Click here to listen to Bill LuMaye’s interview (WPTF 680 AM, Raleigh, NC) today with Steve Milloy about Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.
Now the greens want to regulate rocket launches lest they damage the ozone layer.
Here’s the first few paragraphs from the University of Colorado media release:
The global market for rocket launches may require more stringent regulation in order to prevent significant damage to Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer in the decades to come, according to a new study by researchers in California and Colorado.
Future ozone losses from unregulated rocket launches will eventually exceed ozone losses due to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which stimulated the 1987 Montreal Protocol banning ozone-depleting chemicals, said Martin Ross, chief study author from The Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles. The study, which includes the University of Colorado at Boulder and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, provides a market analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and known impacts of rocket launches.
“As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions,” said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. “If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs.”
My first reaction was, “Oh my, we’re going to be trapped forever on the same planet with the greens!”
But on second thought, since no one really understands the continual fluctuations in stratospheric ozone to start with, nor do they understand (simple chemistry aside) the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer, and since there’s no evidence that any harm was ever caused to anyone or to the environment by whatever spotty thinning may have occurred during the 1980s and 1990s, this new study seems to be nothing more than yet another green anti-technology moment.
Besides, private rocket launches can’t be evil — Google is for them.
President Obama announced on March 27 that he would nominate Cathy Zoi to become Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy.
Zoi is a Gore-bot of the first order.
In January 2007, she became the Alliance for Climate Protection’s founding CEO. The Alliance is Al Gore’s non-profit front for advancing his personal wealth-building agenda. He is a foudning partner in the UK-based investment company, Generation Investment Management, and a partner with the U.S. based ventuire capital firm of Kleiner Perkins.
Beyond buffalo-ing America about global warming, Zoi’s has a passion for smart-metering — that is, enabling local utilities to ration your electricity.
Zoi was the chief of staff in the White House Office on Environmental Policy in the Clinton-Gore administration, where she managed the team working on environmental and energy issues (1993-95). She was also a manager at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where she pioneered the Energy Star Program.
In a March 30 op-ed in Roll Call, Zoi wrote,
We stand at the verge of a major opportunity for leadership that can take our economy in a new direction…
I guess that means what wealth doesn’t go down the toilet will go into Al Gore’s pockets.
War has been declared in New York over global warming regulation!
Indeck Corinth L.P., which operates the Corinth Generating Station, an electric power plant in Corinth, NY, sued New York state on January 29, 2009 claiming that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Northeast U.S. is illegal.
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island have signed on to the RGGI agreement.
Indeck Corinth claims that New York’s involvement with RGGI,
- Is ultra vires and violates the state constitution;
- Imposes an impermissible tax not authorized by the state legislature;
- Is arbitrary and capricious as implemented by New York;
- Is pre-epmted by state and federal regulations;
- Violates the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and
- Violates Indeck Corinth’s dues process and equal protection rights
Indeck Corinth and New York State are now arguing over the venue for the suit. Indeck Corinth wants the suit heard in Saratoga County where it is a major employer. New York wants the suit heard in Albany County where it has homefield advantage.
Congrats to Indeck Corinth for having the courage to challenge green aggression, oppression and regression!
I don’t want to spoil the Washington Times review of Steve Milloy’s new book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, but former White House speechwriter John R. Coyne, Jr. describes Green Hell as:
strongly written and well-documented… convincing
If you think of it, get an extra copy for a friend, colleague or family member who needs to be wised up on the green threat!
NBC Universal announced today that it saved $2 million in 2008 by going green — that is, reducing power use and reducing bottled water consumption by executives.
So how much water do NBC execs drink? And how do we know that NBC’s power savings aren’t more appropriately attributed to 2008’s poor business climate.
Of course, NBC Universal had 2008 revenues of almost $17 billion — so the alleged savings, if they’re even true, hardly qualify for significant digit status.
A more effective cost-saving strategy for NBC’s parent company, the global warming-lobbying General Electric, saved $12 million by forcing its disastrous-for-shareholders CEO Jeff Immelt to waive his 2008 bonus.
From an article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle entitled, “Not enough green for green living,”
… “So how much do [the eco-friendly windows] cost?” I asked, while Barry gave me an overview of the various windows that she sells, often at trade shows on green building.
“A lot,” Barry said in her lilting South African accent, demonstrating how one particular brand of window makes a complete seal when closed.
“OK, how much?”
“Well, like this big sliding glass door costs $8,000,” she said, slowly sliding a massive glass and wood door shut. One can buy a cheap door in similar dimensions at Home Depot for $500.” I raised my eyebrow.
“The wood is Forest Stewardship Council certified,” she added. “It was made to last 200 years!”
The Associated Press reports that,
The quest for squeaky-clean dishes has turned some law-abiding people in Spokane into dishwater-detergent smugglers. They are bringing Cascade or Electrasol in from out of state because the eco-friendly varieties required under Washington state law don’t work as well. Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation’s strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.
Real estate agent Patti Marcotte of Spokane stocks up on detergent at a Costco in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and doesn’t care who knows it.
“Yes, I am a smuggler,” she said. “I’m taking my chances because dirty dishes I cannot live with.”
(In truth, the ban applies to the sale of phosphate detergent — not its use or possession — so Marcotte is not in any legal trouble.)
Marcotte said she tried every green brand in her dishwasher and found none would remove grease and pieces of food. Everybody she knows buys dishwasher detergent in Idaho, she said.
Supporters of the ban acknowledge it is not very popular.
“I’m not hearing a lot of positive feedback,” conceded Shannon Brattebo of the Washington Lake Protection Association, a prime mover of the ban. “I think people are driving to Idaho.”
As the American Thinker put it,
It’s not easy being green.
From the dishwasher soap industry,
From today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page:
One of President Obama’s applause lines is that his climate tax policies will create new green jobs “that can’t be outsourced.” But if that’s true, why is his main energy adviser floating a new carbon tariff on imports? Welcome to the coming cap and trade war.
Citing economic concerns, the Obama administration has issued federal gas mileage standards that are less stringent that those proposed by the Bush administration.
As reported by Carbon Control News,
The combined standard for vehicles and light trucks will be set at 27.3 miles per gallon (mpg) and the passenger vehicle standard is expected to be set at 30.2 mpg. The Obama administration standard will strengthen the combined vehicle and light truck standard from the current 25.3 mpg, as well as the current passenger vehicle standard of 27.5 mpg. But the final standard is weaker than what the Bush administration proposed last year—a combined 2011 CAFE standard of 27.8 mpg and a passenger car standard of 31.2 mpg.
Carbon Control News reports that the greens are unhappy with the decision but that they have
refrained from faulting the decision too harshly.
A spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists told Carbon Control News that,
“The Obama administration had its hands tied. The 2011 rule is based on fundamentally flawed methodology and data held over from the Bush administration, so it’s no surprise that it isn’t that much of a boost.”
The greens hope that Obama will issue a “more robust” standard in future years.
The Free Enterprise Action Fund has challenged Citigroup regarding the bank’s support for the so-called “Carbon Principles” — a green-inspired effort to deny financing to the coal industry and electric utilities that burn coal.
The Fund’s challenge is in the form of a shareholder proposal that appears in Citigroup’s 2009 proxy statement and that will be voted on at the bank’s annual shareholder meeting on April 21. The proposal requests that Citigroup,
… describe the environmental impacts of its implementation of the Carbon Principles so that shareholders can determine for themselves whether such impacts are worth the reputational damage being inflicted on the source of 50 percent of the
U.S. electricity supply.
1. Shareholders of Citigroup should vote “FOR” Proposal 9.
2. Attend the Citigroup meeting in New York City so that you can personally tell CEO Vikram Pandit that America needs coal-fired electricity not green oppression.
The ever-intolerant greens attacked the New York Times Magazine for daring to publish a cover story about eminent Princeton physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson.
Media Matters criticized the Times for sending a “sports and music writer to do a science writer’s job.” The self-proclaimed media watchdog apparently feels that someone like NY Times climate propagandist Andrew Revkin would have been a better choice to write the sort of hatchet job on Dyson that it seems to have wanted.
It’s been quite a weekend for the New York Times. First there was Saturday’s front-page story trashing CFLs and then the Dyson cover piece on Sunday.
Maybe it’s dawning on Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. that there is no future in being the mouthpiece-of-record for the Loony Left.