Sunday we returned from a few days in Dearborn Michigan touring the Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, and The Rouge Ford Factory. The Rouge Factory Tour was new to us. There was Bill Ford, the great grandson of Henry, up on the BIG screen telling us how Ford created this new Rouge factory to be friendly to the environment.

Much like our proposed Fountain Brook Crossing, The Rouge Ford Factory* has Gone Green. The roof is a garden roof, planted with sedum plants to absorb the rain water. They are increasing plantings wherever possible on the grounds; nets are strung up on the factory exterior for climbing vines.

Even their parking lots are water permeable. No more run-off. The paving material looks like asphalt but is a porous material that has sand and gravel below. The guide said that the water that runs through the pavement is filtered and very clean. It requires vacuuming twice a year to keep pores open and calcium chloride must be used instead of sodium chloride in winter.  The porous pavement is more expensive to install and maintain but lasts twice as long as conventional asphalt. Plus, no detention pond is needed...and it's good for the environment.

It seemed everything about The Rouge Factory was good for the environment or good for the employees. You could watch some of the assembly line in action. The workers were poetry in motion each doing their specific little jobs. While they are always under the time constraint of the moving line, it did not seem any were really hustling to keep up the pace. Some workers were on the cell phone, playing a hand held game, or even had newspapers there to catch a snippet of an article.

I asked a tour guide how much money these people made. She did not know specifically but said from what she read in the paper, it was around $20.00 per hour for new hires. Workers with more seniority were higher.

Another guide told us that Ford recently closed 2 other factories in other states, I believe, and now consolidated all of the work here at The Rouge. That sounded efficient. The Rouge's specialty was trucks**. Wonder where the other cars are made?

Monday's Investor's Business Daily answered part of that question: Movin' To Mexico!:  (My emphasis)

Ford's investment of $3 billion in two auto plants near Mexico City is the largest foreign company investment ever in Mexico. As oil prices soar and new climate-change rules are readied in Washington, Ford must shift from its reliance on trucks and SUVs to lighter, more energy-efficient vehicles.

This should be something that workers in Michigan and other Midwestern states with decades of automaking experience should excel at doing. Instead, Ford and other automakers are pushing more and more investment abroad — especially to Mexico.

The editorial cites reasons for an auto sales slump and the US losing jobs--mainly the UAW forcing higher wages and benefits--but increasing climate change rules and higher oil prices aren't helping the industry.

Like a coyote caught in a trap, U.S. automakers have been desperately gnawing off a leg to escape certain death. They're closing plants and slashing jobs in Michigan, Ohio and other U.S. union havens, in favor of non-union, foreign places. Like Mexico and China.

Meanwhile, foreign companies have no problem making cars here. They do it in the non-union South, where the UAW is weak.

So foreign companies can get around our high wages by being non-union, but even they and their products are subject to U.S. emission standards for factories and cars.

You would think that with our ailing auto industry our government would be doing all it could to help encourage instead of hinder. Yet Washington continues to hamper oil exploration and increase auto emission standards (i.e. new diesel emissions will be cleaner than intake air.) 

Add to automakers woes, both U.S. and foreign made here, the latest millstone around the neck: Cap-and-Trade, and I think we have the recipe for outsourcing more industry of all kinds.

Ford may have greened up its Dearborn plant and created an ideal work environment, but if more industry follows suit in exporting jobs to countries that don't care about workers or the environment, what good paying jobs will be left in America?

This was written before Tuesday's post Kohl, Feingold, and Doyle's reaction to GM closing Janesville plant

Related articles: Toyota workers in Kentucky plant made more than UAW members last year

More handwriting on the wall, GM closing Janesville assembly plant by 2010 

*The Rouge Factory was named for the Rouge River in Dearborn. The banks of the river were red clay, hence the name Rouge (French for red). 

**A guide told us this was the last year they would be making Mercury trucks. 

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" is quoted a lot these days in regard to ethanol and rising food prices. There are many interpretations as to what she meant by it--some debate whether she said it at all.

The most interesting explanation I ever heard came from a UWM theater department teacher. She said that "cake" was the term for a gasket made from dough strips used to seal oven doors. When the baking was finished, the very over-baked, virtually inedible dough gaskets were scraped off and discarded. The poor would dig these out of the garbage and attempt to eat them. In other words, the bakers used food for a purpose other than human or animal consumption, and the insensitive Marie said the starving could always eat the gaskets.

I think that explanation fits in rather well with today's food for fuel fiasco. But I am adding to the travesty of diverting food into ethanol production, the misuse and abuse of water used for producing biofuel. Hence my version of Marie's statement, Let them eat and drink ethanol!

People are waking up to the fact that ethanol is not the answer to energy independence. Even Former President Clinton, at a campaign stop for his wife in Pennsylvania, said, "Corn is the single most inefficient way to produce ethanol because it uses a lot of energy and because it drives up the price of food."

Some people are aware that food-to-fuel mandates have increased demand on water resources. Corn in particular requires irrigation in most areas. We noted this on our last few trips out west--hundreds of acres of corn fields all being irrigated. Water is becoming a rare resource in some areas. (If you live west of the sub-continental divide on Sunnyslope Road, you have probably been paying attention to water rights issues.)

But what most people don't realize is that ethanol production causes water pollution too--both in the growing of corn and in the production of ethanol itself--regardless of the plant source. 

Corn is a nitrogen needy plant and is very soil depleting. (Remember how the Native Americans taught the Pilgrims to put a fish in each hill of corn?) Well today's farmers rely heavily on nitrogen rich fertilizers. The Washington Post stated, "Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" -- an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there."

Polluting farmland runoff is not the worst of it. Ethanol factories also exude an alarming amount of polluted water. I have heard it described as a glycerin type effluent that causes fish die off.

Water Use and Pollution Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.

Water Supply Can't Meet Thirst For New Industry ...Nowhere is the growing clash between economic development and water conservation more evident than in the push to build ethanol plants that typically guzzle 3½ to 6 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced. Minnesota's 15 ethanol plants together consume about 2 billion gallons of water per year.

Drunk on Ethanol MTBE pollutes ground and surface water, but so does ethanol. With each gallon of ethanol you get 12 gallons of sewagelike effluent produced by the fermentation/distillation process.

So, let's see... biofuel production causes local and world wide food prices to rise, food shortages, water shortages due to irrigation, pollution from fertilizer runoff, and pollution to waterways from ethanol production. (Don't forget air pollution from burning ethanol.)

And most politicians are still chanting the ethanol mantra in order to save the planet from supposed CO2 pollution? (Explanation: The corn grower / ethanol lobby is very influential.) 

Let's hope these increasingly anti-ethanol articles and news stories about world food shortages and pollution will embarrass our Federal and State legislators into voting against or better yet repealing global warming and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, I am afraid we won't have much choice but to eat and drink ethanol! 

Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket

Ethanol's Failed Promise

Let Them Eat Cake

Hunger fuels food riots in Haiti 

Go, Jim and Jeff, Go! Repeal Those Ethanol Mandates (links to legislators included)

Links: Don't forget, Free Pass To Movie Preview of "The Enemy God" Saturday at 3pm

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to listen to part of the President's Press Conference on Rush Limbaugh. (I had a lot of ironing to do!) He began by stating it was "a tough time for our economy." Then he listed a few areas that affect our wallets, "from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills." Those concerns mentioned don't affect every American, but the first two do--and they are related. I am going to focus on gas prices today.

The best news to come out of that conference was President Bush urging drilling in ANWR. Finally. At last. What took so long?

Oh, I know he has asked to drill before, but it fell on deaf ears. (There is plenty of blame for both sides of the isle here.) Maybe it will finally happen since the world wide shortage of oil is becoming harder to ignore. The President said: (My emphasis)

I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these [energy price] problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.

They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil -- crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices. And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.

Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries. ...

Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants, and increase reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even further. The cost of these actions would be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills.

Instead of increasing costs and increasing new roadblocks to domestic energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.

The first question asked dealt with increased prices, consumer confidence being down and a moratorium on federal gas tax.

The President responded with what I think were practical solutions: (My emphasis)

...And we'll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell you this, that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem, they can send the right signal by saying we're going to explore for oil and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don't we -- I proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries. I mean, if we're generally interested in moving forward with an energy policy that sends a signal to the world that we're not -- we're going to try to become less reliant upon foreign oil, we can explore at home, as well as continue on with an alternative fuels program.

In a later question he said:

...we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for -- to be able to drill like we've never been able to do so before -- slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the environment. And yet this is a litmus test issue for many in Congress. Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say [preserving] "ANWR," means you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.

As for the moratorium on the Federal 18.5 cent gas tax for the summer drive season, the President said they would take a look at it.

The moratorium on the gas tax would help a little, emphasis on little. (It would only save me $4.50/mo.)  Rush stated that  Chuck Schumer thought oil companies should pay the tax for us!  What gives Schumer the right to say that? Maybe I could suggest, since Congress has prevented any exploration here at home, the Congress should tithe their salaries to help Americans pay for gas?

Schumer was reported to say that drilling in ANWR would not do anything to help gas prices--it would be 10 years before we would get any oil from ANWR (or anywhere else) and that ANWR would only reduce prices by 1 cent a gallon in 20 years. *To that I would say, so what are we waiting for? (*Clarification: If we had been drilling all along in the U.S. as new oil sources were discovered, we would at least be increasing the supply and keeping more U.S. dollars at home. Since we are told it takes about 8 - 10 years from drilling to producing, we don't have time to spare, hence, what are we waiting for?)

If it were not for Clinton's veto of drilling in ANWR in 1994, we could be using some of that oil now! Or how about the oil off of Florida's coast, California's coast or the huge North Dakota shale oil deposit?

World wide demand is growing. China and India have huge populations that are smitten with a love affair with automobiles and improving their standard of living--they have a right to live better too.

We cannot keep trying to solve our energy shortage problems solely by increasing miles per gallon standards on cars or imposing alternative fuel mandates. It is not enough.

Implementing wind and solar won't work either; those experimental energy sources are still not cost effective. Keep up the research in energy alternatives and improving efficiency, yes. But in the meantime, we must start drilling for the resources we have been blessed with.

If you agree, contact the President and your representatives.  

President: Comments@whitehouse.gov or 202-456-1111

Congressman Sensenbrenner Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101 

Senator  Kohl  Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653

Senator  Feingold  Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323

Links:

ANWR.org 

Interesting piece from Heritage Foundation: Correcting Mistakes of the 1990s Should Top the Energy Agenda for 2006

Don't forget, National Day of Prayer: Meet at City Hall, May 1, 12:20PM

Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Congressman Sensenbrenner brought up Senate bill S. 2191, the Lieberman/Warner "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" at his Town Hall meeting Sunday. He described it as a "disaster for Wisconsin."

Information on S. 2191 from Congressman Sensenbrenner's website:

“S. 2191 proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, an important component of the manufacturing industry.  By setting a limit and capping carbon dioxide emissions by businesses, the Lieberman/Warner bill would thrust a highly regulatory regime on our nation’s economy, making electricity more expensive for businesses and consumers.  In Wisconsin, which relies heavily on the use of coal for electricity, this bill would have a catastrophic effect as we would be especially hard hit.

“This point is underscored in a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers to assess the potential impacts of S. 2191 on Wisconsin’s economy…and the results are scary.

The Congressman discussed that study at the meeting and on Charlie Sykes show. The predictions were "scary."

“According to the study, electricity rates in Wisconsin could increase by as much as 163% in 2030 - nearly tripling today’s costs - and gas prices could increase by as much as 176% in 2030, again, almost tripling today’s cost of natural gas.

Not only will we be paying more for utilities, a figure of a 145% increase in gasoline prices was also given on Charlie Sykes show Monday, April 28, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

So not only do we get to pay for higher energy costs for our own use, but we will pay more for every item and service produced in Wisconsin too.  

Who would ever want to live in Wisconsin or locate their business here if that is the case?

The National Association of Manufacturers report estimated that by 2030, 74,000 jobs would leave Wisconsin and a whopping 4 million jobs would leave our nation, because businesses naturally seek the cheapest and easiest place to manufacture their products.

What exactly is a cap-and-trade and why does it have such a negative impact on Wisconsin? 

Cap-and-trade is another term for Carbon Credit (or indulgences). Congress or bureaucrats set a cap or maximum on greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company--be it a corporation or a utility company. Companies that do not comply with the standard must then have to purchase carbon offsets from companies that do comply. It is like a type of stock market that deals in these special credits.

According to Congressman Sensenbrenner, since Wisconsin gets 2/3 of its electrical power from coal fired plants, but Illinois obtains 60% of its electric power from clean nuclear power plants that emit 0 CO2, we will have to purchase these carbon offsets from Illinois just to keep producing our needed electricity! Illinois in effect gets their energy costs subsidized by Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ends up paying 176% more for our electricity. OUCH! (At present, only 20% of Wisconsin electric comes from nuclear plants.)

Think no one in their right mind would agree to a system like this? Think again. Europe has been doing this for nearly 3 years now. Europe's greenhouse gases continue to rise as do their electricity rates. It has done nothing to lower emissions according to a publication from Sensenbrenner's office. I believe Australia just signed on to a system of carbon credits too.

Since businesses will just relocate to third world countries to manufacture their goods, these carbon credits will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions worldwide. The pollution will just move to the far east.

The increase in costs due to cap-and-trade fees are estimated at $1,300 a year / household for Wisconsinites.

Please contact Senators Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill. 

Representative Zipperer informed the Town Hall meeting atendees that the Wisconsin Assembly recently passed legislation that lifted the moratorium on nuclear power plants last session. The Senate however did not. He said they would try again next time. 

Contact your state representative and senator about the moratorium.

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120

Congressman Sensenbrenner's contact info:Email  Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

I attended Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting Sunday. Attendance was light--maybe 2 dozen people (mostly men). Perhaps the early start time kept people away?

Wisconsin's Representative Rich Zipperer was also there to answer questions.

I missed the first question. The second dealt with Common Ground, a group that has been appealing to churches for support. Is it truly bi-partisan?

Both Congressman Sensenbrenner and Rep.Zipperer expressed their doubts of bi-partisanship since Common Ground did not seem to be interested in tax relief, school choice, etc.

A reader had emailed me about this group 2 weeks ago after Vicki McKenna talked about Common Ground on her radio show. The reader was "taken aback" that their St. John's church bulletin urged people to attend the Common Ground conference. Many people might be surprised to learn their church supports Common Ground.

Energy and taxes were the topic of the remaining questions.

One man inquired if the direct donation from retirees' IRAs to a charity option would be renewed (this would then satisfy the distribution requirement). Mr. Sensenbrenner said that there would be an effort to bring that donation option back since donations to charity support groups that often help others without any additional government funding.

The next question asked about the Congressman's opinion of nuclear power. He said he was "All for it--it emits 0 greenhouse gas." He added that Chernobyl's defective design for nuclear power plants has never been used in the U.S. There was more discussion about Wisconsin's rising energy costs, which the Congressman also discussed on Charlie Sykes show Monday morning. It is a subject all unto itself, so I will get to that in a later post.

The last question was on Ethanol. Mr. Sensenbrenner said it was "Bad stuff--not energy efficient, and the blend reduces gas mileage." He also mentioned that there is engine damage and increased pollution because of it, and the 51 cents per gallon subsidy was passed 20 years ago!  Add to that the economic and social impact of food into fuel and it is time to "Get off the ethanol kick!"  (Amen)

"The real problem is politics", he said. Iowa is the first caucus in the primary process. For any candidate to succeed, they must first "Worship at the altar of ethanol!" That is why we have it, the Congressman explained.  (I was aware of that, were you?)

He closed by mentioning he would be discussing the N.A.M. report (National Association of Manufacturers) on energy and the business climate in Wisconsin and the United States, Monday morning on Charlie Sykes radio show. Catch the podcast, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

From what the Congressman said at the town hall meeting, Wisconsin's energy costs in the near future will be sobering if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill passes. More about that later.

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park