Archive for the 'Big Green Brother' Category

Greens attack NY Times over skeptic article

March 29, 2009

The ever-intolerant greens attacked the New York Times Magazine for daring to publish a cover story about eminent Princeton physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson.

Media Matters criticized the Times for sending a “sports and music writer to do a science writer’s job.” The self-proclaimed media watchdog apparently feels that someone like NY Times climate propagandist Andrew Revkin would have been a better choice to write the sort of hatchet job on Dyson that it seems to have wanted.

It’s been quite a weekend for the New York Times. First there was Saturday’s front-page story trashing CFLs and then the Dyson cover piece on Sunday.

Maybe it’s dawning on Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. that there is no future in being the mouthpiece-of-record for the Loony Left.

Surprise: NY Times trashes CFLs on front page

March 28, 2009

The New York Times has finally caught up to what Steve Milloy has been saying for the past two years about compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), including with respect to the greens doing a U-turn on the bulbs.

In a front-page story entitled, “Do New Bulbs Save Energy If They Don’t Work,” the New York Times pretty much trashed current CFLs:

Some experts who study the issue blame the government for the quality problems, saying an intensive federal push to lower the price essentially backfired by encouraging manufacturers to use cheap components.

“In the pursuit of the holy grail, we stepped on the consumer,” said Michael Siminovitch, director of a lighting center at the University of California, Davis.


In California, where bulbs have been heavily encouraged, utilities have concluded that they will not be able to persuade a majority of consumers to switch until compact fluorescents get better.That is prompting them to develop specifications for a better bulb.

The effort aims to address the most consumer complaints: poor dimming, slow warm-up times, shortened bulb life because of high temperatures inside enclosed fixtures, and dissatisfaction with the color of the light.


Consumers are supposed to be able to protect themselves by buying bulbs certified under the government’s Energy Star program. But experts and some environmental groups complain that Energy Star standards are weak, permitting low-quality bulbs with too high a level of mercury, a toxic metal contained in all compact fluorescents. [Emphasis added]

Steve Milloy predicted the greens would do an about-face on the mercury in CFLs more than a year ago in this February 21, 2008 column entitled, “Looming Lightbulb Liability.”

For more Steve Milloy predictions about our green future (and how to prevent it), get a copy of his new book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

Unlike buying a CFL, you won’t regret it.

Nature centers = Ideological child abuse?

March 26, 2009

In her article “Nature centers helping grow next generation of scientists,” Mary Spiro writes,

When I was a kid, I loved visiting my local nature center, which at the time happened to be the Clearwater Nature Center in Clinton, Md. I think the hours I spent examining the bones, pelts, stones, leaves, shells and other “please-touch” exhibits contributed to my love for animals, the environment and science in general.

And who knows, the next E.O. Wilson or Rachel Carson may be developing his or her love for natural science at your local nature center. [Emphasis added]

Rachel Carson, of course, was the the junk scientist who kicked off the anti-DDT campaign that resulted in the needless deaths of tens of millions of Africans from malaria.

Then there’s E.O. Wilson’s sentiment,

“The living world is dying.”

If this is what we hope nature centers do for our kids, we ought to shut them down ASAP.

For Nickelodeon, no green gesture too trivial

March 25, 2009

The Associated Press reported today that,

Nickelodeon will ask kids to unplug their games and gadgets for a minute on Earth Day to symbolize a commitment to helping the environment.

The unplugged minute will come at nine o’clock in the evening on April 22, when many of Nick’s viewers should arguably be in bed. It doesn’t extend to television sets, but is largely targeted at household lights, hand-held games and cell phones…

Do something really nice for a kid on Earth Day, buy him/her a copy of Steve Milloy’s new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.

Spy plane finds homes ‘wasting’ energy

March 25, 2009

The Daily Mail (UK) reported today that,

Our movements are already tracked by CCTV, speed cameras and even spies in dustbins.

Now snooping on the public has reached new heights with local authorities putting spy planes in the air to snoop on homeowners who are wasting too much energy.

Thermal imaging cameras are being used to create colour-coded maps which will enable council officers to identify offenders and pay them a visit to educate them about the harm to the environment and measures they can take…

It said the exercise has been so successful other local authorities are planning to follow suit.

But critics have warned the crackdown was another example of local authorities extending their charter to poke their noses into every aspect of people’s lives…

GreenieMae? Dems propose Green Bank

March 25, 2009

Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen introduced on March 24 the Green Bank Act of 2009 — the latest green scheme to rob taxpayers and funnel money to renewable energy scams.

As proposed by Van Hollen, the Green Bank Act of 2009 would:

  • Create the Green Bank as an independent, tax-exempt, wholly owned corporation of the United States with the exclusive mission of providing a comprehensive range of financing support to qualified clean energy and energy efficiency projects within the territorial United States.
  • Provide the Green Bank with an initial capitalization of $10 billion through the issuance of Green Bonds by the Department of Treasury, with a maximum authorized limit of $50 billion in Green Bonds outstanding at any one time.
  • Assist in advancing vital national objectives — including transitioning to a clean energy economy, job creation through the construction and operation of clean energy and energy efficiency projects, abating climate change, energy independence from foreign sources, and fostering long-term domestic manufacturing capacity in clean energy and energy efficiency technologies.
  • Include robust spending safeguards and public disclosure requirements to ensure that the Green Bank operates at the highest levels of efficacy, accountability and transparency.

Original co-sponsors of the Green Bank Act of 2009 include Congressman David Loebsack (D-IA), Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU).

A couple quick thoughts:

  • Don’t taxpayers already provide ample welfare to the renewable energy industry through provisions like tax credits and Obama’s Stimulus plan?
  • Has Van Hollen ever heard of the financial disasters that are FannieMae and FreddieMac?

Take action:

Contact the bill’s sponsors.

EPA: Regulate CO2 under existing law

March 24, 2009

Big Green Brother is moving to bootstrap itself into existence.

As per the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has submitted to the White House its proposed finding that carbon dioxide can be regulated under the existing Clean Air Act.

Click here for the EPA document.

This is basically an ultimatum to Congress and regulated industries from the Obama administration: Either Congress regulates CO2 or EPA will via the arbitrary and oppressive Clean Air Act.

That’s “green democracy” in action.

Video: Green slimes UK official; Walks away free

March 19, 2009

We reported on March 6 about a green protester assaulting a UK government official with green goo — and then walking away without being arrested.

Here is video of the crime-and-no-punishment-assault and an TV interview with its perpetrator.

At-risk youth go green in California

March 17, 2009

MSNBC reports that,

Hundreds of California at-risk students may become part of the green economy if they sign up for the state’s new “green corps,” which the governor launched Monday.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made the announcement just after meeting with President Obama’s Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis in Sacramento.

If this is about jobs, that’s fine. If this is about taking “troubled youth” and turning them into green automatons, that’s quite another matter.

Is FutureFuel misleading investors on biofuels?

March 16, 2009

Touting its products to investors, biofuels manufacturer FutureFuel Corp. states in its annual Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that,

Biodiesel is a sustainable, renewable transportation fuel with a growing market in the United States and internationally. See . As an
alternative to petrodiesel and other petroleum-based fuels, biodiesel has several advantages, including:

  • extending domestic diesel fuel supplies;
  • reducing dependence on foreign crude oil supplies;
  • expanding markets for domestic and international agricultural products;
  • reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other gases that are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency [Emphasis added] (see, e.g., ); and
  • being usable by existing diesel engines while extending their useful lives (see, e.g., ).

But with respect to biodiesel reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it’s quite possible that the claim is more fantasy than fact. You may remember this New York Times headline from February 2008:

Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say

At the very least, there is controversy about the greenhouse gas footprint of biofuels, including FutureFuel’s biodiesel.

The federal securities laws are based on two pillars — a requirement of full and fair disclosure of material facts and a prohibition on fraudulent activity. FutureFuel’s unqualified touting of biodiesel seems to lack a basis in reality and would seem to be the very sort of thing that the federal securities law prohibit.

Or does the act of pleading green entitle one to a “Get Out of the Truth Free” card?