The True Meaning of ‘Go Green’
It’s omnipresent now, appearing in every form of media, in grocery stores, on any sort of product. Smiles and earth tone images greet us as we are told over and over again to “go green,” it’s the right thing to do. Don’t be left out, everyone’s doing it! Green is in, save the earth. It’s in all the schools — green is good, kind, and moral. Green is our future. Without it there will be no future.
To “go green” is a metaphor for a cause, but the cause is not the one you might think it is. Green is not about saving energy. It is not about conservation or living more efficiently by recycling. It’s not about electric cars or hydrogen power or solar panels.
Green is not about you. Green is about saving nature. From you.
We are told that going green is the way to create a more eco-friendly and responsible world, but the real meaning is more subtle and sinister. To go green means to change what we are doing, and implies that if we don’t change what we are doing we will inflict terrible harm on the planet and future generations. So what are we to change from, and to what?
We are being asked, commanded, to change the basic ways that we produce and use energy. The reason for this change is also different from what you might think.
The environmental movement uses a speculative opinion about carbon dioxide to arm its fight against you. When they say they are “fighting global warming,” what they really mean is they are fighting your prosperity. Your prosperity is directly related to the production of affordable energy with fossil fuels. China understands this. India understands this. The environmental movement understands it as well, but does not care.
Roughly 87 percent of everything we make energy from produces carbon dioxide gas. “Go green” looks to reduce the output of that gas. The problem is there is nothing “green” on any scale remotely near what is needed to replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. They know that there will never be enough windmills or solar panels to power even a tiny fraction of the world we know today, much less the future. The leaders of the environmental movement know this.
The phrase “go green” seems harmless enough — what’s so wrong with being more efficient and looking for new ways of producing energy? It’s true, there’s nothing wrong with looking for new energy sources. But going green has been promoted as the answer to all of our energy needs, the idea being that if we “go green” we can save the earth and still produce plenty of energy and create new jobs. This is part of the lie.
What you must always keep in mind is that the only goal of the environmental movement is to save nature from you. There is no other reason for its existence. The environmental movement does not care what happens to your job, your family, your future, the future of your children, this country, any country.
Yes, the point is that capitalism is now stepping up to its next colossal revolution: with the industrial take-off of countries like China and India, billions of people will be able to live at a “middle class” level. This points to a future of global development and to a richness never seen before in history.
Therefore…
the commies must stop all this, before their dreams of poverty, control, and totalitarianism get destroyed by history once and for ever.
And, contrarily to what O’Reilly thinks, the term “commies” doesn’t mean a conspiracy of a few idiots that we can just ignore, it means instead powerful forces that are united by their common (pseudo) philosophy of nihilism.
Art – Terrific piece. One thought: Go Green’s CO2 = Rachel Carson’s DDT. Their aim is the same – the destruction of civilization and people in the name of the great goddess Gaia.
The fact that the most eco-friendly non carbon emmitting form of energy production, nuclear, is fought tooth and nail by the Greens proves this argument.
Art; good one.
This is a great primer for the layman. There are many diabolical liaisons involved in the eco-enviro-freakshow; all the way up to the highest levels of government, ahem!!
Still…what to do…what to do? It’s sooo huge it’s mind-boggling. But hey; it IS crumbling and will continue that way, when POOF!…..suddenly…there will be no reason for it to exist any more.
These are the same eco-freaks that believe that eugenics is the best way to go!! Man…that’s plug ugly! The dots are being connected at a rapid pace and even Soros is scared now…I hate to break it to ya George; but money does NOT rule the world.
A good article, but the most important topic may be unmentioned: food.
A big part of the so-call “green” movement is directed toward food production: organic food, locally produced food, etc. The common element is that these all “green” ideas result in more expense, less abundant crops. What the greenies don’t seem to realize is that all human progress is made possible by cheap food. As food becomes less available, fewer people are able to devote their time to things like science and culture. What the greenies need to do is watch some National Geographic documentaries about the worlds remaining hunter/gatherer tribes. They need look at the houses they live in, count the books on the shelves and the paintings on the walls. They can notice the diversity of the populace. Once that is done, the greenies can tell us just how much they would like to live in that type of society.
One of the real dangers of any “Green Party” is the fact that it is almost guaranteed to be led by fanatics. The logic is simple. Any enviromental group spokesman who seems to be “compromising” their views (say – by supporting nuclear power) will be immediately outflanked by someone to his/her left who will stridently claim that “I love the planet more” than the apostate. The advocate of compromise will be painted as a “sell out” and will then either have to recant or be drummed out of the movement. (We have seen this with the animal rights and vegan movements.) Eventually we will arrive at a point, even now advocated by some very respectable academics, where “the human race will have to go” in order to save the planet. I doubt(?) that it will get that far but you never know. One thing is clear however – There is a growing black hole of nihilism at the center of the Green movement.
I disagree. Going Green is only tangentially about saving the planet. What is much more important to the greenies are the following points:
1. The smart ones should set policy – any policy we like.
2. We are smarter than you.
3. We care more than you.
4. You *will* submit to our better ideas.
5. We will rule over you because we are smarter and care more.
EnvironMentalist are invariably people that want OTHERS to use less energy!
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would talk non stop about lowering speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red.
Virtually no Americans believe it either; just look at the fuel wasting driving habits; that also fund the other sides war against us! If you believe the hurricane may kill you/your family: you leave. The driving habits proves no one believes it.
With all due respect I disagree. I do agree that there are such people but I submit to you that they are just “useful idiots” for interests that actually could care less about the environment. “Green” measures invariably involve some sort of rationing, be it of energy or whatever. The winners are picked before the contest occurs. The contest that follows is merely a decoy to deceive the ignorant. If not for the powers that be who support them they would merely be a fringe element like the Hare Krishna’s (does that cult even exist now?).
Prosperous and independent people don’t need “wise rulers” to tell them what to do. The real point of the “Green” movement is to end widespread prosperity and the independence it brings. Just remember comrades, “Freedom is Slavery.” And the powers behind the Greens would like nothing better than to make us all “free.”
Green. A color. The Dollar. Safe. Good to go. The national color of Pan African and Muslim states. The official color of Islam. The color preferred by Greenpeace.
An icon of this nonsense (eco-extreme) is that spiral light bulb which does not last 7 years, does not light as well, and contains poisonous mercury. The bulb is made by GE who are well into government influence. The bulb is more expensive and we are now mandated to use it. Save energy, ha! Why? Go back to the dark? No!
This article fits with the bumper stickers that I’ve proposed. “Go Green. Go Broke.”
Get yours today!
Freedom of the press and climate skepticism debate hotting up in Australia
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/abc-chairman-says-let-them-speak-greens-say-nooooo/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_chairman_do_not_mock_the_sceptics/
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3389
Also have comment on my site.
You seem to live in a strange kind of fantasy world where designing, building, installing and marketing solar panels, for example, are not “economic activity”, and where the environment is not part of the economy, and where economy does not depend upon environment. Perhaps that is why you confuse the motives of those you condemn.
Environmentalist may want to ruin our prosperity but the left is using “go green” to take our freedoms. And neither wants to solve the crisis formerly known as global warming because to do so would take away their putative moral high ground. One thing envronmentalist do not understand is with a decline in prosperity the environment will decline accordingly.
14. You seem to live in a fantasy world where solar power is actually green, as opposed to requiring numerous toxic chemicals including niobium, which is a rare earth metal that is mined nigh exclusively in China. Ever wonder why you’re not supposed to throw TVs in the garbage when they break? Those same toxic chemicals that require proper disposal for TVs are used to make solar panels.
Think: ENRON
Green NAZIS says it all really
The basic premise of the argument made here is absurd. If the Green movement is about saving nature, which you readily admit, then those who oppose the Green movement, such as yourself, are in fact enemies of nature, and therefore enemies of mankind, because without the bounty of the natural environment, humans cease to exist.
Changing from fossil fuels to sustainable, renewable power sources is not a suicide mission – it is a necessary step in the maturation of our economy and our species. Fossil fuels are a finite resource – we can only delay the end of the fossil fuel era, at great expense, or work instead to move on to more suitable fuel sources. The resistance to change is of course natural – but it is also counter-productive, in that it prevents us from making the necessary adjustments to prevent catastrophic damage to the environment and the economy which inevitably flow from continued fossil fuel dependence.
Ultimately, failure to preserve the natural environment will destroy “your job, your family, your future, the future of your children, this country, any country”, which is why preserving the environment is, and should be, our highest priority.
Peace.
DS
I’ve said for several years that the eco-Marxists ultimate goal is for humanity to live in giant enclosed cities like in the dystopian film “Logan’s Run”.
19. Then I presume you support building 400 nuclear power plants, including 300 fast reactors (125 burners, 75 breeders, and 100 traveling wave reactors), along with several reprocessing plants. Out of the waste, we can obtain precious metals to help fund reprocessing operations, samarium to make control rods, and radioisotopes to sterilize food and medical supplies. The major problem, of course, is that the green movement doesn’t want a sustainable economy; they want a subsistence economy.
So tell us again moonbats about how GOOD the Lying Mohammedan BOGUS POTUS is for America????
Budget deficit sets record in February
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP) – 9 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year’s record for the full year.
The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year’s $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country thrree straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
Read the whole sorry story of Obambis FAILURE here :- http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-YziTsAJw1ofv-BiXk2MoSXknwQD9EBVD6G0
Green NAZIS say CO2 is a POLLUTANT and as such should be inhibited. But CO2 levels are lower now than at many comparable times in history when man never even existed and a GEOLOGIST will tell you that high CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW planetary temperature hikes and NEVER EVER PRECEDE them. On another point CO2 is a VITAL part of the cycle of life more CO2 more plants and sea weed, more plants and sea weed more food for man,fish and animals, more food better life . So not only are Green NAZIS scientifically corrupt and pathetically ignorant they are also anti LIFE.
DS-
If environmentalists are simply advancing Nature’s preservation in order to preserve mankind, why do some advocate population reduction -including global implementation of China’s one-child policy http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438 ? Why do some environmentalists refer to mankind as a “cancer” spreading on the Earth?
The goal had always been to preserve our planet so our children could inherit it, for generations to come. But if each subsequent generation has fewer and fewer children -who are we saving the planet for? When did preserving the planet become more important than having children to inherit it? When did the means become the end, and the end become disposable? Does this attitude hide a deeper inner selfishness, where I do not want children, and don’t want others to have children either, as they’ll all only ruin the world I enjoy? Or has environmentalism morphed into a quasi religion, on whose altar we must sacrifice our future generations, in the name of preserving Mother Earth?
DS fails to note the balance that must be struck between preserving nature and preserving our current humanity. Not preserving Nature may pose a risk to future generations. But applying current environmentalist proposals could cripple our present generation, to the point future generations could also be at risk. Nature must be preserved -but at what cost?
Transitioning to renewable sources sounds great, until you realize the cost involved. At present, converting to alternate fuels (other than nuclear) and carbon-reducing technologies will inevitably raise electircity/fuel costs, ultimately raising the price of any item that requires transport -including food. That is exactly what happened in 2008, to devastating effects. As the price of oil doubled, our economy choked, food prices rose, and the poor suffered immeasurably. So forgive me for thinking twice about considering proposals that could precipitate our national or personal economic suicide.
The middle class would struggle, but carry on. It’s the poor who would starve. Tell me, how could those in Haiti, who at times literally eat dirt pies to stave off hunger pangs, manage higher food prices? They will surely ask if global conservation was something we are doing FOR them, or TO them… Of course, Al Gore and his affluent liberal friends would likely carry on their lavish, carbon-emitting lifestyles – appropriately carbon offsetted… Carbon offsetting will become modern day indulgence payments, allowing the rich continue a life of carbon sin without burning in global warming hell.
Cost-effective measures to lower our carbon emissions or raise our use of renewables should surely be supported. We can certainly make some cost-effective adjustments to improve our overall energy efficiency. But as long as the alternatives being proposed are much more expensive that our current fuel sources, it will be a hard sell, particularly given our current weak global economy.
The emphasis should not be on foisting expensive technologies upon us, rather it should be on making alternatives cost-effective. Push alternatives at high prices, and few will use them. Develop alternatives that are cheaper than oil, and the entire world will WANT to use them. The government should spend less on subsidizing expensive technologies, and more on researching how to make those technologies cheaper.
All should read http://www.green-agenda.com/
The “green agenda” has always been about totalitarianism and has evolved over decades. They really thought they had us with global warming,
This seems to border on the paranoid, as if creating new industries (that actually produce things) is somehow a centrally-controlled world domination plot. Furthermore, to say that everyone in green movement wants you to live half as long due to changes in your lifestyle is a bit over the top, especially since many “green” products are designed to improve your health, which is badly damaged by the preponderance of petrochemicals in modern culture. One need to look no further than BPA-lined cola cans or melamine-laced proteins. Never mind the fire retardants in your couch.
Are some advocating for small changes in lifestyle? Obviously. Everyone is – including the marketer trying to convince you that you “need” a bigger car, the newest processed food, or Nike sneakers.
So tell us again moonbats about how GOOD the Lying Mohammedan BOGUS POTUS is for America????
Budget deficit sets record in February
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP) – 9 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year’s record for the full year.
The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year’s $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country thrree straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
Read the whole sorry story of Obambis FAILURE here :- http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-YziTsAJw1ofv-BiXk2MoSXknwQD9EBVD6G0
Actually, Obama is the only one so far to have openly stated his intention to moderate spending, after his predecessor cut taxes but then spent wildly on an unnecessary military adventure in Iraq and a theoretical moon base.
Why do you Americans seem to go on about this Obama-Muslim conspiracy so much? Why should it even matter what religion your president is?
The “Earth first (Humans Second)” environmentalist mantra has become so prevalent, it can even be seen in the 2008 remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” which portrayed humanity as a villainous band of ecoterrorists. Klaatu the alien is sent to convince humanity to change its ways, or be eradicated -in the name of saving the planet. The message is clear: change your polluting, eco-unfriendly ways… or else. We’re the first species on Earth to advocate our own elimination…
myth buster,
That false duality exists only in your mind and the minds of alleged others. Most (sane) people apply COBA to real-world exchanges. Arguing against rare, boneheaded, and fantastical viewpoints as opposed to the better arguments of your ‘opponents’ is one of the inevitable consequences of faux-news social sites like PJM, and their perpetually irresponsible faux-journalists.
What you must always keep in mind is that the only goal of the environmental movement is to save nature from you.
Echoing points made in #7, being overseen and directed by the self-anointed smarter & more enlightened set is often the point, and “nature/the environment” simply the vehicle or the excuse.
Environmental preachery & dire predictions can come from some of the most egregious wasters & consumers of resources on the planet (cf Hollywood crowd). Some extreme bashers of capitalism are, personally, among the biggest users of the fruits of capitalist enterprise.
The US President who wants cap and trade and our home energy costs to “necessarily skyrocket” has personally dumped more pounds of carbon into the atmosphere in one year of jetting about the planet than the combined polluting behaviors of hundreds of individuals.
Green screamers in Washington DC take an SUV to cross the street & leave their chauffeured Town cars idling while they dash in for the $400 haircut
As always with élitists, it’s follow my rules, do as I say, not as I do.
I’m all for getting diapers, plastic bags & bottles out of landfills & the oceans, but not for the growing factor of intimidation as a function of self-righteousness if you’re not perceived as “green”. Walking into a Ralph’s supermarket in southern CA, I was confronted by two employees who asked if I’d brought my own shopping bags. I said “no” and asked if they were going to put me in jail or what
, which made them blush, which was good.
Actually, Obama is the only one so far to have openly stated his intention to moderate spending…
What Twilight Zone are we operating in here…? Obama has tripled down on spending, with no sign of slowing down, despite offering up some miniscule reduction in federal spending not to be implemented until 2011.
(why, you’d think he was trying to bankrupt the nation…)
Why do you Americans seem to go on about this Obama-Muslim conspiracy so much? Why should it even matter what religion your president is?
We Americans do that ? I only complain about this President’s apology tours, where he tried to impress Arab leaders by saying obsequious stuff about Izz-lam & rotten stuff about the country he purportedly leads. (Arab leaders weren’t impressed on either count.)
“Green” is also a way for elites to tell US that WE aren’t doing enough, while they fly off in their jets and travel with an entourage. “Wired” magazine had an article on “green” myths. One being the Prius. It’s carbon footprint to produce it was so big, you would have to drive it for 100k miles before it started reducing it’s footprint. If “green” was not fadish it would be affordable. I would love to have solar panels and thermal energy. But I’m just a common man with limited resources.
Contemporary Progessives are a reactionary movement which wants to take us back to 1850 when Marx and Darwin proposed new ideas. forget about actual e4xperience withtheir pro;positions which are not new any more.
This morning I went out to a convenience store, and I waited aqs a flock of wading birds waddled down the road, as if they owned the place. Maybe they escape their nature preserve to come feast on the bugs in our lawns because they are a lot safer in a gated community than they are in the wild. After all, birds have been fending for themselves for eons.
Obama is turning every agency into a global warming effort. It will take a new Joe McCarthy to weed out the watermelons he is planting in our government.
#5 Paul from Hamburg — A big part of the so-call “green” movement is directed toward food production: organic food, locally produced food, etc.
It’s unsurprising that the primary supporters for this idiocy are those who live in temperate regions like California where such a thing is even possible. The only explanation is industrial strength geographical ignorance.
#19 David S — Changing from fossil fuels to sustainable, renewable power sources is not a suicide mission – it is a necessary step in the maturation of our economy and our species.
Speaking of industrial strength ignorance.
There aren’t any renewable technologies that are remotely capable, or otherwise companies looking to profit would be making them.
What *is* possible right now is nuclear and solar power satellites beaming power to the ground. Nuclear isn’t on the table due to litigious eco-fascists, and SPS isn’t fundable because fantasy wind power stupidity soaks up all possible cash.
That said, when people like you speak of ‘renewables’ you come across as technology creationists who apparently believe that engineers are performing seals capable of poofing stuff into existence upon a whim. Indeed, the only reason we haven’t conjured up Zero Point Energy is because we’re too busy snorting coke off of the bellies of former blonde playboy models, all of which is funded by Exxon.
One day though when Exxon execs are in jail and we’re bored then we’ll wave our wands and conjure up renewables, e.g. solar power modules that work at night, and wind turbines that create 100 Gigawatts via flux capacitors and no breeze. We’ll throw in tidal energy converters providing we can all get a DeLorean.
Underneath quoting the article I posted telling us tat the Obamanation is the BIGGEST SPENDING HUGEST OVERDRAFT CREATING PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME>
John writes “Actually, Obama is the only one so far to have openly stated his intention to moderate spending, after his predecessor cut taxes but then spent wildly on an unnecessary military adventure in Iraq and a theoretical moon base.
Why do you Americans seem to go on about this Obama-Muslim conspiracy so much? Why should it even matter what religion your president is?”
Such MOONBAT disconnect with reality is hilarious. And as to why his RELIGION is important well it would not be so if he did not LIE about it as he has about virtually ALL of his DOCUMENT HIDDEN life story and also if he did not insult America’s traditional allies and lick Mohammedan ars*
#19 David S — Changing from fossil fuels to sustainable, renewable power sources is not a suicide mission – it is a necessary step in the maturation of our economy and our species.
Long ago, I asked David S if he’d given up driving yet, stopped using his computer & abandoned the myriad petroleum based products in his home.
Maybe stopped shampooing his hair, in the name of “green”.
No answer, naturellement.
I guess he hasn’t yet, in his own words, made “…the necessary adjustments to prevent catastrophic damage to the environment and the economy which inevitably flow from continued fossil fuel dependence.”
for over a year now i have refused to buy anything “green.” if there are two products on the shelf and one is “green,” i buy the other one. when a salesman suggests buying a “green” product i tell him im not interested in belonging to a cult.
“green” products cost way more than non-green products, and at this point the only “green” i care about is my wallet.
35. You haven’t been keeping up on the news. Nuclear plants have been quietly expanding and new reactors are being built today.
#39 myth buster 35. You haven’t been keeping up on the news. Nuclear plants have been quietly expanding and new reactors are being built today.
I’ve seen that these are being designed/planned, at least on a token scale, and even then I’ll believe it when I see it done. Until then I’m expecting years of litigation. (Yes, I’m the sort that believes it’s real only when the cheque is actually cashed.)
#38 stargirl — “green” products cost way more than non-green products, and at this point the only “green” i care about is my wallet.
Me too. And I buy organic veggies at whole foods anyway. Why? Because for whatever reason they actually stay fresh and crisp in your fridge much longer than what’s in most grocery stores. You can be practical enough to buy “green” stuff when it saves money…
The other side of this ‘green’ coin is recycling. We are supposed to separate the trash so that the scavanger company doesn’t have to do so before it sells the ‘recycled’ trash to another company at a profit. Good luck with that. My concept of recycling is ‘from the earth to the earth’.
no. 38: hey, you sure are on the money! go into a trader vics’ or whole foods. 1. it’s impossible that each and every item that they sell is “green,” or organic because big food chains have also bought up supposedly organic fruits and vegetables and all the other stuff. however, these products cost close to one-third higher than those not “green,” or “organic.” 2. go into a large chain store’s produce dept, compare, side by side, “organic” carrots with those that are not. there really is no difference, besides, they are root vegetables. 3. if it’s true that pollution is in the ground, then how can root veggies be better for you?
THIS GETS ME REAL MAD: my favorite color always, always in my life of close to 60 years has been green. in addition, i’ve always loved trees. but now, when i choose it for some item i want, even for my web page, i get compliments. i have to explain that i am not choosing that color because i live “green,” as though i must make up an excuse simply for my favorite color being green!
40. Well, the plants are under construction now.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/03/10/more-revelations-about-the-oliver-stone-documentary/comment-page-1/#comment-17596
Well put and correct, those of us close to the heart of this have known all along what this revolution was “really” about. Only one correction needed in this article – Holland produces so much power through wind, it has a surplus that it can’t use – so they send it down to Russia – for free. As soon as we figure out how to store electricity for the future, then we will put our energies into over-producing it.
Going green should be a personal choice. The biggest evil of this movement is that it is being used to set policy. You cannot mandate morality- and in the United States, a Constitutional Republic designed to protect individual rights, in no instance should peoples’ money be taken by force to be used to subsidize or promote any ideology or any industry. Regardless of intentions, this redistribution of wealth is immoral. These “green” industries are artificially stimulated, if we free the markets, the capital would be diverted much more efficiently to deal with possible energy depletion. The problem is our market is not free, and the power industries have been stagnating because of government regulation and protectionism.
Free the markets, the most powerful tool for dealing with any change. Republicans need to fight for individual rights- and for once we need to be “extreme”, not pragmatic.
44. myth buster.===
links, please
I stand corrected. I was told last year that they would be breaking ground by last December, but apparently there have been funding delays. The sites have been approved by the NRC, however.
” Holland produces so much power through wind, it has a surplus that it can’t use – so they send it down to Russia – for free.”
Sorry, but that’s payback for Russian natural gas, which supports the erratic wind production.
I prefer boron fusors; boron is abundant in CA, and no radioactives involved.(!!) Also tritium ceramic fusion, as opposed to deuturium heavy water. Yes, the ‘hot fusion’ crowd lied about cold fusion too. Pons n Fleischmann’s results were repeated 1300 times by 1999.
And pebble bed nuclear reactors, no meltdown possible! Or smaller nuke sub reactors in every neighborhood.
Nuclear can be recycled until it’s lead. “China Syndrome” was the story of a drunken hippy janitor who’s green boyfriend conned into stealing samples. Unfortunately, booze and driving didn’t mix.
Solar needs water to wash the panels… in a desert ecology.
Wind was tried (disastrously) in the 80′s. Most of those turbines quickly became expensive trash. Many of the turbines today are spinning freely (not doing anything) just to keep the oil circulating. They kill approx. 10,000 spotted owls per month in just one Oregon county alone. (Yes, the spotted owls were deliberately undercounted, 5 to 1, and only “old growth” areas were counted. This may have been to cover the 28 lakes poisoned- 100% dieoff- by the states in land seizures.)
Some notable green frauds-
Dupont’s patent ran out- suddenly gases too heavy to rise higher than 7 to 22 miles below the ozone layer all bundled up and rubbed a hole in one spot. Gas, ahem, is not brillo.
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Gases are not a solid plate of glass. More like a very, very loose volleyball net- 10 molecules per million holding back the wind?
In 2006, two german scientists tested Arrhenius’ 1909 speculation about carbon. That carbon, or any gas, is a “greenhouse” gas, only letting heat pass in only one direction, violates the laws of physics. Infrared is a light, not heat. Radiative (infrared light) transfer is not the same as conductive transfer. What caused any gas to heat is to be trapped behind a solid wall, that wall then absords heat from sunlight (convection). Once freed, the gases rise and cool.
Also, how can “fossil” fuels be found miles below the fossil layer? Uranus has rivers of gasoline and methane in the atmosphere. (Water ice, there, acts like lava- liquid rock- here. How cool is that?)
And CA’s “delta smelt”? A common trash minnow’s precious babies may be churned by the irrigation pumps (that run on food grease biofuel) that have been operating for 65 years? Puh-lease.
The real story is that the organic-chomping vegans in the Bay area won’t stop dumping their raw sewage into the delta waters.
Go Green!
oh, and thank you for mentioning the extreme toxics in solar panel production.
Solar companies in the silicon valley are just walking away from their factories, leaving an extreme mess- vats of heavy metal toxics- just sitting there.
Biofuel factories did the same in 2008. Some 100,000 jobs were lost, and $100 million worth of processing facilities idled, when subsidised ethanol went from $2.65 to 23 cents per gallon.
Most “green” companies are just tax scams.
Didn’t know that about China and niobium- 70% of lithium salts are from a lake in Evo’s socialist Bolivia.
Carbon credits are just a way to pay dictators for what they do best, that is, produce nothing. With a few mineral deals thrown in.
Also, Dec. 2007 a $2.7 Trillion carbon credit derivatives exchange opened in London. You’re gonna miss those good old-fashioned mortgage-backed securities!
last one, I swear.
thermal depolymerization- garbage gas- turns anything with a carbon chain (AIDS corpses, medical waste, sewage, garbage, even viruses and prions) into a ultra light sweet crude with 42 hours of compressed steam and heat. Metal, glass, ceramics strained out and recycled. Empties the landfills; imagine bums cleaning cities of trash for salvage cash! Clean land…
Bacterial hydrogen- a bacterial strain that converts even scummy or alkali water into expensive hydrogen more quickly. Clean air and clean water!
(hydrogen engines invented 1895; Otto Diesel created the Diesel engine to run on peanut oil- Washington Carver developed soy and peanut protein to feed the world’s poor, Diesel said let’s mechanize their labors too)
steam cracking of oil shale- clean natural gas without strip mining or mountain top removal (slurry tainting aquifers)
((obama just put the bakken/colorado oil shale off limits, as clinton did to Pacific lumber and Utah soft coal for his Chinese handlers- they liked the nuke/satellite tech and MFN Trading status too- MOSAIC intel cultivation of a junior AG from AR and 1000 front companies spreading cash in forgotten backwater AR really paid off))
I also like the infinite frontier- space based solar with microwaved beam power to earth. 600 miles of grid would equal the world’s electric needs. Frontier labor shortages make individuals valuable, not just another mouth to feed-
even better- China is going to the moon for He3. 4 billion years of solar irridation of moondust means 5 semi trailers of that radiated dust (Helium3) equals the total world energy supply today.
and just to think, gasoline was once just a metal polish.
from metal polish to garbage to moondust!
last, last about the original atmospheric hoax- the ozone ‘hole’ shrinks and expands seasonally because of the solar wind.
Some years it’s much larger, some years it’s almost absent.
52. Remember, though, that using He-3 as a fuel is only as good as the fusion reactors we’re burning it in. No neutrons means no using depleted uranium as a booster; it has to run on straight fusion. This will increase the thermal efficiency, but we still have to get the plasma physics right. That said, He-3 is also the product of tritium decay, and there’s lots of tritium out there (think decommissioned nuclear weapons and tritium scintillators like exit signs).
GOiiN GREEN iiS A GOOD tHANG tO DO
Countries like China and Idia would better concentrate on basing their growing industy on clean energies, not on technoligies which are slowly abandoned by western countries as they were proven harmful to the environment. And to employ harmful energy to manufacture cheap, low quality products that no one wants to buy anymore – is a crime!
Do I ban products manufacted in the 2 countries? Yes, I do! First, because of their poor quality, second because of human exploatation (poor people are paid few cents a day for products that are sold for thousands of dollars abroad) and third, because of the huge pollution these 2 countries create. Sorry, you might not like what I wrote, but this is the truth!
You did obviously got everything wrong guys, if you really believe what you wrote above. To state that exploiting fossil fuels is good, only proves your EXTREME ignorance!
And to give as positive example China & India, the BIGGEST polluters on the Planet, only shows you are probably living on an other planet!