Subject: {Disarmed} EPA socialism, Google carbon nonsense and the weekly Chilling Effect cartoon |
From: "editor@thechillingeffect.org" |
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:37:44 -0600 |
To: bob@cosy.com |
Please add editor@thechillingeffect.com to your address book to ensure our emails reach your inbox.
January 12, 2008
* Princeton Professor:
““This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are
the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda … Carbon dioxide is not a
pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that
that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a
cult.”
* The Climate Politics of
Web Awards
* Oil Prices: Are U.S. Crude
Prices Out of Touch With Reality?
* And the Modern Malthus
Award Goes To … “Global warming could starve half the world by century-end”
* Ahh, The British Press:
“Climate change fears spiral as warmer seas ‘absorbing less carbon
dioxide’”
* Mickey Rourke
Doesn’t Have The Time For Your Hippie Clock
* Going green at CES
… and at the Detroit Auto Show
* Letter: Don’t blame
CO2 for warming
Today’s above the fold Washington Times
headline reads “Obama climate czar has socialist ties.” More here
“Until last week,
Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as
one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which
calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to
address climate change.
“By Thursday, Mrs.
Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page,
though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still
available…”
Read earlier coverage here.
A story is carrying the news that performing
two Google searches creates the same carbon footprint as boiling a kettle for tea. Without checking
the scholar’s work, here’s a quick thought: QUIT COUNTING COSTS WITHOUT COUNTING
BENEFITS. How aggravating.
The average reader would feel worse about their
research on the Internet because it leaves an impact they are told is negative. But what about the
amount of travel saved from having to go to a library, which produces volumes of texts by tearing
down trees with heavy vehicles than burn fossil fuels. None of those activities is bad — but
the totality of their carbon footprint is most certainly higher than a person studying a subject in
articles produced on efficient computers and through electrons, rather than paper.
It may be well and good for groups to raise
legitimate concerns about our activities’ environmental impact, but a cost-benefit ratio
without counting benefits is just intellectually misleading.
William Yeatman has this over at
GlobalWarming.org:
“… a global
warming policy has already led to instability in the developing world. Only a couple years ago,
environmentalists promoted ethanol as a “green fuel.” They were wrong. It turns out that
ethanol production leads to land use changes that release more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere
than is saved by ethanol use.
“Worse, ethanol is
made from food—corn and soy in the U.S., palm oil and wheat in the European Union. In 2008,
ethanol production policies in the developed world contributed to steep inflation in the price of
food, which caused urban unrest in developing countries dependent on the international grain
market.”
|
||||
|