Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Below is a press release for the Tata Nano and a news report about its debut. It is doubtful anyone has really had time to draw any conclusions about this vehicle or the implications of its introduction yet. There is probably enough speculation to go around and one cannot help but recall the Yugo at a time like this. But it seems reasonable to offer a post on this blog featuring this unique development in the automotive industry.

As far as the $2500 price tag is concerned that has to get someone’s attention. You could purchase a Ford Mustang in 1970 for about $3500. A Fiat 850 went for $2500 in 1972. So is the Tata Nano reliable? Is it really safe? Will it be reasonable to service? Will it be available in the US? How will the insurance industry respond? What are the performance characteristics? Is anyone interested in the US? Will it have an effect on automotive trends here? Is anyone reading this buying one?

Tata Motors unveils the People’s Car

Released on : 10th January, 2008
A comfortable, safe, all-weather car, high on fuel efficiency & low on emissions

Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Chairman of the Tata Group and Tata Motors, today unveiled the Tata ‘NANO’, the People’s Car from Tata Motors that India and the world have been looking forward to. A development, which signifies a first for the global automobile industry, the People’s Car brings the comfort and safety of a car within the reach of thousands of families. The People’s Car will be launched in India later in 2008.

Speaking at the unveiling ceremony at the 9th Auto Expo in New Delhi, Mr. Ratan N. Tata said, “I observed families riding on two-wheelers – the father driving the scooter, his young kid standing in front of him, his wife seated behind him holding a little baby. It led me to wonder whether one could conceive of a safe, affordable, all-weather form of transport for such a family. Tata Motors’ engineers and designers gave their all for about four years to realise this goal. Today, we indeed have a People’s Car, which is affordable and yet built to meet safety requirements and emission norms, to be fuel efficient and low on emissions. We are happy to present the People’s Car to India and we hope it brings the joy, pride and utility of owning a car to many families who need personal mobility.”

Stylish, comfortable
The People’s Car, designed with a family in mind, has a roomy passenger compartment with generous leg space and head room. It can comfortably seat four persons. Four doors with high seating position make ingress and egress easy.

Yet with a length of 3.1 metres, width of 1.5 metres and height of 1.6 metres, with adequate ground clearance, it can effortlessly manoeuvre on busy roads in cities as well as in rural areas. Its mono-volume design, with wheels at the corners and the powertrain at the rear, enables it to uniquely combine both space and manoeuvrability, which will set a new benchmark among small cars.

When launched, the car will be available in both standard and deluxe versions. Both versions will offer a wide range of body colours, and other accessories so that the car can be customised to an individual’s preferences.

Fuel-efficient engine
The People’s Car has a rear-wheel drive, all-aluminium, two-cylinder, 623 cc, 33 PS, multi point fuel injection petrol engine. This is the first time that a two-cylinder gasoline engine is being used in a car with single balancer shaft. The lean design strategy has helped minimise weight, which helps maximise performance per unit of energy consumed and delivers high fuel efficiency. Performance is controlled by a specially designed electronic engine management system.

Meets all safety requirements
The People’s Car’s safety performance exceeds current regulatory requirements. With an all sheet-metal body, it has a strong passenger compartment, with safety features such as crumple zones, intrusion-resistant doors, seat belts, strong seats and anchorages, and the rear tailgate glass bonded to the body. Tubeless tyres further enhance safety.

Environment-friendly
The People’s Car’s tailpipe emission performance exceeds regulatory requirements. In terms of overall pollutants, it has a lower pollution level than two-wheelers being manufactured in India today. The high fuel efficiency also ensures that the car has low carbon dioxide emissions, thereby providing the twin benefits of an affordable transportation solution with a low carbon footprint.
(For more information: www.tatanano.com )

About Tata Motors
Tata Motors is India’s largest automobile company, with revenues of US $ 7.2 billion in 2006-2007. With over 4 million Tata vehicles plying in India, it is the leader in commercial vehicles and the second largest in passenger vehicles. It is also the world’s fifth largest medium and heavy truck manufacturer and the second largest heavy bus manufacturer. Tata cars, buses and trucks are being marketed in several countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia and South America. Tata Motors and Fiat Auto have formed an industrial joint venture in India to manufacture passenger cars, engines and transmissions for the Indian and overseas markets; Tata Motors also has an agreement with Fiat Auto to build a pick-up vehicle at Córdoba, Argentina. The company already distributes Fiat branded cars in India. Tata Motors’ international footprint includes Tata Daewoo Commercial Vehicle Co. Ltd. in South Korea; Hispano Carrocera, a bus and coach manufacturer of Spain in which the company has a 21% stake; a joint venture with Marcopolo, the Brazil-based body-builder of buses and coaches; and a joint venture with Thonburi Automotive Assembly Plant Company of Thailand to manufacture and market pick-up vehicles in Thailand. Tata Motors has research centres in India, the U.K., and in its subsidiary and associate companies in South Korea and Spain.

(For free broadcast-standard and streaming quality video content about Tata Motors, please log onto www.thenewsmarket.com/tatamotors. You can preview and request broadcast-standard video which will be delivered digitally or by tape. Registration and video is free to the media.)

- Ends -

Issued by:
Debasis Ray
Head - Corporate Communications
Tata Motors Limited
Phone: +912266657613
E-Mail: peoplescar@tatamotors.com
Website: http://www.tatanano.com

Indians Respond Enthusiastically to World’s Cheapest Car

By Anjana Pasricha
New Delhi
15 January 2008

Pasricha report - Download MP3 (770k)
Listen to Pasricha report

The world’s cheapest car, made by an Indian manufacturer, has triggered unprecedented interest in a country where only eight people in every thousand own a car. From New Delhi, Anjana Pasricha has a report on how people in India are reacting to Tata Motors’ Nano.

Tens of thousands of people are flocking to the Auto Show in New Delhi - and the star attraction is a $2,500 car dubbed the “People’s Car”.

The Nano, produced by India’s Tata conglomerate, made its debut last week.

After a peek at the no-frills vehicle, with a 624 cubic centimeter engine, thousands say they want to buy it.

“I belong to middle class family, so it is very good thing for us, good news for us, because I can dream a good car in India,” said one person.

“This is very cheap, I want to buy for my son,” one gentleman said.

“Its cost is not too much, and I wish I have personal car and I cannot buy large one,” said one woman.

“It appeals [to] me just due to the parking situation available in India number one, number two the fuel efficiency, number three is price, number four it is very cute vehicle, seems to be very cute,” added yet another gentleman.

People have even flocked in from villages far from the city to see the Nano.

Balwan Ram took a bus from a village in Haryana state, 100 kilometers away from Delhi. Ram says he came especially to see the car and now is waiting to buy it to replace his motorbike.

The enthusiasm is not surprising in a country of more than a billion people, where a family outing can be a challenge because of dismal public transportation.

Tata chairman Ratan Tata says he conceived of the low-priced car for India’s masses when he saw a family traveling on a two wheeled scooter; the father driving, his child standing in front of him, and wife seated behind holding a baby - all getting wet in the rain.

“This has been referred to as one man’s dream,” sadi Tata. “And indeed it was.”

Now global automakers are watching to see how that dream pans out in the marketplace.

If the small car is successful after hitting the roads later this year, it could expand the car market in an unprecedented manner in developing countries.

But not everyone is happy. Although the manufacturers say the small car will meet strict emission standards, environmentalists worry about fuel use and the congestion it will cause on India’s crowded roads.

The head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.K. Pachauri, says the focus should be on more efficient public transportation.

“The problem is not with the product itself. The usage of the product and what that implies, how can we be blind to that?” he asked. “Where are we going to find road space to accommodate all these cars, not to speak of local pollution, not to speak of the fact that it is going to crowd out public transport options.”

But these concerns are of little interest to the millions eagerly waiting to become car owners for the first time.

crossposted at:
Reject the UN

Listen up fans of international politics. The United Nations is borrowing a page from the uber liberal playbook. Do your best to stir guilt within the richest in the industrial nations so they may follow by preaching to ordinary citizens to justify spending public funds for private agendas. With a knack for plagiarism that would have Joe Biden blush, the UN is adopting the methods of the man who fathered the global warming ponzi scheme, Al Gore.

Are there environmental issues that pose a threat to the long term health of the biosphere we call Earth. Yes. But the current frenzy and panic caused by Al Gore and friends has nothing to do with that. Ecology and all things environmental are nothing new. Even before the sixties when such terms became household words much had been written and addressed on the topic. If two so-called oil shortages or crisis situations took place with no substantive demand or economic viability of alternative forms of energy as a result over the last 30 or 40 years, it is fair to say that few people took the notion seriously enough, including the scientific community, to implement effective change.

Oh, it was or is a corporate conspiracy. Ya, like the 100 or 200 mpg internal combustion engine they bought and hid from the public. So now, why is every other corporation on the planet tripping over themselves to jump on board of Al Gore’s Good Ship Eco-flop? There’s gold in them there hills, that’s why. And it did not take very long for the United Nations to wake up to that fact. Their never ending pursuit of guilt dollars with which to line their pockets now includes posturing on the global warming scare.

Hedging their bets with the advent of cascading failures related to the flagship Millennium Development Goals, supporting Al Gore’s global warming scheme with appeals for money of their own indicates a true talent for extortion. But then you may need to read the full article to appreciate the style with which the scam is presented. Apparently for some, having a large contingent supporting the current rage on GW with an equally large contingent rejecting the notion has not sent up enough red flags leading to a continued search for the truth.

UN Says Billions Needed to Help Poor Countries Deal with Climate Change
By Marianne Kearney
Jakarta
28 November 2007

The United Nations is calling on developed countries to donate billions of dollars to help poorer nations deal with the devastating effects of climate change. Marianne Kearney has more from Jakarta.

A new report by the U.N. Development Program paints a dire picture of how poor people will be affected by climate change. The report calls on first world countries to pay for the damage their greenhouse gas emissions inflict on developing nations.

Two-thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. The U.N. warns they will be especially vulnerable to the effects of rising temperatures, even if tough measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions are implemented now.

Hakan Bjorkman, the U.N. Development Program’s country director for Indonesia, says more funding is needed to help poorer countries avoid loss of life and income as a result of droughts, flooding and food shortages.

“Only $26 million have been spent through the UNFCC mechanism on adaptation, while something like $86 billion is needed by 2015,” he said.

Bjorkman says most of the funding to help countries deal with the effects of climate change has flowed to wealthy nations rather than poor ones.

In addition, the U.N. estimates that a fund of $25 billion to $50 billion a year is needed to help developing countries switch to cleaner energy sources.

The UNDP’s report says a rise of just two degrees in the oceans’ temperature would cause glaciers in the Himalayas to melt, affecting the food and water source for two billion people in Asia. Increased flow in the region’s rivers would displace 22 million people downstream in Vietnam alone.

The UNDP also warns that rising sea levels would cause the collapse of coral reefs, affecting coastal communities in Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia.

The report calls on developing countries to cut their greenhouse emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, and says India and China should cut their emissions by 20 percent in the same time frame.

Bjorkman says there is a stark difference between the ability of rich and poor countries to adapt to global warming.

“For example, in the United Kingdom where $1.2 billion is being used to prepare for flooding, in the Netherlands people are investing, with government support, in some kind of floating houses, so when the flooding comes they can actually float up,” said Bjorkman .

While in Ethiopia, adaptation is about women having to walk much further to get water and in Bangladesh its about people building flood shelters on bamboo sticks and in Vietnam there are swimming lessons for women and children.”

The U.N. report also warns that in Indonesia, climate change has already helped lead to an increase in water borne diseases such as malaria and dengue, and in child malnutrition.

By VOA News

A Chinese official says security forces are prepared to stop protests during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

Liu Shaowu, the deputy director of Beijing’s Olympic Security Command Center, told reporters Friday that protesters violating China’s sovereignty will not be tolerated.

Liu said activities encouraging separatism or terrorism will be dealt with according to law.

He also noted that Beijing’s approach is line with the Olympic charter, which he said forbids any form of political, religious or racial demonstrations at Games.

Earlier this year, five foreign activists were detained after unfurling banners at Mount Everest, calling for Tibetan independence and criticizing the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Beijing commonly uses the term “separatists” to refer to those calling for greater autonomy or independence for Tibetans and Uighurs.

Bush: New Free Trade Deals Will Strengthen US Economy, Create Jobs
By VOA News
President Bush is calling on Congress to approve four new international free trade accords he says will strengthen the U.S. economy and create jobs.

In his weekly radio address, Mr. Bush Saturday said trade deals with Peru, Colombia and Panama will give American business access to more than 75 million customers in Latin America. And he said a trade agreement with South Korea will open up one of the world’s most powerful economies to U.S. goods and services.

The president said expanding international trade will lead to more exports which will support better and higher-paying jobs for Americans.

Mr. Bush said passing the four new trade pacts would serve U.S. security and moral interests, as well as help democracies.

And what do people say about NAFTA and other such agreements? It would not be going out on a limb to say there are more than a few complaints about free trade agreements. Do free trade agreements favor a select few or are they good for all? Do free trade agreements have a positive impact on all countries involved? Do free trade agreements permit unscrupulous participants to circumvent the laws of their own country? The most suspicious phrase in the report above is ‘..international trade will lead to more exports which will support better and higher-paying jobs…’

The sentence including that phrase is plausible deniability if job growth does not support the claim later.

more stories below……

Key Shi’ite Figure Rejects Permanent Foreign Military Base in Iraq

Burmese Authorities Arrest 4 Prominent Activists

Pakistan Urges Bhutto to Delay Return

Turkish Official Cancels US Visit Over Genocide Resolution

Gates Meets Russian Cadets, Rice Meets Human Rights Activists

Chinese Communist Party Holds Congress

Dalai Lama to Receive US Congressional Gold Medal

Nobel Spurs Gore Supporters to Urge Presidential Bid

Just by reading the headlines above some thoughts come to mind.
Does anyone want a permanent US military base in Iraq?
Would more international coercion expedite a solution in Burma?
Will Bhutto’s return to Pakistan have a positive impact?
Was there any beneficial purpose in the ‘genocide resolution’?
Is Putin’s treatment of Gates & Rice a subtle publicity stunt?
How Red is China?
Is the Dalai Lama US visit a publicity stunt?
Does Al Gore deserve any credit?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related thought-provoking links:

Berkeley Lab Scientists Contribute.. Studies that win the Nobel Prize

The NSF Connection to the Nobel Prizes

Latin America: In Search of the New Left

Bush Presses US Congress on Latin America Trade Deals

crossposted at:
Reject the UN
Screw the UN

It is doubtful the United Nations ever misses an opportunity to work the crowd and the media. If you are green or a tree hugger or a charter member of PETA (another op for Alicia Silverstone to disrobe) one can only suspect you are ecstatic over news of the UN Global Warming Summit. The rest of us may not be so sure. Not unlike the group of scientists who hold a different view of the issue than is played relentlessly in the MSM.

17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

World scientists meet on global warming
But many top scientists reject the new figures…

This post does not accept nor reject the idea of global warming. But that is the whole point. While the global warming issue was raised near a fever pitch in anticipation of the IPCC report on global warming, the first question that should have entered your mind is who the hell is the IPCC and what credentials do they have to support the assumed credibility of their findings?

Many surprising supporters of the idea of man-made global warming are very large corporations. Those announcements were followed by the skeptics wondering what financial incentive they had to cause the voluntary participation in fighting a demon on which we have too much or too little information. Please withhold your criticism as it should be repeated again, this post does not accept nor reject the notion of global warming. But if one is the least bit skeptical or cynical of mass approval or rejection of any idea, this would be a good candidate for suspicious motives. For instance, if you have been on the planet long enough to remember the push for alternative fuels and energy conservation and other environmental issues from thirty or more years ago, the lack of enthusiasm then and over decades since should be sufficient to alert your radar. Something may be wrong here.

Leaders Gather for UN Climate Change Meeting

By Phuong Tran
Dakar
23 September 2007
Tran report (mp3) - Download 596k
Listen to Tran report (mp3)

Heads of states from more than 80 countries are gathering in New York City for what will be the largest U.N.-organized event for world leaders on climate change. This is a preliminary meeting to work toward a new international agreement on the issue. But scientists say places like sub-Saharan Africa need more than just an agreement to really fix the problem. Phuong Tran has more from VOA’s West and Central Africa Bureau in Dakar.

The IPCC who provided the grand report on global warming earlier this year that renewed the discussion and raised to that fever pitch is part of the United Nations. How convenient is that? One of the reports listed at the top of the page suggests not all the panel members are scientists and those who voiced objection to the report were deleted from the publication. While that assessment seems a little over the top, the same sort of accusation in reverse was leveled at the Bush Administration earlier this year. So who knows? Again, that is the whole point. What do we really know?

If that question sounds absurd to you in light of recent developments you may want to consider how absurd it would be to act on all the recommendations if there are flaws in the data. Any undertaking this massive and ‘global’ requires more scrutiny than everyday decision making.

Schwarzenegger, Gore add star power to climate meet

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Mon Sep 24, 1:10 AM ET

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Vice President Al Gore are set to join world leaders for a U.N. meeting on Monday aimed at spurring global negotiations on how to cool a warming planet.

Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder and movie star who has pushed for environmental reforms in California, acknowledged that rich and poor countries have differing responsibilities when it comes to global warming, but said it is time to stop the blame game.

The report above certainly does not help. Part of the problem is when those with celebrity status fail to measure the undo influence of their public positions on critical issues. To take an absolute position rejecting any alternative viewpoints is dangerous even if combined with altruistic intentions. This may be another case of asking the right questions. Could a former actor and current governor of the state of California and a former VP who lost his only attempt at becoming President have any other motives for their respective stands on global warming? It is no different than asking if major corporations have jumped on the GW bandwagon to launch profitable new businesses that will cater to the environmental panic?

However, if you have not settled on a position for this issue and are more alarmed about potential panic and half-baked solutions than the idea of global warming itself, take heart. The article below aside from announcing some new agreement on HCFC elimination mentions the beginning of that organized effort as 1987. The inefficiency and time lag of all such initiatives is as staggering as the number of issue-based organizations in existence. Whether man-made global warming is a legitimate issue or not, there is better than even odds that solutions won’t be timely in either case.

‘Historic’ deal reached on cutting ozone threats

by Philippe SauvagnarguesSat Sep 22, 10:19 PM ET

Nearly 200 countries have agreed to accelerate the elimination of chemicals that threaten the ozone and exacerbate global warming, the United Nations Environmental Program announced Saturday.

UNEP chief Achim Steiner hailed the agreement by governments to move forward bans on dangerous hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as a “vital signal” in efforts to slow climate change and welcomed China’s willingness to back the deal.

“It is perhaps the most important breakthrough in an international environment negotiation process for at least five or six years,” Steiner said.

And one can only guess at why President Bush has changed his views on the subject. But the more compelling fact about the article below is there always seems to be a media story about those clamoring for attention pointing their collective fingers at the US.

U.N. climate chief urges U.S. action

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP
Sat Sep 22, 1:53 PM ET

The Bush administration has made a “significant” shift on global warming, but still falls short on the “much more aggressive” policies needed to head off its damaging impact, the U.N. climate chief said Saturday.

“It’s very clear that we’re not on track,” Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press.

More than 70 presidents and prime ministers and 80 other national representatives are gathering here for Monday’s U.N. “climate summit.”

To emphasize once more that this post does not accept nor reject the idea of global warming is attached to the final thought expressing the need to subject the global warming issue to strict and continuous scrutiny befitting any other scientific endeavor. This is one of those times when embracing the flat earth or the sun revolving around the earth would not only be embarrassing but entirely counterproductive not to mention a colossal mistake.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Michelle Malkin’s All Eyes on the UN 

When ignorance isn’t bliss

By Derrick Z. Jackson | August 18, 2007

NEWSWEEK RECENTLY detailed how ExxonMobil, the oil lobby, and other earth-plundering apologists spend millions of dollars to keep us ignorant on global warming. Time reported that in the rebuilding of New Orleans, “environmental ignorance is setting up the city for another catastrophe.”

America’s catastrophic ignorance continues.

Time said the US Army Corps of Engineers understands that protecting New Orleans from hurricanes like Katrina or worse will require not just bigger and stronger levees. It also means preserving and restoring marshes, swamps, and barrier islands that offer natural protection against winds and high water.

It would be fair to say that this blog views the Boston Globe as fringe left. Taking issue with reports published in the paper before was followed with a compliment or two on other articles. But today another example of politicizing an issue as the left being deprived and the right being the demon gives further evidence the initial appraisal was correct.

The author is going out on a limb with the use of a title featuring the word ‘ignorance.’ While there have been plenty of items published since Hurricane Katrina, few have placed any responsibility on the city of New Orleans or the State of Louisiana for the consequences of past neglect.

Reacting to an article in Time, the Globe author indicates more needs to be done than just strengthening levees and related components. No kidding. If the author was ambitious enough to examine the history of NOLA and hurricane risk he would find evidence of NOLA officials rejecting the strongest level of protection, environmental groups suing to obstruct the Army Corps of Engineers, funds being used for purposes other than hurricane protection and appropriations bills that were stalled for numerous reasons.

Then the Globe subjects the reader to more frantic panic of the current global warming debate. The debate needs a third viewpoint. The first two are at opposite ends of the spectrum. One believes everything about global warming and the other believes none of it. Not an impressive stand for either. Again, politics is being implemented where none is needed.

The single item for which the author of the Globe piece may have a point is energy. The politics of energy has many villains in the public and private sector. The one he fails to mention is the public. An unfortunate and painful truth is the public wants what the public wants. The notion that higher energy prices are the only realistic stimulus to reasonable conservation and alternative methods for energy use is lost on the report. Instead the focus is again on politics and the big bad corporations. Criticism of the public demand for unlimited and cheap energy that poses no threats and requires no sacrifice or discipline is absent.

A small mention of surveys showing public opinion is nothing more than a casual reference. The focus on business and government as the primary villains is a familiar theme. How about a little consumer bashing rather than criticizing only business and government as in this case they may be doing their jobs reacting to public demand. How convenient that as consumers we want everything the way we want it and complain when ‘they’ won’t get it for us.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Conservative Thoughts

Why is it that some people have such difficulty understanding the fact that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them? That’s right, this is a commentary on the war in Iraq and other issues facing the United States. It applies to illegal immigration, terrorism, ethics, the rule of law and other critical topics as well. But this commentary is limited to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in light of another irresponsible statement by a member of the US Senate.

One may be able to forgive such a statement from a freshman politician but that is not the case with a Senator who may have just exposed the fact he has been there too long. That would be an excessively generous appraisal of the reason for this Senator’s improper use of his office. Senator Richard Lugar (R–IN) is the latest in a small group of GOP legislators without the sense to understand what should be said publicly and what should be reserved for private discussions.

No matter how it is dressed up, whether as ‘redeployment’ or ‘changing the course’ or ‘a new strategy’, that is surrender. Any reservations one may have had in regard to war should have been considered before authorizing the US to use military force in Iraq. That most Senators did not even bother to read the intel reports before voting to go to war is a clear indication of their incompetence. But to compound that failure by suggesting surrender is totally irresponsible.

The US reluctance to enter both World Wars early on is one historic fact that should enlighten these same Senators to the folly of poor decision making. What advantage went to the enemy by delaying the inevitable confrontation? How many lives could have been saved if the combined effort of allies were present at the beginning? Why was the late entry to WWI not understood before WWII was underway? Why have we consistently allowed our military readiness to be less than adequate leading up to each worldwide conflict? And why have we not learned the lessons yet in dealing with a world faced by terrorism?

Not providing universal and complete support of the troops once the decision to go to war is made is another huge mistake. It is clear that this fundamental flaw within the US Congress has spread to the general public and may well explain this country’s inability to successfully attend to a daunting list of critical issues. The historic ability of this country to rise to greatness when presented with the long odds of crisis situations has apparently diminished. The need to set aside partisan politics, eliminate public apathy and support what is best for this country without consideration of what may be in our own personal best interests is long overdue. It is time to respond to national issues based on what is best for this country overall and not what addresses the selfish interest of individuals. The dedication and commitment of the United States military in service to this country should be ample proof of that. They have set aside personal preference to honorably provide what is needed. The rest of this country should do the same.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GOP support for Iraq war slips

June 26, 2007
By ANNE FLAHERTY -AP
Lugar and Voinovich are not the first GOP members to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon made similar remarks earlier this year. But their public break is significant because it raises the possibility that Senate Democrats could muster the 60 votes needed to pass legislation that would call for Bush to bring troops home.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

OPIC ANNOUNCES GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE CAPPING EMISSIONS ON NEW PROJECTS, SHIFTING EMPHASIS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

Goal to reduce emissions by 20 percent in ten years;
agency to enhance project accounting and reporting

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) will work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in OPIC-supported projects by 20 percent in the next ten years and shift emphasis to renewable and energy-efficient projects, according to a new initiative announced today by OPIC President and CEO Robert Mosbacher, Jr.

To meet the portfolio reduction target of the OPIC Greenhouse Gas Initiative, OPIC is establishing an annual emissions cap for all new greenhouse gas emissions in OPIC supported projects to which the agency provides a commitment. The cap will be equivalent to the emissions from projects committed to by OPIC in fiscal year 2007, estimated to be between two and three million tons CO2eq (see below). If met, the goal will result in a reduction in emissions from 54.7 million tons of CO2eq in OPIC’s current portfolio of OPIC supported projects, to a cap of 44 million tons in 2016.

On a project basis, OPIC will work with the private sector to encourage U.S. investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency improvement projects through the application of market-based incentives. OPIC will consider emission reduction alternatives for all OPIC-supported projects, including opportunities to enhance energy and operational efficiency; and the application of new technologies for the capture, storage and recovery of greenhouse gases.

In the fourth part of the initiative, OPIC will enhance its accounting and reporting on greenhouse gas emissions, and on renewable energy and energy efficiency in the OPIC annual environmental report. Instead of aggregate emission reporting, OPIC will report annual emissions of each significant OPIC-supported project’s greenhouse gas emissions in the active portfolio as well as the projected emissions for each project receiving an OPIC commitment.

“A key part of the U.S. government’s work in developing a multilateral approach to climate change is to support policies and projects that help developing countries to meet their energy needs in the most environmentally responsible manner,” Mosbacher said. “The OPIC GHG Initiative moves in this direction by directly addressing emissions. And in partnership with the private sector, we can support the projects and clean technology that will provide energy, spur growth while protecting the environment in developing countries.”

Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP). The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP. For example, the GWP for methane is 21 and for nitrous oxide 310. This means that the emissions of 1 million metric tons of methane and nitrous oxide respectively are equivalent to emissions of 21 and 310 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

OPIC was established as an agency of the U.S. government in 1971. It helps U.S. businesses invest overseas, fosters economic development in new and emerging markets, complements the private sector in managing risks associated with foreign direct investment, and supports U.S. foreign policy. Because OPIC charges market-based fees for its products, it operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net cost to taxpayers.

OPIC’s political risk insurance and financing help U.S. businesses of all sizes invest in more than 150 emerging markets and developing nations worldwide. Over the agency’s 35-year history, OPIC has supported $164 billion worth of investments that have helped developing countries to generate more than 732,000 host-country jobs and $13 billion in host-government revenues. OPIC projects have also generated $69 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 264,000 American jobs.

Rep Barlett of Maryland is so excited about this you would think he was a freshman. But then he had help with this insanity from Markey and Skelton, both Democrats. Of course they would help you with this, they are Democrats and their god who invented the internet has declared with all his scientific wisdom that his version of global warming is the right one.

At least this saves time for this blog. We usually find single references to an individual politician behaving badly. This is a three for one deal. The really sad part is this may be the only example of both parties working together this year. (besides screwing us on immigration) And in reality it is probably one minority party member being had by two majority party members. Ok, the really sad thing is the three of them caused a problem for all of us. Spending money on one more unproven adventure into the current global warming craze. How about we get something resembling consensus in the public at large before we go off half-cocked spending additional public funds.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Defense Bill Could Mandate a Report on Climate Change

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6)
May 11th, 2007
The House Armed Services Committee included a requirement for an assessment of the impact of climate change on current and future Department of Defense missions as part of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Defense Authorization bill was approved by a unanimous vote of 58-0.

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
In light of a press release from the American Council for Capital Formation and the connection made with Senator Chuck Hagel, some attention should be paid to it. Stating that the US Tax Code is unfavorable to specific investments and trying to draw support by characterizing energy interests as national energy security or environmental protection is nonsense.

It becomes even more nonsense when you consider that the two politicians mentioned and quoted in the press release have vested interests that would conflict with an honest assessment on this topic. Senator Chuck Hagel’s involvement in business over nearly 30 years includes work as an investment banker in the eighties and the McCarthy Group in the nineties. The accouting firm, Ernst and Young, contributed to his campaign fund as well as Arthur Anderson and Enron. The quantity of energy interests listed on campaign finance disclosures for Senator Hagel are indicative of a biased slant in their favor. And Rep Jim Matheson is the owner of an energy consulting firm according to information at Project Vote Smart. Put this Republican Senator and Democratic Congressman together on this topic and you have definition of bipartisan politics and explanation why it is rarely a good thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senator Hagel, Representative Matheson: U.S. Tax Code Unfavorable to Investments Needed for Energy Security and Environmental Protection

New Ernst & Young Study Shows U.S. Has Slow Cost Recovery and High Tax
Rates Compared to International Trading Partners

WASHINGTON, May 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The U.S tax code fails to
provide a favorable investment climate for future infrastructure that will
be vital to national energy security and environmental protection,
according to a new study prepared by Ernst & Young on behalf of the
American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF). The ACCF study compares
depreciation allowances and effective tax rates for various energy
investments for the United States and eleven foreign countries. The U.S.
consistently ranked near the bottom internationally when it comes to cost
recovery on energy investments. U.S. companies also face much higher tax
rates on the profit from their investments than do companies in countries
like Canada, Mexico, China, India and Malaysia. Slow cost recovery and high
tax rates on investment raise the cost of capital, meaning fewer new
projects will be undertaken.
“The current federal tax code raises the cost of capital for U.S.
firms, putting them at a competitive disadvantage, and makes it harder to
provide solutions to our energy and environmental policy goals. This study
is another example of the enormous changes needed in the current federal
tax code to keep America competitive in the 21st Century marketplace,” said
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who headlined an ACCF forum today where the
study was released.
U.S. energy security and energy prices remain paramount national
issues. Strained energy supplies will be exacerbated by continued growth in
U.S. population, which means increased demand for home heating and cooling,
job growth and transportation. Complicating these challenges are increasing
environmental requirements for cleaner, more efficient technology to
produce energy while reducing growth in greenhouse gas emissions.
To meet these challenges, U.S. industry must make large investments
over the next decade; electric utilities, for example, must invest up to $1
trillion by 2020 for new generating capacity, transmission, distribution,
and environmental control technology and demand-side management.
Unfortunately, the U.S. federal tax code fails to provide a positive
investment climate, especially compared to the favorable tax provisions
available to our international trading partners.
Specifically, the ACCF study found:
– The United States generally has less favorable tax depreciation
rules for electric generation, electric transmission and distribution, and
petroleum refining than many other countries, including a number of the
U.S.’s major trading partners.
– The U.S. generally has slower cost recovery during the first five
and ten years after the investment than the comparison countries. For
example, investments in electric generation fueled by natural gas, nuclear
and coal recovers less than 38% of the original investment during the first
five years and 68% during the first ten years in the U.S., compared to 80%
and 97%, respectively in Canada.
– When the time value of money is taken into account, the U.S.
depreciation rates remain less favorable than most of the competitor
countries. Again, an investment in electric generation fueled by natural
gas, nuclear and coal has a net present value of depreciation over the
entire recovery period of less than 66% of the original investment in the
U.S. compared to 84% in Canada.
– Because the United States has the second highest statutory corporate
marginal tax rate among OECD countries combined with generally less
favorable tax depreciation rules, the differences in effective tax rates
are even greater. The corporate effective tax rate on investments in
electric generation fueled by natural gas, nuclear and coal is estimated at
27-31% in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
– These findings are consistent across all of the energy assets
studied, including different types of electric generation, electricity
transmission and distribution, pollution control equipment, and petroleum
refining.
“Tax policy is an important piece of the puzzle as we consider a
comprehensive energy policy in this Congress. I appreciate the effort
behind this study and look forward to becoming more familiar with
implications of tax policy on energy investment,” said Representative Jim
Matheson (D-UT) who also headlined the ACCF forum today.
“If the U.S. is serious about meeting energy demands and making
technology environmentally-friendly, then it needs to take a serious look
at making our tax code more favorable toward investment and more on par
with our international trading partners,” said ACCF senior vice president
and chief economist Margo Thorning.
The full ACCF study and downloadable bar charts are available at
http://www.accf.org.
The American Council for Capital Formation (http://www.accf.org) is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to the advocacy of tax and
environmental policies that encourage saving and investment. The ACCF was
founded in 1973 and is supported by the voluntary contributions of
corporations, associations, foundations, and individuals.

SOURCE American Council for Capital Formation

Related links:
# http://www.accf.org

Every item in this bragging list belonging to Speaker Nancy Pelosi is flawed, useless or both except for one possibly worthwhile intention. Can you determine which one that is? It is described as ‘possibly worthwhile’ only because it may provide something positive but it is only a piecemeal repair to a larger problem that is regularly ignored.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

# House Democratic Leaders Call President’s Attention to Crucial Facts in Iraq War Debate “The bill we will send you provides for our veterans, protects our troops, rebuilds our military, holds the Iraqi government accountable, and responsibly winds down this war.” 04/20/2007

# Pelosi Statement Celebrating Earth Day “As we celebrate Earth Day, we must rededicate ourselves to address a challenge as local as our neighborhoods and as global as our planet – global warming.” 04/20/2007

# Pelosi: Gonzales Must Resign “The President should restore credibility to the office of the Attorney General. Alberto Gonzales must resign.” 04/20/2007

# Pelosi, Democrats Launch 100 Percent Carbon Neutral ‘Green the Capitol Initiative’ “The House must lead by example and it is time for Congress to act on its own carbon footprint. Today, we announce our intention to operate the House in a carbon neutral manner at the earliest possible date with a deadline of the end of this Congress.” 04/19/2007

# Pelosi Statement on Medicare Prescription Drug Bill “Democrats will keep fighting until this bill is signed into law and seniors and people with disabilities have access to affordable prescription drugs.” 04/18/2007

# Pelosi Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision on Late-Term Abortions “The Court’s decision is a significant step backwards.” 04/18/2007

# Pelosi: On This Tax Day, Democrats are Restoring Accountability and Fiscal Responsibility “As Americans pay our taxes this week, we deserve a government that reflects our priorities for the future, but also respects the value of taxpayer dollars.” 04/17/2007

Another misleading headline is something that will help divide those debating environmental concerns and the relative merits of propsals attributed to the scientific community. It needs to be written again that blindly adopting every proposed solution to protect the environment is as damaging as complete dismissal of every concern expressed on the condition and future of that same environment.

In the article below, the headline reads as if the entire public and Congress are demanding emissions laws. And yet in the first and second paragraphs of the article several vaguely defined categories of possible organizations are defined by the author as a new coalition, not the public and Congress deamanding new laws.

Later on this same page of a site called ‘Down to Earth’ self-described as science and environment online describes its understanding of the roles of Seantor Barbara Boxer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on matters of the environment. As the chair of the committee on Environment and Public Works there are indications that like this particular online environmental publication, Senator Barbara Boxer will push her personal environmental agenda along without any consideration of whether it is an intelligent course of action or not. As written before, just as damaging as entirely dismissing all envrionmental concerns

Public, Congress demand emission laws in US

SUNITA DUBEY
The US Congress is finally taking climate change seriously, with the Democrats, who are in control, reversing the existing policy of denial. The change has galvanised environmental groups. Business groups, including large corporations, have joined hands with bodies like the Natural Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense, World Resources Institute and Pew Center for Climate Change.

This new coalition is now demanding national legislation to curb greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions to mitigate the effects of global warming.

And as if muddying the environmental debate wasn’t enough, Senator Barbara Boxer along with her esteemed colleagues is on a revival of sorts to muddy more waters. We do not believe we can address this situation more clearly than has already been done by George Will. An excerpt of his opinion is provided below as well as the link to the entire piece. I will simply add that this additional meaningless non-issue campaign merely distracts attention from the real issues which is a politician’s most frequently used tactic to get nothing meaningful accomplished. I guess this means we can add Rep Carolyn Maloney to the Women in Politics series on this blog.

Newest equality amendment resurrects a familiar bad idea

4/5/2007 8:02:24 AM

GEORGE WILL
WASHINGTON — Liberals, dolled up in love beads and bell-bottom trousers, have had another bright idea, one as fresh as other 1970s fads.

Sens. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, high-octane liberals all, have asked Congress to improve the Constitution by adding the Women’s Equality Amendment, which, like the Equal Rights Amendment before it, says: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

As I have lamented on this blog before, please Lord, make it stop.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Whaling ship drifts off Antarctic area

Houston Chronicle - 8 hours ago
By RAY LILLEY AP Writer. © 2007 AP. WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A Japanese whaling ship crippled by fire drifted off the world’s largest penguin breeding grounds Friday, and New Zealand alerted other countries it may need help if the vessel leaked oil …

That’s what you get for killing whales.
MoreWhat.com staff

Gore Film Sparks Parents’ Anger
FEDERAL WAY, Wash., Jan. 24 — Frosty E. Hardison is neither impressed nor surprised that “An Inconvenient Truth,” the global-warming movie narrated by former vice president Al Gore, received an Oscar nomination this week for best documentary.

If you call yourself Frosty, maybe global warming should be on your radar. But to protest your child viewing Al Gore’s film because you are angry in thinking it lays the blame on “the greatest nation ever” or that global warming is advanced notice of judgment day, you have more to worry about than Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Committee Holds Hearing on Political Influence on Government Climate Change Scientists
Four witnesses testified on Tuesday regarding allegations that political officials stifled government scientists in order to minimize the significance of global climate change.

Chairman Waxman Requests Additional Information on GSA Procurement
Chairman Waxman writes to GSA Administrator Lurita A. Doan and others inquiring about GSA procurement issues.

Chairman Waxman Invites Witnesses for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Hearing
Rep. Waxman has requested the testimony of L. Paul Bremer, Stuart Bowen, and Timothy Carney at an Oversight Committee hearing on waste, fraud, and abuse, which will focus on Iraq reconstruction. The hearing will be held the week of February 6th.

One of the few times political motives may actually be a good thing. Part of the downside of this good thing might be the use of hearings and investigations to simply embarrass the other party. But if Senator Henry Waxman and other members of this committee can uncover the abuse and indict the offenders there could be plenty of upside.

The so-called toughest ethics reform bill in decades will be entirely meaningless if the reconstruction contracts and lack of results in Afghanistan and Iraq are not corrected. This doesn’t mean more taxpayer money to right the wrongs of contractors. This means holding those contractors responsible and having those companies right the wrong.

Rather than civil penalties or less for those who commit such acts, criminal penalties and a real prison should be the fate of offenders found guilty. That would include applying undue influence on government scientists and more no bid nonsense from Doan at the GSA. Penalties with teeth and real criminal punishment might reduce unlawful or unethical practices in government. That would be tough legislation and action, not the fertilizer that passed through Congress recently.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com