Pushing back the green movement...

[billc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 propagrandizing
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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

"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’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’s Civil List payments will be replaced, and instead they will receive 15 per cent of the Crown Estate’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’s wind turbines are owned by foreign companies, which are estimated to reap £500million a year in subsidies.

 

[billc]

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’t compromise our national security the way fossil fuels do – 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’s disastrous “20/20/20” energy policy for a crystal-ball glance into what our future could be like should we continue down this reckless “green” path. The EU plan seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990’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’s what Russia’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’s nuclear program. Nice

 

[billc]

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]

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]

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]

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.