Advertisements

10 Problems With The Green Agenda

crunchtime-logo

“FEW things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles Colson

“THE road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – 1153)

*

WE all want to be good stewards of the environment. However, in the era of “Save The Planet” virtue-signalling, the need for deeds may, in fact, be doing more harm than good, to you and Mother Nature!

THE “10 Problems With The Green Agenda” remind us that noble intentions are often misguided leading to undesired environmental outcomes and frequent misallocation of public resources with little regard for accountability and budget constraints.

10 Problems With the Green Agenda

MORRIS M.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then the road to climategeddon must be paved with pages from the green agenda. For the past couple of decades, armchair environmentalists and image-conscious politicians have been pushing through planet-saving initiatives that are often anything but. Initiatives like:

10. Carbon Offsetting

Url-34

Let’s say you’re environmentally-conscious but need to fly. Enter carbon offsetting: for the price of a coffee you can pay some third world farmer to quit burning coal, or some company to plant enough trees to cancel out the emissions from your trip.

If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. The whole practice of carbon offsetting is so fundamentally flawed that eco-writer George Monbiot compared it to pushing food around your plate “to create the impression you have eaten it.” The numbers simply don’t add up: if we in the West decided to offset even fifty percent of our emissions targets, developing nations would have to magically start emitting negative amounts of carbon. Commercial offsetting is no better; investigations routinely find companies fudging their figures, or outright lying. With no industry standard, there’s nothing to measure improvements against; meaning companies can claim whatever they like.

9. Organic Food

Url-1-17

Organic foods are routinely billed as environmentally friendly and chemical free; despite being neither. All the nasty stuff we use in agriculture was developed to solve efficiency problems; take it away and you’re back to square one. A liter of organic milk, for example, can require up to eighty percent more land to produce than regular milk. This means deforestation, destruction of habitats and other things you don’t associate with organic. But wait, it gets worse: multiple studies have found high levels of pesticide in supposedly-organic food; while researchers have concluded eating it is no healthier and its production may lead to increased pollution. The chasm between what we expect and what we get from organic food has gotten so wide even die hard Greens have dropped it in favor of local and sustainable.

8. Water Conservation

Url-2-13

If you’re in possession of a Y chromosome, you’ve probably experienced the waterless urinals in McDonald’s. Insofar as you were thinking about such things, they maybe even seemed like a good idea; after all, saving that much water must be a good thing, right?

Well, not if you want to work without the constant stench of urine. Turns out stagnant pee doesn’t react well with copper piping; and by that we mean it chews right through. Chicago City Hall wound up decommissioning their waterless urinals after that exact situation led to waste flooding the toilets. But what about day-to-day conservation, like in your home? Yeah, maybe—if your neighbors are flushing nonstop. In Germany people have gotten so good at keeping water usage down their sewers are getting backed up, forcing the utility companies to blast insane amounts of water through just to keep them working. As a result, water rates are skyrocketing—while little to no benefit is provided to the environment.

7. Insulation

Url-3-14

According to one green group, a single town with below-average insulation can waste as much energy in a year as the BP oil spill. By my maths, that’s something like the equivalent of a bazillion oil spills happening annually. No wonder governments are subsidizing home insulation.

Which is great, so long as people buy the right type. See, skinning cats and insulating houses have one thing in common: there’s no one way to do it. Some methods, such as mineral wool or denim, are super-green—others, involving blown hydrofluorocarbons, are like punching Mother Nature in the face. It’s estimated this poisonous junk has a global warming potential nearly 1,500 times that of carbon dioxide, meaning it’ll take roughly ten lifetimes to settle your environmental debt. Even worse, as demand for insulation grows, so does production, leading to more pollution and so on and so on until Armageddon.

6. Wind Turbines

Wind-Farm 2120870B

As anyone who’s ever lived below an RnB-obsessed neighbor knows, hearing stuff you don’t want to hear can be irritating as hell. Same applies to wind turbines.

To date no study has found a correlation between turbines and physical illness, though there may be an interesting mental one. According to that link, while people living near community-owned turbines rarely report health problems, people who have had them forced on their village often do. Complaints often focus on the low-level humming noise and shadow flickera sun-blocking side effect officially classed as an annoyance, but probably enough to send most of us into a blind murderous rage. Obviously they could just start building these turbines further away or go the Denmark route and give local people a stake in them, but that’s probably too much to ask.

5. Electric Cars

Url-4-10

Okay Science, now you’re just screwing with us. Regular cars are like environmental cyanide, how can electric ones possibly be worse?

It depends where in the world you are. As a Norwegian study pointed out, there’s no benefit to driving a car powered by electricity from a coal-firing power station. If your town happens to be on an old fashioned grid, all you’re doing by hopping in your losermobile is letting the world know you don’t understand science. As an extra kicker, the manufacturing process for green vehicles is more polluting than your average gas-guzzler, and will remain so until market pressure speeds up technological breakthroughs. At the current rate you can probably expect that to happen sometime after the last trumpet.

4. Biofuels

Url-5-10

The Biofuel cause has been on the wane for a few years now, but that didn’t stop Germany from attempting to make the switch in 2010. By bringing E10 to the pumps at 10 cents a liter cheaper than petrol, the government were hoping to boost the country’s already impressive green credentials. You can probably guess where this is going.

The opposite happened: a joint study by nine European environmental groups found large-scale biofuel development had led to deforestation and a lack of farming land in South America, increasing the risk of famine. But it’s not just E10, for years now environmental groups have opposed biofuels, arguing that their development wastes water and causes pollution. Yet the government keep on giving out subsidies, because apparently Obama hates petroleum and the environment.

3. Energy Efficient Light Bulbs

Url-6-6

Remember that story about a woman having to call in a hazmat team to clean up a broken CFL light bulb? Pretty dumb right, it’s not like there’s enough mercury in there to cause harm, is there?

There is if you’re involved in the production side. In Jinzhou, China, one manufacturer tested their workers and found 121 out of 123 were suffering from mercury poisoning, with one employee’s levels being 150 times the acceptable amount. Another factory was required to hospitalize sixty-eight of seventy-two workers, while the reopening of decommissioned mercury mines has led to entire regions being decimated. So what’s fueling this sudden boom in toxic substances? Demand from Britain and the EU, where we’re apparently determined to go green at the cost of every single other nation on the planet.

2. Recycling

Now I’m not saying recycling is a bad idea; just that its delivery is far from perfect. See, as a global business, recycling is focused not on the environment but making money. This can lead to some weird ecological side-effects: for example, if domestic demand for recycled produce drops, suppliers will ship it halfway across the world to unload it, carbon footprint be damned. Likewise, recyclable materials are routinely discarded for no reason other than aesthetics. Take PVC—when melted it goes a funky brown color most consumers would avoid like Bronie slash fiction, so centers simply burn it.

Then there’s our own ignorance. Most of us have no idea what plastics our city recycles. We just chuck it all in the recycling bin, a move likely to lead to energy-wasting hold ups at the plant and the stuff just getting burnt anyway.

1. Forgoing the Scientific Method

Url-7-3

Imagine you work in a field where the future of the planet may be in your hands. Most of the smartest minds on Earth agree with you, governments are starting to pay attention and even the skeptical public are coming round to your way of thinking. What’s the one thing you wouldn’t do?

How about sabotage the scientific method? In 2009 a leaked cache of emails briefly made the world sit up and question the validity of climate research. While the falsified data claims were quickly disproven, the essential idiocy of those involved is pretty much inarguable. Rather than relying on peer reviewing to weed out shoddy research, some of the researchers at the CRU at UEA had apparently used their position to censor, silence debate and generally act like they had something to hide. The resulting storm completely destabilized public support for their research and made a mockery of their claim to scientific impartiality. That’s not so much shooting yourself in the foot as blasting it off with a howitzer.

10 Problems With the Green Agenda – Listverse

H/t : @janggly  & @Carbongate

•••

PLEASE donate to Climatism to help keep the good fight alive! 

Jamie - Climatism fight

Jamie – Climatism author & founder.

Donate with PayPal

•••

See also :

Advertisements

Californian Climate Madness: Committed to Moving Forward, Ignoring Warnings From Business

The eco-militant EPA’s own figures note that slashing America’s CO2 emissions, will prevent less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming 85 years from now!

All that pain – destroying jobs and impairing human welfare – for such little gain!

Virtue-signalling politicians “riding their eco-friendly flying pigs” – a far more dangerous threat to life on earth than any minuscule and arguably beneficial, ‘global warming’ could ever be!

Eco-insanity on stilts.

Watts Up With That?

Costs are rising for Californian Renewable Energy Consumers Costs are rising for Californian Renewable Energy Consumers

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart; California has committed to moving forward with its job destroying climate policies, regardless of vocal complaints from business leaders.

California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t Back Down to Trump

“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in Washington,” Mr. Brown said in an interview. “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”

When California enacted its climate reduction standards last year, it drew fierce criticism from state business leaders.

The bills “impose very severe caps on the emission of greenhouse gases in California, without requiring the regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact…

View original post 261 more words


Aussie Carbon Pricing is Back

I have been a rusted-on Liberal Party voter my entire life, with family members holding various administrative positions within the party over many decades.

Outside of family ties, my support for the Liberal party has always been based on its conservative policies and views.

With the knifing of Tony Abbott, a true statesman and representative of those trusted conservative Liberal party values, by Malcolm Turnbull, a man whose ideals and views are best described as of the extreme left, the Liberal Party has now 100% lost my vote.

It is by no means an exaggeration to comment that the Australian Labor Party (the Left-Wing opposition) is in my mind now a more conservative opposition to the Turnbull led Libs! Or perhaps just, ‘better the devil you know’.

As a condition of support for Turnbull toppling Abbott, he promised the conservative arm of the Lib/Nat coalition that he would not lurch to the left on climate.

He lied. And he will pay dearly, just like every other leader or opposition leader who has swallowed the great global warming scare and force-fed economy destroying climate policies to the wised-up Australian public.

Watts Up With That?

Aussie Environment Minister Greg Hunt, author Commonwealth of Australia, source Wikimedia Aussie Environment Minister Greg Hunt, author Commonwealth of Australia, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Remember back when Australian voters thought they were electing a government which was committed to abolishing carbon taxes? The following are the words of Australia’s Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott vigorously opposed carbon pricing;

Environment Minister Greg Hunt says he will likely allow the purchase of international carbon credits despite backbench anger over the weekend’s Paris climate agreement.

We have to set in place a mechanism to allow us [reach new targets], in particular to look at the question of international units and I expect we probably will take on board international units and that will give us the flexibility as we head into 2020 to re-pledge if needed,” Mr Hunt said.

The Australian Industry Group, which has been calling for Australia to allow the…

View original post 213 more words


The Disturbing Correlation Between Atmospheric CO2 And Temperature In The 21st Century


Learning To Think Like A Progressive

Real Science

If you are a progressive, this is an upwards trend.

ScreenHunter_44 Apr. 09 00.00

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend

And this is a downwards trend.

ScreenHunter_45 Apr. 09 00.03

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168248/uninsured-rate-lowest-2008.aspx

When Obama was elected in 2008, the number of uninsured was 44 million. Now it is 48 million. The press has hailed this huge increase in the number of uninsured (four times the population of Denver) as a big success for Obamacare.

View original post


Shock news : ‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of 
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Screen Shot 2014-04-07 at , April 7, 11.12.58 pm

‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor – Yorkshire Evening Post

via Yorkshire Evening Post :

By Neil Hudson

He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money. Neil hudson met prof les woodcock

Climate change is once again back on the agenda following the publication of a number of reports from Government and the UN.

On Monday, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its first report in seven years on the now widely accepted phenomenon known as ‘climate change’.

And this week, the House of Commons Science and Technology committee also published a report, damning the media for confusing ‘fact’ with opinion and pushing the message that, in terms of freak weather, ‘the worst is yet to come’.

In spite of the seemingly overwhelming tide of scientific opinion on the matter, there are still some who steadfastly refuse to jump on the ‘global warming’ bandwagon.

Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock is one of them. When I ask the former NASA scientist about ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, he laughs.

“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.

“Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, its not significant.

“Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and its completely unpredictable beyond around five days.

“We can go back to great floods and Noah’s Ark in the Middle East regions which are now desserts.

“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”

But surely most of the world’s leaders, scientific community and people in general can’t be wrong can they?

Prof Woodcock hits back: “This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”

He adds: “It’s become almost an industry, as a consequence of this professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world, not just UK – you can’t blame ordinary people with little or no science education for wanting to be seen to be good citizens who care about their grandchildren’s future and the environment.

“In fact, the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.

“Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it, people do not like to admit they have been wrong.

“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.

“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

He adds: “Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now, in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.”

The Environment Agency website has this to say on low energy lightbulbs: “Energy saving light bulbs and fluorescent light tubes contain small amounts of mercury… mercury is a hazardous substance, these lightbulbs should be disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste regulations.”

Claims of a new elemental ‘state’ challenges scientific opinion and could have implications for business in the future

Prof Woodcock is also challenging other scientific dogma and now he’s come up with a radical theory about matter.

He explained: “It’s called a fourth state of matter. A colloid is a material in which one phase (solid, liquid or gas) disperses as very small particles or droplets in another (solid, liquid or gas).

“Colloid science is a huge part of condensed matter physics and, indeed everyday life, for example: blood (solid in liquid) milk (emulsion of an oil in water).

“Up to now, the two phases are different materials. Colloids are stabilised by forces at the surface of the dispersed phase which has a very large surface area. In colloid science, the dispersed phase and the continuous phase are two different materials, like air and water.

“There are nine possible different types of colloid: clouds are a colloid of liquid in gas, foam is a colloid of gas in liquid, wet sand is a colloidal dispersion of solid in liquid, dry sand is a dispersion of solid in gas, porous rock above sea level is a colloid of gas (air) in solid (dry sponge), porous rock underwater is colloid of liquid (water) in solid (wet sponge), uncorroded rock is an aggregate of solid in solid (like set concrete), the remaining one is emulsion (liquid in liquid).

“To my knowledge, there is no colloid of gas in gas.

“For a pure material, like water, at low temperatures it was believed there was just solid liquid and gas. In 1873 van der Waals was awarded the Nobel Prize for his PhD thesis on the critical point above which liquid and gas become the same. This hypothesis has been accepted for 140 years but what we find now is that there is no continuity of liquid and gas and no critical point. The liquid and gas phases are separated even up to high supercritical temperatures by [something called a] mesophase which is neither pure liquid nor pure gas nor a hybrid. It is a colloid of gas in liquid or liquid in gas.

“This is a fourth equilibrium state that is not solid liquid or gas, a colloid of the same material dispersed in itself as a different phase is new science.”.

 

FACTFILE

Carbon dioxide (CO2) was discovered around 1770 by Joseph Priestley, who also discovered oxygen (O2) in 1774, for which he is better known.

A scientist called Le Chatelier proposed the so-called ‘equilibrium law’, which has been used to argue if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, plants will metabolise it faster.

Before the Industrial Revolution there used to be about 27 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air – now there are roughly 39 molecules per 100,000.

•••

H/t to Real Science

See also : 

Related :

Agenda of the United Nations and the Political Elite :

Climatism Related :

 


Before you read the upcoming IPCC report, note this

Climatism note :

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

See also : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism

BdufIaXCAAAmOPT

Watts Up With That?

The Working Group II IPCC report from the big shindig in Japan this week will be making headlines shortly, but take those headlines with a grain of salt.

Richard Tol Pulls Out, Says IPCC Draft Report Alarmist

  • Date: 27/03/14 Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

“The drafts became too alarmist,” said Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England, to Reuters.

View original post 232 more words