I don’t often stick up for a politician but I had all the respect in the world for PA House member Greg Vitali when he exposed and fought in court the heinous Act 44 of 2005 which lavished pay raises on legislators and judges in the middle of the night.
But poor Greg, once a beacon of truth and justice in the eyes of taxpayers here in PA has finally caught his stride and has put political expediency before virtue.
Vitali, who sits on the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, has taken the mantle on environmental issues in the state House and has easily been the biggest proponent for legislation on climate change.
“Climate change is the most serious environmental problem facing the planet,” he said. “Right now, the state … is in the process of enacting measures which will result in greenhouse-gas reduction, but we’re not doing it in sort of a systematic fashion. We haven’t set goals and we’re not working toward pre-set goals in a planned-out fashion, and I think that’s what we’re trying to accomplish here, and that’s really what the bill is doing … This piece of legislation really provides a planning mechanism.”
The bill – the first of its kind to pass on the state level – will allow businesses and industries to track their emissions voluntarily through a registry, require an annual inventory of the sources and amounts of global-warming pollution from business, agriculture and residences, and create a 21-member stakeholder group to draft a report from that inventory for use by the Department of Environmental Protection and Legislature to develop a state plan on greenhouse-gas reduction.
Besides being a little late to the game (the religion of global warming is starting to implode), this is so wrong on so many levels. The most apparent stems from the overuse of the word “plan” reminiscent of the failed Soviet Union. The next is the word “voluntarily” as in “we voluntarily submit tax returns each year.” We all know what happen with voluntary programs. The scariest is the talk of the “21-member stakeholder group.” Something tells me I will never be invited to be part of this group. But like every other government-business partnership, the end result will be New Deal-type protectionism.



How High Can Oil Go, or Are We Prophets?
From a 2005 Mises blog discussion about the real economics of corn ethanol as a motor fuel;
“…The fact remains that the energy input deficit alone is enough to kill ethanol until gasoline reaches $8 – $9 per gallon, without subsidies. Until this occurs, it will not be economic to replace gasoline with ethanol on a national scale.”
Today, from an article on the Bush Administration’s imputed plans to “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”;
“Sinking or crippling a couple of the 50 supertankers as they pass each other every day in the strait (of Hormuz) would not be much of a challenge for Iranian gunners…ship-owners the world over would ban any attempt to navigate around the shipwrecks. A barrel of oil would quickly jump to $500 and gas would reach $12 a gallon…“
Dwayne Andreas, please call your office.
(links courtesy of the Mises and Lew Rockwell.com blogs)