Eco-Nuts Finally Catching On?

It's about freaking time.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters say global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends, while only 33% blame human activity. These results are identical to those found last month.

Apparently the poll did not include members of the oh-so-scientific Project on Climate Science.

Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Is it any wonder that 80% of Americans distrust the federal government when they are so clearly disconnected from reality? The coalition group issued this statement in advance of a report set to be released to the UN on 22 April (Earth Day). I would just like to refer to some very inconvenient data that I mentioned last year.

Never mind that the 40 years before that were comprised of global cooling, which were preceded by 40 years of global warming. So, in honor of Earth Day this week, let's listen to Charlton Heston weigh in on the global warming debate. Again, taken from a previous post.

Faça Xixi no Banho!

This one's for you, Lak. Now we can all be a little greener by...peeing in the shower. That's right. In the shower. I mean, the water is already running, right? And besides, one flush of the toilet can use 12 liters of water, which equates to about 4380 liters of water a year. So by relieving yourself while lathering up, you're cleansing both your inner and outer bad-self at the same time. Let's call this "eco-hygene." Wait, didn't the hippies already try that?

h/t: Jawa

Science Czar Holdren's Population Control Proposals

I've been meaning to blog about this for awhile, but I've been too lazy. :) John Holdren was recently appointed as Obama's Science Czar (I'm sure I'm the only one that finds it disturbing that all these czars answer directly and exclusively to the White House). As if everything that the One has done hasn't warned you about what's coming, this should help clarify it.

In 1977, Holdren co-authored a book titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In the book, Holdren sets forth his plans to help save the environment, and humanity in general. Here are some of his proposals, complete with page references and translations, just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up, and that you understand exactly what he's saying.

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. [p. 837]

TRANSLATION: I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. [p. 786]

TRANSLATION: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government, or they could be forced to have abortions.

Are we having fun yet? Well, the ride's just starting, kids.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. [p. 787-8]

TRANSLATION: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is ok as long as it doesn't harm pets or livestock.

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. [p. 786-7]

TRANSLATION: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control. (NOTE: This is under the section titled, "Involuntary Fertility Control").

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. [p. 838]

TRANSLATION: Anyone whom we deem causes "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children. (I'll admit, this one's tempting).

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? [p. 838]

TRANSLATION: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. [p. 942-3]

TRANSLATION: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born. (NOTE: This is found under the section titled, "Toward a Planetary Regime").

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. [p. 917]

TRANSLATION: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.

Well, that all sounds lovely, doesn't it? Oh, and by the way, we need to do all of this by 2000, or we will face a global population "catastrophe." Nice foresight, John. And this is the man who will help the determine the direction of technology and science research. I know I'll sleep better at night knowing he's on the job. Trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does someone this radical even get a legitimate job, let alone a powerful government position (and no, I'm not claiming that the czars are legitimate jobs...they don't even have to be approved by Congress!). If the above snippets aren't enough for you, check out the in-depth analysis of Ecoscience performed by Zombie.

Big Brother is Looming

I've spent most of my waking moments since 26 June thinking about that monstrosity of a bill known fondly as Cap-&-Tax that recently passed the House. What is especially frustrating about the passage of the bill (we'll get to the atrocities that are actually in the bill in a moment) is that not a single representative read the entire, completed bill. How could they, with the final 300 page amendment not being submitted until around 3a the morning it was voted on? Apparently those of us that think our representatives and senators should be held 100% accountable for what they vote on (meaning they should actually, oh I don't know, read the bill) are insane. Just ask House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

Anyone with any shred of self-respect should be fuming right now. Our "representatives" mock us "common folk" at every turn. If it's not getting a speed-reader to read part of the porkulus bill, that it's claiming that Americans don't care about pork. There aren't words to explain how incensed I am.

Then there's the whole premise of the bill being based on "scientific" data that is still very questionable. The Obamanation would have you belief that the science is settled, but that is far from true. This bill attempts to regulate every aspect of our private lives (we'll cover that in a moment, too, just in case you think I'm blowing this out of proportion) based on the assumption that global warming and climate change are real and man-made. It strips us of our individual liberties, and the fact that the EPA suppressed a 98 page report by EPA senior research analyst Alan Carlin draws serious questions about climate change.

Carlin's report found "that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s 'little evidence' that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature." These findings are not what the administration wanted to get out right before the vote on climate change legislation.

The EPA justified suppressing this report by saying that Carlin is not a scientist. In her weekly column Michelle Malkin points out that "neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi." Carlin does, however, hold a B.S. in physics and has been with the EPA for 35 years.

So with regards to the bill itself, I've read bits and pieces of it (probably more than any single representative has). AIP has a great article on one particular section (304) that should make you tremble with rage. Let me just highlight a couple of other mildly interesting sections of the bill.

- This bill will creates a new energy tax (remember, Obama himself claimed that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under Cap-&-Tax) at a time when America is facing one of the worst recessions (bordering on depressions) in history.

- This bill will force jobs overseas. The Obamanation claims it create all these wonderful "green jobs," windmill farms, solar panels and so on (ask Spain how that's working out for them). Meanwhile, coal plants will be pushed out of business as will refineries and many small businesses. We will lose many jobs overseas, and if we try to impose some kind of import tariff to prevent that from happening, we will successfully start a trade war at a time when we manufacture absolutely nothing, and consume everything. The Heritage Foundation predicts that this bill will "destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs."

- There are light bulb restrictions (no more than 60 watts in your candelabra); in fact there's a whole section that deals with lamps.

- If you decide to build a new home, it must meet new and specific energy requirements. If you decide to sell your existing home, a federal inspector must inspect your home, determine it's energy rating, and if your home is found to be unacceptable then you must retrofit and make changes before you will be able to sell, or have your home official labeled and registered as non-compliant and non-energy efficient (this is the infamous section 304 that you absolutely must read).

- There are "scientific based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted...in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and building foundations, air conditioning units, driveways and walkways...". Yes, you read that right. The government is going to tell you what kind of trees you can plant, and where you are going to plant them.

- There's a section dealing with outdoor lighting that determines the kind of landscape lights, lights in your swimming pool, lights on artwork and other architectural lighting that you are allowed to install. The federal government is going to tell you what wattage that light can be and how many you can have.

- The government will regulate water dispensers, hot tubs and other appliances. They'll regulate water usage and wood stoves (in fact, any wood stove that does not meet regulation must be "destroyed and recycled").

- The bill dictates where plugs for your hybrid cars must be, and deals extensively with transportation.

There is precious little time to stop this. The democrats already possess that crucial 60th vote in the senate, are now filibuster-proof. That means that we must get democratic senators to defect to prevent this egregious trampling of our individual liberties to pass. Contact your senators, and make sure they know you strongly and vehemently oppose this bill. Unless you like paying higher taxes and doing exactly what you're told. Then you don't have to do anything.

Energy Czar Hasn't Read Cap-&-Tax? Shocking!

Apparently I've read about as much of the Cap-&-Tax bill that just passed on the House on Friday as Obama's energy Czar.

Here's a transcript, just in case you couldn't hear (emphasis mine).

STEVE DOOCY: “[I] know the bill is over 1,000 pages long. Have you have read it?”
CAROL BROWNER: “Oh, I’m very familiar with this bill.”
DOOCY: “Have you have read it?”
BROWNER: “We have obviously been watching this for a very long time. I am very…”
DOOCY: “I’m sure you’ve got an idea of it, but you have read it?”
BROWNER: “I’ve read major portions of it, absolutely.”
DOOCY: “So the answer no you haven’t read it. But you’ve read a big chunk of it.”
BROWNER: “No, no, no that’s not fair. That’s absolutely not fair.”
DOOCY: “No, I’m just asking you if you read the thousand pages.”
BROWNER: “I’ve read vast portions of it.”
DOOCY: “Ok.”

Not fair? Not fair? You don't think it's fair to be held wholly accountable for everything in that sham of an energy bill? You're the freaking Energy Czar, whatever the hell that means! Of course you're accountable to know what goes into the bill! If 1200+ pages is too much to read, then submit a smaller bill! Or give yourself (and everyone else) more than a couple of hours to read the damn thing!

And for any nerds out there (like me) who actually watched the debate, there was this maddening exchange:

And that debate over whether there was even a physical copy of the bill present, or whether it needed to be, continued for several minutes. It was later revealed that it had just been brought in, and the 300+ page amendment was being added at that very moment, but that it wasn't available for anyone to view yet. Rep. Waxman (D-CA) brought up that a copy was available online, which Rep. Barton (R-TX) astutely pointed out was useless for those on the freaking floor debating the bill!

Even John Boehner (R-OH) took advantage of his position as minority leader to spend over an hour reading from the 300+ page amendment and tearing it apart. When asked why, he said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t." Holy crap, I need some duct tape. Please allow me to repost a video that succinctly sums up my feelings (I will probably be coming back to this video many, many times over the next 3 1/2 years. Just a reminder: you may want to cover your children's ears).

Oh, and here are the 8 republican turncoats. There were reportedly others who promised Pelosi that they would support the bill if their votes were needed, but these were the ones that actually sold their souls. Make sure you contact their offices and voice your frustration at their lack of "representation."

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Sensible Global Warming Expert?

No, dear reader, you did not misread that headline. And no, I did not mistype. I believe I've stumbled across the first and only sensible global warming "expert" on earth.

Most of you should know my stance on the myth of "global warming" by now. Let me be clear. I fully support maintaining a clean environment, reducing pollutants, increasing energy efficiency, etc. But I wholeheartedly denounce the concept that humans possess the ability to significantly alter the climate of the earth through things like CO2 emissions, and that we should destroy our economies in pursuit of the ethereal and vague definition of "earth-friendly." Just for fun, let's review one of my favorite climate-related graphs, reflecting actual scientific research, not just speculation.

This graph shows virtually no correlation between temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but a very good correlation between earth temperatures and a little something I like to call THE SUN!!!!! Sorry for shouting. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page.

So I stumbled across this article in Barron's today. It's an interview with Bjorn Lomborg (don't feel bad, I had no idea who he was either), who is apparently a global warming "expert." In fact, the UK's The Guardian has called him one of the "50 people who could save the planet." I guess he's like Superman, only instead of synthetic spandex he wears a bamboo jumpsuit. Surprisingly, though, Lomborg feels the same way I do about the upcoming climate change summit to be held in Copenhagen in December.

The participating nations will again agree to spend quite a bit of money to cut carbon emissions and again achieve virtually nothing. We already tried that twice -- in Rio in 1992, and in Kyoto in 1997. Both of these treaties failed. We will see a lot of posturing, but presumably this isn't about having a lot of environmental ministries or even presidents and prime ministers come out and claim credit for making costly commitments that we won't be able to live up to, and which would barely make a dent in the problem anyway. When I first started in the global-warming debate, I was struck by the fact that the world was going to pay $180 billion a year for a protocol that could at best reduce the temperature by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century. The U.N. estimates that for less than half that amount, we could provide clean drinking water, sanitation, and basic health care and education to every single human being on the planet. The same warped sense of priorities will continue to bedevil us this December in Copenhagen.

He also had this to say about taxing carbon emissions, cap-and-trade, and the like.

The main difficulty with global warming is that fossil fuels are not only fairly cheap, they also make this world so rich and so good to live in by providing us with all the amenities that we see around us: light, heat, the ability to propel ourselves to many different places. So we aren't going to give up fossil fuels without having a great alternative. Right now there is no good alternative to fossil fuels...Everybody seems to be saying, let's make carbon-emitting fossil fuels so expensive, nobody will want to use them. But that is bound to fail.

Cap-and-trade is essentially a system for trading permits to emit gases, like carbon dioxide, that are blamed for global warming. The problem is that it makes possible immense amounts of gaming the system through political lobbying. Because typically, most of these permits are given away, which is one of the big things the Obama Administration is talking about right now. The companies that had the most benefit from Kyoto in Europe were the energy companies. That is because, at least for the first three or four years, these companies got all the permits to pollute, but the companies still charged their customers -- me and everybody else. So they made tens of billions of euros each year from climate-change policies. Not surprisingly, they are very much in favor of these policies, but it doesn't mean that they are smart policies.

That sums up the carbon tax/cap-and-trade issue as succintly as I've heard any progressive or conservative do yet. Then Lomborg gets asked this idiotic question: "But isn't it smart to prevent global warming as soon as possible -- to avoid seeing Manhattan under 20 feet of water in ten years?" Seriously? I would love to see the scientific data that supports that. Here is his response.

That makes for vivid imagery, but it isn't what the science is telling us. According to the thousands of scientists the U.N. asked to evaluate the data, the sea-level rise between now and 2100 will be somewhere between six inches and two feet -- not 20 feet -- with most estimates around one foot. Now, we have already seen a foot of sea-level rise over the last 150 years, so it will be a bit faster by 2100. But it certainly gives you perspective. Was the 20th century marked particularly by the fact that the sea level rose? Well, there were two world wars, the suffrage of women, the internal-combustion engine, the IT revolution -- and the sea level rose. Let's hope the 21st century sees no world wars, but do you think the sea-level rise will be any more important? That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but it's a problem we can deal with...And if it really were true that Manhattan will be 20 feet underwater in 10 years, there would be no time to reverse global warming anyway.

The fact that he sites UN scientists and estimates as grounds for refuting that claim is great, considering that most UN climate change estimates are politically charged fodder for the liberal/progressive movement. So if the UN estimates debunk that assumptions, you can rest assured that actual scientific data will be even more convincing. Lomborg goes on to trash anti-capitalist/free market concepts of environmental protections.

The United Nations science consensus expects temperature increases of three to seven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, which the world can deal with, especially if the world is allowed to grow richer between now and then...We do know that rich, well-structured, robust societies deal much better with catastrophe than weak, poorly structured societies. We also know the way to build those societies isn't to cripple the global economy by forcing it off fossil fuels before viable alternatives are available. Meanwhile, three-fourths of the world's people live in abject poverty, while some sit and fret about the possible end of the world in 100 years. For too many of those others, the world ends tomorrow.

Once again, he does a nice job of putting the "climate crisis" in perspective. He also addresses the issues of increased climate-related deaths by saying, "While warming will mean about 400,000 more heat-related deaths globally, it will mean 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths." But he also states that those numbers are based off of the only study that has been done on that particular issue. He advocates more sensible measures to control temperature-related deaths, like planting trees and increasing access to water supplies, instead of reducing CO2 emissions, which would have virtually no effect. Lomborg then addresses the concern that many environmentalists have about the effects of global warming on our oceans' marine life.

There is some validity to that concern. But the claim that this could be catastrophic for marine life seems greatly exaggerated, since we know there have been vastly higher carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere some 50 to 500 million years ago, at a time when the ocean was very rich in marine life. And even if we imagine such a catastrophe could happen, let's get a grip on its human impact. We get about 1% of our calories from the seas and about 5% of our protein.

He also explains why what he is saying is so contradictory to everything you see and read in the media.

Well, there are several reasons. It is partly because they don't read the U.N. reports, which on many of these issues confirm what I am saying very clearly. And since the sensational always goes over better than the merely sensible, stories in the media play into the stereotype of global warming.

And last of all, he takes a quick jab at Al Gore.

Al Gore talks about global warming as our generational mission. He asks how we want to be remembered by our kids and grandkids. Well, why would anyone want to be remembered for having spent $180 billion to do virtually no good a hundred years from now, when less than half that sum could fix virtually all major problems today? With better information, most of us would have no difficulty choosing how we want to be remembered.

Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of issues on which I disagree with Lomborg (principally, the fact that global warming is a significant problem), but I fully respect his right to his own opinion. What is admirable about his view is that it is based in reality and hard facts, unlike that of most eco-nuts.

And maybe that's why I'm so drawn to this article. I think that we, in general, and Americans in particular, have lost the ability to come to rational, reasonable conclusions that are not emotionally charged (i.e. tree sitters). We have forgotten what it is like to work toward a common goal, even if we have different paths to get there. This is true now, more than ever, in the political realm, as well. Republicans and Democrats are in a power tug-of-war, each pulling in the opposite direction of the other. And those few politicians who are working toward a common goal are striving for something completely undesirable, and wholly independent of the needs and wishes of their constituency. Like SOCIALISM.

As Americans, we need to get back to the basics of cooperation. What are the things we have in common? We all want what's best for our family, financial security, high quality of life, to help those less fortunate, etc. We just may have different ideas on how to get there. And that's ok. In fact, that's healthy. The achievement of each of these goals is not a zero-sum game. It is possible to help the needy without bankrupting our country. We can obtain individual financial security while still helping our neighbors. We can preserve our natural resources without committing economic suicide through unsustainable eco-initiatives. What the world needs is more people like Bjorn Lomborg. People who hold firm to their beliefs, regardless of their popularity, but understand the importance of cooperation and seeing the whole picture. No, I don't agree with everything that Mr. Lomborg believes. But I firmly believe we need people like Lomborg to balance the scale of opinions and policies. We can all benefit from a little constructive dissent.

Fat People Cause Global Warming

The Sun is reporting that fat people contribute more to global warming than those of us who have chiseled bodies, rock-hard abs, and extraordinary physiques. The report says that fat people may eat more than non-fatties. The increased food production required to feed these overweight monstrosities is literally destroying the planet, since food production accounts for about 1/5 of all greenhouse gases. And since fat people obviously loathe exercise the way that vampires loathe the sun, they drive more than the rest of us more athletic types. Not to mention all that extra methane gas they must be omitting. So you see? Al Gore is right! Humans are destroying the planet! And not just any humans, but fat humans! I think the solution is obvious. Government-sponsored food rationing for fat people. Or maybe we should implement our own "fat tax."

Happy Earth Day!

In honor of Earth Day, I wanted to share with you the following thought, courtesy of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. It is read by the one and only Charlton Heston.

GASP! Green Jobs Bad for the Economy?!

The word is starting to leak out that Obama's drive to create more green jobs might just actually end up costing the economy more than it helps it. I know, I know. That's crazy. I mean, the Messiah himself said it would help the country, so it has to be true, right?

The Big O has often used Spain as an example of how a nation can use federal funds to stimulate the economy through green initiatives.

Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.

Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America...In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.

Don't see anything wrong with that plan? Maybe the Great One should have actually looked at the result of these projects before committing to them. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, PhD, a researcher from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has issued a report entitled, "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy sources," that identifies the green projects that Spain has undertaken, and their economic consequences. Even if you only read the table of contents, you get a great idea of how successful their green initiatives have been. My favorite quote? Here you go (emphasis mine).

Thus, on average, the subsidized green job destroys the resources required to have created 2.2 jobs in the economy.

Consequently, through the use of both methods [two different calculations] we have reached a similar conclusion: for every green job, we can be highly confident that 2.2 jobs are destroyed elsewhere in the economy [or about 9 jobs destroyed for every 4 created], to which we have to add those jobs that the non-subsidized investment would have created.

Yup. Sounds like a great model. I'll bet the Obamanation was as thorough in researching this hair-brained ideas as they were in vetting so many cabinet-level candidates. Calzada goes on to say,

The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.

But what does a Spaniard know about the environment and economic progress? We should ask American who specializes in these things, like Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute. What's that? We already did? He said that he was not surprised with the findings, and that we should expect similar results here.

But for the Obamanation, it has never actually been about benefiting Americans. Instead, it has always been about ramming the progressive, liberal, left-wing agenda down our throats while assuring us that this is really what we want (remember, you should never waste a good crisis!). Besides, those kooks over at the CATO Institute are just a bunch of Right-Wing Extremists, anyway. Off with their heads!