We Didn’t Have “The Green Thing” Back Then

The   Green  Thing

Checking  out at  the store, the young cashier  suggested to the
older woman that she  should bring  her own  grocery bags because
plastic bags weren’t  good  for  the environment.

The woman   apologized and explained, “We didn’t  have  this green
thing back in my earlier  days.”

The clerk   responded, “That’s  our problem today. Your generation did
not care  enough  to save our environment for  future   generations.”

She was right  –  our  generation didn’t have the green thing in  its  day.

Back  then,  we returned milk  bottles, soda bottles and beer  bottles
to the  store. The  store sent them back to the  plant  to be washed
and sterilized and  refilled,  so  it could use the same bottles over
and over. So   they really  were recycled. But we didn’t  have the
green thing back in our   day.

We walked up  stairs, because we didn’t  have an escalator in  every
store and office  building. We walked to the grocery store  and
didn’t  climb into a 300-horsepower machine   every time we had to go
two blocks.  But she  was right.  We didn’t have the green thing in
our  day.

Back   then, we washed the baby’s  diapers because we didn’t have  the
throw-away  kind. We dried clothes on a line,   not in an energy
gobbling machine  burning up  220 volts  – wind and solar power
really did dry  our clothes   back in our early days. Kids got
hand-me-down clothes from  their brothers  or  sisters, not always
brand-new  clothing. But that  young lady is right.  We didn’t have
the  green thing back in our day.

Back then, we   had  one TV, or radio, in the house — not a  TV in
every room. And the TV had a  small  screen the size of  a
handkerchief (remember  them?), not a screen the  size  of the state
of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and  stirred  by  hand because
we didn’t have electric   machines to do everything for us. When we
packaged  a fragile  item to send in the mail, we used wadded  up old
newspapers to cushion it, not  Styrofoam or plastic bubble  wrap.
Back  then,  we didn’t fire up an engine and  burn  gasoline just to
cut the lawn. We  used a   push mower that ran on human power. We
exercised  by working  so we  didn’t need to go to a  health club to
run on  treadmills that operate  on  electricity. But she’s  right.
We  didn’t have the green thing back    then.

We drank from a fountain when we were  thirsty  instead of  using a
cup or a plastic  bottle every time  we had a drink of water.  We
refilled writing pens with  ink instead of  buying a new pen, and we
replaced the  razor  blades in a razor instead of throwing away the
whole  razor just because the blade got dull.  But we  didn’t have the
green thing  back  then.

Back  then, people took the streetcar  or a bus, and kids   rode their
bikes to  school or walked instead of turning  their moms  into a
24-hour taxi service. We had  one  electrical outlet in a room, not an
entire   bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And  we didn’t
need a  computerized gadget to  receive a signal beamed  from
satellites 2,000  miles  out in space in order to  find the  nearest
pizza joint.

But isn’t it   sad  the current generation laments how wasteful we old
folks were just because we didn’t have the green  thing back  then?

Please forward  this  on to another selfish  old person who needs a
lesson in conservation from a  smartass young  person.
Remember:  Don’t  make old people mad.

We don’t  like being  old in the first place, so  it doesn’t take much
to piss us off.

Eco-Nuts’ Next Target: Anesthetic Gases

First they came for your DDT…  malaria killed millions and is still killing.  Then they banned fluorocarbons… the hole in the ozone closed and global warming increased.  Next they came after freon… it’s replacement is 4000 times more harmful to the environment. Co2 is on their list… no exhaling for you and no inhaling for plant life. Now it appears they are about to screw with your anesthesia:

When your doctor turns on the gas during surgery you go to sleep. You may be having pleasant dreams, but you are also contributing to global warming, according to a study released Friday by the University of Copenhagen.

Each year, surgery related gases affect the climate as much as one million cars, reports the study done in conjunction with NASA and the University of Michigan medical school.

Ole John Nielsen, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Copenhagen carried out the study which examined three gases, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane, used regularly in human medicine. Nielsen says all three are worse than C02.

Nielsen said the mildest of the two are isoflurane and sevoflurane. He said the study finds desflurane the most harmful and will cause 1,620 times as much global warming as an equal amount of C02. Isoflurane and sevoflurane have global warming potentials of 210 and 510 respectively.

“This ought to make anesthesiologists sit up and take notice. If all three compounds have equal therapeutic worth, there is every reason to choose the one with the lowest global warming potential”, Nielsen said.

“The amount of gas needed for a single surgical procedure is not high, but each year surgery related anaesthetics affects the climate as much as would one million cars,” says the study published in the December issue of the British Journal of Anesthesia.

The gases were studied at the Ford atmospheric laboratories near Detroit.

NASA’s Mads Andersen collaborated with Nielsen and came up with the idea for the study while his wife was giving birth.

“The anesthesiologist told me, that the gas used is what we chemists know as a halogenated compound. That’s the same family . . . as the Freon that was famously eating the ozone layer back in the ’80s,” Andersen said.

Freon has been banned around the world since 1992.

The Gazette

H/T Tom Nelson

They have done so well so far…Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

Forest Service Moonbat, Andy Stahl, Wants Fire Retardant Banned

I’m guessing this moron is a book-learned, ponytailed, east coast liberal that has never lived outside of the city.

We Don't Have Small Fires Out Here

More than 81,000 gallons of retardant were dropped on two of the biggest fires in the north state in the past two weeks.

That kind of firefighting strategy is coming under closer scrutiny, though, as a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Forest Service to take a closer look at the environmental effects of dropping fire retardant on wildland fires.

“The government has to begin to reassess how, where and when this is done,” said Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), which sued the Forest Service over its use of chemical fire retardant.

“Retardant is toxic,” Stahl said.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy of Missoula, Mont., ruled that the Forest Service needs to complete an environmental-impact statement on the use of retardant by the end of 2011, The Associated Press reported.

The case dates back to a lawsuit filed by FSEEE in 2003, challenging the use of retardant without an environmental impact report, AP reported. The case was dismissed in 2008 after the Forest Service completed an environmental assessment.

But FSEEE filed again in 2008, claiming the environmental document was inadequate, AP said.

Jennifer Jones, a Forest Service spokeswoman, said her agency hasn’t determined whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling or complete another environmental review. Jones said she doesn’t know how much retardant is used in the Shasta-Trinity or Lassen national forests. Nationwide, an average of 20 million gallons of retardant is dropped on fires annually by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and state agencies, she said.

The Forest Service’s policy is to not drop retardant within 300 feet of any body of water, Jones said. Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said Cal Fire’s retardant policy is similar to the Forest Service’s.

Berlant said that in 2009 Cal Fire dropped 5.3 million gallons of retardant statewide.

Stahl said his organization has notified Cal Fire that it intends to sue the agency, claiming the retardant kills threatened and endangered species.

Berlant said his agency has not received that notice. He said Cal Fire has studied the environmental effects of using retardant and issued what is called under the California Environmental Quality Act a “negative declaration,” which means using retardant won’t have a significant environmental impact.

Even though only 14 of the 128,000 retardant drops during the past eight years caused the death of protected fish or plants, Malloy said the assessment was still needed, AP reported.

Stahl said he didn’t know of any cases where retardant drops killed protected species in the Shasta-Trinity or Lassen national forests. But hundreds of endangered steelhead were killed when retardant was dropped in a creek while firefighters were battling the Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara County this summer, Stahl said.

Jones said that using retardant to fight fires protects endangered species from having their habitat destroyed by wildfire.

Water is a better alternative than retardant, Stahl said, noting that retardant is rarely used east of the Mississippi River.

Of the 110.2 million gallons of retardant used nationwide from 2004 to 2008, about 2 million gallons — just less than 2 percent — were dropped east of the Mississippi, Jones said.

Retardant is used more in the West because fires often occur in more remote places, where there are fewer roads, Jones said.

Retardant is about 85 percent water, 10 percent fertilizer and 5 percent other ingredients, Jones said.

“Because retardant contains fertilizer it is more effective than water,” Jones said. “When the water evaporates, the retardant still slows the fire.”

But many plants in the West thrive in tough conditions where there are few nutrients. Introducing high levels of fertilizer allows invasive species to grow and push out the native plants, Stahl said.

Source

Retardant is toxic says Stahl. Hey asshole, so is fire. Retardant and air attack is the only thing that keeps the western US from burning to the ground, and this jackass worries about killing a few fish or plants to save humans.

Stahl also says, “Water is a better alternative than retardant, Stahl said, noting that retardant is rarely used east of the Mississippi River”. And just how many forest fires start east of the Mississippi? Fucking retard.

The Green Police

Want a glimpse into your future with the liberals running the country?

Latest Global Warming Cult Member Fits Right In

Via Moonbattery.

Free CFL Light Bulbs? Of Course Not

They are going to leave them on your doorstep and charge way more than they cost, whether you use them or not. That’s the liberal way of doing things, by force if you don’t agree with them.

FirstEnergy Corp. is getting ready to leave two high-efficiency light bulbs on your doorstep. But they’re not a gift.

The utility will charge average users 60 cents a month extra on their electric bills for the next three years — $21.60 all together. That covers the cost of the bulbs ($3.50 each), their delivery and the delivery of the power consumers would have used if they didn’t have them.

The good news: These compact fluorescent bulbs will reduce your electricity use. If you replace two 100-watt incandescent bulbs with these 23-watt, warm-white CFLs, you’ll save $60 by the time they burn out in five to seven years, according to FirstEnergy.

And you’ll pay for the bulbs whether you use them or not, so it makes sense to use them.

Read the rest

Enviro-nuts Were Wrong Then….

The chemicals, called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), were introduced widely in the 1990s to replace ozone-depleting gases used in air conditioners, refrigerators and insulating foam.

They worked: The earth’s protective shield seems to be recovering.

But researchers say what’s good for ozone is bad for climate change. In the atmosphere, these replacement chemicals act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.

Now, scientists say, the world must find replacements for the replacements — or these super-emissions could cancel out other efforts to stop global warming.

“Whatever targets you thought you were going to make,” said David Fahey, a physicist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “it will be undermined by the fact that you have . . . additional emissions that you hadn’t planned on.”

READ IT ALL!

…and they are wrong now. Enviro-nuts! Just stop. Stop claiming you know what you’re doing, you don’t have a clue.

Obama’s Energy Sec: Hey! Let’s Paint The World White

What could possibly go wrong?

Back in January I posted this. Another Global Warming Nut-case. I never thought such a stupid idea could possibly be considered as a real solution to “Global Warming”, even though the problem isn’t real. Painting the world white to produce cooling, sounds almost as stupid as solving the energy crisis by inflating your tires instead of drilling for oil.

Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white. A global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more sunlight and heat could play a big part in containing global warming, he said yesterday.

Speaking at the opening of the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, for which The Times is media partner, Professor Chu said that this approach could have a vast impact. By lightening paved surfaces and roofs to the colour of cement, it would be possible to cut carbon emissions by as much as taking all the world’s cars off the roads for 11 years, he said.

Now in Chu’s defense, he does come from a very special place, Berkeley California, the home of special moonbats that can only only think of the wildest and most foolish ideas known to man. But that doesn’t mean he should bring that crap to the table for consideration.

Professor Chu said that his thinking had been influenced by Art Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission, who drove through tough new building rules in the state. Since 2005 California has required all flat roofs on commercial buildings to be white; the measure is being expanded to require cool colours on all residential and pitched roofs.

Dr Rosenfeld is also a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, of which Professor Chu was director. Last year Dr Rosenfeld and two colleagues from the laboratory, Hashem Akbari and Surabi Menon, calculated that changing surface colours in 100 of the world’s largest cities could save the equivalent of 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide — about as much as global carbon emissions are expected to rise by over the next decade.

Professor Chu said: “There’s a friend of mine, a colleague of mine, Art Rosenfeld, who’s pushing very hard for a geo-engineering we all believe will be completely benign, and that’s when you have a flat-top roof building, make it white.

“Now, you smile, but he’s done a calculation, and if you take all the buildings and make their roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour, and you do this uniformly . . . it’s the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars on the road for 11 years.”

The US needed to increase its investment in clean energy research, he said, citing high-tech industries that spent 10 to 20 per cent of their income on research. The US was spending $1 trillion on generating electricity, but “nothing like” the $100 billion to $200 billion on research that would meet that standard, he said.

Just another day in the land of unicorns and rainbows. I think a bunch of high school kids could do as well as Obama and his cabinet picks have been doing, probably better.

Source

Bush’s Polar Bear Ruling Upheld

Bummer dude.....

Let the howling begin. The enviro-nuts will be yelling about being betrayed and the BDS sufferers who want every ruling made by the Bush administration overturned will have they’re panties in a twist over the latest polar bear ruling. It seems the Obama administration has agreed with Bush that the polar bear does not need more protection.

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department is letting stand a Bush administration regulation that limits protection of polar  bears from global warming, three people familiar with the decision told The Associated Press.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce on Friday that he will not rescind the Bush rule, although Congress gave him authority to do so. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt the secretary’s announcement.

A year ago, the iconic polar bear was declared a threatened species because global warming is causing a severe decline in Arctic sea ice, the bear’s habitat. But the Bush administration rules limit that protection, saying no action outside the Arctic region could be considered a threat to the bear under the law.

Environmentalists have strongly opposed the rule as have many members of Congress. They argued the limits violate the Endangered Species Act because the release of greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and cars indirectly threaten the bear’s survival.

In March, federal lawmakers authorized Salazar to scrap the Bush regulation without going through a long regulatory process. The deadline for such action was Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.

Salazar was expected to say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will further study the limitations established by the “special rule” issued by the Bush administration in March 2008 when the bear was officially declared a threatened specie because of the reduction in Arctic sea ice, which is the bear’s habitat.

But business groups and their supporters in Congress have argued strongly that the Endangered Species Act is the improper vehicle for addressing climate change and that there are other ways to deal with the global environmental issue.

Congress is trying to craft broad legislation that would limit greenhouse gases and, separately, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun a lengthy regulatory process that could lead to heat-trapping emissions being controlled under the federal Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA declared carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases a danger to public health.

But after the polar bear was declared threatened in March 2008, and brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act because of climate change, environmentalists hoped they could use the species law to force broader nationwide limits of greenhouse gases.

The Bush special rule for the polar bear “significantly undercuts protections for the polar bear by omitting global warming pollution as a factor in the polar bear’s risk of extinction,” said Jane Kochersperger, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, which delivered 80,000 petitions to the Interior Department after they were collected by the two environmental groups.

On Thursday, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, urged Salazar to keep the Bush rule in place.

“This reaches far beyond the scope of polar bears in the Arctic and could put jobs and economic activity across the entire nation at risk,” said Hastings.

Source

The EPA is run by Morons

The Washington Times has a great article about the idiocy at the Environmental Protection Agency. They won’t be happy until all life on earth is snuffed out. I’ve been telling you all along, C02 is not a pollutant.

One man’s meat may be another man’s poison, but the Environmental Protection Agency has taken the idea to an absurdity. EPA has just sent a proposal to the White House that would classify carbon dioxide as a health hazard.

But if there wasn’t carbon dioxide around, there would be no plants. And, for that matter, neither would there be any people or pets if we weren’t allowed to exhale. The claimed “health hazard” from carbon dioxide is, of course, global warming, yet the data we have seen, such as Stanford economist Thomas Gale Moore’s work, show that warmer temperatures and higher incomes are associated with healthier, longer-living people. In case environmentalists haven’t noticed, bio-diversity is also much greater when temperatures are higher.

Over history, human civilizations have expanded during warmer periods but declined when it got cold. For a history lesson, we recommend University of California Professor Brian Fagan’s excellent book, “The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History.”

Obviously, higher temperatures support more plant life, and that in turn supplies the food for more animals. If you want more plants, animals, and healthier people, more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures are beneficial and certainly not “hazardous to health.”

All sorts of bizarre regulations already are devoted to “protecting” us from warmer temperatures – regulations that do endanger health and safety. Take mile per gallon regulation rules for cars. These rules directly endanger health and life because smaller cars are simply inherently less able to protect their passengers. Then there are mandates for compact fluorescent light bulbs that contain mercury. The EPA itself has extremely detailed and scary instructions about requiring people to leave the area once a bulb is broken. You can’t vacuum the spot, and if the spill occurs on a carpet the EPA claims that you should cut out that portion of the carpet and dispose of it properly.

There is little rational discussion on global warming these days. Consider the following questions. A “no” to any of them should logically imply that we should not restrict carbon dioxide.

(1) Are global temperatures rising? They were clearly rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but temperatures just as clearly have not gone up in the last 11 years. Indeed, the more recent numbers show evidence of cooling.

(2) Is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures? Mankind is responsible for just a few percent of greenhouse gases, and changes in greenhouse gases are responsible for just a tiny fraction of changes in global temperatures. The big factor is variations in the sun’s energy output. Last December, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a list of 400 prominent scientists who questioned the general notion of significant manmade global warming.

(3) Are increased temperatures “bad”? That answer is hardly obvious. Higher temperatures could increase ocean levels by between 7 inches and 2 feet over the next 100 years. On the other hand, massive areas from Canada to Europe to Russia would be much more habitable than now. We have already noted the other benefits to life.

(4) Finally, let’s assume that the answer to all three previous questions is “yes.” Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear.

If we believe that man-made global warming is “bad,” we still don’t want to eliminate all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people claim results from global warming. We would want to balance the benefits with any costs of additional carbon dioxide emissions.

One can see government do stupid things daily; the staggeringly harmful course it is already on is breathtaking. But hold on to the gunwales, for the ship of state in President Obama’s new environmental era will leave the United States pitching and yawing, with the world much poorer and less healthy because of it.

Source

H/T Tom Nelson

Another Global Warming Nut-case

This is another story that needs to be filed under, You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up! A Global Warming Cultist by the name of  Hashem Akbari, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory wants to paint the world white to slow down global warming. (although it stopped in ’98 ) Here is part of this enviro-nut’s idea.

Akbari is now working to launch a campaign to paint the world white and wants the largest cities in the world to initiate a united effort to reflect more solar energy by replacing dark-surfaces like roads and roofs with something more reflecting.

This simple solution could usher in dramatic results as studies have repeatedly shown that buildings with white roofs stay cooler in summer.

The change reduces the amount of heat in built up areas allowing people to switch off air conditioning.

White surfaces dramatically increase the amount of reflected heat reducing the need of air conditioning. Akbari has received support from groups in several US cities including Houston, Chicago and Salt Lake City. Akbari maintains that his plan is more practical than other geo-engineering ideas.

Michael Duvinak of Skeptic’s Global Warming asks: Just how much is this scheme going to cost the taxpayers?

I have to ask: Who’s going to pay the hospital bills for the eye problems, headaches, car crashes? And that is just from the glare alone. I take it this Akbari fellow has never spent much time in the snow. Idiot. The ideas just get weirder as the cult gets more desperate.

source

Burning Bodies for Enviro-Friendly Heat

You just can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe you. It’s from Gore Lied.

Not even two weeks has passed since GORE LIED linked to a post from The People’s Cube regarding a satirical proposal to burn dead people as an alternative fuel:

Comrades, we all know that the dead workers and peasants of the USSA have voted many times for our socialist fraternal brothers and sisters in government. However, other than voting, these dead comrades do nothing for us. Is there not a way we can reanimate these corpses and put them to work? Perhaps feed them into one of Algore’s new zero emission clean power plants? NecroPower anyone?

Kinda funny. Until today. Cleantechnica.com reports:

If you’re dead and worried about the carbon emissions created from your cremation, relax. The Swedish town of Halmstad has a solution. After an environmental review showed that Halmstad’s crematorium was pumping too much smoke into the air, the facility’s director decided to re-use heat from the cremations to warm up the crematorium’s buildings.

The plan will both eliminate the crematorium’s heating bill and allow it to save money on cooling smoke before it is released into the air.

Locals in the town of 55,000 approve of the crematorium’s system, so it should be up and running soon. If the plan is successful, the crematorium eventually wants to pipe heat from its facilities to area homes. And while some may protest Halmstad’s plan on moral grounds, I’m sure that the potential monetary savings for the town will ultimately keep them quiet.

This is so far over the top, I have nothing left to say.

Big Problems For Wind And Solar Power

windpower....up in smoke?

Beside the fact that solar and wind power are terribly unreliable power sources, they face a bigger problem. Enviro-nuts. NIMBY’s. Greens. Gloworms. In one word, Democrats.

In this year’s great energy debate, Democrats describe a future when the U.S. finally embraces the anything-but-carbon avant-garde. It turns out, however, that when wind and solar power do start to come on line, they face a familiar obstacle: environmentalists and many Democrats.

To wit, the greens are blocking the very transmission network needed for renewable electricity to move throughout the economy. The best sites for wind and solar energy happen to be in the sticks — in the desert Southwest where sunlight is most intense for longest, or the plains where the wind blows most often. To exploit this energy, utilities need to build transmission lines to connect their electricity to the places where consumers actually live. In addition to other technical problems, the transmission gap is a big reason wind only provides two-thirds of 1% of electricity generated in the U.S., and solar one-tenth of 1%.

Only last week, Duke Energy and American Electric Power announced a $1 billion joint venture to build a mere 240 miles of transmission line in Indiana necessary to accommodate new wind farms. Yet the utilities don’t expect to be able to complete the lines for six long years — until 2014, at the earliest, because of the time necessary to obtain regulatory approval and rights-of-way, plus the obligatory lawsuits.

In California, hundreds turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. The environmental class is likewise lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. “It’s kind of schizophrenic behavior,” Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently. “They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere.”

California has a law mandating that utilities generate 20% of their electricity from “clean-tech” by 2010. Some 24 states have adopted a “renewable portfolio standard,” while Barack Obama wants to impose a national renewable mandate. But the states, with the exception of Texas, didn’t make transmission lines easier to build, though it won’t prevent them from penalizing the power companies that fail to meet an impossible goal.

Texas is now the wind capital of America (though wind still generates only 3% of state electricity) because it streamlined the regulatory and legal snarls that block transmission in other states. By contrast, though Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor Ed Rendell adopted wind power as a main political plank, he and Senator Bob Casey are leading a charge to repeal a 2005 law that makes transmission lines slightly easier to build.

Wind power has also become contentious in oh-so-green Oregon, once people realized that transmission lines would cut through forests. Transmissions lines from a wind project on the Nevada-Idaho border are clogged because of possible effects on the greater sage grouse. Similar melodramas are playing out in Arizona, the Dakotas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, West Virginia, northern Maine, upstate New York, and elsewhere.

In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.

Source

Enviro-nut News Roundup

Here are some of the latest goofball ideas being thrown at us by the Enviro-nuts and Gloworms.

Cow farts collected in plastic tank.

Eating Beef Worse Than Driving

Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours, it was claimed yesterday.

Japanese scientists used a range of data to calculate the environmental impact of a single purchase of beef.

Taking into account all the processes involved, they said, four average sized steaks generated greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 80.25lb of carbon dioxide.

This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy.

That means that 2.2lb of beef is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which have the same effect as the carbon dioxide released by an ordinary car travelling at 50 miles per hour for 155 miles, a journey lasting three hours. The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days.

Worms Cause Global Warming.

Mr Frederickson told Materials Recycling Week said: “Everybody loves worms because they think they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming.

“The amount of worm composting is very, very small and the amount of landfill is huge. But landfill sites are quite well run these days and it is possible to extract about half the gas they generate and use it for electricity generation.

“So the amount of nitrous oxide emitted by large scale worm composting is something we should be looking at before we go further down that route.”

Mr Frederickson said that the research he and his colleagues had done was on very large commercial worm composting “beds” which build up large amounts of nitrogen which is then emitted by the worms as gas.

Global Warming Causes Glaciers To Grow

“It’s a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but it’s not to be unexpected,” said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash.

You can read my take on the glacier story HERE.

Clean Air Causes Global Warming, Global Warming Causes Smog.

In today’s “People Can Prove Whatever They Want If They Really Try Hard Enough” moment, Swiss scientists claimed early this week that efforts to clean the air over Europe the past three decades are responsible for at least half of that continent’s 1°C rise in temperatures since 1980.

In an interesting chicken and the egg conundrum, scientists in America claimed Thursday that global warming causes smog.

There are more stories out there, but that has to be it for now. Enjoy….