Category: Green Hell

Greens attack NY Times over skeptic article

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.

The real lesson from the firing of GM’s CEO

The firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner by President Obama provides an object lesson for all CEOs: a CEO’s failure to combat green can only lead to disaster.

GM and the other car companies have thrived for the last 30 years, despite heavy union burdens, because of SUV sales — popular and high-margin products.

But SUV sales depended on cheap gas. Did any car CEO do anything to ensure cheap gas, say by promoting increased oil drilling and gasoline refining, and challenging greens that blocked those policies? No.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner didn’t call for more drilling until September 12, 2008 — two months after gasoline prices peaked last summer. By then, of course, it was all over for the SUV and car companies.

Ford CEO Bill Ford and Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli still haven’t figured out the need for cheap gas.

Surprise: NY Times trashes CFLs on front page

The New York Times has finally caught up to what Steve Milloy has been saying for the past two years about compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), including with respect to the greens doing a U-turn on the bulbs.

In a front-page story entitled, “Do New Bulbs Save Energy If They Don’t Work,” the New York Times pretty much trashed current CFLs:

Some experts who study the issue blame the government for the quality problems, saying an intensive federal push to lower the price essentially backfired by encouraging manufacturers to use cheap components.

“In the pursuit of the holy grail, we stepped on the consumer,” said Michael Siminovitch, director of a lighting center at the University of California, Davis.

More…

In California, where bulbs have been heavily encouraged, utilities have concluded that they will not be able to persuade a majority of consumers to switch until compact fluorescents get better.That is prompting them to develop specifications for a better bulb.

The effort aims to address the most consumer complaints: poor dimming, slow warm-up times, shortened bulb life because of high temperatures inside enclosed fixtures, and dissatisfaction with the color of the light.

Finally,

Consumers are supposed to be able to protect themselves by buying bulbs certified under the government’s Energy Star program. But experts and some environmental groups complain that Energy Star standards are weak, permitting low-quality bulbs with too high a level of mercury, a toxic metal contained in all compact fluorescents. [Emphasis added]

Steve Milloy predicted the greens would do an about-face on the mercury in CFLs more than a year ago in this February 21, 2008 FoxNews.com column entitled, “Looming Lightbulb Liability.”

For more Steve Milloy predictions about our green future (and how to prevent it), get a copy of his new book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

Unlike buying a CFL, you won’t regret it.

UN climate plan: Trillions for new world economy

FoxNews.com reports today that,

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Click here for the 16-page document.

Gaslighted: Pickens reveals actual scheme

Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens revealed on Wednesday that his much-vaunted Pickens Plan is nothing more than a sell-more-natural-gas-to-make-Pickens-richer plan.

At an energy forum in Ohio, Pickens stated,

I don’t want to replace natural gas with wind. I want to add wind to natural gas is what I want to do.

But the core of the Pickens Plan has always been to replace the natural gas used to produce electricity with wind power so that the gas could then be used in transportation to reduce our reliance on imported oil.

According to Pickens’ statement at the forum, the Pickens Plan is nothing more than a ruse to increase the overall use of natural gas. Pickens has significant natural gas-related investments, including in the largest seller of natural gas for transportation.

Click here for the audio recording of the relevant part of the Q&A session with Pickens.

Click here for Tom Stacy’s write-up of the event. Stacy asked the question that elicited Pickens’ frank response about his scheme.

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them spotlights how green scamsters like Pickens plan to get richer while making you poorer.

Tesla Motors: Sporty green welfare queen?

Tesla Motors is expecting $700 million in loans from taxpayers so that it can sell its pricey electric cars to the public: a $109,000 Roadster sports car and a $49,900 sporty sedan (Model S). The actual price of the Model S is $57.400, but taxpayers will be paying an additional $7,500 per car (over and above the loans) to reduce the price to under $50,000.

Tesla Motors, of course, will have to sell tens of thousands of these cars to pay back taxpayers. So far, only 300 of the Roadsters are on the road.

The Model S will “only” take 45 minutes to recharge enough to provide 300 miles of driving — and, depending on the source of the electric power, with more CO2 emissions than from conventional gasoline.

What’s not to like?

Click here for the New York Times report on these sporty “green” welfare machines.

Nature centers = Ideological child abuse?

In her Examiner.com article “Nature centers helping grow next generation of scientists,” Mary Spiro writes,

When I was a kid, I loved visiting my local nature center, which at the time happened to be the Clearwater Nature Center in Clinton, Md. I think the hours I spent examining the bones, pelts, stones, leaves, shells and other “please-touch” exhibits contributed to my love for animals, the environment and science in general.

And who knows, the next E.O. Wilson or Rachel Carson may be developing his or her love for natural science at your local nature center. [Emphasis added]

Rachel Carson, of course, was the the junk scientist who kicked off the anti-DDT campaign that resulted in the needless deaths of tens of millions of Africans from malaria.

Then there’s E.O. Wilson’s sentiment,

“The living world is dying.”

If this is what we hope nature centers do for our kids, we ought to shut them down ASAP.

New Study: Green Jobs Myths

President Obama touts “green jobs” and has hired a “green jobs czar.”

But check out the conclusions from this new study published by the University of Illinois College of Law and Economics about “green jobs”:

A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.

Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference – such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate stagnation.

Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.

Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

In this Article, we survey the green jobs literature, analyze its assumptions, and show how the special interest groups promoting the idea of green jobs have embedded dubious assumptions and techniques within their analyses. Before undertaking efforts to restructure and possibly impoverish our society, careful analysis and informed public debate about these assumptions and prescriptions are necessary.

Obama beaten back for now on climate!

Climate Control News reported today that,

While [federal] budget rules in theory allow lawmakers to revisit a preferred fast-track strategy for climate legislation later this year, White House aides are now acknowledging the political downsides of such a strategy and suggesting a cap-and-trade bill may have to be considered under more conventional legislative procedures.

As reported here on March 17, eight Democratic Senators told President Obama that they wouldn’t support his sneaky effort to fast-track climate legislation through the federal budget process.

Take action:

Grab local/state/federal politicians by their lapels and shake them until they vow to oppose global warming legislation with all their might.

For Nickelodeon, no green gesture too trivial

The Associated Press reported today that,

Nickelodeon will ask kids to unplug their games and gadgets for a minute on Earth Day to symbolize a commitment to helping the environment.

The unplugged minute will come at nine o’clock in the evening on April 22, when many of Nick’s viewers should arguably be in bed. It doesn’t extend to television sets, but is largely targeted at household lights, hand-held games and cell phones…

Do something really nice for a kid on Earth Day, buy him/her a copy of Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

Plastic bag ban ‘will kill more trees’

Stefanie Wang of St. Mary’s College of California opined March 24 on the Palo Alto, CA ban on plastic bags:

Palo Alto recently banned single use plastic shopping bags in supermarkets. What seems like a green, environment-conscious move may prove more troublesome than officials originally thought. In fact, it is much worse than their current situation. City officials hoped that townspeople would bring their own recyclable bags instead of opting for paper bags post-ban. They did not count on being sued for this decision.

According to recent reports on the ban, the attorney for the Save the Plastic Bag group, Stephen Joseph said the group is considering suing the city of Palo Alto for the ban. In addition to the possibility of a financial and legal mess, city officials overlooked the fact that paper bags are harmful to the environment as well. So not only are officials overlooking the impact paper bags have on the environment, they are also overlooking what repercussions will ensue among the plastic bag industries and people who actually understand the scientific studies done on disposable bags.

Plastic bags require less energy and materials to manufacture as they are made from oil and natural gas. Their production impacts the environment less than paper bags production…

… the ban could be as disastrous as the one San Francisco implemented in 2007. San Francisco is the only city in the U.S. to ban plastic bags. No other cities follow suit because it is a bad idea. Plastic bag litter did not decrease. It actually increased after the ban went into effect according to the San Francisco’s “Street Litter Audit.”