What better way for two beleaguered entities to divert attention away all of their imbecilic misdeeds than by coming together to form an odd coupling? Hey, it works for celebrities!

But seriously, Palin's piece for the Post on "Cap-and-Trade," an issue we, nor anyone else it seems, have any true understanding of, beyond the fact that it's something hated by the energy conglomerates that Obama says will help save the earth from environmental destruction, which naturally leads us to lean toward being in favor of it.

The whole piece reads like it was written by Sarah Palin pulling quotes from a brochure sent to her by an energy lobbyist. The sentences and paragraphs are short, filled with vague generalities and conservative buzzwords and catchphrases without providing a shred of evidence to support her central assertion, which is that Obama's energy plan will wreck the American economy. The only thing that comes close to resembling any form of "evidence" is her noting that the energy bill includes money to fund the re-training of energy industry employees who lose their jobs because of the plan.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

Yep. That's it. Everything else is just Sarah being Sarah.

Take Palin's closing flurry for example, which we just love because she manages to work in references to God, Alaska, the need to drill for oil in Alaska's nature preserves, the prospect of having to depend on commies and terrorists for oil, while also managing to mock Obama's 2008 campaign slogan:

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.

Pity the poor Washington Post copy editor who had the misfortune of having this thing recently land on their desk. That person probably hates their job right now, perhaps so much that they'd be willing to forward us the unedited version of the piece. Just a thought.

The 'Cap and Tax' Dead End [Washington Post]
Pic via

Pickens made a lot of money with oil, and then decided that wind farms were an even better way to make money. Because he is a capitalist Republican conservative, he thought his best bet for making a profit on wind power was to get a shitload of money from the government. And so, despite his years of partisan donations and funding of smear campaigns he suddenly played Mr. Concerned Citizen Environmentalist during the 2008 presidential campaign, earning him important meetings with Bloomberg, Obama, McCain, and Harry Reid.

But! Wind power turned out to not even be worth the effort of pretending to care about it as a front for taking lots of government money to build natural gas pipelines, so he is giving up on his "world's largest wind farm" plan. Because, hey, natural gas prices fell, and the money being handed out to people pretending to free us from foriegn oil dried up, and the gub'mint won't pay for his transmission lines until 2013.

The AltaRock project north of San Francisco is hardly Google's first foray into electricity production; the company has hydroelectric projects scattered across the country.

But AltaRock is special, what with its capacity for triggering deadly seismic activities. With investors like Google, Kleiner Perkins and the federal government, it's no wonder the company has, according to the New York Times, denied an inconvenient truth: that a similar geothermal project in Basel, Switzerland "set off an earthquake, shaking and damaging buildings and terrifying many" in December 2006, according to Swiss government seismologists cited by the Times.

And, yes, it could happen here:

Seismologists have long known that human activities can trigger quakes, but they say the science is not developed enough to say for certain what will or will not set off a major temblor.

It's been easy for politicians to convince themselves that what's good for Google — a high-paying employer that doesn't make its money polluting — is good for their communities. That's an assumption they may have to shake off.

[Times]

1. Cardboard, trees, 'Tree Hugger.' Yea.

2. Doesn't the process of manufacturing life-size photorealistic sloganeered cutouts for advertising purposes require, you know, electricity? How many people would have to switch off the porch light for an hour to make up that manufacturing energy cost, I wonder? Do you think that number is greater or less than the number of people persuaded to do so solely by the intellectual heft of these tree-wrappings?

3. Conceptual failure illustrated.

[Copyranter]

New York Times - October 1988:

"As the price for crude oil slid below $10 a barrel in the spot market last week and OPEC officials warned that it could sink to $5, an uneasy sense of deja vu pervaded the world. The sharp decline stirred memories of the price plunge that occurred in 1986, sending economic shock waves through oil-producing regions, including the American Southwest."

New York Times - February 1990:

New doubts about the world's ability to pump enough oil to keep pace with growing demand have convinced many analysts that oil prices will rise much more rapidly than previously expected, by about 50 percent within five years.

The Economist - March, 1999:

"Now the long oil-price odyssey seems at an end. Since its peak in 1980, the price has fallen erratically. It has plunged by half in the past two years alone. In real terms, oil now costs roughly what it did before 1973. Crude is gushing from the ground at the rate of 66m barrels a day, half as copiously again as in OPEC's prime. The world is awash with the stuff, and it is likely to remain so."

The Telegraph - May 2008:

“There are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil,” says its Opec representative, Hussein Kazempour Ardebili. The oil cartel’s estimates are almost the opposite of Wall Street’s: 88.75 million barrels a day of supply and 86.8 million barrels a day of demand.

The Hindu Times (Vipin Chandran) - May 2008:

"An evaluation of the oil and gas futures and options markets seems to be indicating that supply is sufficient to meet current demand and the oil price increase seems to be overdone with speculative interests in abundance. I believe we are nearing a steep correction in oil prices."

For customers' first experience with +Energy on Tuesday, Starbucks is promoting adding it to the Doubleshot on Ice drink, Baker said. The flavors complement each other, she said.

But the energy boost can be added to any hot or cold drink. Starbucks' research and development team, a group of culinary experts, food scientists and product designers, developed the boost.

"It's a well-thought out and complementary flavor," Baker said, when asked how the boost would taste mixed in with coffee.

NO CLUES HERE. Crystal meth?

[Seattle PI]

The venture, called RE<C (renewable energy less expensive than coal) will perform research and invest in other new ventures with the help of Google.org, Google's philanthropic arm. Our question is, why is Google getting involved in power generation? According to Google, they will be spending tens of millions of dollars on R&D related to renewable energy. Powering all its datacenters is not cheap, and reducing energy costs could pay off for Google in the long term. But is Google really the one to do it? Is this about powering Google's servers, or its founders' egos?

Left: T.J. Rodgers, who wants government grants for his energy company. Right: Matthew Lesko, who sells government grants on late-night TV.

Dude. It's like Outer Limits.

Forget Computers. Here Comes the Sun. [NYT]
Matthew Lesko Government Grants [MatthewLesko.com]