Category Archives: Enviros

Shocking Costs Of Environmentalism

Shocking Costs Of Environmentalism

Energy: Those who fancy themselves to be green progressives are about to get some unwelcome “progress.” Thanks in part to environmental rules, electricity bills are headed for double-digit increases.

Continue reading

Chinese sceptics see global warming as US conspiracy

Hey! No fair! The EU pushes this nonsense most and they should own it!

Chinese sceptics see global warming as US conspiracy
John Garnaut
October 8, 2011

BEIJING: It’s not only Western leaders like Julia Gillard and Barack Obama who face fierce resistance from climate sceptics as they try to lay out policies to tackle global warming.

In China, where carbon emissions have surged despite tough government constraints and targets, President Hu Jintao is having to stare down claims that human-induced climate change is an elaborate American conspiracy. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Australia’s $Trillion carbon [dioxide] tax all pain for no gain

Carbon tax to cost $1 trillion: committee
Paul Osborne
October 7, 2011 – 12:14PM

The federal government’s carbon tax will cost every Australian $40,000 in the period to 2050 and a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted before it passes into law, an opposition-dominated Senate committee says.

The select committee on the scrutiny of new taxes on Friday tabled a 361-page report in parliament looking at whether a carbon tax should be brought in at a time of uncertainty about the global economy and whether there will be a concerted international effort to cut carbon emissions.

Labor’s laws to establish in a fixed $23-per-tonne carbon price from July 1, 2012, before moving to an emissions trading scheme in 2015, are set to pass the lower house next Wednesday before going to the Senate for debate.

The committee found that under the government’s own modelling the carbon tax would impose a $1 trillion cost on the Australian economy, or $40,000 per person.

Continue reading

Keystone XL and the anti-development cultists

Keystone XL: The wrong question
The Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s tar sands would have pros and cons, but foes would do better to shift their focus to the larger environmental issues.

The question of whether to build an oil pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas is turning out to be one of the most important political decisions of the year for the Obama administration. It’s an agonizing choice because the costs and benefits of building it are so closely balanced; opponents have overstated the environmental risks, and proponents seem oblivious to the consequences of continuing to feed our nation’s oil addiction.

The Keystone XL pipeline would run 1,700 miles and cost $7 billion, generating thousands of construction jobs. It would increase oil imports from a stable, friendly neighbor while decreasing U.S. reliance on more volatile (and sometimes hostile) OPEC regimes. What’s more, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. (LA Times)

American burying beetle becomes player in Keystone pipeline drama

Continue reading

Huhne’s Green Madness: Household Energy Crisis Looms

Huhne’s Green Madness: Household Energy Crisis Looms
Thursday, 06 October 2011 14:29 Money Expert

Over a quarter of UK households are struggling to deal with energy bills, according to the latest research. 69% say the government has got it wrong on costly green energy policies.

Following this year’s 21% price hike, which added an extra £224 to the annual dual fuel bill, millions of homes across the country are finding it difficult to afford both gas and electricity.

A price comparison website found that 32% of households believe energy is already ‘unaffordable’ in the UK. A further 69% said that the government has not got it right when it comes to affordable energy and ‘going green’. (GWPF)

Fuel Prices Up – CO2 Down

Continue reading

Of course they do: Environmentalists oppose plan for £150m ‘green’ power station

Environmentalists oppose plan for £150m ‘green’ power station

ENVIRONMENTALISTS are objecting to plans for a £150m “green power” station that would use household waste to power more than 25,000 homes in Hull.

Hull-based engineering company C Spencer is seeking planning permission for the plant, a potential alternative to the failed incinerator at Saltend, at a meeting at Hull Council next week.

Friends of the Earth are objecting, claiming the station is a “slight improvement but not nearly enough” on plans for the incinerator, a long-running and controversial project which was finally ditched in January.

The plant will take 365,000 tonnes of commercial, industrial and municipal waste, as well as organic material, and will use processes including advanced gasification and anaerobic digestion, producing enough electricity for 25,000 homes as well as 900,000 therms of gas energy. In contrast the incinerator was originally due to burn up to 240,000 tonnes of household waste a year. (Yorkshire Post)

It’ll benefit people, so naturally enviros are agin it

Homegrown GM Bean Won’t Fight Hunger, Critics Say
By Fabiana Frayssinet

RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 4, 2011 (IPS) – Critics complain that a genetically modified bean developed in Brazil, resistant to one of the country’s most damaging agricultural pests, was approved without enough debate or guarantees that the crop will not affect human health or the environment.

The GM bean, named 5.1, was developed by Embrapa, the government’s agricultural research agency, to resist the bean golden yellow mosaic virus (BGYMV), whose main symptom is a bright yellow or golden mosaic on the leaves, as well as leaf wrinkling and rolling. The seeds and plants are also stunted, malformed and discoloured, and flowers are aborted, leading to the loss of between 40 and 100 percent of the beans.

According to Embrapa, the virus transmitted by the whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) causes annual losses of between 90,000 and 280,000 tons of beans – enough to feed six to 20 million more adults in this country of 192 million people.

Continue reading

They were more scientific when they were the wrestling federation

But now they are the World Whacko Fund and they produce absurd misanthropic propaganda:

Hot to be the new normal as species struggle
Max Mason

Soaring temperatures last century may have been hard work for many species across the planet but, by the end of this century, those temperatures, once considered extreme, will become the norm for many of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.

Research suggests that, over the coming decades, increased temperatures and rainfall will put increased stain on the survival of the Global 200 ecoregions, threatening both plant and animal life.

The Global 200 is a set of ecoregions that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has classified as having exceptional biodiversity. They contain a high concentration of the earth’s species. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Tories Sound The Death Knell For Green Agenda

Tories Sound The Death Knell For Green Agenda
Wednesday, 05 October 2011 16:34 James Murray, BusinessGreen

Cameron and Osborne sound death knell for “greenest government ever” pledge with complete sidelining of low carbon economy. The political consensus that defined action to curb carbon emissions and tackle climate change is drawing to a close.

Has there been a more anti-environmental political conference at any point over the past decade than this year’s annual Conservative Party jamboree in Manchester?

The answer is almost certainly not, and after a week of high carbon policy announcements and sidelining of environmental issues the hard fought political consensus on the urgent need to create a world-leading low carbon economy looks to be under serious threat for the first time in a decade. (GWPF)

Cranks and scammers seek to sabotage advanced agriculture in the name of “consumer information”

Here’s some sad news for you guys – unless you only eat weeds and wildlife all your food has been modified and has been since the advent of farming.

In fact a lot has been modified very deliberately since Man learned to use fire for cooking (we alter the molecular structure of food to make it [more] digestible, palatable and/or nutritious).

Are “foreign” genes a particular hazard in foodstuffs? Of course not, some of our basic grains (wheats) contain 2 or 3 complete sets of 7 paired chromosomes – these are the staples of our diets that are made up of 2 or 3 complete genomes and have done for millennia, all without turning consumers into grasses.

Biotech enhanced foods are no more unusual or novel than strains developed by say chemical- or radiation-forced mutagenesis, a development not noted on packaging and information of no practical bearing on consumers.

Neither has biotechnology information any bearing on consumers except for scammers and fear mongers trying to extract premiums for inferior products by creating fear of competitor product. Amusingly none of the label promoters seem keen on such precise information being made prominent about their own products. How many worried young moms would buy that natural stone-ground wholewheat flour if the exact content of foreign materials (bug bits, rodent hairs, weed seeds, dust, grinding wheel residue and so on) was printed on the packaging? (Yes, there really is a percentage tolerance for “foreigns” in grains and flours and man, you should see what gets crushed for your fine wines 😉 )

Apart from organic and “natural food” fantasists (the same group stupid enough to consume raw [unpasteurized] milk) we have the misanthropes desperate to limit human population by suppressing more productive agriculture but they do not openly fly their people-hating colors during their sabotage efforts.

No one trying to foment hysteria over enhanced agriculture is acting in the best interests of humanity or the environment and the only reason to push labeling is to try to pretend biotech is somehow different or dangerous.

Group seeks labels on genetically altered food
Continue reading

They’re right, the problem with current geoengineering plans it that they just might work and no one is better off with a colder planet Earth

What we really want is for people to be bogged down in endless discussion of what an ideal climate might be, so they never get around to actually trying to screw with the weather.

The Problem With Geoengineering: What if It Works?
OCT 3 2011, 6:02 PM ET
The postponement of a massive experiment is a chance to think about what would happen if we had the power to control the weather

A major experiment to use a one kilometer-long hose to pump water droplets into the atmosphere as a precursor to a large-scale geoengineering interventions has been postponed for six months. More than 50 groups, led by Canada’s ETC Group, had recently signed a letter condemning the field trial, calling it a “Trojan Hose” and imploring the British government to suspend it until an international agreement to govern geoengineering efforts has been reached. The letter read in part:

It is unacceptable for the UK government to sponsor – even chair – discussions at the [Convention on Biological Diversity] while simultaneously funding experiments and developing hardware for the deployment of stratospheric aerosols, one of the most controversial geoengineering technologies under discussion. This apparent conflict of interest will undermine the credibility of the UK, not only at the CBD, but also in other climate-related negotiations, notably at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20).

That said, protecting the political process from these sorts of conflicts of interest is a lesser concern to geoengineering’s critics than the potential moral hazards and environmental damage. What happens if something goes wrong? What if efforts to right the planet’s climate result in famine or mass extinctions? (The Atlantic)

EUC dances to greenies’ anti-energy tune, UK likely to veto

EU Commission Agrees Specific CO2 Value For Oil Sands – Source
Alessandro Torello

BRUSSELS–The European Union executive body has agreed to propose that oil extracted from sands should be treated as a dirtier fuel when compared with conventional oil, in a move set to add to an ongoing spat with Canada, a major producer of oil extracted from sands in Alberta. (Dow Jones)

Britain May Veto Green Plans To Ban Tar Sands, Shale Gas
Tuesday, 04 October 2011 20:29 Fiona Harvey, The Guardian

Fuel from oil sands projects would face effective ban under EU proposals, but UK government likely to veto green plan

Continue reading

Oh noes! Harvesting timber is environmentally friendly

Wood is the greenest building material, USDA says

A report from the U.S. Forest Service on Thursday found that using wood in building products yielded fewer greenhouse gases than other common building materials, such as concrete and steel. According to the report, which analyzed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies, 2.1 tons of greenhouse gases were saved for each ton of carbon in wood products versus non-wood materials.

“This study confirms what many environmental scientists have been saying for years,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement. “Wood should be a major component of American building and energy design. The use of wood provides substantial environmental benefits, provides incentives for private landowners to maintain forest land, and provides a critical source of jobs in rural America.” (LA Times)

Misanthropic loons still trying to stifle crop development

Note the misinformation like “terminator technology” – hybrid seeds are generally infertile or revert to base stock after one generation – either way high-productivity hybrids are not suitable for seed saving, something which has absolutely nothing to do with biotechnology. Yes, some work was done to prevent illegal use of proprietary technology (like copy protection on music, videos and/or software that people shouldn’t but do steal – the same kind of thing that built the profits used for philanthropy by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 😉 ).

Either way “Big Agro” is the only way 9 billion people are going to be adequately fed on planet Earth, something farmer’s markets and superstitions like “organics” simply can not achieve. Retro nostalgia and primitive agriculture just won’t do the job. You could harvest between the ears of every greenie on the planet but you just won’t find enough crap to grow food for the current 7 billion population without using synthetic fertilizers and higher productivity crop plants. Get over it.

Battle Escalates Against Genetically Modified Crops
By Kanya D’Almeida

WASHINGTON, Oct 1, 2011 (IPS) – Home to a fast-growing network of farmers’ markets, cooperatives and organic farms, but also the breeding ground for mammoth for-profit corporations that now hold patents to over 50 percent of the world’s seeds, the United States is weathering a battle between Big Agro and a ripening movement for food justice and security.

Conflicting ideologies about agriculture have become ground zero for this war over the production, distribution and consumption of the world’s food.

One camp – led by agro giants like Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta – define successful agriculture and hunger alleviation as the use of advanced technologies to stimulate yields of mono-crops.

The other side argues that industrial agriculture pollutes, destroys and disrupts nature by dismissing the importance of relationships necessary for any ecosystem to thrive.

At the heart of this struggle is the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which were given the green light in 1990 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated, “(We) are not aware of any information showing that GMO foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” (IPS)

Funny, the Department of Misanthropy doesn’t seem to be enjoying all its recent attention

EPA’s Mission Leap

Regulation: What does the Environmental Protection Agency say it needs to fully implement new greenhouse gas emissions rules? How about an army of 230,000 new bureaucrats and an additional $21 billion a year?

The EPA itself is an example of shameless mission creep. Its 2010 budget was 29 times higher than its first budgets were in the early 1970s when it was established by President Nixon. The agency’s workforce has grown from about 4,000 to roughly 19,000.

In just over four decades, the EPA has federalized local environmental problems and became involved in “anxiety and nutrition,” social and economic issues, and aging. Now it wants to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a charge it was never granted by Congress. Adding 230,000 new workers and spending an extra $21 billion a year simply sounds like business as usual. (IBD)