Charlie Daniels' on Guns and Church

Since I identify with the people who fall into Barrack Obama's elitist description of people of faith who keep firearms I'm not very happy with Barrack Obama's recent remarks. He said something to the effect that us rednecks cling to our guns and our religion when we get frustrated and I would like to take umbrage to these remarks.

My faith goes much deeper than his superficial explanation and I love my guns even when I'm not frustrated. And I am not by myself. I was going to church and shooting guns before Mr. Obama was even born and come from a long line of good people who have been doing it for generations. To me this latest Obama blunder only helps reveal the depth of condescension the far left wing of the Democrat party has for the folks out here in flyover country. Mr. Obama's remarks are insulting to a lot of folks. It's kind of like Abraham Lincoln said, "God must love the common people because he made so many of them".

His remarks make me think that Obama doesn't know the people of this country very well. I'm sure he knows the jet set and the Hollywood bunch, the limousine liberals and the save the whales, kill the babies crowd, but does he think that the ordinary people don't count? Does he think that they're so stupid that they don't know who he's talking about when he says these things? Does he think their opinions aren't important? Apparently.

How can a man stand in front of America and tell people what he wants to do for them and have so little respect for a whole segment of the population. In fact, a very large segment. Does that mean that he would only represent the high-minded liberal ideals of the far left and ignore the rest of us? What kind of Commander and Chief would he make if he doesn't respect the very people who make up the lion's share of the armed forces. You may say I'm over reacting, but I'm getting sick and tired of him making these elitist statements and saying that he had been taken out of context or some other flimsy excuse.

After his wife's remark about not being proud of this country and his pastor's statements calling America the U.S.K.K.K.A. and his own statement about not wanting his daughter punished with a baby, it makes me wonder what kind of a man Obama really is and what kind of a president he'd make. Would he be an antigun advocate pushing the effort to take the firearms out of innocent citizen's hands? Would he not respect the religious beliefs of America, not taking them into account in his agenda? I really don't know much about the man and neither does America. He basically came from out of nowhere and as the facts come out little by little, they don't make a particularly confident picture. I have a great fear that if our military gets broken by another president, this time we're not going to have time to fix it again and what that spells for America, I don't even want to contemplate. Oh well, I guess I'll grab my gun and go to church.

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Commentary: I pretty much agree with the view expressed by Charlie Daniels in this article, but I don’t own guns or regularly go to Church so I am not as offended as Charlie Daniels. Obama made a stupid remark. Maybe he should use the Hillary excuse and blame it on sleep deprivation and fatigue. The day of when you could say one thing to one group and something else to another is over. In this information age, the tape is always running. Did Obama not think that the rednecks in Pennsylvania might be listening when he was speaking to the elitist liberal crowd in Hollywood?

I have always liked Charlie Daniels. In the mid 70’s I had several CDB albums and wore them out. I always thought Charlie Daniels was Country, but at that time he was not played on Country radio. He fell in the genre of “Southern Rock” and you were more likely to hear CDB on Rock radio.

In the heyday of the Charlie Daniels band, I attended several of the Volunteer Jams. These were ruckus concerts that lasted eigth to ten hours. The lineup was never announced in advance. The bulk of the music was Southern Rock but covered the spectrum from Hard Rock to hard core Country to Soul Music to even an occasional Opera performance. Those concerts were great fun. People anticipated them and speculated on who the guest would be. People partied hard, heard some great music and had a great time.

Knowing the Daniels from the 70’s and 80’s I have been surprised by the Daniels of recent years. Until recent years, I never did know the politics of Charlie Daniels, but he had a tolerant view of drug use and was somewhat of a rebel. In recent years he has emerged as a God-fearing, hard-on-crime, anti-drug Conservative. I agree with many of his political views but never expected he was so religious or such a social conservative. He always reflected a populist value and that still shines through.

Charlie takes his editorializing quite seriously and post his opinion on his web page about once a week. He has a folksy way of expressing himself and I think he often says what a lot of people are thinking. I wish his opinion pieces had wider distribution. He needs to be syndicated. His site is listed in the blogroll to the left. Go to his site and then click on “soap box” for his editorial page.

Here is Charlie Daniels performing one my favorite songs, Long-haired Country Boy. This song brings back pleasant memories and I enjoy it every time I hear it. I don’t feel like a put-upon poor southern boy, so I don’t know why I love this song as much as I do. Charlie was obviously not the God-fearing, anti-drug, social conservative he is today back when this was a hit.

Top Stories

Hillary Loves Guns! No, she really does

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl. You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

Comment: I agree with her, but with Hillary's record of supporting gun control it sounds a little like pandering. I guess if I was a gun-toting Democrat, I would prefer Hillary Clinton's pandering over Barack Obama's condescension. It is no big deal really. All politicians pander. I just wanted an excuse to post this picture.

Oh, I stole this from "First door on the Left", a frequent advertiser here. Pay that blog a visit. See the listing in my blog roll.

Top Stories

There is this Scientist, this Leftist, and this Ageing Hippy Tree Hugger…

and they all agree that ethanol is a bad idea.

OK, OK, I know. Enough is enough. I may be beating a dead horse. If you love ethanol there is no use confusing you with facts. I am going to shut up about it, at least for a while. Simply to point out that it is not just us right-wing reactionaries who think ethanol is a bad Ideal, I am posting links to three articles that make that point. The first is Science Magazine, the second is Mother Jones, and the last is Whole Earth News.

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt
Joseph Fargione,1 Jason Hill,2,3 David Tilman,2* Stephen Polasky,2,3 Peter Hawthorne2

Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a "biofuel carbon debt" by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels. Science Magazine (link)

The Ethanol Effect: When Alternative Fuels Go Bad Why corn-based fuel isn't our miracle cure for oil dependency.
Cameron Scott November 2007

"everything about ethanol is good, good, good," crows Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, echoing the conventional wisdom that corn-based ethanol will help us kick the oil habit, line the pockets of farmers, and usher in a new era of guilt-free motoring. But despite the wishes of Iowans (and the candidates courting them) the "dot-corn bubble" is too good to be true. Mother Jones (link)

The Ups and Downs of Ethanol Fuel
By Laura Evers

So what’s wrong with ethanol?

The first and foremost problem with today’s ethanol is it comes from corn, one of the most prominent food crops worldwide. Growing a crop for both food and fuel is problematic because the increased demand for the food crop leads to higher food prices. This, among other factors, has caused worldwide corn and grain production to struggle to keep up and prices have risen to record levels.

But that’s not all that pops the argument for corn-derived ethanol:
Mother Earth News (link)

Top Stories

Communism is coming to an End in Cuba

Cubans to get title to state-owned homes

April 12. 2008 Associated Press

HAVANA -- Thousands of Cubans will be able to get title to government-owned homes under regulations published Friday –A step that might lay the groundwork for broader housing reform.

My Commentary: This should be a cause for celebration; not dancing in the streets celebration but at least a high-five. Communism is ending in Cuba. The process may be slow but it is starting. Cubans are still not allowed to sell their homes to anyone but the government, but they get title, they do not lose their homes when they change jobs, and they can pass their home down to their children. Who can doubt that more change is not on the way? This will lead to wealth creation, home loans, home improvements and a Home Depot.

This change in policy allowing Cubans to own their own home came a day after another important announcement that ended the maximum wage limit in Cuba. Earlier this month, the new Cuban president opened the way for ordinary Cubans to own cell phones.

America could speed up the process of change in Cuba if we would only end our senseless embargo. The embargo at one time made sense, but that day has long ago passed. Because the embargo may have been logical when Cuba was a client state of the Soviet Union, does not mean that we should stick with that policy forever. There certainly has been no justification for our policy ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our policy has meant that Cuba could blame all of their failings on the US embargo and the US had no opportunity to have influence in Cuba. We trade with China and Vietnam, why not Cuba? What is the logic of our current policy?

If American dollars could flow freely to Cuba, we would see concession on the part of Cuba to accommodate investors. With opportunities to make money, we would see an evolving entrepreneurial class. With more dollars to spend, Cubans would not be dependent on the government for everything, other spheres of influence would emerge and the socialist totalitarianism mold would be broken. Even if Cuba remained an authoritarian one-party state for some time, they would become Communist in name only. A little freedom leads to a demand for more freedom. Cuba is changing despite the policy of the United States. We should help accelerate the change that is taking place in Cuba by ending the embargo now.

Someone needs to tell President Bush the Cold War is over. If President Bush were a bright fellow and a statesman, he would use today’s announcement about the change in the homeownership policy in Cuba as an occasion to say that we were encouraged by the reforms occurring in Cuba and as of Monday, we were lifting the embargo and would be looking for ways to facilitate trade and friendship between our two nations.

Top Stories

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007…

Should be known as “The mandatory Increase in Global Warming and Corn Growers Enrichment Act.”

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed by the then newly elected Democratic Congress as part of their “100 hour plan” of things they promised to do within their first 100 hours of business and it was signed into law by President Bush. It is a counterproductive measure and should be repealed.

Among the major components of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a mandate that by the year 2020, automakers must increase CAFE standard to 35 MPG and it also mandates that by the year 2022 that the use of biofuels added to gasoline must be increased from 4.7 million gallons 36 billion gallons.

The causal feel-good environmentalist and environmental activist celebrated the passage of this bill. After all, the evil global-warming-denying and fellow-traveling Republicans had been defeated; the people who really “care” about the environment had won the election.

Well, if only “caring” was enough, wouldn’t it be a grand world. The 2007 Energy Act should have been called the “The mandatory Increase in Global Warming and Corn Growers Enrichment Bill.” There should have been no doubt about the detrimental effects of ethanol on the environment at the time the bill was passed. The truth was well known. The truth is that ethanol is not a solution to global warming but use of ethanol will drastically increase global warming greenhouse emissions. Not only does ethanol increase global warming greenhouse emissions, the increase use of fertilizers and pesticides is destroying life in the oceans, is creating water shortages, is destroying the most bio-diverse regions of the world, and is turning food into fuel and increasing food prices.

The CAFE standards portion of the bill may also prove to be counterproductive or at least useless. The original CAFE standards passed in 1975 gave rise to the SUV. Because SUV’s are classified as “light trucks”, consumers who wanted to drive big cars switched to SUV’s. If you are old enough, you may recall that station wagons were once very popular. Those vehicles were particularly popular among families because of the extra room they provided as opposed to the typical sedan. When CAFE became law, automakers could not create station wagons that met the higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, so the auto companies killed the popular models and switched to SUV’s, which are passenger vehicles put on a truck frame.

Part of what the 2007 Energy bill was attempted to do was to close that loophole by making “light trucks” also subject to the same CAFE as passenger vehicles. Will this new law give rise to the “super SUV”, maybe putting a passenger vehicle on a REALLY big truck frame? Who knows? The law of unintended consequences could lead to the introduction of the Monster SUV, the SUV on steroids.

Perhaps a result of the higher CAFE standards will be that Americans will simply drive more. If vehicles get 30% more gas mileage, maybe Americans will simply drive 30% more, thus expanding urban sprawl and all its accompanying harmful effects. The better fuel efficient vehicles people may move even further from where they work and they may take more vacations in their personal family automobile. If the new CAFE standards actually increase MPG, in the absence of gasoline price increases, then driving and dependence on the automobile becomes actually cheaper.

Another result increased CAFE may be that we will see a slowing in the rate of fleet turnover. Fleet turnover takes a long time. If Americans cannot purchase the car they desire, they may simply put-off trading in their old car for a new car. Any slowing of the fleet turnover rate could negate any positive increase in CAFE standards by several years. If CAFE slows fleet turn over enough, then global warming emissions are actually increased.

More likely, however, the increase in gas prices will achieve a lower MPG rate without any action on the part of government. We are already seeing it. With higher gas prices, people are driving less and voluntarily choosing vehicles that get better MPG. The most likely scenario is that the increase in CAFE will have no negative impact. Just as it does no harm to raise minimum wage if the market has already raised the minimum wage above the mandated minimum wage, it will probably do no harm to mandate the higher CAFE standards since Americans are already curtailing their gas consumption. As gasoline prices increase, people choose to drive less and choose cars that get better MPG. It is not an accident that Europeans drive those tiny little cars. People respond to prices. The increase in CAFE will probably do no harm, but it is very doubtful it will do any good.

If the feel-good environmentalist and the environmental activist were rational people and really cared about the environment they would propose a repeal of the “The mandatory Increase in Global Warming and Corn Growers Enrichment Bill of 2007” and would put their energy behind a bill that taxed carbon emissions. It is an economic law: If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.

Archimedes once said, "Give me a place to stand and I can move the world." What he meant was that if he could stand far enough away from the earth he could use a lever to move it. Levers make heavy objects easier to move. Tax policy can leverage market forces. Environmentalist would achieve much more if they would learn to work with and leverage market forces rather than oppose market forces.

Unfortunately, trying to tell a liberal environmentalist that an energy bill mandating higher CAFE standards and ethanol use can actually lead to more global warming is useless. They will view an appeal to logic as a dirty trick. It there were enough rational environmentalist we could actually do something about global warming. Unfortunately, there are not enough environmentalist who are rational, and not enough rationalist who are environmentalist.

Top Stories

My Conversion on Gobal Warming

I was late in coming to the anti-global warming cause.

I am a conservative Republican. More“Conservative” than “Republican”. In my teens I was a Goldwater enthusiast and have considered myself part of the conservative movement my whole life; subscribing to the journals, reading books by conservative thinkers, and donating money. However, of late, I have become unhappy with the influence of the religious right in the party, with the fiscal irresponsibility of the party, and I was opposed to our going to war in Iraq. I am still a conservative and still a Republican but a disillusioned conservative Republican. Now to that, I must add that I am disappointed that Republicans have shown no leadership on global warming or energy independence.

When global warming first became an issue of public concern, I tended to scoff and tended to believe those who (1) said it was not occurring, and (2) if it was,then it was not caused by human activity. However, after a while it appeared to me that the consensus of informed scientific opinion was the opposite of what I had believed. In addition to the environmental concern, I believed that being less dependent on mid-east oil was a national security concern. So, I admit I was wrong about global warming, and now think we should get serious about dong something about it.

Once I became a “convert” I became appalled at people like Rush Limbaugh and those who still deny that global warming is occurring. Having switched sides in the debate however, I was equally appalled by what I perceived as the stupidity and naiveté on the part of the anti-global warming side. Many seemed to be on this kind of spiritual tree-hugging trip, and offered no solution other than “respecting mother nature”. I also saw lots of advocacy for alternatives such as bio-fuel, windpower, solar, ethanol, and hydrogen. While I believe all of these may have merit, it seemed so obvious to me, that for any alternative to flourish it had to be able to compete in price with current coal and oil. I am all in favor of wearing a sweater and turning down the thermostat, but believe people are more motivated by economics than exhortations to do the right thing. It seems that so many people in the environmentalist movement somehow have distaste for any solution that recognizes that the market has a roll to play in solving the problem.

While solving the problem of global warming or energy independence is not painless or simple, the starting place should be to increase the price of gas. When gas went to $3 a gallon here in Nashville, our bus system had the most ridership it had ever had. I content that if gas prices stayed high and gradually got higher, over time we would see alternatives flourish, conservation, occur, more efficient vehicles and a curtailment of urban sprawl. I believe that it is a fact, that if you want more of something you should can it and if you want less of something then you can tax it. It doesn’t matter a lot what the “something” is. We may not know the slope of the demand curve for energy, but surely we should not disagree about the direction. I am as appalled at the economic ignorance on the left, as I am at the remaining scientific ignorance on the right.

Since it is Democrats who have long warned of the dangers of global warming, I would expect them to be offering real solutions. However, prior to the recent election when Nancy Pelosi was talking about her goals for when the Democrats take over the house, she mentioned in the same statement both bringing down the price of gas and combating global warming. Is she just pandering or is it ignorance? Does she not see those are contradictory objectives? Where is the leadership?

I have been especially encouraged to see conservative journalist such as Krauthammer, Brooks, and Robertson,and the Libertarian publication Reason take the positions they have taken regarding global warming. As an anti-global warming conservative, I feel a lot less lonely, and I think they bring an understanding of economics to the debate which has largely been missing from the anti-global warming side until recently. Maybe overtime, some political courage will emerge.

Many liberals seem to want to keep the anti-global warming movement reserved for the pure of heart. Instead of welcoming the Krauthammers, Brooks, and Robertsons, they criticizes them for not speaking out earlier and think that their motives are suspect. Those who are concerned about Global warming need to welcome supporters wherever they come from. People do not have to agree on the minimum wage, health care policy, Iraq, or abortion to see the rationality of taxing carbon emissions.

Top Stories

Obama's Grandma's Typical White

Top Stories

There are ways Nashvillians can avert foreclosure

Act quickly and you might be able to stay in house (link)
By NAOMI SNYDER Staff Writer The Tennessean, April 6, 2008

The biggest mistake most people make when falling behind on mortgage payments is waiting until it's too late to do anything about it, housing advocates say.

"They're scared and they ignore several letters," said Rod Williams, director of housing services for the Woodbine Community Organization in Nashville. "I get calls from people that are going to foreclosure next week. It's hard to do anything at that point."

"Often (lenders) are willing to take a loss rather than have a foreclosure," Williams said. "The mortgage company really doesn't want to take your house."

Comment: I am interviewed for this article on how to avoid foreclosure.

Please, please, do not lose your home to foreclosure without exploring all the options. If you are in the Nashville area, let me help you. Don't try to deal with your mortgage company without getting help.

Avoiding foreclosure is often possible, but only if you know what you are doing. Get professional assistance. Don't avoid getting help because you are embarrassed. Don't think you don't need help. If you don't know the options available to you, you won't know what to ask for. You should no more face foreclosure without a professional housing counselor than you should go to court without an attorney. Don't give the mortgage company your financial information until a housing counselor has reviewed it.

One of the most important things for avoiding foreclosure is to act early. You have a much better chance of saving your home if you take action early. If you are behind on your house payment, or your adjustable rate mortgage is about to reset and you know you will have difficulty making the higher payment, call me. If you have friends or relatives who may be facing foreclosure, have them give me a call. There is no cost for our services.

Rod Williams, Director of Housing Services, Woodbine Community Organization. 850-3453

Top Stories

Bio-Fuels

Bio-Fuels: Brought to you by the feel-good environmentalist. Bio-Fuels: increasing global warming, killing the oceans, destroying the rain forest, starving the hungry.

Top Stories

Jane Fonda Endorses Barack Obama;

There Goes the Crossover Vote.

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.

There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress's approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet. (link)

My Comment: You should not judge a candidate by the people who endorse him. You can't always choose your supporters. Apparently Obama didn't seek this endorsement and if he is smart he will ignore it.

Given that at this point in the race there are only three choices, it is not surprising that Jane Fonda would endorse Obama. Of the three, Obama is the one promising an immediate pull out from Iraq and damn the consequences. I can see how that view would appeal to Jane Fonda.

There are people with whom I have a difference of opinion but still respect. There are very few public people who I truly detest. Jane Fonda is at the top of that short list. Most celebrities who say or do stupid things, I think should simply be ignored. Jane Fonda, however, I cannot forgive for her betrayal of America, her stab in the back of U.S servicemen, and her cheerleading for the North Vietnamese Communist.

I am generally a peace-loving, non-violent, forgiving type of guy. I hope no harm comes to Jane Fonda. However, if a deranged Vietnam vet was determined to assassinate a public figure and could not be talked out of it, and he was asking for nominations, I would not be disappointed if someone nominated Jane Fonda.

Top Stories

Ethanol Worse than Gas in Causing Global Warming

“Politicians and Big Business are pushing biofuels like corn-based ethanol as alternative to oil. All they’re doing is driving up food price and making global warming worse- and your paying for it.” These sentences are on the cover of the most recent issue of Time magazine introducing an article entitled The Clean Energy Myth, written by Michael Grunwald.

Grunwald, who is a senior correspondent for Time magazine and has written extensively on environmental issues, examines the consequences of the increased use of ethanol and evaluates ethanol’s effect on global warming.

In the past decade, the US has quadrupled the production of ethanol and the recently passed energy bill mandates another five-fold increase. Grunwald quotes studies that show that the actual effect of the increase of the use of ethanol is that “it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it.”

One way this is happening is that the push to produce more ethanol is resulting in clearing of the Amazon rain forest. When the rain forest is destroyed, the act of deforestation releases carbon emission and this deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions.

In addition to making global warming worse, in the process we are also destroying the most ecologically diverse places on the earth at an alarmingly accelerated rate, not only in the Amazon but also in Indonesia and other places in the world.

Another point Grunwald makes is that producing fuel from corn provides only a modest gain in net fuel. It takes almost as much energy to create a BTU of energy from corn as is produced.

Other points he the article makes are these:
Only sugarcane-based ethanol is efficient enough to cut carbon emissions by more than it takes to produce the fuel. The rest of the “green fuels” are net carbon emitters.
The U. S. leads the world in corn and soybean production, but if 100% of both crops were turned into fuel, it produces only enough fuel to replace 20% of the gas consumption.

The author is unequivocal that “biofules aren’t part of the solution at all. They’re part of the problem.”

How in the world could we be so irrational as to be mandating ethanol in order to deal with global warming? That is like an alcoholic who switches from beer to bourbon to deal with his drinking problem. The evidence is clear, that as the author says, “we’re better off growing food and drilling for oil.”

It is not as if the truth about ethanol was not known before the new Congress passed the recent energy bill. Rational environmentalist knew this all along but ethanol is trendy and the feel-good environmentalist want it. The rational environmentalists are too few and too timid to counter the feel-good environmentalist and the activist of the environmental movement. The environmental community, with few exceptions, celebrated the passing of the recent energy bill by the newly elected Democratic Congress.

It is disheartening that we are pursuing a policy that is making global warming worse in the name of fighting global warming, but most politicians are willing to give stupid people what they want. The fact that the nations first Presidential nominating contest is in the corn-growing state of Iowa probably plays a roll in the popularity of ethanol also. Candidates for President, of both parties, pander to the Iowa voters by endorsing ethanol. In 2000, John McCain was the only politician with the courage to speak the truth about the folly of ethanol, but apparently McCain wants to be President more than he wants to tell the truth, so this time around he also jumped on the ethanol bandwagon.

I don’t see much hope for curtailing global warming. Everywhere you look, the only news about global warming is bad news. Lofty goals are not met, and the rate of carbon emission continues to grow. Rationality on the issue seems to be in short supply. On the one hand, you have the global warming deniers and on the other hand you have the feel-good enviournmentalist who are happy as long as we do “something” even it that something is worse than doing nothing.

Top Stories

Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet

The following exchange is from a posting on a yahoo chat group I belong to called "Climate Concern." Climate Concern is a good group for anyone concerned about the issue of global warming and environmental issues. The link to this group is to the left under "Conversation/Groups." A lot of rational, informed people contribute to this group and there are lot of interesting exchanges and links. Rather than write my original post, I am simply reposted the following exchange. Rod

Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet

I watched a wonderful program on PBS where a group in Cambridge made energy efficiency easy and widespread. You can watch it online from the link below:
Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/413/index.html

Could a new effort to fight global warming save money and create jobs at the same time? NOW looks at a city-wide plan in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to make all its buildings more energy efficient. Up to 80 percent of emissions in many urban cities comes from buildings. Cambridge hopes that this unprecedented effort to green its buildings will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent in just five years, the equivalent of taking 33,000 cars off the road. If every major city in America took the same approach, it would have a significant impact on the carbon footprint of the United States —and it would generate tens of millions of new "

The Cambridge Energy Alliance, a nonprofit group, will help clients cut their energy use 15-30 percent, which translates into a lower utility bill. The Alliance will then help clients secure loans to pay for the building retrofits, loans designed to pay themselves off by the savings on those utility bills. Retrofitting thousands of buildings could also create a new green job market in Cambridge. It's a bold new experiment, but the Alliance hopes to become a national model that puts green thinking on display, as well as more green in people's pockets. Will this entrepreneurial effort bring new converts to the environmental movement?

Related Links:Cambridge Energy Alliance
U.S. Green Building Council: LEED Green Building Rating System
North Carolina State University: Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency
U.S. Dept. of Energy: A Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficieny and Renewable Energy
U.S. Dept. of Energy: Energy Efficient Building Technologies Program

Bob

Bob, I saw the same program it was great! I am a conservative who believes global warming is real. Empty symbolic gestures will not solve the problem of global warming. Cajoling or command and control will not do it. Trying to change peoples hearts will not do it. If preaching and trying to change hearts worked, after 2000 years of Christianity, Christian countries would not need policemen. To address global warming we must apply sound economic principles. This is a program that uses sound economics. The bottom line works. Those environmentalist who deny the truth of economics are no better than those who deny the truth of global warming. This program in Cambridge is the kind of program than can work because it makes economic sense. The consumer can do good for the world while doing good for their pocketbook. I am reposting your post on my blog. I was going to post this info anyway, but you have done the work for me.

Thanks, Rod

Top Stories