Image credit: "Meeting Santa at Santa's Seaside Pavilion" by Loren Javier on Flickr via Creative Commons.

I want a coal plant for Christmas, and not because I’m a naughty girl. I want lots of coal so I can power up the high-tech toys Santa is bringing me, including an electronic robot maid that cooks and cleans, a 32-meter-wide TV and a modern, coal-fired steam locomotive that allows me to bypass the TSA Grope Squad when I travel cross-country.

OK, so Santa probably won’t be sending a full-size, coal-fired train down my chimney. But, like many of you, I may be getting small electronics for Christmas (or Hanukkah). As millions of us ring in the New Year by adding new gadgets to the power grid, we need to make sure we have ample electricity to fire up our cutting-edge iPads, TVs, sound systems and smartphones.

Americans get almost half of their electricity from coal. I think coal is a wonderful source of energy and we need to continue producing it.

Image credit: "Coal" by Kentucky Photo File on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Politically-motivated environmentalists like President Obama maintain that we can wean ourselves from coal and oil and rely on natural gas and sustainable energy. TIME Magazine reports: ‘If all goes well, gas should help displace coal. … In a speech on March 30, President Barack Obama hailed natural gas as part of the solution to reducing America’s oil addiction. “The potential for natural gas is enormous.”’

President Obama’s plan is hypocritical because his administration is actively threatening natural gas fracking and he has shackled clean tech development through excessive government intervention.

Natural gas augments but does not replace our need for coal; TIME reports that natural gas only supplies about 25 percent of U.S. electricity and only provides heat for about 60 million U.S. homes. Trucks, planes and trains run on petroleum. Plus, sustainable technologies like wind and solar are still neither profitable nor efficient.

The EPA, environmental activists like Michael Bloomberg and the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign are fighting hard for new regulations that will quickly force the coal industry out of business.

In July, citing the Clean Air Act and “public health benefits,” the EPA issued rules that require coal plants to dramatically reduce their cross-state emissions. As a result, American Electric Power has plans to shed hundreds of jobs, shut down coal plants and lose billions of dollars in order to execute the cross-border mandates within the EPA’s three-year compliance time limit.

This month, the EPA is expected to announce a set of new smog regulations that will clamp down on power companies. “Not so fast,” cautions the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NAERC)—a panel of volunteer industry experts that the government designates to ensure and improve reliability in the electric power grid.

NAERC warns that the EPA’s strict regulations will cause up to 600 large power plants across the country to shut down for months while they adopt the new rules and will force numerous older plants to shut down indefinitely because they won’t be able to afford compliance. The result will be power blackouts across the country plus additional power grid instability in drought-prone areas like Texas due to new EPA cooling water rules.

So, the government’s own designated industry experts are warning us that the EPA’s smog rules will have big costs: Soaring energy prices, frequent blackouts and job loss. And the EPA can hardly cite the “public health dangers” of greenhouse gases with a straight face when internal government probes reveal that the EPA has altered, withheld and distorted its scientific findings in order to sell the notion that greenhouse gas emissions harm humans.

What’s the EPA’s replacement plan for coal? You can’t just shut down a primary source of American energy without proposing a cleaner, more efficient and more affordable alternative. Clean technology is not yet a viable replacement because government intervention has stymied clean tech development, yielding flaming electric cars (think the Chevy Volt), bankrupt solar panel companies (think Solyndra) and windmills that kill birds without supplying affordable energy to humans (think President Obama’s Cape Wind Project).

The wealthier a country becomes, the cleaner it becomes. This month, the Global Carbon Project released a study showing that developing countries like India and China account for the majority (57 percent) of global greenhouse emissions.

Only rich economies can afford to develop the latest clean technology. Before we can afford the costs associated with developing the supposedly cleaner technology behind solar and wind, we need to revive our rapidly deteriorating economy. And by “revive,” I mean continue developing fuels like coal that will prevent power blackouts, create jobs and lower the cost of energy. Minimal smog is a small price to pay for a safe and reliable power grid and a healthy, growing economy.

Santa Baby, there’s one thing I really do need, the deed, to a coal mine, Santa Baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Shale rock. Image credit: "Shale" by tonguetyed on Flickr via Creative Commons.

I have a slam-dunk plan for creating jobs: Frack, baby, frack. Move like Shaq. Let’s beat the buzzer, Shaq-style, and score points for the U.S. economy. Frack Attack!

Like basketball referees, ratings agencies Moody’s and Fitch Ratings are signaling they may join Standard and Poor’s in calling a foul on the U.S. economy. The good news is that we can move toward recovery by fracking shale for gas and oil—producing energy and creating jobs simultaneously.

Fracking only recently became a profitable extraction technology.  In 2003, a Texas speculator named George Mitchell bucked conventional wisdom. He discovered that he could force impenetrable shale rock thousands of feet beneath the earth’s surface to give up its methane (natural gas is primarily methane) by combining horizontal drilling with hydrofracturing. In 2007, natural gas company Range Resources perfected Mitchell’s discovery and developed a cost-effective technique to commercialize fracking.

America’s shale-gas cache is the Marcellus Shale Deposit, a 575-mile formation extending through four states, primarily Pennsylvania and New York. Marcellus is arguably the second largest shale-gas field in the world.

Fracking is an economic boon: Pennsylvania landowners who once struggled to make ends meet have signed six-figure leases with shale drilling companies. In addition, landowners earn 12-to-15 percent of the royalties from the gas extracted from their property. Marcellus brought Pennsylvania 18,000 new jobs in the first half of this year alone. Pennsylvania leaseholder Rick Baker told the New York Times: “We need this natural gas to keep functioning. There are still people sitting in bars waiting for the steel mills to reopen.”

States like North Dakota have experienced historic economic growth now that fracking technology has also made it possible to recover oil from shale. North Dakota’s Bakken formation holds over 24 billion barrels of shale oil. The Institute for Energy Research reports that North Dakota’s GDP is now nine percent above the national average while its unemployment rate is far below average.

Fracking is safe. Nevertheless, the EPA and the media claim that shale companies keep the fracking chemicals they use “top secret” and that these chemicals could contaminate groundwater.

Fracking fluid is roughly 99.5 percent water and sand; the remaining 0.5 percent is a combination of three-to-12 chemicals at low concentrations. The New American cites Department of Energy evidence showing that: “the fluids are well known and rigorously regulated.” Furthermore, there is zero scientific evidence confirming that fracking contaminates groundwater. Syracuse University hydrogeologist Don Siegel told TIME Magazine: “I don’t think it’s scientifically plausible to suggest that could happen.”

Certainly, since commercial fracking technology is still new and revolutionary, there are kinks to work out. In particular, Pennsylvania’s unique geography and dense population present challenges for disposing of the fracking wastewater or “flowback” that travels up each Marcellus shale well along with the methane; even the shale-gas industry desires to perfect the disposal phase of the fracking process.

Yet even the flowback disposal “challenge” offers another lucrative opportunity for the U.S. economy because global capitalists are increasingly finding ways to safely and profitably extract minerals, oils, fats, chemicals and nutrients from wastewater. Basically, groundbreaking technology exists to render wastewater both profitable and sustainable.

Water technology venture capitalist David Henderson told the New York Times: “Wastewater is a very bad name because there’s a lot of value in wastewater. [In Singapore, for example] the word ‘wastewater’ doesn’t exist. They call it ‘new water.’ They call their wastewater plants ‘water reclamation plants.’ And I think that’s an interesting shift in mentality.”

Fracking technology was developed by private sector entrepreneurs; I think we should offer the private sector a chance to solve its challenges. Radical EPA regulations will merely repress America’s ability to benefit from fracking, kill job growth and hike energy prices.

An extra-Congressional agency like the EPA is far too capricious to be trusted with regulating fracking technology. In fact, the New York Times has reported that the EPA has repeatedly suppressed and altered its scientific findings on fracking for political reasons.

The EPA is now working on a study to determine the safety of fracking, however the results will not be complete until the end of 2012 and the EPA’s report based on the study will not be finished until 2014. If the EPA is seriously concerned that fracking causes water contamination, why is it taking over two years to release its report? This is a long time to wait and it delays potential controversy until after the 2012 election so that President Obama does not have to fight environmentalists to regain his office.

Let’s frack our way toward creating the jobs and affordable fuel that the economy needs to recover. If we move fast like Shaq—fracking for natural gas and oil—we can beat S&P’s downgrade buzzer.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Deepwater Horizon oil rig fire on April 21, 2010 off New Orleans by U.S. Coast Guard on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Like a bad lover, the EPA is a nagging, beguiling mooch. The EPA unconstitutionally barged into our lives and we need to break free from this destructive relationship; let’s give the EPA a two-letter title beginning with ‘E’ and ending with ‘X.’

President Nixon formed a group called the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization to help him sidestep Congress and mold public policy. On April 29, 1970, the Council wrote a memo advising Nixon to establish: “an Environmental Protection Administration, a new independent agency of the Executive Branch. … [and the] Executive Branch should be so structured that a high order of public interest is served in making policy, rather than a narrower advocacy position.”

Four decades later, the EPA has grown into the President’s pet behemoth—a darling dragon he can fly to over Congress and blow fire onto America’s energy producers and job creators.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently told University of Wisconsin-Madison students that she is proud to work for a President who will bypass Congress and create his own rules via executive order: ‘I’m proud to be part of an EPA that has mobilized science and the law to create modern and innovative protections for the health of the American people. I’m also proud to be working for a president who has said that “we can’t wait” on these issues.’

Jackson may think our President is a king. Yet the Constitution prohibits the President from making laws or delegating lawmaking to an extra-Congressional committee. Federalist and framer Alexander Hamilton explains in “The Federalist No. 78” that Congress controls the purse strings and makes laws while the president merely enforces the laws: “The Executive … holds the sword of the community.”

I’m sure Alexander Hamilton would slap the President’s hand if he caught him in the cookie jar—seizing taxpayer dollars from the federal purse to sustain an extra-Congressional, policy-making agency like the EPA.

We already have Congress to make laws; we don’t need the EPA. “It has long been clear to me that elected representatives should write the rules, not the EPA,” Sen. Lindsey Graham has said.

The EPA’s regulations are so burdensome, sweeping and impractical that it’s nearly impossible for energy companies to comply without going out of business. Hence, businesspeople in the energy industry increasingly find themselves facing enormous fines and even criminal allegations.

In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” a state scientist quips: “Did you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. … We’re after power and we mean it. … There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.”

Case in point: The April 20, 2010 BP oil rig explosion off the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 people and caused oil to seep uncontrollably for 87 days. When this fatal environmental accident occurred on the EPA’s watch, the EPA’s regulators and enforcement partners within the Interior Department blamed the oil industry instead of owning up to their incompetence and deceit.

The Federal Government has charged BP as a “responsible party” in the spill and BP has set up a $20 billion fund to compensate victims. The Justice Department is also leading a criminal investigation into the spill.

Certainly BP’s laxity played a role in the accident. However, BP relied on government regulators and engineers who approved the use of a seal that had far too much cement and indeed reports now show that the excessive cement triggered the fatal explosion.

The government approved the faulty seal and granted BP a “categorical exemption” from performing an environmental impact analysis on its Gulf of Mexico lease less than two weeks before the spill. Who are the “criminals” here? BP executives or the environmental regulators who governed BP?

Per a 2007 Supreme Court Decision, the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases—only if scientific data shows that greenhouse gases endanger public health.

But in September, the Associated Press revealed an internal government watchdog report: “The Obama administration cut corners…” because the EPA issued “controversial and expensive regulations to control greenhouse gases for the first time” despite the fact that the EPA did not conduct sufficient scientific studies to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions do in fact “pose dangers to human health and welfare.”

Today, tens of thousands of oil jobs (and therefore the public health) are in jeopardy because President Obama is citing faulty EPA data on greenhouse emissions to delay building the Keystone XL pipeline.

The EPA claims to be “working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.” Instead, the EPA places the environment and public health in jeopardy. Let’s dump the EPA.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: Canadian PM Stephen Harper by The Prime Minister's Office

Like a good neighbor, Canada is there—offering America tens of thousands of jobs, protection against soaring gas prices and up to 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day for Oklahoma and Gulf Coast refineries to process—if America accepts TransCanada’s proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the Gulf Coast.

Let’s say your neighbor invites you over to her holiday party and you respond: “No way, you’re an animal killer. Last year, you served meatballs at your party and I’m against animal cruelty.” Don’t expect your neighbor to ever talk to you again.

Likewise, Canada has offered America an invitation to create jobs and slash her dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The U.S. State Department released in-depth economic and environmental reports stating that it would be in America’s “national interest” to accept Canada’s offer. Yet, the Obama administration ignored the State Department and snubbed our northern neighbor by delaying the project on the basis of alleged environmental concerns.

Practically speaking, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012 is around the corner and President Obama’s key contingents like the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, the EPA and Occupy Wall Street protesters believe that humans should irrationally worship the earth rather than responsibly exploit it for their benefit and survival.

Environmental groups oppose Keystone XL in large part because extracting oil from tar sands expends more energy and water and releases significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than other methods of extracting crude oil.

This month, Occupy Wall Street greenies shouted their desire to “Burn that mother [the City of New York] down!” Meanwhile, 8,000 tree huggers formed an “O-shaped hug” around the White House to protest Keystone XL. Basically, radical environmentalists want to save the earth by burning down a highly populated city like New York while preventing Keystone XL from passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas with negligible environmental impact and maximal human benefit.

Keystone XL poses virtually no threat to the environment. U.S. Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow for energy and the environment Michael A. Levi told the Associated Press: “A lot of people have been convinced that this is the cutting edge of the climate change fight. In the end this is the equivalent to half a percent of U.S. emissions.”

Image credit: "Oil Sands" by 4BlueEyes Pete Williamson on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Environmental outfits like the EPA lack credibility. In September, the Associated Press discussed an internal government watchdog report: “The Obama administration cut corners…” because the EPA issued “controversial and expensive regulations to control greenhouse gases for the first time” despite the fact that the EPA did not conduct sufficient scientific studies to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions do in fact “pose dangers to human health and welfare.”

TransCanada is willing to bend over backwards to give the U.S. first dibs on Alberta’s supply of crude oil by “collaborating with the state of Nebraska” to find a new pipeline route outside of the controversial Sandhills region. Still, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has warned that if the U.S. continues to delay and push back, Canada may kill the project and work exclusively with Asia.

If the U.S. turns Canada down, greenhouse gasses will still enter the atmosphere because China will buy Canada’s oil; the extraction process will occur with or without America. So, from a purely environmental perspective, it is pointless for America to boycott Keystone XL.

Earlier this year, I met the Right Honorable Brian Mulroney who served as Prime Minister of Canada during the Reagan years. He and Reagan were good friends and Reagan treated Canada as an important and peaceful trading partner.

Unlike President Reagan, President Obama has a strained relationship with Canada’s Prime Minister. Inexplicably, Obama snubs Canada’s offer while continuing to buy oil from America’s “frenemies” in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia supplies 10.4 percent of America’s oil). He also imports thousands of barrels of crude oil a day from his incompetent buddy in the war on drug cartels, Mexican President Felipe Calderón.

Mr. “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president” should stop pandering to environmentalists and start focusing on America’s diplomatic, economic and security interests.

I say President Obama should immediately collaborate with Canada to build Keystone XL. Additionally, I think the President needs to aggressively adopt a comprehensive oil program that includes exploring and drilling for America’s crude oil offshore, in ANWR and within Utah’s oil sands.

Let’s bring selfish back. Who cares about the flawed and corrupt opinions of the EPA? Why should OWS socialist thugs get to attack property rights and capitalism by raping, burning and pillaging in the name of Mother Earth or the dunes sagebrush lizard? As humans, the earth is ours to responsibly exploit for our benefit. Let’s tell President Obama to promptly approve Keystone XL. As he likes to say, we want “shovel-ready jobs” and “we can’t wait.”

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Jamal Hashi - Safari Express - Midtown Global Market, Minneapolis.

I love trying new food. I also love entrepreneurship. Combine the two and you get “Safari Express” – an exciting new fast-casual restaurant in Minneapolis run by Jamal Hashi.

Hashi is a friendly, energetic go-getter who immigrated to the United States from Africa. He quickly discovered that “Africa is a neglected market” and he set about starting a restaurant that would “introduce people to Africa.”

When I met Hashi, he had just returned to Minneapolis from a national restaurant trade show in Chicago where he networked with powerhouses like McDonald’s and Noodles & Company. A natural entrepreneur, Hashi says, “I could never see myself working for someone else again. I love entrepreneurship. I love meeting people. I love the restaurant industry. It’s a lot of work. But there’s so much momentum and creativity. You’re always evolving toward the next best thing.”

Hashi offered up some great advice for aspiring entrepreneurs: “Be unique. If you are passionate about something, do it. Don’t regret not trying. People have a fear of failing and regret it. Once you get over that fear you never look back.”

Jamal Hashi - Safari Express - Midtown Global Market, Minneapolis.

One of Hashi’s featured dishes is a “camel burger.” He imports the camel from Australia and therefore supports “animal entrepreneurship” – a practice I applaud.

Hashi’s team makes everything from scratch with “no short cuts” and they use authentic East African spices like “Berbera” and “Mitmitta.” He said, “even within my family there were a lot of doubters who thought American taste buds were not ready for African food.” So, at first, he “tried taming down the spices” to fit American tastes. However, he quickly learned that Americans liked his spicy food better than the blander versions and that “staying authentic is what’s going to keep me in business.”

When I walked up to Safari Express’ counter in Midtown Global Marketplace, Hashi’s staff immediately offered me heaping samples of every single dish since I was a “first-timer.” I recommend trying the Chicken Curry and the Chicken Fantastik (the first person who tasted the dish said “Wow, this is fantastic!” and hence the name, spelled with a “k”). Delicious.

Watch Hashi prepare Chicken Fantastik:

Next time you’re in Minneapolis, check out Safari Express. Hashi says “85 percent of our clients come back to us. We know them by name or at least by face. We talk to them like they are our friends.”

Image credit: "Truck Crossing Bridge - Stuart, Florida" by Captain Kimo - Catching Up! on Flickr via Creative Commons.

So, fellas! So, ladies! Do you want cheap gas and big, safe rides? Then, drill. Drill. Drill a healthy life.

No, I’m not Sir Mix-A-Lot. I simply think we should responsibly utilize our natural resources to improve the security and prosperity of all Americans.

Think about the last time you moved, went camping or took your boat to the lake. Did you wish you drove a Smart car? Or, did you wish your ride were bigger?

When it comes to cars, big is better. Bigger cars are safer. They haul more people and things. They typically ride higher—providing the driver with a better view. And, they are more comfortable (tall people can drive them without needing a chiropractor’s alignment.)

On the flip side, bigger vehicles use more gas and allegedly hurt the environment. So, let’s solve these two challenges.

Gas prices will go down when oil is plentiful and there is certainty in the marketplace. So, we should promptly drill for oil.

“Not so fast!” environmentalists will object. “We can’t drill for oil if we care about reducing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Image credit: "Pink Smart Car" by kbaird on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Well, environmentalists are behind the times. Liberal politicians and the Obama administration admit climate change is a flawed theory by failing to offer realistic “alternative” energy plans and by avoiding climate change as a selling point for new energy policies.

In May, T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon and supporter of alternative energy told a Pennsylvania town hall meeting that the President “…has never told us how we’re going to get off the Mideast oil, and no one’s ever asked him.”

The Obama administration has eschewed defending his historically-high fuel-efficiency standards on the basis of environmental concerns.  Environmental considerations are “…barely mentioned as (administration) officials negotiate with automakers, environmentalists and others, particularly about the contentious car and light truck rule…” the Washington Post reports. Instead, the President stresses how stricter rules will save consumers money on gas.

On July 29, the Obama administration pressured the auto industry into accepting new mileage rules requiring cars and light trucks to achieve 54.5 miles per gallon on average by 2025 (the existing average is 27 miles per gallon).

Remember the $80 billion auto bailout? The New York Times explains, “the industry’s meek acceptance of what are considered extremely challenging fuel-economy goals is a marked retreat from years past, when the (auto) companies argued that consumers would not be willing to pay for the technology needed to meet higher mileage requirements. …In the end, though, Detroit was faced with an undeniable political reality: there was no graceful way to say no to an administration that just two years ago came to its aid financially.”

Capitalism can develop alternative energy in a safe and timely manner. The President’s proposals do not rely on natural, free market competition. His plans merely pressure private enterprise to evolve ahead of its time.

Technology requires time to develop and become affordable. Could anyone afford the iPhone 9 if it came out in 2012? For the few who could, would they be buying a quality product? How could Apple possibly infuse five years worth of development and consumer feedback into the iPhone in just one year?

Toyota began developing hybrid technology in 1965 and did not introduce the first Prius in Japan until 1997, 32 years later. The Obama administration’s rules ignore the fact that technology simply does not develop overnight.

Image credit: "Prius 10th Anniversary special edition" by Toyota UK on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Plus, without government subsidies, fuel-efficient cars will likely be significantly more expensive than ordinary cars. If consumers pay substantially more for fuel-efficient cars upfront, are they saving money or breaking-even? The new fuel-efficiency rules essentially require Americans to buy brand new cars and become guinea pigs for technology that will not have sufficient time to develop.

The latest AAA survey shows 54 percent of American drivers “…don’t want the financial burden of a new car, so they’re keeping their older ones running,” reports USA Today. Americans are struggling. This is not the time to muscle them into buying new cars.

Meanwhile, the President still refuses to allow companies to drill for oil at a normal pace. Over a year since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he’s still stalling American drilling.

Shell has spent five years and almost $4 billion perfecting drill methods for four exploratory wells off Alaska’s North Slope. Yet the President has only granted Shell conditional approval and cautioned that Shell must still “…win a number of secondary permits…” before drilling, reports the New York Times.

How much risk, money and time must companies expend before the President will approve American oil production that could slash oil prices? If he would increase production, we wouldn’t need to worry about driving around cars that could resemble expensive deathtraps.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: "Koala in eucalyptus tree" by Peter Nijenhuis on Flickr via Creative Commons.

I’m going out on a limb with the koalas to say that entrepreneurs are better caretakers of animals and endangered species than politicians who call themselves environmentalists.

Last month, the journal Nature published a study showing that mathematical models for determining species extinction are unreliable and may be leading us to overestimate extinction probabilities by up to 160 percent. The study’s authors encourage the scientific community to not become complacent, but, rather, adopt better mathematical models for forecasting extinction rates.

Despite this research, environmentalists are pushing forward radical measures that could hurt animals and humans in one fell swoop. Contrastingly, entrepreneurs are advancing proposals that could preserve animals while creating jobs for humans.

Let’s walk through three different scenarios and you can decide who is doing a better job of protecting your furry and scaly friends:

Camels

Politicians in Australia are targeting these humped, Fergalicious creatures because they fart too much. Yes, you read that right, the Ausi government is scrambling to meet its Kyoto Treaty quotas and is looking for ways to eliminate sources of green-house gases.

Image credit: "Wild Camel" in Australia by konradowy on Flickr via Creative Commons.

According to The Washington Times, four camels produce as much annual methane as a Toyota Prius and Australian elites have decided to throw animals under the bus in order to fend off climate change. Proposed legislation would allow companies to earn carbon credits through initiatives like setting fires to brush (camel habitat) and “animal emissions avoidance projects such as camel reduction.”

Wanton destruction of nature to rack up carbon credits on a sheet of paper is wrong. When a set of animals—like camels—grows out of control or becomes a nuisance, entrepreneurs “respect” the animals by finding ways to feed and employ humans.

Entrepreneurs point out that camels have historically helped support and nourish poorer regions of the world. Camel milk is a popular, high-protein, low-fat and nutrient-rich beverage. Increasingly, Europeans and Americans are clamoring for access to this healthy alternative to cow’s milk. Ancient Greeks nourished themselves on lean camel meat and it is a staple in middle-eastern and African diets today.

Rather than meaninglessly shooting farting camels, Ausi entrepreneur Paddy McHugh is pushing the government to consider another option that will respect and save camels while employing Australians. He told Arabian Business: “We want to turn it around from a negative and produce an industry for Australia to export meat and milk to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. It’s got huge potential. …The Aboriginal people in Australia are quite destitute, and we believe it’s a great industry to embrace and harvest these feral animals.”

Vicuñas

Once part of an international embargo and listed as endangered, this Bambi-like animal is slowly but surely recovering under the watchful eye of Italian fashion mogul Loro Piana, reports Time Magazine. Piana runs a 4,900-acre preservation site where vicuñas roam free and conservationists study their habits.

Image credit: "Vicuña" by moonbird on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Piana and other entrepreneurs are slowly growing this fragile population and also weaving its rare fur into ultra-warm and super-soft clothing. The vicuña is only sheared once every two years and ultimately benefits from this manufacturing process. Time says that under Piana’s lead, the vicuña population in the Peruvian Andes has soared to 200,000.

The vicuña success story shows us how entrepreneurs like Piana find ways to grow animal populations out of endangerment while producing sought-after products and creating jobs.

Lizards and prairie chickens

Environmentalists are pressuring the Fish and Wildlife Service to rush the 3-in. dunes sagebrush lizard and the lesser prairie chicken inhabiting southeastern New Mexico and west Texas onto the endangered species list. Environmentalists claim that the oil industry in west Texas is destroying these critters despite that there is no definitive scientific data showing that oil production harms the lizards and prairie chickens. Caribou herds, for instance, have been found to grow and thrive alongside oil production in Alaska’s North Slope.

Image credit: "Northern Sagebrush Lizard" by Ashrunner's Photo Safaris on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Prematurely protecting the dunes sagebrush lizard and the lesser prairie chicken would immediately threaten the jobs of 75 percent of west Texans who rely on the oil industry for their survival, reports Fox News. The Fish & Wildlife Service will make its determination by December.

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) are putting forward entrepreneurial proposals to set aside nearly 75,000 acres managed by the University of Texas for their habitat and to further study these creatures rather than impulsively sabotaging the American oil industry.

Bottom line, there is a market for camel products, vicuna hair and petroleum. Entrepreneurs find ways to satisfy market demands and create jobs while respecting, studying and benefiting the animals that produce these products or inhabit the areas where they are manufactured. In comparison, radical environmentalists often seek ways to advance their anti-business agendas – regardless of whether animals die meaninglessly or humans go hungry and jobless.

If you enjoyed this post and you would like to book Katie Kieffer to speak in person at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

By Katie Kieffer

Image credit: "gas station" by sausyn on Flickr via Creative Commons.

I’m picking out bananas at the grocery store when a young woman slides up beside me and starts adding fruit to her cart while she carries on a loud cell phone conversation with a girlfriend:

“Jess, I think I’ll stay over at your place on Wednesday night, because, with gas prices so high, I just can’t justify my commute into work. I might stay over on Thursday too, but I’ll let you know.” Her dry tone made it sound like she was making a dental appointment, not planning a girls’ night with pjs and cocktails. As she jaunted off toward the broccoli, I thought, “Wow, gas prices really are dominating our lives if adults are planning weekly sleepovers to avoid driving.”

So, what can we do to lower gas prices? Lately, liberals have been explaining away high gas prices with two fables. If Michael Moore were a fairy godmother, these are the tales he would tell:

Fable #1: Consumer demand for oil has decreased

Liberals love to say that Americans are losing their desire for an oil-driven lifestyle because they are using less oil. However, U.S. demand is artificially trending downward due to the weak U.S. economy.

Oil consumption began decreasing in 2007 after the financial crisis hit and is projected to continue falling as our economy flounders. On April 5, 2011, AAA’s annual “Your Driving Costs” study revealed that the annual cost of driving and owning a car in the U.S. jumped 3.4 percent. The annual cost of driving and owning a car or SUV is now $8,776 or $11,239 respectively per year. No wonder Americans are driving less.

Image credit: "Pumping Gas" by WhineAndDine  on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Producing more windmills and solar panels will not help Americans afford to go out to eat, buy new clothes, go on vacation or commute to work. The President purports to be taking steps to increase oil production. However, are these short-term moves to gear up for his re-election campaign?

Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, told The Wall Street Journal: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Meanwhile, his Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, is pushing a federal tax credit of $7,500 for anyone who purchases an electric car “for as long as it takes to really motivate people to do this.”

I’m sure the woman I met in the fruit aisle can’t afford a $32,780 Nissan Leaf if she can’t afford 20 miles worth of extra gas in her weekly commute. Our country just reached her legal debt limit. It makes more sense to make gas affordable than to go into further debt by prematurely relying on “green” technology.

I’d like to see the President take bold steps toward increasing oil production, such as drilling in ANWR and exploring Utah’s oil sands. Additionally, I want to see Congress approve courageous spending cuts and pass pro-business tax reforms that encourage job growth and entrepreneurship. Such measures would strengthen the dollar and the overall economy so that Americans can enjoy the oil-driven lifestyle they desire.

Fable #2: Speculation causes gas prices to rise

Recently, President Obama created a special task force to “investigate” possible market manipulation of oil prices. But, blaming Wall Street and capitalists for rising gas prices is a pathetic political move. The New York Times points out: “…most energy experts see no support for that theory. They point out that traditional market forces, like growing demand from emerging countries, and limited growth in oil supplies, can easily account for the increase in prices.”

Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty in the market and uncertainty drives speculators to bump up the cost of oil. Global unrest in the oil-rich Middle East and anemic production in stable countries like the U.S. force traders to build a ‘“fear premium” of $15 to $20 per barrel…into the price of oil to account for further disruptions…,’ reports the Associated Press.

Even when the price of oil falls, the price of gas will remain up during a time of market uncertainty. Gas stations only make a few pennies per gallon in profit, so they do not immediately lower their prices when oil prices fall. Gas station owners need to account for lost profits when oil prices skyrocketed and potential profit losses if oil prices swing back up.

Today, the world draws about 35 percent of its oil from North Africa and the Middle East. So, dramatically accelerating U.S. production could help reduce the world’s dependency on oil from high-tension zones, thereby reducing market uncertainty and lowering gas prices.

If we resolutely increase U.S. oil production and get our budget in order, we will stabilize our economy, increase consumer spending and help Americans bounce back to affording a normal, pre-sleepover lifestyle.

Image credit: "Keep Your Eyes on the Road" by dibytes on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Image credit: "Green" by Christolakis on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Earth to Washington: The free market offers practical solutions for going green. Private entrepreneurs will literally fly to the moon to solve the U.S. technology crisis while government initiatives to support green technology fall flat.

The set of 17 rare elements known as “rare-earths” is integral to normal technology like iPads, fiber–optic cables and military equipment as well as “clean” technology like wind turbines, solar panels and electric batteries.

The U.S. used to lead the world in mining rare-earths through a California mine called Molycorp. However, environmental regulations sent this mine into extinction and the U.S. lost her competitive technology advantage. Today, years later, Molycorp is slowly re-building after meeting stricter U.S. environmental standards.

Since the U.S. stopped mining her own resources, China now calls the shots on rare-earths. The Chinese government and organized crime circles within China run pollution-hissing mines that churn out roughly 97 percent of the global rare-earth supply. High demand for rare-earths within the Chinese marketplace, environmental issues and political leverage are factors leading China to cut back on exports. Consequently, rare-earth prices are skyrocketing.

As hall of fame quarterback and former Minnesota Viking Fran Tarkenton told the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Nov. 24, 2010, “In my life, when I tried to have a quick fix to something, it turned out worse than it was before.” Unfortunately, many U.S. politicians see government intervention in clean tech as the quick fix to energy independence, job creation, and a cleaner environment.

Government clean tech programs for solar panels, wind turbines and electric batteries ironically support China’s dirty rare-earth mining at unsustainable costs. A single “utility-scale” wind turbine requires 661 lb. of the element neodymium, GM’s Chevy Volt needs 7 lb. of magnets made from rare-earths and the price of the iPod-essential rare-earth called dysprosium has jumped from $6.50 to $130 per lb., according to TIME Magazine.

Image credit: "Oil Pan Neodymium Magnet - Partially Wiped Clean" by DandyDanny on Flickr via Creative Commons.

The New York Times reports that mining rare-earths is complicated by the fact that most elements are only produced as byproducts of mining something else, such as copper. Furthermore, extracting rare-earth elements releases significant amounts of low-level radioactive waste into the environment.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that wind and solar energy accounted for less than one percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2009. Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum reports that wind turbines have killed wildlife, including protected species, and have been responsible for 35 fatalities in the U.S. from 1970 to 2010.

Despite these costs and risks, the Obama Administration wants to push clean tech to produce before its time by throwing out arbitrary and costly goals like “1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.” Minnesotans are being asked to be guinea pigs for a proposed tax on mileage. This tax would ask Americans who commute long distances in traditional cars to sacrifice twice by paying for elites to drive roller skates on rare-earth batteries.

With impeccable timing, a day before the one-year anniversary of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Administration announced that it had rushed through approval for the controversial and environmentally-intrusive Cape Wind Project. With 130 wind turbines, I estimate it will take 85,930 lb. of the rare-earth neodymium to supply electricity to just 400,000 homes off Nantucket Sound.

Image credit: "Wind turbine" by hddod on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Good thing China is only charging us an arm and a leg for this clean tech experiment that provides a sliver of the population with electricity while disrupting birds and the aquatic ecosystem.

I think we can solve the technology crisis and conserve the earth by implementing practical, free market ideas. For example, the Empire State Building recently completed a $13 million dollar energy-saving retrofit that will reduce annual energy consumption by 38 percent. The retrofit implemented common sense techniques like recaulking limestone slabs and spraying foam insulation in walls.

Empire State Building project manager Paul Rode told TIME Magazine: “I can’t tell you how many people say, ‘Why not install solar cells or put a little windmill on the roof?’ Because it doesn’t make business sense. It makes much more sense to lower energy use.”

As I write, entrepreneurs at the private venture California company MoonEx are developing plans for robotic rovers to uncover a “gold mine” of rare elements and metals on the moon’s surface. My hope for the future is emboldened by free enterprise, not big government. The government got us into this mess by regulating California’s Molycorp mine out of business years ago. Free enterprise and innovation – not government-approved green programs – will dig us out.

Image credit: "Sunrise - Gulf of Mexico" by Vince O'Sullivan on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Listening to morning shows is a good way to wind up in a psychiatrist’s office. I flip between 300 channels and have three basic choices: Bad economic news, high-profile violence or cotton candy interviews with reality stars. I try switching to Twitter and a trending topic is a cobra that escaped from the Bronx Zoo. I almost choke on my Pop-Tart.

I’m tired of negative news and hearing people whine without offering solutions. So, I’m defying the world by being optimistic.

What makes me happy? Oil. Oil makes me think happy thoughts.

If you turn on your TV, you’ll probably find some Debbie Downer “reporting” that BP is essentially an underground mafia and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the DOJ may bring BP executives to justice for manslaughter, regardless of whether they were directly involved in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and despite the government’s own negligence in overseeing the Deepwater Horizon well.

Even a Hollywood environmentalist like Avatar director James Cameron admits that the U.S. needs oil. He recently told TIME Magazine, “We’re going to need it regardless no matter how fast you move off oil. We’re not there yet—renewables make up maybe 3% of the grid, even if it’s changing fast. … I’m speaking from a U.S. perspective, and you still need oil—you need it for trucks and airplanes. You need it for fuel.”

There you have it. Straight from Hollywood Happyville. America needs oil.

Image credit: "Director James Cameron" by Clare & Dave on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Dale Earnhardt, Jr. recently made similar comments with regard to green technology in cars. When Chevrolet released its electric model called the Volt this year and Consumer Reports did not give it a stellar review, Earnhardt Jr. said: “…the technology isn’t there yet…”

Cameron and Earnhardt, Jr.’s words make sense when you think about them this way: When Tiger Woods was three years old, what if his coach and father, Earl, had told him, “Tiger, you are going to win the Masters this year.” Or what if he had said, “Tiger, in five years, you are going to win the Masters.”

Certainly, at three years old and at eight years old, Tiger had the potential to win not one but four Masters and many other awards. But, it would have been ridiculous and counterproductive if Tiger’s dad had demanded that he win a green jacket when he was still developing as an athlete.

Likewise, it is dangerous for us to pressure alternative energy to replace oil now or in the near future. I’d like to fuel my car with algae, and, right now, it’s not practical. Maybe it will be in the future.

We have vast oil reserves here in America. Think Alaska’s ANWR, Utah’s oil sands, and countless deepwater drilling opportunities. Plus, new Gallup polls indicate Americans support drilling for oil in increasing numbers.

But, political correctness keeps the EPA and this Administration from listening to the majority of Americans while shaping energy policy:

Timeline of Inconsistency

• 2009: Newly elected President Obama lends $2 billion to Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil corporation, via the Export Import Bank of the U.S. (Bush appointees on Ex-Im’s board approved the preliminary commitment).
• March, 2010: President Obama proposes “compromise” to drill offshore for oil and natural gas “along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska,” reports The New York Times.
• April, 20 2010: Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
• May, 4, 2010: The White House says it will keep the “boot on the throat” of BP.
• May 27, 2010: Department of Interior announces a six-month ban on deepwater drilling, despite lack of scientific support for said moratorium.
• December 1, 2010: President reverses decision to re-open drilling and keeps the moratorium indefinite for most areas.
• January 3, 2011: President reneges and allows 13 companies to return to 16 existing and mostly exploratory deepwater wells.
• March 19, 2011: President visits Brazil with the pledge: “… when you’re ready to start selling (oil), we want to be one of your best customers.”
• March 30, 2011: President announces specific, politically correct green energy goals. He places blame on the petroleum industry while his effective ban on new deepwater drilling persists since drilling permits are being issued at a snail’s pace.

Oil is amazing. It represents opportunities for wealth, freedom, health and security that we are snubbing our noses at so we can be “green” prematurely. Indeed, thriving economies produce clean environments and longer life spans, explains Forbes.

The most positive thing that could happen to America would be economic stability. Drilling for oil would create jobs, lower gas prices, enhance national security and boost consumer spending. Let’s turn off the negative voices and embrace oil for the sake of happiness and prosperity.

Image credit: "US6 oil rig 3926a" by DB's travels on Flickr via Creative Commons.