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
.

“We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”

THIS IS REALLY GOOD! SEND TO ALL YOUR
KIDS & GRANDKIDS
In the line at
the store, the young cashier told the older woman that she should
bring her own
reusable grocery bags because
plastic bags weren’t good for
the

environment…….
The woman
apologized and explained,
“We didn’t have the green thing back
in my day.”
The clerk responded,
“That’s what’s caused our problems today.
Your generation wasn’t green and
did not care enough to save our environment.”

He was right, that
generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

Back
then
, they  returned their milk
bottles, soda bottles and beer
bottles to the store.

The store sent them back to
the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled,
so it could use the
same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But they didn’t have the green thing
back in that customer’s day.
In her day, they walked up stairs, because they
didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building.
They walked to the grocery
store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower
machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn’t have the green thing in
her day.

Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because
they didn’t have the throw-away kind.

They dried clothes on a line, not in an
energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really did dry the
clothes.

Kids got hand-me-down
clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new
clothing.

But that old lady is right,
they didn’t have
the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the  house – not a TV
in every room.

And the TV had a small screen the size of a
handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana .

In the
kitchen
, blended
and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric machines to do everything for
you.

When they packaged a
fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion
it,
not Styrofoam or
plastic bubble wrap.
Back
then
, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline
just to cut the
lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power.

They exercised by working so they
didn’t need to go to a health club
to run on treadmills that operate on
electricity.

But she’s right, they
didn’t have the green thing back then.
They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty
instead of using a cup or a plastic
bottle every time they had a drink of water.

They
refilled

their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the
razor blades in a razor
instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got
dull.
“But they didn’t have the
green thing back then.”
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and
kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a
24-hour taxi service.

They had one electrical outlet in a
room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.
And they didn’t need a computerized gadget
to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out  in space in order to
find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn’t it sad that the current
generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn’t have the green thing
back then?

‘Just words,’ Mr. President?

‘Just words,’ Mr. President?

Ed Lasky

 

Are these ‘just words,” President Obama?
Barack Obama

“Under my plan of cap and trade plan makes electricity rates will necessarily
skyrocket”‘; “coal powered plants, natural gas, you name it..whatever the plants
were…they will have to retrofit their operations..that will cost money and
they will have to pass those costs onto consumers”

And are these just
words?

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it
will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that
greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Your Interior Secretary, who has done your bidding and placed one roadblock
after another in the way of developing our own massive energy resources, stated
in 2008
that he was opposed to opening up off-shore areas to new oil and gas
drilling even if the price per gallon of gasoline hit $10 per gallon.
Mr. President-are these ” Just Words”?
Also, President Obama, your Secretary of Energy (who, like Salazar, has been
busy trying to turn off the spigot to our own oil and gas supplies), called for
gasoline to cost $8
per gallon-
to push it up to European levels
Mr. President, are these “Just Words”?
Thank you in advance, Mr. President, for the answers I am sure are coming and
will be prefaced by “let me be clear”.

With border in chaos, J-Nap proclaims “environmental justice” a priority

With border in chaos, J-Nap proclaims “environmental justice” a priority

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 17, 2010 10:09 AM

Photoshop credit: Another Black Conservative
It is now day three of the hunt for one of the suspects in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
The Arizona Republic reports:
As the manhunt for a fifth individual in the shooting death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry stretched into its third day, local law enforcement continued to scour the rugged terrain in Santa Cruz County while federal officials provided few details on the crime or suspects in custody.
…Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said the FBI has custody of the suspects.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano visited border areas Thursday as part of a previously scheduled visit to the region.
Napolitano’s team referred requests for comment to the FBI.
Napolitano met with Estrada Thursday afternoon.
Before the meeting, Estrada said he planned to ask Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, to continue providing federal support for local law-enforcement agencies fighting illegal immigration.
Estrada said his message to Napolitano would be clear: “Obviously she’s concerned about what happened, and obviously she’s committed to make things safe for the people who work here along the border and the residents as well.”
That wasn’t obvious to several law enforcement officials in Arizona whom J-Nap refused to meet.
Nor is it obvious given the warped priorities she laid out a recent White House environmental justice conference. Yes, environmental justice.
Carter Wood at Shopfloor has the scoop. Be sure to click on the link for access to the full, nausea-inducing transcript:
This isn’t necessarily surprising rhetoric to have come the “environmental justice” crowd, but it’s alarming to hear at the White House. And it’s just weird to hear Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, describe her department’s focus on environmental justice and climate adaptation. (Audio, our transcript):
So as we look at climate change, the climate change that we are in, and think about the environmental phenomenon that is happening in the course of our own lives, we translate that into increased drought. We translate that into increased likelihood of wildfires, particularly catastrophic fires in the West, we translate that into more category four and five hurricanes, and that affects communities around the gulf but also up and down the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific as well, and other natural occurrences that are affected by changes in climate.

Changes in climate really translate into huge environmental changes that have impacts on communities and also on national security, because they raise not only the issues of making sure that we are taking into account and caring for the most at-risk populations, but that we are also looking at and planning for the potentiality of mass migrations, demographic changes, patterns, concentrations of economic assets, population growth in different areas, deteriorating infrastructure. All of this gets knit together under this umbrella of climate change and environmental adaptation.

That’s an expansive, expensive agenda, isn’t it? We thought Congress formed the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively address imminent threats to the American people, priorities like fighting terrorism, controlling our borders, and handling security at our ports and airports. Turns out the Department is instead working on EVERYTHING!
And remember that this is all happening as Democrats try to push through a land grab that would undermine the already imperiled enforcement efforts at the border and an illegal alien student bailout that would encourage more illegal immigration.
Heckuva job, J-Nap. Heckuva job.

Inhofe Says EPA’s New Boiler Rule Could Kill Nearly 800,000 Manufacturing Jobs

The top Republican on a Senate environmental panel released a scathing report Tuesday that he contends shows that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed rule on cleaning up boilers nationwide could devastate America’s manufacturing base and imperil hundreds of thousands of jobs without providing any real public health or environmental benefits.

If you own a home or want to buy one – must read this!

 If you own a home or want to buy one – must read this!
 
 
  Don’t want to be bothered with “Political stuff?”  You’d better  read this one. It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren’t  informed as to what Obama is up to, and it has already passed one  hurdle.  It will take very little now to put it into actual law!!  YOU’D BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!
 
 So you think you live in a free country.
 
 Boy have you got a surprise coming.
 
 A License Required for your HOUSE?
 
 If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end  of this email is the Google link to verify.  If the country thinks  the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees  this. No one will be buying homes in the future.
 
 We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill  that has passed the House of Representatives and are being  considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on  Washington ! This Congress and their “experts” are truly out to  destroy the middle class of the U.S.A.
 
 A License will be required for your house…no longer just for  cars and mobile homes….Thinking about selling your house?  Take  a look at H.R. 2454  (Cap and Trade bill).  This is unbelievable!  Home owners take note and tell your friends and relatives who are  home owners!
 
 Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you  won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply  with the energy and water efficiency standards of this  “Cap &  Trade” bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also  passed by the Senate, it will be the largest tax increase any of  us has ever experienced.
 
 The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan)  estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every  family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.  However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets,  you can be sure that these voters will get a tax refund (even if  they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr.  And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax  dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else..
 
 But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually  read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is  this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house without  some bureaucrat’s OK. Yes, you read that right.
 
 The caveat (there always is a caveat) is that if you have enough  money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can  sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes  (“mobile homes”) are included. In effect, this bill prevents you  from selling your home without the permission of the EPA  administrator.
 
 To get this permission, you will have to have the energy  efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell  you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be  required to make modifications to your home under the retrofit  provisions of this Act, to comply with the new energy and water  efficiency requirements.
 
 Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a  license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your  property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the  Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air  conditioner. If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell.
 
 And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards  every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases  built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the  President, will run the Cap & Trade program  (AKA the “American  Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”) and is authorized to make  any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone  determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements  are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. Then the  Administrator can set new standards every year.
 
 The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy  efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.  However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any  time. Sect. 202 – Building Retrofit Program mandates a national  retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing  homes across America.
 
 Beginning one year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able  to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with its energy  and water efficiency standards. You had better sell soon, because  the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard  (expen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody!
 
 The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several  thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements  IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State  can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the  grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an  income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be  more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle  class (that includes YOU?) and prevent you from qualifying for the  grants.
 
 Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost  of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth,  more “change you can believe in.” Sect. 204 – Building Energy  Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that  for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy  efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential  market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
 
 This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the  U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get  $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of  the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to  help the EPA. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on  coming up with tougher standards each year…
 
 Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be  required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home  and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this  label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be  required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.
 
 But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy  efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.  Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they  first started: that in California? It would only cost $15. That  was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the  inspection and certificate.
 
  Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 –  Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy  efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates  at 304(d) that one year after enactment of this Act, all state and  local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy  efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the  federal government that their state and/or local codes have been  brought into full compliance with the National Building Code  energy efficiency standards.
 
 CHECK OUT a few of the sites;
 
 Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
http://www.nachi.  org/forum/ f14/cap-and- trade-license- required- your-home- 44750/
 
 HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act:  http:// http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ bill.xpd? bill=h111- 2454
 
 Cap & Trade A license required for your home: http:// http://www.prisonplanet.com/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your- home.html
 
 Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal:
 
http://www.sfexamin er.com/opinion/ columns/oped_ contributors/  Cap-and-trade- is-a-license- to-cheat- and-steal- 45371937. html
 Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home: http:// http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts
 
 Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454:
 
 
http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling- your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/
 
 http://www.google.com/ search?hl= en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859- 1&q=A+License + required+ for+your+ home-+Cap+ and+Trade&btnG=Google+ Search

More on biofuels

More on biofuels

reader response

I have to respond to the article from Mr Meyer regarding his support of biofuels. Mr Meyer neglects to mention a few things about biofuels. I will make myself perfectly clear and say that I am no fan of biofuels, especially ethanol, as I consider alcohols, except for maybe nitromethanol (which is only really useful in drag racing) to be perfectly horrid motor fuels. The reasons follow:

 

1. There is less energy in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of gasoline. Ethanol has 76,000 btu’s per gallon and gasoline has 144,000 btu’s per gallon. This means you get much less fuel mileage using alcohol.

 

2. Transportation. While gasoline can be transported using pipelines, ethanol cannot and must be trucked using special tankers. This is much more inefficient than using our network of pipelines.

 

3. Alcohol based fuels are a net energy negative. It takes more energy to distill alcohol than the energy it provides. So in producing it, you save nothing and in fact cost the world market energy.

 

4. Lastly, despite Mr Meyer’s protestations aside, diverting what would normally grown as feed corn and human food WILL have an effect on overall prices. If world wide demand is rising and there is less of a product, the price rises. he is correct in saying it is not the ONLY factor, but it is still a factor.

 

5. Alcohol based fuels are hygroscopic. They will absorb water and therefore have a very short shelf life vs gasoline, While this not so much a problem with a daily driver, you won’t be too happy storing your lawnmower or classic car with a tank full of alcohol. In fact, race engine that are designed to burn alcohols are stored “pickled” (run for a short time with gasoline to coat the parts) in order to avoid corrosion and water.

 

6. Volatility. Ethanol is more volatile than gasoline, which means it will evaporate at a much lower temperature than gasoline. This means more of it will get sent into the atmosphere than will gasoline under the same conditions. This means that ethanol can pollute MORE than will gasoline.

 

7. Here is another point about alcohol based fuels noone has considered. Being grown, Our fuel “independence” would then be subject to the whims of mother nature. Floods, drought, disease would all play a factor in the price and supply of our newest fuel source.

 

Despite the protestations of the environmental whackos, and those with a financial stake in the industry, using alcohol based fuels is a bad deal for all of us.

 

Jim Caron

 

 

Hot Air and Soaring Gas Prices

Hot Air and Soaring Gas Prices

By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/5/2008

In case you haven’t noticed, gas prices are soaring, hiking the cost of food and just about everything else. If you believe Hillary Clinton, the blame for all this lies on the shoulders of those greedy oil companies and their bloated profit margins, a notion that like just about every other snake-oil remedy she tries to peddle is simply not the case.

We’re in the mess in which we find ourselves because of a small handful of people with the money and the power to inflict grievous harm on their fellow humans, whom they just happen to despise.

It’s about time for you and your fellow Americans to know just who they are and what they are doing to all of us in the name of saving the planet that for millions of years has shown to be perfectly capable of saving itself without their help.

If you are really sick and tired of $4.00 gasoline, really sick of being dependent on foreign oil, and equally as sick of seeing your food bills go up, the conventional wisdom would lead you to blame the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But that’s a waste of time, as is blaming George Bush or the oil companies.

None of them make environmental policy. That policy is set by three individuals two who are located in New York City. If you want to drill in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico or in the continental U.S. — where billions of gallons of petroleum are just waiting to be tapped — or build refineries, these three people stand in your way.

They are John Flicker of the National Audubon Society, Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Trip Van Noppen of the organization Earthjustice.

Flicker and Beinecke both live and work in New York City where they probably don’t own cars, and they are happy that you have to spend more and more of your budget on food and fuel. You are being punished for being Americans.

Van Noppen runs Earthjustice from Oakland, California. None of these three is in touch with America. They hate America, they hate you. And they want your gas to cost $8.00 a gallon.

Earlier this year they filed a lawsuit to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska. This is just a leading tactic in their arsenal. All of you need to call these three and demand that they get out of the way and stop impeding our rights to find and drill for petroleum here in North America. After all, if the Chinese are drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, shouldn’t we be allowed to do so too?

They must be made to feel pressure — the pressure you feel every day when you juggle your budget to cope with rising prices. These three people set energy policy in this country. They order Reid and Pelosi to do their bidding, and thanks to them and their allies in the radical environmental movement we are getting economically weaker.


Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

http://pointriderrepublican.typepad.com/pr/2008/04/gores-greendom.html

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

As Al Green Gore stands and stares at his salt water tropical fish tanks, people around the world are STARVING because it has become so expensive to send them food.

Al Green thumb is out of touch with everyday reality:

 

“Governments that were quick to switch to biofuels are just as quickly having to think again.

Biofuels were promoted as an effective weapon in the battle against climate change, but some blame the increased demand for them for a world crisis in the cost of food.

Earlier this month a doubling in the price of rice caused riots in Egypt and Haiti, and the World Bank has warned the increased cost of food will push 100-million people deeper into poverty.

But aid groups say that although biofuels have played a part, they’re not the only reason that food prices continue to rise.

Paula Kruger reports.

PAULA KRUGER: It now costs $800-million more to feed the world’s poorest than it did a year ago.

The head of the United Nations World Food Program Josette Sheeran says the rising cost of food is a silent tsunami.

JOSETTE SHEERAN: The price of rice for example has risen from March 3rd at $460 a metric tonne to over $1000 a metric tonne just last week. So in seven weeks we’ve seen a doubling of prices for us to purchase food to fill this cup. This is really a crisis for the world’s most vulnerable.

PAULA KRUGER: The doubling of the price of rice prompted protests and violent riots in Haiti and Egypt earlier this month. There has also been food riots in several other African countries along with Indonesia and the Philippines. The violence is expected to spread as the crisis continues.

But what is causing the massive surge in food prices? New laws have just come into effect in the UK requiring that all petrol and diesel be at least two-and-a-half per cent biofuel. That target is expected to increase to five per cent by 2010 as part of efforts to make transport fuels more environmentally friendly.”

Effects Of Global Food Crisis Being Felt In GTA With High Prices

Biofuels contributing to food crisis

High Food Prices: A Silent Tsunami, Affecting Every Continent

Rising food prices a global threat

Going green on an UNPROVEN THEORY of global warming is GUTTING THE POOR.

Which threat is immediate and killing people as I write?

Starvation because of the price of biofuels or global warming?

People are DYING daily because of the price of wheat, rice and other assorted grains as Al Gore and global warming cult followers stare at tropical fish and push a THEORY.

Global warming is a THEORY, NOT FACT.

It has been discredited by a number of scientists and no one can hear them over the global warming CULT screams.

And people are STARVING TO DEATH over a Global Gorey Theory.

A global warming movie showing a detaching iceberg was a STYROFOAM FAKE.

People starving TODAY is a FACT.

A top weather scientist in my state was demoted by our democratic governor for debunking global green geeks….

Now go figure.

Earth First! (People Later)

Earth First! (People Later)

By David Bueche

I drove by a Protestant church recently that had the following moral exhortation on their lawn marquee:

“Saving the world, one light-bulb at a time.”

 

Wow!  Talk about a test of faith.  Don’t think you’re going to slide through the gates of heaven without renouncing Satan’s bulbs — not a chance!

 

Later that week a Liberal friend asked me, “Do you believe in global warming?”  As I contemplated my answer I was struck with conflicting images – a Senate sub-committee, and a child asking about Santa.  To his credit, he stuck with me through my multi-part response.  To wit:

 

  1. The world has been warming since approximately 1650 when it reached its latest low and almost dipped into a modern Ice Age.  This episode is well-recorded and notable for its misery as crop yields declined, economic activity contracted, and people were generally extremely cold.  On the lighter side…  you could ice skate on the Thames.  But all in all, not a good trend…
  2. The world is now the same temperature as it was in 1000 A.D.  We’ve basically climbed out of the trough that we descended into for 650 years and now enjoy the same general climate as feudal rulers and Vikings a millennium ago.   (“Beautiful day wouldn’t you say Erik?  This is pillaging weather Gefhert – pass me that mace!”)
  3. Theoretically, there is some incredibly complex formula that explains weather, temperature and climate.  We will probably never comprehend it in any great detail in the lifetimes of any of us. If ever.
  4. Since we’ve only been in the carbon footprint game for a short period, there are obviously other big levers which control climate, (as evidenced by the repeated warming and cooling of the planet — the majority of which preceded humans entirely). 
  5. If you were omniscient and could see this formula, there would probably be a legitimate factor in the equation representing human emission of CO2 through industrial processes and agriculture.  It is quite possible that this factor is a very minor influence on the equation as a whole.
  6. It is our influence on this possibly trivial climatic input that is being debated. 
I asked what brought all this to mind.  In short, why the long face?

 

What followed was the standard global warming litany: Crop failures, rising tides, malaria in Vermont, people dying of heatstroke during the endless summer, etc., etc., etc…

 

I countered each point with one of two arguments:

 

  • This problem already exists and can be solved more efficiently by directly focusing on it than by attempting to manipulate the global climate – (For example, malaria can currently be eradicated for pennies on the dollar, and will never be a problem in Vermont)
  • This “problem” is not really a problem at all.  It either doesn’t exist, or is the lesser of two possible outcomes. (For example, a warmer world will cause a slightly higher incidence in summer heatstroke, which will be completely negated by the decrease in winter deaths due to cold.  The modeling that’s been done, [for what its worth], actually shows an overall net decrease in mortality in the “warmer world” scenario due to the fact that humans adapt more readily to heat than cold).
At some point along the way I realized I was making him angry.  It wasn’t that I was being abrasive or disrespectful.  I was responding point by point to each of supposed global warming calamities.  “We can fix all this stuff now,” I said.  “No need to give up your SUV, no buildings underwater, no tribes of cannibals living in the burned out skeleton of Baby Gap.”  This should be good news, correct?

 

That’s where you’d be wrong.  The thing you need to realize is that all these supposed outcomes are a smokescreen.  Most global warming activists don’t really care about people being fed or preventing malaria.  If that’s what they were concerned about they would focus on that.  Trying to address world hunger by worrying about CO2 levels is about as direct as trying to become a famous actor by waiting tables in a Hollywood restaurant, (actually that may be a little too pessimistic but you get the picture).

 

The “science” of global warming is nothing more than a cover for their irrational emotional needs.  It’s religion for people who are too cool to go to church.  All that yearning, the need for something bigger, transcendent: Hey the planet’s heating up and I’ve been placed here to save it!

 

When Al Gore says, “The Earth has a fever,” no one calls him on his cartoon personification — as if the Earth has a temperature it prefers. 

 

Compare this to GW’s comment that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher – “Oh what a sad misguided fool.  He still believes in God.  And this is the guy who’s running our country?”

 

To borrow a phrase, (as I have liberally in this post), from the brilliant statistician and eco-philosopher, Bjorn Lomborg, visualize the people living on Earth 100 years from now.  Let’s imagine that they can reach back in time and speak to us, give us some feedback on the world we’ll be leaving them.  What do you think they’d ask us to focus on?  Where would they have us concentrate our scarce time and energy? 

 

A world in which hunger and AIDS have been eradicated or  a world where the sea level is 6 inches lower?

 

A world free of Jihad where everyone lives under some form of representative democracy, or a world that is 2.1 degrees cooler in the months between October and March?

 

A world with 10% more polar bear habitat or a world where even the poorest or the poor have clean water and a sanitary place to go to the bathroom?

 

These are our choices.  We can’t do everything.

 

And frankly, to hear people who are so wealthy that they’re clinically obese from excess food and leisure time yammering on about what kind of light-bulbs they use, while other people are literally starving to death…  It’s beyond bizarre.  It speaks to a frightening level of self-deception that seemingly intelligent folks engage in en masse.

 

Which brings us back to the church I saw.  Is this what passes for morality today?  Is this what constitutes a courageous stand?  Is this honestly the best we can do? 

 

Do you know how much the sea level rose since 1850?  1 foot

 

And what did we do?  How did we handle this catastrophe?  Well, actually, we didn’t notice that it was happening — that’s how horrible the climate change we experienced was.

 

Do you know how much the UN’s IPCC panel predicts the sea level will rise by 2100?  One foot.* It may be the same nightmare we went through last time. Or maybe half the nightmare.

 

So next time you fret about whether your car is Gore compliant or if you’re protecting your precious Gaia by buying carbon offsets for your private jet, think for a minute about how it would look to our friends a hundred years hence, or better yet, to a little kid in present-day Africa or Asia who’s starving to death.

 

Maybe we ought to return to an elemental truth the folks a hundred years in our past knew clearly and without reservation. 

 

People come first – the Earth can take care of itself.

 

* Projected sea level rise in 21st century:

Source – UN IPCC Report (4th Assessment – 2007)

sea level rise scenarios

Graphic (from WikiPedia)
This shows different ranges of sea level rise predicted using 6 different scenarios, (coolest to warmest).  It’s worth noting that the “high-end” scenarios are probably unrealistic in that they factor in “business as usual” with no switch to alternative fuels, conservation efforts as a result of price, etc., (many of which are actually happening now due to the increase in the price of oil).  If we take the mean of each range we get, (coolest to warmest):

 

  • 11 inches
  • 13 inches
  • 12.5 inches
  • 13.5 inches
  • 14.5 inches
  • 16.5 inches

 

If we drop the high and low estimates as outliers and take the mean of the means of the remaining 4 estimates we get –

 

  • 13.4 inches