Randy Francisco – 7/7/13

This page was last updated on July 8, 2013.

Fight for climate solutions; Randy Francisco; Beaver County Times; July 7, 2013.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“President Barack Obama recently gave the speech I have been waiting to hear. In an inspirational address, he laid out a plan that follows through on his commitment to help the U.S. lead the fight against climate disruption.”

[RWC] We’ve gone from “manmade global cooling” to “manmade global warming,” “climate change,” and now “climate disruption.” What’s next?

Here is President Obama’s “inspirational address.”

Here are some previous “inspirational” comments on this topic by Messrs. Obama and Joe Biden. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle (January 2008), Mr. Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers … What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there … So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Biden said, “No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there [Red China]. Make them clean because they’re killing you.”

Please read “Manmade global warming.”

“As a representative of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, I was thrilled to finally hear the president announce a robust climate action plan that strengthens new energy-efficiency standards, ramps up responsible clean energy production and uses the full authority of the Clean Air Act to cut dangerous carbon pollution from power plants.”

[RWC] At least Mr. Francisco told us who he is. A lot of these activists hide their affiliations and claim to be “Joe Sixpack.”

You’ll note Mr. Francisco didn’t define “responsible clean energy.” You can identify leftist-approved energy sources because they are not currently technically and/or economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy. By “economically viable” I mean the ability to compete in the marketplace without subsidies, tax credits, et cetera. As soon as “responsible clean energies” get close to commercial viability, they are no longer deemed “responsible clean energy.” We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.

“In Pennsylvania, we have fought hard for these climate solutions. Grassroots leaders across the state have been engaged for many years in an efforts [sic] to strengthen energy-efficiency standards and double down on clean energy production in the state. Across the nation, we’ve already doubled clean energy over the past four years and supported the administration in passing landmark clean air standards.”

[RWC] “We’ve [meaning ‘Grassroots leaders’] already doubled clean energy over the past four years?” Perhaps Mr. Francisco can tell us which power generation facilities he and his fellow “Grassroots leaders” own and operate. By the way, it’s not “grassroots” when activism is run by a national or state group like the Sierra Club.

“Every local fight has been instrumental in leading up to this landmark announcement. We’ve seen that pressure pays off. The president’s plan is a strong step forward in our fight to protect our planet and our families from a climate crisis.”

[RWC] Sure.

Mr. Francisco didn’t mention Solyndra, A123 Systems, Ener1, Abound Solar, et cetera. As a reminder, these four companies eventually filed for bankruptcy after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in grants/subsidies/loan guarantees paid for by local, state, and federal taxpayers. It appears Solyndra alone will cost federal taxpayers about $528 million and tax-credit sweeteners throw in to attract private investors could cost us a few hundred million dollars more. Adding insult to injury, A123 Systems (Red Chinese) and Ener1 (Russian) went under foreign ownership as part of their bankruptcy proceedings.