“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?

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.

STATE DEPT. DECLARES: ‘Global warming unequivocal and primarily human-induced’…

US climate report publicized in runup to Senate bill
20 Apr 2010 00:35:50 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Corrects headline and first paragraph to reflect that report was publicized on Monday, 2nd paragraph notes report released April 8) 

WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) – An environmental coalition publicized a new U.S. draft report on climate change on Monday, one week before the expected unveiling of a compromise U.S. Senate bill that aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Project on Climate Science, a coalition of environmental groups, publicized the report in advance of Earth Day on April 22, a spokeswoman said. The report was released with little fanfare on April 7 and posted on the Federal Register on April 8. 

The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.” 

Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They’re now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons. 

The effects of climate change are already evident, the draft said: warming air and oceans, vanishing mountain glaciers, thawing permafrost, signs of instability in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and rising sea levels. 

The State Department draft, now open for public comment, precedes the expected April 26 unveiling of Senate legislation by Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham and Independent Joe Lieberman. 

Supporters of the bill hope this will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July. 

The State Department report will ultimately go to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; previous U.S. reports to this body were in 1994, 1997, 2002 and 2007. 

The draft report is available online at http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/car5/index.htm. 

(Editing by Jackie Frank)

Science Czar’ Admits the Big Green Lie

‘Science Czar’ Admits the Big Green Lie

Posted By Christopher C. Horner On April 14, 2010 @ 8:33 am In Environment, News, Politics | 89 Comments

The video vault has now provided us another glimpse [1] into the fever swamp occupied by President Obama’s moonbat science czar John Holdren. Holdren of course is the man brought in to put a scientific imprimatur on the Left’s latest excuse for much of its economic agenda, wrapped as it is in the cloak of averting environmental crisis.

First, the merely good news arising from Holdren’s odious openness: it floated to the surface just in time for my new book [2] coming out Monday (but available for pre-order now, before today’s ’s Ways and Means Committee “green jobs” hearing causes a run on them! Really.). In these pages Holdren, Carol Browner and a few others receive close inspection, particularly in Chapter 3 “Van Jones Was No Accident: Obama’s Radicals” (also relevant to this discussion is Chapter 6, “Green Eggs and Scam: The Wholesale Fraud of ‘Green Jobs’”).

More on all of that, including some pretty startling internal documents, in a few days.

Now for the even better news. As detailed in “Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America [2]“, Holdren is a longtime global-cooling-then-warming alarmist who’s also on record advocating the constitutionality of sterilizing [3] the public through the drinking water supply to address the “population crisis” when it reaches the point that his kind believe is just  too much to bear.

As is also detailed, he and his ilk like to see (and shriek) crisis pretty much everywhere they look, and transparently as an excuse for their real obsession with massive government usurpations of individual liberties — or, ahem, Power Grabs [2]. So to them that point where statist seizures are urgently required is always right…about…nnnow.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama’s Secret Power Grabs

Obama’s Secret Power Grabs

April 15th, 2010

By Phil Kerpen, Fox News

While Congress considers sweeping new legislation to permanently institutionalize the bailouts and federal control of our financial system (right on the heels of their health care takeover, of course) several other sweeping power grabs are going on outside the spotlight of legislative debate. Indeed President Obama seems to believe that most of his sweeping agenda to transform the country can be accomplished without even a vote of Congress. The chart seen above and found here shows what the administration is up to.

As I’ve previously noted here in the Fox Forum, the the EPA is pursuing an aggressive global warming power grab under the direction of White House Climate czar Carol Browner (who was not subject to Senate confirmation), and the FCC is pursuing a regulatory takeover of the Internet.

Both of those efforts are now escalating. The EPA has now finalized its vehicle emissions rule, for the first time regulating global warming under the 1970 Clean Air Act. While EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is trying to calm a political backlash by promising the delay the onslaught of regulations (the overall blueprint is over 18,000 pages and regulates almost everything that moves and lots of things that stay put) she remains committed to them. The Senate will have a key vote on S.J. Res. 26, which would stop the EPA, some time in May.

The FCC was smacked down in court last week in Comcast v. FCC, which held that the Commission has no jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. Yet FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a close friend of Obama’s, is now considering Internet regulations of an even more extreme nature and by an even more dubious mechanism—reclassifying the Internet as a phone system to regulate it like an old-fashioned public utility.

Read More:

The Government Greenpeace

The Government Greenpeace

Posted By Rich Trzupek On April 14, 2010 @ 12:10 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

National unemployment rates may be high, but there’s no shortage of work if you happen to be an academic type willing to conduct Environmental Protection Agency-funded research and undertake EPA directed studies. Last October, the EPA formally began the process of creating new stormwater management rules. We’ve actually got quite the pile of stormwater management rules already, including measures crafted during the Clinton administration and then implemented during the Bush administration. But, having never met a regulatory program that went far enough for her tastes, EPA head Lisa Jackson took one look at a report prepared the National Research Council [1] that reviewed the Agency’s stormwater management programs and fell in love. This will come as a shock, but the NRC committee [2] that looked into the issue – a committee consisting mostly of academics – concluded that new stormwater regulations are desperately needed.

The NRC’s recommendations are troubling, but entirely typical of what happens when a group of professors get together to decide how to run the world. It should be noted up front that I did not read the NRC’s report in full, since the organization charges the public more than forty bucks [3] to purchase copies of this study, notwithstanding that it is being used to set public policy. No doubt the full report contains a number of hidden gems, but the Executive Summary, which NRC kindly allows citizens to download for free, provides enough of a peek behind the curtains. If Jackson’s EPA follows the NRC’s advice – and history suggests that Jackson generally takes the most radical environmental advice available – then there are more rules coming, more restrictions on your lives and, of course, more tax dollars that need to be redistributed. If you think that using the adjective “radical” to describe the advice Jackson is getting from NRC is a bit over the top, don’t take my word for it. Here’s how NRC describes what is needed in their Executive Summary:

“Radical changes to the current regulatory program (see Chapter 6) appear necessary to provide meaningful regulation of stormwater dischargers in the future.”

What kind of radical changes appear necessary? How about having USEPA use its licensing authority to place further restrictions on the formulation and use of even more consumer products? Quoting again from the Executive Summary:

“EPA should engage in much more vigilant regulatory oversight in the national licensing of products that contribute significantly to stormwater pollution. De-icing chemicals, materials used in brake linings, motor fuels, asphalt sealants, fertilizers, and a variety of other products should be examined for their potential contamination of stormwater. Currently, EPA does not apparently utilize its existing licensing authority to regulate these products in a way that minimizes their contribution to stormwater contamination. States can also enact restrictions on or tax the application of pesticides or other particularly toxic products. Even local efforts could ultimately help motivate broader scale, federal restrictions on particular products.”

In other words, if a product is used outdoors or is part of a machine that is used outdoors, like your automobile for example, it needs to be regulated, restricted and possibly taxed. Just what an ailing economy needs. What could possibly go wrong? It’s easy to imagine some well-meaning EPA committee deciding that tire residue left on the street, to take one example, helps deteriorate stormwater quality. Ergo, the EPA should come up with standards for tire wear. Of course such standards might make tires more expensive, but that’s not EPA’s problem; they’re here to save a planet or two. Or perhaps such standards would unintentionally lead to more blowouts, but that will be the tire manufacturer’s fault, not EPA’s. Of course I don’t know if any of this is going to happen as far as tires are concerned, but that kind of thing will inevitably happen somewhere when EPA sticks its nose into the free market. It always does. The EPA is Exhibit A when it comes to demonstrating the timeless truth that is the Law of Unintended Consequences.

NRC also believes that another layer of bureaucracy is necessary to better manage stormwater. They believe that stormwater permitting should be “watershed based,” a proposal that would essentially create a new regulatory authority in between the local agencies that already have jurisdiction over stormwater and state and federal agencies charged with overseeing their programs. How to pay for more rules and more bureaucracy? The federal government ought to pour more money into these programs of course.

The regulated community isn’t quite as fired up about NRC’s recommendations as is Lisa Jackson. Many members of the regulated community recently commented most unfavorably about these proposals. Their comments are part of the USEPA docket [4] covering a proposal to start gathering information in anticipation of formulating new rules. Ironically, the regulated community offering damning comments in this case doesn’t consist of evil corporations, it’s rather made up of the organizations that are currently responsible for stormwater management which, like the EPA itself, are units of government. The question of whether one regulatory agency can regulate so much so as to offend fellow regulators has thus been answered in the affirmative. The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies [5] (NAFSMA) commented on EPA’s proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) wondering, among other things, why EPA was abandoning the Phase 1 and Phase 2 stormwater management practices that have been put into place already. From NAFSMA’s comments, dated December 23, 2009:

“In addition to our comments on the specific elements of the ICR, NAFSMA must express its strong concern that EPA’s announced intention to promulgate a substantial change to the Phase I and Phase II stormwater program, based on this ICR, constitutes a breach of the current regulations and the program evaluation agreement reached through the Stormwater Phase II Federal Advisory Council Act (FACA) in which NAFSMA was an active and involved participant with three of our members involved throughout the process.”

That’s from an organization representing almost one hundred state and local stormwater management agencies, serving about 76 million people. Many comments in the docket from individual agencies themselves are similarly critical, of both the approach the EPA is taking and the manner in which it’s approaching the issue. I can’t recall the last time local environmental agencies were this critical of their federal counterpart. That ought to tell you something about what’s happening in Lisa Jackson’s EPA. Admittedly, I’ve never been a big fan of the EPA, but then I have to work them, so my perspective is a tad jaded. Still, while no friend of industry, the EPA has traditionally blunted most of the worst excesses that extreme environmental groups would otherwise foist on America. No longer. There’s little to distinguish between Greenpeace and Lisa Jackson’s EPA.

When pressed, you can usually get an honest, informed environmental advocate to admit that our air and water actually got cleaner under George W. Bush’s administration, as they have under every administration since Nixon’s. The problem they say, such as it is, is the Bush didn’t “go far enough.” That’s a political argument, not a scientific one, because no Republican president can ever “go far enough” to satisfy the environmental movement. Bush’s EPA promulgated regulations reducing mercury emissions from power plants on a massive scale. It wasn’t enough. Bush’s EPA faithfully followed George H.W. Bush’s wetlands restoration policies, such that we had many more wetlands when W left office than when he first took the oath of office.

It wasn’t enough. It’s never enough. Most veterans in the EPA understand the politics involved and take that kind of criticism with more than a few grains of salt. Lisa Jackson appears to have swallowed the most extreme environmental activist arguments whole and, mostly unnoticed by both the press and policy-makers, has unleashed a series of crippling initiatives that will do untold damage to the nation’s economy at a time we can least afford it.