New England to shiver from the lack of those natural gas pipelines the Democrats so hate.

(Via @scottlincicome) Political stances have consequences: “Natural gas is so abundant and cheap in much of the U.S. that producers want to export it overseas. Except in New England, where gas is so hard to get that companies are importing it from as far away as Yemen.” In this particular case, the stance was we do not want any of those dirty, dirty fossil fuel pipelines in our backyards; and the consequences are soaring natural gas prices (2/3rds higher than the rest of the country) according to the WSJ, with the price probably continuing to skyrocket because of increased demand from consumers and what may be a really, really cold winter*. There’s also apparently the consequence that New England air pollution levels have been rising in the last year due to the need to burn stuff that’s less efficient than natural gas, but that’s a whole different issue**.

…Well. Loathe as I am to see a bunch of Americans pay through the nose for electric – and more importantly, heat – many, many people are going to not-really-nicely note that New Englanders have largely brought this fate down upon themselves by voting in Democrats.  And it’s true! New Englanders did, and they have.  But let us not think too much about what divides us; let us instead concentrate on what all civilized people can agree with.  Which is to say, it is in the best long-term interests of New England voters to vote in more Republicans to office***.  Say what you like about even liberal Republicans, but our party is in general agreement that Americans should not be cold, hungry, and in the dark****.

One last point: it is perhaps not a great idea for the Democratic party to be more or less dominated by NYC/DC/Californian liberals.  The weather’s better in all three locations than it is in New England and the Midwest, and that’s apparently having an effect on their energy policy thinking. And no, I’m not sure why Barack Obama doesn’t ‘get’ this, being that he’s ostensibly from Chicago.  …

But is he, really? Really?  I mean, let’s face it: we all know where the guy’s true allegiance lies*****…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*This is a basic concept, by the way: when there is a high demand and low supply, prices rise.

**Just wait until New England finds out that their coal and oil plants are going to get targeted by Barack Obama’s EPA too, though.

***Yes, ‘more.’ New Hampshire has a Republican-controlled legislature; Maine and Massachusetts, Republican governors.  May more states up there follow these good examples.

****In fact, we’re all kind of bemused here that the Democratic party seems so determined to stake out the opposite position.  There simply aren’t that many nihilists in America, although I suppose that the existence of the Internet can skew one’s perceptions when it comes to that philosophical position.

*****The Beltway, of course. Barack Obama loves everything about the Imperial District, and always will.  Why, what did you think that I meant?

Mark Warner: natural gas is an anti-clean fuel! Which helped us hit Kyoto goals!

…I’m sorry if that hurt your head: it hurt mine, too.

And the Virginia GOP’s: Continue reading Mark Warner: natural gas is an anti-clean fuel! Which helped us hit Kyoto goals!

Green movement ready to go to war on Democrats over… natural gas?

(Via Hot Air Headlines) I know, I know.  This news makes you weep.

Not so long ago enviros endorsed natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal or oil. Most limited themselves to calling for “better” industry practices, or to solely opposing exports. But as the gas rush has grown, threatening their solar-and-windmill nirvana, greens now openly decry drilling, chiding Mr. Obama for his “support for hydraulic fracturing” and calling on him to keep “our nation’s fossil fuel reserves in the ground.” The letter was signed by Bill McKibben, the director of the anti-Keystone outfit, as well as directors of nearly every major green shop in the country—the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, CREDO and Earthjustice.

This new demand could not come at a more awkward time for the party. Under fire for ObamaCare and the economy, scores of vulnerable Democrats are rushing to natural gas and drilling as political safe harbors. Supporting fracking allows them to claim they are in favor of more jobs, cheaper energy and rising incomes. Supporting natural-gas exports allows them to look responsive to the Ukraine crisis, or at least more responsive than their unpopular president. It helps, too, that this puts them on the same page as the significant majority of Americans who support more drilling (and pipelines).

Continue reading Green movement ready to go to war on Democrats over… natural gas?

Religious fanatics upset that their dogma is not being respected. #fracking

Anti-fracker makes a funny:

Documentary filmmaker and activist Josh Fox has a warning for Washington policymakers: You’ll face “political consequences” if you ignore the anti-fracking movement.

You will not face political consequences if you ignore the anti-fracking movement.  The administration had to pick which bone to throw to the deep ecologist religious fanatics: they could either hassle hydraulic fracking, or yjr Keystone pipeline.  It wasn’t a hard call: the administration chose Keystone.  You see, natural gas is ‘green’ energy in the orthodox liberal canon, so Fox’s band of schismatics are in fact also a bunch of unhelpful heretics who are dangerously close to being formally declared to be obdurate in their error.  Should that happen… well, an auto-de-fe would probably be too ironic, all things considered.  But certainly loud anti-frackers will be kept from all the good policy groups and parties.

Hey, it’s an improvement from the European Witch Craze.

Via don’t remember, sorry.  Might have been an email.

Moe Lane