All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
March 1, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, here it is.
The official threatening notice from the town about sea turtle lights.
I guess they've got to go off starting tonight.
Through October 31st, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October.
Eight months.
I was irritated before the program began.
Now I'm double irritated.
Greetings.
Welcome back.
El Rushbo here.
EIB Network 800-282-2882.
The name of the big company selling carbon offsets is TerraPass.
They're out in California.
I'll have details coming up here in just a second.
I got to read this to you.
This is from thetown of PalmBeach.com to people that live on the ocean.
To protect endangered sea turtles, which nest on local beaches and the hatchlings which come from those nests, the town council adopted an ordinance requiring all oceanfront property owners to ensure that their lights are not visible from the beach at any time from March 1st through October 31st.
Artificial lighting confuses the sea turtle hatchlings, causing them to veer off course from their intended destination directly to the Atlantic Ocean.
It is believed that the resulting disorientation of sea turtle hatchlings from artificial lighting sources is a major cause in the decline of the sea turtle populations worldwide.
Artificial lighting.
Artificial lighting.
To comply with the lights out policy, oceanfront property owners are requested to shield or redirect any lights illuminating any area of the beach or water that may be used by nesting sea turtles or simply turn off the lights during the period of March 1 through October 31.
Some limited use of low-pressure sodium lights or yellow bug lights may not be a threat to turtles.
The rule of thumb is when in doubt, turn it out.
The cooperation and compliance of the public will be appreciated.
And then they note that they will mail a threatening notice to accompany the email.
Notice that it is believed, it is believed that the resulting disorientation of sea turtle, let me tell you a couple stories.
I know this, sometimes it's an indulgence on my part to bleed on you people with the personal little irritants that I have, but there's a construction project happening on the beach right now, on the beach.
And it is going to go on until April 30th.
And you can read about it every day in a local squire, little, little, little, little paper here.
And you can say they have to be through with the project by April 30th because that's when the turtles arrive.
Yet we have to turn out the lights in the back starting on March 1st.
I don't have any lights that illuminate the beach.
I don't have any lights that illuminate the ocean.
So it's a little conflicting here or confusing because it says anything that they could see from the beach versus, you know, I've gone down to the beach.
I've laid down on the beach.
I've put myself in the same position as a turtle or a hatchling.
And from where, if you lay down on a beach, can't see the lights in my beach.
They've got to go out.
And I have them.
They're decorative.
They're, you know, I like the way the landscaping is lit, and it's also security.
Eight months out of the year, the turtles don't show up until May.
This is how the environmentalist wackos have succeeded in intimidating the town.
They go down there and they bellyache and moan at town council hearings and so forth.
And just to get rid of them, they come up with these regulations.
And by the way, I've got nothing against sea turtle.
Let me tell you a quick little story.
When my house was being constructed, no lights anywhere at all at night.
Zip Zero Nada.
And we show up one day, and the contractor says, you got a problem here.
What?
And there were some dead sea turtle hatchlings, some babies on the construction site.
And I said, well, what's the problem?
Well, they showed up here.
I said, well, we didn't have any lights on last night.
How does this happen?
So the next night we studied things and there was a moon.
The moon was at 12 o'clock high.
And the moon ain't artificial light.
And plus, if you get a cloudy day, the lights of West Palm Beach will illuminate the overcast.
And that's anyway, I know there's no hope.
This is a losing cause, but it just, it's these bureaucracies and these rules, particularly when it comes to the environment.
And I've been down it, by the way, I have watched, I have seen it happen.
I've seen these giant sea turtles arrive.
The earliest I've seen one arrive where I live is Memorial Day weekend.
Showed up, and it was a big mama, and it labored all the way up the beach.
It's a big beach at our house, like 75 yards from the waterline to the dune.
It's all beach.
And it's that because they dredged the inlet nearby and they put the sand on our beach and it's good beach.
And this sea turtle just used the back fins and dug a perfectly circular hole in the sand, laid the eggs, covered them up, and then you could just see the fatigue in this poor turtle just making its way back to the water.
And we went up and we touched it, didn't care.
It was not intimidated or any of that sort of thing.
And this was at one o'clock in the morning when this happened.
We had a scout out there watching.
He gave the scout a bottle of wine and said, shout if you see a turtle.
Bam, it happened.
And so seen it two or three times.
The hatchlings, they show up in July, June, July, sometimes in August.
I know it's a minor problem, but it touched the big city.
We all did.
There's about 10 of us down there.
Put our hands on the shell of the city.
Oh, you didn't have to bend over.
It was huge.
Well, they haven't passed an ordinance saying we can't do it.
People, no, they didn't get Max Mayfield.
And Max Mayfield was nabbed because he caught one of these big, ugly groupers that's protected.
And he dragged it into the boat to take a picture of it.
And that's what you're not allowed to do.
You can't take the grouper out of the water.
They released it.
But no, we didn't interfere with the turtle at all.
We didn't get in the turtle's way.
We were on the side.
We were following the turtle as it was making its way back to the Atlantic.
We were not stalking the turtle.
Turtle didn't care.
Turtle was so tired, just wanted to get out of there.
But nobody was harming the turtle.
We were watching nature.
We were all amazed by it.
You know, the fact of the matter is that this is just nature.
90% of the hatchlings don't survive.
The minute they get to the ocean, here comes a shark or something.
Or some other sea creature that eats them.
But some of them do, obviously.
All right, here are the details and offsets.
This is a good story from December 19th of 2006 to show you how old the program is.
San Francisco Chronicle, the fight against global warming has created its own odd market, one in which companies sell their ability to remove greenhouse gases from the air.
Some of those companies plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide.
Others create systems to capture methane produced by dairy cows.
Some build windmills to generate electricity that otherwise would come from power plants burning coal or natural gas.
You people realize how absurd that paragraph is.
They plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide.
This is what Schwarzenegger is.
He put his private jet on the carbon registry, and this outfit called TerraPass promises to go out and plant X number of trees for every carbon footprint that Schwarzenegger's plane leaves.
Second aspect of the paragraph, others create systems to capture methane produced by dairy cows.
What this means, ladies, may I be blunt?
What this means is that somebody somewhere claims to have a system to go out and extract the methane from cow farts.
Now, do you people know how many head of livestock there are in this country?
Would somebody explain to me the system whereby this is done in such a way that it makes an iota's worth of difference?
That's what I'm asking.
How do you know when it has happened?
I mean, obviously, I guess you can smell it, but no, don't give the sly look of the cow.
Cows don't give you a sly look when they do that.
That reminds me of another silly story.
Somewhere in Pennsylvania, some cow fell through a lake, had a thin sheet of ice, and a farmer called a rescue team.
They brought a tow truck out, and they're dragging this cow out of there.
And a reporter writes that other cows were looking on with concern and fear.
The other cows had no clue what was going on.
They're not that smart.
They're sitting around chewing their cud, trying to figure out what all the commotion's about.
But if you just imagine, what's the machine?
What is the machine that traps methane from cow gas?
You understand how preposterous this is?
And then windmills to generate electricity that otherwise would come from power plants burning coal or day.
Would somebody show me the evidence?
Somebody tell me, somebody show me anywhere where one windmill has reduced one watt of power output from any power plant anywhere.
Dutch don't even use windmills for anything anymore other than portraits.
Now, who buys these carbon offsets?
Well, companies or individuals who want to offset the amount of carbon dioxide they pump into the atmosphere as part of their everyday lives.
The market got one of its biggest boosts last week.
This is a December 19, 2006 story.
When PG ⁇ E, Pacific Gas and Electric, jumped in.
The utility, California's largest, announced a program that will let its customers calculate and offset the amount of carbon dioxide their power supply produces.
That's right.
There's a website you can go now and calculate your own carbon footprint.
The average residential customer who volunteers for the program will spend an estimated $4.31 every month with the exact figure based on how much electricity and natural gas the person uses.
Businesses that buy power from PG ⁇ E also can participate.
So you volunteer to calculate and offset the amount of carbon dioxide that your power supply produces.
And if you volunteer to do this, you will get charged an estimated $4.31 every month for the privilege.
And if you care more, you can give more.
That's absolutely right.
If you care more, you can give more than the $4.31.
Executives at San Francisco's PG ⁇ E expected about 4% of their customers to sign up in the next three years, generating $20 million.
The money will be spent restoring or conserving California forests.
Is this not a scam?
Is this not one of the greatest scams you have ever heard come down the pike?
And now the power companies are in on it so they can get the benefit of caring as well.
Nothing compels people to join the program, which is scheduled to begin this spring, like all companies participating in the new market.
PG ⁇ E is betting on the altruism of its customers.
They're not betting on that.
They're betting on the stupidity of their customers, falling prey to all these horror stories.
You know what?
If you people do this, here's what I want you to do.
You people out in California buying this program.
I want you, after a certain pastime, call PG and go see your trees.
Demand to see your trees, the trees that they have planted in your name, demand to see them.
You are going to be paying $4.31 to offset your carbon footprint.
You demand to see the tree.
You demand to see the machine that's extracting the methane and doing what with it, by the way, from cow farts.
You demand to see all of this.
You're paying for it.
And then, while you're at it, demand that you have your power in an account with no social security number.
This is big in banking now, any number of potentials.
Now, the average consumer wants to be part of the solution.
This is a quote now.
They want it to be easy and they want it to be clear, said Tom Arnold.
Tom Arnold started a company in Menlo Park called TerraPass, giving people a way to calculate how much carbon dioxide they pump into the environment.
They can then pay money through TerraPass to fund projects that will offset greenhouse gases.
In the two years since it formed, TerraPass has signed up 26,000 customers and funded 11 projects involving wind power, energy efficiency, and the capture of methane from cows.
The small company, privately held, has not yet turned to profit, although it hopes to do so in the first quarter of 2007.
No, it's not the Tom.
No, it's not the Tom Arnold.
We like to say, in theory, we're for profit, Tom Arnold said.
Let's just go on a little long here.
We've got to go to commercial break.
Don't be a sap on this, folks.
Please just don't.
And we are back serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB network posted today at 1.30 on the hotline.
Last evening, I referred to American casualties in Iraq as wasted.
I should have used the word sacrificed as I have in the past.
No one appreciates and honors more than I do the selfless patriotism of American servicemen and women in the Iraq wall.
We owe them a debt we can never fully repay, and America's leaders owe them, as well as the American people, our best judgment and honest appraisal of the progress of the war in which they continue to sacrifice.
As I have said many times, I believe we have made many mistakes in the prosecution of the war.
With a new commanding general and a new strategerie, we are now trying to correct those mistakes, and I believe we have a realistic chance to succeed.
That does not change the fact, however, that we have made many mistakes in the past, and we've paid a grievous price for those mistakes in the lives of the men and women who have died to protect our interests in Iraq and defend the rest of us from the even greater threat that we would face if we are defeated there.
So I knew this is what it was.
This is McCain apologizing for his use of the word wasted lives last night on Letterman with his informal announcement for the presidency.
And as I told somebody, he used wasted in the context that he doesn't believe the strategy up to now has been one of oriented toward victory.
But he has apologized for it.
Democrat National Committee demanded that he apologize.
I'm sure others in their discussions of this raised consciousness in the McCain campaign.
So there it is.
David in Laguna Beach, California.
I appreciate your patience in waiting.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
How are you today?
Oh, I'm fine.
I just know I'm going to be the target of the town of Tom Beach for a month here and my lights and so forth.
I'm thinking of what here's what I'm thinking of doing.
I'm thinking of hiring a guy and going out on the ocean every night in a boat from sundown to sun up with nothing but a bright light out there so that I can say, look, there's light out there and it's artificial light.
And you guys say artificial light attracts turtles and I'm going to have a guy out there so that the brightest light the turtles are going to see will be the light from the ocean where they're supposed to go.
That sounds like a great idea.
Yeah, it's going to cost me a lot of money, but that's what I'm thinking of doing.
And I'll pass an ordinance saying you can't have lights on in the ocean for some other reason.
Anyway, other than that, I'm fine.
Fantastic.
Hey, I was watching the HBO documentary on the horrors of Abu Ghraib, Abu Ghraib.
And as I was watching the show, I knew what they were trying to do.
They were trying to make me feel bad for everything that was going on there.
But I have to tell you that that never happened.
Well, you like torture?
Of course I don't like torture, but I like results.
And when we are in a situation where we are interrogating people and we need to get results.
Well, that's interesting.
I don't mean to cut short, but I've got to because of time.
So you watched it.
They tried to make you feel guilty and you didn't feel guilty.
The program backfired on you.
Probably the case with most people on your side of the aisle.
Back in just a sec.
Rush Limboy, living legend and your guiding light.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have the fastest three hours in media, Ray in Tampa.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Cal Rushbo.
Hey.
Earlier in the program, you were talking about the fact that you really can't, you're not going to throw your support in back of any candidate at this point.
And when you said that, I couldn't have agreed with you more.
Right now, currently, in this political environment that we're in, I don't hear any candidates talking about things that truly matter to Americans.
They talk about things that matter to illegal aliens.
They talk about things that matter to not so much to our national security.
And when I say that, I mean the big picture.
I mean, you know, Iraq and Iran, that's one thing, but there are other players that are doing things right now that are far more dangerous to like Russia, China, you know, India.
They all got together and had a powwow.
I don't hear any of these guys talking about truly what it matters to America and protecting and preserving our American dream and our American way of life.
Why do you think that is?
Because I think they're pandering.
I think they're nothing but a bunch of, as you say, linguine-spined individuals that if they stood up with a true thought, stood on two feet and said that thought and meant that thought and stood by that thought, that it would cause them to not be, you know, a talking head on all the 24-hour news channels.
It would cause them to not be as popular.
Well, look, I think you have a point up to a point.
I haven't followed everything that they have been saying.
Look, this is probably going to shock some of you and disappoint some of you and sadden others of you.
But I just have to tell you, there is not one aspect of the presidential race right now that I care about.
It's too soon.
I just, I'm sorry.
I don't want to spend the next 10 months in the first primary.
I just, I am not going to turn this program over to the presidential campaign of 2008 yet.
I just, it's, I've always followed my instincts, and my instinct says it's too soon to do this.
There's something not right about all of this happening.
Now, on the other side of that, understand what's happening now is important from a marketing standpoint.
The candidates are out there making their statements.
But I think to the extent that you're right, my fear is that the campaign is being waged for the media.
Absolutely.
Everybody is convinced they've got to have media approval, or at least they can't have the media out there slicing and dicing them to shreds every day.
So there's a little, shall we say, media offset going on as part of the campaigns.
Plus, you know, you've got candidates going to Iowa and you've gone to New Hampshire, and when they do that, because of the site of the first cauckey and the first primary.
And obviously, if you lose both of those, you're in deep doo-doo.
If you enter both and lose both, you're in deep doo-doo.
So they're out there pandering to those particular voters, and they've got pollsters in those states determining what's important to people in those states.
And the national, the rest of it's running around raising money.
So that's why right now it's, to me, it's, I don't want to say it other than it's just a little premature.
As to whether or not candidates are ever going to get around to talking about what you want and the things that you mentioned, like the problems with Russia, frankly, I don't expect to hear that from anybody.
I don't know why I say that.
I just don't expect to hear it.
I think there is a tiptoe mentality.
Let's not ruffle feathers.
Let's not get people all worked up about various things.
And I see it in the way Iraq is being approached by so many people and the associated alliances that Syria and Iran have in this whole situation.
That's being avoided as well.
And there will be a day of reckoning on all of these things at some point down the line.
I don't know how soon.
Some of it, maybe not in our lifetimes.
But to give you an example here of just what you're talking a little bit about there, Ray, this is a story from the Houston Chronicle from yesterday.
The Senate's march to overhaul the nation's immigration laws is starting in somewhat rocky fashion with Senator John Cornyn of Texas and other leading Republicans complaining they've been shut out of the bill writing process.
It's not a good way to try to build consensus to solve problems by withholding information, Cornyn said on Wednesday as the Senate Judiciary Committee began debate.
Even the committee's top Republican, Arlen Specter, complained that he'd been frozen out of the talks on a bill that is sponsored by, co-sponsored by one of his colleagues, John McCain.
McCain and Ted Kennedy are negotiating the immigration bill in the Senate, and it is closeted.
Cornyn and Specter are just two who are being shut out of the debate.
Kennedy and McCain will unveil the bill as early as next week.
Senate leaders hope the Judiciary Committee will approve the bill this month, paving the way for a vote by the full Senate in April.
Now, this bill reprises, reprises much of what the Senate approved in May of last year.
A path to citizenship for most of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens and immigrants, a guest worker program for future foreign workers, and heightened immigration enforcement.
Though Congress is now in Democrat hands, Republican support will be essential to deliver a bill to President Bush's desk.
Last year's overhaul foundered amid arguments between enforcement-minded Republicans in the House and legalization-friendly Republicans in the Senate.
So to illustrate your point, here you have McCain, who informally announced his candidacy last night on the Letterman Show.
Somebody's got to help me.
I haven't heard him talk much about his immigration bill in public on the campaign stump, have you?
And of course, Ted Kennedy's not talking about it.
They're not talking about a period.
It's going on behind closed doors.
And they're even shutting out some Republicans on the committee.
So that's sort of illustrative of what Ray in Tampa was talking about.
Chris in Utica, New York.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, thanks for taking my call, right?
You bet.
I was hoping for a little bit of advice.
For what?
Well, tonight I'm going to be hosting a radio show on my college campus.
And I was hoping that since you excel in broadcasting, you could give me a few tips.
Well, what are you going to talk about?
Well, I'm doing straight news for the first half hour, and then we're going to have a bit of a debate.
Me and a liberal, we're going to debate unions.
You know, debate unions.
Is there anything exciting happening in state news for the first time?
How long is your show?
It's only an hour.
It's an hour.
So half of it's going to be devoted to state news.
Is there anything exciting in state news, or is this you have to do this because whoever your boss is is requiring it be done?
Yes, I work with another guy in, oh, I will be.
This is going to be my first night.
He has it set up so that we do straight news first a couple of hours.
Oh, wait, did you say, are you saying straight news?
Oh, oh, okay.
I was going to say, you're going to do in state news.
Nobody's going to listen.
Right.
I'm sorry.
You're going to do straight news.
Oh, okay.
Is it going to be news you care about?
Yes.
Are you going to be able to comment on the news, or are you just going to be like an unopinionated presenter of the news?
For the first half hour, I have to be unopinionated.
You're not allowed to be opinionated in the first half hour.
Right.
Well, that'll be good training because that's practically impossible.
Well, I believe if you're a thinking, indulged, engaged human being, it's impossible not to have an opinion about what, you know, raise your eyebrow.
I know it's radio.
Raise your eyebrow.
Maybe pause now and then to convey your opinion in this.
There's any number of tricks.
You can watch Charles Gibson learn how to do it.
Peter Jennings is great at it.
Katie Couric doesn't have to.
She's just blatant.
But here's, look, this is your first show.
You're going to have, you've never done this before?
No.
All right.
Well, you're going to have some nerves and you're going to be worried about a number of extraneous things.
The thing that I would first advise you to do is be as informed on whatever the subject matter of the program is as possible because that is where you get your confidence.
Yes.
So study.
Be as informed on it as you can and then project your voice with confidence.
Don't just speak in a normal monotone, but really project it and sound authoritative like you are the world's last and only authority.
Well, I figure now that I've been on, well, 800 radio stations right now.
Yeah, 800 or so, according to others, yes.
Yes, it should be pretty easy going on just one tonight.
Yeah, that's true because, you know, I've been a caller, and I know what it's like.
You're sitting out there and you're on hold, and sometimes you're on hold for minutes, sometimes close to an hour, and the screener comes and says, You're next, and then start getting nervous and so forth.
And then the host goes to you, and you try not to clam up and forget what you were going to say, and so forth.
That's why it's just crucial.
Be passionate and be informed about what you're saying, and those two things should carry you.
I'm not going to get into actual broadcast techniques because those are things that you'll learn as you go along.
Okay, well, thank you very much, Rush.
All right, confidence, projection, and passion.
Awesome.
And, of course, being informed.
Can't replace that.
Definitely.
Happy to help out there, Chris.
A brief, brief timeout here, ladies and gentlemen.
And we'll be back and continue after this.
Okay, quickly, some audio soundbites.
Nancy Pelosi went on Larry King Live last night talking about the controversy here over the assignment of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana to the Homeland Security Committee.
He was taken off Ways and Means.
This is Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, with $90,000 coal cash in a freezer.
Ebsconded with a couple of rescue trucks during the Katrina aftermath to get something the size of a microwave out of his house down there.
Still hasn't been indicted.
People wondering where the indictment is.
This is what Pelosi said.
I removed him from the Ways and Means Committee.
That had something to do with the accusations made against him.
Homeland Security does not.
So if you got $90,000 of coal cash in a freezer, you can't be in the Ways and Means Committee.
But Homeland Security, no problem.
None whatsoever.
Roy Blunt called this ludicrous.
He is in the Republican leadership.
And the idea that Homeland Security is somehow less important than the tax writing committee, I think is a ludicrous idea.
Let's go back.
November 7th, 2006.
Just as to review.
Nancy Pelosi's election night pledge.
Today, the American people voted for change, and they voted for Democrats to take our country in a new direction.
The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C.
And the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.
Which is not possible given that they're Democrats.
But it's a nice, you know, gold star for effort.
All right.
So William Jefferson, Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, obviously involved in something here that could soon see him under indictment.
Not good enough for the Ways and Means Committee, but no problem on Homeland Security.
However, Republicans raised hell about this.
As a result, Nancy Pelosi has postponed until at least next week action on a resolution that would place embattled Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, on the Homeland Security Committee after Republicans said they would demand a roll call vote that could be potentially embarrassing for some Democrats.
Leadership aides confirmed today the vote has been tentatively scheduled for sometime next week.
The reason it would be embarrassing for certain Democrats is that a lot of Democrats don't want to vote for the guy.
And they would probably be muscled into having to do so by Pelosi.
So she has delayed her decision on Congressman William Jefferson Democrat, even though he was there.
I saw a picture of him.
I was participating in hearings on the web.
Anyway, Mark in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's a real pleasure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just wanted a call to kind of clarify some misconceptions that you and a previous caller seem to have about emissions offsets and cap and trade programs.
And the idea of the cap and trade program is that the governing body, I guess, for Kyoto, that would be the UN, allocates to facilities a certain number of allowances and credits that they're allowed to emit.
Wait, wait, wait.
The UN.
The UN allocates to facilities a certain number of allowances and credits they're allowed to emit.
That's correct.
The UN.
And then, well, it depends on the program.
Say Houston is a non-attainment under EPA for NOx, and so the nitrogen oxides.
So the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, they allocate emissions for those, for NOx, nitrogen oxides.
So the UN does.
The UN tells Texas what its nitrogen oxide is.
No, no, no, no.
I'm just saying that under Kyoto, for carbon, for the countries that have subscribed to Kyoto Protocol, I'm supposing that the U.N. would allocate those allowances.
And then once they're allocated...
But Kyoto is bogus.
Kyoto.
I understand that.
I agree with you.
I mean, I'm not disputing that at all.
But the mechanism is that they're allocated, and then the facilities can sell those on an open market to each other.
So the idea is that one facility that reduces emissions by either being more efficient or shutting something down would be able to sell a certain amount of those credits, usually measured in tons, to another facility.
And I know under Kyoto, some pollutants, some greenhouse gases, quote unquote, are considered more polluting than others or more greenhouse effective than others.
And so a facility that produces some of those chemicals actually has, you know, for one ton, the ratio might be 50 to 1 or 100 to 1, depending on the chemical.
And so I know that in particular, India is really doing good on this because they produce some of those high polluting or high greenhouse gas factor chemicals.
And so they're really kind of cashing in on that.
But I believe that the company in California is basically just buying those credits from facilities in countries that are subscribed to the treaty and passing the costs onto you for buying those and taking them off the market.
Right.
It's for suckers.
It is.
I mean, it does take the emissions credits off the market.
You sound like you support this stuff.
This is for suckers.
No, no.
It's good for business, but I don't support it at all.
It's a crock.
I mean, how's it good for business?
It keeps regulators off their rear ends?
Well, I'm an environmental consultant, Rush.
So, I mean, overall, it produces business.
Let me ask you a question.
If you're an environmental consultant, I just learned about this.
Have you ever heard of anaerobic digestion?
Sure.
What is it?
Anaerobic digestion is, well, it's respiration without oxygen.
So that's the way yeast produces alcohol.
But it's a way to take methane.
Basically, it helps cows expel gas without methane, right?
I don't know the details on that method.
If they're putting something in the feed to digest the methane out there.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
They put something in the feed and digest the methane, so they chew it in the cud rather than expel it at the tailpipe.
Right.
Okay.
You know, I guess that's an innovative approach.
But the global warming is a little bit different.
This sounds state-of-the-art to me.
This is a fart blocker.
We've got carbon offsets, fart blockers.
We've got anaerobic digestion.
We've got your thing with Indy and the UN.
I'll tell you what, I'm going to drive with even less guilt than I have ever had when I leave today, folks, to go play golf where there is no manure on the golf course.
Back in just a second.
Stay with me.
Listen to me, folks.
These carbon credits, these offsets are nothing more than the precursor to an imposed tax on energy usage, maybe an international tax.
You are being set up.
I will explain this in greater detail tomorrow on Open Line Friday.
Looking forward to it.
▲
Export Selection