While I do believe all human beings should act responsibly when it comes to the environment, I have a hard time taking the current climate change paranoia seriously. Secondly, aside from my general skepticism of the "science" itself, I have deeper concerns with the political implications of the climate change movement.
Too often the public has a difficult time discerning hype from fact thanks to the incompetence of politicians, pundits, and the media in general. Many people, on both sides of the issue, are incredibly polarized and seem to zealously hold onto their opinion over climate change, as if it were a dogma instead of a scientific concept. And isn't it telling that something as broad and potentially complicated as "climate change," has quickly become a single issue, limited to either the "yes" or "no" crowd. My father was a chemist, and from my perspective, science is one of those fields where skepticism and critical thinking is continually encouraged, not rejected in favor of some hard-line ideology. Yet today, this is where we find ourselves when it comes to the climate change debate.
Therefore, as I don't consider myself to be one of the "true believers," I can't help but roll my eyes when I see politicians and bureaucrats attempt to implement an already misguided environmental agenda. And as it usually turns out, most of these attempts are nothing more than publicity stunts which end up costing tax-payers billions of dollars.
Like many other projects designated by the President's stimulus bill, many of his green energy initiatives are guilty of waste and mismanagement.
From WaPo:
The four drafty buildings had been fixtures of the Energy Department complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., for more than half a century. They burned energy like 1950s sedans.
The buildings seemed like perfect candidates for a federal conservation retrofit program that relies on private contractors that receive a percentage of the money they save. A deal was struck in 2001. The contractors reworked lighting and heating systems, among other things, and began collecting payments.
The project was counted among the department's "green" successes -- until auditors discovered that the buildings had been torn down several years ago, and the government had paid $850,000 for energy savings at facilities that no longer existed.
The audit findings show the potential for waste and abuse at a time when the department is poised to launch billions of dollars more in stimulus spending on an unprecedented welter of green projects across the country.
The initiatives are hallmarks of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act approved by Congress in February. The stimulus law directed almost $17 billion to the department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, including $3.2 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants and $3.1 billion for state energy programs.
The outsourcing arrangements such as those at Oak Ridge, known as "energy savings performance contracts," or ESPCs, will probably be an integral part of those efforts, according to government and industry officials.
In December, the department issued 16 deals called Super ESPCs that may be worth as much as $80 billion over the next quarter-century.
The explosion in green spending is occurring despite well-documented weaknesses at the core of the strategy: A chronic lack of government officials assigned and properly trained to oversee the financially and technically complex projects.
The problems are not exclusive to Oak Ridge. The auditors, from the department's inspector general's office, also determined that $565,000 had been paid over six years under the same arrangement to a contractor in Texas for a high-efficiency laundry that was no longer in use. The department also paid out $3.4 million on another project without checking whether the conservation measures worked -- and $160,000 for measurements that were never taken.
At the same time, the auditors found, some contractors appeared to use inflated energy cost estimates in their savings calculations, increasing their fees.
I'll tell you what this shows me. This President and his administration should NOT be driving billions of dollars towards programs such as these, which obviously lack proper oversight. Billions of dollars are being recklessly spent and in many cases, such funds are being lost on account of dishonest companies and the irresponsibility of bureaucrats. How is this mess supposed to "stimulate" our economy? And furthermore, how will wasted billions save our planet?
Indeed, the climate change agenda seems more like a religion than a legitimate movement. If the agenda had any substance at one time, it has been compromised by our ridiculous politicians and bureaucrats, who would rather appear to be saving the planet, opposed to actually accomplishing anything. Much like a "pure religion" which has been corrupted by evil men and institutions, this environmental phenomenon is losing credibility as the public sees what it has become under the management of incompetent elected officials.
- FedFarmer
0 comments:
Post a Comment