addressed. However, in one section of the proposed agreement, the Department of the Interior makes commitments to reduce or offset carbon dioxide emissions by 3% per year “in furtherance of the President’s 2013 Climate Action Plan”. It further states that “This commitment is intended to accomplish two aims: reduce carbon dioxide emissions and demonstrate the workability of a credit-based system to achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions” (emphasis added).

This action by the Department of the Interior and the EPA essentially unilaterally implements “cap and trade” at NGS even though they do not have Congressional authority to do so.

The working group proposal also calls for the early shutdown of one generation unit in 2020 or the equivalent reduction of output equal to the closure of one unit from 2020 to 2030. There is no consideration in the plan for any increased cost in replacement power or an increase in water rates due to those increased power costs.

While clearly not a great deal for SRP, the Navajo and CAP, why are they supporting it? The original rule issued by the EPA would have imposed the most stringent nitrogen oxide standards in the country and would require retrofits to the generating plants at a cost of over a billion dollars. Had that rule been implemented, the economic viability of the entire plant was in jeopardy. The Arizona stakeholders felt that the EPA was holding the plant hostage under its rule-making authority. They felt that the working group agreement was probably the best deal they could get under the circumstances, enabling them to keep the plant going at least until 2035.

Unfortunately, the working group agreement has some fairly large holes in it. Many of the commitments made by the Department of the Interior may require Congressional action to implement. In the current belt-tightening by the federal government, Congress may not be willing to fund the $100 million in commitments made by the Department of the Interior. Furthermore, the agreement anticipates a dramatic increase in water rates, but make no provision for it. In addition, it does not address the loss of jobs, economic benefit and tribal revenues that will result from the terms of the agreement.

A critical reading of the proposed working group agreement seems to indicate that these regulations are not about reducing regional haze. There is no meaningful reduction of nitrogen oxide in the proposed agreement. Instead, there is a focus on carbon dioxide emission reduction. Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless gas and has no impact on visible haze.

In addition, the agreement is an apparent attempt to unilaterally implement a “cap and trade” system for regulating carbon emissions for which the Department of the Interior and the EPA have no statutory or regulatory authority.

Finally, it appears to be a blatant EPA attack on coal-fired generating plants with the full support and encouragement of environmental activists.

Is the EPA doing all of this for a reduction in haze that the federal government’s own study said would be imperceptible to the human eye? More likely, the haze standard simply gives the EPA the opening they need to accomplish their real objectives of shutting another coal plant and promoting Obama’s energy agenda.

EPA overreach? Good energy policy? The right choice for Arizona? You decide.

The public comment period on the proposed agreement will close on October 4th, 2013.

You can go here to comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009-0111

A Natural (Gas) Recovery

Reposted from Western Free Press

By Greg Conterio

The economy is bad.  Let’s be honest—despite the spin, with the media trying to convince us all that less than 2% annual GDP growth is a good-thing, and 7% unemployment represents “light at the end of the tunnel,” the economy is still bad.  I hear from my clients across a variety of industries, and they agree—it’s bleak.  Everyone is hurting.  The talk is whether this really is the “new normal.”  For the first time in my adult life, I hear people talking of an actual recovery in terms of “if” not “when.”

natural_gasWell, I’m not ready to give up so easily.  This may be the longest, worst, most depressed economic period since the 1930’s (…which was the last time we had a Progressive in office, but I digress…) but I don’t think this is the new normal. Not by a long-shot.

Suppose I were to tell you we might be sitting on the cusp of an economic surge of unprecedented proportion.  A surge modestly projected to increase annual GDP by half a trillion dollars or more in the next seven years.  Do you think that might create a few jobs?  Bump-up our standard of living a little bit?  Perhaps even pay-down some of our astronomical national debt, provided we can get those clowns in Washington to work within a rational spending allowance?  Of course, much is dependent upon those same clowns, and our ability to convince them who they really work for, but I’ll get back to that.

McKinsey & Company released a report this month titled Game Changers: Five opportunities for U.S. Growth and renewal.  You can download the complete report; it is well worth reading if you are interested in the potential future of our economy.

While other writers have ably dealt with the complete McKinsey report, such as the Wall Street JournalBusiness Insider, and Counsel on Foreign Relations, I would like to focus on the one sector from the report with the most potential impact, the one that I also see as something of a linchpin to unlocking the other sectors—that of course being the energy sector, with special focus on the emerging shale oil and natural gas opportunities.

Beginning in about 2005-2007, U.S. shale gas production began to climb dramatically as a result of technical advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.  Since 2007, annual gas production has grown by 50% per year, and with large new fields discovered recently in the Bakken, Marcellus, Utica and Morrison formations, the U.S. has more than 317 trillion (with a “T”) cubic feet of proved natural gas reserves.

While there have been equally encouraging discoveries in oil reserves, shale gas is particularly exciting and has huge economic potential to affect a number of different sectors.

Energy independence

The boom in natural gas production has forced prices down domestically, from $13/MMBtu (one million Btu, or British Thermal Units) to about $4/MMBtu, or about a 60% decrease.  This is already creating a drive to convert from oil to natural gas for industrial and residential andcommercial transportation energy needs.  Moving from oil to natural gas cannot happen overnight, and with the current administration’s hostility to both oil and coal, prices and domestic development of those resources can be expected to remain deliberately inflated for the foreseeable future.  But as natural gas development gains momentum, the prospect of exporting LNG or liquid natural gas creates the possibility of neutralizing the cost of continued oil imports.

Cross-sector economic growth

Becoming an exporter of LNG means renovating part of our transport industry, specifically converting under-utilized oil import terminals into export terminals for LNG.  According to the McKinsey report, the U.S. Department of Energy has already approved two such conversions, and is reviewing applications for 20 more.  This of course represents a “stimulus” and job creation for several years’ worth of construction, engineering, and infrastructure projects, and represents just one of the ancillary effects of the boom in natural gas.  Dramatically increased energy costs over the past several years have been a significant contributor to rising costs of goods and services across the board, whether it be transportation, electricity, heating, or nearly anything you care to name.  The cost and relative abundance of energy is one of the keys to unlocking economic growth in all sectors, which is why McKinsey’s report shows the potential impact of energy, and particularly shale gas, as far outstripping the other game-changing sectors.  It is the one sector that impacts ALL others.  Put another way, it is the one game-changing sector that can significantly hamstring all the others if it were taken out of the picture.

A cynic may point out that the only reason natural gas is booming right now it that the current administration didn’t anticipate the industry’s sudden rise, and thus did not react quickly enough to dampen it with regulation the way it has done with coal and oil.  I would argue however that trying to do so now would cause such economic harm, as well as cost so many jobs, that even this administration could not withstand the resulting outcry.  The genie is already out of the bottle, so to speak.  But as the McKinsey report points out, it remains keenly in the best interest of the gas industry to continue to develop safe, clean, and responsible methods of recovery.  Certain political cohorts—and we all know who they are!—have already demonstrated their willingness to go to completely dishonest lengths to vilify techniques like hydraulic fracturing, so it’s easy to imagine what they would do if they didn’t have to make things up.  Still, without interference from the government, or hysterical propaganda from the environmental movement, natural gas is a good reason to believe in a brighter economic future.

BREAKING: Environmentalists Holding Secret Meetings with SRP – Deal Imminent

We have learned Salt River Project has reached a backroom deal with radical enviros for a partial early shut down of the Navajo Station Generating Station to address so-called visibility issues at the Grand Canyon. The deal will cost a lot of jobs.

The secret deal was cut by what they call a Technical Working Group that apparently has been meeting for several months with EPA’s blessing. The Sierra Club did not like the discussion and they publicly stomped out of the room, but the even more radical Environmental Defense Fund stayed in. Seems they are hell bent on force-feeding a job killing deal to Arizona even though a Department of Energy study says there won’t be any visibility benefit at the Grand Canyon from more regulations. That’s because Canyon visibility is impacted by smog and car emissions coming from, you guessed it: California.

Just you wait. SRP will try to sell it to Arizona as the only compromise they can get. They will say that the well-funded extremists who are trying to shut them down have forced their hand.

It’s not true.

The truth is we need to stand up and tell Obama and the radical environmentalists to follow the law and make sure that the plant’s future is talked about in the light of day. We can’t ignore that NGS was a very public deal brokered by Congress decades ago to provide power for Central Arizona Project which pumps water across the state. Last we checked water is still essential to the state’s survival. And with this new “deal” water prices could triple, hurting our economy and families.

Most outrageous, is that some think appeasing the liberal activist agenda is more important than taking care of Arizona’s future.

Shame on SRP for caving in to these radicals, Arizona deserves better.

Submitted by an anonymous conservative activist.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen -
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  http://briefs.maricopagop.org/  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

Bipartisan AZ Lawmakers Submit Letter to EPA Regarding Proposed Rule for Navajo Generating Station

Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Submit Comments to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Proposed Rule for Navajo Generating Station
Letter Urges EPA to Convene Public Hearings Throughout Arizona Given Dramatic Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Rule

 

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (May 28, 2013) – Today, a bipartisan majority of the Arizona House of Representatives will file the attached letter with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld. The document urges the agency to conduct broad public hearings throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area and rural areas during the EPA’s public comment period for its proposed regional haze rule for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Page, Ariz..

21 Republicans and Sixteen Democrat Members of the Arizona House of Representatives signed the letter signaling a strong, bi-partisan opposition to the proposed rule. The sweeping nature of the EPA’s proposed rule, the legislators argue, would have significant adverse impacts on Arizona families, tribes, businesses, agricultural interests and other key industries in the state through increased energy and water rates. There also is enormous risk to the Arizona’s economy as thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost economic activity will impact the state every year. Public hearings are needed throughout the entire state to ensure a transparent process that reflects broad stakeholder engagement and input on the rule.

“The Navajo Generating Station provides affordable energy and water to Arizona. It’s disconcerting that its operation might be undermined—or worse, shut down altogether,” said House Speaker Andy Tobin. “If implemented, EPA’s rule would drive up water rates, jeopardize jobs, and severely damage Arizona’s economy.”

The EPA’s proposed rule rejects the detailed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) proposal submitted by NGS’s operator, Salt River Project, and would instead impose the installation of additional technology controls that could cost as much as $1.1 billion. Incredibly, the rule would yield no perceptible visibility improvement at the Grand Canyon, according to the government’s own study. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) concluded “the body of research to date…is inconclusive as to whether [installing additional controls] would lead to any perceptible improvement in visibility.”

NGS provides energy to the Central Arizona Project (CAP), which makes renewable, affordable water available to 80 percent of Arizona’s residents—45 percent in Phoenix alone. If NGS shuts down, or has to install these costly controls, it would result in a potential doubling or tripling of water rates throughout the state. Likewise, 3,400 skilled jobs and an estimated $20 billion in economic activity over the next three decades could be in jeopardy if NGS is forced to shut down due to the rule.

“The EPA must convene multiple public hearings in geographically diverse areas of the state so the agency can begin to understand firsthand how its proposed rule will harm the livelihood of Arizona families, businesses, and communities,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell. “All of us have a stake in this debate, and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle urge EPA to expand its study of the issue and ensure Arizonans’ voices are heard.”

The full letter is attached.  Signers of the letter include: 

Republicans
Andy Tobin, Speaker of the House
David Gowan, Majority Leader
Rick Gray, Majority Whip
J.D. Mesnard, Speaker Pro Tempore
Brenda Barton, LD 6
Paul Boyer, LD 20
Heather Carter, LD 15
Doug Coleman, LD 16
Jeff Dial, LD 18
Karen Fann, LD 1
Doris Goodale, LD 5
Debbie Lesko, LD 21
David Livingston, LD 22
Kate Brophy McGee, LD 28
Justin Pierce, LD 25
Ethan Orr, LD 9
T.J. Shope, LD 8
Steve Smith, LD 11
Bob Robson, LD 18
Bob Thorpe, LD 6
Kelly Townsend, LD 16

Democrats
Chad Campbell, Minority Leader
Bruce Wheeler, Minority Whip
Albert “Ahbihay” Hale, LD 7
Lela Alston, LD 24
Mark Cardenas, LD 19
Andrea Dalessandro, LD 2
Juan Carlos Escamilla, LD 4
Rosanna Gabaldon, LD 2
Lydia Hernandez, LD 29
Jonathan Larkin, LD 30
Stefanie Mach, LD 10
Juan Mendez, LD 26
Martin Quezada, LD 29
Andrew Sherwood, LD 26
Victoria Steele, LD 9
Macario Saldate, IV, LD 3

###

New Republican, Business Organization Forms To Save Solar in Arizona

T.U.S.K.: Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed
Group chairman Barry Goldwater Jr.: ‘Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice and the competition to drive down rates’ 

(SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.) — A new force is organizing to ensure solar remains viable in Arizona. To show backing for the solar industry and to stave off attempts by Arizona Public Service to extinguish the independent rooftop solar energy market in Arizona, a new organization has announced its formation, T.U.S.K.—Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed. It will be dedicated to keeping the solar industry in Arizona and help the state’s business owners, homeowners and schools to keep their energy costs lower and to provide more energy choice for state taxpayers.

T.U.S.K. will work to educate the public about the threats posed by the efforts of the utility monopoly. If the threats come to fruition, thousands of jobs in Arizona will be lost. In fact, a recent study by Elliot D. Pollack & Associates found that the solar industry has created 16,000 jobs for Arizonans.

Like school choice and health care choice, solar choice holds great promise for Arizona, and should be an important part of the Republican agenda, according to well-known Arizona Republican and former U.S. Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr.

Goldwater, who is supporting T.U.S.K. and its efforts, said: “As a son of Arizona, I know we have no greater resource than our sun. Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice and the competition to drive down rates. That choice may mean they save money and with solar that is the case. Solar companies have a track record of aggressively reducing costs in Arizona. It’s crucial that we don’t let solar energy—and all its advantages and benefits it provides us—be pushed aside by those wanting to limit energy choice. That’s not the Republican way and it’s not the American way. Energy independence is what we should all stand up for and that’s what I intend to encourage.”

Goldwater served 14 years in Washington and amassed expertise in energy, the space program, aviation and defense and government procurement. Goldwater was particularly instrumental in all facets of energy policy and research and development, including authoring the Solar Photovoltaic Act. Besides serving as chairman of the new organization, Goldwater will be advising the group on policy, politics and engage in substantial outreach for the solar industry.

T.U.S.K. also believes that rooftop solar is similar to a charter school—it provides a competitive alternative to the monopoly. Monopoly utilities aren’t known for reducing costs or for driving business innovation, but the Arizona solar industry is. Solar companies have a track record of aggressively reducing costs in Arizona. The more people use rooftop solar, the less power they need to buy from the utilities. Energy independence for Arizonans means smaller profits for the utilities.

T.U.S.K. backs net metering, a successful policy in 43 states that gives property owners fair credit for the solar they deliver to the grid. Net metering is the latest target by APS to curtail competition. In simple terms, it’s like the rollover minutes on your cell phone bill. Net metering is one of the most important policy tools that elected officials have to empower homes, businesses, schools, and public agencies to invest private capital to install solar on their property. Eliminating net metering would amount to a tax hike on hundreds of Arizona schools that are saving millions of dollars by installing solar to decrease their electric bills. Local taxpayers would be left to pick up the tab if schools are no longer able to save this money. It also will waste energy being generated by the rooftop systems.

The state’s leading providers of rooftop solar are backing the organizational efforts with pending support from a diverse coalition upset at what APS is attempting to convince the Arizona Corporation Commission to do.

-30-

Obama’s Green Money Scheme Exposed – Part One

Few realize that the “green movement” is about building large personal fortunes (green money) for an elite few. As with all robber barons, it is about the money. It is why President Barack Obama laid out his threat to again bypass Congress and ignore the American people during his 2013 State of the Union address. Mr. Obama will attempt to force his ill-conceived green energy plans into existence with the stroke of his pen via Executive Orders:

“I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” – President Barack Obama, February 12, 2013

green money Obama green jobs

Obama is determined to resurrect his green energy schemes by drying up America’s access to oil and gas no matter the pain inflicted on American families and businesses. Having put the coal industry on life-supports, his next target — restricting power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses.

Al Gore

Al Gore

What the President hides behind the curtain and does not reveal is his alliance with international green elites, White House and Wall Street cronies and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that puts billions of dollars into their own hands. It’s a money scheme. Three years ago, the global-warming money transfer scam surfaced and named not only this president, but a former Democrat president and vice-president as participants planning to accumulate vast personal wealth as a result. One need only ask, why did Al Gore so confidently tout that he was destined to become the “first global-warming billionaire?”

Chicago Climate ExchangeLong in the designing, the elements were close to being in full play. The plans were drawn, the carbon-credit trading exchange registered as the Chicago Climate Exchange was formulated (New York Times – Click here // Trading symbol CCX – Click here.), set to both transfer and stash cash, the green barons’ privately-owned Chicago bank was on the ready and the right president was in office to perpetrate the scam on the American people. That is, until the great global-warming-climate-change fraud stopped the United Nations-supported, elite cadre of well-connected political, banking and Wall Street associates in their tracks. British Freedom quotes The Times of India:

george soros green money

george soros

“Billionaire globalists like George Soros fund green groups and seek to promote the globalist ‘climate change’ scam as a way to enrich themselves and infiltrate developing nations in order to financially exploit them and their natural resources for profit.”

The June 2009 Bloomberg article, Sandor Got Obama’s Nod for Chicago-Style Climate Law by Jim Efstathiou Jr., reported that a carbon-capping bill set to be imposed on American businesses was the cornerstone of Obama’s environmental agenda. Bloomberg quotes CCX founder Richard Sandor as saying that the bill “began “way, way to the left with provisions to push U.S. utilities into bankruptcy.” The article further reads: “Sandor launched the Chicago Climate Exchange, or CCX, in 2003 after getting two research grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. Obama was on the foundation that gave us the grant, Sandor said. We know him well.” CCX reportedly now operates under the auspices of Environmental Financial Products.

carbon tax green moneyWhen “global-warming-climate-change” was exposed as a blatant fraud, the American people and a Republican House refused to play ball. By doing so, they stymied the global clique of politicians and socialist ideologues who remain ready to bring America to its economic knees for their own financial and ideological gains. Even so, Mr. Obama is making another high-stakes play to push through his green agenda to fully activate the global CCX exchange despite the high cost to even the poorest of Americans.

While Obama is gearing up to invest billions of America’s tax dollars into the green abyss, other countries are backing away. Never mind that China and India refuse to put a dime into the scam. European nations have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative blow-back from their citizens. In the face of worldwide data to the contrary, Obama claimed during his State of the Union address that: “the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.” How an American President can make such an erroneous claim to the American people in the face of existing facts reveals him as sorely misstating or misinformed.

A February 27, 2013 news release by the Global Warming Policy Foundation states that it has highlighted the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Its Chairman, Nigel Lawson, states: there has been no further recorded global warming at all for at least the past 15 years.” Backing-up Lawson’s findings are reported reversals by such global-warming heavy-weights as the United Nation’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s James Hansen who both reportedly now recognize that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

Europe is facing a green backlash.

“The BBC has backed down over Sir David Attenborough’s widely contested claim that parts of the world have warmed by 3.5C over the last two decades. …The comment was removed from Sunday night’s repeat of the show.” – Harley Dixon, The Daily Telegraph, 11 Feb. 2013

“…long-term consequences of the Energy Bill will be horrible. It’s a recipe for deindustrialization.” – Professor Gordon Hughes, Mail on Sunday, 24 February, 2013

“Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby. It is, to be blunt, mad.” – Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 20 February 2013

“Carbon emissions are no longer the driving factor setting UK energy policy. The new and dominant issue is cost.” – Nick Butler, Financial Times, 21 February, 2013

Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his cronies prefer you not know come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40 countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: “The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.” Based on scientific data, “Not only are worms contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” Contoski further notes that, “volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Even natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.” Nature itself foils the environmentalists as The U.S. Department of Energy admits that once emitted that 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are again absorbed by nature. Contosky then queries,

“Termites emit ten time more CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?”

The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your dollars to flow into his green machine that will swallow them up and then divvy them up among an elite group that will reap financial gain as America loses. The scheme is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps a great investigative journalist like Bob Woodward will peel back the layers of this political fraud. After all, he’s already endured one tongue-lashing threat from the White House.

List of reported quotes from Green Globalists compiled by real-world-news, click here.

YouTube: White House and Green Globalists’ Action Plan, click here.

Email a link of this website with the information provided to fellow Americans and to Congress.

Sharon Sebastian (www.DarwinsRacists.com) is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, “Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,” highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists, “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian is a featured guest on broadcasts nationwide on topics ranging from politics, the economy, healthcare, culture, religion and evolution to Agenda 21′s global green movement. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses on a wide range of national and global events are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com. “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be purchased at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com, www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. Listen to Sharon Sebastian’s analysis on YouTube: Click here.

Editor’s Note: reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

Is Michael Bloomberg Channeling Obama and Global Warming to Save His Skin?

by Bob Quasius

Global warming Climate change is junk science, just as Obamanomics is junk economics!

New York City was devastated by Hurricane Sandy. Neighborhoods are flooded, residents are homeless, hungry residents are dumpster diving for food, there are endless lines at gasoline stations, and widespread power outages continue days after Sandy ended.

Not surprisingly, climate alarmists were quick to claim Sandy is compelling evidence that global warming will end civilization as we know it. They never miss an opportunity to blame global warming every time there’s a major storm, drought, or other event. Obama’s former green jobs czar took to twitter to demand that global warming skeptics apologize to Al Gore. They’re not getting an apology from me!

When severe snow storms hit the mid-Atlantic region in 2010 climate alarmists were quick to blame global warming! In recent years as evidence of warming eased, climate alarmists quietly shifted from using the term “global warming” to “climate change.” During the 1970s, many of these same climate alarmists warned we faced catastrophe from a new ice age, with the Earth covered in miles deep layers of glaciers!

It’s apparent that New York City and the Obama administration were caught unprepared for Sandy, unpreparedness which would put many politician’s careers at risk. Obama surveyed the devastation in New Jersey for 30 minutes, then promptly flew to Las Vegas for another celebrity dominated fund raiser.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made a slick political move and endorsed Obama, channeling Obama’s climate change rhetoric to shift the blame for New York City’s unpreparedness to global warming. From Bloomberg’s endorsement of Obama:

The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short term, our subway system remains partially shut down, and many city residents and businesses still have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods — something our city government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House — and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

In his 2008 Denver speech, in one of his most megalomaniacal moments ever, Obama preached: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

YouTube Preview Image

Apparently, Obama wasn’t able to spare us from the ravages of Hurricane Sandy, but would like for you to believe if he’s reelected he will ‘heal’ our planet.

In fact, Obama’s radical “green” agenda also failed to create the millions of “green” jobs he promised despite $90 billion in spending and loans from taxpayers, and many ‘green’ companies have already gone bust, and higher energy costs are killing jobs and stunting economic growth.

The dramatic rise in energy costs but nothing as compared with what will come in a second term with the carbon tax Obama’s EPA is implementing. High energy costs are a drag on the economy, and consumers are paying near double for gasoline as compared to four years ago. Perhaps Obama would have us believe we need decades of Obamanomics to ‘heal the planet.’

The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon where the earth receives solar energy from the Sun. About 50% of that energy is absorbed by the Earth and the rest radiated back towards space. Clouds trap part of this radiated energy in the earth’s atmosphere, further warming the Earth. Principal greenhouse gases include water vapor (i.e. clouds), carbon dioxide, and methane (from rotting vegetation, manure, etc.). Carbon dioxide is actually a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor and methane, but imagine politicians trying to convince us to tax water because water results in clouds! Ditto for human manure creating methane gas, and we never hear politicians mention taxing our breathing, but business where large numbers of people congregate, like schools, will end up being taxed because humans exhale carbon dioxide!

Climate alarmists use terminology intended to alarm everyday people. For example, everyone knows about water, but how many know that Dihydrogen Monoxide is water? To prove the point, there’s even a spoof web site warning about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxideJohn Stossel even circulated a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide in Times Square and almost everyone he asked signed the petition banning water! Water vapor from the natural process of evaporation is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide but somehow I doubt politicians could convince us to tax water, so they call for a carbon tax, knowing that many of us don’t know that carbon dioxide is not pollution and all of us exhale it constantly.

It should surprise nobody that often the ‘solution’ to problems involves more taxes, more government regulation, which results in more power in the hands of politicians, who reward their supporters with taxpayer goodies and notoriety for those who create alarm among the general public. Not surprisingly, Al Gore has made a mint from his ‘green energy’ investments!

In their rush to offer “solutions” to global warming, climate alarmists are missing an important first step: proof that man-made emissions of Carbon Dioxide is causing climate change in the first place. Earth’s climate has changed from the beginning of time, long before the industrial age resulted in increases in emissions of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere, not pollution. Humans and animal life forms breathe oxygen, and exhale Carbon Dioxide. Plants do the reverse, absorbing Carbon Dioxide and release oxygen, using the carbon to grow.

Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

There’s an excellent compilation of peer-reviewed research papers on their web site as well as a video debunking man-made global warming claims, written at a level easy for anyone with a background in science or engineering to understand. I have a background in engineering, and will summarize several key points using charts from the Global Warming Petition Project.

First, a review of the Earth’s temperature over the past 3,000 years shows temperatures have always changed, and our recent temperatures are actually below the 3,000 year average. Notably the Earth’s temperatures are increasing after a “little ice age” which peaked when George Washington was camped at Valley Forge, but even then temperatures were about 1 degree Centigrade below the 3,000 year average.

In fact, surface temperatures closely follow solar activity:

Despite recent claims, especially after Hurricane Sandy, there has been no increase increase in Atlantic hurricanes, and the number of tornadoes is actually declining!

There has not been an increase in severity of Atlantic hurricanes despite claims of climate alarmists, who most claimed Hurricane Sandy was likely more severe due to global warming.

Actually, the number of tornadoes in the U.S. has been decreasing, but every time there is a rash of tornadoes climate alarmists warn us again about global warming!

Climate alarmists are fond of pointing to glacier ice loss as evidence of global warming, even as they often point to snowstorms as evidence of global warming! However, the glacier shortening phenomenon began long before man-made emissions of Carbon Dioxide started! Perhaps we should dub this argument ‘effect and cause’ rather than the widely accepted notion of ’cause and effect’!

The Global Warming Petition Project claims glacier shortening is due to solar activity, not Carbon Dioxide emissions:

Glaciers regularly lengthen and shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming trends. Shortening lags temperature by about 20 years, so the current warming trend began in about 1800.

Lastly, climate alarmist would have us believe carbon dioxide is lethal, destroying the planet, etc. As mentioned earlier, however, carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that plants breathe in order to grow. The Global Warming Petition Project concludes that producing more carbon dioxide is a benefit to our planet, and rather than increase towards level harmful to man, plants, especially trees, are responding to increased emissions of carbon dioxide by growing faster!

Plant growth is also enhanced. Chart shows 279 experiments in which plants of various types were raised under CO2-enhanced conditions. Plants under stress from less-than-ideal conditions (red) – a common occurrence in nature – respond more to CO2 fertilization (blue).

In summary, global warming is an environmental scam designed to support growth in government, especially world government, and as Obama’s failed green energy programs show, crony capitalism benefits as well. In several failed green energy companies funded by taxpayers, Obama campaign finance bundlers have been identified as key players in winning taxpayer funding.

Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Contradicts Richard Carmona’s Campaign

Jeff Flake

Carmona lacks understanding of Arizona-specific issues, geography

PHOENIX – After being questioned by Jeff Flake during a February 16 hearing of the House Appropriations Committee concerning uranium mining, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was forced to admit that the land the Obama administration sought to ban from being mined was actually not in the Grand Canyon or within the Grand Canyon National Park.

Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Flake: “If those of us who disagree with the decision to remove a million acres, nobody in the Department can say, or it’s not true, that we are advocating to mine in the Grand Canyon. Correct?”

Salazar: “That’s exactly correct.”

Flake: “And by the same token, none of us who disagree with the Department’s decision can be said to be advocating mining within the Grand Canyon National Park either?”  

Salazar: “That is correct.”

Watch video of the exchange here:

YouTube Preview Image 

Despite this, Democrat Richard Carmona and his liberal PAC allies persistently and falsely attacked Flake as someone who has called for mining in the Grand Canyon. (“Flake would open Grand Canyon to uranium mining,” Carmona press release, October 20, 2012; “Flake Introduced Bill To Lift Moratorium On Grand Canyon Mining,” Carmona press release, October 20, 2012; “Why is Congressman Flake lobbying for mining uranium at the Grand Canyon,” Carmona fundraising solicitation, October 21, 2012)

Flake supports mining in the Arizona Strip – which, to anyone familiar with Arizona, is not in the Grand Canyon or within the Grand Canyon National Park. In fact, mining has already existed on the Strip for decades. Carmona and the Obama administration seek to prohibit new mining, which would cost jobs and harm the state’s economy in that area.

For more information on Jeff Flake and why he’s running for the U.S. Senate, please visit his website at www.JeffFlake.com.

###

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll: ‘Quit selling out to these pricks’

Supervisor Ray Carroll hosting a Save the Scenic Santa Ritas event where they called for a boycott on Southern Arizona Businesses that show support of the proposed Rosemont Mine. Carroll, was calling for the media to ban Rosemont advertising.

YouTube Preview Image

Supervisor did apologize to Rosemone Copper after the incident.