Archive for June, 2010
I’m not a Colbert fan. Usually I avoid whatever he is saying due to the fact that he is a left-wing asshat. But even broken clock is right twice a day.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart|
|An Energy-Independent Future|
This video helps me do to things:
- Say “I Told You So”
- Use the same source against those who love it most
In here, Johnny Boy basically says something I’ve been saying here for over five years.
Alternatives are great. They are. The free market makes them all the time. A person sees a profit (oooh, so evil) to be made because of a need, and goes at it with all they’ve got.
However, this “Let’s get off of oil” because “They are inventing new technologies” thing is simply crap. You don’t stop eating just because there is talk of an alternative to food.
Every time you hear someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about bring up our dependence on oil as something we need to break, they usually cite vague ’alternatives’ or ‘new technologies’. They have been doing so for the last 30 years. Let’s see them last through a 30 year hunger strike waiting for that new alternative technology for food.
But as you know, if we simply reduce our dependence on oil without government intervention, then environMental lobbyist groups won’t be able to rape us for money.
Part of the reason these “new technologies” are nowhere to be found in a form that will do any good is blindingly obvious. What do all of these “Fixes” have in common? Government.
So, to sum up this rant: I Told You So. I said many times that just because there are pipe dreams for “new technologies” doesn’t mean we should get off of oil right now.
By James M. Taylor
Efforts to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by replacing coal and natural gas with wind power appear to be doing more harm than good. A new study shows replacing coal and natural gas with wind power increases carbon dioxide emissions. Government policies designed to fight global warming by encouraging, subsidizing, or mandating renewable power may be making global warming worse.
In a paper published at the free-market Web site Master Resource, electrical engineer Kent Hawkins shows when wind power surpasses 5 percent of power generated, the frequent ramping up and ramping down of other power sources to compensate for wind’s unpredictable variability causes such inefficiency in power generation that overall carbon dioxide emissions rise.
For a good analogy, consider this: A driver who keeps his or her speed at a consistent 60 miles per hour will get better gas mileage than one who frequently accelerates and decelerates between 45 and 75 miles per hour. The inefficiency of frequently ramping up and ramping down vehicle speed is substantial enough that the vehicle driving at variable speeds will burn up more gasoline than many vehicles with a lower fuel economy rating.
The same appears to hold true for power generation. Power plants in the Netherlands, Colorado, and Texas switched some of their generation from coal and natural gas to wind power. Because wind speeds are variable and unpredictable, plant operators were forced frequently to vary the ordinarily steady, constant generation of baseload power to back up variable wind power. Whereas a small amount of wind power generation helped reduce carbon dioxide emissions, those emissions began surpassing prior levels once wind power exceeded 3 percent of the power mix.
If the proponents of federal legislation to force reduction of carbon dioxide emissions are sincerely concerned more about alleged global warming than the accumulation of government power to hand out money and favors to preferred industries and contractors, these real-world carbon dioxide facts should put an immediate freeze on renewable power subsidies, renewable power mandates, and cap-and-tax global warming plans. How Congress responds to these new findings will tell us much about the true motivation behind proposed global warming legislation.
The apparent failure of wind power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions should come as no surprise given the record of failure for other global warming schemes. Congress has long mandated and subsidized ethanol and other biofuels to reduce greenhouse gases, but studies these biofuels create more greenhouse gas emissions over their lifecycles than does gasoline. Global warming activists are now racing to rewrite legislation to eliminate counterproductive biofuel programs. A better course of action would have been not to have enacted the subsidies and mandates in the first place.
In the lawmaking process, as in life itself, rushing to enact “solutions” to speculative problems before the facts are known usually produces more harm than good. Keeping this axiom in mind, Congress need not rush to enact carbon dioxide restrictions on the American economy. After all, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling, not rising, and they have been declining for the past decade. To the extent global emissions are rising, the fault does not lie with the United States.
Before hamstringing the U.S. economy with expensive mandates that may cause more harm than good, Congress owes it to the American people to get the facts.
Now I know the environMentalists hate HATE HATE BP right now, so… they’re not a fan of anything BP does right?
From the Green Market:
Like all great corporate villains, BP has covered its misdeeds with deceit.
In several instances, these decisions appear to violate industry guidelines and were made despite warnings from BP’s own personnel and its contractors. In effect, it appears that BP repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time.
And its not just those posting this stuff. The readers feel the same way. A subscriber of Mother Jones:
BP execs are criminally habitual pathological liars whose only concern is their own personal enrichment. This is a well-documented fact.
A subscriber of the Huffington Post:
It’s a complete waste of time to listen to anything BP or the government has to say. They’ve been caught out and exposed by a situation too big to spin. THEY ARE ALL LIARS, and have no credibility at all, none. Nothing but pathetic, worthless, incompetent LIARS, all of them, from top to bottom.
So with all of that, it doesn’t sound like environMentalists would be huge on supporting anything BP is pushing for right? I mean, they’re just a bunch of evil free-market lying liars who lie.
From the Washington Examiner:
As BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was sinking on April 22, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was on the phone with allies in his push for climate legislation, telling them he would soon roll out the Senate climate bill with the support of the utility industry and three oil companies — including BP, according to the Washington Post.
But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.
While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.
Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.
Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.
More about the millions (Yea, with an ’S') Obama hs gotten from BP here.
From Star magazine:
In the June 28 issue of Star, on sale Wednesday, we report that Al and Tipper’s breakup didn’t come as much of a surprise to one Hollywood player — Laurie David. Star has learned that Al has been having an affair with Laurie, who divorced Seinfeld creator and Curb Your Enthusiasm star Larry David in 2007 amidst reports she was cheating with the caretaker of their Martha’s Vineyard summer home.
“Al and Laurie went from friends to lovers,” an insider tells Star. “It couldn’t be avoided.”
I know it’s too easy, but I’m just going to go out and say it. For Al Gore, this is quite the inconvenient truth. So, I know Clinton was defended, but can the nation trust someone that cheats on their spouse and lies about it? I don’t know that we can.
2 years old but still very much worth a read. From the Wall Street Journal:
Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; Page A23
In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.
Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.
Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.
Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.
It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, “If DINP is to be replaced in children’s products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP.”
The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.
The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.
Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
After an unusual about-face prompted by a late recusal, a federal appeals court has scrapped a ruling that said the nation’s largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions could be sued for the damage caused by global warming.
The case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, started with a lawsuit by Gulf Coast residents affected by Hurricane Katrina. Claiming that global warming contributed to the severity of the storm, the plaintiffs sued dozens of the nation’s largest polluters — a veritable who’s who of utilities, chemical companies and the oil industry.
This is my favorite part. Are you ready?
The Comer case is one of several pioneering climate change cases based on claims of public nuisance, a centuries-old mainstay of common law that allows people to sue their neighbors for nuisances such as foul smells, loud noises or overgrown trees. A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the plaintiffs could proceed with their lawsuit, but that ruling is now out of play unless the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court and the justices decide to intervene.
So that puts global warming into the category of a “public nuisance”. You know, on the level of your radio up too loud or your trees being overgrown. Ha! I’ve never heard Al Gore or the UN call it a “nuisance” before.
This is one of those six-degrees to Al Gore things. Your property was damaged by a hurricane that was caused by increasing temperatures that was caused by global warming that was caused by these companies. Even if we drink their Kool-Aid and say global warming is real, how are you going to pin a lawsuit on a list of companies when the rest of the world emits so much carbon that it makes Murphy Oil here look like white on rice? (Not to mention the whole natural sources of carbon thing)
I should sue Al Gore for pushing this global warming thing that causes the members of the Church of Global Warming to talk about it that causes legislation to be passed that taxes me that causes me to write about it here.
“We are announcing today that after a great deal of thought and discussion, we have decided to separate,” the message said. “This is very much a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration. We ask for respect for our privacy and that of our family, and we do not intend to comment further.”
Well, Al. As much as I like to ripp on you and your religion, too bad about the divorce thing. I hope for it to go as painlessly for your family as possible. I mean that.
As far as privacy goes, unlike Sara Palin, I’m sure your media flunkies will give you a great deal.
In completely unrelated news Elsa Wenzel at GreenTech.com talks about how divorce “pains the planet”:
As if the burden of divorce weren’t bad enough, people with failed marriages can be blamed for global warming, according to a study by Michigan State University.
Divorced couples use up more space in their respective homes, which amounts to to 38 million more rooms worldwide to light, heat and cool, noted the report.
And people who divorced used 73 billion kilowatt-hours more of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water than they would otherwise in 2005.
Dissolving a marriage also means doubling possessions, from the lowly can opener to the SUV. The report, however, did not estimate how many more natural resources the children of shared-custody parents consume by getting birthday and holiday gifts twice.
Nor did it count the greenhouse gases spent to shuttle kids between their pair of energy-hogging households. (Tip for carbon offsetting services: the domain name OffsetMyDivorce.com is available.).
yea. That’stoo easy.
Oh well. So what if Al Gore contributes to the very thing he is looking to end. If you watch the Google Advertisements, you can click on an ad for Al Gore’s website so he helps keep the lights on here too.
Do it for the children.