Category Archives: Environmental Issues
Thanks for the compilation from MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Earth Hour stigmatizes human accomplishment as the root of all evils and treats the lack of accomplishment as an accomplishment. For all the pretense of activism, environmentalism celebrates inaction.
Don’t build, don’t create and don’t do– are its mandates. Turn off the lights and feel good about how much you aren’t doing right now.
Humanity is what is wrong with the world. It began with fire, then the wheelbarrow, the lever and the ax, the mason, the carpenter, the scientist, the visionary. It can end with you.
Just turn out the lights.
Environmentalism has degenerated from valuing how much the skies and the oceans, the butterfly and the beaver, the still lake and the blade of grass, enrich our humanity into a conviction that all human activity is destructive because the species of man is the greatest threat to the planet. Each death, each act of undoing and unmaking, each darkness that is brought about by the cessation of humanity becomes a profoundly environmentalist activity.
Kill yourself and save the planet. Put out the lights, tear down the city and let the earth revert to some imaginary primeval paradise free of all pollution; whether it is the carbon breath of men, dogs and cows or the light pollution of their cities.
Embrace the darkness.
While we take electric light for granted, being able to read and write after dark is a technological achievement that transformed our civilization. Animals are governed by day and night cycles. Artificial light made it possible for us to work independently of the day and night cycle. And that made our literature and our sciences, our civilization, possible.
Like all environmental gimmicks, Earth Hour is self-defeating as anything other than an assertion of identity and faith. Far more energy is consumed promoting it, than is saved by practicing it.
Websites switch to black, even though displaying black on television sets or monitors consumes more energy. Turning off electricity to entire buildings after working hours and then turning it on costs more than letting it run. And getting 90 million people across the country to turn their power on and off at a scheduled time is an energy savings disaster. And since power companies draw down on their more expensive ‘green’ generators first, Earth Hour actually shuts down ‘green’ power.
But its sponsors don’t claim that Earth Hour saves energy or prevents us from polluting the globe. Like every environmentalist stunt from flying rock stars around the world on jet planes to carving thousands of statues made of ice and then leaving them to melt in a public square, Earth Hour is described as spreading “awareness”.
Spreading awareness is the sole purpose of most environmental activism. Awareness spreading doesn’t improve anything, but spreads the ideology that humanity is evil to make people feel guilty, outraged, hopeful or some combination of the appropriate political sentiments in the face of an imminent armageddon that can only be fought by convincing everyone to be deeply concerned by it and disdainful of everyone who stands outside their Chicken Little consensus.
It is a religious ritual for a secular religion that has no god, but whose devil is the gear and the microchip, the milk cow and the imported banana, the skyscraper and the lathe.
The WWF, Earth Hour’s godmother, has learned that shrill attention seeking is a reliable fundraising method. One of the WWF’s more memorable fundraising methods was an ad showing hundreds of planes headed toward the World Trade Center, to highlight just how much more important their work is than fighting terrorism. Franny Armstrong of Age of Stupid, which was promoted by the WWF, ran a 10:10 campaign in the UK, whose ads featured environmentalists murdering dissenters, including a group of schoolchildren. The ads are just ads, but London’s leftist former mayor, Ken Livingstone had said of Age of Stupid, “Every single person in the country should be forcibly sat down on a chair and made to watch this film.”
That is the dark side of environmentalism. The most active non-Muslim domestic terrorist group is environmental. The undercurrent of violence finds easy purchase in environmentalism’s creed that the only real problem with the world is people.
No amount of turning off the lights is enough. Eventually you come around to having to turn off the people.
The Nazis were among the most enthusiastic environmentalists of their day, even the term ‘Ecology’ was coined by Ernst Haeckel, whose racial views served as precursors to Nazi eugenics. But while Nazi environmentalist believed that we were all animals, they insisted that some animals were better than others. Modern environmentalists believe that we are all worse than animals. In their view we are both natural and unnatural. Natural because we come from the ape and unnatural because we are intelligent. We live on the planet, but our intelligence excludes us from ever belonging to it.
Tools are our crime against nature. We make things. And we make things better. Earth Hour is our reminder to drop our tools and stop. Stop thinking. Stop doing. Just stop.
The incompatibility of productive man with the natural world is a fundamental tenet of the environmental movement. Everything we do is destructive because of what we are. We are tool builders, inventors and producers. And the environmentalist movement is aimed at convincing us to stop being these things. To turn off the lights, make do with less and march back to the caves with a few clever ad campaigns and a catchy tune.
Not only mankind must go, but all the animals that man has domesticated and bred– cows, dogs and cats. That is why PETA kills thousands of dogs and cats a year, promotes the euthanasia of wild cats and pet spaying and its staffers have even been known to kidnap animals and then kill them. It is why the Global Warming crowd has made cow emissions into their whipping bovine.
It’s not enough to kill man, tear down his cities and put out his lights. His cats and dogs and his cows and sheep must die along with him.
Environmentalism is not motivated by a love for all creatures, but by the fanatical belief in the purification of the earth from all traces of human civilization. The political leftist romanticizes the noble savage over the civilized man and its environmentalist arm romanticizes the jungle over the thousand acre farm. It prefers the the swamp to the garden, the wolf to the dog, and the tiger to the house cat.
This preference is not scientific, it is emotional, rooted in an antipathy to industrialization and human development. It wraps itself in the cloak of science, but it is a reactionary longing for a romanticized nomadic past that never existed. A way back to the lost eden of noble savages free from morality and guilt.
In the environmental bible– man is the source of all evil. The transition from the nomadic to the domestic, the village to the city, and the craftsman to the factory, is its version of original sin.
The environmentalist began with a distaste for human civilization and the fetishization of the rural farm life of the peasant. The champions of this “naturalism” were invariably urban artists and writers from the upper classes who were enthusiastic about being in touch with nature. After them came the “Nature Fakers” crafting myths about the high moral standards of wild animals. Domestic animals in such stories were always wicked and dumb, while wild animals lived deep and spiritual lives out in the woods. And so the animal kingdom was subdivided into the noble savage and the uncle tom.
The world was divided into two polar opposites, the green and the gray, in an apocalyptic struggle. Either man would drown the world in industry, or he would return to a natural way of life through a lethal virus (Mary Shelley, The Last Man, 1826), a devastating war (H.G. Wells), oppressive social policies (Edward Bellamy) or eco-terrorism (The Monkey Wrench Gang). The more civilization grew, the more apocalyptic the scenarios became culminating in the two great environmental myths; nuclear winter and global warming. These apocalyptic myths have served the same purpose for environmentalists as apocalypses do for all religions. They predict a time when the sinful order is overturned and the earth is renewed to make way for the faithful.
Man is the environmentalist’s devil. He must be beaten, broken and subjugated. Even the animals he has bred, who are the spark of his genius, must be taken out and killed. Take away his food and his power. Blame him for the natural cycles of the planet and the inevitable extinction of species that goes on whether he is there or not. Take away his technology and his inventions. Tell him that the humblest bacteria is better than him for it is dumb and follows its natural instincts while he insists on using his mind. Take away his primacy and his learning. And then leave him in the dark.
The environmental movement is tenacious, fanatical and deceptive. Its creed is the undoing of all human progress.
There is money to be made from that, as there is in all revolutions, but beneath the inconveniences of living under an environmental regime, from dirty clothes to high taxes, while being forced to listen to the hypocrisies and false pieties of the Gorean clergy of environmentalist activists heating their mansions while the poor freeze in energy poverty, is the darker reality that environmentalism is an anti-human movement with a vicious hostility toward man and the civilization he has built.
Whatever he has built, it must destroy.
The gap between darkness and light is a profound symbol in every civilization. The light of knowledge pitted against the shadowy dark of ignorance. The light reveals, but the darkness hides.
Civilization and the moral code exist in the light of awareness, but the darkness is home to unthinking bestial things. To call for a return to the darkness is a profound act of symbolism. A civilization that celebrates a return to the darkness for even a single hour is longing for a return to a deeper state of darkness.
A darkness of the soul.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
The Leftist Environmental Whackos. Think They Want to Save the Planet? Wrong. They Want to Destroy You.
The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.
PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.
PHE had been baked into Congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability”.
Obama’s budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the PHE budget request explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.
The budget is a blunt assertion of post-Human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.
When Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals.”
Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.
Ducks don’t talk, but environmentalists do, and they had vocally opposed helping the people of King Cove. Jewell had received the Rachel Carson Award, named after an environmentalist hero whose fearmongering killed millions. Compared to the Carson malaria graveyards of Africa, nineteen dead Eskimos slide off the post-Human conscience of a fanatical environmentalist like water off a duck’s back.
The arguments against DDT often focused not on saving lives, but on taking them. PHE prevents children from being born, but environmentalists don’t stop with the unborn. Malaria was an even more effective tool for reducing populations than targeted abortion and birth control programs.
USAID, which played a key role in the war on DDT, has openly embraced PHE. “When couples can plan the number, timing, and spacing of their children, that helps the environment and the economy.” said Beverly Johnson, chief of the Policy, Evaluation, and Communication Division of the USAID Office of Population and Reproductive Health.
Environmentalist population reduction activists originally cloaked their real agenda in claims about worldwide famine. Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, had predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and the end of England by 2000. Today Global Warming activists set empty dates for the destruction of mankind that they themselves don’t believe in.
The post-Human left seeks to maintain a perpetual state of crisis so that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even horrifying solutions as the alternative to the end of mankind. What it does not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.
In February, Population Action International and the Sierra Club sponsored a Congressional briefing on PHE post-2015. Population Action International was originally founded as the Population Crisis Committee in the sixties. Its preceding organizations included the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace which claimed that population control was necessary to defeat Communism.
Like the Communists, the post-Human activists were adept at disguising their agenda in the concerns of the moment, shifting from national security, feminism, the coming Ice Age, mass starvation and now Global Warming. Environmentalists are even attempting to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda as the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone from Yemen to Mali to Global Warming. Environmentalists are even attempting to repeat their old trick by trying to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda. The Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone from Yemen to Mali to Global Warming.
Paul Erlich, whose book was prompted by the Sierra Club and carried the same title as Hugh Moore’s tract, wrote that, “We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.” PHE jettisons agricultural development for its exact opposite, but otherwise it maintains the same formula of tying population control to a shifting collection of crisis agendas.
Typical of PHE’s intersection of environmentalism and eugenics,the Wilson Center cites a report which claims that “the effect of a 40 percent reduction in CO2 emissions per capita in developed countries between 2000 and 2050 would be entirely offset by the increase in emissions attributable to expected population growth in poorer countries over this period.”
The only way to fight Global Warming is Third World population control and eventually First World population control. Environmentalist fearmongering has never been about saving people. Its activists, like Sally Jewell, are too busy playing duck whisperer to care about people.
Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.
Not only do the environmentalists kill, but they profit from the deaths of their victims.
Elliot Morley, UK Labour’s Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, had directed that flooding in Somerset should be promoted because “wildlife will benefit from increased water levels”. Baroness Young, an environmental activist, who had become the chief executive of the UK’s Environment Agency, took steps to increase the possibility of flooding.
As she said, the formula was “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water’”.
When the flooding came, children were trapped on buses, 7,000 homes were flooded and many residents lost everything. Environmental activists blamed Global Warming and “careless farming” for the floods that they themselves had engineered.
Survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia which killed 173 people blamed environmental regulations for worsening the fires by preventing residents from clearing trees. The environmentalists blamed Global Warming and sent around an editorial suggesting that people “who don’t like to end up in flames” should read the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report.
California’s drought was likewise engineered by environmental activists who then blamed their own handiwork on Global Warming.
Environmentalists wield unprecedented power over the lives of millions and yet they claim that each engineered disaster could have been averted if they had only been given even more power.
The left is not only becoming post-American or post-Western, but post-Human, applying the same tactics that they used to target majorities in Western countries to the human race as a whole. Class war and race war are giving way to species warfare. And since the ducks cannot talk, ultimate power rests with the duck whisperers, those who speak for the animals, the fish and the trees.
The post-Human left takes social justice to its natural conclusion, going beyond all the human categories to level mankind with the polar bear, the duck and the microbe. Total equality for the post-Human left is not the equality of the rich and the poor, of men and women, of blacks and whites, or even of the First World and the Third World, but the equality of man and microbe, of a pregnant woman in a small Alaskan fishing village with a duck and a hungry California child with the Kangaroo rat.
The post-Human left seeks to put the species in its place, to keep down its breeding and reduce it from the lords of creation to only another species of animal to be shepherded and culled by their masters.
Beyond all the lies, that is the final endgame of the environmentalist movement. It isn’t out to save mankind. It’s out to destroy it. It wants to treat it like any species of animal, to control its reproduction, control its food distribution and its living spaces. It wants to reduce its numbers to a manageable level so that it takes its place within the animal kingdom
Earth going to pot
I’m sure eco-activists will jump right on this trash-making climate-killing water-sucking pot problem we have here in California and include it right up there with the urgency of the proposed statewide plastic bag ban and banning fracking by chartering buses.
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Posted on | January 7, 2014
Sometimes my hatred of lying liberals inspires me with a vitriolic rage that is very difficult to restrain. They lie with such arrogant impunity because liberal dominance of the intelligentsia means they can always count on their lies being applauded. And indeed, there are vast segments of the culture — academia, journalism, entertainment — so overwhelmingly liberal as to constitute a cocoon.
Within these cocoons where only liberal ideas are expressed, categories of “truth” and “error,” “right” and “wrong,” “fact” and “myth” are distorted beyond recognition, creating an alternative reality unrecognizable to those outside the cocoon.
So it is with the alleged “science” of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), also known as “climate change.” The means by which a scientific consensus was created in favor of AGW theory involved (a) advanced methods of propaganda, and (b) lots of money.
Last month, Al Gore tweeted out an article from The Daily Climate that bore this description:
Digging into the underpinnings of the climate denial movement, a Drexel University study finds a large slice of donations funneled through pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder. Koch Industries, ExxonMobil disappear from traceable public databases after 2007.
Knowing what I know about the AGW movement’s sources of funding, this imputation that critics enjoy lavish secret funding — “climate denial” researchers are all rolling in Koch bucks, we are led to believe — absolutely enraged me. But what can I do?
If you’ll take a second look, you’ll see that The Daily Climate is a publication of Environment Health Sciences:
The Daily Climate is published every morning (US East Coast time) by Environmental Health Sciences, a global nonprofit media company with headquarters in Charlottesville, Va.
Oh, “a global nonprofit media company”? What can we learn about Environmental Health Sciences?
Today, EHS’s budget is at $2 million — largely supported by major foundation grants — and Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate see 25 million page views per year. A team of 36 people work for its two publications . . .
Yes, “largely supported by major foundation grants,” EHS gets $2 million a year to run a couple of Web sites with a staff of 36.
So an organization that gets funding from major tax-exempt foundations publicizes a study by Drexel University (annual tuition $43,135) suggesting that critics of the AGW “scientific consensus” are unfairly enriching themselves. Isn’t that special?
About 500 passengers aboard three Amtrak trains were stranded overnight in a remote part of northern Illinois because of blowing and drifting snow, Amtrak officials said today.
The nation is gripped by one of the most severe cold-weather systems in recorded history – “It’s So Cold in the Midwest that Antifreeze Could Freeze” – but somehow, this evidence does not affect “major foundation grants” for the 36 lying liberal propagandists employed at Environmental Health Sciences.
I’d love to laugh at that, but yesterday the dog escaped and, while chasing him down the road, I slipped on the ice, fell hard on my right side and injured my ribs so severely that it hurts to laugh — or sneeze or cough, for that matter. And I know damned well that I’m not getting any “major foundation grants,” so please hit the tip jar.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
December 19, 2013
How’s your heating bill? If you feel like you’re not paying enough, you’re in luck.
. President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing new regulations on power plants – regulations that will kill jobs, jack up your energy costs, and even end up reducing families’ income because of the impact on the prices of everything you buy.
As Heritage experts Nicolas Loris, Kevin Dayaratna, and David Kreutzer explain:
<blockquotThese regulations will act as a major energy tax that would negatively impact American households. Americans will suffer through higher energy bills, but also through higher prices for goods and services, slowing the economy and crippling the manufacturing sector.
…It will cost more to heat, cool, and light homes, and to cook meals. These higher energy prices will also have rippling effects throughout the economy. As energy prices increase, the cost of making products rises.
The EPA’s war is against coal, which is the main source of electricity for 21 states. In their research, Heritage experts analyzed a phase-out of coal (thanks to the EPA’s regulations) between 2015 and 2038.
Here are their dire warnings. By the end of 2023, they project:
* Employment falls by nearly 600,000 jobs (270,000 in manufacturing). * Coal-mining jobs drop 30 percent. * A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,200 per year, and its total income drops by nearly $24,400 over the entire period of analysis.
And for what?
Certainly not helping the environment. The authors sum it up: “President Obama’s climate plan would have a chilling effect on the economy, not the climate.”
They explain that “regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have no meaningful effect on global climate change. The EPA admitted this in its own proposed rule.”
So – hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, thousands in lost income, higher prices across the board—and “no noticeable climate impact.” That’s what these regulations mean.
It’s important to remember that these rules are being developed by unelected bureaucrats at the whim of the Obama Administration. We’ve already learned that the Administration delayed a number of controversial regulations, including energy-related ones, conveniently until after the 2012 election. Why? Because they’re harmful to Americans.
The authority to make such sweeping changes doesn’t belong to these unelected bureaucrats, the Heritage experts say. Congress should take back its power and prevent these rules from inflicting harm on the economy – and our wallets.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
“Now the American baby boom is the world’s future.”
Unless, of course, extravagant freedom, scant responsibility, plenty of money and a modicum of peace lead to such a high rate of carbon emissions that we all fry or drown. But you can’t have everything. And you can have a profusion of opportunity and, at the same time, a collapse of traditional social standards. Just look at Western Europe and the wealthiest parts of Asia and Latin America. They’re almost as useless as we are—with abundant disposable income and ample leisure time to devote to pointless activities that don’t harm anybody much except ourselves. – - P.J. O’Rourke on the Baby Boom: the Aftermath
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
“In our modern age, things no longer exist to perform their function.”
Washing machines aren’t designed to clean clothes, but to save water and energy.
Food isn’t there to be eaten, but not eaten. And armies aren’t there to win wars, but to be moral. And the truly moral army never fights a war. When it must fight a war, then it fights it as proportionately as possible, slowing down when it’s winning so that the enemy has a chance to catch up and inflict a completely proportional number of casualties on them. Sultan Knish: Winning the Peace
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
. FOX News: A federal audit shows that nearly a half-billion dollars in government funds was spent on training workers for so-called “green jobs.” The only problem is that not enough positions in the growing industry exist.
The findings – released in a June report by the Government Accountability Office – showed that only 55 percent of those trained were able to place in a new job, many of which were not technically green jobs. The $501 million in funding came from the 2009 stimulus law. The report also uncovered that the Department of Labor created a framework that led grantees to broadly interpret the program’s definition to include any job “that could be linked, directly or indirectly, to a beneficial outcome” which led to the gap between training programs and available green industry jobs…
…“The GAO report is just more evidence that the administration has no clue what drives a successful economy and job growth,” said Paul Chesser, an associate fellow at the National Legal and Policy Center. “President Obama tried to build this economic sector, but the buyers didn’t come. And now after the initial flurry, the ‘green jobs’ are evaporating.”
“All along the administration has stretched descriptions to the extreme so they fit the “green job” categorization. Pour cement for a wind turbine? Green job! Pick up trash? Green job! Lay floors with ‘sustainable’ materials? Green job! Congratulations – you all get taxpayer subsidies for your work!”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The Environmental Apocalypse
By: Daniel Greenfield
Environmentalism is wealth redistribution on a global scale. The goal isn’t even to lift all boats, but to stop the tide of materialism from making too many people too comfortable.
The liberal billionaire who clamors about sustainability likes progress. What he dislikes is the middle class with its mass produced cars and homes, cheap restaurants full of fatty foods and television sets and daily deliveries of cardboard boxes full of stuff and shopping malls. He thinks, in all sincerity, that they would be happier and more spiritually fulfilled as peasants. It’s not an original idea.
The Industrial Revolution had hardly begun revolving when the ‘Back to Nature’ crowd began insisting that it was time to learn a more harmonious way of life by going back to the farm. Centuries later the only new idea that they have come up with is threatening an environmental apocalypse if the middle class doesn’t change its mass producing ways. Even its adoration of the Noble Savage is older than the American Revolution.
The modern environmentalism jettisons the idea of moving to a dilapidated farmhouse to spend time being bored while trying to make artisanal rocking chairs to sell to someone, It’s done its time searching for the noble savage within through drugs and degradation decades ago. Now it’s our turn to tap into the infinity of spiritual riches that comes from just barely getting by.
The Soviet idea of progress was feudalism dressed up in Socialist red. Environmentalism dresses up feudalism in Green. It seeks to reverse all the progress that we have made in the name of progress. Environmentalism is as sophisticated as a Soviet collective farm, as modern as the homeless people dragging bags of cans along on sticks to feed the machine and as smart as a slum made of trash.
Beneath all the empty chatter about social riches and sustainability is that need to impose progressive misery. Beneath the glossy surface of environmentalism is a vision of the American middle class learning to dig through bags of garbage, the detritus of their consumerism for which they must be punished, to become better people.
Read the entire article at Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
OTTAWA – The energy infrastructure giant behind the Keystone XL pipeline says U.S. President Barack Obama has his facts wrong on the project.
Calgary-based TransCanada is rejecting comments Obama made to the New York Times over the weekend, with the president raising doubts over the project’s employment potential.
On Sunday, TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said, “We have and can factually rebut each point the President has made.”
From Blazing Cat Fur: http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/
Ranting Eco-Terrorists Should have had the Shit Beat out of Them (Caution – Ridiculous use of the F word)
Found at Mad Medic
Obama Will Ration Power in America After Closing Coal Plants – But Sending Money to Africa to Build Power Plants? What The ??
At least that is what I would guess President Obama is thinking
Americans will soon freeze in the dark, thanks to Obama’s EPA’s War On Coal.
Obama used his address to unveil the “Power Africa” initiative, which includes an initial $7 billion investment from the United States over the next five years. Private companies, including General Electric and Symbion Power, are making an additional $9 billion in commitments with the goal of providing power to millions of Africans crippled by a lack of electricity.
So, I guess this means that only American energy causes climate change? And Obama calls us “flat-earthers”?
President Barack Obama toasted the founding dictator of post-colonial Tanzania on Monday, who collectivized the nation’s low-tech agricultural sector, established a one-party state and left that African nation’s economy in ruins.
“[Y]ou might say an American child is my child. We might say a Tanzanian child is my child,” Obama said after quoting the Tanzanian saying “my neighbor’s child is my child.”
“In this way, both of our nations will be looking after all of our children and we’ll be living out the vision of President [Julius] Nyerere,” Obama continued.
More Collectivist clap trap from our dear leader, but what did Nyerere do for Tanzania?
In Tanazania, Nyerere “was succeeded by the president of Zanzibar, Ali Mwinyi, who oversaw political reforms and a gradual transition to a market economy, in part due to economic collapse brought on by ujamaa and centralized economic management,” says the CRS report.
Oh I see what you did there Mr. Nyerere, you turned an industry into a collective, became a one-party state, and ruined a nation’s economy. If that sounds familiar, look no further than the man who gave the toast.
The war on American coal, energy, jobs, etc rolls on, that is Obamanomics!~
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/page/2/
Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
Electric cars merely shift negative impacts from one place to another, he wrote, and “most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed. But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard.”
Political priorities and corporate influence have created a flawed impression that electric cars significantly reduce transportation impacts, he said.
“Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars starts to appear tantamount to shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another,” Zehner, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, said.
Zehner, once an electric car enthusiast who has since changed his position and become an activist looking at a number of so-called green initiatives, is the author of the book “Green Illusions.”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Daniel P. Schrag, a White House climate adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, tells the New York Times “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” Later today, President Obama will give a major “climate change” address at Georgetown University.
“Everybody is waiting for action,” Schrag tells the paper. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
Obama’s speech today is expected to offer “a sweeping plan to address climate change on Tuesday, setting ambitious goals and timetables for a series of executive actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and prepare the nation for the ravages of a warming planet,” according to the Times.
Here’s the full context of Schrag’s quotation:
Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who is the head of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment and a member of a presidential science panel that has helped advise the White House on climate change, said he hoped the presidential speech would mark a turning point in the national debate on climate change.
“Everybody is waiting for action,” he said. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Obama’s Energy Secretary Nominee Called For Doubling Or Tripling Energy Costs With Carbon Tax To Push U.S. Towards Green Energy…
And as you can see above, Ernest Moniz rocks a bitchin’ combover.
Via Beltway Confidential:
President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.
“Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniztold the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The State Department is expected to release a draft environmental impact statement of the Keystone XL pipeline soon. All signs indicate this new report will echo the findings of previous federal reviews and conclude the project is environmentally sound.
With the governor of Nebraska having approved a new route for the pipeline through his state, this report removes what should be the final barrier to the president’s approval of this critical project. No single policy decision would be more effective at delivering what the American public says it wants most from Washington: new jobs and economic growth.
And support for the project continues to grow. A poll released Feb. 13 by Harris Interactive shows that 69 percent of registered voters support building the pipeline. What’s more, a bipartisan group of 53 senators – led by John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. – sent a letter to the president last month urging him to immediately authorize the project in light of the governor’s decision. That letter was followed by a similar bipartisan letter signed by 146 members of the House.
Approval of the full Keystone XL pipeline would connect Canadian crude oil and new production from America’s upper plains states to state-of-the-art refineries on the American Gulf Coast. At full capacity, it would transport 830,000 barrels per day.
The application for approval has been under review by the U.S. government for more than four years, far longer than any other cross-border pipeline project and more than twice as long as it would take to build the pipeline.
Economic benefits of Keystone XL are clear. The project will generate thousands of new jobs, both in the actual construction of the pipeline and in supporting industries such as manufacturing, logistics, lodging and dining. While the national unemployment rate hovers around 8 percent, unemployment in the construction industry is a staggering 16.1 percent. Keystone XL will immediately allow thousands of the safest, most highly trained workers to begin building this state-of-the-art pipeline.
The State Department’s analysis acknowledges that Keystone XL will have “a degree of safety greater than” similar projects. In addition, Transcanada has agreed to 57 special conditions above and beyond those required by law, demonstrating a commitment to safely and responsibly constructing and operating this important energy infrastructure project.
National security will also be enhanced as the Keystone XL and other pipeline projects strengthen our energy partnership with Canada. Together with significant increases in U.S. production, North America will not only be more energy secure itself but will also be in a position to positively influence global energy demands.
Jobs, economic growth, energy security, national security. It’s no wonder so many newspaper editorials, members of Congress and other influential voices are calling on the president to approve this vital project. And no wonder that the leadership of America’s building trades unions and the oil and natural gas industry have joined to call for the same.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
The U.S. Government Sits on Trillions of Dollars Worth of Resources While Pushing America into Poverty
By Alan Caruba
She’ll fit right in.
Via Washington Secrets:
REI, the popular outfitter run by President Obama’s choice to head the Interior Department, cited the impact of global warming as a reason for poor profits in its most recent annual report. [...]
Obama’s pick is REI CEO Sally Jewell, who has run the firm since 2005. Under Jewell, REI has blossomed while pursuing a green agenda aimed at cutting carbon emissions and dressing shoppers in environmentally-sensitive gear and clothing.
In a 2007 interview with the enviro-website Grist, she bemoaned REI’s carbon footprint, especially from employees commuting to work and even the companies travel program. “One of the shockers to me is 26 percent of REI’s greenhouse-gas footprint is REI Adventure travel trips, like the one I’m about to take. It’s almost as much as — or maybe it’s equal to — all of the electricity generated by all of our facilities. And that is, like, stunning,” she said.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
By Alan Caruba
The Milledgeville area plant closing will cost more than 200 jobs. (The Telegraph)
A Georgia utilities company is closing 15 coal, oil and gas plants thanks to the latest Obama EPA regulations.
Georgia Power said on Monday it plans to seek approval from Georgia regulators to retire 15 coal-, oil- and natural gas-fired power plants in the state totaling 2,061 megawatts (MW) due primarily to the high cost of meeting stricter federal environmental regulations.
Over the past few years, U.S. generating companies have announced plans to shut about 40,000 MW of older coal-fired power plants as low natural gas prices have made it uneconomic for the generators to spend millions to upgrade the plants’ emissions systems to meet the latest federal and state environmental rules.
In a press release, Georgia Power, the biggest unit of U.S. power company Southern Co, said it wanted to shut units 3 and 4 at Plant Branch in Putnam County; units 1-5 at Plant Yates in Coweta County; units 1 and 2 at Plant McManus in Glynn County; units 1-4 at Plant Kraft in Chatham County; and units 2 and 3 at Boulevard in Chatham County.
The company said it plans to file its updated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) with Georgia’s utility regulators on Jan. 31.
Units 3-4 at Branch, units 1-5 at Yates and units 1-3 at Kraft are coal-fired units. Kraft Unit 4 and Boulevard 2 and 3 are fired by natural gas and oil. McManus units 1-2 are oil-fired.
The company said it expects to ask to retire the units, other than Kraft 1-4, by the April 16, 2015, effective date of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
“If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them” – Barack Obama
Via Washington Examiner:
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.
More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.
The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.
From Weasel Zippers:
Then again, lefties have never been big fans of the Constitution.
Via Beltway Confidential:
Environmentalists want to ban hydraulic fracturing in Las Vegas, N.M., and the surrounding county and they don’t plan to let the United States Constitution stop them.
“What people don’t understand is sometimes we have to step outside the boundaries of the Constitution to get things done,” Paula Hern, a board member with Community for Clean Water Air and Earth, told the ABQ Journal. “Laws are made to protect corporations and we need laws that protect Mother Earth – earth, air and water.”
Hern was defending a “community rights ordinance” banning fracking that the Las Vegas (N.M.) City Council passed but the mayor refused to sign. “The way it reads, it will supersede everything – our city charter, state and federal laws,” said Mayor
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Matt spoils the good feelings of those Green folks! Green cars, might be PC, but they are worse for the environment! Matt notes that whatever Liberalism sets out to do, the exact opposite results!
When it comes to green cars, I feel obligated to invoke Quinn’s First Law…
“Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it’s stated intent.”
You can’t argue it. The “war on poverty” caused more poverty. Since the onset of the Department of Education, education has gotten worse. I could go on all day, but you get the point. Liberals state that they are going to make something better, and instead make it worse. Then, they blame us for their failure. Here is the latest; green cars cause more pollution! The Lonely Conservative has more…
The Daily Caller reported that a new study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found that “green” electric cars are worse for the environment than traditional automobiles that run on gasoline or diesel. I don’t even think they took into account what happens when electric cars catch on fire.
Specifically, the study found that electric car factories can emit more toxic waste than gas-burning car factories. And greenhouse gas emissions rise exponentially if coal is used to produce the electricity necessary to charge “green” vehicles, according to the study.
The researchers compared the overall life-cycle impact of petrol or diesel-powered cars and electric vehicles and concluded that the latter can significantly damage the climate.
“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles,” the report said. “It is counterproductive to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.” (Read More)
All together now, AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW too bad!
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
It’s not just that wind farms are nearly useless extravagantly expensive boondoggles that hideously mar the landscape. They also pose a serious threat to our health. The constant low-frequency noise they emit causes wind turbine syndrome, symptoms of which include:
…dizziness; balance problems; memory loss; inability to concentrate; insomnia; tachycardia; increased blood pressure; raised cortisol levels; headaches; nausea; mood swings; anxiety; tinnitus; palpitations; depression…
In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips — one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists — concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.
The combination of low-frequency noise and amplitude modulation also stimulates an alert response, putting restful sleep out of the question.
Low-frequency sound has so much potential to cause harm, the military has studied its use as a weapon:
A 1997 report by the U.S. Air Force Institute For National Security Studies notes: ‘Acoustic infrasound: very low frequency sound which can travel long distances and easily penetrate most buildings and vehicles.
‘Transmission of long wavelength sound creates biophysical effects, nausea, loss of bowels, disorientation, vomiting, potential organ damage or death may occur.’
The malefic effects of wind turbines are not limited to the dangerous even when subaudible noise they produce:
From economists such as Edinburgh University’s Dr Gordon Hughes we are told that wind energy is unreliable and intermittent, with no real market value because it requires near 100 per cent back-up by conventional fossil-fuel power.
From research institute Verso Economics we are told that that for every ‘green job’ created by taxpayer subsidy, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.
It is said that thanks to the artificial rise in energy prices caused by renewable subsidies, expected to reach £13 billion per annum by 2020, at least 50,000 people a year in Britain are driven into fuel poverty.
And newly released Spanish government research claims that each turbine kills an average 300 birds a year (often rare ones such as eagles and bustards) and at least as many bats.
Those bats eat mosquitoes by the millions; mosquitoes are mankind’s worst enemy (unless you count progressives).
So why do whole fields of these evil towers keep sprouting?
As Matt Ridley noted recently in The Spectator, there are ‘too many people with snouts in the trough.’ …
In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent: no matter how little energy the turbines actually produce, in other words, healthy returns are guaranteed.
At least until such a time as wasteful public spending on this kind of lunacy begins to bring down whole countries, as has been happening in Spain.
In a free market economy, no one would build wind turbines because they make no sense economically. But under moonbat economics, making sense would be inappropriate.
On a tip from Byron.