The Song and Dance From Eco-warrior Republicans

I am getting really tired of Republicans who claim to be eco-warriors questioning the reasoning behind conservatives who question the legitimacy of global warming being caused by human activity.

After writing about Palin and global warming here, I came across a Republican who wrote about Palin here.

Jim DiPeso who I never heard of or read his blog until now, writes that Palin has said the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's climate scenarios are among the most credible of the modeled scenarios."

First, I get real nervous when people start calling themselves "the green conservative."

That could mean two categories of conservatives.

One, they are fanatical about money or two, they are fanatical about saving the earth from that poisonous gas, carbon dioxide....

Jim DiPeso fits in the later category when he makes comments on natural gas, oil and world affairs.

And, with a nod to T. Boone Pickens, gas would be a better fuel for motor vehicles from a climate perspective than petroleum-based liquids. Switching from gasoline to gas would lower greenhouse gas emissions from cars by a net 30 percent.

Moreover, the U.S. is far closer to self-sufficiency with gas than it ever will be with oil, and so far, there is no international cartel of gas exporters who meet regularly to rig the market, a la OPEC.

T. Boone Pickens was the one who was on a panel and made the statement that there were no wells drilled in ANWR when in fact there is one. It is on Alaska native land.

Next, the writer thinks there is no international cartel of gas exporters? Maybe not officially, but one might think about Iran, Qatar and Russia, when it comes to natural gas.

You would have to wonder what would happen if the United States took T.Boone Pickens advice and Obama had his Car guru decide that natural gas is the way to go.

Can DiPeso say Ukraine, Belarus to name a few countries that are dependent on Russia's natural gas.



That bit of information slipped by him. What is interesting is in the one link from the Voice of America, it is stated:

Analysts say a natural gas cartel would not have the influence over gas prices that OPEC has over oil because the markets for the two commodities are different. Natural gas contracts tend to be very long-term, while oil contracts are relatively shorter and more prone to price swings.

Sometimes what analysts say and what one company does, seems to contradict the analysts who must get paid big bucks to be analysts.

Because realityis a funny thing.

The Kremlin-controlled energy giant Gazprom has warned the European Union and other markets that prices of natural gas in 2008 will be higher by up to 33% in view of rising heating oil prices. Gazprom has already agreed to pay higher prices for natural gas purchases for Turkmenistan in the coming year.

Given this reality, DiPeso should be asking himself, what world is he really living in when you consider that his opinion is the same within a group of people who have blocked off-shore development of natural gas in U.S. waters, blocked the lease of shale that can develop the production of natural gas which in effect is stopping the growth of using natural gas.

He even admits to the areas being off limits but somehow in his magical world states:

Under the right circumstances, gas could help us become better climate stewards. With the caveats noted above, Sarah Palin had a point.

Gas could help us become better climate stewards? And where would that gas come from?

It seems hypocritical of him to lay criticism on people who doubt the Al Gore's of the world and it seems that a majority of people are not falling for the the global warming hype after all.

There is one thing that Di Peso is right on and that is Palin's point on natural gas development. It just doesn't match what he has stated.