Obama to Award “Green Ribbon Schools” for Teaching Kids Environmentalist Propaganda

Obama to Award “Green Ribbon Schools” for Teaching Kids
Environmentalist Propaganda

May 18th, 2011

Penny Starr, CNSNews.com

Next year on Earth Day, the Obama administration plans to announce which U.S.
schools have been selected as “Green Ribbon Schools,” a designation that will
“honor” schools for “creating healthy and sustainable learning environments” and
for “teaching environmental literacy.”

The Green Ribbon Schools program was announced
in late April, but details on how schools will be picked or what the honor
entails have not been released.

Jo Ann Webb, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, told
CNSNews.com that the program is still under development.

“The criteria have not been developed yet,” Webb said. “The plan is for the
U.S. Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Council for Environmental Quality to develop the criteria this spring and summer
and to issue the call for applications early this fall.

Webb said the program would recognize schools for “engaging students on
environmental issues and producing environmentally literate students; increasing
energy efficiency and using renewable energy technologies; and creating healthy
learning environments by addressing environmental issues in the schools.”

Webb said approximately 50 Green Ribbon schools could be named on Earth Day
2012. In announcing the program, Obama administration officials touted the
importance of environmentalism as part of a good education.

“Preparing our children to be good environmental citizens is some of the most
important work any of us can do,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said
when he announced the new program last month. “It’s work that will serve future
generations and quite literally sustain our world.”

Read
more
.

Sometimes, being green just isn’t healthy

Sometimes, being green just isn’t healthy

Ethel C. Fenig

After governments have been phasing out incandescent light bulbs as energy hogs causing climate change in favor of expensive, mercury loaded, twisty bulbs which give off a harsh, flickering light which supposedly use less energy, some scientists have not so surprisingly discovered “they can release potentially harmful amounts of mercury if broken.”

Also:

Levels of toxic vapour around smashed eco-bulbs were up to 20 times higher than the safe guideline limit for an indoor area, the study said.

It added that broken bulbs posed a potential health risk to pregnant women, babies and small children.

Also, the energy saving bulbs’ subtly flickering harsh light can be dangerous:

Medical charities say they can trigger epileptic fits, migraines and skin rashes and have called for an ‘opt out’ for vulnerable people.

Other than these dire health hazards, the bulbs are just fine according to environmentalists, who just don’t seem to care–or know–that mercury is not good for the environment.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/sometimes_being_green_just_isn.html at December 23, 2010 – 10:54:39 AM CST

Al Gore’s Green Blasphemy

 

Al Gore’s Green Blasphemy

Posted
By Rich Trzupek On November 23, 2010 @ 12:45 am In FrontPage | 10
Comments

Back in 1994,
vice-president of the United States Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote that
started us on the long road of taking American farms out of food production and
converting them to fuel production. While conservatives and libertarians argued
at the time that subsidizing ethanol production made no economic or
environmental sense, Gore and his green allies were certain that bio-fuels
would solve all the nation’s woes. Sixteen years later, Mr. Gore has apparently
seen the light, admitting that America’s rush to embrace corn
ethanol has been something of a mistake.

Here is what
Vice President Al Gore had to say [1] about his role in subsidizing
ethanol, while speaking at the Farm Journal conference back in 1998:

I was also
proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the
Congress — at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save
it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used
product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be.

Contrast that
with what the vice-president is quoted as saying in this report from Fox [2], statements he made while
he was attending a recent green energy conference held in Athens, Greece:

It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation
ethanol. First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion
ratios are at best very small. One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I
paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee,
and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa
because I was about to run for president. The size, the percentage of corn
particularly, which is now being (used for) first-generation ethanol definitely
has an impact on food prices. The competition with food prices is real.

While it’s
nice to hear that the hero of the environmental movement has embraced reality,
Gore’s conversion has come far too late. When Gore cast his critical vote in
1994, the bio-fuels industry produced about 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol each
year from less than fifty plants. Sixteen years
later
[3], as a direct result of government subsidies and tax
breaks, over a hundred new corn ethanol plants have been built and the amount
of ethanol produced in the United States has increased by almost an order of
magnitude, topping
10.5 billion gallons
[3] in 2009. Private investors have
invested tens of billions of dollars to build today’s massive corn ethanol
infrastructure and the government has invested tens of billions more to ensure
that it remains in place. Had Gore faced facts in 1994, the public and private
sectors could have used those funds more wisely and more profitably elsewhere.
But now? Having made this huge investment, the pain of admitting defeat,
suffering our losses and walking away from corn ethanol may be too much to
bear.

Congress has
to decide whether or not to renew the current $7.7 billion corn-ethanol subsidy
by the end of the year. On the one hand, it seems madness to prolong a fuel
industry that – at best – can only generate a bit more energy than it consumes
(and more often less), that takes cropland out of food and feed production and,
as result, raises the prices and lowers the availability of food. A 2007 Department of Agriculture report [4] clearly
outlined the effects of subsidizing corn ethanol: a steady decrease in food
production, concurrent decreases in agricultural exports and rising costs of
food products.

As distasteful
as it may be to bite the bullet and end corn-ethanol subsidies, the alternative
may be even more unpalatable to Congress. Demanding that the corn-ethanol
industry stand on its own two feet would result in the closure of dozens of
plants, the loss of thousands of jobs, writing off billions of dollars of
losses and finding new sources of petroleum to replace the billions of gallons
of ethanol that Americans put in their gas tanks each year. Both options are
painful, and while a free market advocate like me would advocate cutting our
losses, learning a painful lesson and moving beyond ethanol, Congress may not
be so inclined. The benefits of ending the ethanol subsidy are long-term and
market-driven. Few politicians are motivated to action by that big a picture,
particularly when the short-term damage can be so devastating to their careers.
How can even the most staunchly conservative farm-belt congressman face his
constituents after voting to end ethanol subsidies? If and when subsidies end,
farm income will drop, the property value of farms will plummet and thousands
of workers employed in the ethanol industry will find themselves on the
streets, looking for work in the worst economic climate since the Great
Depression.

The fact that
Al Gore has finally come to grips with corn-ethanol reality is a remarkable
development, but his conversion has probably come far too late to be of any
real value. The policies that he promoted throughout much of his political
career have come home to roost and the economic damage that those policies have
done is undeniable. Gore – more than anyone else – helped to create the
renewable energy monster that saps our nation’s resources and undermines our
prosperity today. Having profited handsomely from those efforts, the ex-vice
president’s belated mea culpa has fallen incredibly flat.

Al Gore’s growing carbon footprint

Al Gore’s growing carbon footprint

Thomas Lifson

The environmental impact of Al Gore is growing faster than his waistline. The warmist con game has been very lucrative for the king of carbon credits. He and Tipper have just added to their collection of energy-gobbling homes with a nearly 9 million dollar 5 bedroom, 9 bath Italian-style villa in the celebrity-studded coastal enclave of Montecito, California, home to Oprah Winfry and many other celebrities. Al certainly likes living large. The home comes complete with 6 fireplaces. How are Al and Tip going to use them without generating carbon dioxide?

Keeping the house functional while Al and family are on their private jet or in any of their other houses will eat up energy and resources.
Of course, as Ed Lasky notes, the Democrats are supposed to be for the little people. No doubt there are homeless people in Santa Barbara, next to Montecito, who really need shelter more than the Gores, who have other lavish residences. Let them eat carbon credits?
Hat tip: Ed Lasky

The weatherization boondoggle, redux

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

The weatherization boondoggle, redux

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 8, 2010 08:51 AM

I’ve covered the Green Jobs boondoggle many times here over the past year (see, for example, 4/13/09 “Spain’s green jobs boondoggle;” 12/15/09, “Here comes Cash for Caulkers (again!); Update: Obama: “Insulation is sexy”; 1/7/10 “Green Jobs” = SEIU/Union Jobs;” 1/8/10, “Here comes another multi-billion-dollar Green Jobs boondoggle,” 3/2/10, “A wind power cautionary tale”). Here’s yet more evidence of the federal weatherization scam, via the Associated Press:

After a year of crippling delays, President Barack Obama’s $5 billion program to install weather-tight windows and doors has retrofitted a fraction of homes and created far fewer construction jobs than expected.

In Indiana, state-trained workers flubbed insulation jobs. In Alaska, Wyoming and the District of Columbia, the program has yet to produce a single job or retrofit one home. And in California, a state with nearly 37 million residents, the program at last count had created 84 jobs…

…”This is the beginning of the next industrial revolution with the explosion of clean energy investments,” said assistant U.S. Energy Secretary Cathy Zoi. “These are good jobs that are here to stay.”

But after a year, the stimulus program has retrofitted 30,250 homes — about 5 percent of the overall goal — and fallen well short of the 87,000 jobs that the department planned, according to the latest available figures.

As the Obama administration promotes a second home energy-savings program — a $6 billion rebate plan — some experts are asking whether that will pay off for homeowners or for the planet.

Shhhh. Don’t speak too loudly about the actual consequences of Democrat spending bonanzas.

Remember: Henry “Chief Inquisitor” Waxman is listening…

***

Related: Your Stimulus Dollars at Work- Going to the Same ‘Ol “Community Action Groups.” (hat tip – reader Tom)

The folly of rushing into green energy schemes

The folly of rushing into green energy schemes

Ed Lasky

Environmentalists, renewable energy advocates, and solar energy promoters tout the supposed benefits of solar energy. We know the problems: inefficient conversion of sunrays into electricity, intermittent energy generation, the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reflex that prevents power lines and solar farms from being built; and the need for massive subsidies that would be better spent in other ways to generate power.

Even environmentalists have opposed massive solar farms that disrupt the ecology. Now comes another example of the manifold problems that result when promoters and politicians get together to concoct a solar power venture. This time, the place is a small town in Spain and the time is now:

Two years ago, this gritty mining city hosted a brief 21st-century gold rush. Long famous for coal, Puertollano discovered another energy source it had overlooked: the relentless, scorching sun.Armed with generous incentives from the Spanish government to jump-start a national solar energy industry, the city set out to replace its failing coal economy by attracting solar companies, with a campaign slogan: “The Sun Moves Us.”

Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain.

Farmers sold land for solar plants. Boutiques opened. And people from all over the world, seeing business opportunities, moved to the city, which had suffered from 20 percent unemployment and a population exodus.

But as low-quality, poorly designed solar plants sprang up on Spain’s plateaus, Spanish officials came to realize that they would have to subsidize many of them indefinitely, and that the industry they had created might never produce efficient green energy on its own.

In September the government abruptly changed course, cutting payments and capping solar construction. Puertollano’s brief boom turned bust. Factories and stores shut, thousands of workers lost jobs, foreign companies and banks abandoned contracts that had already been negotiated.

Even the New York Times owns up to the prospect this “cautionary tale” holds for America.

Subsidies fed the boom, which was unsustainable because solar energy is inefficient and uneconomic.

To encourage development of solar power and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, Europe has generally relied on so-called feed-in tariffs, through which governments pay a hefty premium for electricity from renewable resources. Regulators in the United States have favored less direct incentives like requiring municipalities to buy a percentage of their electricity from companies making renewable energy, although a few cities and states, most notably Vermont, are experimenting with the feed-in concept.

When it was announced in the summer of 2007, Spain’s premium payment for solar power was the most generous anywhere – 58 cents per kilowatt-hour – with few strings attached.

But many of the hastily opened plants offered no hope of being cost-competitive with conventional power, being poorly designed or located where sunshine was inadequate, for example.

America has seen this story before. When ethanol became the rage due to mandates and subsidies, ethanol plants bloomed across the Midwest (helped by the fact that politicians like to cultivate the political landscape there). Now many have gone bust, scientists have come to doubt that there is any net energy savings in ethanol production, corn prices shot up thereby making food more expensive; fertilizer needed to grow corn has leached into water tables, streams and rivers; and the thirsty corn crop has helped to deplete aquifers.

We don’t need lessons from across the ocean to teach us the folly of rushing into so-called green energy schemes. We have them in our own backyard.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers