# Pushing back the green movement...



## billc (Nov 18, 2011)

Here is an article on one activist trying to put some sense into the discussion of environmental issues...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-new-hope-for-beating-back-the-regressive-green-movement/



> The sign at her feet read &#8220;For a nuclear free, carbon free future.&#8221; The one in her hands an equally predictable &#8220;Excessive wealth and consumption are dying paradigms. Renew American with a Green Revolution.&#8221;
> Before her stood Alex Epstein, energy expert and [URL="http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=library&series-id=All&tag-id=22&from-date=All&to-date=All&include-future=false&sort=date&reverse=true&page=1&library-results-per-page=10&all-text=false&newValue=&video-id=&query-string-library=alex+epstein"]frequent PJTV guest commentator





> . Noting the sign on the sidewalk, Epstein asked, &#8220;You&#8217;re opposed to nuclear power and [carbon dioxide] generating power?&#8221;
> &#8220;Yes,&#8221; she answered.
> &#8220;Do you know what percentage of power in the world those generate right now?&#8221;
> &#8220;That&#8217;s not my concern. My concern is the people that are profiting off of power that is unsustainable&#8230;.&#8221;
> ...


[/URL]


----------



## granfire (Nov 18, 2011)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]  From http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html :

Version 1 (below) appeared in the Seattle Sunday Star on Oct. 29, 1887, in a column by Dr. Henry A. Smith.

  [h=3]"CHIEF SEATTLE'S 1854 ORATION" - ver . 1[/h]  *AUTHENTIC TEXT OF CHIEF SEATTLE'S TREATY ORATION 1854 *






  Yonder sky that has wept tears of compassion upon my people for  centuries untold, and which to us appears changeless and eternal, may  change.  Today is fair.  Tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds.  My  words are like the stars that never change.  Whatever Seattle says, the  great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he can  upon the return of the sun or the seasons.  The white chief says that  Big Chief at Washington sends us greetings of friendship and goodwill.   This is kind of him for we know he has little need of our friendship in  return.  His people are many.  They are like the grass that covers vast  prairies.  My people are few.  They resemble the scattering trees of a  storm-swept plain.  The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends  us word that he wishes to buy our land but is willing to allow us enough  to live comfortably.  This indeed appears just, even generous, for the  Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect, and the offer may be  wise, also, as we are no longer in need of an extensive country. 





 There was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a  wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor, but that time long since  passed away with the greatness of tribes that are now but a mournful  memory.  I will not dwell on, nor mourn over, our untimely decay, nor  reproach my paleface brothers with hastening it, as we too may have been  somewhat to blame. 





 Youth is impulsive.  When our young men grow angry at some real or  imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, it denotes  that their hearts are black, and that they are often cruel and  relentless, and our old men and old women are unable to restrain them.   Thus it has ever been.  Thus it was when the white man began to push our  forefathers ever westward.  But let us hope that the hostilities  between us may never return.  We would have everything to lose and  nothing to gain.  Revenge by young men is considered gain, even at the  cost of their own lives, but old men who stay at home in times of war,  and mothers who have sons to lose, know better. 





Our  good father in Washington--for I presume he is now our father as well  as yours, since King George has moved his boundaries further north--our  great and good father, I say, sends us word that if we do as he desires  he will protect us.  His brave warriors will be to us a bristling wall  of strength, and his wonderful ships of war will fill our harbors, so  that our ancient enemies far to the northward -- the Haidas and  Tsimshians -- will cease to frighten our women, children, and old men.   Then in reality he will be our father and we his children.  But can that  ever be?  Your God is not our God!  Your God loves your people and  hates mine!  He folds his strong protecting arms lovingly about the  paleface and leads him by the hand as a father leads an infant son.   But, He has forsaken His Red children, if they really are His.  Our God,  the Great Spirit, seems also to have forsaken us. Your God makes your people wax stronger every day.  Soon they will fill  all the land.  Our people are ebbing away like a rapidly receding tide  that will never return.  The white man's God cannot love our people or  He would protect them.  They seem to be orphans who can look nowhere for  help.  How then can we be brothers?  How can your God become our God  and renew our prosperity and awaken in us dreams of returning greatness?   If we have a common Heavenly Father He must be partial, for He came to  His paleface children. We never saw Him.  He gave you laws but had no word for His red children  whose teeming multitudes once filled this vast continent as stars fill  the firmament.  No; we are two distinct races with separate origins and  separate destinies.  There is little in common between us. 





 To us the ashes of our ancestors are sacred and their resting place is  hallowed ground.  You wander far from the graves of your ancestors and  seemingly without regret.  Your religion was written upon tablets of  stone by the iron finger of your God so that you could not forget.  The  Red Man could never comprehend or remember it.  Our religion is the  traditions of our ancestors -- the dreams of our old men, given them in  solemn hours of the night by the Great Spirit; and the visions of our  sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people. 





 Your dead cease to love you and the land of their nativity as soon as  they pass the portals of the tomb and wander away beyond the stars.   They are soon forgotten and never return.  Our dead never forget this  beautiful world that gave them being.  They still love its verdant  valleys, its murmuring rivers, its magnificent mountains, sequestered  vales and verdant lined lakes and bays, and ever yearn in tender fond  affection over the lonely hearted living, and often return from the  happy hunting ground to visit, guide, console, and comfort them. 





 Day and night cannot dwell together.  The Red Man has ever fled the  approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning  sun.  However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people  will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them.  Then  we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief  seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense  darkness. 





 It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days.  They will not  be many.  The Indian's night promises to be dark.  Not a single star of  hope hovers above his horizon.  Sad-voiced winds moan in the distance.   Grim fate seems to be on the Red Man's trail, and wherever he will hear  the approaching footsteps of his fell destroyer and prepare stolidly to  meet his doom, as does the wounded doe that hears the approaching  footsteps of the hunter. 





 A few more moons, a few more winters, and not one of the descendants of  the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy  homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the  graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours.  But why  should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people?  Tribe follows tribe,  and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea.  It is the order  of nature, and regret is useless.    Your time of decay may be distant,  but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and  talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common  destiny.  We may be brothers after all.  We will see. 





 We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know.   But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we  will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any  time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children.  Every part of  this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people.  Every hillside,  every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or  happy event in days long vanished.  Even the rocks, which seem to be  dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill  with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people,  and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to  their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our  ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch.   Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even  the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief  season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet  shadowy returning spirits.  And when the last Red Man shall have  perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the  White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe,  and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field,  the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless  woods, they will not be alone.  In all the earth there is no place  dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you  think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that  once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone. 





 Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not  powerless.  Dead, did I say?  There is no death, only a change of  worlds. 

[/FONT]


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

Hmmm...on that speech...

http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbseattle.html


> Two other short speeches by Chief Seattle are in the National Archives. One was
> a fragment of a speech recorded in 1850 and the other, from May of 1858, was a
> lament by Seattle that the Port Elliott treaty had failed to win ratification in
> the US Senate, leaving the tribes in poverty and poor health. Those four short
> ...


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

And some more on the speech:



> This speech is indeed memorable, and one is left wondering how Dr. Smith managed to translate a lengthy address in the obscure Lushotseed language into such florid Victorian prose, or why he waited 32 years to publish his translation.





> Another question is how Seattle, who had been a devout Catholic since 1830, could say something like "Your religion was written upon tablets of stone by the iron finger of your God."





> Giving Seattle, and Dr. Smith, the benefit of the doubt on the original Seattle
> speech published in the_ Seattle Sunday Star,_ there is still the question
> of the later Seattle speech, which is reprinted frequently. It bears little
> resemblance to Dr. Smith's translation and nobody ever heard of it before 1972,
> ...


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

More from the article I posted:



> *Epstein:* Industrial progress is the improvement of the human environment through increasing energy and industry. The number one prerequisite of industrial progress is political freedom of the type guaranteed by the Declaration and Constitution. All that is needed for rapid industrial progress is for the government to respect property rights universally; that would enable people to develop the best forms of energy and production without government interference, and to compete on a free market.
> As for fiscal responsibility, nothing could be more fiscally responsible than the government having an industrial policy with no subsidies, mandates, handouts, or bailouts &#8212; just the protection of individual rights.


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

And here is some sense...



> *PJ Media:* How would you advise Tea Partiers and activists of like mind seeking to increase their literacy on energy policy and environmental issues?
> *Epstein:* I would say first and foremost increase your literacy on industrial and environmental _philosophy_. Most of the political decision-making about energy and industry today is not based on economics or science, but rather bad philosophical ideas about our proper relationship to our environment. In every policy debate, there is a dogmatic obsession with only the negative impacts or possible impacts human beings can have (for example, an oil spill) and a dogmatic ignorance of the radically positive impact that, for example, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. have had on the human environment over the past two centuries. What that points to is that there is a deep-seated belief in our culture that there is something inherently wrong with the human project of transforming nature.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2011)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." _Genesis 1:26._ 

The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. _Lev. 25:23-24._ 

As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? _Ezekiel 34:17-18.
_
The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. _Isaiah 24:4-6. _

I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable. _Jer. 2:7._

*And He called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward. He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous in much. You cannot serve both God and mammon*. _Luke 16:2,10,13.

_The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great -* and for destroying those who destroy the earth*. _Revelation 11:18._ 

And my personal favorite, the inarguable:

*You shall not pollute the land in which you live... you shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell.
*_Numbers 35:33-34 _


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

What do they say about the devil quoting scripture?


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

And also from the article:



> It could be said that industrial progress is the goal for which the Tea Party ultimately fights. Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets are means to this end. The moral imperative is ensuring the capacity to act productively, guided by our own judgment, to shape our environment in pursuit of happiness.
> If at any given time in our nations history the American people had embraced a philosophy as retarding as that espoused by the green movement, our progress would have halted. Indeed, thats whats happening now. The cheapest, most efficient means of production is no longer our national standard. Those hardest hit are the poorest of the poor who depend upon cheap, bountiful energy to both sustain their lives and facilitate their upward mobility.
> For this reason, the green movement is *not just wrong*, but evil. It is anti-life, inherently regressive, and worth opposing with all our political might. Gird yourself with the intellectual ammo available from Epsteins *Center for Industrial Progre*


*ss*.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> What do they say about the devil quoting verse?



It wasn't "they." 'T'was the Bard:



> The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek.&#8221; -_The_ _Merchant of Venice _



The proverb is referring, of course, to Genesis 3, where "the serpent" quotes scripture, and again, in Matthew 4, "Shaitan," quotes scripture tempting Jesus. In both instances, some valuable context is left out-my dad always used to say _Text without context is pretext._

In this case, there is no pretext, and no further context is necessary: these are all quotes where the Creator is speaking directly through his prophets on man's treatment of the earth, the land, our home-which, you know, we're supposed to keep clean, not defecate on the kitchen floor and smear it on the walls like some kind of infant in their crib. Trust me on this, billi-the context would do nothing to further your argument,and only further mine: the Bible says we're supposed to take care of the earth, and not pollute it. It says that the earth is the Lord's, and we are its stewards, and should take care of it.


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

Of course we do take care of it and as we make more technological progress we are able to keep the environment cleaner and more useful.  It is silly to think that progress means making the environment less clean.  As we become more experienced handling different types of energy we extract in cleaner and safer ways and get more out of it because of this.  Be fruitful and multiply is something else we are commanded to do, and that takes energy.  All of the quotes you list say take care of the environment, they don't say don't use it at all, live like the lowest of animals and wallow in natural filth because you aren't allowed to  advance beyond mud huts.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> All of the quotes you list say take care of the environment, they don't say don't use it at all, live like the lowest of animals and wallow in natural filth because you aren't allowed to advance beyond mud huts.



Oh, and on planet Cihak, this is the stated goal of the environmental movement, then? The reason that we have windmills producing electricity, and electric and hybrid vehicles, and solar power, and all of these environmental initiatives that you keep posting against is because they further some "green movement" agenda that would have us all "_living like the lowest of animals and wallowing in natural filth_" and "_not allowing us to advance beyond mud huts_," _*HOW?* exactly?_ :lfao:



billcihak said:


> Of course we do take care of it and as we make more technological progress we are able to keep the environment cleaner and more useful.



Of course we do. 





































http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...b=139datq65&sigi=122ob510n&.crumb=8LlgjmiGosm


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 19, 2011)

Elder999 you missed this guy.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Elder999 you missed this guy.



Pretty sure that guy was Italian-an _actor_, playing a character for a public service spot. 

Everything I posted was real-actual examples of the fine job of stewardship mankind has over the earth, and the excellent care of the environment that has come from technological process.

But I do miss those public service spots-they sure beat the constant drumbeats for "clean coal."


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 19, 2011)

I thought the Green Movement was about being Green....and I am not talking kermit the frog.  The green am talking about is making $$$$$$$$$ that is about competing against  established industries.  The green movement is so we can buy more products from China, like solar panels - which is a fading out technology being replaced by new technology.  Is having hybrid cars that run on electricity (completely or with fossil fuel) that is produced by coal (mostly) or nuclear power. Y'all, know stuff like that, it's about rerouting our dollar away from traditional industries, to new ones.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Pretty sure that guy was Italian-an _actor_, playing a character for a public service spot.
> 
> Everything I posted was real-actual examples of the fine job of stewardship mankind has over the earth, and the excellent care of the environment that has come from technological process.
> 
> But I do miss those public service spots-they sure beat the constant drumbeats for "clean coal."



Iron Eyes Cody aka Espera Oscar de Corti


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Everything I posted was real-actual examples of the fine job of stewardship mankind has over the earth, and the excellent care of the environment that has come from technological process.
> 
> But I do miss those public service spots-they sure beat the constant drumbeats for "clean coal."



It is unfortunate that you haven't pointed how much industry has changed, and how much improvement there is.  Or how many companies large and small are becoming and increasing their involvement in green awareness and being environmental progressives. It is profitable for them to do so.  I point out how successful recycling programs are, and post-consumer recycled products are being used in or as new packaging. How landfills are being managed that benefit the environment and the community. How many states and cities are implementing green and environmental programs for their states and cities.  I don't know if you have noticed that or not, the country isn't covered in sludge, knee high in garbage, have soot filled skies. Is it a perfect world? No. But the country it ain't as bleak and sliding down to an apocalyptic environmental disaster as you paint it.

Many if not all of the pictures you posted are out dated and are of past events, besides being used for propaganda. And from your post, I would think you might be a Wall Street protester, or supporter as this is one of their concerns because of your posts.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 19, 2011)

The adage goes 





> Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door


 NOT "Legislate happy-touchy-feely laws and regulations that hurt business and by extension those who work for them.
So called "Green" technology has not progressed to that point, yet.


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

Yes, the green movement is about making billionaires out of politicians.  Look at all the "green" scandals coming out of this white house.


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

Hmmm...I do believe that we clean up our messes, and have been cleaning them up since they have been discovered as problems.  For each mess you show, you will see people wading in and cleaning them up, and coming up with new ways to clean them up more safely and quickly than before.  The gulf spill would not have been as bad or lasted as long if the environmentalists hadn't pushed drilling so far out into the gulf where spills are harder to deal with.  New technology to deal with spills like the leak in the gulf are being worked on by the free market capitalist system.  There is money to be made in cleaning up messes and coming up with WORKABLE energy technologies.  As people become more advanced and have more wealth, they like to live in clean places.  The poorer countries are the countries with the worst environments.  China is currently getting rich, they too will decide that pollution needs to be dealt with, and then they will clean up their country as well.


----------



## billc (Nov 19, 2011)

This video posted elsewhere also shows how politicians, like Nancy Pelosi, are using the green agenda to get rich, the point on this comes in at 3:50 in the video...

http://www.breitbart.tv/schweizer-p...ergy-ipo-while-championing-green-legislation/


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> The adage goes  NOT "Legislate happy-touchy-feely laws and regulations that hurt business and by extension those who work for them.
> So called "Green" technology has not progressed to that point, yet.



BS.

But people like our lovely friend billi to put the breaks on progress, from sheer ignorance.

'Green technology' is a huge boom market - if you allow it to happen. It is easy to soil your nest, but requires a good deal of knowhow to clean it up. 
the huge piles of garbage are probably what we will turn to in the future to mine resources. Places in Europe that re not blessed with the large amount of untapped land have long since adopted recycling schemes to lessen landfill volume. yes, naturally the cynics say they just ship the dreck to Asia, but from the consumer's POV, the disposal of those materials is free.

There is gold in being green. 
but it takes a bit of changing your mindset.


And yeah, billi....
You call my chief Seattle a myth.
Then trump it with the myth of journalism....great work.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 19, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...I do believe that we clean up our messes, and have been cleaning them up since they have been discovered as problems.  For each mess you show, you will see people wading in and cleaning them up, and coming up with new ways to clean them up more safely and quickly than before.  The gulf spill would not have been as bad or lasted as long if the environmentalists hadn't pushed drilling so far out into the gulf where spills are harder to deal with.  New technology to deal with spills like the leak in the gulf are being worked on by the free market capitalist system.  There is money to be made in cleaning up messes and coming up with WORKABLE energy technologies.  As people become more advanced and have more wealth, they like to live in clean places.  The poorer countries are the countries with the worst environments.  China is currently getting rich, they too will decide that pollution needs to be dealt with, and then they will clean up their country as well.




I know BP and the other companies involved cleaned up well the parts of Texas and LA, they spit polished those places. They were responsible and poured more than they had to in money, time and resources into restoring the environment and the communities effected by the damage done by the deep horizon leak.  You have to give credit where credit is due. 

I remember the old hoopla over paper grocery bags, "paper or plastic" and all the environmentalist wanting to save trees, got the industry to offer a choice. The result of that is laughable. Plastic bags where the worst thing for the environment.  And recycling paper into post-consumer products is very successful and environmentally friendly.    Am for the environment, but I am also a  realist, and fair minded, and not fooled or swayed by B.S. from any side.  I am not about returning to living out of a cave,  and wiping my ***.  There is a balance between progress and the environment which is being addressed world wide.  In this country we are very environmentally conscious.


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> In this country we are very environmentally conscious.




:lfao:

Only about 30 years behind the times though.

And actually, the paper or plastic controversy: those skimpy plastic bags are actually more environmentally friendly than paper - go figure. 
The most envirnmentally friendly bag is the cloth bag you reuse time and time again.
Take a page from ALDI: you pack your own groceries, in your own bags or you pay a significant amount to buy one from them.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 19, 2011)

> Plastic bags are the cause of major environmental concerns. Statistics show that we are consuming more and more plastics every year. It is estimated that an average individual uses around 130 plastic bags per year. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1974750.stm)



http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-background-info.html

Granfire I would love to look at any facts indicating we are 30 years behind, as well as who that is. That would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Many if not all of the pictures you posted are out dated and are of past events, besides being used for propaganda. And from your post, I would think you might be a Wall Street protester, or supporter as this is one of their concerns because of your posts.



Which one's-really? The top ones are all from the recent Gulf oil spill. The next row are all Amazon deforestation-taken in the last five years or less. The next row-the power plants-are from the last two years, _in China_, where a new coal fired power plant goes on line *every week*, without the emission controls that we take for granted here in the U.S. The pipe is the waste stream from a dairy farm in Colorado, and yeah, the other water pollution photos are stock photos-no idea when they were taken.


So all of *two *of them might not be current, and none of them is anything but factual-hardly the propa_grandizing 
_you're accusing me of.No, I'm not a Wall Street protester-I have a job-a _righteous_ job. I *am *concerned with the very bad things we do to our_ *planet.


*_Would it be propaganda if I posted photos from the Chevron spill in Brazil-you know, the one going on right now?



JohnEdward said:


> It is unfortunate that you haven't pointed how much industry has changed, and how much improvement there is.



Oh, that's true. A real good example is the Hudson River, in New York, where I grew up-it's actually quite the environmental success story. It's cleaner than it's been in more than a hundred years, because of cleanup efforts funded by or run by corporations like GE, that discharged the pollution in the first place-actions that were mandated by federal regulations and lawsuits, btw, not because they made good business sense, or were driven by "market solutions."

On the other hand, it's market solutions like _cap and trade_ that have led to a near total removal of sulfur dioxide emissions from coal burning power plants all around the country. When's the last time you heard of acid rain? Acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide forming sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, and, next to CO2 and water vapor, sulfur dioxide is a major byproduct of coal combustion. Efforts to reduce it were *forced* on the power industry, which instituted a cap and trade system to trade pollution credits.Most plants with SO2 removal equipment are capable of removing nearly all SO2 from their waste stream, and you hardly ever hear of acid-rain, like you did in the 70's.

The same thing could, of course, work for CO2 emissions-and limiting those emissions is one "market solution" for driving _technological_ solutions: if the power companies know that they have to remove that CO2 one way or another, then they'll come up with a solution, just as we've done for SO2, fly ash, NOX and other byproducts of the coal combustion process.



JohnEdward said:


> Or how many companies large and small are becoming and increasing their involvement in green awareness and being environmental progressives. It is profitable for them to do so. I point out how successful recycling programs are, and post-consumer recycled products are being used in or as new packaging. How landfills are being managed that benefit the environment and the community. How many states and cities are implementing green and environmental programs for their states and cities



Wait a minute? _Profitable?_ Green? 

I thought that was what billi was posting about pushing back against, "the green movement," and I was only demonstrating the need for such a movement-sorry. 



JohnEdward said:


> I don't know if you have noticed that or not, the country isn't covered in sludge, knee high in garbage, have soot filled skies. Is it a perfect world? No. But the country it ain't as bleak and sliding down to an apocalyptic environmental disaster as you paint it.



I have noticed-again, note that I was only showing that there is a need for "greeness," that we do mess up, that many of our processes could be improved-*and*, should the technology be developed, *replaced.*


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-background-info.html
> 
> Granfire I would love to look at any facts indicating we are 30 years behind, as well as who that is. That would be greatly appreciated.



facts?
Sorry, that is a personal estimation:

I got my diapers changed on a frontloading washing machine that back then as water guzzler and energy hound probably used a lot less water than even a modern toploader does.
The technology is well over 40 years old, but is now being pushed on us as the 2nd coming.

just LOOK around you: big cars. most people don't _need  _them. the 40 mpg cars are old technology. but why oh why was the technology never really explored here? I think somewhere the hallmark for a small diesel car in Europe is 100km per 5 liter. and that is a number from over 20 years ago.

Or your favorite, paper or plastic:
Even stores that sell those reusable bags are no outfitted to actually reuse them without your cashier breaking into cold sweats. 
Like I said, go to an ALDI store. Surprisingly enough they are able to adapt the German model successfully in their US branches. Floored me to be honest: put a quarter in your cart before shopping - yeah, you get it back when you push it back to the cart place and reconnect it with the chain there. bring your own bag or pay dearly, I think we are talking 15 cents a bag. That's a bunch. 

In other parts of the world the dryer is not used as often as it is here. You have clothes lines, weather permitting. here they take them out of the assortment in the stores! 

Everyday household chemicals:
Most of them are 90% water. I have water at my house. I do not need to buy it from Procter & Gambel. There is absolutely NO need to sell liquid laundry detergent in atomic explosion safe containers you need a tank to compact. I only use maybe 3 of the big containers with dispenser a year, but each of them pains me to throw in the trash. it would be super easy and cost efficient on MANY levels to sell the refill super concentrate in packaging that in itself does not take up much space, like a plastic pouch. You pour the concentrate in the big fncy container, fill up with water and you are in business.
We would not have to ship water all across the country, need less package material and then less truck space and landfill space. 
Same goes for shampoos and dish soap. (we tend to use too much of either anyhow) Again, those are OLD concepts. But people like billi (and you) will fight such simple measures tooth and nail. Sad part is, the industry will.not.change. 
not unless there are the laws passed that put the thumb screws to them.

now look at who is in charge and have a good laugh because it's not gonna happen.

So, next point: Everybody's favorite whipping boy: Agriculture.
We demand huge amounts of foods. Especially animal based ones. dairy, eggs, meat, you name it. bad thing is, to produce cheaply you have to economize and keep many animals in a small place. With me so far? Good.
Animals do 2 main things: eat and poop.
The eating part is a small problem. The pooping part isn't.
You are then faced with huge lakes of toxic animal waste.
And when I say toxic, I mean TOXIC. 
it is said that the bacteria needed to break down those vast amounts of fecies will kill a living organism within a short time: You fall into that sludge you are dead!
In the mean time we drill for oil and natural gas. We expect accidents and mostly shrug them off as most of us do not live near a coast (complain, maybe that the shrimp are high this season)

Animal waste is a very good source of methane gas. Matter of fact, in the olden days water treatment plants used to collect the solid wastes out of the sewage and ferment them into gas which was then in turn sold to the public. City gas it was called. 
THAT technology is about 100 years old. these days it's laughed upon. 

We are wasteful with what we have. We do not conserve, reusing is nearly unheard of, nor is giving old technologies a new spin.
Yes, a relatively small farm can power a small village with the gas derived from the manure.


Where are we these days....
Oh, right, business as usual: Even though we know better we still build like in the 1970s, sans asbestos maybe. 
We know how to use solar energy, even if in a passive manner, we don't use it. We pour asphalt all over creation, damn the neighbor who lives on the low side of us. 

Sometimes I wonder if all those cars don't just produce more heat: the greenhouse effect in the cap, when the sun beats down on the windows heating the insides up to 150 degrees and then some.
Then we have all our lovely air conditioning...seems to produce more heat on the outside, doesn't it.

I live in a house build in the 1950s...the windows are crap and nobody gave a rip on how it relates to the cardinal directions.

Sad part is, we still build this way. That is INSANE. We could do so much better!


----------



## billc (Nov 20, 2011)

"Green" energy is very profitable when it is supported by tax payers and special government deals...on wind energy...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8901985/Wind-farms-are-useless-says-Duke.html



> Last year, the Crown Estate, the £7billion land and property portfolio, approved an increase in the number of sites around the coast of England. The Crown Estate owns almost all of the seabed off Britain&#8217;s 7,700-mile coastline.
> Experts predict that the growth in offshore wind farms could be worth £250million a year. Britain has 436 offshore turbines, but within a decade that number will reach nearly 7,000. From 2013, the Royal family&#8217;s Civil List payments will be replaced, and instead they will receive 15 per cent of the Crown Estate&#8217;s profits, although the Queen, the Duke, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family do not have any say over how the estate makes its money.





> Two-thirds of the country&#8217;s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500million a year in subsidies.


----------



## billc (Nov 20, 2011)

Part of the problem with the green energy movement...

http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/11/18/wind-farm-follies-and-renewable-energy-disasters/



> So much for the argument that renewables don&#8217;t compromise our national security the way fossil fuels do &#8211; but try telling an environmentalist as much. While it was first reported more than a year ago that wind farms were interfering with military radar, making airplanes disappear from sight on screens and cluttering those same screens with the blade-rotation changes of turbine blades, not much was said on the matter until this month, when the Department of Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) proudly unveiled the Renewable Energy and Defense Database. The REDD is an interactive tool that allows renewable-energy developers to locate military installations with a view toward avoiding them in deciding where to construct future projects.





> We need look no further than the European Union&#8217;s disastrous &#8220;20/20/20&#8221; energy policy for a crystal-ball glance into what our future could be like should we continue down this reckless &#8220;green&#8221; path. The EU plan seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990&#8217;s levels. Not only is it likely to cost the union up to $250 billion a year, it has forced the EU to rely on gas from Russia because gas is less polluting than coal. Here&#8217;s what Russia&#8217;s been up to lately, in case anyone thought it had turned some sort of trustworthy corner: After refusing to support new sanctions against Iran, it hosted an Iranian security-council official for talks about Iran&#8217;s nuclear program. Nice


----------



## billc (Nov 20, 2011)

And the endangered species act and its effect on peoples lives...

http://prfamerica.org/2001/klamath_basin_farmers.html



> In the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, the Endangered Species Act
> (ESA) has finally accomplished what landowners and resource users have feared
> for decades; it has gotten them off their land, destroyed their livelihoods and
> decimated the local economy.


----------



## billc (Nov 20, 2011)

And more on animals over people...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/endangering_people_to_protect.html



> The CVPIA reduced water for Central Valley farming from 3.5 million acre-feet to 2 million acre-feet annually, a 43% reduction and allocated it for wildlife habitats. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) now had authority to control the water supply by diverting water from farmers to fish and wildlife habitats. As a result, Central Valley farmers got less water at higher prices. Using the Endangered Species Act to buttress and justify its actions, FWS grossly expanded federal control of California resources, unilaterally deciding who got how much water in the state. FWS studies and decisions were made without any independent oversight and verification from the scientific community at large.
> 
> Further water reductions to Central Valley farmers came from routine, FWS biological surveys of fish in the Delta that identified several species as threatened or endangered. In 2005, FWS identification of the Delta Smelt as not in jeopardy prompted a lawsuit by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a powerful radical environmental group with an annual budget of $88 million. NRDC advocates the reduction of California farmland and the permanent diversion of water from agriculture.





> Despite FWS statements that the Delta Smelt was adequately protected, the NRDC sued for a revised biological opinion confirming that the smelt was endangered and that irrigation pumps were responsible. Under judicial order, FWS was forced to redo the biological opinion and institute pumping restrictions in the Delta. Although far more compelling reasons exist for the reduction in number of the Delta Smelt - predatory, non-native species in the Delta from sports fishing and foreign ships; storm drain discharge; dumping of toxic wastes; more favorable water temperatures and flow for fish elsewhere - the judge followed the findings of the new biological opinion and ruled in favor of shutting down the pumps. Ironically, the Delta Smelt population had been significantly larger over the past four decades at a time when much higher pumping levels prevailed.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2011)

Here is an article from American thinker about pushing back against global warming alarmism...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html



> > More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government [COLOR=#009900 !important]funding[/COLOR], the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation.  They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO[SUB]2[/SUB], and rising temperatures.  They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.It takes a lot of courage.  Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks.  This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.Here is how it has worked.  The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials."  Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked.  This fall, the top scientific journal _Nature_ published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans.  But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.  That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending.  The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." ​


----------



## Monroe (Nov 27, 2011)

Animals over people? Endangered species are dying breeds. These are not life or death issues for the people. I should think the animals take priority when they're going extinct.


----------

