Posts Tagged ‘ environmentalism ’

CFL’s soon to replace incandescent bulbs

I’m fanatical about saving electricity.  When compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL’s) first appeared I knew they were ridiculously expensive but they promised to last two to three times longer and use almost a tenth of the electricity.   Naturally, I replaced every non-dimming light in my house.  I spent more than a hundred dollars  but I felt justified I’d make it up in the long-haul.

In truth since that day, about 3 years ago I’ve only replaced maybe half of the original bulbs.  I still don’t feel like I completely wasted my money.


A few weeks ago an old light fixture in my bathroom suddenly fell from the ceiling, shattering both the glass shade and CFL bulbs all around and on my feet.  Aside from being startled, I thought little about it.  I grabbed the vacuum and cleaned up the mess.  Little did I know I had been exposed to an element as toxic as lead.

Environmentalists and lefties, hang with me, this is serious stuff.  And TRUE. Continue reading

Well, Mr. President, you can stop looking

May 27 2010 WASHINGTON - MAY 27: U.S. President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference at the East Room of the White House May 27, 2010 in Washington, DC. Obama announced an extension on the moratorium for deepwater oil drilling for six months. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)  Content © 2010 Getty Images All rights reserved.I called it.  On May 6th I predicted the Obama administration would use the Gulf disaster to shut down domestic off-shore drilling.  As sure as the sun rose this morning Obama shut down all off-shore drilling.  Making America even more dependent on foreign oil, specifically, Middle Eastern oil.  (Funny how nearly everything this administration does somehow works in the favor of our enemies, while doing harm either to us or our traditional allies.)

The President is looking to kick some ass

Yesterday I listened as the news replayed a sound bite from the President.  Seated comfortably before NBC’s Matt Lauer, President Obama tried to screw up his best indignant tone as he remarked, “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.” Now I’m not going to harp on how presidential or not his language was.  It’s not germane to my point.  Rather I’d like to make my own observation. Continue reading

BP Rig Disaster Too Perfect

Last month in an effort to draw Conservatives and “moderate” Democrats to support (or at lease not vigorously oppose) his Cap & Trade Bill,  President Obama decided to permit limited oil drilling off the U.S. coast.  Almost instantly environmental groups were responding with outrage.

Environmentalists missed the point.  Being so focused upon the tree bark they can’t see the tree much less the forest.

President Obama never intended to allow significant oil drilling.  It was all a ploy to push through a huge energy tax that will eventually kill domestic oil drilling as well as what’s left of the American coal industry.

Nevertheless, left-wing nuts went crazy.  From where I sit it seems the President could have ignored them until enough back-room deals were cut to pass his so-called Cap & Trade bill, but the pressure mounted.  Then as if an answer to some environmentalist’s prayer; out of nowhere and perfectly timed, an oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico. Continue reading

Democrats defy logic and the public

At least we see people are starting to get it.  Unfortunately, the administration looks at polls and dismisses them.  They are undounted.  Let’s review:  Health care that will raise a family’s health insurance cost while at the same time requiring that coverage under penalty of prison is not welcome by the American public.  The administration and the leadership in Congress flip America the bird and push harder.  Global warming is revealed to be a hoax complete with intentionally destroyed data and explicit written evidence of number tampering.  Does the Administration pause and investigate?  No they defiantly press harder, seeking an international treaty that would crush what’s left of American industry, impose a global tax on Americans, then pour salt on U.S. industry by announcing CO² a hazardous waste to be regulated. Stand-by for the breathing tax, trust me it’s coming. Meanwhile unemployment remains in the double digits.  Does any of this create jobs for Americans?  Not really.

I’ll give Obama kudos, he does not craft his agenda by following polls.  President Clinton seemed obsessed, chasing  polls, however Obama seems obsessed by ideological fervor.  I’ve heard him called an empty suit and while I have not come to any solid conclusion on that, I doubt it.  I do believe he is a front man for greater powers, but I think he is completely in line with those who sponsor him.  He has a clear agenda to socialize America.  He was raised and mentored by communists, by his own admission he chose to associate himself with radicals and communist professors while in college, why then should it surprise anyone when his administrative agenda is aggressively socialist?

I’ll answer that.  I believe it is due to two things.  Continue reading

Can I recycle the last thirty years of my life?

Introducing Reedkeys of A Conservative Estimate.
Emails are like Zombies - just when you think they're dead, they come back and eat your brain.

Previously on my blog, I detailed the apparent fraud which has been exposed by the release of some material from the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit in Britain.  (You can read that one here.) For some of you, this may come as startling news, since virtually none of the old guard media have made much of this story.  I guess you can file this in the same file with Van Jones and ACORN.  But if the global warming hoax is officially over, it’s time to take count of all the changes we’ve made and how that might affect the rest of our lives.

I was more than a little chagrined when I started to realize all the things we have done in the name of protecting the environment over the last thirty years.  Continue reading

The day the earth stood still

For months now, I’ve desired to write a piece on the ridiculousness of the environmental movement.  There really is no way to truly satisfy this movement short of renouncing technology and returning to a state of primitive culture.  Naturally, such a move would also require a vast reduction in the human population as primitive cultivation techniques could not sustain the current population levels.  I truly don’t think environmentalists think through the ultimate consequences of what they seek.  Or do they?  With all the talk of Mao perhaps they have.  Besides, paraphrasing my favorite political philosopher, “a healthy planet comes through the barrel of a gun.”

The following reprint makes my points with nearly the sense of humor I would have employed.  The author is another anonymous blogger but interestingly from the other side of the political universe.  Although I wonder about that.  He tells us he’s not a conservative yet then he tells us he opposes “pretty much everything the President is doing.”  Well, I’ll let him pick it up now.

Reprint from Therefore I Think. (Slightly abridged.)
Human technology threatens the planet - time to go primative

Human technology threatens the planet

In his 2007 book “The World Without Us” author Alan Weisman hoped “…to produce a book about the present state of our planet that would be noticed and read by as wide an audience as possible…I’m grateful that its offbeat point of departure — seeing our world minus the distraction of ourselves — has worked so well…” [Emphasis mine.]  He talks about how the planet would “recover” once humanity is gone.  An interesting note is that one of the cover quotes praising the book is from the organizer of the demonstrations this last weekend.

Before I go any further, let me clarify a few assumptions some may be making, based on my previous posts and this one:

1. I am not a republican.

2. I am not a conservative.

3. I am not white.

4. And, despite my not agreeing with pretty much everything the President is doing, I am not a racist.

Back to the topic at hand:

So what are these people after?  They want to (as Ayn Rand once wrote) “return to the primitive.”  Many want an egalitarian society where someone’s need is a warrant on your life.  Pretty much all want to level the playing field, not by raising the standard of living where it is low, but by lowering the standard of living where it is high – i.e., advanced industrial nations like the U.S.  They want to take down capitalism because according to their altruistic morality, it is wrong or at best a necessary evil.

What makes me say this?  Let’s start with and their own view on global warming:

“Global warming is caused by releasing what are called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The most common greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Many of the activities we do every day like turn the lights on, cook food, or heat or cool our homes rely on energy sources like coal and oil that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.”

Everything that humans do has an impact on the environment.  To enjoy our high standard of living – from the lights we use to push back the darkness, to the vehicles we drive or fly to save time traveling, to the appliances we use to free up time to be with our family or work more productively, to cooking the food we eat with a stove rather than an open fire, to heating or cooling our homes so that we can be comfortable – these activities and many more create an “environmental footprint.”  So, basically every life-sustaining activity we humans do – including many of the things that have raised our life expectancy – is “bad for the environment.”  According to this premise, the earth would be better off if we were either dead or lived like our distant ancestors – and that is what is preferred.

Try and reduce your “footprint” by using cloth diapers and you get chastised for the excess water you’re using to clean them.  Use compact fluorescent bulbs to save energy and discover that they contain mercury.  Advocate for solar panels or wind mills to harness alternative energies (as inefficient and impractical at this point as they are) and get yelled at for trying to disturb ecosystems or pristine land.  You can’t win because environmental footprint is the measure by which nature is disturbed.  The less it is disturbed the better, so the more you disturb it by living like a human being, the more guilty you are.  Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Center likens this to the guilt of Original Sin – making one feel guilty for their very existence.

How about these ideas to reduce your carbon footprint:

– Victoria University’s research fellow Brenda Vale, an authority on “sustainable architecture,” recently co-authored the book “Time to Eat the Dog.”  The book looks at ways to “modify” behavior to save energy.  In September 2008, Ms. Vale told a Wellington city council in New Zealand “a big dog can have a carbon footprint that is the equivalent to a small car and therefore the best way forward, if you are going to have a pet, is to make sure it is edible.”  Vale says edible animals for pets like pigs, chickens, or rabbits would be better for the environment.

Time to meet your maker, Fido.

– But another study written in World Watch Magazine states that the carbon footprint of livestock (like chickens and pigs – see above) has been underestimated, and that the only true alternative to reduce your “carbon footprint” is to be a vegetarian.  If someone wants to be a vegetarian, go for it; I was a vegetarian for a couple of years and was fine.  Because I was having trouble gaining weight while on a work out regimen, I started to eat meat again; in other words if the choice is my health or that of an animal, I choose me.  Call me crazy.  Anyways, the kicker is the last sentence in the article:

“Unfortunately, meat consumption provides yet another illustration of the global inequalities and injustices associated with climate change, where consumption in industrialized countries directly degrades the quality of life in developing countries.” [Emphasis mine.]

This is very important because this is the premise (taken in a larger context away from just food consumption) of the environmentalist movement across the globe, and is the guiding principle in the ideas being floated for the climate treaty hoped to be agreed upon in December.

– Forget the animals; go to the source of the “footprint” problem says New York Times contributer Andrew Revkin.  During an October 14 climate panel he said:

As part of a cap and trade scheme, “if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate…shouldn’t there be a carbon value for that?”  He says further: “Probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children.”  He has blogged in the past: “More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.”

Do you really need any analysis of this point of view?  Yet it is absolutely consistent with the more “mainstream” ideas of environmentalism.  Nature = good.  Humans = bad.  He might as well say, “China’s got it right.  One child per couple.  After that I propose, for the good of the planet, forced sterilization.  Sacrifice your fertility to Mother Earth.”

As I’ve stated before, the current flurry of activity – from the campaign to the current climate bill moving its way through Congress (and backed by the President) is the climate conference in Copenhagen this December where many leaders hope to iron out a binding climate treaty.  At the very least they hope to lay the ground work for one later down the road.  President Obama is aiming for a treaty by the end of his first term.

A perfect analogy for all of this is Earth Hour.  On March 28, people in an estimated 1,000 cities in 80 countries turned out the lights for one hour; this included homes, office spaces, and national landmarks; non-essential lights is what they called it.  Begun in 2007, Earth Hour is supposed to bring awareness to our carbon footprint, dependence on energy, and global warming.

Here’s the House of Parliament in London before:

House of Parliament

Here’s the House of Parliament during Earth Hour:

House of Parliament after

It’s a great analogy to what they’re ultimately after: lights-out on our civilization.  It’s ironic (and hopefully not prophetic) that near the end of Atlas Shrugged, protagonist John Galt says that they (the men of the mind; the producers and creators on strike) would know when it was time to return to the world and when the collectivists’ experiment had run its course – when the lights of the world’s great cities had gone out.


Cavemen have small footprints

The future of humanity under extreme environmental policies

Final note from the editor:

Not exactly the future I envisioned for my kids, but hey, it’s about the smallest carbon footprint a human can have.  But wait, even cavemen produce waste, burn fuels, and kill animals.  These cavemen have obviously killed animals.  Tsk, Tsk. Vegan cavemen, now that would be better.  Naturally the ultimate environmentalist would like a planet devoid of humans but they’ll never admit it.

Brainwashing the young

I have long been aware that the public school system is committed to indoctrinating the youth of America into atheism and liberal ideals. Even though I have three children in school I never felt overly threatened. Perhaps I have been a bit too naive. As the school year wrapped up, I had a sudden and accidental revelation of what was going on. It seems the brainwashing of our youth is far more extensive and coordinated than I could have conceived or appreciated.

When my kids all ran around the house killing lights for “earth hour” I thought it was cute.  When they were shocked and outraged that Al Gore failed to turn his lights off I smiled.  When my oldest was polling his friends on recycling I thought nothing about it, we recycle.  It was all relatively off my radar.

In the waning weeks of school my ninth grade son (the oldest) was stressing over two papers he needed to write for school.  The first concerned rising global sea levels.  He was to write a paper detailing how high sea level will rise over the next 50 years and how this will effect coastal populations in cities such as Miami, New York, and Los Angeles.  I rolled my eyes and simply quipped, “That’ll be easy, just tell her it ain’t gonna happen.  If it does people are pretty ingenious, they will build dikes and seawalls.  We’re only talking about 6″ right?”  He mumbled something and began to walk off.  I then asked what the second paper was on.  He stopped, looked at me, then glanced away while softly saying, “Recycling.”  I believe in recycling but I was beginning to realize it was part of the brainwashing.

Later in the week my third grader was sitting at the dinner table when he launched into a monologue about global warming.  He was stunned when I told him that I believe that while humans may be contributing to climate change, it is far less than what happens in nature.   A single volcano or a change in sunspot activity will do more than 50 years of human activity.  Confused he began regurgitating what multiple teachers had crammed into his little mind.  All I could think was how those damn dinosaurs must have screwed the environment to get global temperatures so far up.

Axe treeOn the last day of school, spying a tree that was increasingly leaning on my house, I decided it was time to take action.  I grabbed an axe and decided to take it down the old fashioned way. By the way, it’s a method that is 100% environmentally friendly! An hour later I was still whacking away and wondering if I had spent enough time sharpening the axe before starting this task, when my second grade daughter came skipping down the street.  When she spotted me she charged over and with fists firmly pressing hips, she demanded, “Dad! What are you doing!  You are destroying the PLANET!  If you chop down the trees, we won’t have any AIR to BREATH!”  The look on her face reminded me of my mother when I did something especially bad.  The scene humored me and I calmly replied, “Don’t worry honey, I’m replacing it with a car.”  With that she spun on her little heel and marched off.

My two younger children attend public school in the most conservative county in the red state of Georgia, but my oldest attends a private school.  All three children, across seven grades and two school systems, were spending the last half of the school year being heavily indoctrinated regarding global warming.  They are not simply learning the science of “climate change,” no, they are being terrorized by the threat of global disasters.

My ninth grader was given a website as part of his “climate change” research.  GWEN is the Global Warming Education Network.  The organization is commited to spreading the word of global warming and global doom.  The website contains some misleading and even incorrect information.  Most notably it makes the claim that “China and many other nations are far ahead of the United States in climate preservation. China is actually doing more to slow global warming than you might imagine…”  China is currently creating massive environmental disasters in its quest to become the world’s leading industrial power.  The scale of environmental damage in China is unparalleled in world history.  The New York Times reported in 2007 that “ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.”  The Council on Foriegn Relations, hardly a conservative group said, “China surpassed the United States as the largest global emitter of greenhouse gases by volume.”  Yet, GWEN twists the facts to say, “China has much lower carbon dioxide emissions than the United States (on both a per capita and a total basis.)”  The CFR clearly contradicts GWEN.  I feel safe in calling GWEN liars.

So why does GWEN and the public school system teach that the U.S. is the worst polluter in the world?  Simple they want to mold the future voting block.  They want to ensure that the fear of global warming and the outrage over American pollution is so deeply embedded that environmentalist objectives will be guaranteed.  Now certainly we should take care of the environment and efforts should be made to keep our air, water, and land clean and healthy.  I object to the fear being instilled in children.

atomic blastI grew up in the 1970s and 80s.  It was the height of the cold war and I was told often and emphatically, that Word War III could start at any moment.  In fact the lyrics of a song I enjoyed during my high school years proclaimed, “It will happen JUST DON’T THINK ABOUT IT !!!”  I had a recurring dream between the ages of 14 and 23.  In this dream I was standing on Tampa Bay looking toward MacDill AFB when a bright flash blinds me momentarily and then I watch as a huge mushroom cloud rapidly rises above me.  This was followed by a violent hot wind that always woke me.

I recall a high school teacher commenting during a Sociology class, “The only way we will avoid nuclear war is for you to grow up, register to vote, and vote for representatives who will make peace with the Soviet Union.”  The premise was clear, the United States was the threat to world peace NOT the Soviet Union.

Today, the message is basically unchanged.  The United States is the cause for Islamic radicalism, the United States is the reason for global poverty, and United States is the greatest threat to the global environment.  I know conservative talk show hosts like to talk about the “Blame America First Crowd,” but it’s a fact, many liberals actually do blame America for every ill in the world.  Certainly, we are not perfect but we are not the source of every world problem.  Teaching children that we are bad, promotes self loathing and is ultimately detrimental to the nation.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that people, (and politicians in particular,) do not act unless a problem is an eminent danger.  I believe this is the premise under which environmentalist activists are operating.  Educators are actively engaged in psychological manipulation of the youth in an effort to achieve their political goals.  Environmental problems are a long-term problem and not an eminent threat as portrayed by Al Gore.  Didn’t Gore discredit himself when in 2008 he claimed the north pole would be gone in five years?  Yet his Inconvenient Truth was referenced in my ninth grader’s studies.

We’ve made such progress, haven’t we?  In the 1950s we reassured children that they could survive a nuclear war by taking cover under their desks.  The goal was not to scare children but promote a happy healthy childhood.  By the time I was in high school that idea had given way to “scare-the-crap-out-of-the-kids-so-they’ll-grow-up-liberal.”  Today brainwashing children through scare tactics is a tradition and a proud cornerstone of the U.S. education system.  Or so it seems to me.

Conservatives oppose the environmental agenda for many reasons, such as potentially higher taxes, the threat to national sovereignty, increased global poverty, potential global starvation, reduced economic growth, and more.  But what offends me most is that these people are toying with the emotions of children in their efforts to achieve social engineering.  They are using science to promote an agenda and they are enhancing that science with fear and questionable “facts”.  That point was made clear to me when one of my children expressed fear that some day there might not be any air left to breath.

%d bloggers like this: