Archive for May, 2009

Attention Wal-Mart Management: Clean-up on aisle ‘green’

May 18, 2009

Wal-Mart’s support for action on climate change has taken an ironic, but not unpredictable twist.

Last week, a California superior court judge overturned local approval of a Wal-Mart store because developers and officials failed to adequately consider the store’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report in Carbon Control News.

Click here for the ruling.

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott admitted at last year’s Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference that his company had not done a cost-benefit analysis of its green advocacy efforts.

It’s starting to show.

Hey, Al Gore: How will Waxman-Markey save the planet?

May 18, 2009

May 18, 2009

Dear Al Gore,

How will the Waxman-Markey bill — legislation that you have endorsed — save the planet from the disaster that you claim is imminent?

You have said that,

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. [Emphasis added]

But under the fantasy emission-reduction scenario of the Waxman-Markey bill, the U.S. would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from more than 7 billion tons today to about 5.6 billion tons in 2020 — the level at which U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were in 1988 when NASA’a James Hansen famously sounded the alarm about global warming in congressional testimony.

So in a sense, after ten years of Waxman-Markey we’d only be back at square one.

Meanwhile, worldwide CO2 emissions are projected to increase from about 30 billion tons in 2009 to about 37 billion tons in 2020. Even if the Waxman-Markey fantasy came true and U.S. emissions were reduced by 1.4 billion tons, worldwide CO2 emissions would still increase to about 35.6 billion tons annually.

Pray tell, Mr. Gore, how will Waxman-Markey avert the “major catastrophe” that you say we only have ten years to avoid?

And while you’re spinning the answer to that one, Mr. Gore, would it be possible to get a list of your investments that would benefit from the Waxman-Markey bill?

Sincerely,

Your friends at JunkScience.com

Republican Amendments to Waxman-Markey

May 18, 2009

Checkout the amendments to be offered by Republicans at today’s mark-up of the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

You decide: Re-brand ‘cap-and trade’

May 18, 2009

Thanks to all for entering JunkScience.com’s re-branding contest for cap-and-trade.

Because of the difficulty in choosing the best entry among the hundreds of entries received — the winner gets an autographed copy of Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell — we narrowed down the field to the five in the poll below. Please vote once for your favorite. Results will be announced Tuesday, May 19.

Honorable mentions go to the following entries that more than adequately describe the nature of cap-and-trade:

  • Energy tithing
  • Waxman Malarkey
  • The Great Leap Forward
  • Energy Option 19/22 (i.e., 19th century energy options at 22nd century prices)
  • Carbon Concentration Control Program, or “CCCP” for afficianados of the old USSR
  • Tree and Economic Starvation Act

Waxman-Markey Bill: Full Summary

May 17, 2009

The Waxman-Markey climate bill will be marked up Monday, May 18, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

Click here for a summary of the complete bill.

Green Hell on CSPAN Book tv this weekend

May 15, 2009

Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell will be featured on CSPAN’s Book tv this weekend at the following times:

  • Saturday, May 16, at 8:00 AM
  • Saturday, May 16, at 11:30 PM
  • Sunday, May 17, at 2:00 PM

Trojan House: New poster-child of solar failure

May 15, 2009

From the Detroit News:

It was supposed to be a shining example of the green movement — a completely independent solar-powered house with no gas or electrical hookups.

Seven months ago, officials gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate the $900,000 house owned by the city of Troy that was to be used as an educational tool and meeting spot.

But it never opened to the public. And it remains closed.

Frozen pipes during the winter caused $16,000 in damage to floors, and city officials aren’t sure when the house at the Troy Community Center will open…

“The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing,” [the superintendent of parks for the city] said. “The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery causing the system to back down and the pipes froze.”

Yeah, but shouldn’t the first clue of failure have been the very idea of building an 800 square-foot house in Troy, MI that cost $900,000 — that is, $1,125 per square foot? The median price of homes in Troy is about $159,000 and that’s for an 1,800 sq. ft home — about $88 per square foot.

Even if the solar system hadn’t malfunctioned, who in their right mind would consider the house a success?

I suppose it’s fitting that this tragi-comedy occurred in a place called Troy — the greens are trying to deceive us in adopting their nutty policies and goofy technologies with a Trojan House.

Beware of greens bearing grifts.

Al Gore 1984

May 15, 2009

The latest from CEI:

Can Big Brother be green? Absolutely. If carbon dioxide were the planetary poison that global warming alarmists claim, then every aspect of our lives would be fair game for government control: the homes we build, the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use. Even the number of children we have—because lets face it; any reduction in CO2 that we achieve will be more than offset by the households our kids will create when they grow up.

There are already proposals in Congress and federal agencies to vastly increase taxes and regulations in order to address the so-called global warming crisis. But as a growing number of scientists are openly declaring, there is no crisis.

To take action, and to learn more, see http://cei.org/1984

South Park fans—this clip has a special treat for you.

Irony aficionados—In its original 1984 ad, Apple Computer warned of a totalitarian threat in computing. Today Al Gore sits on Apples Board of Directors. The company that warned of 1984 25 years ago now has, as one of its directors, the man most likely to lead us into a new 1984.

History students—Apple Computer ran its ad, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV…, only once, during the 1984 Super Bowl, to introduce its new Macintosh computer. In 2006, during the primary battles, a pro-Obama YouTube take-off of the Apple ad was created by an independent solo video artist,.casting Hillary Clinton in the role of Big Brother. The ad was titled Vote Different—apparently parodying Apples Think Different slogan. It can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-l…

John Norquist: ILUVCENTRALPLANNING

May 13, 2009

In an effort to play the “energy efficiency” card on opponents of oppression-via-CO2-regulation, former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist concludes a piece entitled “Global Warming Skeptics Often Own Worst Enemy” with:

Is it a good idea to obsess on global warming as a threat to human life on earth? I don’t know, but as a supporter of free-market capitalism I do know that if we can produce the same or more wealth with less energy, we should do it. And if that also helps the environment, what’s the problem?

Norquist says he supports free-market capitalism yet he resorts to the collective — that is, “if we can produce the same or more wealth with less energy, we should do it.” Who is “we,” Mr. Norquist? The government? If so, count me out of we.

Has not the 20th century entirely debunked the concept of central planning? How many more people, Mr. Norquist, must suffer and/or die to prove the folly of central planning on a societal scale.

Certainly any capitalist can determine on his own and without the assistance of bureaucrats whether energy efficiency efforts make sense. As a sop to those with central planning inclinations, however, if we are going to do anything, why not act to make energy more available and more affordable, rather than act to make it less available and less affordable.

A few more points. The potential gains of energy efficiency on a societal basis have been way oversold and there is no reason to believe that will change any time soon.

Also, Mr. Norquist, perhaps you’ve heard about the problems with the compact fluorescent lightbulbs you seem to embrace? You know: they are expensive, provide inferior light, aren’t reliable, may be dangerous and are definitely a hassle if broken, come from China (as opposed to incandescent bulbs from Kentucky), pose quite a health risk to Chinese factory workers and, in all likelihood, provide no environmental benefits whatsoever.

As far as your penchant for smart growth, Mr. Norquist, you may want to live in a “compact” community, but count me and many Americans out. We like our spacious homes and yards, and the comfort, convenience and freedoms afforded by automobiles, cheap gas and roads. We don’t want our lives circumscribed and rationed by the pestilence that is meddlesome government.

Finally, how is anything that the green movement wants to do, particularly with respect to greenhouse gases, going to help the environment? I’ve worked on environmental issues for 20 years and have yet to be so enlightened. As far as I can tell, societal wealth is what makes for a clean environment. As the greens want to make us poorer, be assured that the quality of our environment will suffer if they succeed.

No stop signs. No speed limits. John Norquist would put us on the highway to:

Green Hell JACKET.indd

Western Climate Initiative: Costly and Ineffective

May 13, 2009

From the Western Business Roundtable:

A new study says that a climate action plan promoted by several Western governors could prolong the economic recession, weaken already overburdened Western power grids and will deliver a temperature “benefit” of only one ten-thousandth of a degree Celsius even after a century of operation.