ZBB Energy, a Menomonee Falls based green energy company, is in a race to bring new green technologies to market as it finds itself in the center of the debate over whether government financial assistance can launch and sustain a green economy here in the United States.

President Obama visited ZBB Energy back in August of 2010 to promote the green economy and why the federal government should step in to get this sector of the economy off the ground.

“At this plant you’re doing more than making high-tech batteries.  You’re pointing the country towards a brighter economic future,” Obama said.

During his visit, President Obama vowed to create 800,000 green energy jobs by 2012.

ZBB Energy makes batteries specifically designed to store electricity from renewable sources. At least, that’s the plan.  ZBB Energy is in the middle of a major overhaul and currently does not have any products on the market. It plans to launch a new line within weeks.

“The product we’re developing will be the only storage device like it in the world,” Will Hogoboom, CFO, told MacIver News. “We’ve already closed orders for the new product even though it’s not in production.”

Investors and the stock market have not always appeared to share in the President’s optimism.  ZBB Energy stock ended the year at 71 cents a share. The day of Obama’s visit, the stock closed at $.70. Some believe investors are generally weary of green energy companies, especially startups, because these companies have high risk: they incur high overhead and generate low revenue while they attempt to develop new technologies that may or may not be profitable.

That’s where federal and state governments step in, providing those companies with massive tax breaks and loans. Many companies state in their SEC filings they could not survive without this preferred treatment. However, as we’ve seen, government favoritism is not a guarantee of success.

Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer in California, received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy in 2009. Two years later the company was out of business.

ZBB Energy has received significantly less help from the federal government than Solyndra. In June, the IRS awarded it a $14.7 million Clean Energy Tax Credit.  In 2009 it received a $1.3 million stimulus loan.

The stock market has been a consistent challenge for ZBB Energy. In December 2010, AMEX notified ZBB its shareholders’ equity was below the minimum $4 million required to continue being listed. This December, the company announced its shareholders equity was at $4.1 million and it was back in compliance.

However, ZBB’s stock still trends downward. It closed at $5.80 on June 18, 2007, three days after the company executed a 1:17 reverse split. Since then, it’s been downhill. On December 20, 2011 it closed at 74 cents a share and has not broken $1/share since September.

Courtesy of NASDAQ.com

ZBB’s market trouble is reflected in its SEC reports. Its Q3 revenue was at $1.637 million. ZBB’s payroll alone was $60,000 more than that. The total operating loss was $1.696 million.

The company hopes to turn all this around with the release of a new line of batteries, which are in the final stage of testing.

“Once we start actually producing and shipping, it will mean the world to us,” Hogoboom said.

The company has also added a number of new employees. At the time of its overhaul two years ago, ZBB employed 25 people. Today it employs about 60 people and has 7 open positions.

Over the past few months, while developing its new product, the company has also been forging new partnerships. In fact ZBB is opening a new factory in China in the next few weeks.

On December 15th, ZBB announced a new joint venture partnership with an unnamed “global technology company,” to help in product development. That partner is investing $800,000 in the project, and bought $700,000 of ZBB stock.

Company insiders appear to be confident. Hogoboom bought 14,000 shares on December 13. Buoyed by the government investment in the firm, investors purchased 1,307,860 shares over the last six months, all at market value.

To achieve President Obama’s goal to create 800,000 green energy jobs by 2012, the federal government has invested heavily in companies like ZBB. Yet, there is presently no official way to verify the success of such job creation efforts since the Labor Department does not track green jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is in the process of conducting a survey to find out exactly how many green jobs there are in the country and hopes to have that complete by the middle of this year.

Meanwhile, announced expansion projects, a new product line, and large stock purchases have not been enough to give non governmental investors in the market confidence in this green energy “startup.” ZBB’s stock opened at 78 cents a share on December 15, 2011 and closed at 81 cents a share on Jan. 13, 2012.

Share

Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

The Wisconsin legislature’s Joint Finance Committee (JFC) repealed at least one Doyle-era hidden tax on Wisconsinites last week. The JFC, under Republican control, undid a mandated increase in fees for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that the JFC under Democratic control allowed six months ago.

Last December, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission (PSC) did its best impression of the Grinch who raised energy bills. The PSC increased the mandated contributions from the state’s energy companies to renewable energy programs, especially the Focus on Energy program.

The Focus on Energy takes money from the utilities and gives money as rebates to businesses and residential homeowners who do qualifying energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements. As a memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau says, the program is controversial because the cost of the energy companies’ contributions to the Focus on Energy program are passed along to business and residential consumers in the form of higher energy rates.

“Through 2010, each energy utility was required to spend 1.2 percent of its annual operating revenues to fund the program; these revenues totaled $85.7 million in 2009. In December 2010, the Joint Committee on Finance approved an order by the PSC to require utilities to instead make predetermined annual contributions, starting at $120 million in 2011 and increasing to $256 million by 2014. Because these contributions are passed through to utility rate payers, concerns have been raised about the program’s benefits and costs.”

Just last week, Madison Gas and Electric Co asked for a 4.9% increase in electrical rates and 1.2% increase in natural gas rates, in part to pay for the mandate to fund statewide energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation of Green Bay is also asking for a rate increase, again in part because of the mandated payment for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.

State Representative Robin Vos, co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee, explained in an interview with the Wisconsin Radio Network how the mandated contribution from energy companies works,:

“The way Focus on Energy works, especially for residential customers, everyone in this room pays higher electricity costs so that some people can get things for free.,” said Vos. “That’s the way Focus on Energy works primarily. There are a small number of people who will get that grant and if you are lucky enough to be one of them, perhaps it is a good deal for you.”

The PSC estimated energy ratepayers would see an increase of 4.3% in their energy bills by 2014 if the increased mandated contribution from the energy companies was allowed to stand. Supporters of programs like Focus on Energy claim that energy costs will go down with the improved energy efficiency. The PSC itself estimates that energy costs will decline after 2014.

However, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau said the costs for energy consumption would go down only for those participating in the program. Ratepayers as a whole would continue to subsidize lower energy costs for some through higher rates.

Despite the redistributive nature of the program, the JFC did not kill the program entirely. Instead they left intact the increase for this year in the program while returning the program next year to funding at the level prior to last December’s increase. That means the state will still spend around $100 million of the energy ratepayers’ money annually on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

The legislative audit bureau is scheduled to complete an audit this fall of the Focus on Energy program. It will be interesting to see if the audit bureau is able to determine how many of the energy efficiency projects and how many of the renewable energy projects would have taken place without the subsidy from Focus on Energy, and what the return on investment of such a program actually is taking into account those factors.

Regardless, ratepayers and legislators should ask themselves if it is really in the state’s best interests to continue this hidden tax on individuals and businesses to fund energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy projects that would not have taken place without a subsidy. They should especially ask that question considering the rate hikes we can all expect as a result of the program.

Share

Despite millions in government grants and subsidies, the Manitowoc company President Barack Obama called a glimpse of the future lost $4.2 million last year and cannot promise shareholders it will be profitable in the foreseeable future.

Even Orion Energy Systems admits there are a lot of risks and uncertainties in the green energy industry.

“Many technologies do not become commercially profitable products, applications or services despite extensive development and commercialization efforts,”the company stated in its most recent 10-K SEC filing on June 14, 2010. 

The last five years have been a rollercoaster for Orion.  It lost a total of $3.9 million in 2005 and 2006, made $4.3 million in the next three years, and then finally lost $4.2 million in the 2010 fiscal year.

“We may continue to incur further net losses and there can be no assurance that we will be able to increase our revenue, expand our customer base or be profitable,” the report indicates.

Investors have responded to the company’s volatility, and Orion stock has plummeted in the past four years.  It closed 2007 at $18.82 a share.  By the end of 2010 it was $3.34.

Regardless, President Obama is putting his, and the U.S. taxpayers’, money on companies like Orion.

“It’s important to remember that this plant, this company has also been supported over the years not just by the Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Administration, but by tax credits and awards we created to give a leg up to renewable energy companies,” Obama said at the Orion plant on Wednesday.

The State of Wisconsin has also given its share trying to help Orion to succeed.  Since 2005, the state has given the company $350,000 in community development zone tax credits, $506,000 in economic development funds, and $420,000 from the Wisconsin Energy Independence Fund.  Plus the company got another $260,000 in stimulus funds for a State Energy project.

In addition to direct aid, public policy has also helped the struggling company.  Wisconsin law requires that 10 percent of all electricity sold in the state come from renewable sources by 2015.  Orion knows that without government intervention like that, there would be little prospect for the green economy.

“The reduction, elimination or expiration of government mandates and subsidies or economic or tax rebates, credits and/or incentives for alternative renewable energy systems would likely substantially reduce the demand for, and economic feasibility of, any solar photovoltaic and/or wind electricity generating products, applications or services and could materially reduce any prospects for our successfully introducing any new products, applications or services using such technologies,” the SEC report states.

Currently Orion has about 250 workers and, according to Obama, could have as many as 300 working there by the end of the year.  However, tracking green jobs and the return on that taxpayer subsidized investment can be difficult to track, as the MacIver News Service reported in 2010.  At that time the wind industry was claiming thousands of manufacturing jobs directly tied to wind energy, but MacIver News Service was only able to identify three dozen jobs, after calling every single primary manufacturer on the wind energy industries database.

Regardless, as evidenced by his State of the Union Address and his comments in Wisconsin this week, President Obama policies will continue to emphasize green energy companies like Orion Energy Systems in Manotowoc.

Share

[Milwaukee, Wisc…] Students at Marqutte University will  have the opportunity to hear a skeptic’s take on the issue of global warming tonight.

Christopher Horner, senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., will give a presentation sponsored by the Marquette University College Republicans.

“The College Republicans wanted to bring a differing voice to campus,” said Marquette University student Ethan Hollenberger, who noted that last month the MU Student Government speaker series hosted “the No Impact Man” Colin Beaven, a radical environmentalist. “Mr. Horner will bring another side to this issue, and that is the purpose of college—the discussion of issues.”

Horner’s presentation will be followed by a question and answer session. One topic that is sure to come up: how the recent elections will impact controversial ‘Cap and Trade’ legislation in Washington.

Horner shared some thoughts on the election fallout and other current efforts in Washington and the states with the MacIver News Service in advance of his speech.

“ ‘Cap and Trade’ is of course dead but there remains a push for a national windmill mandate as the newest vehicle to raise everyone’s electricity costs, and enormous wealth transfers being pushed by investors in the global warming industry apparently feeling stranded, like T. Boone Pickens,” said Horner. “Cap and Trade is declared dead even by Obama until at least 2013.”

Horner

Horner warns however, that anti-business environmental advocates, as he sees them, will continue to pursue their agenda in a whole host of manners.

“We’ve largely reached the likely saturation point in the ‘crazy quilt’ approach of certain usual-suspect states like California and New Jersey making a hash of things and complaining to Washington that it’s just not fair everyone isn’t forced to do the same things to themselves,” said Horner. “Meanwhile, several key federal avenues have been closed off to them. So now it’s off to windmill mandates and the like, federally, and other smaller ball ways of skinning the energy-scarcity cat.”

Horner blames what he calls environmental ‘gesture politics’ for many of the economic problems facing the states.

“California’s looming bankruptcy, which will be revolutionary if allowed to occur, can be attributed to these gesture politics of binge debt spending on payoffs to special interests who run campaigns like the global warming industry, and other such feelgoodery,” said Horner. “We’ll see if the other 48 states (New York, too, will sink) will pay, and how their taxpayers react, before we know just how much this has enlightened us.”

Recently, Wisconsin Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI 05) suggested the new House Republican Majority in Washington maintain the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming created by Democrats but change its mission to one of a watchdog over the Environmental Protection Agency.

Horner is skeptical of such an approach.

“I would prefer aggressive oversight of ongoing spending, existing regulation and proposed regulation under existing, ‘standing’ committees because, after all, the money that requires scrutiny as to how it is being spent was authorized by existing committees whose authority includes oversight of the relevant statutory authority,” said Horner. “But there are no such things in DC as temporary committees.”

Horner notes the battles continue but will become less straightforward as the proponents of global warming legislation change their tactics, as a result of widespread public rejection of their more heavy-handed approach.

“They have to even further obscure what they are doing: going from the direct tax (on BTUs) to a backdoor tax with rationing and ration coupons (Cap and Trade), to indirect ‘standards” that are upon scrutiny mandates, styled as ‘requiring utilities to produce..,’ which means requiring you to buy more expensive less reliable uneconomic energy, paying back the utilities on a cost-plus basis,” said Horner. “It is toward those ends that the anti-energy industry is already scrambling on various Plans C-D-E etc., some styled as ‘things we all agree on’ though, as with most things sold that way, they are no such thing.”

Horner, who holds a Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis, is the author of the recently-released book, Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, which was published in 2007, and spent several months on the New York Times Best Selling List.

Horner has testified before the United States Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Environment and Public Works, and works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world. He has given numerous addresses to audiences in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels, and before policymakers in European capitals including London, Rome, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid and Warsaw, on topics ranging from rail deregulation and unfunded pension liability to all manner of energy and environment issues.

This is Horner’s second trip to Wisconsin this year. In May, the author Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed spoke to a group of students and members of the general public in Oshkosh.

Tonight’s event, co-sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation, is free, open to the public, and will take place at 6:15 at Marquette University’s Weasler Auditorium on15th and Wells. Parking is available in the visitor parking structure on 16th Street. Doors open to the public at 5:30 pm.

[Madison, Wisc...] Although they are touted and promoted by policy makers and opinion leaders across the state, accurately defining and keeping track of ‘green jobs’ has proven nearly impossible in Wisconsin.

Take, for example, ‘green jobs’ associated with the wind industry.

Wisc. Governor Jim Doyle (D)

“Clean energy technology and high-end manufacturing are Wisconsin’s future,” Governor Jim Doyle said in his final State of the State address.  “We have more than 300 companies and thousands of jobs in the wind industry.”

That statistic is impossible to verify.

The State of Wisconsin does not track those companies nor the jobs within the industry.  When contacted, the Office of Energy Independence (an agency created by Governor Doyle in 2007) directed MacIver News to Wisconsin Wind Works, a self-described “consortium of manufacturers representing the wind manufacturing supply chain within Wisconsin.”

The advocacy group maintains an online wind energy-related supply chain database, although a routine examination of the data proved just how unreliable the figures are.

When the online, searchable database was utilized earlier this summer, it listed 340 companies in Wisconsin connected to the wind industry, a fact which, without additional investigation would appear to be in line with the Governor’s statement.  However, further examination showed many of those companies were not currently serving the wind industry and were only listed because they someday could serve the wind industry.

For example, the database listed 38 manufacturers, but only 24 of them have anything to actually do with the wind energy sector presently.

Of those 24 Wisconsin manufacturers, only eight were categorized as primary suppliers.  Another four companies were listed as both primary and secondary suppliers.  A MacIver News Service reporter contacted all eight primary suppliers and the four companies listed as primary/secondary suppliers in our initial query and what we found further eroded the credibility of Governor Doyle’s claims.

When contacted, the companies listed as both primary and secondary suppliers all described themselves merely as secondary suppliers.  That means they produce products that are not exclusive to the wind energy.  For example, Bushman Equipment manufactures lifts that move heavy pieces of equipment, which, among many other uses, can be used to handle wind turbines.

Wisconsin Wind Works’ database is not only generous with the number of companies within their supply chain it associates as being primary suppliers, there are issues with the actual job numbers listed for each company as well. Many of the figures are either inflated,  the jobs are not located in Wisconsin, or they cannot be tied to wind energy.

For example, Rexnord Industries was one of the eight Wisconsin manufacturers listed in our query as directly serving the wind energy industry.  The database shows the company has 6,000 employees.  Yet a Rexnord official told the MacIver News Service that the company only has 1,500 employees in Wisconsin, and only five of those have jobs which are directly tied to the wind industry.

Wisconsin Wind Works’ database says Orchid International has 600 employees, but a company spokesperson told MacIver it only has 150.  Amsoil Inc. in Superior has 236 employees listed in the Wisconsin Wind Works database, but a company representative told the MacIver News Service that only 6 of them work on wind energy-related products.

In all, at the time of our search, the database claimed 7,632 jobs among the eight manufacturers that were current primary suppliers to the wind industry.  Yet, the MacIver News Service was only able to identify 31 jobs at those companies which were specifically tied to wind energy related products.

Manufacturers told MacIver News that other employees might work on wind-related products occasionally, but it does not represent the bulk of their workload.

Another 1,077 workers are listed among the secondary suppliers and we did not investigate that claim.

VAL-FAB, one of the companies listed as both a primary and secondary supplier, explained to MacIver News that it initially had high hopes for the wind energy industry that never materialized.  The company specializes in fabrication for the energy sector.

William Capelle, Director of Business Development at VAL-FAB, said “At first we thought we might be able to manufacture the actual towers, but it turns out 90 percent of those are imported from Spain.”

Since the MacIver News Service first examined the Wisconsin Wind Works database, the number of companies listed has increased to 360.  A reporter attempted to contact the organization for comment about the veracity of their data, but Wisconsin wind Works, which solicits members by selling itself as the  “preferred partner of wind energy professionals,” did not respond.

They are, however, holding a Wind Energy Symposium in Milwaukee on October 13th.

Meanwhile the Office of Energy Independence continues to pursue the Doyle Administration’s green energy policies.  As Doyle said during his final State of the State address, “anyone who says there aren’t jobs in the clean energy economy had better open their eyes.”

There is no doubt that some jobs in the wind industry exist in Wisconsin. The accurate number of these ‘green jobs’ is proving to be, at best, elusive

Representatives of Doyle’s office did not respond to repeated request for comments regarding the information contained within this article.

By Bill Osmulski
MacIver News Service Investigative Reporter

Wisconsin Wind Works’ directory

Keep informed about the events in Madison and Washington that impact you.

Click here to sign up for weekly updates.

Share

“The goal of the project is to give teachers, and through teachers the students, basic information that they use to explore the topic of climate change. Obviously it’s in the news a lot, so they can explore and decide for themselves what they believe about it,” said Mary Hamel, one of the guide’s co-authors.

The book quotes the beleaguered United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and includes images of the planet Earth on fire, a polar bear stuck on an ice-floe and a gasoline pump tied up in knots under the heading: Causes of Climate Change.

Hamel says the guide presents straight facts and allows students to draw their own conclusions about whether or not climate change is even occurring. However, Representative Jim Ott (R-Mequon), who worked as a meteorologist for several decades prior to becoming a legislator, argues the guide only presents one side of the story.

“It completely leaves out the fact that there are some very respected scientists who take the opposite view of the view they call the consensus, the overwhelming evidence,’ Ott said. “Well there are some very respected scientists that take an opposing view. That in itself, I would think is not accurate science.”

Ott says many of the practical exercises in the guide involve students taking up the role of environment activists, aggressively pursuing global warming policy changes.

“They basically are telling students to lobby for climate change legislation,” Ott said as he quotes from the book. “‘‘Everyone, including young adults, can bring about change by being active and engaged citizens. They can encourage lawmakers that alleviate or lessen the impacts of climate change.’ The DNR is telling students they should be calling me and telling me that I should enact policies that will fight climate change that they assume is happening and being caused by us? I have some real problems with that.”

The DNR wrote the 86-page guide two years ago to address a perceived need in the classroom. A grant from the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board (from UW-Stevens Point) helped pay for its production.

The DNR does not keep track of how the guide is being used in classrooms. Officials with the department say they are looking for ways to encourage teachers to provide feedback, which has been lacking.

So far, 6,000 copies of the guide have been mailed out or downloaded, although DNR officials said they could not identify which schools were using the guide.

Bill Osmulski has more in this video report from Madison; and, the MacIver News Graphic, seen below, includes excerpts from the text book.

This online and video material is free to be reproduced, with attribution.

Share

I don’t know how one’s conscience could allow for anything but.

The incident in the Gulf is obviously a tragedy from which lessons must be learned, but it shouldn’t scare us away from the natural resource that is oil.

The Left seems to think sun and wind are free gifts from mother earth but that oil is some nefarious un-natural concoction created by Dick Cheney and Dow Chemical. Oil, too, is from the earth. It is just as natural as the sun or the air.

Our ability to harness the earth’s petroleum resources has perhaps been the single most impactful discovery…ever. It fueled the second Industrial Revolution; helped end society’s acceptance of child labor; brought clean water and heat and electric light to the masses; helped us advance from an agrarian society where our lives were dictated by the seasons; helped women become recognized as productive wage earners; lengthened the life expectancy and increased the standard and quality of life for peoples across the globe.

We can’t run away from Oil because it is icky or because people and animals die when tragedies like this happen.

We must appreciate that our ability to safely and efficiently harness natural resources helps promote freedom, liberty and equal opportunity for prosperity. We must do all that we can to manage and mitigate the risk associated with this endeavor, but we cannot walk away from it. Oil is essential to fuel prosperity in a modern world. Certainly, the oil supply is extremely volatile both due to the risks associated with exploration and the political realities of OPEC. While we obviously need to continue to explore more politically-viable sources of energy for the future, we can’t abandon the resources we know are available.

Oil and natural gas account for sixty percent of our energy supply. Disrupting this equation would result in a massive transfer of wealth from the private sector. Trendy ‘green’ sources of energy like solar and wind are heavily subsidized and not particularly efficient (I’ve  written in the past about the inefficiencies and high cost of solar and wind). When consumers pay for solar and wind, a substantial portion of those monies go to fund the government subsidies which promote their use.

We need oil. We know where to get it. We shouldn’t let accidents scare us off from pursuing it. Instead, when a mess like the Deepwater Horizon disaster takes place, we need to fix it, learn from it and prevent it from happening in the future.

But the Left, predictably, simply uses tragedies like the one on the BP rig as an opportunity to bash business once again, and to push for a Luddite-inspired, pre-Industrial Revolution, horse-and-buggy/windmill economy wherein citizens must rely upon the State, and not themselves, for opportunities to improve their lot in life.

Each week, the website WisOpinion.com asks me and lefty Scot Ross of One Wisconsin Now to engage in exchanges on a topic of our choosing.

From my latest ‘That’s Debatable’ entry, wherein oil exploration was the topic:

You offer the false choice of no drilling or status quo.  Personally, I support the “Drill, Baby, Drill” and everything else plan. Let’s build some damn nuke plants while we’re at it.  We should be pursuing all domestic sources we know exist; that includes the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR in Alaska and public lands in the Dakotas and elsewhere. And we should invest in creating new technologies and exploring new sources of energy that make economic sense. Scot, how is our national security improved if we fail to tap into the resources we have here and instead are beholden to foreign government cartels like OPEC?  How is our economic security improved if we abandon oil and coal and instead rely totally on the more expensive, less reliable and less efficient solar and wind?  I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m obviously not silent about this. The incident in the Gulf is a tragedy, but it shouldn’t scare us away from the natural resource that is oil. I thought PROGRESS was the root of progressive? Why the call for retreat?

The Left’s demand for a risk-free world is not only pure fantasy, it is dangerous. A retreat from proven sources of energy, without affordable and efficient alternatives, not only denies the benefits society has reaped from oil, it destabilizes our economy and our national security.

But it certainly won’t stop the Left from using this tragedy as a bogeyman.

By Brian Fraley
A MacIver Institute Perspective

Share

“Environmentalist are like car alarms now,” notes  Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “People hear them all the time but nobody pays attention.”

Horner, who two weeks ago warned that the bill would be introduced this month, says the ‘doom and gloom’ mantra has severely hurt the environmentalists’ credibility. Because of that, he explains, they now have changed tactics–packaging and marketing environmental bills as economic development proposals.

“Well now they realize it’s not selling, so they’re changing the title,” said Horner. “It’s exactly what they did in Wisconsin; I know it’s now called the Clean Jobs Bill, yeah, that’s it, it’s about jobs.  No it isn’t it’s about power. These guys have always wanted to control your lives. ”

The latest proposal by Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Joe Liebermann (I-Connecticut) is expected be marketed as a pollution reduction and investment plan.

“Their [Environmental activists’] whole life is dedicated to claiming global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, except for all the others,” Horner says as he deconstructs the problem with that line of logic.

“Climate Change: The greatest threat facing mankind. Ok, great, so we’ll replace that coal with nuclear power right now, right, it’s the only thing we can do. But, your atoms, they frighten me.  Ok, so millions will die [from global warming] but you atoms frighten you? I sense a moral tension there.  So nuclear power is a greater threat than the GREATEST threat. Ok.

“Let’s go on down the list. Lot’s of dams, then right? No! We need to fish. Nature didn’t want our rivers to run that way. Ok, so dams, a greater threat than the greatest threat to mankind. How about Windmills?  Well, ok, but just not where birds fly or where Kennedy’s live. Alright, so the Kennedy’s’ having their views ruined is a greater threat than the greatest threat facing mankind….and it goes on down the list”

Horner made his comments after appearing at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh earlier this month to deliver a speech sponsored by the UW-Oshkosh College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation. He is the author of several books including Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and the recently-released Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, which he describes exposé of the green movement’s rise to political power and the consequences of green-friendly energy mandates on the economy and social order of our nation.

Update:  The Hill has posted an advance copy of the bill online, here.

Share

“The Cap and Trade bill will pop any day,” said Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It won’t be the one that ultimately goes to the floor, because [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid is going to write that, but, this is about our last chance to stand up and stop this and make a statement, before you have an opportunity to vote.”

Horner is outraged that Congressional leaders appear willing to circumvent the traditional committee work in order to speed up the process.

“Harry Reid has vowed to suspend the committee process once again, for Cap and Trade, because Cap and Trade it turns out would impact every aspect of your life so Cap and Trade would have to go through six senate committees,” said Horner.  “Oh and it would allow scrutiny and public input and it would never get through so he is going to write the bill behind closed doors.”

Horner made his comments after appearing at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh last week. He is the author of several books including Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and the recently-released Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, which he describes exposé of the green movement’s rise to political power and the consequences of  green-friendly energy mandates on the economy and social order of our nation.

Horner’s speech, sponsored by the UW-Oshkosh College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation was well attended and, despite some concerns to the contrary, went off without incident.

“There’s often an organized, nasty element to campus because that’s what the Alinskyites are about, speech threatens them., they want a monopoly on it,” said Horner. “The tolerant left is highly intolerant, but ultimately, it’s usually the good folks who show up and that’s what happened when I came to Oshkosh.”

In an interview with MacIver News, Horner elaborated on his claim that the debate over Global Warming has little to do with the environment.

“This is not about the climate. It isn’t,” said Horner. “What we have is something else. In Power Grab, I explain what it’s about. The title gives a pretty good hint. It’s about stealing your freedom.”

Horner said his concerns are not hyperbolic and that to the contrary the heated, apocalyptic rhetoric from the left is merely an attempt to pass liberty-limiting legislation through fear.

“When they have to make up the reason for such a power grab, you know it must be bad,” he said.

Horner drew parallels between the evolving debate in Washington, D.C. and how the terminology and rationale for legislation changed in Wisconsin over many months.

“John Kerry told The Hill and Politico ‘Oh, this isn’t an environment bill.’ That’s spectacular,” said Horner. “The Global Warming Bill is no longer about global warming. Look, it’s designed exactly like the other bills. It’s a Cap and Trade energy rationing / tax scheme. It looks, smells, operates, is written, uses the same language as the global warming bills. It’s now that they just realize the issue never was the issue. They are just using what they thought would sell.”

In Wisconsin, The so-called ‘Clean Energy Jobs Act,’  originated as recommendations from the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force.

“Well now they realize it’s not selling, so they’re changing the title,” said Horner. “It’s exactly what they did in Wisconsin; I know it’s now called the Clean Jobs Bill, yeah, that’s it, it’s about jobs.  No it isn’t it’s about power.”

Coming soon: Horner deconstructs the arguments in favor of sweeping legislation aimed at combating global warming and predicts what could happen in Washington over the next few weeks.

Share

The State Senate met and adjourned early Thursday afternoon before the State Assembly even began to tackle the bulk of their calendar. This move effectively killed the global warming bill as well as efforts to change the election law and establish several regional transit authorities.

“The Legislature did what was best for families and employers by not voting on the global warming bill,” said James Buchen, Vice President of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “The bill would have increased utility bills, energy taxes, and hampered job creation without making an impact on global warming.”

The Senate’s action left Assembly Democrats visibly, and quite publicly, upset with their Senate colleagues.

Democrat Helen Kelda Roys (D-Madison) displayed her anger in a post on her Twitter feed. “Wow…I guess Senators get too tired to work more than a 2-hour workday.Tough life for them,” she wrote to her followers on the social media site.

After taking up some initial pro-forma matters in the morning The Assembly remained off the floor until around 5 pm Thursday, took a nearly four hour break beginning at 10:30 pm, and did not conclude their work until after 4 am Friday.

Assembly Republican Leader Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon) called the entire session a failure and said the Democrats embarrassed themselves with how they ran the legislature and what they accomplished the last two years.

“With unemployment still ravaging the Wisconsin economy, Assembly Democrats ended the legislative session without meaningful action on jobs” said Fitzgerald. “The session started with $5 billion in tax increases and continued with an agenda popular only in Madison.”

The Assembly was able to pass a few measures onto the Governor for his signature, including a bill to give sweeping new powers to the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction to intervene in some failing schools, a proposal to regulate payday lenders and a bill which legalizes farm-to-consumer sales of untreated, raw milk.

Black and other supporters of the global warming bill said they hope to convince Governor Doyle to call the legislators back for a Special Session to deal, specifically, with that bill. However, Capitol observers believe such an option appeared unlikely given the public outcry in opposition to the legislation.

Share