ENVIRONMENT NEWS


  • Environment news
     

REALTOR

INTERNET TRAFFIC REPORT

« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »

December 23, 2007

MEXICO LABELS BORDER FENCE ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL

     In its November 15, 2007 edition, The Washington Post reported that the Mexican government is unhappy with the fence because it allegedly threatens hundreds of plant and animal species by bisecting their habitat.

     Maybe.  But what about the environmental damage being done by the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing that same habitat (see previous Post under the Category of Immigration, right-hand side of this page)?  A picture is worth a thousand words (click on pictures for a clear view):Bordertrash

Border_trash

57108232   

SWISS SNOW SETS 50-YEAR RECORD

     From "Fast Track Ski News" on November 15, 2007:

Swiss ski resorts are expecting a record season after promising early snowfall, it has been reported.

***

...Switzerland has not received such a strong start to its winter ski season since 1952....

     I'd appreciate comments on how this is consistent with "global warming".

December 16, 2007

SORRY TO DISAPPOINT THE GREENIES, BUT BALI CONFERENCE WAS TYPICAL POSTURING

     Yesterday, the mainstream media went wild with joy when they could announce  that the United States had softened its position at the Bali conference and thus paved the way for a compromise climate-change agreement about carbon-emissions reduction.  Did this exuberance by the usual suspects undercut my repeated point on this Blog that countries sign "feel good" agreements but are not really going to put their economies in the tank by adhering to the agreements? 

      Hardly.  As The Sunday Times (U.K.) reports today ("Bali deal leaves greens in despair"):

AS more than 180 countries agreed a deal on climate change at the UN summit in Bali, environmentalists punctured the mood of self-congratulation by pointing to the failure to agree firm targets for reducing emissions.

Although the main industrialised countries, including America, agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, they refused to agree to an European Union proposal for a target of 25%-40% cuts by 2020.

Campaigners claimed the world’s biggest carbon emitters, including America, Japan and Canada, will now be free to carry on expanding such emissions for many more years to come.

“This deal is very disappointing,” said Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth. “This conference has failed to give us a clear destination.”

     The real news to come out of Bali was this brief statement in The Times:

— Tomorrow, John Hutton, the energy secretary, will give the strongest hint yet that the UK should go for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

     This, of course, will hardly make the the ROGW (Religion of Global Warming) disciples happy, either.  The ROGW and its pope, Al Gore, basically want the industrialized world to go back to the 18th century as punishment for economic success (which, of course, they believe was achieved only by oppressing the virtuous people of the Third World).  The ROGW disciples also want to produce only energy that carries 0% risk, and nuclear doesn't fit that bill (if civilization had historically adopted such a no-risk philosophy, we'd indeed still be in the 18th century technologically).

     The potential endorsement of nuclear energy by the UK, should such endorsement occur, is sensible not because of the fear of global warming but because for obvious reasons the West needs to reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil.  Hopefully Mr. Hutton will make, and carry through on, his expected announcement.

December 14, 2007

ONCE AGAIN, INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE-CHANGE PACT IS A NON-STARTER

     Despite their high-sounding rhetoric, no leader is going to throw his nation's economy into recession--or worse--to achieve cutbacks to stop "global warming".  As the Australian Herald Sun recently reported about newly-elected Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

     And today Reuters reported via Yahoo!

India and China objected on Saturday to a draft deal at U.N. talks in Bali to launch negotiations on a global pact by 2009 to fight climate change, saying rich nations should do more to lead the way.

***

"This is completely unacceptable", a source close to the Chinese delegation said. Soon after resuming on Saturday morning, the talks were suspended to try to resolve the tangle.

     But, of course, Al Gore could not overcome his Bush Derangement Syndrome long enough to blame anyone but his own country:   "'My country is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali,' the former US vice-president told 2,000 of the 12,000 people attending the conference on Thursday."  (Financial Times)

     In light of the above-referenced positions of Australia, China and India, one must ask:  What alternate planet does Al Gore occupy?  Perhaps he could devote his energy to saving that planet and leaving ours alone.

December 09, 2007

BALI SUMMIT ALREADY ON VERGE OF FAILURE (NO SURPRISE)

     Other than the delegates' emitting tons of feared carbon pollution by traveling to and from the Bali summit (see earlier Post below), it is not clear just what the submitters hope to accomplish.  This from the The Canadian Press today:

Greenhouse gases are continually skyrocketing - with the U.S., China, and India leading the way.

That's why [Canadian environment minister] Baird says the climate deal that replaces Kyoto in 2012 must hold those countries to binding targets, which Kyoto failed to do.

Canada's insistence on U.S. involvement is not the only sign of a stalemate in Bali. None of the big three polluters have offered any hint of accepting the targets that Baird calls a prerequisite for a deal.

     The major developing economies (India, China) are not going agree to forgo development; and the United States--sensibly--is not going to agree to spin our economy into a recession (or worse).  Moreover, virtually no country that signed onto Kyoto has even kept its commitments to that treaty.

     The result of Bali will be the same as the result of all other "do good" international environmental schemes-- a lot of high-sounding rhetoric designed to make everyone feel good without ultimately doing much of anything.  Which is probably good, since (as discussed in many previous Posts) it is not at all clear there is really "anything" to do "something" about.

December 07, 2007

SAY IT AIN'T SO, GLOBAL WARMING FIGHTERS!

    Once again, our "environmental heroes" turn out to have feet of clay.  From Bloomberg.com:

Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island 950 kilometers (600 miles) from Jakarta, according to estimates e- mailed to Bloomberg by the UN agency holding the conference.

***

The total of 40,700 tons of gas created by the conference is equivalent to the annual emissions of 20,350 mid-sized cars, each traveling 12,000 kilometers, according to www.atmosfair.de, a Web site that allows air travelers to compensate for emissions by investing in strategies to cut gas output in countries including India and Brazil.

AN AUSTRLIAN COLUMNIST WORTH READING

     From columnist Andrew Bolt in the Australian Herald Sun:

...When I was a student ... my earnest teachers used to tell me the world was running out of food, and show pictures of starving Indians, which made me worry a lot.

They were repeating the hot theories of people like green guru Prof Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book The Population Explosion sold in the millions.

“The battle to feed humanity is over,” Ehrlich preached. “In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.”

He was wrong, of course. Better crops, better communications, better transport, better education—and see now. Famines are now virtually unknown outside of war zones.

But such apocalyptic talk was everywhere then. Take the Club of Rome, a top think tank, which in 1972 warned the world’s economy was about to hit a wall. We were running out of oil, gas, silver, tin, uranium, aluminium, copper, lead and zinc, it warned in Limits to Growth, which sold 30 million copies, becoming the best-selling environmental book in history.

Panic spread. “We could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade,” warned US president Jimmy Carter.

Except we didn’t. Instead, we’ve now got bigger reserves of all the things the Club of Rome said would soon be used up, except for tin.

But those panics about resources were nothing compared with the full-blown hysteria that was now being whipped up over the environment.

These eco-scares really took off in 1962 after Rachel Carson published her Silent Spring, using now disputed or discredited evidence to claim DDT was such a menace in the food chain we had to ban it to save whole species.

So DDT spraying was largely halted to save birds and fish, even though that meant killing tens of millions of Third World children, who were left with no good protection from the malarial mosquitoes against which the DDT had been used.

Never mind! We were too busy then panicking over a fall (sic) in global temperatures. In April 1975, for instance, Newsweek ran an article, The Cooling World, warning of “ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change”, exposing us to floods, “catastrophic” famines, “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded” and “drought and desolation”.

The panic attacks were now coming in waves. There was “acid rain”, which the United Nations in 1986 blamed for damaging a quarter of Europe’s trees.

Now, of course, we know “acid rain” is hardly harmful, and Europe’s trees are blooming.

There was then the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, also in 1986, that was said to threaten millions of people with death and so terrified women that the International Atomic Energy Agency said as many as 200,000 had abortions. Now we know that the true death toll so far is fewer than 60.

There was the warning by British officials in 1996 that more than 500,000 people faced death by BSE, a brain disease they could catch from infected beef. Now we know—after eight million cattle were slaughtered—that the threat was wildly exaggerated, and the 100 or so victims might not have even got the disease from eating beef.

But don’t stop panicking! So we panicked instead about bird flu, with newspapers running screaming headlines such as: “Pandemic Could Kill 150 Million, UN Warns”.

But now we know the UN was just plucking figures from the air, and there’s still no proof this disease, caught from heavy exposure to sick birds, can leap from human to human.

...

Remember the fear that the world’s computers would crash the second the clocks ticked over to the year 2000? Planes would fall from the sky thanks to this Y2K bug, which the world spent an estimated $300 billion “fixing”. But what happened at midnight? Tick, tick, tick . . . er, tick.

Read the full column at Andrew Bolt, Australian Herald Sun

December 05, 2007

WHY JOE LIBERMAN REMAINS A DEMOCRAT-PART 2

     From Voice of America:

A U.S. Senate committee has passed landmark legislation [co-sponsored by Sens. Lieberman and Warner] aimed at combating global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions. The vote was timed to coincide with the U.N. conference on climate change taking place in Bali, Indonesia. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

The bill would set caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility, transportation and manufacturing industries beginning in 2012 with the goal of cutting emissions 60 percent by 2050. It would create an incentive system that would give credits to industries that cut pollution. Industries that failed to reduce emissions would be forced to buy credits from others.

The Democratic-led Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11 to eight, largely along party lines, to send the measure to the full Senate for what supporters hope will be action early next year.

    See pevious Post/this topic-November 4, 2007.

JERRY BROWN IS AT IT AGAIN

     Why does the California Attorney general remind one of William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" crusade?  Surely, Brown has got to be the most Populist AG ever, taking the anti-"global warming" crusade to new heights.  From the AP via AOL:

A coalition of states and environmental groups is urging the federal government to curb global warming pollution from planes and other aircraft.

California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia plan to file a petition Wednesday asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from domestic and foreign aircraft departing or landing at American airports.

"We want the EPA to take their head out of the sand and actively promulgate rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," California Attorney General Jerry Brown told The Associated Press. "The EPA has taken a very passive and unimaginative approach to combating global warming."

     Brown and his cohorts want the EPA to effect pollution reductions "by requiring operators to boost fuel efficiency, use cleaner fuels or build lighter, more aerodynamic airplanes."

     You know, when (like Al Gore) you can afford to travel around in private planes, you have the luxury of pushing ideas that will boost travel costs for us ordinary folks.  When you are an ordinary folk, however, apparently about all you can do is hold out your wallet to be fleeced so that the "anointed ones" can pursue making life impossibly expensive for the rest of us. 

CONSUMER GUIDE TO TOXIC TOYS

     From WXYZ.com (Channel 7, ABC, Detroit):

On Wednesday, December 5 the Michigan-based Ecology Center - the same group that released the first-ever consumer guides to toxic chemicals in cars and child car seats - will be releasing new research on over 1,200 toys in collaboration with the Washington Toxics Coalition and other leading environmental health groups across the country. At www.healthytoys.org parents will be able to easily check how products rank from highest to lowest in terms of lead, cadmium and other chemicals that are associated with reproductive problems, developmental and learning disabilities, hormone problems and cancer.

Toys made with PVC, or polyvinyl chloride, were also tested because they often contain phthalates and other hazardous chemical additives.

     Note:  At of this Post, the link to www.healthytoys.org did not work.  Neither did a link to the Ecology Center main url, www.ecologycenter.org/