How Many Jobs Did Al Gore’s ‘Mistake’ Cost Us?

by lewwaters

Most of us were astonished to hear former vice president and failed presidential candidate, and long time ‘green energy’ advocate Al Gore Jr. come out and admit that his early support of ethanol based fuels, made from a major food source, corn, was largely based on an effort to gain votes for his run for the presidency.

Gore, labeling his early support a “mistake” indicated he was

“more concerned with garnering votes from farmers in Tennessee and Iowa than with what was best for the environment.”

Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol

Gore went on to say,

“Corn ethanol is not a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The process of converting corn into ethanol is highly energy intensive and also requires using a food crop for fuel.”

While we cannot forget the record food prices we saw in 2008 or the protests around the world over shrinking food supplies, I am particularly struck by the comment, “ethanol is not a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.”


Fossil fuel is defined as, “any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life,” the very fuels we have been barred from drilling, refining and using in our every day energy needs, increasing our dependence upon foreign sources that all too often hostile to us.

It has been shown that we have billions of barrels of petroleum sitting in the ground that the government continues to deny us access to as they promoted these “green energy” sources like ethanol as superior, more environmentally ‘friendly’ and at a cost of Billions of dollars each year in subsidies to corn growers.

Not being said in all of this, as we continue facing record unemployment in the country and a deeply struggling economy, is the hundreds of thousands of jobs not being filled that are also just languishing there and waiting to be filled in the Petroleum Industry.

What About Jobs Obama? Unblock The Jobs!

Missing The Boat On Job Creation

Of particular note too is Gore’s financial stake in the ethanol industry. He padded his own wealth while promoting higher unemployment amongst the American people!

And now, he simply says it was a “mistake?”

We now stand poised to have an even higher ethanol base forced upon us even before adequate studies on E-15 are completed, thanks in part to years of Al Gore’s “mistake.”

Many of our energy policies have been based upon Al Gore’s “mistake” and have cost us dearly over the years, while Gore lived a life of luxury, flying across the globe in a private jet promoting his “mistake.”

In 2007 he shared the Nobel Peace Prize for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change” on the back of that “mistake,” while our unemployment numbers began rising.

Using petroleum and natural gas to fuel our economy and energy needs while viable alternative fuels are sought and being perfected is not a mistake, it is the responsible thing to do to continue our lifestyle and meet our responsibilities in the world community.

Al Gore might now come out and admit he made a “mistake,” but it is my opinion the real mistake was in anyone listening to a pampered charlatan who grew his wealth on our backs by the very energy needs he denies us.

One is left to ponder too, if this was a “mistake,” just what else is there he promotes that is based in large part on a similar “mistake?”

We need energy and we need jobs to recover from this economic nightmare we are mired in. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry are prepared to help with massive numbers of jobs in drilling and refining sources that will meet our energy needs and that will result in their payment of more taxes into our treasury to help close the deficit.

What we don’t need is any more “mistakes” by Al Gore or his devotees who think “green” is a cure all.

13 Responses to “How Many Jobs Did Al Gore’s ‘Mistake’ Cost Us?”

  1. There are a number of potential “mistakes” out there. Ethanol was a big one as well as the the energy deregulation scandal (Enron) that still impacts our local electricity costs and those expenses to our manufacturers.

    How about biomass genertion in our downtown area? That is a real winner. (See Ron Rasmussen Sr.’s letter in today’s Columbian.)

    The best bets seem to be technologies and community planning that conserve rather than generate power. Insulation, ductless heat pumps, geothermal, separating toilets, water restrictors, housing density rather than continued sprawl, etc..

    Like

  2. Actually Pat, Gore’s admission that he got on the early ethanol bandwagon to solicit votes goes well beyond a mere “mistake.”

    I haven’t read Ron’s letter as of yet, but I agree that we could do more and since so many are up in arms over burning wood in homes and even barbecue grills, the downtown bio-mass will most assuredly come under fire. (no pun intended)

    While many of us do conserve, we still have energy needs that must be met. We don’t ferry equipment and goods into disaster stricken regions on mules or fly airplanes with windmills on them.

    What I find so comical is after all of the efforts on conserving and lowering utility bills, and even our gas consumption, PUD and gov’t entities now cry their taxes and revenues are down, so they must raise our costs back up. Too much like a dog chasing their tail.

    You can’t toll everything, Pat.

    Like

  3. Pat Campbell Says: The best bets seem to be technologies and community planning
    JK: The problem here is that most things that the planners promise, are false.

    Planners say high density costs less – they are wrong
    Planners say high density reduces congestion – they are wrong.
    Planners say high density reduces commute times – they are wrong.
    Planners say transit saves money – they are wrong.
    Planners say transit saves energy – they are wrong.
    Planners say Europeans hardly drive at all – they are wrong.
    Planners say land use controls don’t increase housing costs – they are wrong.
    Portland planners point to high housing costs in California and claim there is no UGB – they forget to tell you that there is something just as restrictive.
    Planners say light rail is safe – they are wrong.
    Planners say light rail costs less than bus – they are wrong.
    Planners say rail causes development – they are wrong (the tax incentives do)
    see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/smartgrowthlies.html

    Pat Campbell Says: that conserve rather than generate power.
    JK: I didn’t hear you mention cost-effective. Are you suggesting that we spend a dollar to save ten cents worth of electricity? I only ask because many of the greenie’s proposals do just that.

    Pat Campbell Says: housing density rather than continued sprawl, etc..
    JK: Perfect example of a greenie suggestion that costs billions and has not been shown to save significant amounts of energy (remember you have to account of construction and materials energy too.) For instance Portland’s density policies have placed the cost of housing out of reach of many people by doubling the cost of a house. (see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/housing.html)

    Some credible people even claim that land use restrictions (like Oregon’s urban growth boundaries and Washington’s growth management act) are responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent our current world wide recession. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/krugmanbubble.html

    One study concluded that land restrictions have added $200,000 to the cost of a home in Seattle. (see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004181704_eicher14.html)

    As a representative of the people, you were elected to LEARN the facts then to make decisions on behalf of those that you represent. You apparently missed this one (unless you think the people you represent want housing to become unaffordable for them!)

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  4. Almost everything mentioned is “according to Jim Karlock” after he neglects to pencil the total costs out. I was hired to inform myself and assess alternatives as one of 7 who make policy decisions for Vancouver.

    Experts do not agree on every detail. I try to look at what they generally agree on.

    Power production and distribution is expensive be it hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, coal, nuclear, or natural gas. It is far cheaper to conserve than to deal with these direct costs … not to mention the indirect costs. This is not what the Karlocks or Gores like to hear.

    No, I do not believe it is wise to spend $1 to produce 10 cents of total value. Nor to I believe Karlock’s public claim that he can drive his car for 25 cents/mile. Maybe he drove his white “boat” from Government Camp to Welches to get his figures?

    Like

  5. Pat Campbell Says: Almost everything mentioned is “according to Jim Karlock” after he neglects to pencil the total costs out.
    JK: Is that your way of saying that almost everything I just said is wrong?
    OK, lets look at what I said:
    Planners say high density costs less – they are wrong
    Here is a Portland study looking at costs for some of their projects: http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycost.htm
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say high density reduces congestion – they are wrong.
    For proof of this claim see http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycongestion.htm
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say high density reduces commute times – they are wrong.
    BTW, the proof of this comes from Tom Rubin CPA, CFP, former CFO of the LA transit system: http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutechart.html Notice that average commute times are about the same the “principal city” and the surrounding cities (ie:suburbs). But transit is generally much slower than autos.
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say transit saves money – they are wrong.
    You’ve seen the numbers from credible sources: transit is around $1/passenger-mile while a car is around $0.25 See:
    http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm
    http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say transit saves energy – they are wrong.
    For the federal data on transit energy see http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say Europeans hardly drive at all – they are wrong.
    In the EU15, 78% of motorized travel is by private car! For proof of this claim see http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/eurotranistshareloss.htm
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say land use controls don’t increase housing costs – they are wrong.
    Take a look at the data from the Federal Reserve, Harvard, HUD and others http://www.portlandfacts.com/housing/housingcost.htm
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Portland planners point to high housing costs in California and claim there is no UGB – they forget to tell you that there is something just as restrictive.
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say light rail is safe – they are wrong.
    MAX kills at 250% the rate of carts. http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/maxsafetychart.html
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say light rail costs less than bus – they are wrong.
    The actual LOCAL cost of Portland light rail, using Trimet data is $0.747 per passenger-mile. Compare that to car costs above, or the bus cost of low cost, not average cost, bus lines. http://www.portlandfacts.com/lrt_cost_w_localmatch.html
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    Planners say rail causes development – they are wrong (the tax incentives do)
    Portland’s LRT DID NOT cause development before the tax money giveways: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/lightraildevelopment.htm
    http://www.portlandfacts.com/developersubsidies.htm
    Where did I get it wrong or “neglect to pencil out the total cost?

    JK: OK. Pat, where did I get it wrong? Or don’t you like to see obvious conclusions from, mostly, Government data?

    Pat Campbell Says: I was hired to inform myself and assess alternatives as one of 7 who make policy decisions for Vancouver.
    Experts do not agree on every detail. I try to look at what they generally agree on.
    JK: Then why are you un-informed on transportation and growth issues to the point of implying everything I say is wrong? It appears that you only have read material from the green movement and the developers and nothing else. Please just look at the numbers and apply a little grade school math. (And who said Vancouver motorists wanted to pay $5 per day to get to work?)

    Pat Campbell Says: Power production and distribution is expensive be it hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, coal, nuclear, or natural gas.
    JK: Not really. Coal and hydro are very cheap. It is solar and wind that are very expensive. Further, it is NOT YOU PLACE to tell people to pay for expensive power because of some popular delusion of saving the earth by wasting money on solar and wind. (Which are incapable of supply the power needs of a modern society as even Europe is beginning to discover how these delusions are harming their societies.)

    Pat Campbell Says: It is far cheaper to conserve than to deal with these direct costs … not to mention the indirect costs.
    JK: It is NOT YOUR JOB to dictate conservation. It is your job to get the lowest cost services available and let the people decide their own cost of energy vs conservation balance.

    Pat Campbell Says: This is not what the Karlocks or Gores like to hear.
    JK: I like to hear reality and I don’t hear much of it coming from government these days.

    Pat Campbell Says: No, I do not believe it is wise to spend $1 to produce 10 cents of total value.
    JK: Then why did you bring up solar and wind power? Why do you support transit for the masses instead for just for the needy?

    Pat Campbell Says: Nor to I believe Karlock’s public claim that he can drive his car for 25 cents/mile. Maybe he drove his white “boat” from Government Camp to Welches to get his figures?
    JK: Please pay attention:
    I never said my car costs 25 cents/mile.
    However, I did say various things:
    The average cost of driving a car in the USA is:
    About 33 cents per vehicle-mile
    About 20 cents per passenger-mile
    The average age of a car on the road is about 9 years
    see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm and http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit-details%282005%29.htm

    The average cost of driving for a typical AAA member is:
    About 52 cents per vehicle-mile
    About 32 cents per passenger-mile
    The average age of a AAA member’s car is about 2 1/2 years
    see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm and http://www.portlandfacts.com/aaa_method.htm

    The AAA cost figures are higher than the national average mainly because the cars are newer.
    The IRS cost of driving is based on the AAA data.

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  6. Today’s Wall Street Journal (11/29) has a whole section containing good information about energy and the energy debate. Probably best to buy a copy ($2 newstand price). Here is a link for an online view:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/page/energy-11082010.html

    My problem with folks like Karlock is that they grab one piece of information and beat it to death without keeping their eyes, ears, and minds open. Then feel they have a right to bore thinking citizens week after week, month after month, year after year.

    Like

  7. Thanks Pat. That looks like some decent information that I will be checking out. Not sure where to find a copy of the Journal, but I’ll look.

    I also hope you take the time to check out the links I put in the post. Many go to information from the American Petroleum Institute and shows they are not the bad guys they have been made out to be by some.

    What I would like to see over all, is just a balance of jobs and caring for the environment. I fail to see why we cannot achieve that and must be leaning so far that we would rather see such high unemployment like we do.

    Like

  8. Pat Campbell Says: Almost everything mentioned is “according to Jim Karlock” after he neglects to pencil the total costs out.
    JK: Is that your way of saying that almost everything I just said is wrong?
    Please point out which of my claims about planners is wrong.

    Pat Campbell Says: Power production and distribution is expensive be it hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, coal, nuclear, or natural gas.
    JK: Not really. Coal and hydro are very cheap. It is solar and wind that are very expensive. Further, it is NOT YOU PLACE to tell people to pay for expensive power because of some popular delusion of saving the earth by wasting money on solar and wind. (Which are incapable of supply the power needs of a modern society as even Europe is beginning to discover how these delusions are harming their societies.)

    Pat Campbell Says: It is far cheaper to conserve than to deal with these direct costs … not to mention the indirect costs.
    JK: It is NOT YOUR JOB to dictate conservation. It is your job to get the lowest cost services available and let the people decide their own cost of energy vs conservation balance.

    Pat Campbell Says: No, I do not believe it is wise to spend $1 to produce 10 cents of total value.
    JK: Then why did you bring up solar and wind power? Why do you support transit for the masses instead for just for the needy?

    Pat Campbell Says: Nor to I believe Karlock’s public claim that he can drive his car for 25 cents/mile. Maybe he drove his white “boat” from Government Camp to Welches to get his figures?
    JK: Please pay attention:
    I never said my car costs 25 cents/mile.
    However, I did say various things:
    The average cost of driving a car in the USA is:
    About 33 cents per vehicle-mile
    About 20 cents per passenger-mile
    The average age of a car on the road is about 9 years
    see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm and http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit-details%282005%29.htm

    The average cost of driving for a typical AAA member is:
    About 52 cents per vehicle-mile
    About 32 cents per passenger-mile
    The average age of a AAA member’s car is about 2 1/2 years
    see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm and http://www.portlandfacts.com/aaa_method.htm

    The AAA cost figures are higher than the national average mainly because the cars are newer.
    The IRS cost of driving is based on the AAA data.

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  9. Pat Campbell Says: My problem with folks like Karlock is that they grab one piece of information and beat it to death without keeping their eyes, ears, and minds open.
    JK: Please give an example.

    Pat Campbell Says: Then feel they have a right to bore thinking citizens week after week, month after month, year after year.
    JK: What do you recommend a citizen do when the government:

    1. Is about to waste 4 billion dollars on a transpiration option that is more costly, slower and does not save energy compared to buses?

    2. Is about to impose punitive tolls on people just trying to get to work?

    3. Combines a badly needed project with a very costly and un-necessary pet project of Portland?

    4. Lies to us that light rail is required in order to get federal funding for the bridge?

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  10. Hey, Pat:
    Does you silence indicate that you have finally locked at real data and discovered that most, if not all, of my claims are correct?

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  11. Hey, Pat, another week has passed and you are still silent.

    thanks
    JK

    Like

  12. Hey, Pat, yet another week has passed and you are still silent.

    thanks
    JK

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: