novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Energy

Here is your “history” of the GM bailout.  The government (you, the taxpayer) owns 500 MILLION shares.  The union basically owns the company.  The government gives relief and write offs/write downs to GM.  YOU, the taxpayer and the private investors lose.

Now the news.  Obama Motors is pushing eco-friendly alternative fuel vehicles-spelled VOLT.  It is a commuter car that doesn’t go far. It takes over 24 hours for a full recharge.  The batteries spark and burn but federal officials cleared the VOLT of any safety risk–read NHTSA.  Sales are off so you can now lease one for $350, down from $399.  AND don’t forget that even though this piece of garbage costs $41,000, you still get that $7,500 government rebate when you buy one.  No, that money wasn’t factored into the bailout but is ADDITIONAL.  Then there is this:

“GM said around 1,300 workers (not employees) at the Hamtramck, Mich., factory where the Volt is built will be out of work between March 19 and April 23, a spokesman said.  The plant had just resumed production on Feb. 6 after a prolonged holiday shutdown.”

What does that mean, a prolonged holiday shutdown?  Wait, wait.  I saved the best for last.  If you have no sense, you’ll miss this completely.  If you do have sense, this should bust a ‘roid.

“General Motors Co. plans to extend a $335 million lifeline to struggling French auto maker PSA Peugeot Citroen……..proceeds from..$1.34 billion share sale would shore up (Peugeot,’s) finances and help pay for new projects.  However (the doomsday word) the deal won’t attack the long standing problem of too many European factories and workers at the two companies…”

And the insanity continues…….

Related to yesterday’s post on the matrix of lies: it may be sealed off so tightly in some areas that it is too late for reason to penetrate, and the “green” scam is a prime example. We already shut down the last U.S. factory manufacturing incandescent bulbs, last year.

And today: news that those “green” CFL bulbs are poisonous even before you break them and need a hazmat suit just to clean up the mess. They are, it turns out, carcinogenic from the moment you turn them on:

Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the Berlin’s Alab Laboratory, said: “For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment….”

Andreas Kirchner, of the Federation of German Engineers, said: “Electrical smog develops around these lamps.

This is apart from the fact that CFL bulbs don’t dim well and are extremely annoying to try and read by – prime headache material. My advice is go to the Dollar Store, early and often, and buy normal light bulbs until they are all gone. That’s the short term plan. The long term plan has to do more with overthrowing the government than shopping.

Our friends at have lined up an impressive figure from the conservative blogosphere … even bigger than Joe B.! 

From their most recent email …

Arm yourself and your family (can we still say things like that?) against the onslaught of man-made global warming…er, climate change…propaganda by attending “RIP Man-made Global Warming:  The Climate Con Has Died” this Saturday, April 30th at 10 am. 

MoranoOur speaker, Marc Morano, recognized by media giant Tina Brown’s “Daily Beast” website as one of the Right’s top 25 journalists, broke the John Kerry Swift Boat story during the 2004 election and has since then turned his sights to man-made global warming. 

The Daily Beast described Marc’s website, Climate Depot, as a “bustling one-stop shop for climate skeptics” and noted that Climate Depot is ‘bringing in more visitors than, one of the most popular conservative blogs on the web.’”

Due to his effectiveness, Morano is a hate figure on the Left.  He was named one of only five “criminals against humanity, against planet Earth itself” in 2009 by the eco-magazine Grist. (The other five “criminals” were Bjorn Lomborg, Richard Lindzen, Sen. James Inhofe and former President George Bush.)

Marc demolishes his opponents with facts, wit, and sarcasm.  He will keep you entertained while informing you of the truth behind climate change propaganda.  Join us for an informative seminar by the man who was awarded the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) 2010 award “for courage and achievement in defense of scientific truth and freedom.”  Climate Depot was praised by the DDP for using “mockery and humor” against global warming activists. 

Date/Time: Saturday April 30th, 10am-11:30am

Location: Herndon Fortnightly Library

RSVP required.  Do so here …

And here’s a sampling of Mark’s talent, unleashed upon a U.K. professor.

Don’t miss the chance to meet this guy in person!

This is the penultimate article in our serious examining the issues page of Fred Barnett, the Democrat’s candidate for the Virginia’s 10th Congressional District.  Today’s topic is Energy and the Environment.

Every day, America sends $2 billion overseas to buy foreign oil. We also send 16,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Neither is sustainable. Both sell-out the future for short term profit.

For someone claiming to be taking the long-term view, this is rather myopic.  If from that $2,000,000,000 we get $2,000,000,001 in productivity gains, we are making a profit on the transaction, and it is infinitely sustainable.  The CO2 output is probably not sustainable, but eliminating that is not so easy.  That would require getting us off of carbon-based fuels.

Renewable energy is the future. Whoever leads in green energy will get massive economic returns, fantastic job growth, and a healthier environment. Virginians have the talent, schools and bandwidth to lead the world – so long as we invest in education and incentivize business.

If there are “massive economic returns” just waiting out there, why aren’t more companies doing it?  If the government has to prop up the industry, it is because the people that know what their doing do not see a profit in it.

Because corporate executives respond to incentives, I support a “carrot and stick” approach to energy use: Cap-and-Trade (“carrot”); and carbon tax (“stick”). Cap-and-Trade is a positive incentive that rewards corporations for doing the right thing. Cap-and-Trade worked to reduce acid rain emissions; it deserves an opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions. A carbon tax, while not the only answer, is part of every solution. Polluters will change behavior when the status quo is more costly than embracing energy efficiency and renewable energy.

That last sentence is key.  Companies already invest in energy efficiency.  A high-school friend of mine has a company that does such work for hospitals, clinics, and medical centers.  If renewable energy is cost-effective, companies use it.  Solar power may be cost effective in Phoenix, but not Seattle.  Government “incentives” are nothing but forcing taxpayers to lose money.

The same “carrot and stick” approach can bust logjams in other area [sic]. We know we need low impact development, green buildings, renewable energy standards, vehicle energy efficiency standards. Let’s get to work. Combine positive and negative incentives to get people off the dime.

All of this boils down to spending more money for less energy, and hobbling our economy.  Except for the “vehicle energy efficiency” part — that will cause more traffic deaths, too.

Loudoun County Democratic Committee Chair Tim Buchholz has been employed since March 2009 with a contractor

Providing consulting services for the Office of Risk Management, Office of the CFO, Department of Energy. Supporting the 2009 Recovery Program.

Good for Tim, being employed that is. With Obama at the helm, any job should be considered a good job.

However, in light of the effort by Supervisor McGimsey to put Loudoun taxpayers on the hook for a new “energy plan” justified in part by the promise of federal dollars from the 2009 Recovery Act, it is worth asking whether Democrat Party Chair Buchholz has played any role as cheerleader for the Loudoun energy plan or as liaison between this county and the federal government.

Since he works for a contractor his role as LCDC chair likely does not rise to the level of a Hatch Act question, but because he is being paid to “support” the 2009 Recovery Act under the Department of Energy aegis it seems fair to say Loudoun taxpayers have a right to know what role, if any, he has played in supporting our “energy strategy.” It’s not necessarily a matter of conflict of interest, but simply the public’s right to know who all is in the pipeline to make this energy plan happen.


Over the past three weeks the “science” of “global warming” received a mortal blow – the coup de grace stunningly symbolized by Al Gore’s abrupt decision to cancel his scheduled Dec. 16 appearance at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We should all have some questions for Al Gore, chiefly “why have you not yet been prosecuted for fraud?” But Loudoun County residents and particularly those in Potomac District should also have some questions for Supervisor Andrea McGimsey.

Man-made global warming has now been revealed as a massive fraud, which

never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.

[For a complete understanding of exactly what happened during the past three weeks, first read this excellent overview of the "ClimateGate" e-mail scandal, and then read this more detailed analysis.]

[To browse the smoking gun e-mail messages from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, click here.]

[For objective reporting and actual scientific analysis of the global warming scam, visit Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit, Canada Free Press, and]

The fraud attempted on American taxpayers is a series of stupendous tax increases – both direct and indirect – penalizing use of our major energy sources, all in the name of saving our planet from the effects of supposed man-made global warming. Energy conservation is a valid and worthwhile goal, but the climate alarmists are attempting to ram through unprecedented new “cap and trade” fees for using the only sources of energy that American consumers and businesses currently have access to. This household-budget-crippling and job-killing agenda is being justified via a ginned-up emergency to reduce carbon emissions.

Potomac District Supervisor Andrea McGimsey has been a foremost proponent of the effort to move Loudoun County in a “greener” direction during the past year. As chair of the Board of Supervisors’ energy and environment committee, she has led the effort to develop the County Energy Strategy (CES) which includes a cap and trade provision at the local level. (Click here to review proposed draft energy strategy document.) The Loudoun Independent reported “Despite objections from others, she said, cap and trade will remain in the plan until it is fully vetted.”

Ms. McGimsey is a participant in a Loudoun County “Green Enterprise” discussion group. At the January 2, 2009 meeting, she addressed the group on the topic of “A Climate Prosperity Strategy for Loudoun.”

A source for background information on her talk is listed as Climate Prosperity Alliance, which describes itself as follows:

The Climate Prosperity Alliance, a volunteer, global network of financiers, businesses, economic development authorities, scientists and NGOs is based on earth systems science, showing the widespread evidence of destruction caused by the now-obsolete technologies of the combustion-based Industrial Revolution and its extraction and exploitation of the Earth’s capital: oil, coal, gas, minerals, forests, water, land and biodiversity.  Human societies are now gradually re-industrializing our economies using the Earth’s income – the renewable energies of sun, wind, ocean/hydro, geothermal and non-agricultural biomass – based on human capital: new knowledge of planetary processes and ecosystems, designing our economies with Nature.

Leaving aside the questions of whether it is economically or rationally defensible to consider the technologies of the Industrial Revolution “obsolete,” or whether “earth systems science” should be a foundation for public policy, it is worth noting that Ms. McGimsey’s reference to “climate prosperity” in January 2009 was fortuitous.

Because in June 2009 this note in a press release appeared on Reuters regarding the St. Louis, Missouri based Climate Prosperity Project, Inc.:

Andrea McGimsey has been named as Climate Prosperity Project’s Executive Director. McGimsey has an extensive background in environmental and regional planning issues, currently serving on the Loudoun County, Virginia Board of Supervisors, chairing their Energy & Environment Committee. She previously held senior management positions with America Online (AOL), and owns a Virginia-based consulting firm. She is based in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Sterling, Va.

Climate Prosperity Project, Inc. is self-described as “successor” to the Climate Prosperity Alliance, having significant personnel overlap with the earlier group’s principals.

Supervisor McGimsey’s new employer states in its mission

The urgency of the climate challenge calls for greenhouse gas reductions across the United States as soon as possible. Localities and regions control or directly influence many of the policies, laws, personnel, and infrastructure needed to move forward on opportunities from renewable energy to building codes to transportation. People at the local level know how to encourage innovation and economic development.

We look forward to working with our many civic partners in fulfilling the potentials of Climate Prosperity, Inc.

We can assume that Climate Prosperity Project, Inc. is not seeking to do business in Loudoun County, and that if it did Ms. McGimsey would recuse herself from any discussion or votes on the matter. Conflict of interest is not the issue.

But it is fair to ask the obvious question of whether running a Missouri-based organization has any effect on Ms. McGimsey’s ability to represent the residents of the Potomac District of Loudoun County. She became a Loudoun supervisor in January and was announced as taking the job with the Missouri-based company in June: How has she performed on our Board of Supervisors? Is she plugged in here, or is she a nominal “resident” whose main livelihood is halfway across the country?

A further and probably more important question to ask is whether the now-discredited climate alarmist ideology regarding “greenhouse gases” that seems to underly the Climate Prosperity Project is part of Supervisor McGimsey’s plan for Loudoun County’s taxpayers. Are we going to see massive new expenses for electricity, services and fuel because our county government is rushing blindly to save the Earth from a man-made warming trend that has no basis in reality?

With the current economic situation in our country we need to be very careful about measures that would make it more difficult for people to get by and for businesses to grow. Government-sponsored financial penalties on our struggles to live day-to-day life should be ruled out of order, immediately and with no further discussion. When we’re all fat and sassy and the revenues are streaming in we can discuss fine tuning.

Anyone who would disagree with the above must be either incredibly wealthy, totally unfeeling and obtuse toward the common citizenry, or living in another jurisdiction – like St. Louis – and not giving a fig about those of us who live in Loudoun County.

Following is some background information you might find of interest.

Loudoun County received a grant of $2 million from the U.S. government as part of the “stimulus” plan, for green initiatives. So far the grant has resulted in exactly one job, that of Peter Garforth, a consultant who was paid $250,000 to explain that residents of Loudoun County use more energy than people in Europe – while ignoring the inconvenient fact that Europe produces far less products and services than America and therefore needs far less energy.

The next time you get to take an 8-week vacation, you should regret the fact your carbon footprint is larger than that of your European brethren.

News report on Peter Garforth’s work for Loudoun County:

While preparing the plan, the consultant determined that Loudoun produces about 15 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per resident annually. The average is 23 tons nationally and 10 tons in Europe. The objective in Loudoun’s plan is to reduce that amount to seven tons per resident over the next two decades.

“It’s a challenging goal, but not in the realm of fantasy,” said Peter Garforth, the consultant behind the plan.
To lower Loudoun’s output of greenhouse gases, Garforth is suggesting the county turn to more renewable power, such as biofuels, solar and wind.

He also suggests the county encourage greater residential density in mixed-use communities and around future rail stations; urge builders to construct homes that are at least 30 percent more energy efficient; and create a program for selling emissions credits in Loudoun, otherwise known as cap and trade.

Devised as a means to control pollution and used widely in Europe, cap and trades set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies can exceed those limits by purchasing credits that are equal to one ton of emissions from companies that pollute less. Critics charge, though, that companies that do this will simply pass the cost on to consumers….

Here is a presentation by Galforth – note the reference to the now-discredited “ice core data.”

An article published by Loudoun County consultant Peter Garforth on November 2, 2009, inconveniently just before the ClimateGate scandal was revealed:

The evidence is increasing that added greenhouse gases caused by human activity have produced an average increase in Earth’s temperature, in turn affecting climate. Some people hold the view that this isn’t the case. About 30% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are caused by changes in land use by agriculture and forestry, about 60% from energy and the balance from non-energy related industrial processes and waste management.

Legislation aimed at reducing man-made greenhouse gases by about 80% from current levels is in discussion in the United States. In other industrialized countries, similar legislation is in place or in discussion, and increasingly China and India are open to some mandatory limits on emissions. The next round of global negotiations will be in Copenhagen in December 2009.

If the U.S. legislation passes, plants producing more than 10,000 tons of emissions probably will have to cap their emissions against an annual target. If they fail to do so, they’ll have to buy emission credits from others; if they beat the cap, they can sell credits to others. Other emitters might be required to report their own emissions. The details of how both the reporting and the cap-and-trade will operate are still in flux. The effects of the various proposals on energy prices and other costs are unknown.

“These uncertainties give rise to a wide, some would say wild, set of opinions ranging from neutral or positive effects to extreme cost increases and loss of global competitiveness. All too often, the degree to which an individual accepts the science of climate change is reflected in the opinions they listen to. So what should a company do to be sensibly prepared?

If one assumes that climate change is underway, some places might become vulnerable to extreme weather events. This can include raised flooding risks, wind and rain damage, energy supply unreliability and unavailability of critical employees. Insurance premiums also might rise as the underwriting effect of climate change grows. At a minimum, your plant should be assessed for changing weather effects and appropriate precautions taken. Some, such as on-site generation, might both reduce overall emissions and address reliability.

Looked at this way, without the emotional baggage that surrounds the climate debate, most of these activities fall into the category of common sense. They shouldn’t overburden professionally qualified teams. If they do, there might be other issues beyond climate change risks that need addressing.

Here is what the Loudoun County Energy Strategy proposes ( more here:

To both educate the market and to raise the market transparency of the actual energy
performance of homes and buildings, voluntary Energy Performance Labeling (EPL) is
recommended. A current EPL would be available anytime a building is sold or leased.
Wherever this approach has been adopted, a steady improvement in energy efficiency occurs over and above the expected gains from changes in construction codes …

The plan outlines ways some of those projects could take advantage of the more than $2 million that could be awarded by the DOE. One example is the Moorefield Station and One Loudoun projects, which the plan suggests could utilize a Decision Grade-Integrated Energy Master Plan, which would be created in conjunction with the developers to become a future energy system operator for the two sites.

Each IEMP would cost between $150,000 and $250,000 but could in turn reduce energy costs by as much as 40 percent and greenhouse reductions by almost 50 percent. The CEP suggests that IEMPs could become a normal part of the permitting process for similar projects with the two key developments serving as models.

So imagine you run a business or want to sell a house in Loudoun County: that IEMP of “$150,000 or $250,000″ is your new little contribution to saving the Earth from greenhouse gases.

Are you on board with “climate prosperity?”

Finally, a glimpse into the world view of the climate alarmists. If you have an opinion, tell Supervisor McGimsey what you think about this.

In the city for a few days for a conference, here are some snapshots ….

A huge Army convention is taking place, lots of American heroes all around, and lots of interesting suppliers.

In a tent across the street from the hotel is the new Sikorsky X2 “Tactical” Helicopter:

sikorsky x2 promo sign

sikorsky x2

sikorsky x2 right side

sikorsky x2 front

sikorsky x2 left side

At the Historical Society – “Quilts for Obama”.

Quilts for Obama

Quilts for Obama. Heh. So 2008.

I think the current state of the nation would be something less comfy for Obama.

Next, morons on parade:


I wanted to get some photos of the actual morons at this event, and maybe get some video answers to questions along the lines of “what about the fact the temperature of the Earth is decreasing?” – but the pity factor kicked in so I backed off. Stupid people.