Rising energy prices in Germany are forcing the pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate Bayer to threaten a move to China. The culprit is Germany's nuclear energy exit bill, passed last month in reaction to Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. The bill orders a nuclear phase-out by 2022. Meanwhile, China plans to build 36 new nuclear power plants during the next decade. Germany's Deutsche Welle reports Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers predicted, "Energy prices will continue to rise, and they are already the highest in the EU." He said in the face of rising prices, "a global business such as Bayer would have to consider relocating its production to countries with lower energy costs." The move would leave 35,000 workers in Germany unemployed.
Countries Bayer is considering include China, Brazil, and India, where the company has already begun significant expansion. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), Brazil plans to bring four new large reactors online by 2025, significantly expanding the current 3 percent of its electricity generated by two existing nuclear reactors.
Environmental contention stirs as discussions cultivate over the long-delayed 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Canadian crude oil from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada, to southern parts of the United States. Due to environmental concerns, lawsuits from oil refineries, and opposition in the U.S. Congress, the project has been on hiatus, as it lingers in the State Department’s permitting process, awaiting President Obama’s approval. In urging the President to act, Republicans and business leaders allege that the $7 billion expansion will create 20,000 jobs — 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs — and ease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. TransCanada, the Canadian company that proposed the expansion, estimates that the pipeline would deliver over one million barrels of oil a day to the U.S. "We could help reduce the amount of imports from the Middle East," asserted TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha, "which would ensure energy security for the United States."
As if the United States did not have enough issues with OPEC already, news reports reveal that there may be more cause for concern. According to the British publication the Guardian, Rostam Ghasemi will be the new president of OPEC. Ghasemi is a commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, who has been sanctioned by the United States, European Union, and Australia, and has had his assets blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury.
Iran took control of OPEC last October after 36 years under a rotating system, and some contend that with Ghasemi holding the position as president, the Revolutionary Guard will become more influential.
As GM share prices plunge so do Chevy Volt sales, according to the latest auto sales figures. Throughout July, a whopping 125 Chevy Volts were sold, making the seemingly low 281 units sold in February a groundbreaking month.
GM spokeswoman Michelle Bunker attributed the fallback to "supply constraints," alleging that GM was "virtually sold out" and supply was down nationwide. But Mark Modica, associate fellow at the National Legal and Policy Center, confirmed Bunker’s assertion was false, as he wrote on FoxNews.com:
The Obama administration has unveiled a new round of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, which are expected to require mileage gains of nearly double the current figure. The new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards will last through the year 2025.
The proposal mandates that all passenger vehicles sold in 2025 average approximately 55 miles per gallon. CNN explains, “They’d ramp up to that level over seven years, starting in 2017 when current rules end.”
By contrast, the current standards for all 2011 cars and trucks mandate that vehicles average 27.3 mpg. By 2017, they will have to reach 34.1 mpg.
As the United Nations defends a scheme to rob the industrialized world of $2 trillion a year to fund its redistributionists aims, the latest scientific evidence continues to undermine the fundamental premises on which the edifice of global warming alarmism has been standing.
As reported previously for The New American, the United Nations is demanding $76 trillion from the first world over the next 40 years to encourage the development of “green” technologies in the third world. The defense of such a reckless agenda has rested on the unwarranted claim that the globe was hovering on the precipice of environmental devastation. “Green” ideology has become the bulwark of older agendas: The nations of the West must end their own prosperity, because that is only “fair” — and it necessary to save the world from Capitalist greed.
In the battle of environmentalists against business that began years ago in the United States, one of its latest victims is Birmingham, Alabama, coal mine owner Ronnie Bryant.
During a recent public hearing in Birmingham — called to consider whether to place a coal mine near a river that serves as a source of drinking water for parts of the Birmingham metro area — Bryant heard accusations by an overflowing crowd that businesses in the area were polluting the drinking water and causing cancer.
Though both state environmental officials and mine operators asserted that the mine would not pose a threat to the drinking water, environmentalists contended that it would.
Item: “The White House is negotiating new vehicle mileage and emissions standards with carmakers, labour unions and environmental groups, proposing rules that would sharply cut petrol bills for US drivers and put domestic manufacturers on a par with those in Europe and Asia,” reported London’s Financial Times for July 4.
Item: The New York Times for July 4 said, “Depending of the stringency of the standard, the deal could also reduce global warming emissions by millions of tons a year and cut oil imports by billions of barrels over the life of the program, cornerstones of President Obama’s energy policy.”
Correction: The government may be promising us a Rose Garden, but what it actually will deliver is a patch of painful thorns.
Like me, you’d probably find it creepy and extremely unsettling were a total stranger to obsess about you. Indeed, you might even degenerate from Peaceable Person to Screaming, Cursing Banshee Throwing Wild Punches were the guy to buttonhole you and dictate how many gallons your toilet may flush, the formulation of gas for your car, or the amount of fat and sodium permitted in your favorite chips.
But apparently few of our fellow serfs object to such bizarre behavior, judging by their reaction when a bunch of total strangers — and very strange, unsavory strangers at that — gossiped about which light bulbs we prefer. Two of the strangest, former Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Israel — if we go by this ostensible Californian’s largest donor) and Fred Upton (R-Electric Utilities — if we go by his. But it paid off: electric companies in Michigan can kill folks who fall behind in their bills) sponsored a bill that will force us to switch from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent (CFL) ones with the excuse that the latter are “cleaner” for the environment.
The U.S. House of Representatives is pushing legislation that would overturn a law that bans incandescent light bulbs and sets new energy-efficiency standards for the bulbs. Under President George W. Bush, a 2007 energy act was passed that requires efficiency upgrades in incandescent light bulbs, which have remained relatively unchanged since the invention of the light bulb in 1879. Republicans in the House contend that the law is a violation of personal freedom and are determined to overturn it. A vote on a bill to overturn the ban could come as early as today.
The Blaze reports:
Republicans say the new standards, signed into law by President George W. Bush, are a symbol of an overreaching federal government and people should have the right to buy the traditional, cheap and reliable incandescent bulbs. The Obama administration and environmentalists say new bulbs on the market will save American households billions of dollars in energy costs.