Category: Green Hell

Extreme greens: No 2nd child

From today’s highly recommended Washington Post article entitled “D.C. Area Families Take Green to the Extreme,”

For Iklé-Khalsa’s wife, his push for green living has affected a much bigger decision.

“I’m 40, so my clock is going boom! Boom! Boom! Sometimes, I just roll my eyes and go, ‘Come on, honey, think about who our child could be!’ ” said Mimi Iklé-Khalsa. But her husband says a second child could have too high an environmental cost. “We’ve had the discussion of, ‘If we have another biological child, it means we never fly,’ ” and do other things to offset the child’s carbon footprint, she said.

Green TEA party: EPA seeks public input on proposed CO2 ‘endangerment’ finding

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking comment on its proposed finding that greenhouse gases threaten the public welfare. The agency will be accepting comments from the public for 60 days.

Click here for the EPA proposal.

Take action:

It’s time for a green TEA party. Tell the EPA that you are taxed-enough-already and that you oppose the agency’s use of junk science to tax and regulate you even more.

Click here for information on submitting your comments to the EPA.

Ideological child abuse: EPA climate campaign

The EPA announced today that,

With Earth Day only a few days away, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is kicking off the 2009 “Change the World, Start with Energy Star” campaign to educate kids and their families about how to save money and fight climate change through energy efficiency.

“People of every age have a part to play in confronting climate change,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Using Energy Star to cut electricity usage and costs, and educating young people and their families to make a difference — big or small — is how we make real progress.”

But even Consumer Reports says Energy Star is a dubious program. In September 2008, the consumer watchdog spotlighted flaws in the program including that product qualifying standards are lax ─ for example, until recently, 92 percent of dishwashers qualified. If all virtually all dishwashers are “efficient,” is anyone really saving any money on energy use?

Consumer Reports also reported that the product testing programs are out-of-date and companies are responsible for testing their own products ─ without any independent verification. When testing an LG-brand French-door refrigerator that was labeled as using an Energy Star compliant 547 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, Consumer Reports found that the actual energy use was twice what was advertised. Apparently the government testing procedures call for refrigerators to be tested with their icemakers turn off. That, of course, is probably not how most people use their refrigerator.

Energy efficiency advocates routinely overpromise and under-deliver, according a report from the Congressional Research Service. While numerous private and government sources have claimed that 25- to 30-percent gains in efficiency are possible over a 5- to 15-year time horizon, according to the CRS, “the diffuse nature of efficiency opportunity and the economic complexity of decision making” has historically made moving beyond the 5 percent to 7 percent electricity savings range “a persistent challenge to conservation proponents.” Although more aggressive policies could be attempted, the CRS says, there is “little track record upon which to base projections of future effectiveness.”

Government brainwashing kids with dubious politically-based ideas isn’t education; it’s a form of child abuse.

Planet Dog: Stay home, don’t travel

Dog supply purveyor Planet Dog issued a media release today touting its virtual trade show as a way for retailers to reduce their “carbon pawprint.”

Company president Stephanie Volo said,

“We’ve been working on ways to reduce our carbon pawprint and less travel is one solution. We’re making some of the industry’s most eco-friendly products and running our company with that same mentality.”

A few thoughts:

  • Since when is traveling a crime/sin? Many people enjoy travel.
  • What about all the people whose jobs depend on travel?
  • I guess Dog Planet doesn’t want to sell to many of its pet travel products.

Dream on: Obama’s high-speed rail lines

CNN reports,

President Obama unveiled his administration’s blueprint for a new national network of high-speed passenger rail lines Thursday, saying such an investment is necessary to reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment.

The greens oppose transmission lines for renewable energy projects. So let’s just say that I’m a tad skeptical of them allowing new rail lines to be constructed. Remember, the greens don’t want you traveling; they want you locked in your planned community box. And remember the green whose idea of travel was staying home and exploring yourself?

New climate victims: Road and bridges?

Carbon Control News reports that:

The Department of Transportation is developing a risk assessment tool for local planners to estimate the vulnerability of roads and bridges to climate change effects as well as steps policymakers can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While bad weather can certainly impact roads and bridges, “climate change” is most certainly a stretch.

The money line is:

The risk analysis will be included in an upcoming study that will likely be used by local highway officials to argue the need for federal [greenhouse gas] standards… and to establish a new $100 million Transportation and Land use program to plan for future growth and reduce energy consumption.

Bottom line: The Obama administration will be paying budget-hungry local highway bureaucrats for their support in enslaving us with greenhouse gas regulation.

Obama: Tax scare wrong; Climate scare OK

Speaking about taxes today, President Obama said,

“For too long, we’ve seen taxes used as a wedge to scare people into supporting policies that increased the burden on working people instead of helping them live their dreams. That has to change.’’ [Emphasis added]

But speaking about American use of oil two months ago, President Obama said,

America’s dependence on oil is one of the most serious threats that our nation has faced. It bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation, and sets back our ability to compete.

These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.

So why is scaring people about taxes not OK, but scaring them about global warming is perfectly fine with President Obama? Is there any hypocrisy here? Actually, no.

President Obama’s plans for ever-expanding government control of our lives depends on a higher taxes and public fears of catastrophic manmade climate change.

Entomologist: ‘War’ on bedbugs needed

About the recent surge in bedbug infestation, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank writes today that:

University of Kentucky entomologist Mike Potter called the bedbug nothing less than “the most difficult, challenging pest problem of our generation.” Tossing out phrases such as “doomsday scenario” and “perfect storm,” he ventured: “In my opinion, we are not going to get out of this thing” — the bedbug thing — until we “allow the pest-control industry to go to war.” …

Bedbugs had been all but eradicated decades ago, panelist Potter explained, but thanks to increased travel, pesticide bans and resistance, we’ve “let bedbugs get back in the game”…

Potter, who boasted that he’s spent “the last three years of my life digging deep into the history of bedbug management,” offered a challenge: “I’d like to take anybody who thinks bedbugs is not a big deal, and we’ll sprinkle a few in their house and see what they think.”

But will the greens permit the pest control industry to “go to war” against the bedbug?

Bamboo-zled: The veneer of a ‘green’ laptop

This ABC News video, “Combatting ‘Vampire Energy’” spotlights the alleged eco-friendliness of Asus’ new laptops made with bamboo. While soaking in the the video’s empty-headedness is worth the 5 minute-watch, the relevant portion begins at 3:55 — just in case you’ve already reached the saturation point on green vacuity and want to fast forward to the laptop part.

About the laptops, ABC’s Andrea Smith reports:

… What’s great about it is that it’s not plastic, so that, No. 1, it looks really cool. You’ll look like you’re totally eco-friendly and very chic… The No. 2 thing is that when you’re done with this and you need to recycle it, there is no plastic here to clog the landfill… It’s bamboo and it’s a self-regenerating plant and there’s lots of it.

So let’s consider the Asus bamboo laptop, Ms. Smith’s report, and, importantly, reality:

  • There is still plenty of plastic used in the laptop. Only the case is bamboo. And what about the bamboo’s shiny urethane finish?  Despite the name, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have generally been viewed by the greens as  environmentally-incorrect.
  • Bamboo doesn’t recycle so much as it decomposes — giving off greenhouse gases. The plastic in laptops can be and is often recycled for other uses. The plastic is actually a better “carbon sink” than the bamboo.
  • Recycling doesn’t matter anyway — almost all laptops are thrown in the trash. Fortunately, there is no shortage of landfill space. In fact, the U.S. has more landfill capacity than ever before.
  • Most bamboo comes from Vietnam and China. Not only are greenhouse gases emitted while farming bamboo, but transporting the bamboo or bamboo finished products to the U.S. involves even more greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The Asus bamboo laptop costs $732.81 more than the comparable Asus plastic laptop on Amazon.com.
  • Bamboo is not necessarily eco-friendly. Growing bamboo on a mass-scale requires lots of water, energy and fertilizer inputs. Without fertilizer, continual harvesting of bamboo will deplete the soil in a short-time.

The bottom line on Asus bamboo laptop?

You may look cool, chic and eco-friendly, as ABC’s Andrea Smith says, but the reality is you’re being fooled and ripped-off, while doing nothing for the environment.

Obama steers carmakers down wrong road

The Washington Post reported today that,

President Obama yesterday announced plans to buy 17,600 American-made, fuel-efficient cars and hybrids for the government fleet, the White House’s latest gambit to steer aid to the nation’s beleaguered automakers.

A few thoughts:

  • In 2007, U.S. car makers sold more than 16 million cars.
  • In 2009, cars sales are project to be less than 9 million.
  • Obama’s purchase of 17,600 cars is obviously a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of sales increase that is needed.
  • Cars sales will pick up when the economy recovers, provided that carmakers are making cars that Americans want and that are profitable — that is, SUVs and light trucks.
  • But Obama wants the Big Three to make and sell econoboxes that Americans don’t want.
  • Not only are econoboxes small, dangerous and incapable of pulling/carrying large loads/groups of people, Obama plans to tax drivers by the mile they drive — thereby erasing any economic benefit from fuel efficiency.

Bottom line: Obama’s plan is a stick in the eyes of carmakers, workers or consumers.

Russian Revolution: Move over Reds and Whites; Make room for the Greens?

Dmitry Besanovich credits his upset victory over the Vladimir Putin-backed candidate in the mayoral race in the Russian town of Mozhaisk to his green platform, according to a report in today’s Washington Post:

He attributed his victory to his promise to protect the natural ecology of this rural municipality, which he calls the “lungs of Moscow” because nearly half its territory is covered with forests. He campaigned on pledges to block construction along rivers and a major reservoir, clean up a polluting pig farm and promote agriculture and tourism instead of industry.

Here’s a description of Mohaisk from RussianJournal.com:

A resident advertises his cow for sale in the local newspaper. The only cafe in the village, still decorated in Soviet style, offers a three-course meal for $1.50. Only one out of every 600 people here has a computer.

According to a resident, people in the city live “without too much enjoyment; however, with some cautious hopes.”

Mozhaisk, only 100 km west of Russia’s capital and the oldest city in the Moscow Oblast, has simply been left in the dust, with only its crumbling ancient churches signifying that here once existed a dynamic town.

Before Perestroika, most of Mozhaisk’s residents were employed in agriculture. However, a lack of funds in the last decade has turned the fields fallow. The only source of jobs is in the local printing house and concrete factory, and a juice factory in Borodino. As the factories employ mainly men, unemployment is especially high among women…

The dark side of the ‘village’ feel is the lack of modern infrastructure and services. There is only one hotel in the city, which leaves a lot to be desired, and only one cafe. Despite the seeming hardships, many Muscovites rent houses in Mozhaisk to spend their summer vacations.

If you are traveling by car, beware of bad roads. According to local journalist Alexei Safronov, the city’s new administration, headed by Vlasimir Nasonov, has said improving road conditions is one of his top priorities. Some new asphalt has already been laid…

It apparently has not dawned on the citizens of Mozhaisk that they need economic development. If they don’t want to be mired in rural poverty under their new mayor, they may have to rely on Putin making Besanovich an offer he can’t refuse.