Judson Berger
- FOXNews.com
- March 09, 2010
The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting him as a judicial loose cannon and Republicans raised concerns about his alleged bias in favor of sex offenders.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting the candidate as a judicial loose cannon and after Republicans raised concerns about bias in favor of sex offenders.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny gained notoriety in 2005 for his role in trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, also known as The Roadside Strangler, whom Chatigny had described as a victim of his own "sexual sadism."
His conduct in that case, which included threatening to go after Ross' attorney's law license, as well as his ruling in 2001 against sex offender registries created under Megan's Law, has caused a commotion among Republicans on the judiciary panel.
"I've never seen conduct like this," said a Republican source. "I'm shocked that the White House vetted this guy ... and still put him up for a judgeship."
The nomination is relatively fresh. President Obama submitted his name Feb. 24 for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, calling him a "first-rate" legal expert and "faithful" public servant.
With the hearing originally set for Wednesday, Republicans led by their ranking member, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said they wanted more time.
"Senator Sessions and the Judiciary Republicans have asked for a delay in light of the nominee's extremely lengthy record and the fact that he was brought up so unusually quickly," Sessions spokesman Stephen Miller said.
Behind the scenes, Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying -- particularly on the Court of Appeals, the last line of review before the Supreme Court.
"You're letting him be the final review for a lot of people, and he's shown this alarming bias in sex crime cases," a GOP committee aide said.
Chatigny's office declined a request for comment. The White House could not be reached.
Chatigny stunned those involved in the serial killer case in early 2005 by pressuring Ross' attorney on a conference call to challenge his scheduled execution even though Ross had said he did not want to fight.
The judge had raised concerns about whether Ross was mentally unfit and whether prison isolation had led to despair -- at the time of the conference call, federal appeals courts had overturned two prior orders from him postponing the execution.
According to a transcript of that Jan. 28 call, the judge threatened to go after the law license of Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding.
"So I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life," Chatigny said. "And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted and it turns out that what Lopez says and what this former program director says is true, because I'll have your law license."
Ramon Lopez was an inmate who had written a letter to Chatigny saying Ross had been brainwashed by mental health professionals.
Ross was convicted of killing four women but had confessed to killing eight, raping most of them. He was sentenced to death in 1987 and had been on death row nearly two decades when Chatigny engaged in the last-minute battle with others on the case.
On the conference call, the judge repeatedly stuck up for Ross, saying he suffered from "this affliction, this terrible disease" and suggesting Ross "may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row."
"Looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted," Chatigny said. "Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor."
In the end, the execution was temporarily delayed and ultimately carried out. But in the aftermath, seven prosecutors from Connecticut filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit. Among the complaints were that the judge had threatened Paulding and that he had not disclosed that in 1992 he filed an application to file a legal brief in support of Ross' appeal -- though the judge never ended up filing that brief. He was later cleared of misconduct.
This year, in a letter dated March 5 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Sessions, one of those prosecutors wrote that Chatigny's actions in the run-up to the execution "call into question his suitability" for the Court of Appeals seat.
"Judge Chatigny completely abandoned the role of neutral and detached magistrate and instead became an advocate for the position held by the parties who were seeking to stop the execution of Michael Ross," wrote Michael O'Hare, an assistant state's attorney in Connecticut. He described the Jan. 28 conference call as a "tirade" in which the judge was "threatening and intimidating" others.
After receiving the letter, as well as a request from committee Republicans to postpone, Leahy canceled the Wednesday hearing. According to Leahy's office, the hearing was postponed because of the GOP request and will be held at some point, though it's not clear when.
A Democratic committee aide said Leahy was "happy to accommodate" the Republicans' request. The aide did not discuss whether Democrats share the Republicans' concerns.
"The information related to that case has been in the public domain for quite some time, so it's not like something that's been kept from public view. ... This is why we have nomination hearings," the aide said.
A few years before the standoff over the execution, Chatigny had also issued a ruling that Connecticut's sex offender registry was not constitutional. Though the federal appeals court upheld the ruling, it was later unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.
The judge does have his supporters. Connecticut Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman issued a joint statement late last month saying Chatigny had "consistently demonstrated his impressive legal abilities and a profound commitment to the rule of law."
They called him an "outstanding addition" to the Court of Appeals and pledged to work toward his "swift confirmation" through the Senate.
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes. .
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Canada On The Verge Of Approving Enviropigs – Millions Of Canadians Will Soon Be Eating Mouse/Pig Hybrids
Canada On The Verge Of Approving Enviropigs – Millions Of Canadians Will Soon Be Eating Mouse/Pig Hybrids
February 27th, 2010
The Canadian government is on the verge of approving the introduction of extremely bizarre genetically modified pigs into the Canadian food supply. These new mouse/pig hybrids have been dubbed “enviropigs” and are being touted as being much better for the environment. This new “breed” of Yorkshire pigs was created by scientists in Ontario at the University of Guelph, who spliced in genes from mice to decrease the amount of phosphorus produced in the pigs’ excrement. So soon millions of Canadians will be eating meat from mouse/pig hybrid creatures and most of them will not even realize it. It is expected that approval for this new “brand” of pigs will be sought in the United States as well. But this is hardly the first time that scientists have mixed two kinds of animals together in an attempt to create creatures that will be beneficial for humanity.
The truth is that scientists around the world are now creating bizarre hybrid “animals” on a regular basis. Over the past couple of decades the field of genetic modification has made extraordinary advances, and now researchers and scientists seem very eager to exploit these new technologies.
So what kind of weird, mysterious creatures have scientists been creating?
Well, what would you think of a cat that glows in the dark?
They really exist.
A genetically modified cat named Mr. Green Genes was the very first fluorescent cat created in the United States. Under an ultraviolet light, Mr. Green Genes puts off a very strange bright green glow.
So perhaps in the future not only can your cat cuddle up to you and keep you warm – it could also serve as a night light.
But U.S. researchers were not even the first ones to do this to cats. A team of scientists in South Korea had previously created a cat that glows red under ultraviolet light.
Now why in the world would scientists do this kind of a thing?
Well, because they can.
But scientists have created creatures that are even more bizarre than fluorescent cats.
One Canadian company is actually producing spider goats.
Yes, it is true. A Canadian company known as Nexia has created goats that are genetically modified to be part spider.
The reason for this bizarre genetic modification is to get goats that will produce spider silk protein in their milk. This spider silk protein is then collected, purified and spun into incredibly strong fibers.
Reportedly, the fibers that are produced are more durable than Kevlar, more flexible than nylon, and stronger than steel.
This substance has industrial and military applications that are apparently extremely valuable.
But when you tell most people that spider goats exist they will just laugh at you.
If that is the response that you get when you tell someone about spider goats, just show them the following video.
The YouTube video posted below contains a television news report that discusses how these spider goats are created and what this company is doing with the spider silk that these spider goats are producing….
So does all of this tampering with the environment disturb you?
After all, at least scientists are not creating human/animal hybrid creatures, right?
Wrong.
The truth is that human/pig hybrid creatures will soon be legally grown inside of the United States.
This is being publicly announced and almost nobody is getting upset about it.
What is being described as a “cutting edge” new program will actually produce pigs with human genes in them. These hybrid pigs will be “grown” in order to produce organs for transplants into humans.
Does this bother you?
Perhaps it would bother you more if you knew exactly where these pigs are to be grown.
In Missouri.
That’s right – human/pig hybrids are going to be raised right in the middle of the United States.
So is it possible that such creatures could end up in our food supply?
No?
You don’t think they would ever do that to us?
Don’t be so sure.
The FDA has already announced that the offspring of cloned animals could be in our food supply right now and that there is nothing that they can do about it.
Of course they have plenty of time to conduct military style raids of Amish farmers, but apparently they have no time to figure out if our food supply is tainted by cloned animals.
Yes, this is really happening.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
Of course most Americans eat tomatoes with roach genes in them and most Americans eat corn with insecticide grown inside of it on a regular basis, so why should we get upset about what is in our meat?
So does any of this seem incredibly evil to you?
It should.
That is because all of this is incredibly evil.
Creating bizarre hybrid creatures is not a new thing.
Did you know that the 3000 year old book of Jasher (a book of ancient history that is quoted in the Biblical books of Joshua and II Samuel) speaks of genetic engineering that was going on in the days of Noah?
It is true. How they did it remains a great unexplained mystery, but according to ancient sources this is apparently what was going on.
Jasher 4:18 tells us this….
“and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord”
According to the book of Jasher, God was not pleased at all that they were corrupting the wonderful environment that He had created for all of us.
This mixing of animals is also reflected in the ancient book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is directly quoted by the book of Jude in the New Testament, and it tells us a great deal about what was going on in the world before the Flood. Enoch 7:14 tells us this….
And they began to sin against birds, beasts, reptiles, and fish, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
So apparently they were not only mixing animals together – they were eating them too.
Just like we are starting to do.
But instead of learning the lessons of the past we are making the same mistakes.
We think that we are so “technologically advanced”, but the reality is that we are just indulging in the same foolishness as they did in the ancient world.
So what is so wrong with genetic modification?
The truth is that once you let the genie out of the bottle you can’t put it back in.
We have found that out with genetically modified crops. Natural strains can literally be bred into extinction once strains of genetically modified crops become widespread enough.
We may think that we are improving the environment through our reckless experimentation, but what if our best efforts go horribly, horribly wrong?
The unintended consequences of our reckless genetic meddling may be far worse than any of us ever imagined.
The reality is that God said not to mix plants and animals together like this.
But we are doing it anyway.
Hopefully we are not completely destroying the one and only earth that we have in the process.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
February 27th, 2010
The Canadian government is on the verge of approving the introduction of extremely bizarre genetically modified pigs into the Canadian food supply. These new mouse/pig hybrids have been dubbed “enviropigs” and are being touted as being much better for the environment. This new “breed” of Yorkshire pigs was created by scientists in Ontario at the University of Guelph, who spliced in genes from mice to decrease the amount of phosphorus produced in the pigs’ excrement. So soon millions of Canadians will be eating meat from mouse/pig hybrid creatures and most of them will not even realize it. It is expected that approval for this new “brand” of pigs will be sought in the United States as well. But this is hardly the first time that scientists have mixed two kinds of animals together in an attempt to create creatures that will be beneficial for humanity.
The truth is that scientists around the world are now creating bizarre hybrid “animals” on a regular basis. Over the past couple of decades the field of genetic modification has made extraordinary advances, and now researchers and scientists seem very eager to exploit these new technologies.
So what kind of weird, mysterious creatures have scientists been creating?
Well, what would you think of a cat that glows in the dark?
They really exist.
A genetically modified cat named Mr. Green Genes was the very first fluorescent cat created in the United States. Under an ultraviolet light, Mr. Green Genes puts off a very strange bright green glow.
So perhaps in the future not only can your cat cuddle up to you and keep you warm – it could also serve as a night light.
But U.S. researchers were not even the first ones to do this to cats. A team of scientists in South Korea had previously created a cat that glows red under ultraviolet light.
Now why in the world would scientists do this kind of a thing?
Well, because they can.
But scientists have created creatures that are even more bizarre than fluorescent cats.
One Canadian company is actually producing spider goats.
Yes, it is true. A Canadian company known as Nexia has created goats that are genetically modified to be part spider.
The reason for this bizarre genetic modification is to get goats that will produce spider silk protein in their milk. This spider silk protein is then collected, purified and spun into incredibly strong fibers.
Reportedly, the fibers that are produced are more durable than Kevlar, more flexible than nylon, and stronger than steel.
This substance has industrial and military applications that are apparently extremely valuable.
But when you tell most people that spider goats exist they will just laugh at you.
If that is the response that you get when you tell someone about spider goats, just show them the following video.
The YouTube video posted below contains a television news report that discusses how these spider goats are created and what this company is doing with the spider silk that these spider goats are producing….
So does all of this tampering with the environment disturb you?
After all, at least scientists are not creating human/animal hybrid creatures, right?
Wrong.
The truth is that human/pig hybrid creatures will soon be legally grown inside of the United States.
This is being publicly announced and almost nobody is getting upset about it.
What is being described as a “cutting edge” new program will actually produce pigs with human genes in them. These hybrid pigs will be “grown” in order to produce organs for transplants into humans.
Does this bother you?
Perhaps it would bother you more if you knew exactly where these pigs are to be grown.
In Missouri.
That’s right – human/pig hybrids are going to be raised right in the middle of the United States.
So is it possible that such creatures could end up in our food supply?
No?
You don’t think they would ever do that to us?
Don’t be so sure.
The FDA has already announced that the offspring of cloned animals could be in our food supply right now and that there is nothing that they can do about it.
Of course they have plenty of time to conduct military style raids of Amish farmers, but apparently they have no time to figure out if our food supply is tainted by cloned animals.
Yes, this is really happening.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
Of course most Americans eat tomatoes with roach genes in them and most Americans eat corn with insecticide grown inside of it on a regular basis, so why should we get upset about what is in our meat?
So does any of this seem incredibly evil to you?
It should.
That is because all of this is incredibly evil.
Creating bizarre hybrid creatures is not a new thing.
Did you know that the 3000 year old book of Jasher (a book of ancient history that is quoted in the Biblical books of Joshua and II Samuel) speaks of genetic engineering that was going on in the days of Noah?
It is true. How they did it remains a great unexplained mystery, but according to ancient sources this is apparently what was going on.
Jasher 4:18 tells us this….
“and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord”
According to the book of Jasher, God was not pleased at all that they were corrupting the wonderful environment that He had created for all of us.
This mixing of animals is also reflected in the ancient book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is directly quoted by the book of Jude in the New Testament, and it tells us a great deal about what was going on in the world before the Flood. Enoch 7:14 tells us this….
And they began to sin against birds, beasts, reptiles, and fish, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
So apparently they were not only mixing animals together – they were eating them too.
Just like we are starting to do.
But instead of learning the lessons of the past we are making the same mistakes.
We think that we are so “technologically advanced”, but the reality is that we are just indulging in the same foolishness as they did in the ancient world.
So what is so wrong with genetic modification?
The truth is that once you let the genie out of the bottle you can’t put it back in.
We have found that out with genetically modified crops. Natural strains can literally be bred into extinction once strains of genetically modified crops become widespread enough.
We may think that we are improving the environment through our reckless experimentation, but what if our best efforts go horribly, horribly wrong?
The unintended consequences of our reckless genetic meddling may be far worse than any of us ever imagined.
The reality is that God said not to mix plants and animals together like this.
But we are doing it anyway.
Hopefully we are not completely destroying the one and only earth that we have in the process.
In fact, the FDA has said that it is basically a non-issue to them.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Gun Bans and Crime Rates --The Washington TimesShare
Gun Bans and Crime Rates --The Washington TimesShare
Today at 7:50pm
"The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent.
The high court should keep that in mind ... as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.
Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court's decision to junk some of the district's gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts.
Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed.
Chicago's 1982 ban faired no better.
The forthcoming third edition of 'More Guns, Less Crime' shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. ... That increase in murder rates isn't surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.
In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens -- not criminals who don't care about the law.
The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand." --The Washington Times
Today at 7:50pm
"The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent.
The high court should keep that in mind ... as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.
Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court's decision to junk some of the district's gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts.
Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed.
Chicago's 1982 ban faired no better.
The forthcoming third edition of 'More Guns, Less Crime' shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. ... That increase in murder rates isn't surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.
In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens -- not criminals who don't care about the law.
The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand." --The Washington Times
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
And one more... $25 Billion to provide Broadband Internet Access to...??
WSJ: FCC’s National Broadband Plan calls for up to $25 billion in new spending
According to a Tuesday report in the Wall Street Journal, the National Broadband Plan proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski will entail up to $25 billion new federal spending, for boosting the Internet access of the Americans.
Scheduled to be released in mid-March, the National Broadband Plan will reportedly make fast and affordable Internet accessible to over 90 million Americans over the coming decade, via high-speed Internet lines; with a broader part of the plan also aiming at a wireless network for police and firefighters, at a cost of nearly $12-16 billion.
Though it is not clear whether Congress will give its consent to the proposal, especially in the face of the growing concerns over federal deficits; it is palpable that the plan would be a win for the wireless carriers – a fact that is evident from the Tuesday blog posts of AT&T and Verizon executives, who have appreciated Genachowski’s efforts.
Meanwhile, as per the WSJ report, the people who have reviewed the plan – which also underscores Genachowski’s endeavors to expand 100 megabit per second service to 100 million homes by 2020 - have opined that while it will help create jobs and provide faster Internet access to educational and healthcare services; it will also necessitate an appraisal of competition in the broadband market, along with the need for more specific pricing data.
According to a Tuesday report in the Wall Street Journal, the National Broadband Plan proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski will entail up to $25 billion new federal spending, for boosting the Internet access of the Americans.
Scheduled to be released in mid-March, the National Broadband Plan will reportedly make fast and affordable Internet accessible to over 90 million Americans over the coming decade, via high-speed Internet lines; with a broader part of the plan also aiming at a wireless network for police and firefighters, at a cost of nearly $12-16 billion.
Though it is not clear whether Congress will give its consent to the proposal, especially in the face of the growing concerns over federal deficits; it is palpable that the plan would be a win for the wireless carriers – a fact that is evident from the Tuesday blog posts of AT&T and Verizon executives, who have appreciated Genachowski’s efforts.
Meanwhile, as per the WSJ report, the people who have reviewed the plan – which also underscores Genachowski’s endeavors to expand 100 megabit per second service to 100 million homes by 2020 - have opined that while it will help create jobs and provide faster Internet access to educational and healthcare services; it will also necessitate an appraisal of competition in the broadband market, along with the need for more specific pricing data.
Get Ready Everyone... Here is comes...
March 2, 2010, 6:35 pm
Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.
Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”
Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University
Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Comments from a friend
This just in from a neighbor in the oil business.........
Oilfield Math;
Working in the oilfield with others such as myself and a wealth of combined experience we understand the accuracy of the following.
Think of it this way:
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
Oilfield Math;
Working in the oilfield with others such as myself and a wealth of combined experience we understand the accuracy of the following.
Think of it this way:
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
