Martinez misleads his readers, once again

Peppering the pages with irrelevant statistics:

The difference is fossil fuels. Because North Dakota is producing low-cost energy through exploration and extraction of the Bakken shelf, that state has enjoyed the largest job, income and economic growth rates in the nation during the past five years. Compare that with North Carolina during the past four years. Our state, which doesn’t produce a BTU of energy, has been forced to borrow $2.55 billion from the federal government to cover unemployment insurance costs.

No, one of the (many) differences is, North Dakota has a population of just under 700,000, roughly 1/13 of North Carolina's. And when that Bakken plays out, what's North Dakota going to do then? As far as that (embarassingly un-researched) claim about zero production, North Carolina is producing somewhere in the neighborhood of 170 trillion BTU's of clean, renewable energy every year. This part made me bark a laugh:

The poverty dilemma facing environmentalists is even more pronounced outside the United States. The booming economies of the developing world, most notably China, India and Brazil, have been powered by low-cost fossil fuels. This boom has lifted millions out of abject, back-breaking poverty far more effectively than any program developed by governments or nongovernmental entities.

The reality we face is that the price for lifting people out of poverty around the world is higher carbon emissions. It’s a price a moral society needs to pay.

Human beings are also part of the environment, not intrusions. It is immoral to deny someone on the other side of the globe access to reliable electricity, clean water, a stable food supply and the ability to heat and cool their homes in order to prevent the planet from warming a couple degrees over the next 50 years or so.

I got two words for you, dumbass: Kyoto Protocol. Which was designed to allow developing countries to continue using fossil fuels, for the very reasons you stated. Of course you didn't mention Kyoto in your article, because that would have demonstrated your hypocrisy to even the slowest of readers.