RFK Jr: Obama an ‘indentured servant’ of coal industry

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called Barack Obama an “indentured servant” of the coal industry, according to ABC News. According to the report:

“Clean coal is a dirty lie,” says environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who calls President Barack Obama and other politicians who commit taxpayer money to develop it “indentured servants” of the coal industry.

Last month RFK Jr prescribed “eternity in jail” for a coal CEO. When the greens take over, Barack Obama may just get the same sort of scrutiny that he’s planning for the Bush administration with respect to terrorist interrogation!

Greens: Waste not an energy solution

About a chicken manure-to-energy project in Dayton, VA, the director of the Chesapeake Climate Action network told the Washington Post that,

“It does not make sense to try to solve a waste problem as an energy solution. It is an unproven technology that is going to serve only to delay and confuse the real solutions in Virginia, which are energy efficiency and true renewable energy like wind and solar.”

Although the greens fret about chicken manure run-off to the Chesapeake Bay, they oppose a clean and sensible solution to that problem. This should come as no surprise since their real goal is to put Eastern Shore chicken farmers out of business.

NY Times: Less water for less development in Wyoming

The New York Times editorialized today in favor of depriving westerners of water in order to reduce development. From its editorial entitled “De-Watering Wyoming,” the Times wrote:

A developer named Aaron Million has proposed to build a private, 560-mile-long, 10-foot-high pipeline from Wyoming’s Green River Basin, along Interstate 80, and then south along Colorado’s Front Range to Denver and Colorado Springs. The pipeline is meant to carry water — more than 80 billion gallons a year. Last week, the Army Corps of Engineers presented the proposal in the town of Green River, Wyo., where it was met with outrage…

The path to sustainability for the Front Range is less development, not more.

Beware of environmentalists uttering “sustainability”; it’s green-speak for “no development.”

WSJ columnist: Make pick-up trucks too costly to own

In his Wall Street Journal column today entitled, “Can Small Cars Overcome Crash Fears?“, Joseph B. White suggests pricing trucks out of the range of people who want to own for non-work reasons:

The government should also require large pickup trucks to be substantially more efficient, which would also likely make them more expensive, Mr. Wenzel says. People who could prove they need a truck for work could get a tax break to offset the added cost, but not people who want to use a truck as a personal commuter vehicle, he says.

“If people want to use trucks as cars,” he says, they should be considered “a luxury item.”

No thanks, Mr. White. Safety is not a luxury item.

Dutch block Shell’s plan to bury CO2

Bloomberg reports,

The Dutch town of Barendrecht has a message for Royal Dutch Shell Plc: Not under my backyard.

The oil company and the Netherlands government intend to build the first of a new generation of carbon-dioxide storage facilities in two depleted natural-gas fields in Barendrecht. The plan is to capture emissions from a gasification hydrogen plant at Shell’s nearby Pernis refinery and then store the CO2 more than a mile below area homes, preventing the greenhouse gas from reaching the air and harming the environment.

“I don’t think this is the solution to the CO2 problem,” said 53-year-old resident Gerard van Gils. “Why do a project in a residential area and not offshore? The atomic bomb wasn’t tested under Manhattan. To me this means: Not under my backyard.”

Anyone who thinks we will ever be burying CO2 from coal-fired power plants — the only way to “safely” use coal according to Al Gore and Energy Secretary Steven Chu — is simply out-of-touch with the realities of NIMBY-ism stoked by the green anti-coal jihad.

French nuke company in trouble for spying on Greenpeace

The Financial Times reports today,

EDF, France’s nuclear energy operator, paid investigators to infiltrate the anti-nuclear movement around Europe, according to testimony given in a French judicial investigation.

The investigation is looking into whether the state-controlled group condoned illegal practices as part of a surveillance operation…

The work involved “a web watch, completed by on-the- ground work” that he described as “going to meetings, to demonstrations” and “taking the temperature of these organisations”.

But before the greens get all self-righteous about this, let’s review some recent Greenpeace criminality:

There shouldn’t be anything wrong with a nuclear power company simply gathering information about groups that pose very real threats to the security of its facilities.

Endangered agenda: Greens mount ad hominem Amazon attacks against Green Hell

If you need more evidence of the intellectual vacuity of the green agenda, you need look no further than the Amazon.com customer review battle over Steve Milloy’s new book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Want to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

As of the evening of April 20, the newly published Green Hell had garnered 14 Amazon customer reviews — 6 five-star (love it) and 8 one-star (hate it) ratings, and nothing in between. It doesn’t get too much more polarized than that.

The five-star ratings seem to have been written by thoughtful people who have actually read Green Hell and seem to be very helpful to would-be purchasers. In fact, of the 358 would-be purchasers who read the five-star customer ratings, 273 (more than 76%) thought the reviews helpful. In contrast, of the 304 who read the one-star customer reviews, only 64 (21%) thought them helpful.

It’s no surprise why so few customers thought so little of the one-star reviews. None of them raise any substantive points about any of Green Hell’s content so much as they level one ad hominem attack after another against the author and his opposition to the greens. From comments like “Milloy’s delusional propaganda” to “poison for the mind” to “sad, angry and dumb,” not a single detailed criticism is offered to any fact or point made in Green Hell.

The customer ratings battle over Green Hell offers insight into why Al Gore and the other greens don’t want to debate Steve Milloy or any other opponent of their agenda — ad hominem attacks won’t win many points with an audience.

Maybe what the greens really need is something that is as natural to them as humanity is to the rest of us — yet another counterproductive, liberty-eating government mandate.

Call it the Endangered Agenda Act — so that rather than embarrassing themselves by being forced to display their intellectual and moral bankruptcy in defense of their indefensible, anti-people beliefs and actions, inconvenient truths like Green Hell could simply be banned.

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.

Greens work to sabotage renewable projects

From the Associated Press (via FoxNews.com):

A westward dash to power electricity-hungry cities by cashing in on the desert’s most abundant resource — sunshine — is clashing with efforts to protect the tiny pupfish and desert tortoise and stinginess over the region’s rarest resource: water.

Water is the cooling agent for what traditionally has been the most cost-efficient type of large-scale solar plants…

The solar hopefuls are encountering overtaxed aquifers and a legendary legacy of Western water wars and legal and regulatory scuffles. Some are moving to more costly air-cooled technology — which uses 90 percent less water — for solar plants that will employ miles of sun-reflecting mirrors across the Western deserts. Others see market advantages in solar dish or photovoltaic technologies that don’t require steam engines and cooling water and that are becoming more economically competitive.

The National Park Service is worried about environmental consequences of solar proposals on government lands that are administered by the Bureau of Land Management. It says it supports the solar push but is warning against water drawdowns, especially in southern Nevada. In the Amargosa Valley, the endangered, electric-blue pupfish lives in a hot water, aquifer-fed limestone cavern called Devil’s Hole…

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.