New green target: Car colors

California is working to reduce your choice in car colors in the name of green.

Carbon Control News reported today that California regulators have proposed that car makers use so-called “cool” paints to reduce the interior temperature of cars, thereby reducing air conditioning use and, consequently, improving gas mileage.

Automakers say such a regulation would:

  • Eliminate a significant number of vehicle colors (e.g., black paint and dark metallic colors would essentially be banned, representing 40 percent of sales for some manufacturers);
  • Raise costs for manufacturers and consumers — about $1.2 billion annually; and
  • Increase CO2 emissions because of forced changes in the painting process and increased vehicular weight.

You may only be able to buy white/light-colored cars, but what about Al Gore (check out this video) and the other green elites?

‘Green Hell’ now available in book stores!

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them was published today by Regnery Publishing.

Green Hell is available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Borders and other fine book stores.

Get a free chapter at www.GreenHellBook.com!

From the Inside Flap:

Big Brother Has Turned Green

The environmental movement has cultivated a warm and fuzzy public image, but behind the smiley-face rhetoric of “sustainability” and “conservation” lies a dark agenda. The Greens aim to regulate your behavior, downsize your lifestyle, and invade the most intimate aspects of your personal life.
In this stunning exposé, Steve Milloy unveils the authoritarian impulse underlying the Green crusade. Whether they’re demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial, the Greens are envisioning a grim future for you marked by endless privation.

Steamrolling nearly all opposition with its apocalyptic predictions of environmental doom, the Green movement has gained influence throughout American society–from schools and local planning boards to the biggest corporations in the country. And their plans are much more ambitious than you think, says Milloy. What the Greens really seek, with increasing success, is to dictate the very parameters of your daily life–where you can live, what transportation you can use, what you can eat, and even how many children you can have.

Citing the tactics and goals of Green groups as explained by their own activists and leaders, Green Hell demonstrates:

  • How Green pressure campaigns threaten the safety of your home and your car, and public health overall
  • Why the election of President Obama portends a giant leap forward for coercive Green policies
  • Why Greens obstruct the use of all forms of energy–even the renewable sources they tout to the public
  • How wealthy Green elites stand to profit fabulously from the restrictions and regulations they seek to impose on the rest of us
    * How Green pressure campaigns are hamstringing the military and endangering our national security
  • Why big business is not only knuckling under to the Greens, but is aggressively promoting the green agenda to the detriment of its own stockholders
  • What you can do to help stop the great Green machine

A one-of-a-kind, comprehensive takedown of the entire environmental movement, Green Hell will open your eyes to a looming threat to our economy, our civil liberties, and the entire American way of life.

From the Back Cover:

Praise for Green Hell

“Green Hell explains why Americans can’t afford to fall for Al Gore’s `the debate is over’ line on global warming. While we’re all for the environment, Green Hell explains why we need to oppose the environmentalists.” —Fred Barnes, Executive Editor, the Weekly Standard

“Green Hell is the `inconvenient truth’ on extremist, growth-killing environmentalism. A must-read for those interested in keeping America free and prosperous.” —Steve Forbes, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes

“Regardless of whether you believe global warming is a fraud, the fact is that the current depression, the past spike in oil prices, and the coming technology of electric cars are all going to solve whatever problem exists. Liberals want to use climate change as an excuse to take over the economy and regulate everything and this book exposes their plans.” —Dick Morris, FOX News commentator and former political consultant to Bill Clinton

“This book describes why the world can’t afford to fall for global warming alarmism and environmental hysteria. Steve Milloy shows how to avoid the environmentalists’ vision of our future.” —VACLAV KLAUS, President of the European Union and President of the Czech Republic

“Free market capitalism is still the best path to prosperity. Green Hell is a must-read for anyone who wants to keep America on that path and away from Soviet-style command-and-control environmentalism.”
Larry Kudlow, Host, CNBC’s The Kudlow Report

Green Hell is available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Borders and other fine book stores.

New planetary burden: Meat-eating pets

Paul Greenberg opines today in the New York Times that dogs and cats should go vegan. Writing about his cat, Greenberg says,

Coco, like most American cats, ate fish. And a great deal of them — more in a year than the average African human, according to Jason Clay at the World Wildlife Fund. And unlike the chicken or beef Coco also gobbled up, all those fish were wild animals, scooped out of the sea and flown thousands of carbon-belching miles to reach his little blue bowl.

The use of wild fish in animal feed is a serious problem for the world’s food systems. Around a third of all wild fish caught are “reduced” into fish meal and fish oil. And yet most of the outrage about this is focused not on land-based animals like Coco but on other fish — namely farm-raised fish.

But if you feel that a vegan pet would “go against nature,” Greenberg says you should “rethink a pet’s potential footprint before acquiring one”:

A carnivore, be it a cat, a dog or a salmon, is a heavy burden for the environment and should not be brought under human care lightly. In my family, this has become a topic of debate as we consider our next animal. Coco was an interesting and unique creature, and I argue that he cannot be replaced. To me, a vegetarian substitute is seeming more and more appealing. Lately, I’ve had my eye on a guinea pig.

Hats off to the New York Times for allowing Greenberg to share his thoughts with the world — otherwise, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

When a hybrid can pull a boat…

A terrific letter-to-the-editor in the Mar. 20 Wall Street Journal:

In response to Ford CEO Alan Mulally’s call for higher gas taxes (which you report in “Tax My Products, Please,” Review & Outlook, March 17), I would like to say that Americans don’t want smaller vehicles. We have great distances to travel, mountains and plains to cross in all seasons of the year. We tow our boats and other contrivances. We haul our children around and travel with them over the continent. Our businessmen drive long distances since they can no longer own corporate jets. What we want is a more efficient internal combustion engine, not a smaller car.

And do not tell us it cannot be done. It can be done, because efficient engines can be created today with off-the-shelf parts bought from General Motors, Ford or Chrysler.

A friend of mine has converted a GMC Vortec V8 gasoline engine for his 2.5 ton pickup truck and the engine delivers more than 30 mpg. Why can’t we buy this type of vehicle at the dealer? Why does individual ingenuity have to point the way to corporations that have the money, skill and engineering brainpower to deliver a more efficient engine? Why do we have to pay more at the pump?

The suggestion that consumers should pay more in gasoline taxes is a cop-out on the part of the auto makers, politicians and everyone else who supports it. This is not Europe. This is the United States of America, a vast country with amazing distances and varieties of geography and climate.

We do not want higher gas prices. We want more efficient engines to power our vehicles. We want the Big Three to use their brains to create something new, not deliver a rehash of junk from a bunch of whiners.

Bernard P. Giroux
Fall River, Mass.

Take action

GreenHellBlog.com would like to spotlight your snappy correspondence with the media. E-mail appropriate links/info to Steve Milloy at Junkman@JunkScience.com.

Doug Giles: ‘Green shoved up our backsides’

Check out Doug Giles’ Townhall.com column, “Welcome to Green Hell, Where You’re All a Bunch of Slaves.”

Here’s a taste:

Brace yourself, boys and girls, as we’re about to have green shoved up our backsides like never before. Yep, going emerald will soon move from being an Ed Begley, Jr./Daryl Hannah option and will quickly become a government dictate because climate change is a “fact,” or as Ron Burgundy would say, “It’s science.”

Here’s Doug’s closing — your attention, please:

Lastly, do yourself a favor—those of you who can still think freely—and get Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them. As the founder and editor of JunkScience.com, Steve Milloy has been monitoring the greens for over 13 years. Now, as many Americans wake up under this green thumb for the first time, Milloy can tell us what the greens are targeting first—and what we as American citizens can do to stop them.

Michelle Obama’s Political Gardening

The Obama-smitten mainstream media lapped up First Lady Michelle Obama’s announcement that she and 5th graders from a local elementary school were going to plant and maintain a vegetable garden at the White House. The New York Times reported,

While the organic garden will provide food for the first family’s meals and formal dinners, its most important role, Mrs. Obama said, will be to educate children about healthful, locally grown fruit and vegetables at a time when obesity and diabetes have become a national concern.

While we’re all for teaching kids about gardening, Michelle Obama’s garden is more about raising green ideologues than green vegetables:

  • “Locally grown” food is a green euphemism for their fight against imports and exports of food. The Greens don’t want you eating Chilean grapes in the winter or French wine anytime, for example.
  • Organic food, of course, is a symbol of the green movement. The sad truth is that organic food is actually harder on the environment than conventionally grown food, requiring more land, water and labor.

The Times acknowledged the garden’s politics as such, reporting that,

The question had taken on political and environmental symbolism, with the Obamas lobbied for months by advocates who believe that growing more food locally, and organically, can lead to more healthful eating and reduce reliance on huge industrial farms that use more oil for transportation and chemicals for fertilizer.

What will Michelle Obama grow? According to the Times:

The Obamas will feed their love of Mexican food with cilantro, tomatillos and hot peppers. Lettuces will include red romaine, green oak leaf, butterhead, red leaf and galactic. There will be spinach, chard, collards and black kale. For desserts, there will be a patch of berries. And herbs will include some more unusual varieties, like anise hyssop and Thai basil. A White House carpenter, Charlie Brandts, who is a beekeeper, will tend two hives for honey.

Wouldn’t you like your own taxpayer-paid beekeeper?

What’s the lesson for the 5th graders? That they, too, can grow up to be elitist and get glowing PR for hornswoggling children and federal employees into growing fancy vegetables to promote your anti-people political views and to feed your exotic palate?

The Times also noted,

But the first lady emphasized that she did not want people to feel guilty if they did not have the time for a garden: there are still many changes they can make.

“You can begin in your own cupboard,” she said, “by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a meal a little more often, trying to incorporate more fruits and vegetables.”

Aside from the nutritional value offered by a great deal of processed foods, what about all the people who work in or whose jobs depend on the processed foods industry?

Let them eat home-grown berries when they’re put out of work?

Finally, there’s Alice Waters, the San Franciso-based “slow food” advocate and Obama fundraiser. Waters likened the White House garden to the World War II “victory gardens,” telling the Associated Press that,

“To have this sort of ‘victory’ garden, this message goes out that everyone can grow a garden and have free food.”

Free food?

Anyone who has gardened knows first -and that home-grown vegetables can hardly be considered as “free.” Between the water, seeds, fertilzer/compost, pest control, labor and worry, gardening is hardly “free.”

But then again, if you’re the first lady and White House employees and children are doing all the work, and taxpayers are picking up all the costs, maybe there really is such a thing as a free veggies.

Green-collar job bubble bursts in Spain

In an article entitled, “The reality of wind power and green-collar jobs in Spain,” the Scientific Alliance observes that although Spain’s renewable energy effort created 50,000 jobs,

… these are nearly all for installing new capacity and so do not provide long term employment. And they come at a cost: a renewables subsidy of 2.6bn euros in 2007 [about $72,000 per job based on 2007 exchange rates], with about one third of the total going to the solar sector, which represents only 0.7% of installed capacity and about half the total number of jobs [as the wind sector].

The costs are such that the government has now had to reduce the subsidy for solar power by 30% and cap the amount of new capacity to be installed. This softening of support resulted in 10,000 job losses. Further reductions of subsidies put 40,000 more green jobs at risk. Energy prices are rising to cover losses in the distribution industry, and generators have announced the cancellation of 4.5bn euros of annual investment because they also pay an effective subsidy for renewable energy through the controlled price to the consumer…

The lesson: Green jobs = higher taxes + higher electric bills + some temporary employment.

Van Jones, are you listening?

Wal-Mart wrong on plastic bags

The Trumann Democrat (Trumann, AR) reports that Wal-Mart is going green, in part by eliminating plastic bags.

Store manager Larry Rich explained,

“Plastic bags are the No. 1 cause of marine deaths in the oceans.”

Wrong, dude.

Rich apparently missed this March 2008 report from The Times (UK) entitled, “Series of blunders turned the plastic bag into global villain.” The article says,

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds…

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

They “don’t figure” in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. “Plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement,” he said. “The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.”

He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to “plastic bags”.

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers. For four years the “typo” remained uncorrected. It was only in 2006 that the authors altered the report, replacing “plastic bags” with “plastic debris”. But they admitted: “The actual numbers of animals killed annually by plastic bag litter is nearly impossible to determine.”

In a postscript to the correction they admitted that the original Canadian study had referred to fishing tackle, not plastic debris, as the threat to the marine environment.

Regardless, the erroneous claim has become the keystone of a widening campaign to demonise plastic bags.

David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, told The Times that bad science was undermining the Government’s case for banning the bags. “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags,” he said. “The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags.

“It doesn’t do the Government’s case any favours if you’ve got statements being made that aren’t supported by the scientific literature that’s out there. With larger mammals it’s fishing gear that’s the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue. It would be great if statements like these weren’t made.”

Geoffrey Cox, a Tory member of the Commons Environment Select Committee, said: “I don’t like plastic bags and I certainly support restricting their use, but plainly it’s extremely important that before we take any steps we should rely on accurate information. It is bizarre that any campaign should be endorsed on the basis of a mistranslation. Gordon Brown should get his facts right.”

So should Wal-Mart.

March 22: World No-Water Day?

March 22 is the green-contrived World Water Day. It should be re-labeled World No-Water Day since the greens are really only interested in controlling (read “reducing”) water use — even though water is the most abundant substance on Earth.

Instead of figuring out ways of producing more freshwater (like through desalination and water exporting), the greens are interested in “water management,” as described, for example, in this media release from German researchers. “Water management” is a euphemism for global dehydration.

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them discusses how the greens are working toward a thirstier world.

Congressional GOP stands against ‘cap-and-tax’

Congressional Republicans have issued their “Principles for Economic Recovery,” one of which is:

KEEPING ENERGY AND FUEL COSTS LOW

Instead of taxing all energy users with a new “cap and tax” scheme that will cost an average of up to $3,128 per household, Republicans want energy independence with increased exploration and the development of new and renewable energy sources.

Blocking the green takeover of our economy is a winning political issue for Republicans — and a necessity for the rest of us.

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them explains why.

Greens woo, but hurt blacks

The Wall Street Journal‘s Naomi Schaeffer Riley opines today about how the largely white-and-rich greens are trying to make themselves less so.

But, as Riley points out with our help, the greens really represent a threat to African Americans:

… It may be mere condescension to assume that racial minorities don’t understand what’s at stake in [the environmental debate] — that it is the outreach effort that is failing and not the message itself. It could well be that minorities understand all too well. “Environmentalism doesn’t appeal to minorities,” says Steven Milloy, the publisher of JunkScience.com, because “it doesn’t bring them anything.” He explains: “Environmentalists scare companies from building plants where people could use the jobs, and the plants go overseas instead.” In the late ’90s, for instance, the greens managed to run the Shintech company out of Convent, La., where it had planned to build a chemical plant that would have created more than 150 jobs. Though three-quarters of the black residents near the site wanted the facility, the company eventually backed out, tired of the harassment from the Clinton administration’s EPA.

Driving jobs away, particularly in today’s economy, is much more harmful to the health of racial minorities than any presumed “environmental” threat. As Mr. Milloy explains: “People who have jobs have health insurance and a higher standard of living.” As for what we might call “heat justice”: People with jobs also have more air-conditioning units, which can presumably prevent heat-related deaths.

As for the claim about asthma, Mr. Milloy notes that childhood asthma rates have climbed in the past three decades as our air has become considerably cleaner. Moreover, he notes that asthma is not triggered by chemical fumes, but by allergens, which are not produced by industrial plants.

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them spotlights how the greens are a menace to everyone — no matter what your skin color.

Maryland Steelworkers: Get New Leadership

The United Steelworkers are supporting a bill in Maryland to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, reports the Washington Post.

According to the Post, the greens bought the Steelworkers support with assurance that the bill,

… cannot cost manufacturing jobs, cannot “decrease the likelihood of . . . affordable electrical service” and must produce a net economic benefit for Maryland.

And they cannot require greenhouse gas reductions from the manufacturing sector, which produces between 4 and 7 percent of the state’s overall emissions.

Steelworker spokesman Jim Strong told the Post,

“We’re concerned about the environment. But as a labor organization, our primary concern is the jobs of our members.”

But if Strong was telling the truth — or knew enough to tell the truth — he would oppose the greens to the bitter end.

First, we all care about the environment — the greens don’t hold a monopoly on that. But greenhouse gas regulation has nothing to do with the environment. Greenhouse gas regulation will make no detectable difference to our environment.

Next, the greens care don’t for, or about, steel manufacturing or steel workers — except to the extent that blue-collar workers and their unions can serve as “useful idiots” who help achieve the green social and political agenda.

Sure the Maryland bill may not hurt manufacturing, but it will never really be implemented anyway — looming national legislation is the real threat. What the greens have accomplished is to lull Maryland steelworkers to sleep on the climate issue.

Greenhouse gas regulation can only hurt blue-collar workers. Maryland Steelworkers should unite to get rid of Jim Strong and anyone else in union leadership boneheaded enough to think that steel jobs can survive the green agenda.

Take action:

Contact United Steelworkers District 8 director, Ernest R. “Billy” Thompson, and tell him that if green wins, steelworkers lose:

USW District 8
85 C. Michael Davenport Blvd, Suite B
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-875-3332 – Telephone
502-875-2917 – FAX

You can also try to contact Jim Strong at:

Sub-District 1
8019 Corporate Drive, Suite H
Baltimore, MD 21236
Phone: 410-931-6900
Fax: 410-931-6904