Why I'm not an Environmentalist

I really enjoyed the part about the spotted owl, it was spot-on:



“If I wanted America to fail” video goes viral, but Twitter suspends group’s account

“Crucify them:” It’s the Obama Way

I'm a conservationist, and I agree with practical things like recycling, clean air and water standards, efficient energy use, development of renewable energy sources, etc. But that doesn't mean I believe every liar with a hidden agenda who claims to be "Green". Too many of them are "Watermelons"; green on the outside, red on the inside.
     

Are we are moving beyond peak oil and into "peak everything."?

Exactly one year ago, I posted about peak oil. But can that concept be applied to ALL the worlds resources? Someone thinks so:

The Earth is full

(CNN) -- For 50 years the environmental movement has unsuccessfully argued that we should save the planet for moral reasons, that there were more important things than money. Ironically, it now seems it will be money -- through the economic impact of climate change and resource constraint -- that will motivate the sweeping changes necessary to avert catastrophe.

The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means.

The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at our current level, we need 50% more Earth than we've got.

[...]

Even the previous heresy, that economic growth has limits, is on the table. Belief in infinite growth on a finite planet was always irrational, but it is the nature of denial to ignore hard evidence. Now denial is evaporating, even in the financial markets. As influential fund manager Jeremy Grantham of GMO says: "The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run out of everything and crash." Or as peak oil expert Richard Heinberg argues, we are moving beyond peak oil and into "peak everything."

Despite this emerging understanding, the growth concept is so deeply ingrained in our thinking that we will keep pushing economic growth as hard as we can, at whatever cost is required.

As a result, the crisis will be big, it will be soon, and it will be economic, not environmental. The fact is the planet will take further bludgeoning, further depleting its capital, but the economy cannot -- so we'll respond not because the environment is under great threat, but because the science and economics shows that something far more important to us is jeopardized -- economic growth.

[...]

So when this crisis hits, will we respond or will we simply slide into collapse? Crisis elicits a powerful human response, whether it be personal health, natural disaster, corporate crisis or national threat. Previously immovable barriers to change quickly disappear.

In this case, the crisis will be global and will manifest as the end of economic growth, thereby striking at the very heart of our model of human progress. While that will make the task of ending denial harder, it also means what's at risk is, quite simply, everything we hold to be important. The last time this happened was World War II, and our response to that is illustrative of both the denial and delay process and the likely form our response to this crisis will take. [...]

It's not all grim. The author seems to think we may get through it somehow, if we adapt.

It's food for thought. But consider, what if the "peak oil" theory is completely wrong:

Fossil Fuels: They've only just begun

Is the financial crisis really being caused by growth, or is growth just going to be the official scapegoat?
     

Cap and Trade: following California's example?

Green nonsense
The 'cap and trade' bill would cost much and deliver little

[...] Waxman-Markey is, ostensibly, a "cap and trade" bill, which would impose substantial costs. One is the direct cost to business to purchase from the government "credits" to emit carbon dioxide, a cost which, presumably, would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Consumers would have to pay much more for electric power, in particular, since it's much cheaper to generate electricity from carbon-emitting fossil fuels than from wind and solar, the sources favored by the Obama administration.

The whole point of cap and trade -- which President Obama is careful not to make explicit -- is to make fossil fuels so expensive we will use less of them.

The president won't call this a tax. But his most prominent supporter in the business community, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, thinks it's one which will devastate an economy already in "shambles."

"It's a huge tax and there is no sense calling it anything else," Mr. Buffett said in a CNBC interview June 24.

We rely on fossil fuels for 85 percent of the energy we use to run our automobiles; to heat, light and cool our homes and offices; and to power our factories. The problem with wind and solar is not just that they are much more expensive than coal, oil or natural gas, but that they can't begin to replace the amount of energy we get from fossil fuels. [...]

California tried to "Go Green" when Gray Davis was Governor. I remember it well, because we lived in California then and owned a restaurant.

The state invested it's money in solar and wind projects, instead of building new power plants. The solar and wind projects were expensive, and failed to produce the needed energy. We ended up with high energy costs and "rolling blackouts". California had to scramble to build additional power plants, the ones they should have built in the first place, but now at great additional cost to the taxpayers. The rolling blackouts were so bad, that many businesses left the state, which also decreased the tax base.

Try running a business with "rolling blackouts". With skyrocketing energy costs, and soaring taxes too. We, like many business owners, couldn't do it. We had to start borrowing money just to stay open. That was the beginning of the end. We closed our restaurant, sold our assets and moved to Oregon.

Meanwhile in California, Gray Davis was removed from office in a recall election. But the state's economy was badly damaged, and has never fully recovered. Trying to "go green" using technology that can't as yet replace fossil fuels, was one of the big contributing factors that has put California into the severe financial distress it finds itself in today.

California has showed us where this path leads. And yet, now we, as a nation, are now going to follow same path, and expect different results?


Related Links:

Harsh Truth About California. And Our Nation?

Green Energy, Blackouts, California and France

Nuclear power now!
     

Green Energy, Blackouts, California and France

Pat's latest post, Nuke the damn windmills!, has excerpts from William Tucker at the American Spectator. Tucker talks about how California poured huge amounts of money into "green" technologies that did not pay off, and how that lead to California's engery crisis (the brown-outs and rolling-blackout of the '90's), and it's current high energy costs and floundering economy. It was one of the big reasons we left California.

Now, the Democrat's Stimulus plan is taking the entire nation down the same path that California has gone. Aarrgh!

It's worth reading the article just for that, but there was also this tidbit about France, which I found fascinating:

[...] Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that France, unlike the rest of the world, has not yet fallen into a recession. The reporter attributed this to France's high level of government employment, but a much more likely explanation is France's complete conversion to nuclear energy. With 80 percent of its electricity coming from nuclear and the rest from hydro, France pays the lowest electrical rates in Europe -- and has the lowest carbon emissions on top of that. [...]

I can be quite critical of the French sometimes, but when they do something right, it's worth taking notice of it and learning from their worthy example.

Authentic American environmentalists would be advocating following France's example in this. Instead, I fear the leaders of the American Environmental Movement are really just "watermellons": green on the outside, red on the inside. They don't want to see us solve our energy problems, they just want to sabotage our current economy and system of government, making it unworkable, so they can then replace it with something else.

On energy matters, I would take the French way over the California way any day. The French way is demonstrably workable; it has a track record of success. The California way is Pie in the Sky; we've seen the results of that.

How long will it be before our government in Washington D.C. gets a clue?
     

High Tech "Green" city being built in Abu Dhabi

I read this in CNNmoney.com this morning, it's facinating:


A green city blooms in the desert
Abu Dhabi, which reckons the world will wean itself from fossil fuels, is building a city that runs on solar power, recycles all waste, and bans cars. How will it work?

The leaders of Abu Dhabi have declared that petroleum belongs to the 20th century, so they are making an investment in the 21st century by building Masdar, the world's first zero-carbon, zero-waste city, powered almost entirely by the desert's plentiful sun. Ground was broken last winter for the $22 billion project, financed by the government of Abu Dhabi and outside investors and slated for completion in 2016. While more expensive to build than a traditional city, Masdar will use 75% less electricity and 60% less water.

Within the walls will be a green-tech research institute, developed with help from MIT. The city itself will act as a laboratory to test carbon-free products and prove that alternative energy can be deployed on a massive scale. "We want Abu Dhabi to be an energy player, not just an exporter," says Khaled Awad, Masdar's director of property development. [...]

It makes good sense to build such a city in a place where there is such an abundance of sunlight and heat. The article is divided up into ten short segments, each focusing on a different aspect of the New City and how it works.


It's a quick read and there are plenty of graphics and diagrams throughout, I found it very interesting. And to think it could be finished by 2016. The future is practically here already!
     

How "Green" is your Thanksgiving going to be?

I'm not interested in politically correct meals, but the artist did a great job with the graphic, and the facts are mildly interesting.


Click on the image to see a larger version, or visit the source page at the Washington Post:

Greener, Step by Step

Is Carbon Dioxide actually our Friend?

In praise of CO2
With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green

[...] Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth -- the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe's biota was not even considered.

Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did -- on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

More from FP Oil Watch

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. [...]

The article goes on about the extensive benefits, including more abundant food. But if we are to believe radical leftists who claim that CO2 is a bad thing, what would it REALLY mean if we were seriously try to stop it? This next article tells us about the many sacred cows of the environmental movement that would be skewered by serious attempts to limit CO2:

Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green

[...]Winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism's sacred cows. We can afford to ignore neither the carbon-free electricity supplied by nuclear energy nor the transformational potential of genetic engineering. We need to take advantage of the energy efficiencies offered by urban density. We must accept that the world's fastest-growing economies won't forgo a higher standard of living in the name of climate science — and that, on the way up, countries like India and China might actually help devise the solutions the planet so desperately needs. [...]

The article goes on to give 10 Green Heresies that environmentalists need to embrace if they are serious about stopping greenhouse gases. You may find them shocking, even if you aren't "green"!