Happy Earth Day to all Communists, Progressives, Eco-Warriors, Leftists and Democrats Everywhere

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

Vladimir Lenin

Vaclav Klaus (one of my all time favorite Presidents) said this not too long ago:

I see the third main threat to individual freedom in environmentalism. To be specific, I do understand the concerns about eventual environmental degradation, but I also see a problem in environmentalism as an ideology.

Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people- and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values.

There is no doubt that it is our duty to rationally protect nature for future generations. The followers of the environmentalist ideology, however, keep presenting us with various catastrophic scenarios with the intention of persuading us to implement their ideas. That is not only unfair but also extremely dangerous. Even more dangerous, in my view, is the quasi-scientific guise that their oft-refuted forecasts have taken on.

Since the wheels have fallen off the global warming / climate change hoax, and the environmentalists are not going away, what is the next eco-fad catastrophe that can only be solved by limiting our freedoms and further trashing our economy?

Sustainability.

According to the UN Rio+20 objectives outline, the upcoming conference will be all about wealth transfer… Sorry… Sustainability.

The objective of the Conference is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges
The Conference will focus on two themes: (a) a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and (b) the institutional framework for sustainable development.

Rio+20 Issues Briefs

The UNCSD Secretariat together with its partners has prepared a series of Rio+20Issues Briefs. The purpose of the Rio+20 Issues Briefs is to provide a channel for policymakers and other interested stakeholders to discuss and review issues relevant to the objective and themes of the conference, including a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, as well as the institutional framework for sustainable development.

Prepare for an onslaught of stories and propaganda urging you to use less and do less because we all have to worry  ”sustainability.”

“It is true that liberty is precious – so precious that it must be rationed”

Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin must be kicking himself (while dodging flaming pitchforks) asking “why didn’t I think of this?”

Eco-Warriors are still pushing the stupidity known as Earth Hour

Greenies will not give up. Ever.

Even though global warming / cooling / climate change has been exposed for the fraud that it is, the eco-warriors continue marching forward toward their Marxist utopia.

One corporation caught up in the stupidity known as Earth Hour is Wells Fargo.

According to the Wells Fargo blog:

This is our fifth consecutive year as an Earth Hour supporter. We continue to champion the movement in the ways we’ve blogged about before, in both 2010 and 2011.

We’re particularly proud that our Earth Hour promotion appears on more than 12,000 of our ATMs nationwide from today through March 31, and that it will reach millions of our customers!

Its sad to see a historic company, a symbol of American progress and growth, succumb to the leftist, no growth ideology.

I mean, they wrote songs about Wells Fargo back in the day:

YouTube Preview Image

What will the sing about now? Sitting in the cold and dark to ‘save the entire planet?’

National Research Council developing global warming indoctrination standards for classrooms

The global warming hoax is unraveling further with every passing day. In response to the wheels falling off their agenda in the public arena, leftists are now shifting their sights to indoctrination of school children.

Via the WSJ:

After many years in which evolution was the most contentious issue in science education, climate change is now the battle du jour in school districts across the country.

The fight could heat up further in April, when several national bodies are set to release a draft of new science standards that include detailed instruction on climate change.

The groups preparing the standards include the National Research Council, which is part of the congressionally chartered National Academies. They are working from a document they drew up last year that says climate change is caused in part by manmade events, such as the burning of fossil fuels. The document says rising temperatures could have “large consequences” for the planet.

Most climate experts accept those notions as settled science. But they are still debated by some scientists, helping to fuel conflicts between parents and teachers.

Scientists relying on public grant money have accepted the notion of “global warming”. However, hard data proving actual global warming is becoming scarcer by the day.

Here is a recent example of global warming scientists caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Again. Via climate skeptic:

The GISS has revised downwards early 20th century temperatures by as much as 2C, despite Iceland’s Met office crying foul. It is unclear exactly what justification is being used to adjust the raw data. Valid reasons include adjustments for changes in the time-of-day of the reading, changes to the instrument’s location or type, and urbanization effects. It is virtually impossible to imagine changes in the first two categories that would be on the order of magnitude of 2C, and urbanization adjustments would have the opposite sign (e.g. make older readings warmer to match current urban-warming-biased readings).

Arctic stations like these are particularly important to the global metrics because the GISS extrapolates the temperature of the entire Arctic from just a few thermometers. Changes to one reading at a station like Reykjavik could change the GISS extrapolated temperatures for hundreds of thousands of square miles.

Revising early 20th century temperature data downward will make late 20th century temperatures ‘appear’ to spike. Of course, the NRC guidelines will not teach this in school since the ‘leaders’ of the NRC are big supporters of the global warming hoax.

One example of bias emanating from the NRC are the alarming statements made by Ralph J. Cicerone, President National Academy of Sciences to the Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (U.S. Senate) July 20, 2005:

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future.

Simulations of future climate change project that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4oF (1.4 to 5.8oC) above 1990 levels. Pinpointing the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by remaining gaps in understanding the science and by the fact that it is difficult to predict society’s future actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy use practices. Other scientific uncertainties about future climate change relate to the regional effects of climate change and how climate change will affect the frequency and severity of weather events.

It is important to recognize however, that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen more than the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly.

This is a whole lot of panic for something that isn’t actually happening.

The NRC leftists are pushing their agenda to impressionable school children who should spend more time learning the three R’s rather than being subjected to left wing indoctrination.

*an extra big tip O’ the hat to Martin @ What Would The Founders Think? for sending me the WSJ article.

Eco-warriors are now experts on global commodities

Unreal.

Conversely, lets suppose that liquid-fuel-hungry US and Chinese and Brazilian economies strengthen this summer. US liquid fuel prices, driven by growing global demand, would rise. Voters would be looking for a scapegoat, having even less money left from their pay. Will they blame oil companies, the Obama Administration, ‘furniners,’ or all of the above? Hard to say isn’t it?

One question for or Treehugging global commodities expert; why are US liquid fuel prices (i.e. gasoline) rising while demand within the United States has been nose-diving for several years?

The answer is we are seeing inflation (due to ‘Quantitative Easing’- printing of money) rather than any effect of global demand or the effects of oil scarcity.

Of course, our Treehugging global commodities expert thinks this inflation is a good thing.

Volatile gas prices would be a good thing.
High price variability at the pump from now on in to the fall election would be the best thing there is for the environment and public health. People who have no grasp of the fact that fuel prices are driven by global supply and global demand would figure that the free market is not going to fix this one. Given the choice between buying a fuel efficient car or not, more Americans would opt for individual responsibility and get the efficient model.

Sure, it will be great for ‘environment’ that our entire economy collapses. Because, our Treehugging global commodities expert is forgetting, our entire economy is based on energy. And when energy gets expensive,  everything else becomes expensive. Roll the expensive energy back into our economy that is already under inflationary pressure and we have a recipe for economic hardship for a long time to come.

Of course our Treehugging global commodities expert will be happy with no economic activity- because he will think this is good for ‘the environment.’

Except, as pointed out numerous times here at MCT, only wealthy countries can worry about the environment.

China not participating in EU’s delusional airline carbon tax

I wonder how long before the EU global warming hoaxers cave:

The European Union scheme to charge airlines for carbon emissions has led to a dispute with China, which announced Monday that it was forbidding its airlines to pay the new fees.

The Civil Aviation Administration of China said in a statement on its website that the rules “contravene the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and international civil aviation regulations.”

Since January 1, all airlines are required to buy certificates for the carbon dioxide they emit through landings and takeoffs in the European Union. Airlines that fail to comply face fines and may even be banned from landing at airports in the EU.

The China Air Transport Association (CATA) estimates that the EU scheme will cost Chinese airlines some $120 million in the first year alone, and that the amount could triple by 2020.

The dispute comes at a sensitive time for the EU, which is wooing China, a major holder of foreign reserves, to invest in bailout funds to help tackle the euro debt crisis. Chinese and EU leaders are due to hold a summit next week.

Ironic that it is the Communist Chinese who are cutting through the economic / global warming nonsense Europe and the United States are embracing.

Global warming… I mean climate change… Is so 2009

According to a study released by the U.K government shows a sharp decline in public ‘concern’ in global warming. Sorry. Climate change.

Via The Mail (UK):

The number of people willing to alter the way they live in the hope of making a difference to global warming fell by around 10 per cent last year.

There was also a sharp drop in those who regarded themselves as ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change.

The figures, released by the Government yesterday, suggest that doubts about global warming have been growing since the summer of 2009.

This was before the damage inflicted on the cause by the ‘Climategate’ scandal later that year, in which leading scientists were accused of manipulating data to support the case of man-made climate change.

The credibility of global warming and concern about halting it appears to have been affected by the succession of three cold winters between 2008 and 2010.

The study also shows that there is a growing skepticism about green energy as well.

More recently, doubts about the efficiency of wind turbines and the high costs of the Coalition’s drive for renewable energy have seen enthusiasm for the cause dwindling.

Fewer than two thirds now say they are at least ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change or that they are prepared to do something about it, figures published by the Department for Transport said.

While it is good to see people waking up, there still is a significant (nearly two thirds) portion of the British population is still on board with the global warming fraud / hoax.

An extra big tip O’ the hat to Tom Nelson for high lighting the article.

I’m sure the Germans really love buying electricity from France.

Solar power is not cutting it in Germany because the 1.1 million solar systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity for weeks. Via Der Spiegel:

The only thing that’s missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.
As is so often the case in winter, all solar panels more or less stopped generating electricity at the same time. To avert power shortages, Germany currently has to import large amounts of electricity generated at nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. To offset the temporary loss of solar power, grid operator Tennet resorted to an emergency backup plan, powering up an old oil-fired plant in the Austrian city of Graz.

I’m sure the German public loves the idea of purchasing power from the Czech Republic.

And France. I’m sure the Germans really love buying electricity from France.

The Spiegel story continues.

Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times.

The distribution networks are not designed to allow tens of thousands of solar panel owners to switch at will between drawing electricity from the grid and feeding power into it. Because there are almost no storage options, the excess energy has to be destroyed at substantial cost. German consumers already complain about having to pay the second-highest electricity prices in Europe.

Makes sense doesn’t it? Sink $10.2 billion of tax payer money into a green energy scheme that drives up costs and makes you more depended on foreign sources of energy?

Sounds familiar. 

Much like Frederic Bastiat’s classic “broken window” economic model

Who does Treehugger.com think they are kidding?

The Treehugger web site is one of my regular stops on the web. It is an endless source of material to illustrate the foolishness of the radical environmental movement.

Being a frequent reader of Treehuugger, I’m used to the slant and spin they put on stories. However, when I saw this story, my jaw dropped.

Lights out in Michigan.

 
City officials are taking bold money-saving steps. Highland Park MI is cutting off and hauling away three quarters of its street lights: see Darker Nights as Some Cities Turn Off the Lights, a story published by New York Times.

Who does Treehugger think they are kidding? Highland Park (a very liberal city near Detroit) doesn’t care about the environmental aspect of removing lights. the truth of the matter is highland Park can’t afford to pay their electric bills, and the utility cut a deal with the city to reduce their $4 million unpaid electric bill:

Crews have removed about 1,400 streetlight poles from Highland Park as part of a settlement that allowed the impoverished Detroit enclave to avoid paying $4 million in unpaid bills going back several years.

DTE Energy Co. has replaced about 200 lights with newer models on street corners, but most neighborhoods remain without streetlights, The Detroit News reported today. The Detroit-based utility said work is expected to be finished by Oct. 31.

DTE spokesman Len Singer said the utility began removing light poles in August rather than just cutting off the power, to avoid lawsuits and confusion. The utility is under no obligation to power communities that don’t pay their bills but wanted to maintain some service, he said.

Yep, the evil power company has been working to help Highland Park resolve its problem for years.

To replace coal in 2020 Britain would burn 60m tons of wood (biomass) 5X the timber they could produce

Radical environmentalists are still spinning their wheels trying to solve global warming (a problem that is nonexistent) with so-called solutions that produce less power and destroy the environment in the process.  Ironic, since they are environmentalists and their goal is to protect the environment.

All the bad green ideas begin in Europe and work their here and the next push (after solar and wind power) to come from Europe is Biomass.

Via the ASI blog:

It is really quite marvellous how all of these various things we’re supposed to be doing to save the planet are exactly the things we used to do which damaged the planet so badly. As Matt Ridley points out when talking about what we’re supposed to do to keep warm when we can’t burn coal or oil:

To replace coal, the government projects that by 2020 Britain will be generating electricity from burning up to 60m tonnes of biomass, mainly wood, about five times the timber harvest that Britain could conceivably produce.

Now “five times the harvest we could possibly produce” means that we would be over using that resouce. Denuding these islands of trees in fact. Which is what we actually did do all those centuries ago and what impelled us to go and conquer a quarter of the world in order to gain resources (no, really, we did things like go to war against Denmark so that we could have access to the Baltic timber to replace what we’d burnt) and also to start digging up coal in the first place.

Because there was no wood left, see?

Boneheads.