Environmentalism - wrong in so many ways
May 27th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultWired magazine, known for it’s zealous focus on the latest crazes, takes a look at the latest environmental craze and what people think they should do about it. They don’t actually look at the validity of the anthropogenic issue or the dire consequences debate, but at least they add a little bit of objectivity to the climate of climate change.
Putting aside the absolute lie known as ‘the coming ice age’. And ignoring the food shortages and high prices caused by biofuel mandates, not to mention the slashing and burning of rain forest in Brazil because of their extremely high biofuel mandates. And forget for a moment the economic impact on the timber industry because so-called scientists failed to realize that spotted owls will fornicate anywhere (they just happen to prefer old growth forests the way hippies prefer rock concerts). The list goes on, but lets ignore all that for the moment. I’m starting to wonder which will be the next abject failure of the environmentalist movement.
I’m addressing this to the local liberal set who go crazy over the crazes. Since they’re like most liberals they never really think things through. Let’s hope that this gets them thinking instead of reacting to whatever bright ideas blow their way.
Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet
But even organic fruits and veggies are a mixed bushel: Organic fertilizers deliver lower-than-average yields, so those crops require more land per unit of food. And then there’s the misplaced romanticism. Organic isn’t just Farmer John; it’s Big Ag. Plenty of pesticide-free foods are produced by industrial-scale farms and then shipped thousands of miles to their final destination. The result: refrigerator trucks belching carbon dioxide.
They didn’t mention the problems with the ‘buy local’ craze. In our area it means buying from farms that cost more to operate because of high taxes, high labor costs (associated with a higher cost of living) and transportation costs (it still has to get from the field to the table unless you ride your bike to pick up produce from the field.)
In short, I don’t believe that growing local crops to support large urban populations is possible because cost effective scalability of local farms isn’t possible. In addition, seemingly significant volumes of the greenhouse gas emissions cannot be avoided whether crops are local or shipped in from outside the area. Also, there are efficiencies of scale that cannot be replicated by smaller local farms.
There’s the question of being able to ‘buy local’ in every area of the country where liberals decide an urban center should be. Deserts don’t grow much of anything edible and some growing seasons are too short to do much of anything. Regardless of the desire to buy local not every area can support the needs of urban communities. And even if growing seasons allow for nutritious crops to be grown, there’s the question of having enough land with adequate soil. Many soils require building up with fertilizers. Natural fertilizers can have bacteria (such e-coli) and other contaminants that can infect crops. In addition there may be an inadequate supply of natural fertilizers to build up enough soil to support the local population.
I don’t have specific numbers in front of me but having some experience in agriculture I can tell you that most produce consumes the most energy (and cost) in the first mile(s) and the last mile(s). Plowing, planting, harvesting and packaging are probably the most energy consuming steps. Then there’s the processing and/or decaying of the waste material from the plants the crops are grown on. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing that composting produces a fair amount of greenhouse gases. These steps are required regardless of where crops are grown.
Also in the producing of crops there’s the concentration of the impact of all of this right next to an area that is going to produce more carbon emissions simply because there are more people in a concentrated area. Cities are known for being sources of pollution, both point-source and non-point-source. You’re actually adding to the combined output of pollutants by bringing farms closer to the city.
Then there’s the long road to the destination which is often by rail, the most energy efficient means of freight transportation. So while this is the big complaint from liberals about not buying local, it probably produces the least greenhouse gas emissions per pound of produce in the process of getting the crops to the table.
After that is the getting it from the distribution center that can handle rail freight to the dinner table, which requires trucks to deliver and cars to get the workers to the various locations, and finally the trip home from the store (or farmers market). This step is going to be required whether it’s coming from the distribution center or the local farm.
To sum up, I don’t believe that the ‘buy local’ craze is going to end up having that significant of an effect on the overall impact of food production on the environment.
Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming
I love this quote:
Ronald Reagan’s infamous claim that “trees cause more pollution than automobiles” contained a grain of truth. In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as catalysts for smog. But the Gipper didn’t mention another point that’s even more likely to make nature lovers blanch. When it comes to fighting climate change, it’s more effective to treat forests like crops than like majestic monuments to nature.
Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released.
I’ve got my chainsaw. I’ll meet you all in Pt. Defiance Park. We could do it to celebrate environmentalism on Ronald Reagan’s birthday. Wouldn’t that be cool? (For those of you with no sense of humor, that’s a joke.)
Superefficient Frankencrops Could Put a Real Dent in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Those poor, misguided ELF members going to jail for burning down what they thought was a genetic engineering lab. Don’t they know they were hurting the environment, not just by burning buildings (which is a very inefficient way to use resources) but also by the fact that they could have prevented the next wave of genetically engineered crops that cut carbon emissions.
Carbon Credits Were a Great Idea, But the Benefits Are Illusory
Carbon offsets — and emissions-trading schemes, their industrial-scale siblings — are the environmental version of subprime mortgages. They both started from some admirable premises. Developing countries like China and India need to be recruited into the fight against greenhouse gases. And markets are a better mechanism for change than command and control. But when those big ideas collide with the real world, the result is hand-waving at best, outright scams at worst. Moreover, they give the illusion that something constructive is being done.
I guess it will only be a matter of time before Al Gore’s investment in carbon trading companies is revealed for what it is, racketeering.
Word out today is that the U.N.’s latest scam is coming to light. Their ‘cap and trade’ program isn’t working. Read more here: Report: U.N. wasting billions on carbon offset scam. Maybe this will one will be the scam that relegates the U.N. to it’s rightful place: history. I doubt it, but it would be nice to get rid of that anti-America, anti-Israel kabal that sucks so much from our economy and our security.
Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy
You can worry about radioactive waste or proliferating weapons. You can complain about the high cost of construction and decommissioning. But the reality is that every serious effort at carbon accounting reaches the same conclusion: Nukes win.
Bummer! It looks like, in order to save the planet, we have to play into every eco-freak’s worst nightmare: nuclear annihilation. Scary!
Don’t Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead
Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer, largely due to the environmental cost of the 30 pounds of nickel in the hybrid’s battery.
Better yet, buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. It gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap. Sure, the XFi has no AC or airbags — but nobody said saving the planet would be comfortable, or even safe.
If your knees don’t touch your chest when you’re in a car, you’re destroying the planet.
This points out one of the things that most eco-freaks forget: the cost of construction is part of the cost of the results, both in dollars and in environmental impact. The CATO Institute pointed this out quite well.
Those were the fun ones…
Well, for me at least, that was the fun part of the article. They’re still clinging to a couple of ideas like urbanism and fatalism, but what can you do, they’ve bought into the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
As for the urbanism craze, it’s far too complex to address here, so I left it out of these quotes. Don’t bother commenting about it.
Update: I noticed that the Business Examiner Daily said of this post that:
No “earth-friendly” program is left out from this conservative view of the world.
These policies have nothing to do with being ‘earth-friendly’, they have to do with being politically correct. Many of the programs listed here actually do more harm than good to the earth.
I care about the earth. I don’t care about il-conceived political agendas that fail in their purported goals.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I’ve got to share the response I received from our illustrious Senator Maria Cantwell on my objection to S. 3036, the Climate Security Act of 2008 which is the most diabolical piece of crap devised yet. Of course she supports it. When you have elected “leaders” such as her, you can be certain America is in for some really, really bad times.
“Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on what I believe is the preeminent environmental challenge facing our generation and sincerely regret the delayed response.
As you know, scientists have conclusively determined that an ongoing buildup of greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, is causing the Earth’s climate to warm and could lead to drought, flooding, and other catastrophic natural disasters. In Washington, climate change is expected to alter the region’s historic water cycle, threatening drinking water supplies, wildlife and salmon habitat, and the availability of emissions free hydropower. In fact, researchers have found that temperatures in the Puget Sound region will rise about 2 degrees by 2050 and cascade mountain temperatures could rise 10 degrees or more by 2090. Considering these potentially serious environmental and economic consequences, I believe that the United States must urgently address this matter, in partnership with the rest of the world.
On December 19, 2007, the greenest, most important energy bill in our nation’s history was signed into law. I am proud to have helped craft the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6), which will help create cleaner, more diverse sources of energy supply, build new growth industries that support high wage “green-collar” jobs, give consumers and businesses more affordable energy choices, and protect our environment. This landmark energy legislation aggressively boosts energy efficiency efforts by making our lighting and appliances more efficient and reducing the federal government’s energy use. In addition, a provision I authored was included which will make our electricity grid smarter and more efficient.
Under the new law, fuel economy standards will increase for the first time in over two decades to a nationwide average of 35 miles per gallon (mpg), up from 25 mpg today, by 2020 for all vehicles including SUVs and light trucks. By 2030, these measures will displace the equivalent of one-third of our foreign oil needs, save American consumers at least half a trillion dollars in energy costs, and reduce our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount as all of our vehicles on the road produce today.
In addition to raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, the new energy law includes mandates and incentives for biofuels to become a greater part of our nation’s total energy consumption. The bill increases the renewable fuels standard to 36 billion gallons by 2022, of which at least 21 billion gallons must come from non-food feedstocks like agriculture and wood waste. Increased energy production from domestic renewable resources will not only benefit the environment, but also provide for new jobs in the farming and forestry industries. Together, these efforts will help reduce the amount of harmful emissions - including those that contribute to global warming - while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. I am also pleased that the Energy Independence and Security Act contained my legislation banning manipulation in the oil and gasoline markets.
While I was pleased with the passage of this landmark energy legislation, there was a key provision I fought for - a tax package extending and expanding incentives for alternative energy technologies - that was removed in the face of a presidential veto and filibuster by the Senate minority. Refusing to let an opportunity to preserve and create over 100,000 green collar jobs and ensure over $20 billion in domestic clean energy investments pass by, I recently led a successful effort to pass legislation in the Senate that, if enacted, would extend clean energy tax incentives scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. On April 10, 2008, the bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act (S. 2821), which I introduced with John Ensign (R-NV) just a week earlier, was included as an amendment to the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221) that passed the Senate later that day by a vote of 88 to 8. This legislation, cosponsored by 43 of my Senate colleagues, would provide the continuation of clean energy production incentives for wind, solar, and other renewable sources, and incentives to improve energy efficiency that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, save people and businesses money, and reduce energy costs over time.
While these energy measures provide critical tools necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we also need federal legislation that establishes scientifically based emissions caps. Unfortunately, I have concerns about the cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction program legislation introduced so far in the Senate, including the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3038), because they unfairly penalize the Pacific Northwest’s decades-old reliance on emissions free hydropower. In addition, S. 3038 does not recognize that our state’s hydropower system is mature and won’t be able to add much more capacity in coming years, thus any future electricity generation will be relatively more polluting. Some legislative proposals would also effectively penalize Washington state for its years of aggressive energy efficiency measures, making any additional savings more costly for Washington state relative to other parts of the country. Finally, I have strong concerns that some cap-and-trade proposals could provide windfalls to historic greenhouse gas emitters, or allow excessive speculation and manipulation of emission allocation trading markets. For decades, Washingtonians have been on the cutting edge of clean energy solutions and energy efficiency, setting an example for the rest of the nation. I will continue working with my colleagues to craft legislation that will cut our greenhouse gas emissions without punishing low carbon intensity states.
You may also be interested to learn that, on November 14, 2007, I introduced the Climate Change Adaptation Act of 2007 (S. 2355). This comprehensive legislation recognizes that the impacts of climate change are already occurring and will continue in the coming decades even if we begin dramatically decreasing our greenhouse gas emissions today. If enacted, my bill will require the President to develop a national strategy for addressing the impact climate change will have on our natural resources. It will also specifically require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct vulnerability assessments on the impacts of climate change on coastal and ocean resources, and prepare an adaptation plan for such resources. The Climate Change Adaptation Act was unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on December 4, 2007, and is awaiting consideration by the full Senate.
On May 27, 2008, I chaired an official Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard hearing on the Effects of Climate Change on Marine and Coastal Ecosystems in Washington state. During the hearing, I received testimony from national and regional experts on the effects of climate change on the health of Puget Sound and oceans, and the impact rising sea levels could have on Washington state communities. Washington is projected to sustain sea level rises up to two feet by 2040, which would put 56 square miles of the state underwater and affect at least 44,429 residents - more than the current population of Olympia. Also, almost half of our carbon dioxide emissions end up in our oceans, over half a trillion tons since the start of the Industrial Revolution, which is making the water more acidic. Ocean acidification is detrimental to many ocean organisms, including coral, and threatens to disrupt ocean habitats and coastal economies around the world, including Washington state’s trademark $3.5 billion fishing industry. When we combine the impact of ocean acidification with the additional climate change effects of increasing ocean temperatures, changing winds and currents, and rising sea levels, the impacts our carbon emissions have on marine environments like the Puget Sound are too devastating to ignore.
Like you, I am encouraged by growing momentum for developing solutions to climate change. As a member of both the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees, I plan to continue learning more about the science of global warming and pushing the most effective policies and regulations that could be implemented to help limit greenhouse gas emissions. Please be assured that I will work with my colleagues to ensure that we seize this opportunity to move towards creating a cleaner, more diverse and secure 21st Century energy system.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington State. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.”
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator