It's Now Official: Government Is A Big, Green Nanny by Doug Wrenn

It's Now Official: Government Is A Big, Green Nanny

By Doug Wrenn

December 21, 2007

Yes, I am dreaming of a "white Christmas." It's not that far of a stretch. In my neck of the woods, it seems like it hasn't stopped snowing (including right now) since I woke up from my blissful Thanksgiving nap to find the football games already concluded and my turkey dinner nearly digested. And yes, like many other environmentally conscious Americans, I am also dreaming of a "green New Year," but that dream may soon become more of a nightmare. Liberals, left unchecked and in control of the reins of energy policy easily form the textbook illustration of confirming what my sage mother has often advised, "Everything in moderation."

I already knew we were in trouble when I read the Hartford Courant's December 21st on-line op-ed at www.courant.com, "Mr. Bush OKs Energy Bill…" You can always tell the disdain that sneering, elitist liberals have for a Republican President when they coyly refer to him as "Mr." instead of "President." But aside from that poorly veiled, yet quintessential liberal dig, it was the first paragraph of the article that became the chief source of my consternation when the Commissars of the ultra-left-leaning Courant referred to our now revised national energy policy as, "saner, greener, and more sustainable." Washington, we have a problem. Rest assured that neither the hapless hacks at Homeland Security, nor the crayon creators at Crayola have a designated color ready to define this newly heightened level of alert.

In the energy bill, signed by President Bush (I couldn't care less what you closet commies at the Courant think of the man, and for that matter, I'm no big fan of his either, but at least show some semblance of respect for the office!), automobiles must have the capacity of averaging 35 miles of driving distance per gallon of gasoline consumption by 2020. The "current" standard (according to the other "Courant") is 25 mpg.

The bill also calls for the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs, replacing them with compact fluorescent, or "CF" bulbs and light-emitting diodes, more commonly known as "LEDs." That provision begins in 2012.

The law also increases the yearly output of renewable motor fuels, such as ethanol by five times the current amount by 2022.

Sigh! Where to begin? OK, I'll try ticking off the items of the afore-mentioned list of rose-colored disasters chronologically.

Despite the radicalized Democrat Party that now controls the Congress, and the whimpering, feckless, impotent, whiney wimps, who dare call themselves Republicans, I am surprised this bill has been so warmly received by President Bush. Here is a guy who hands out so-called "free trade" agreements to every country on the globe, like a candidate handing out pins, pencils, bumper stickers and various other tacky trinkets inscribed with his name on them during a campaign, yet he won't allow the free market, which he professes to love so much, determine energy policy.

Having once again perused the US Constitution, I see no reference that authorizes the executive or the legislative branch of our federal government to dictate energy policy, and while some big government advocates may hang their hats on the seemingly ever-widening and increasingly abused and twisted "interstate commerce clause," (That would be those folks of the ilk that also typically made a cottage industry out of bastardizing the concept of "separation of Church and State") I remind them that notion is only interpreted, and not articulated. Our limited federal government, as structured by our founders, was meant to merely defend our inalienable rights from God, and not to dictate how economically efficient our cars (or horses) run, our how we heat our homes. In a capitalist system, that all but obsolete principle is called "competition," and government need not apply.

Furthermore, if this country relied on its governance more at the state level (as originally intended), the private sector would probably adapt just fine. As gasoline producers currently produce roughly 40 different mixtures of gasoline to accommodate the differing state regulations for emissions, I am quite confident that the automakers can likewise adapt their wares for the various state markets as well.

As my further perusal of the Constitution also fails to turn up any literal reference dictating what types of candles I can use in my house, I thus take further umbrage to the present day elected occupants of our governmental digs who mysteriously think they are authorized to legislatively mandate how I illuminate my home with the more modern invention of light bulbs.

Yes, the feds have now joined the mindset of such brilliant thinkers in leftist bastions such as California and Connecticut, who are haughtily convinced that they are the light in the darkness. The problem is, their preferred lights, CF lights, while supposedly lasting longer, also contain mercury, and the consumer gets to pay more for the privilege at the cash register. But what's a little mercury between friends? One spilled drop of mercury from a broken thermometer in a science lab every now and then not only is cause for a total evacuation of the school involved, but it also brings out a full response of emergency personnel in full hazmat gear and attire, much to the alarm of the surrounding community in our present day, post September 11th world.

I do take solace, however, in that liberal ideas are kind of like the New England weather: if you don't like the status quo, just patiently wait a while. The big, bullying, mean "greenies" suddenly found paper offensive, as our weekly grocery shopping excursions were supposedly killing more trees than Dutch Elm Disease, gypsy moths and the evil, ominous, lumber industry loving GOP combined. Enter the plastic bag, that lovely devise that has added the all too common (but annoying) question, "Paper or plastic?" to our shopping spree lexicon, immediately following, "Do you have any coupons today?"

Just as this absurdity was about to peak, with paper bags all but taboo, if not gone, except in stores audacious enough to charge extra for their usage, and the tradition of double-bagging as bygone as the dinosaur, thus forcing us to now go home with 50 ripped bags, full of three items in each, instead of ten still in tact bags containing about 15 items each, we drooling, dependent dolts were once again thankfully and graciously saved by the benevolent and all-knowing left. It suddenly dawned on the leftist greeneries that plastic, much like Herpes, lasts forever, and thus to save our endangered planet from perilous extinction, caused by vast, infinite miles of plastic enveloped landfills, some folks in "progressive" cities like San Francisco, California, and New Haven, Connecticut (Does anyone else see a pattern developing here?) now view, if not proclaim, these once favored plastic receptacles as bagga-non-grata in local food stores. (Oddly enough, I have heard no complaints about the presence of plastic bags at the checkouts of department stores!) Somebody once accused me of "hating" liberals. I don't hate liberals. As a matter of fact, I very often find them rather amusing, in a cute and goofy kind of way, kind of like a puppy running around the house while simultaneously unraveling a roll of toilet paper or paper towels, with the end piece still in his mouth. Entertaining liberals, and whimsical puppies aside however, once the love of mercury-containing CF bulbs comes full circle, like with plastic grocery bags, I wonder if it will be too late. Call me crazy, but I would tend to sleep much better nights knowing that my local landfill has been engulfed with an excess of plastic bags, rather than even a trace amount of discarded mercury. I'm old enough to remember a brief period in which we once stopped eating tuna for that very same fear.

Ah, yes, last but not least on today's hit parade of bi-partisan, unconstitutional, energy-related tyranny and general chaos is the great myth of the wonder of ethanol. As a matter of fact, in his May 19th, 2006 online BusinessWeek article, "Ethanol: Myths and Realities," Alex Halperin addresses ten points of this wonder fuel which falls far short of wonderful.

Halperin cites what I have already observed; ethanol is quite the rage in the Midwest, where it is produced from corn, and in areas like the Northeast, which have replaced MTBE with ethanol, after MTBE began polluting soil and contaminating water.

Halperin also points out that ethanol absorbs excess water and impurities, and thus cannot be transported by pipeline, but by more tedious and expensive means such as by truck, rail or barge. He also cites that the production of ethanol requires far more energy and fossil fuels than it even creates, that ethanol is actually more expensive than gas.

He also shows how the fix is in, with large federal government subsidies involved in the production of domestic ethanol, and, in this "free trade" loving administration, a 54% tariff on ethanol imports to apparently discourage cheaper competitors of the product, such as Brazil, which also uses sugar to formulate a fuel alternative as well. Considering some of the high dollar pork subsidies this President has signed into law (prior to locating his once lost, if not abandoned, dusty, veto pen) for agriculture, one has to seriously wonder if this is just one more area in which a "bridge to somewhere" has been forged between K Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, with "Main Street, USA" all too conveniently bypassed underneath. Welcome to life in "The (bought and paid for) Nanny State."

I have also heard reports that ethanol, over time, can gel, and damage engines and fuel lines. That in itself is a concerning prospect, given that Halperin concludes his article on a more positive note, predicting that in future years, cellulosic ethanol could eventually reduce costs, assuming of course, your car doesn't need a major overhaul, if not full replacement by then. Meanwhile, no joke about ethanol should be considered corny, but it's still no laughing matter, either.

The real "inconvenient truth," and without nine found errors, is that our energy woes are collective, which is to say that while each individual, group, or faction has the one trumpeted solution that is near and dear to their respective hearts, all viable options should be considered and utilized: conservation, alternative sources, and expansion of procuring and refining existing domestic resources, but that final one, of course, is the third rail to America's fifth column.

Despite new, innovative, more efficient and cleaner drilling technology, the meany-greenies don't want us tapping into our own oil reserves, be they on our soil, or off our shores. Sadly, however, China and Cuba didn't get that memo and are now enjoying a bountiful Floridian oil feast with our passive approval. That's nice. Now let's see how two of the world's most notorious human rights violators lose sleep over polluting our waters and killing our sea inhabitants when Fidel meets Flipper. (For some strange reason, I suddenly, I hate puppies!)

Oil is evil, coal is not cool, nukes are our nemesis, and corn subsidies have replaced common sense. I give up! What's "left"? (Pardon the pun!)

Newsflash: man does not live by corn alone. As the laws of supply and demand have increased the value and price of corn, the ripple effect has also increased the prices of meats and dairy products impacted by the necessity of corn. The end result: we pay more at the pump, so that we can drive to the supermarket, where we can again pay more at the checkout, and then to add insult to injury, our cars will break down half way home and in the middle of the road, thus causing us to walk the rest of the way home, emitting more dangerous Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere as we exhale from all the extra, and now necessary exercise, and as all those groceries will spill all over and into the street, aimlessly rolling away from us and ruining the local ecology as those additional and numerous, single layered plastic bags (where not yet outlawed) tear open and break apart, spilling their limited but now more expensive contents all over God's once "green" earth, and leaving us broke, stranded, out of breath, hungry, frustrated and of course, "environmentally insensitive"! "Environmental impact?" If we are really so concerned about environmental impact, maybe we'd be better off impacting our carbon footprint up into one of these environmental imbeciles where their "other" noxious greenhouse gases are normally emitted!

Perhaps we have crossed the line…by a country mile. Known cycles of global warming that occurred before man even set foot on earth are now believed to be caused by man. Scientists and meteorologists who dare speak up with dissenting, but nevertheless, stubborn facts, are becoming threatened, oppressed, silenced, and professionally cannibalized with Gestapo-like tactics by their own colleagues and associations who don't want the truth to be made known. Gosh, golly, gee. And all this time I thought liberals prized "free speech." Maybe they just mean their own "free speech."

That stellar, world renowned pinnacle of integrity, fairness and world peace, the United Nations, where barbarian tyrants are given seats on human rights committees, where peacekeeping troops rape female civilians, and where global security is compromised by a hushed, lucrative, sweetheart little scandal called "oil for food," wishes to penalize the US and restrict our energy use because of our alleged emitted greenhouse gases, while giving heavy, unrepentant polluters like China a pass. A friend of mine, who formerly lived in southern California, and who travels to China a couple times a year on business, tells me that the thick, black, smoke-choked skies over Shanghai on a good day now make the smog-laden skies of LA on its worst day during the 70's look downright pristine.

The same celebrities and politicians who want to ban SUV's, backyard charcoal barbecuing, and bovine flatulence (If they ever pull that last one off, I will be impressed!) don't bat a fake lash at flitting around in their ultra-cherished high-priced, highly pollutant private luxury jets while they try to hypocritically woo us and cram us into these ugly, cramped, utterly ridiculous looking little electric putt-putt toys with promises of free meter parking and tax breaks. Folks, these insidious contraptions are not "environmentally conscious automobiles;" they are scrumptious, little appetizers for speeding and metallically carnivorous 18-wheelers, powered and intoxicated by the forgotten "green" loophole called diesel fuel and diversely ambivalent to political correctness of any color, size, shape, cause or trend!

I can't help but believe that if we just walk in some of those "carbon footprints" and follow the money, we will have our answers, and yes, that means for Al "Kyoto" Gore himself, who should have his award retracted after recently, falsely and appallingly bad-mouthing his own country on foreign soil, a despicable act for any American, let alone a former Vice President. The Nobel Peace Prize lost its "nobility" long ago, and is now worth about as much as a foreign national election, monitored and approved by another one of Nobel's grossly undeserving recipients, Jimmy Carter, who has proven to be far more adept at driving stakes through our precarious foreign policy than driving nails through donated houses being constructed. And if anyone deserves an Oscar for playacting (besides Al, "The Ace Chameleon" Gore), it's those peace-portraying other amateur thespians, who sanctimoniously dole out that biased Nobel farce to such unworthy and repugnant frauds.

As the left (and it's wayward Republican useful idiots) deem and dub that everything it does is majestically magic, remember that magic is but sheer trickery, an illusion, intended to impress, mystify and deceive. Those are no longer spots on the spotted owl; they are now stains, and don't let all those "green" folks fool you. That green color really has much more to do with both the money it raises and the nausea it produces than with any true envy for the environment, even if liberal institutions and their loopy minions vehemently disagree.

But as Houdini might have said, "Presto!"

Doug Wrenn