Friday, November 20, 2009

Hypocrisy of the "Green Movement"

Do you remember all the noise that was being made over ethanol by environmentalists during the Bush administration? Many individuals pointed out the limitations of ethanol but these voices were ignored because the greens were on board. Now environmentalists have flip-flopped on ethanol because they initially glossed over its limitations. This pattern is a familiar one and our CARE blog contributor Dennis T. Avery (Director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute) points out the hypocrisy of the "green movement" by realistically assessing several energy sources.

For example, clearing and plowing the massive amount of acerage necessary for using cellulosic ethanol releases huge amounts of CO2 into the air-one of the greenhouse gases that is allegedly causing global warming. Yet despite this grave concern over global warming, environmentalists in concert with the Obama administration have stopped spent nuclear fuel from being stored in Nevada. That's right! The environmentalists oppose opening the disposal site necessary to continue using nuclear power, the only CO2-free base load energy source Americans have access to. Of course, these hypocritical environmentalists pay no heed to the facts as does Mr. Avery. We invite you to read on as we are confident that decision making based upon facts rather than eco-ideology will change your views on energy for the better.

Greens Again Bait And Switch On Energy
Back during the bad old Bush presidency, the eco-movement loudly endorsed ethanol, particularly cellulosic ethanol, as a good eco-substitute for gasoline. Now they’ve changed their minds. They’re finally admitting that you can’t grow ethanol and food on the same acres. If you’re going to add ethanol to your shopping list, you need to clear more land to grow the feedstock. When forest or grassland is cleared and plowed, huge amounts of carbon stored in the soil gas off into the air. If Global Warming is man-made, this is a serious problem.

This gem of newfound wisdom has just been published in the October 23 issue of Science, and dutifully repeated by the Washington Post and the other Green media collaborators. The lead author is Princeton’s Tim Searchinger, formerly a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Where were these "environmentalists" when Bush and the Congress installed their ill-considered mandates for corn and cellulosic ethanol? Three full years ago, I did a study with the Competitive Enterprise Institute titled Biofuels, Food or Wildlife: The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol. I warned back then that making any useful amount of ethanol would force us to plow millions more acres of wildlands—first for corn and then for poplar, pine, and other fast-growing trees to make wood chips for cellulosic ethanol.

I warned there wasn’t enough land to go around. Nobody cared; because the Greens approved it. But the Greens are playing bait-n-switch. First it was solar, but the sun only shines for half of each 24 hours. Clouds interrupt too. How can we keep the lights on at the school and the hospital?

Then it was wind turbines. But a big EU power provider has testified that wind is so erratic you need 90 percent of your installed wind capacity matched in "spinning reserve"—burning fuel—from fossil or nuclear. Why bother to make the wind turbines at all?

Corn ethanol nearly doubled world food prices in three years, and is set to do it again whenever there’s a short corn crop. Cellulosic ethanol is still unworkable and the environmentalists are now telling us not to bother.

They don’t want us to have energy! Paul Ehrlich and Maurice Strong—the Canadian "grey eminence" of the UN—agree that the threat to the earth is "too many rich people." And energy is the key to the affluence. So we must tax away the energy.

What about more nuclear plants that don’t emit CO2? The Obama administration won’t allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored at Harry Reid’s Yucca Mountain, and it won’t permit reprocessing. Strike it off the list!

Now we learn that the energy-tax bills currently in the Congress contain a little clause that lets the White House renege on all those emission permits the big companies have sold their souls for—if CO2 levels go too high. That’s not temperatures too high, but CO2 levels in the atmosphere too high. So what if CO2 has almost no linkage to our temperatures? As the oceans recover from their Little Ice Age chill, the laws of physics guarantee higher and higher CO2 concentrations in the air. Talk about legislative sleight-of-hand!

Again I will warn the Green movement: If children are starving for lack of nitrogen fertilizer for the crops (made with natural gas); if elderly voters are literally freezing to death in their homes for lack of coal; those laws won’t be worth the paper they were drafted on (considerable as the paper piles already are).

In fact, the Congress itself will race to change the laws before you can say "tea party."

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to


Curtis from Greenwood Lake said...


Great post.
The key, glaring phraze:
"They don’t want us to have energy!".

It's all part of the huge ball of wax that includes property rights, procreation, travel, toilets and paper, light bulbs, manned space exploration and even damned "light pollution" making the skies too bright for stargazers.
They HATE anything that is good for, or empowers humans.
They LOVE anything that doesn't help us, no matter how ludicrous (as long as they can help themselves - of course).

Wind turbines - Great!
Hundreds of huge windmills scouring the land, but we can't have unsightly off-shore oil rigs!

Bio-fuels - Great!
Stay away from those 'fossils', but burn tons of fossil fuel trying to produce and bring bio to the consumer. Then cause the same, or more pollution, burning bio anyway.

Solar - Great!
Don't use natural-born and stored solar power from fossil, but cover hectares of land to power a few thousand families with man's grossly inefficient capture of solar radiation.

Nuclear - Sucks!
Super clean; super powerful; cheap; safe.

Fuel from underground, brought through a small hole - Sucks!
Produced by the stored sunlight in plants that naturally decomposed.
It works. And all the technology is here now, and getting better and more efficient every day. We let the solar system do the work, and tap the energy easily. And we will not run out for hundreds of years with today's and future science - and they know it.
And the exhaust causes increased forestation and food crops - just like volcanoes and other crust vents do.
The areas we mine for coal, get returned to 'nature' within ten years after use.

Hydrogen - Sucks!
Probably the cleanest, most efficient, most proven/tested new fuel out there now. And would be quick and cheap to transform our infrastructures to it.
Getting fuel from water, that doesn't hurt the water. An even better gift from nature.
They have these mini, experimental, roadside hydrogen stations in Europe right now that produce hydrogen on site through small solar panels - and they just sit there, collecting dust.

No matter what our brilliant scientists come up with that appears to work; it will be trashed at all cost.

(continued in my next post; part 2 - I ran way over on characters)

Curtis from Greenwood Lake said...

Part 2 (continued from previous post; Part1)

'Environmental Issues' are just another political termite used to weaken the foundation of human progress.

These GreenShirts would love to stop humanity in its tracks, and most would probably be thrilled if we would all just evaporate (except for THEIR little cabal - of course).

Yet the most heinous thing about these greedy hypocrites is they can burn whatever and however much they want.
They can get as rich as they feel like it.
They can own the hugest mansions and take up the most land.
They can travel as much as they want - own as many jets and cars and boats as they want.
Yet they claim to hate capitalism as they so immensely capitalize themselves.

You and I that DON'T try to TAKE other peoples money, freedoms, property rights, choice, and personal power - WE are evil and greedy.

You and I that try to EARN our keep and lot in life and help other humans to do so just as well - WE must be stopped.

You and I that are doing exactly what every other living thing on earth is doing by wanting more and improving on life in the future - looking over that next hill, whether to find sustenance or danger - WE must be smothered to the benefit of other life forms, just because we're better at it.

You and I that are the product of so many evolutions, be they spiritual or by the passage of time - take your pick - WE must DEvolve now because we're to good at evolving!

Yet the destroyers of all that is good about humans - the Captains Planet out there - fly around with their green capes and claim to be the arbiters of what is Good. Using their self-proclaimed, phony superiority to pretend to make us more pure, all the while defecating on their own species because of a perverse superiority guilt.

What stuns me is how small in number these non-sane, emotionally flawed, joy-compromised, success-less, spiritless egotists actually are.
[I suppose the Squeaky Wheel does really get the Grease.]

These spoiled brats; these runts-of-the-litter that only our own human advancement let survive - we let THEM run OUR lives?

It's a wonder that I can keep myself from destroying everything in this room right now.

Mr. Avery (or is it Dr. or Professor?), please continue your good works. We really need people like you.

[Please excuse the lengthy post here. I'm not accustomed to this blogging stuff. And also excuse my sour and aggressive tone, if it was irritating to you. I just can't stand it any more and this is one of the only legal ways I - we - have left to vent. Remaining calm and gentle; dignified and controlled, is no longer an option for us.]