Ed Schultz: ‘I Was Wrong’ On Keystone XL Pipeline

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz reversed his support for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline on Wednesday and said the United States shouldn’t allow it to be built. Last month he called the pipeline “a step in the right direction when it comes to energy independence.”

Of course, Keystone XL won’t be a pipeline TO the USA. It’s a pipeline THROUGH the USA to overseas export. It’s likely to cause a gasoline price hike in this country. What do we get from this pipeline? More groundwater pollution, and more climate change.

President Obama could stop this pipeline all by himself. The right-wing is clearly worried, and the Faux News crowd is even claiming that Keystone XL approval would be the answer to the crisis in the Ukraine!

h/t to HuffPo

  1. #1 by brewski on March 6, 2014 - 10:21 am

    You just violated the modified Godwin Rule without any prompting.

    • #2 by Richard Warnick on March 6, 2014 - 5:30 pm

      The video makes clear that Faux News imagines Keystone XL is a magic weapon against Putin. “Faux News” is shorthand for the cable network and their stable of right-wing commentators and politicians.

      • #3 by brewski on March 6, 2014 - 8:21 pm

        Tell it to the unions.

        • #4 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2014 - 8:22 am

          The construction trade unions are desperate for jobs because of Republican Economic Sabotage. This is the perfect time to put people to work on infrastructure, just not this pipeline.

          • #5 by brewski on March 7, 2014 - 8:25 am

            You go tell it to the unions that you decided that they don’t get to work.

          • #6 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2014 - 9:34 am

            The construction unions could have all the work they can handle if the Republicans in Congress would stop obstructing infrastructure projects.

  2. #7 by Dennis Ware on March 7, 2014 - 10:04 am

    This pipeline by now is basic infrastructure..currently the oil is being transported by inadequate infrastructure of truck and rail. Been plenty of accidents, lives lost and oil spilled.

    Building the pipeline is another basic decision that America seems incapable of making anymore.

    But why not make trucking and rail companies rich while the landscape bears the consequences of a clickity clack transport system from the last century? Waaay last century.

    • #8 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2014 - 10:36 am

      The Keystone XL pipeline is not in the best interest of this country or the planet. Same goes for tar sands mining.

      Let’s build renewable energy infrastructure. You never see toxic solar spills or wind turbine explosions. Fossil fuels are “last century.”

      • #9 by brewski on March 7, 2014 - 3:20 pm

        Where do you think the materials come from for batteries?

        • #10 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2014 - 5:48 pm

          Not from tar sands mines. Also, batteries can be recycled.

          • #11 by brewski on March 7, 2014 - 8:25 pm

            When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

  3. #12 by brewski on March 7, 2014 - 10:09 am

    Dennis, you have to understand that Richard has the personal carbon footprint of a small country, and is driven by his guilt to make others make up for his moral recklessness.

  4. #13 by brewski on March 7, 2014 - 8:31 pm

    ‘Like any mining process it is invasive, it scars the landscape, it destroys the water table and it pollutes the earth and the local wells. This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1166387/In-search-Lithium-The-battle-3rd-element.html#ixzz2vL2n3at4

    You are probably the most willfully ignorant person I have ever encountered. You don’t know anything and you don’t want to know anything. You revel in your ignorance.

  5. #14 by Larry Bergan on March 8, 2014 - 2:25 am

    It’s never going to be a perfect world, but I object to this new policy at OneUtah to comment on two, three, or four different tiers as KOS does. I understand that you can reply to a commenter directly, but you can do that by addressing her/him. in the same way, by simply stating their name at the top of your comment.

    Richard:

    You have often called for a progression of events in order to prove or disprove a theory. Who has the time to search out the dates that comments were given?

    Do I have a point?

  6. #15 by Larry Bergan on March 8, 2014 - 11:26 am

    Dennis Ware is obviously a new voice here, and God knows we’re starving for that.

  7. #16 by Dennis Ware on March 8, 2014 - 2:21 pm

    Currently the nation of Germany is in possession on their soil of 40% of all solar panels on Earth. They are more than committed, yet solar currently provides 2% of their power needs.

    As they ready to close down their nuclear plants they plan to burn coal using modern sequestering plants, ironically made in Japan, the nation now suffering unprecedented radioactive contamination from failed nuclear plants.

    As far as the Keystone issue stands catch a clue, either we burn that tar/oil sand fuel in a more efficient way than many, or the Canadians are absolutely willing and committed to ram/thrash a pipeline over pristine mountain areas of Alberta and British Columbia in order to facilitate supertanker pickup to sell the oil to China. By God let me tell you if you doubt they will, you are woefully uninformed. When it comes to commodity infrastructure projects the Canadians know how to commit GRAND scale environmental crimes with a minimum amount of investment and human capital. Really no equals on Earth.

    So you sell the oil to conscientious American’s who may bitch about how it is done…or sell it to the conscienceless Chinese who will burn the heck out of it until their air quality is so bad, they run out of medical masks in the entire nation. I mean medical dust masks, aren’t those MADE in China by now.

    Be realistic, the entirety of North Dakota oil and the mass finds north in Saskatchewan are going to use the Keystone pipeline. In order to understand the magnitude of this reserves of oil and gas in Saskatchewan are VAST, yet as yet underdeveloped the Province wisely waiting to see how things turn out in Alberta, and a different set of laws to ensure the Province gets a proper share of the money. That, Alberta, North Dakota, South Dakota all will feed the pipeline.

    Here or China, with all the perils of zero responsibility, based on actual and cultural desperation. Great.

    • #17 by Richard Warnick on March 9, 2014 - 2:23 pm

      Germany has a goal of producing 35% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.

      Wikipedia: Photovoltaic in Germany

      And the U.S. goal is… what?

      Your argument is ridiculous. Instead of leading the world in renewable energy and controlling carbon emissions, you want the USA to help Canada destroy the planet.

      • #18 by brewski on March 9, 2014 - 6:46 pm

        Germany’s electricity prices are currently 300% of Utah’s prices. Have you shown up to a Public Service Commission meeting yet to say that you want 300% higher electricity prices? Can you name one person who has? Ever?

        • #19 by Richard Warnick on March 9, 2014 - 8:06 pm

          So your plan is to give up and die? I don’t have any children, so my worries are few compared to a lot of other people.

          BTW do you have a source for your assertion about Germany’s electricity rates?

          • #20 by brewski on March 9, 2014 - 11:29 pm

            Why can’t you seem to answer even one of the most simple questions?

            Richard, if you are so ignorant about the electricity prices in Germany and other countries then you have no business making any statement of any kind on this topic.

            As I said before, you are the most willfully ignorant person I have ever encountered. Have you ever read a book?

            Germany is at $0.35/kWh
            http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh

            Utah is at $0.1003/kWh
            http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

            = 349%

            You seem genuinely surprised that there is data out there. You also seem shocked to discover that some things have costs. You seem to live in a world where all there are are your feelings and that’s all is need is for you to feel things. Have you ever built a power plant? I have. Have you ever financed a power plant? I have. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about but yet you have feelings and a tool lack of any substance and data. Please stop humiliating yourself and go read a few books and get back to me when you are willing to have a grown up conversation based on something other than your feelings.

          • #21 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 10:29 am

            Why do you always assume that renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels? The evidence is against you, even without counting market externalities like pollution.

            Have you considered that Germany’s high electricity rates compared to the U.S. might be one reason they are converting to cheaper renewable energy sources?

            I’m still not convinced your “give up and die” plan for climate change is the right one.

          • #22 by brewski on March 10, 2014 - 1:55 pm

            I don’t assume anything. I only deal with facts and math. You live in a world of your feelings.

            Also, because this is what I do every day and all day. I am in this business and I understand math. You are not in this business and you do not understand math.

          • #23 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 2:35 pm

            “I am in this business” = “I am part of the problem.” But you could be part of the solution!

          • #24 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 5:26 pm

            I actually build scores of large-scale solar energy plants around the country. You don’t have panels. You call me part of the problem? Ha!

          • #25 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 5:45 pm

            So you’re part of the solution but you don’t believe there is a problem?

          • #26 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 6:46 pm

            I am part of the solution and I believe you don’t understand math.

          • #27 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 7:45 am

            So what is the problem you’re helping to solve? Say it.

          • #28 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 8:33 am

            I am solving the problem that whiney innumerate hypocrites cause. Fine particulate pollution.

          • #29 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 3:22 pm

            Thanks on the other thread for saying that global warming is real.

          • #30 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 3:46 pm

            So when are going to stop whining and get solar panels and go vegan?

          • #31 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 4:38 pm

            Proposing sane public policy isn’t “whining” IMHO.

          • #32 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 4:51 pm

            It’s whining when you do the opposite and you are the problem.

          • #33 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 6:31 pm

            You must be a true Libertarian. Nobody else would ignore an obvious government solution to the problem of global warming. Individuals acting on their own aren’t going to save the planet.

          • #34 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 6:35 pm

            Obvious government solution?
            Hardly.

          • #35 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 7:13 pm

            So your plan to solve an urgent GLOBAL crisis is for individuals to act on their own, at their own initiative, and at their own expense?

          • #36 by brewski on March 12, 2014 - 7:25 pm

            Whose expense do you think it is going to be? The unicorns?

            Besides, you said it was economical, so what is holding you back other than your own selfish mean heartless greed?

          • #37 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2014 - 9:22 pm

            The up-front cost of installing solar panels in Utah makes it uneconomical for now. But I’m confident we’ll get a better deal in the future, if we push for policy changes.

            Homeowners in California, Arizona, New York and Oregon can already get a good deal. Best Buy now offers third-party leasing of solar panels. Other states may have to change their laws to allow this.

          • #38 by brewski on March 13, 2014 - 9:06 am

            Utah = $0.1003.kWh
            Calif = $0.1647/kWh
            NY = $0.1824/kWh

          • #39 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2014 - 9:53 am

            I think this guy’s estimates are the cheapest option for Utah (RMP = Rocky Mountain Power, which has a lottery for subsidizing home solar installations). Can you make me a better deal?

            You can probably get a 3 kW system for your home for around $15,000. The RMP incentive would be around $3,000 if you can win the lottery, and Utah gives a maximum $2,000 tax credit. That system would save you about $500 per year on your electricity, making your pay-back period about 20 years.

          • #40 by brewski on March 13, 2014 - 10:39 am

            So you earlier linked and were making the case that solar power was competitive without incentives. Then you say for you it is too expensive. Then you quote a guy who makes the case for incentives from the state (paid for by other taxpayers) and RMP (paid for by ratepayers). So if if solar is competitive with conventional without 2 layers of incentives then why don’t you do it and why do you quote someone telling you about the math of incentives (paid for by someone else)?

            Solar prices are about to go higher because your government is about to slap a tariff on imported panels to protect Obama’s bundlers to replace the old import tariff which is expiring. Import tariffs making panels more expensive reduces the amount of panels installed and kills the planet. You can thank your government and your President for that.

            The first question with your house is do you have a clear unobstructed southern exposure? no trees, neighbors trees, etc? do you have a south facing roof? how old is your roof? what angle is your roof? (ideal roof slope would be about 40 degrees). What is your roof made of?

            The best way to benefit from solar is not to buy or lease. The best was is to have a PPA. So you don’t buy the panels, you don’t pay to lease the panels. You only buy the power generated at a discount. So the panel company sells you power at $0.09/kWh so you know that you are always saving money no matter what and you are not out of pocket for the panels themselves. The incentives are their problem and not yours.

          • #41 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2014 - 2:25 pm

            President Obama is our President, whether we voted for him or not. I didn’t, but as they say we have one President at a time so I’m dealing with it.

            I believe I linked above to what you call a PPA, which Best Buy is offering in California, Arizona, New York and Oregon. According to the article, it’s the first time this arrangement has been made available to homeowners. If they add Utah to the list, I’ll definitely give it due consideration because it seems like a good deal.

          • #42 by brewski on March 13, 2014 - 2:51 pm

            There is a big difference between a lease and a PPA. The fact that think regress conflates the two is not surprising. 22 year olds with degrees in gender studies tend not to have a firm grasp on finance, math, energy, etc. So this is a pretty poor article that is confusing to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

            I was at my parents home in Calif over Christmas and while I was there a door to door salesman knocked on their door selling solar PPAs. I talked to them for about an hour about how did they qualify homes to qualify. This is what they told me:
            1. Must have no obstructions such as trees, neighbors trees, neighbor’s house or anything else in the way on the southern exposure.
            2. Must have newish roof.
            3. Only certain roof materials work (not shake, for example)
            4. Must have south sloping roof

            Then you sign a contract for some period of time to buy all the power your roof generates for something like 20 years at something like 14 cents per kWh. So if your normal cost is 16 cents, then it works. If your normal cost is 10 cents then it doesn’t work. Let me make this clear, you must be offsetting expensive power and not cheap power. Utah has cheap power. This will not work in Utah unless Utah gets 16 cent power like in Calif. It could work with additional subsidies which you keep telling me that solar doesn’t need. So yes, it is a good deal, if and only if your normal power is expensive.

            Buying power is not a lease. A lease is a lease of a system and you get all the power from that system. Buying power under a PPA is not leasing. You don’t lease a taxi. You pay for the ride. The 22 year olds with degrees in gender studies still have their parents paying for their internships while their parents work hard and their kids badmouth the very means and system which allows them to write tripe for think regress don’t know the difference.

          • #43 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2014 - 3:38 pm

            Well, if this sort of arrangement comes to Utah they won’t be charging more for electricity than the power company. Even if you don’t pay for the solar panels and installation yourself, it’s an inconvenience and some might object to the aesthetics of solar (I don’t).

          • #44 by brewski on March 13, 2014 - 4:35 pm

            The won’t charge more than RMP and they won’t charge less than they need to make money. So below some price it won’t exist at all. You just don’t need an arrangement for it to work, you need a price for it to work. Let’s say that break-even price is 12 cents per kWh. Then they exist at 14 cents and don’t exist at 10 cents. Comprende?

            I don’t have any problem with the aesthetics. In some parts of Utah there are other problems such as 100mph wind storms (Centerville), snow, dust, shadows, local code, HOAs, etc.

          • #45 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2014 - 8:13 pm

            You are a Master of the Obvious. Of course, other people besides you also sat through Economics 101.

            By aesthetics, I include covenants that prohibit solar panels.

          • #46 by brewski on March 13, 2014 - 8:57 pm

            I see no evidence that you sat through one minute of Economics 101.

  8. #47 by Dennis Ware on March 8, 2014 - 2:24 pm

    P.S. I think it was last week or two ago that China ran out of medical dust masks as pollution is so bad in the country right now, that demand is so high for them, they are no more.

    Once used they can be tossed in the Yangzte to join with all the worlds plastic and Japanese radiation in the mass o’ plastic whirling around in the Pacific gyres. Great.

  9. #48 by Dennis Ware on March 10, 2014 - 2:39 pm

    The point of Germany is that their solar efforts are ancillary, and Germany frankly has no other options but spend to buy energy. This drives the German efforts, they must sell value added goods to buy energy that just keeps making them poorer.

    If it is unknown to you, German physicists in their climatic analysis of Venus (the atmosphere rife with sulfur dioxide, methane and CO2) learned that the surface and atmospheric temperatures of this “greenhouse” planet are exactly as they anticipated they would be based on their distance from the Sun. This led to them assuming through deduction that greenhouse gases don’t matter too much in affecting a planets temperatures. They are off the CO2 bandwagon and are more concerned with their dependence on nuclear power. Expect Germany in the future to deal less and less with the addled anthropogenic modelers, whose models have failed again and again.

    Germany still produces over 50% of it electricity by burning coal, and since they have a large free supply of lignite, modern burners, joined with renewables will be effected. The nuclear plants will be shut down, some 20 I believe. To date they are supplying any shortfall by buying power from hydro plants in Scandinavia, or nuclear power from France 55 plants. Renewables indeed, while the goal is noble, the Germans have seen the limits on return of investment..they’ll most likely keep buying Russian gas and increasing that…which is why in large, obama and his penchant to flip sovereign countries like Ukraine will get no help from Europeans.

    It is frankly pretty amusing to watch.

    • #49 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 3:59 pm

      For the sake of our readers, please keep your climate change denial talking points on the climate change thread.

  10. #50 by Dennis Ware on March 10, 2014 - 2:40 pm

    Currently Richard, solar power is the most expensive electricity per megawatt on the planet when all is said and done. The only exception are toss out batteries which are the most expensive power per kilowatt.

    • #51 by Richard Warnick on March 10, 2014 - 3:45 pm

      Nice unfounded assertion you’ve got there. In some areas of the country, solar power is cheaper than buying electricity from the utilities. Even in Utah, solar panels work out about the same as Utah Power bills over the life of the system.

      • #52 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 9:51 am

        Richard,
        Remind me again of the number of solar panels you have personally bought for your house.

        • #53 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 10:22 am

          brewski–

          It’s not about me (or you). When it becomes more economical to put up solar panels, you won’t be able to buy a house in Utah without them. That day is coming. If we had smart energy policy in America, we’d be there already.

          Again, Germany has a national goal of of producing 35% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050. Why can’t we do that? And talk about job creation…

          • #54 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 10:27 am

            It is all about you and me. Who else do you think it is about? Unicorns again?

          • #55 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 11:48 am

            We’re discussing policy, not personalities. I don’t even know your real name.

          • #56 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 1:01 pm

            Thanks for being in favor of a policy that you yourself are unwilling to support. So you want everyone else to use solar power, just not you.

            Has nothing to do with my name.

            I have used my name and one of you people deleted it.

          • #57 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 1:20 pm

            It would be great if we could all afford to have solar panels. The economy of scale alone would make it affordable. But energy policy is controlled by the wrong people.

          • #58 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 1:21 pm

            You just got done telling us it was cheaper. Make up your mind.

          • #59 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 1:48 pm

            No, I said it’s cheaper in some areas of the country. The total cost of electricity from solar in Utah is about the same as buying power from Utah Power – over the life of the system. But all things being equal, it’s obviously more affordable to pay monthly bills for 20 years than invest in the up-front costs of installing solar panels.

            That’s why we need energy policies that level the playing field for renewable energy. Right now our government is subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear, which we don’t need.

          • #60 by brewski on March 11, 2014 - 2:37 pm

            So according to you “it’s obviously more affordable to pay monthly bills for 20 years than invest in the up-front costs of installing solar panels.” So in other words, you would rather save a few shekels than save the planet. Shame on you for being so pecuniary.

  11. #61 by Dennis Ware on March 10, 2014 - 2:47 pm

    This article should clear it up.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/how-german-solar-has-made-all-german-electricity-cheaper/

    The current amount of solar generated power in Germany is 3% of needs. Advantages to when the Sun shines it is during peak hours of demand, and this gives this solar adjunct a nice kick. Currently the article states that Germany currently has 5 times the MW of PV effected in their country compared to the US.

    While all good, it is no answer to current and help us, future energy demands, and we are way behind, obama boondoogles and promises aside.

    What a waste that man is.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/how-german-solar-has-made-all-german-electricity-cheaper/

  12. #62 by brewski on March 10, 2014 - 3:30 pm

    Pretty hilarious Richard sneers at people about joining the “reality based community” when he goes out of his way not to read the data on this subject.

    He is Sarah Palin.

  13. #63 by Dennis Ware on March 11, 2014 - 12:33 pm

    The link on solar prices is interesting, where it can be done it should be, Utah having natural advantage. It’s so good you all should cough up the 30k for the grid tie and array, and installation per house.

    Colorado had a program to pay for 50% of the cost of a home solar system with or without a grid tie, but you needed the money upfront in whatever way, then you could apply for the refund from the state. Over now, started a solar boom in state. Maybe Utah should pick it up and run with it.

    Generally the grid tie back to the power grid is going to pay you about half of what the utility charges per kilowatt.

    • #64 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2014 - 12:52 pm

      Thanks for backing off your ridiculous claim that “solar power is the most expensive electricity.” Policy discussions make more sense when everyone is starting from the same set of facts.

  14. #65 by Dennis Ware on March 11, 2014 - 4:10 pm

    Well wiki does not agree with you naming solar PV the most costly energy made to date on land, with offshore wind being the costliest.

  15. #66 by Dennis Ware on March 11, 2014 - 4:12 pm

    Here’s the link…chart of total costs is about down the middle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

    Figure you and the solar crowd have some editing to do.

  16. #67 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2014 - 9:03 am

    Koch Brothers Are The Largest Land Owners Of Canada’s Tar Sands

    In their recent report The Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb about the Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL pipeline, the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) contends that Koch Exploration Canada, the Koch Industries subsidiary that buys and sells land for energy development, could profit by up to $100 billion with the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

  17. #68 by brewski on March 23, 2014 - 10:44 pm

    You do understand that this “report” was written by an “administrative assistant” who is 18 months out of school.

    Check your sources.

    • #69 by cav on March 23, 2014 - 11:09 pm

      Is this supposed to diminish his or her facts?

      Must one be fossilized in order to ‘get it right’?

      • #70 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 7:34 am

        Of course not, but attacking the source is Richard’s #1 technique. He even attacks sources when I don’t use them. I will use the CBO as a source and he uses the occasion to attack Fox, even though they weren’t mentioned or used be me at all.

        Although it is funny that this “report” was written by kids. You’d think they could find some lefty professor somewhere.

      • #72 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 8:56 am

        And?

        • #73 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 9:21 am

          And…the financial end of the Koch attempt to rule the world does not seem to have been impacted at all by austerity, war, taxes, penalties, jailings, impacts of right-thinking citizens the world around or their own conscience.

          They MUST be right. Despoiling is the future. ..and they OWN it already!

        • #74 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2014 - 9:46 am

          What part of “confirmed” did you not understand? Read the article.

          • #75 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 10:18 am

            And?

          • #76 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 10:42 am

            I’ll be out for a few days, so there’ be particularly easy blogging. But just in case the challenges are too great, I’ll leave some “And?s” (short for Ayn Rands) to throw out there should your minds find themselves in captivity.

            The management

            And where is Crypto and his murderous dime-sized hole?

          • #77 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 11:13 am

            I am waiting for Richard to make a point.

          • #78 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2014 - 11:55 am

            The point is that your attack on the report is nonsense (“written by kids”). The “kids” did their homework.

            The provincial government Alberta Energy said Thursday in response to a request that “we confirm that Koch Oil Sands Operating ULC is the Designated Representative of 298 Alberta Crown Oil Sands leases covering approximately 455,000 hectares (1.1 million acres).”

          • #79 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 12:13 pm

            sort of like your Pavlovian attacks on other sources even when I don’t use them. Just shows how weak your position is that you ignore the facts and attack a source I never mentioned. Pretty pathetic.

            If it is such a bad thing for Koch to lease these lands, then why did Canada allow it? I mean, they are a bunch of good lefties with socialized medicine and everything.

          • #80 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 4:22 pm

            There’s only one route left open…Global Thermo-Nuclear War.

          • #81 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2014 - 5:41 pm

            Thanks for conceding the report is accurate. The relevant questions is: If it isn’t a bad thing that the Koch brothers are the biggest Canadian tar sands players, why are they lying about it?

          • #82 by cav on March 24, 2014 - 7:21 pm

            Seems when you have the kind of money they have, lying simply becomes the new truth.

            And teacher and fire-fighter pensions will be the end of us.

          • #83 by brewski on March 24, 2014 - 7:30 pm

            Maybe ask Michael Moore why he lies about his millions of corporate stock holdings and you will uncover the mind of the wealthy liar. Get back to me when he tells you.

          • #84 by Richard Warnick on March 24, 2014 - 8:45 pm

            The Artful Dodger in action. You even have a source re: Michael Moore?

    • #86 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2014 - 12:41 am

      brewski–

      Do you believe anything from Newsmax and Peter Schweizer? I think Alex Jones (of 9/11 conspiracy fame) got on board with this bullshit too. Michael Moore doesn’t own stock, right-wing lies notwithstanding. Even if he did, comparing Moore to the Koch brothers is completely ridiculous.

      This old smear is based on a tax return from a foundation Schweizer alleges is controlled fully by Moore. Moore denied this on C-SPAN, with the statement “Michael Moore own Halliburton stock? See, that’s like a great comedy line. I know it’s not true – I mean, I’ve never owned a share of stock in my life. Anybody who knows me knows that, you know – who’s gonna believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it – crazy people who tune in to the Fox News Channel.”

      Where did you get the idea Moore has “millions in corporate stock holdings”? Nobody has ever accused him of that, however falsely.

      As it turns out, you can ask any question on MichaelMoore.com and get an answer. Do the Koch brothers have a website where they answer questions from the public?

      You can’t recycle the Michael Moore union lie. Already debunked on One Utah!

  18. #87 by cav on March 25, 2014 - 7:22 am

    Michael Moore is arguably the wingnuts’ Bestest Friend Forever.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Carol

    • #88 by brewski on March 25, 2014 - 8:16 am

      Cav, please note Richard’s response above. His first instinct is to attack the sources. So you wonder why I do that? I give you Richard Warnick.

      Michael Moore admitted that his Family Foundation owned Halliburton stock. So factually it is true and the facts are correct no matter what the source. So the fact that Richard goes after the source, while at the same time using his long list of paid lefty hacks as sources, tells you a lot about the credibility of Richard.

      • #89 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 2:20 am

        I only attack sources that lie on a daily basis. They deserve to be attacked. :-(

        Brewski, you claimed Michael Moore “lies about his millions of corporate stock holdings.” But Michael Moore doesn’t own any stock.

        • #90 by brewski on March 26, 2014 - 8:02 am

          Michael Moore lies on a daily basis. Maddow lies on a daily basis. You lie on a daily basis. Glendy lies on a daily basis.

          • #91 by cav on March 26, 2014 - 9:35 am

            So, let’s all put our trust in the word of ‘Certified Teller of Truth’ (as he, nearly alone) sees it – brewski – before he tries to tag us all with the liar label once more.

            As for me, I’m not watching any televised ‘news’ at all these days, and I really don’t suppose any Koch bro’s checks brew might be receiving are scored by how many converts he chalks up here at OneuTah.

            Otherwise, it’s only entertainment.

  19. #92 by cav on March 25, 2014 - 9:14 am

    Can’t we just run the Kochs through the courts and see if their actions don’t deserve just a little jail time?.. take away one of their yachts? Perhaps talk of guillotines is a tad premature.

  20. #93 by cav on March 25, 2014 - 10:10 am

    What the hell ARE we supposed to do with people who can not/will not be reasoned with?

  21. #94 by brewski on March 25, 2014 - 10:17 am

    Richard seems more obsessed with the Kochs and Fox than he does about putting solar panels on his own roof.

    • #95 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 2:26 am

      We’ve been over this. Putting solar panels on my roof (or brewski’s roof) doesn’t solve the problem. We need to make solar energy affordable for all, and then it will be hard to buy a house in Utah without solar panels.

      • #96 by brewski on March 26, 2014 - 8:01 am

        Reducing the amount of carbon burned means we need to reduce the amount of carbon burned. You seem to think that someone else needs to do it and not you.

        • #97 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 10:38 am

          Here is the issue. We need a national energy policy to solve the problem, individual actions don’t matter. Government subsidies go to fossil fuels and nuclear. Putting up a few solar panels won’t change what must be changed.

          • #98 by brewski on March 26, 2014 - 2:25 pm

            “Policies” don’t reduce carbon. Reducing carbon reduces carbon.

          • #99 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 2:35 pm

            If your plan is to use blog comments to convince progressives to pay for solar panels, it’s going to fail. And you will waste years of your life. Only governmental solutionscan possibly work.

          • #100 by brewski on March 26, 2014 - 2:39 pm

            Who is going to pay for the solar panels? Who? Please provide names.

          • #101 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 3:06 pm

            Who is subsidizing the fossil fuel billionaires right now?

          • #102 by brewski on March 26, 2014 - 3:22 pm

            You are.

          • #103 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 11:06 pm

            Along with every other taxpayer. Why not put that money behind renewable energy sources?

          • #104 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 7:58 am

            Because government subsidies and wasteful and don’t work. Evidence:

            The 2009 economic stimulus package promoted by President Obama included $5 billion to weatherize some 607,000 homes—with the goals of both spurring the economy and increasing energy efficiency.

            But the project was required to comply with a statute called the Davis-Bacon Act (signed into law by President Hoover in 1931), which provides that construction projects with federal funding must pay workers the “prevailing wage”—basically a union perk that costs taxpayers about 20 percent [or] more than actual labor rates. This requirement comes with a mass of red tape; bureaucrats in the Labor Department must set wages, as a matter of law, for each category of construction worker in each of three thousand counties in America.

            There was no schedule for “weatherproofers.” So the Labor Department began a slow trudge of determining how much weatherproofers should be paid in Merced County, California; Monmouth County, New Jersey; and several thousand other counties.

            The stimulus plan had projected that California would weatherproof 2,500 homes per month. At the end of 2009, the actual total was 12.

  22. #105 by cav on March 25, 2014 - 12:43 pm

    We are weakened by over-dependence on fossil fuels. To gain strength we must increase its dependence on fossil fuels.

    At the end of every rainbow, a unicorn awaits petting.

    • #106 by brewski on March 25, 2014 - 5:29 pm

      Per Richard, he has the personal carbon footprint of a small country. But he thinks it is someone else’s problem.

  23. #107 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2014 - 10:08 am

    Please give a link to your source. Why do we have to ask every time?

    • #108 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 10:44 am

      because it doesn’t matter.
      If it is the CBO you discredit the source and you blame Faux News.
      If it is the NYT you discredit it and blame Faux News.
      If it is no one in particular you discredit it and blame Faux News.

  24. #109 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 10:48 am

    By LOUISE RADNOFSKY
    June 16, 2011 5:16 p.m. ET
    West Virginia’s stimulus-funded weatherization program was riddled with problems including nepotism, poor workmanship and billing errors, Department of Energy investigators have found.

    Local agencies in charge of using $38 million in federal funds to insulate the homes of low-income families carried out shoddy work, sent in invoices before they had finished, failed to keep accurate accounting records and gave preferential treatment to employees and relatives who qualified for the program, according to a new audit report by DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman.

    • #110 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2014 - 8:38 am

      Time to take a HARD look at fossil fuel subsidies. I have links!

      Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.

      In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress…


      Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies 6 Times Greater Than Renewables Support Last Year

      In the U.S., environmental groups say fossil fuel subsidies include tax breaks, the foreign tax credit and the credit for production of nonconventional fuels.

      Fossil fuel subsidies ‘reckless use of public funds’

      In the United States, for example, the government in 2011 gave a $1bn fuel tax exemption to farmers, $1bn for the strategic petroleum reserve and $0.5bn for oil, coal and gas research and development.

      National Geographic: Global Energy Subsidies Map

      • #111 by brewski on March 28, 2014 - 9:46 am

        I have said numerous times there should be no subsidies.

        • #112 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2014 - 2:41 pm

          Maybe it would make more sense to focus on the tens of billions lavished on the fossil fuels industries and the nuclear power industry, instead of the millions grudgingly doled out for energy conservation and renewable energy.

          • #113 by brewski on March 28, 2014 - 3:41 pm

            I would be happy to get rid of the subsidies. How many times do I need to say that?

          • #114 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2014 - 5:34 pm

            But you wouldn’t try to shift energy policy in favor of conservation and renewables.

          • #115 by brewski on March 28, 2014 - 5:42 pm

            Define “shift energy policies”

          • #116 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 1:21 pm

            Right now the energy policies are largely designed to favor the incumbent fossil fuel and nuclear industries. I would suggest a shift in favor of energy conservation and renewable energy sources.

            Clearly it’s in the national interest. Even if you ignore climate change, let’s recall how much it cost to invade and occupy Iraq on behalf of the oil companies.

          • #117 by brewski on March 29, 2014 - 1:45 pm

            shift how? more subsidies?

          • #118 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 4:37 pm

            Same subsides, but, you know, SHIFTED to where they serve the national interest. I admit it’s not as original as your imaginative plan to argue with progressives on the Web until they agree to install solar panels, and eat the cost. Unlike your plan, however, subsidies actually work. And even if all progressive bloggers bought solar panels, that wouldn’t make an appreciable difference.

          • #119 by brewski on March 29, 2014 - 4:51 pm

            eat the cost? I thought you told me that solar was just as cost effective as conventional? So there is no eating of any cost. make up your mind. No, I don’t argue with progressives. I mock innumerates.

          • #120 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 5:16 pm

            Let me explain it again, since you didn’t understand this the last two times I explained it.

            Total cost of a household solar array in Utah is now cheap enough that it’s equivalent to the cost of power from the grid over the 20-year life of the system. But switching to solar requires an up-front investment of around $30K!

            Good luck finding wealthy progressives willing to pay. I haven’t got the money!

          • #121 by brewski on March 29, 2014 - 5:49 pm

            So who is going to pay for it?

          • #122 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 8:11 pm

            All the progressive bloggers in America put together don’t have $52 billion a year to re-make our energy infrastructure, so you’ll have to give up on that plan.

            I suggest we take away the subsidies now going to fossil fuels and nuclear, and get busy on conservation and renewables. Thought I made that clear. BTW unlike the Keystone XL pipeline, these projects would mean millions of jobs for Americans.

          • #123 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 10:13 am

            No, if it is your policy then the onus is on you to pay for it. Simple morality.

          • #124 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 11:30 am

            Except we are all paying for subsidies to Big Oil. Give me that money back and we can talk about what needs to be done for renewable energy sources.

          • #125 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 2:14 pm

            Didn’t I already say we should end the subsidies? You are arguing with yourself. You want to end oil subsidies but you don’t want to pay for alternative energy subsides. You want it to come from the unicorns.

          • #126 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 4:36 pm

            Actually I’m arguing with the guy who thinks it’s up to progressive bloggers to solve all the world’s problems (including poverty and energy policy) on their own, using their own meager funds.

            How is that supposed to work?

          • #127 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 4:49 pm

            I don’t think George Soros’ funds are meager. Let him subsidize your solar panels.

          • #128 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 10:23 pm

            George Soros, last time I checked, wasn’t a blogger but an investor and philanthropist. You are welcome to tell him he’s responsible for fixing everything that’s wrong with the world, but even a billionaire will tell you that some problems are beyond the scope of individual action.

          • #129 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 12:13 am

            It was your point that regressives don’t have any money to put solar panels on your roof for you. I gave you a regressive who does. Give him a call. He is one of you and I am sure he will pay you for your panels. Just ask him.

          • #130 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 1:37 am

            How obtuse can you get? Really.

          • #131 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 7:41 am

            Don’t you just hate it when I use your own words to defeat you?

          • #132 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 11:06 am

            It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where progressives can solve every problem without governmental action.

            However, as B. Traven said, “This is the real world, muchachos, and we are in it.”

          • #133 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 11:08 am

            “Government action” costs money. Money needs to be paid for by someone. You seem unwilling to be that someone. You like your ideas and have other people pay for them.

          • #134 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 11:12 am

            I pay taxes. My taxes are going to subsidize industries that in time will render this planet uninhabitable through pollution. Why not redirect the actions of government in a positive direction?

          • #135 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 1:54 pm

            NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.
            Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received $2.5 billion in tax breaks.

            http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/

            You lose.

          • #136 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 2:14 pm

            From your link, the CBO apparently counted ethanol subsidies.

            The CBO report said tax credits for the ethanol industry totaled over $6 billion, making it the largest single renewable-energy recipient.

            Ethanol tax credits usually go to refiners, which include some of the largest companies in the world like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

            CNN provided no link to the CBO report, however I’m willing to bet the report ignored subsidies delivered through the tax code. For example: the oil depletion allowance, domestic manufacturing deduction for oil production, expensing of intangible drilling costs, foreign tax credits, amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures, and “last-in, first-out” accounting for oil companies.

          • #137 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 3:05 pm

            Since the sentence says “$2.5 billion in tax breaks” it would be hard for them to “ignore subsidies delivered through the tax code.

            Can you read English?

            Also, foreign tax credits are not a subsidy of any kind. That is the entire basis of the US tax code for all income earned by anyone overseas. So to list that as a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry is just flaunting your ignorance.

          • #138 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 3:11 pm

            Your list comes up with a total of $7.77B per year.

            Compare that to alternative fuel industry amount of $24B.

            You still lose.

          • #139 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 4:10 pm

            Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year?

            Oil and gas: $41 billion
            Coal: $8 billion
            Nuclear: $9 billion
            Ethanol: $6 billion
            Renewable Energy: $6 billion

          • #140 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 9:48 pm

            Your previous source said $7B per year. Make up your mind.

          • #141 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2014 - 8:31 am

            Every source will tell you there are various ways of calculating subsidies, especially the ones that are buried in the tax code. That’s how the CBO report was able to claim that subsidies for renewables are larger than for fossil fuels – which isn’t actually true.

          • #142 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 12:55 pm

            So you are telling me that there are “various ways” to calculate it, and you are also telling me what is “true”.

            Got it.

          • #143 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2014 - 5:30 pm

            In this case, “true” would be shorthand for “at least believable.” Anyone who says that renewable energy is getting more federal subsidies than fossil fuels is not believable.

          • #144 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 9:51 pm

            In this case “true” are your uninformed beliefs. You have no idea what the “truth” is and you admit that there are all kinds of ways of measuring it. But you have your beliefs so for you your beliefs are what is “true”. You are mistaking your faith for reality, and lacking evidence all you have is your feelings.

  25. #145 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 8:26 pm

    Earth Hour 2014 starts at 8:30.

  26. #147 by El Progresso Retardo. on March 30, 2014 - 2:48 pm

    Is it where you live?

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: