“FEW things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles Colson
“THE road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – 1153)
WE all want to be good stewards of the environment. However, in the era of “Save The Planet” virtue-signalling, the need for deeds may, in fact, be doing more harm than good, to you and Mother Nature!
THE “10 Problems With The Green Agenda” remind us that noble intentions are often misguided leading to undesired environmental outcomes and frequent misallocation of public resources with little regard for accountability and budget constraints.
10 Problems With the Green Agenda
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then the road to climategeddon must be paved with pages from the green agenda. For the past couple of decades, armchair environmentalists and image-conscious politicians have been pushing through planet-saving initiatives that are often anything but. Initiatives like:
10. Carbon Offsetting
Let’s say you’re environmentally-conscious but need to fly. Enter carbon offsetting: for the price of a coffee you can pay some third world farmer to quit burning coal, or some company to plant enough trees to cancel out the emissions from your trip.
If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. The whole practice of carbon offsetting is so fundamentally flawed that eco-writer George Monbiot compared it to pushing food around your plate “to create the impression you have eaten it.” The numbers simply don’t add up: if we in the West decided to offset even fifty percent of our emissions targets, developing nations would have to magically start emitting negative amounts of carbon. Commercial offsetting is no better; investigations routinely find companies fudging their figures, or outright lying. With no industry standard, there’s nothing to measure improvements against; meaning companies can claim whatever they like.
9. Organic Food
Organic foods are routinely billed as environmentally friendly and chemical free; despite being neither. All the nasty stuff we use in agriculture was developed to solve efficiency problems; take it away and you’re back to square one. A liter of organic milk, for example, can require up to eighty percent more land to produce than regular milk. This means deforestation, destruction of habitats and other things you don’t associate with organic. But wait, it gets worse: multiple studies have found high levels of pesticide in supposedly-organic food; while researchers have concluded eating it is no healthier and its production may lead to increased pollution. The chasm between what we expect and what we get from organic food has gotten so wide even die hard Greens have dropped it in favor of local and sustainable.
If you’re in possession of a Y chromosome, you’ve probably experienced the waterless urinals in McDonald’s. Insofar as you were thinking about such things, they maybe even seemed like a good idea; after all, saving that much water must be a good thing, right?
Well, not if you want to work without the constant stench of urine. Turns out stagnant pee doesn’t react well with copper piping; and by that we mean it chews right through. Chicago City Hall wound up decommissioning their waterless urinals after that exact situation led to waste flooding the toilets. But what about day-to-day conservation, like in your home? Yeah, maybe—if your neighbors are flushing nonstop. In Germany people have gotten so good at keeping water usage down their sewers are getting backed up, forcing the utility companies to blast insane amounts of water through just to keep them working. As a result, water rates are skyrocketing—while little to no benefit is provided to the environment.
According to one green group, a single town with below-average insulation can waste as much energy in a year as the BP oil spill. By my maths, that’s something like the equivalent of a bazillion oil spills happening annually. No wonder governments are subsidizing home insulation.
Which is great, so long as people buy the right type. See, skinning cats and insulating houses have one thing in common: there’s no one way to do it. Some methods, such as mineral wool or denim, are super-green—others, involving blown hydrofluorocarbons, are like punching Mother Nature in the face. It’s estimated this poisonous junk has a global warming potential nearly 1,500 times that of carbon dioxide, meaning it’ll take roughly ten lifetimes to settle your environmental debt. Even worse, as demand for insulation grows, so does production, leading to more pollution and so on and so on until Armageddon.
6. Wind Turbines
As anyone who’s ever lived below an RnB-obsessed neighbor knows, hearing stuff you don’t want to hear can be irritating as hell. Same applies to wind turbines.
To date no study has found a correlation between turbines and physical illness, though there may be an interesting mental one. According to that link, while people living near community-owned turbines rarely report health problems, people who have had them forced on their village often do. Complaints often focus on the low-level humming noise and shadow flickera sun-blocking side effect officially classed as an annoyance, but probably enough to send most of us into a blind murderous rage. Obviously they could just start building these turbines further away or go the Denmark route and give local people a stake in them, but that’s probably too much to ask.
Okay Science, now you’re just screwing with us. Regular cars are like environmental cyanide, how can electric ones possibly be worse?
It depends where in the world you are. As a Norwegian study pointed out, there’s no benefit to driving a car powered by electricity from a coal-firing power station. If your town happens to be on an old fashioned grid, all you’re doing by hopping in your losermobile is letting the world know you don’t understand science. As an extra kicker, the manufacturing process for green vehicles is more polluting than your average gas-guzzler, and will remain so until market pressure speeds up technological breakthroughs. At the current rate you can probably expect that to happen sometime after the last trumpet.
The Biofuel cause has been on the wane for a few years now, but that didn’t stop Germany from attempting to make the switch in 2010. By bringing E10 to the pumps at 10 cents a liter cheaper than petrol, the government were hoping to boost the country’s already impressive green credentials. You can probably guess where this is going.
The opposite happened: a joint study by nine European environmental groups found large-scale biofuel development had led to deforestation and a lack of farming land in South America, increasing the risk of famine. But it’s not just E10, for years now environmental groups have opposed biofuels, arguing that their development wastes water and causes pollution. Yet the government keep on giving out subsidies, because apparently Obama hates petroleum and the environment.
3. Energy Efficient Light Bulbs
Remember that story about a woman having to call in a hazmat team to clean up a broken CFL light bulb? Pretty dumb right, it’s not like there’s enough mercury in there to cause harm, is there?
There is if you’re involved in the production side. In Jinzhou, China, one manufacturer tested their workers and found 121 out of 123 were suffering from mercury poisoning, with one employee’s levels being 150 times the acceptable amount. Another factory was required to hospitalize sixty-eight of seventy-two workers, while the reopening of decommissioned mercury mines has led to entire regions being decimated. So what’s fueling this sudden boom in toxic substances? Demand from Britain and the EU, where we’re apparently determined to go green at the cost of every single other nation on the planet.
Now I’m not saying recycling is a bad idea; just that its delivery is far from perfect. See, as a global business, recycling is focused not on the environment but making money. This can lead to some weird ecological side-effects: for example, if domestic demand for recycled produce drops, suppliers will ship it halfway across the world to unload it, carbon footprint be damned. Likewise, recyclable materials are routinely discarded for no reason other than aesthetics. Take PVC—when melted it goes a funky brown color most consumers would avoid like Bronie slash fiction, so centers simply burn it.
Then there’s our own ignorance. Most of us have no idea what plastics our city recycles. We just chuck it all in the recycling bin, a move likely to lead to energy-wasting hold ups at the plant and the stuff just getting burnt anyway.
1. Forgoing the Scientific Method
Imagine you work in a field where the future of the planet may be in your hands. Most of the smartest minds on Earth agree with you, governments are starting to pay attention and even the skeptical public are coming round to your way of thinking. What’s the one thing you wouldn’t do?
How about sabotage the scientific method? In 2009 a leaked cache of emails briefly made the world sit up and question the validity of climate research. While the falsified data claims were quickly disproven, the essential idiocy of those involved is pretty much inarguable. Rather than relying on peer reviewing to weed out shoddy research, some of the researchers at the CRU at UEA had apparently used their position to censor, silence debate and generally act like they had something to hide. The resulting storm completely destabilized public support for their research and made a mockery of their claim to scientific impartiality. That’s not so much shooting yourself in the foot as blasting it off with a howitzer.
PLEASE donate to Climatism to help keep the good fight alive!
See also :
- WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist Agenda | Climatism
- TOP 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed | Climatism
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- EXTREME WEATHER Propaganda – The Pathway To Global Warming Hysteria | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
“Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” – Robert Louis Stevenson
By Paul Homewood
From the Telegraph:
England is not windy enough to justify building any more onshore wind turbines, the chief executive of wind industry trade body has admitted.
Hugh McNeal, who joined RenewableUK two months ago from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, insisted the industry could make the case for more onshore turbines in some parts of the UK, despite the withdrawal of subsidies.
But he said this would “almost certainly” not be in England, as the wind speeds were not high enough to make the projects economically viable without subsidy.
Although the Government has implemented its manifesto pledge to end subsidies for new onshore wind farms, the industry believes it should be able to deploy more turbines onshore if it can show that this is the cheapest form of new power generation capacity.
Current wholesale electricity prices are too low to spur investment in any…
View original post 671 more words
“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007
From Two Men in a Tinnie to this Ship of Fools. Climate catastrophist, Professor Tim Flannery has awarded himself an upgrade!
More on this latest case of epic eco hypocrisy via Herald Sun – Andrew Bolt :
No, not a parody. The Climate Council really has invited Australian warmists to spend more than $7500 for a luxury cruise, gassing with Tim Flannery:
As part of this adventure, you will join renowned scientist and former Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery – the Climate Council’s Chief Councillor – on the adventure of a lifetime along the remote Kimberley coast…
Best of all, by taking part in this expedition, you’ll be stepping up to help provide Australians with a vital source of correct and informed information on climate change…
Our custom-built vessel is fully air-conditioned, equipped with a helipad, spa, large en-suited cabins and offers indoor and outdoor alfresco areas …
Plus more gassy extras, none solar-powered:
– Courtesy vehicle to/from your Broome accommodation
– Light aircraft from Broome to Mitchell Plateau
– Return helicopter flight from Mitchell Plateau to Hunter River
Another frequent-flying warmist hypocrite:
Taxpayers have forked out almost $13,000 for South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill, his department’s chief executive and two political staffers to stay in a five-star hotel for the Paris climate change talks in December.
This comes after taxpayers outlaid more than $185,500 for a private film crew to follow the Labor Premier on two overseas trips, including to Paris, to produce promotional videos.
Government figures showed it cost about $53,600 for two people from Adelaide company 57 Films to follow Mr Weatherill on the Paris trip.
- Disaster Antarctica : Hydrocarbons Wreaking Havoc In The Southern Ocean (Ship Of Fools) | Climatism
- The legacy of Tim Flannery..White elephant desalination plants | Climatism
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | Climatism
Flannery Related :
- Shock news : Australia has always had heatwaves | Climatism
- When will Flannery admit he was wrong? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ – Telegraph
- Climate Commission’s latest report slammed as ‘environmental activism’ « Australian Climate Madness
- MUST READ : Warmism’s bellowing dinosaurs — Quadrant Online
- Landline – 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . ABC
- EPIC Must Read Interview : Flannery vs Bolt transcript – Herald Sun
- Flannery Claims Global Action On Carbon Will Make No Difference To Global Temps For “1000” Years! MTR today, March 25 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- ALARMISM MUST READ : The warmists’ straw man: “We never said it wouldn’t rain” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Flannery sacked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- No thanks for Flannery at end of climate career | Herald Sun
- Flannery’s green investment in deep strife | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
- Through the years Tim Flannery did indeed develop a reputation on climate change | The Australian
- Shock News : Before The Commodore Australia Had Droughts | Climatism
Snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
“By the end of this [2oth] century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
Scientists claim ‘climate change’ is really giant wealth redistribution
By Bob Unruh : 16 December 2013
It’s been a bad week for global warming.
Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw its coldest days ever, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth.
But no matter how cold it gets, global-warming adherents insist it’s all part and parcel of what they believe to be abnormal and soon-to-be-catastrophic warming of the planet’s surface due to man’s reckless introduction of “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere.
Ironically, just a few years ago, believers in anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming – since renamed “climate change” – claimed cold weather and snow would soon be just a memory.
“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” announced the headline in Britain’s newspaper the Independent at the turn of the millennium. The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
However, the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”
Fast-forward to last year when much the opposite prediction was being trumpeted by the London Daily Mail Online, which headlined “Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows floods with wind so strong it blows water upwards.”
That report, which included many references to “torrential rain,” “freezing winter” and “blizzards,” quoted local officials saying they wanted to avoid “a repeat of two years ago, when a lack of gritters and snowploughs caused roads and transport networks to grind to a halt.”
The rhetoric and predictions of global warming acolytes have been every bit as confusing in the United States, with former vice president and carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore telling an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” And of course his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.
How such predictions square with current weather reality – multiple reports of the coldest weather in a generation – is unclear.
Fact: The earth has not warmed for the last 15 years. This now-widely-known truth was confirmed in September in a leaked report, the result of six years’ work by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, touted as the world authority on climate change and its supposed causes.
Indeed, researchers were so flummoxed at the utter lack of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming that, as the London Daily Mail reported, the “world’s top climate scientists were told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years.”
In light of all this, why are so many still so alarmed over global warming? And more consequentially, why is the Obama administration still frantically promoting the idea that global warming is an imminent threat?
Last week, for example, the Obama administration was lobbying for the notion that global warming is endangering the earth, even as a massive snowstorm was moving across the nation.
At Frontpage Mag, columnist Daniel Greenfield headlined his report: “Obama’s global warming task force met as snowstorm shut down federal government.”
“Ah, but it’s not global warming anymore,” Greenfield wrote. “After a few too many snowstorms, the Warmists learned their lesson. Now it’s climate change. And it’s responsible for all the weather. If weather happens … then climate change caused it.”
In a recent CNN panel debate, global warming critic Marc Morano of Climate Depot responded to a question suggesting that current record cold temperatures are a harbinger of “climate change.”
“So, record cold is now evidence of man-made global warming?” he said. “What evidence would disprove climate change? It seems like no matter the weather, everything that happens, proves it.”
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, responded that “top climate scientists in the world, thousands … are as confident that climate change is as real as they are that cigarettes make people sick.” Brune added, dismissively, that global warming is “settled science.”
Really?, asks well-known scientist Art Robinson, who spearheaded The Petition Project which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth.”
Among the scientists signing the petition are 9,029 who hold doctorate degrees in their field of study.
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals,” the petition continues. “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cal Tech, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
He told WND, very simply, that weather does change over time and that the global system goes through cycles, some slightly warmer and some slightly cooler than others.
Robinson also told WND it’s interesting to be living in a period when carbon dioxide is rising, yet temperatures are flat or going down.
“We just have to get used to fluctuations,” he said. “Earth does go through cycles.”
What, then, is behind the widespread obsession – with so little evidence – with global warming, and the resulting desire to implement massive new governmental policies? The answer, says Robinson, is not complicated: “Power and money.”
Power is obtained through laws and rules created in response to supposed global warming that limit what people can do with their own lives and property. Through carbon credits and “green” energy projects, which have made Al Gore enormously wealthy, massive amounts of money change hands.
Just weeks ago, the United Nations and World Bank lobbied for spending $600 billion to $800 billion a year on “sustainable energy” to replace oil and gas.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim declared a massive infusion of cash is necessary in the face of a “rising global thermostat.” They implied the money would have to come from the world’s developed economies. Continue Reading »
Related Articles :
- U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy | TheBlaze.com
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- IPCC Summary: The Real Story | CACA
- Brilliant Marc Morano Skewers Climate Alarmists | CACA
- Global Warming Consensus Crumbling | CACA
- RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years | CACA
- Richard Lindzen: Cool it on the climate | CACA
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
- Shock News : UN IPCC Rewrote Temperature History To Suit Their Political Agenda | CACA
- Another View Of NASA Temperature Data Tampering | CACA
- Sea Level Rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO² rises | CACA
- History Falsifies Climate Alarmist Sea Level Claims | CACA
- Sleepwalking to extinction, or maybe communism? | CACA
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
Climatism comment : So we place economic sanctions on Iran, North Korea et al, on one hand, and then give it all back on the other through millions, perhaps billions in carbon credit funds. At the same time making them look ‘environmentally’ and socially good?!
Everything falling into place nicely for the UN’s wealth redistribution agenda (21).
From the Washington Free Beacon by Zach Noble, how a half page of the Kyoto protocol turned into a free ride for corruption.
The U.N. is funneling millions of dollars worth of tradable carbon credits to corrupt nations worldwide, including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Uzbekistan in an attempt to encourage clean energy projects in the developing world.
The U.N. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol. Western European countries fund energy projects in the developing world in order to obtain Certified Emission Reduction credits (CERs), tradable credits that enable Europeans to count foreign emission reductions towards their own domestic emission reduction targets.
View original post 225 more words