5 thoughts on “Congress: Top EPA Official Racked Up Huge CO2 Footprint Pushing Global Warming Rules”

  1. I guess I’m a little confused – wouldn’t Gina McCarthy’s carbon footprint be even larger? She was off to the X-Games in Colorado last winter pushing that plan.

    I’m fairly certain that Aspen is an expensive place to visit. http://www.aspentimes.com/news/14706211-113/head-of-epa-to-attend-x-games

    Brainwashing school children:

    What do you bet the majority use 4wheel drive to get around those mountains in the snow? (Not just the government vehicles, but skiers as well. You should visit the ski resort webcam sites. Those places are packed every day. Breckenridge: http://www.breckenridge.com/mountain/mountain-web-cams.aspx
    Winter Park http://www.winterparkresort.com/media/web-cams.aspx
    Wolf Creek: http://www.earthcam.com/usa/colorado/pagosasprings/?cam=wolfcreek
    Other states:
    Tahoe: http://www.alltravelcams.com/lake_tahoe/northstar_day_lodge.php
    Crystal Mountain: http://crystalmountainresort.com/The-Mountain/Webcams/
    Then there are other the national parks like Mt. Rainier http://www.nps.gov/mora/learn/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm#CP_JUMP_696843, Crater Lake http://www.nps.gov/crla/learn/photosmultimedia/webcams.htm, and Olympic http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/photosmultimedia/hurricane-ridge-webcam.htm. With as much snow as they get, it takes 4wheel drive and/or chains to get around and the parking lots are generally jam packed unless the roads are closed. Oh, and they started “grooming” trails at Mt. Rainier this year.
    And Gina wants us to support the ski industry? Imagine the carbon footprint of those huge snow removal machines (this is just their spring operation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-OQ8wyV60 – it’s much, much deeper in the winter in the parking lot – but note that in the video, they say the spring cleaning is a 3 month operation). My guess is that they’ve got one of the biggest carbon footprints around.

  2. David,

    Satire, right?

    Rhetoric had a bad name in Greek times, a low form of argument that focused on winning rather than uncovering truth. These days rhetoric is the highest achievement in public discourse, determining who “won” the debate in postdebate commentary. Truth or meaningfulness are not criteria.

    The explanation is that voters are idiots deciding on emotional impulse five minutes before marking a ballot. I suggest they are encouraged to be idiots by the reckless abandonment of journalistic analysis and reporting. If eco-green protagonists get away with their hypocrisy or simple shallowness, it is because rhetoric rather than reason has overwhelmed the Age of Enlightenment.

  3. David, like a true liberal, the ends justify the means. If you have to lie to the American public about your healthcare law, so be it. If you have to lie to the American people about a video, that’s ok. And what is disturbing is how the liberals have accepted lying as a strategy.

  4. Why are we criticizing her? She is out to save the world and certainly that is a greater moral imperative.

  5. The eco-green movement is not about CO2 emissions, environmental preservation or consumption per se. It is about those things being done by The Others.

    If the movement leaders ever had to say WHO was going to cut fossil fuel usage to “reasonable” levels, cut making and buying stuff to non-First World levels, even to cut national population numbers to “sustainable” levels, the movement would collapse in an uproar. Gore, Suzuki and DiCaprio are not – just like the EPA leaders – going over to video-conferencing and driving a Prius to their three-bedroom cottage in a village. They are counting on all the Others to do the heavy lifting. And as for population levels of a “sustainable” level, would Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the members of the Club of Rome stand up and say that Europe needs to drop its population from 505 million to 85 million, the United States from 360 million to 60 million, so that China can go to 200 million etc. and the World get to a 1 billion person “sustainable” level?

    If we could ever get any of these people to say what their worldview would require, they’d either be destroyed as a voice the First World sensitives could get behind by a insistence those FWS’s share the pain – or destroyed as a credible voice for the rest of the World by the racist, elitist hypocrisy of their hidden agenda to only allow themselves and their friends to have the modern, “good” life .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.