Office Recycling

Image via Wikipedia

 I have said here before that I believe that climate changes are regulated much more heavily by natural forces than by things we do.  While I do not agree with the government trying to impose things like cap and trade that will hurt the economy, I do think it is important to try to conserve our resources.  I am all for recycling and trying to have more energy efficient cars and appliances.

The company I work for has a number of sustainability initiatives.  It is one of the reasons that I like working for them.  Throughout our building we have segregated receptacles for paper, cans & bottles, and garbage that can't be recycled.  Under each of our desks we had a waste basket and a recycling bin for paper.  Our pantry area has cups made from recycled paper. We even try to have products in our stores that emphasize sustainability and we have efforts to reduce packaging waste with our suppliers.  

This week, they added som,ething to our office sustainability initiatives that I am not sure will work out very well.  The concept itself is OK, it is just the execution that I feel is somewhat lacking.  As I said, we have had a blue recycling bin along with a waste basket under our desks.  This week, they removed the waste basket from under our desk and added two small bins that fit inside our blue recycling bin, one bin for cans and bottles and one for garbage.

Image via Wikipedia

I like the idea of adding the small bin for cans and bottles.  It makes it easier to recycle if I have a soda at my desk.  The bin for the garbage, not so much.  It is about 1/8 the size of the previous waste basket.  Since I usually filled about 1/3 to 1/2 of my old waste basket on a given day, it does not take long for the mini bin to get full. A cup of coffee and an energy bar wrapper and that bin is already starting to overflow.  We have a couple larger trash cans in the pantry areas of our floor, but they fill up fairly quickly.  I imagine that they will fill up much quicker with each desk having smaller individual trash bins.

I think a better idea would have been to keep the individual waste baskets and to add the bin for the cans and bottles to the existing recycling bin.  I confess that on those times when I have a soda at my desk that I usually would place it in the waste basket rather than find a can and bottle receptacle elsewhere on the floor, so that extra bin come in handy.

Related articles

• Green Habits that Cost Nothing (talkingaboutgreen.com)
• Zero Waste (arinweitzman.wordpress.com)
• Put your recycling routine on steroids (goerie.com)

Solar Power: Cheap and Green?

Image via WikipediaMy commute to and from work each day is at least an hour each way.  On Friday and Saturday nights, I deliver pizzas.  On average, I probably spend about 20 hours a week in my car with the radio on.  During that time, I get to hear a lot of radio commercials.

One commercial that I have heard frequently that caught my attention was one from a company called Solar City.  They are a company that offers to install solar panels to your home or business.  The commercial advertises that they will help you save on your electricity bill with as little as zero down with their solar lease.

Let me restate here my position on anthropomorphic global warming.  I believe that the vast majority of climate change occurs as a natural phenomenon.  Any man made contribution to that change is miniscule.  Attempts to try to reverse climate change would be unnecessarily expensive and essentially futile.

That being said, I do believe that conserving our natural resources is a good thing, providing that the effort to do so is not too expensive or overly inconvenient. Take for example CFL light bulbs. Due to the mercury in them they create a potential hazard if thrown in the garbage, however, I would guess that most people do just that.  Plus they are a lot more expensive than incandescent bulbs.

Anyway, back to Solar City.  On their website, they have a solar calculator so you can see how much money you could save on your electric bill by having one of their systems installed.  You input your address and info on your home, and they give you four different scenarios.  Since I am all for saving a little cash, and not averse to conservation, I decided to check them out.

If I went with their zero down option, my monthly bill (combined electric bill and lease) would go up $33 per month and my total expense over 20 years go up nearly $11000.  The next option would be to put a $3600 down payment on a system.  My total monthly bill would still go up in the near term.  Assuming that electricity rates rise according to the scenario of their calculator, I would not start saving on my electric bill five or six years.

They also offer a scenario of putting down $11000 or purchasing a system outright for $24000.  If I purchased a system outright, my electric bill would go down about $70 per month, but it would take nearly 30 years for me to recoup my initial investment.  Since I look at things from a cost vs value perspective, none of their programs would be for me.

Solar energy is often touted as being good for the environment.  Once the panels are installed, that would definitely be the case.  However, the manufacture and disposal of solar panels is another matter entirely.  They are manufactured with toxic heavy metals and gases, some of which are carcinogenic and poisonous.  Their lifespan is usually 20-30 years, and once they are no longer operable would need to be disposed of in special toxic waste dumps.  So much for green.

I actually used the Solar City calculator a couple months ago.  At that time, the calculator said that I would save about $15 per month under the zero down scenario.  I guess that since then, the various tax incentives that were available at that time had expired because the calculator did not show any savings for those incentives as it did the first time I checked them out. 

   

The Electric Car

Image via WikipediaI tend to be a big picture kind of guy. My thought processes often involve "if-then" scenarios. I like to think through the possible results or reactions to decisions or events. On performance reviews I have been told that I think in systemic terms.

Let's take for example the electric car. Proponents of the electric car tout it as a zero carbon dioxide emissions vehicle that will lessen our reliance on oil. That much is true, but I like to think of the whole and not the part.

The current President is a big advocate of electric cars.  He frequently espouses the potential benefits of the electric car, especially when he talks about the price of gasoline.  However, this is the same person who famously stated that under his plan electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.  How would you like to recharge everyday under that scenario?

The other thing that I like to think about is concept of unintended consequences.  The idea behind the electric car is that they have zero emissions for carbon dioxide. The thing about electric cars is that you have to recharge them regularly.  The majority of electricity in this country still comes from coal, and the Department of Energy expects that it will for the foreseeable future.  So, while driving an electric car would reduce CO2 emissions while driving, there would be an increase from increased use of electricity.

I am currently reading a book by Larry Bell called the Climate of Corruption that takes a look at the politics of climate change.  One of the things that he addresses in the book is the actual potential of some of the potential "renewable" energy sources out there.  Most hold precious little potential for being able to provide us with the majority of our electrical needs.  Bell makes the case for increased use of nuclear power for electricity.

I am not averse to the idea of an electric car.  I believe that eventually the technology of electric cars will get to the point where you will be able to travel as far on a single charge as on a tank of gas.  It just strikes me as ironic that the very benefit of the reduced emissions of the electric car are countered by the increased emissions of the electric power plant.

Related articles

• Major slump in electric car sales (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
• Electric cars: zero emissions and zero charm (telegraph.co.uk)
• 'Too few' electric car charge points (bbc.co.uk)

Alexandria Recycling Bins

Do you remember the Audi "Green Police" Super Bowl commercial?

The city of Alexandria VA has taken a step towards the reality of a "Green Police."  It sounds innocuous enough.  They are going to be sending new, larger recycling bins to the city residents to encourage greater participation in the recycling program.  They say that more people would participate if the bins were larger.  I recycle here in Bowie, MD and my bin is usually 80% full when I put it out on pick up day.

But these are no ordinary recycling bins.  No sirree, Bob.  These recycling bins come equipped with a microchip to allow the city to ascertain who is and is not recycling, or at least using the new bins.  The city claims that their aim is not to target individuals, but to identify neighborhoods within the city that they can "target their educational efforts."  Yeah, right, and if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

As I said, I do recycle, maybe not as fastidiously as I could, but I do recycle.  Being an ornery SOB, I would most likely continue to recycle, but would continued to use the old, smaller, not tracking bin.  Just the way I am.  The new bins just seem a little too Big Brother is watching for my taste.  Oh, and lest I forget, the Alexandria city residents will all be charged $9 for the new bins, whether they want them or not.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New York State, a Recycling Reprobate (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Recycling Projects for Kids (reducing-waste.suite101.com)
• Was the Audi Green Police Commercial Offensive? (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)

This Blog is NOT Carbon Neutral

Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.  I celebrated by burning fossil fuels on the Beltway for about 3.5 hours during my commute to and from the office today.  Normally I only spend about 2 hours on the Beltway, but today was special.  This evening, I plan to celebrate a little more by promising to Save Water and Drink Wine instead.

Let me get more to the point of the title of this blog post. Over the weekend, I was visiting several other blogs in the blogging networks that I belong to.  I came across at least a dozen blogs that proudly proclaimed that their blog was carbon neutral.   Each of them also had a button similar to this one:

Essentially, the button leads to a website that promises to plant a tree if you register your blog with them.  The planting of the tree is supposed to offset carbon emissions of your blog.  I considered registering for a moment or two, but only because I like the idea of planting trees.  I like trees.  However, I decided against it because I find the whole idea of carbon offsets to be a bit suspicious at best and reprehensible at worst.

The idea of buying carbon offsets to compensate for your carbon footprint has been compared to the old Catholic Church practice of selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sins.  Al "I invented the internet" Gore emits a hell of a lot of carbon, but proudly proclaims that he purchases offsets to neutralize those emissions.  What he doesn't tell us is that he purchases them from a company that he helped found.

Instead, I kind of like the program that I read about in the Daily Caller today.  They have launched the Daily Caller Offset-Offset program.  For a small donation, they will help you to offset the offsets purchased by your liberal environmentalist friend. For example, if they buy an offset to neutralize their carbon, the Daily Caller will start a tire fire to offset that offset.  To close out this Earth Day post, here is the late great George Carlin expressing his views on the environmentalists and their desire to "Save the Planet."

Win a Hybrid Automobile with Giant Food and General Mills

I confess, I am not the "greenest" guy around. If you have been a regular reader here you might have come to the conclusion that I am anti-environment based on my stands on global warming and cap & trade type legislation.  That would actually be a faulty conclusion.  It is just that I would rather see people rewarded for positive behaviors rather than punished for using energy.

As I said, I am not the "greenest" guy around.  I do, however, try to do what I can.  My recycling bin tends to be a little fuller each week when I take it out to the curb with the rest of the garbage.  For a while, we were using CFL bulbs, but to be honest, the brand we were buying at BJ's has not been in stock lately, so we have switched back to the old fashioned bulbs of late.  We have accumulated several reusable grocery bags, and I try to remember to take them with me when I go to do my weekly shopping at the local Giant store.  They give me a nickle back for every reusable bag I bring in.  See, that is the reward thing I was talking about.

April 22nd is Earth Day.  Usually, I do not do anything special to commemorate Earth Day.  I am not any  more environmentally aware or active.  However, this year, I plan to take advantage of a promotion that Giant will be running in conjunction with General Mills for Earth Day.  For the two weeks of April 16-29, any time you purchase five participating General Mills items, use a reusable grocery bag, and use your Giant loyalty card, you will be entered to win a new 2010 Hybrid automobile.

How simple is that?  I probably do about 90% of my grocery shopping at Giant as it is.  I already try to use the reusable bags, and General Mills has such a wide variety of products to choose from that buying five items on one grocery trip should be simple.  I will probably pick up some Green Giant veggies, Yoplait yogurt, Pillsbury dough products, and Wanchai Ferry frozen entrees.  There will be different qualifying items each week of the promotion, or you can simply enter without a purchase in the store.

For telling you about this promotion, I will be receiving a $20 gift card courtesy of General Mills and Giant Food stores through MyBlogSpark.com.  In addition, they have made an addition $20 gift card available to readers of this blog.  To qualify, leave a comment about what you are doing for the environment or what General Mills products you would buy to qualify to win a new hybrid vehicle.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Design A Reusable Bag - Make A Personal Statement (anneonlife.com)
• The Tote Buddy, an Organzier for Reusable-Grocery Bags (techtalkformoms.com)
• Remembering Your Reusable Bags (blisstree.com)

Vegetarian Diet More Harmful to Environment than Meat Eating

Image via Wikipedia

Environmental and vegetarian activists have been touting the virtues of a vegetarian diet as a means of helping combat climate change. They argue that raising livestock such as cattle and sheep leads to an increase in greenhouse gasses due to their belching and farting. The British government has even gone so far as to create recommended menus to eliminate high carbon foods like lamb and beef.

Now, a new study conducted by Cranfield University has concluded that switching to a vegetarian diet could actually be more harmful to the environment than a meat eating diet. You might think that the study was commissioned by the cattle and sheep farming industry, but you would be mistaken. It was actually commissioned by the environmental group the World Wildlife Fund.

The study concludes that if people switched from a meat and dairy diet to a vegetarian diet, that more farmland would be needed to supply the United Kingdom with all of their needs. This could potentially lead to further deforestation of the planet to provide that land. In addition, soy based protein substitutes often require a lot of processing and therefore more energy is expended.

I am sure that environmental groups and PETA will continue to push their far left agenda. We will continue to hear how livestock production is harming the environment. To be fair, it would probably benefit us all to occasionally have vegetarian days in our diets. As for me, I think I will have a steak, and I don't think I will feel guilty about it harming the environment.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cutting Britain's livestock industry won't save the planet (guardian.co.uk)
• Becoming vegetarian 'can harm the environment' (telegraph.co.uk)

Surviving the Latest Blizzard

It looks like we have made it through the second blizzard to hit the DC area in less than a week.  The first one hit Friday and Saturday dumping about two feet of snow.  It took me about four shifts of digging after that one to get the cars out.  On Tuesday and Wednesday, blizzard number two hit the region.  It only dropped about a foot of snow on us.  It took only two shifts of digging to get the cars out.

With the latest round of snowfall, the 2009-2010 winter is the snowiest on record in the DC area. It has surpassed the previous snowiest winter of 1898-1899, and there is still nearly six weeks of winter remaining.

On Monday, the Washington Examiner had a post online regarding an editorial written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. just 15 months ago. RFK, Jr. is a hypocrite in the order of Al "I invented the Internet & Global Warming" Gore. They type of person who flies around in his private jet while telling everyone else what they need to do to save the planet.  The Examiner reprinted most of the editorial, but to sum it up, RFK, Jr. blamed the lack of snow in the DC region in recent years on global warming.

Fast forward to today.  As I said, this has been the snowiest winter on record in the DC region. We now have Time magazine writer Bryan Walsh telling us that the record snowfalls are a result of "global warming."  We also have MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan telling us the same thing.  The Heritage Foundation has an excellent rebuttal to Walsh's argument.

Now, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, but I am a thinker and I do tend to think logically.  On the one hand, you have a global warming alarmist, RFK, Jr saying that due to global warming, the DC region doesn't get much snow fall.  Then when the DC region does get snowfall, and a bunch of it, we get more global warming alarmists saying it is due to global warming.  Which is it?  Doesn't seem logical to me.

Let me put it into our old mathematical equation of if a=b, and b=c, then logically, a=c.  In this case "a" will be DC not getting snow; "b" would be global warming, and "c" would be DC getting a bunch of snow.  So a=b is DC not getting snow=global warming; next b=c would be global warming=DC getting a bunch of snow, therefore DC not getting snow=DC getting a bunch of snow.  Again, doesn't seem logical to me.

Now I know that one season doesn't a trend make.  However, the global warming cultists want to attribute everything to their cause.  Even if those two things are polar opposites.  The phrase, "You can't have your cake and eat it to," comes to mind.

The Green Police

Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints who defeated the Indianapolis Colts to win their first Super Bowl. I have actually grown somewhat tired of the endless hype leading up to the Super Bowl, what with the six hour pre-game show and the extra long half time show. I just want to watch the damn game.

The other big thing with the Super Bowl is the hype of the commercials that will be shown during the game. I have to admit, that in past years, some of the commercials have been just as entertaining as the football. Aside from the usual assortment of beer commercials and Go Daddy commercials none really stood out to me, with the exception of the Audi Green Police commercial.

It isn't that I thought the commercial was particularly well done or clever, but that it is a frightening example of the direction of we are heading in as a society. Sure it is supposed to be a tongue in cheek, over exaggeration to show the Audi as an eco-friendly automobile, but how far away are we really from having a "Green Police?"

Let's just take a few examples.  We have several jurisdictions that have banned the use of plastic bags in the grocery stores and several others that have passed legislation taxing those bags.  Several states have already banned incandescent light bulbs, and current federal legislation will eventually phase them out in the next few years.  Years ago, when I was a buyer for trash bags for a grocery chain, one local county passed legislation requiring blue trash bags for recyclables and clear trash bags to make sure people were not throwing out items that could be recycled.

Now, I am all for a cleaner planet and conservation.  However, most of these things that the political elite are trying to force upon us are more costly and disproportionately impact the lower and middle classes.  Do we really want to live in a society where every decision we make in our consumption is controlled by government forces?  I don't.

EPA and Carbon Dioxide

A couple days ago, I alluded to hearing Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) on the Grandy and Andy show on WMAL 630 here in DC. Inhofe made the statement on the program that the cap and trade legislation that was passed in the House and proposed in the Senate was dead and would not pass. He did express that even though the proposed legislation would not be passed, we should be concerned about the Obama administration attempting to regulate, rather than legislate, carbon dioxide emissions.

On Monday, the legitimacy of those concerns were realized when the Environmental Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide is a health hazard. This ruling paves the way for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of power plants, factories, and transportation.  The White House's denies that the EPA ruling has absolutely nothing to with Barack Obama's trip to the global warming summit in Copenhagen, but it sure is convenient.  Further proof that the administration is willing to do anything it takes to push it's leftist agenda, even if it takes bypassing the legislative process.

The truth about carbon dioxide is that it is vital to life on the planet.  All plant life needs carbon dioxide to grow.  In turn, that plant life uses that carbon dioxide and in turn produces oxygen through the process of photosynthesis.  It is part of the miracle of the balance of life on planet Earth.  The vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions come from natural sources and very little from the sources they seek to regulate.  The EPA even states that if we were to achieve the goals set forth in previous global warming conferences like the Kyoto Protocol, it would have little to no impact on global temperatures.

There are some things that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions will accomplish for our country.  We can expect to see all of our energy costs increase.  That may not matter for some folks, but for the middle and lower income households will be impacted to a greater degree.  We can expect to see some manufacturing jobs move overseas to China and India where they will not be subjected to the same degree of emissions control.  What with unemployment currently at 10% officially, do we really need to see more Americans out of work?

Below, you can see Senator Inhofe's response to the decision by the EPA.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Business Fumes Over EPA Rule (online.wsj.com)

Jon Stewart, Al Gore, and Climategate

I don't particularly care for Jon Stewart and his style of humor, however, when he is mocking Al Gore and the news of Climategate, I can bear it for a bit.

Stewart is correct that the hacked emails do not prove that global warming is false.  What it does show, is that the global warming proponents are not about the scientific method, but rather pushing an agenda.

Meanwhile, Al Gore has canceled his scheduled speech at the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen next week due to "unforeseen" changes in his schedule.  Right, Al.  Climategate has nothing to do with you not attending a conference that you have made the driving force of your life since you lost to Dubya in 2000.

I heard Senator Jim Inhofe on the radio the other morning and he asserts that the cap and trade legislation is dead.  That was the genesis of his "We won. You Lost. Get a Life," comments to Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climategate: Follow the Money (thetruthwarblog.blogspot.com)
• The power of ClimateGate: Al Gore forced to sacrifice Copenhagen cash cow (michellemalkin.com)
• Climategate: GOP Opens Probe Into Climate-Change E-Mails (huffingtonpost.com)

Green M&M's

I have been an opponent of legislative efforts of restricting carbon emissions.  I firmly believe that the vast majority of climate change is naturally occurring.  Efforts to legislate emissions through cap and trade programs will only hurt our economy and raise costs of energy and other goods.  This will negatively impact the vast majority of Americans with the poor and middle classes hurt the most.

That is not to say that I am opposed to the goal of obtaining clean energy like wind and solar power.  I just think that there are better ways to achieve those goals of switching to cleaner energy.  Voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded.  That is why I thought it was pretty cool to read a story about how the Mars corporation has unveiled an 18 acre solar garden to provide energy for their plant in Hackensack, NJ.

I think that Mars should be commended for making this investment.  They should get a lot of corporate goodwill from their actions.  For those folks who make this an important part of their lifestyle, they should reward companies like Mars with their business.

The one negative that I would take from the story though is that the 18 acres of solar panels only provide enough electricity to cover 20% of the plant's power needs.  To me, that just seems like an awful lot of land use to provide a relatively small amount of electricity.  By comparison, I found a document on the US Minerals Management Service website that stated that 1/30th of the power generated by a nuclear power plant on only 12 acres of land would power a city of 100,000 for a year.  Seems like a lot more bang for the buck.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Britain eyes 10 new nuclear plants (msnbc.msn.com)
• Japan builds technology to bury greenhouse gas emissions (telegraph.co.uk)
• Solar Power Zapped From Space By Lasers (news.sky.com)

Global Warming Insanity

The global warming cultists continue to come up with assinine ideas for saving the planet.  Here are just a few of the items that I have heard of lately.

1. A new book has been released called Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living which says that a medium sized pet dog has the same carbon footprint as an SUV and you would be better off owning a goldfish or canary.  Try playing catch with a canary, and when was the last time a barking goldfish scared off an intruder.
2. California, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are looking at banning plasma televisions.  Thank God I have yet to be able to afford one of those and am still using an old fashioned tube TV.  
3. A New York Times environmental reporter has floated the idea of offering carbon credits to families that limit themselves to having one child.  Tough break there for Jon & Kate Plus 8.
4. The state of California was also considering a ban on black cars.  Suffice to say that I was going to make a smartass remark in regards to what would be the next thing to ban, but I censored myself.  Use your imagination.
   

I have said it before and will say it again, the whole environmental movement is all about controlling your lifestyle and the choices you make.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s book claims (telegraph.co.uk)
• Save the planet. Eat a dog. (pixelrn.posterous.com)

TGIThursday?

Here is a government program that I can get behind. Last year, the Republican governor of Utah implemented the "Working 4 Utah Initiative" that put the majority of the state government employees on a four day, ten hour per day, work week.  The program has been in place for a year now and has had a number of benefits for the state.

1. Budget Benefit-By closing office buildings on Friday's the state has benefited in reducing energy expenses by $1.8 million in the first nine months.  They expect to improve those savings even more with more efficient energy consumption.
2. Traffic Congestion-The longer work day has spread out the "rush hour" reducing the number of cars on the roads at any particular time, making commute times shorter.
3. Reduced Emissions-With fewer cars on the roads and less energy used in buildings, the state has reduced their "carbon footprint" by some 12000 metric tons.  They also project to reduce gasoline consumption by 744,000 gallons annually.
4. Happier Workers-Let's face it, who doesn't like a three day weekend, and the thought of having one every weekend would thrill me to no end.  Plus they end up with extra cash to spend by reducing their commuting expenses by 20% per week.

In an economy that is struggling, businesses and governments are always looking for areas to cut expenses.  Most of the time it ends up being employees.  Here is a plan that could save money and jobs, not to mention all of the other benefits that the state of Utah has enjoyed so far.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Four-Day Workweek Saves $1.8 Million in Utah, Makes Workers Happy [Office Culture] (lifehacker.com)
• The Three-Day Weekend Experiment (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Utah's 4-day Work Week (neatorama.com)

Got Milk?

Image via Wikipedia

Back in May, I found an interesting article about how governement advisors in Britain were developing menus to cut out so called "high carbon" foods like lamb or beef. I cited it as another example of how insane the whole global warming cultists have become. The reality is that it is really more about controlling out lifestyles than anything else.

In another example of the insanity of the climate change cult, Tesco, one of the largest supermarket chains in Britain has decided to label some 500 items with the "carbon footprint" of those items. Their goal is to help customers make "green" purchasing decisions.

The first item that will receive carbon footprint labeling is milk, one of their best selling items. The largest impact on greenhouse gasses in the production of milk comes during the agricultural phase of production, primarily from the methane emissions from the cows. The labels will only appear on regular milk products and not organic milk. Apparently, the cows that are used for organic milk do not fart quite as much as regular dairy cows.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Study: Ancient farmers started global warming (cnn.com)
• Climate sceptics and believers unite (guardian.co.uk)
• What's the environmental impact of milk? (guardian.co.uk)
• Tesco to put 'carbon labels' on milk (guardian.co.uk)

It's The Economy, Stupid!

Unemployment officially dropped to 9.4% last month from 9.5% in June. On the surface that would be a good thing, but there were actually more people unemployed. Due to the fuzzy math used in calculating the unemployment rate (I would blame the current administration, but in reality they all use this math) the rate dropped. The official calculation only counts those that are currently looking for work and collecting unemployment. It does not include those who have reached the point where they are no longer looking for work or whose unemployment benefits have run out.

If you have read here before, you may already know that I am not a fan of the cap and trade bill that passed the House in June. I believe that the majority of CO2 and climate change is naturally occurring and any attempt to regulate man made CO2 emissions will have little if any effect on climate change. Even the EPA admits that without global commitment to reducing emissions, that the Waxman Markey bill will have little impact on CO2.

The Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) recently finished an analysis of the impact on jobs and the economy from the bill. It is not good news. According to the report, between 2012-2030, the bill reduce the national GDP by $2-3 trillion. Manufacturing output would be expected to decrease 5.3-6.5% resulting in additional job losses of 1.8-2.4 million jobs. The study takes into account the potential new jobs that so called green energy could create. Let's not forget the expected increases in energy costs, 50% for electricity, 26% for gasoline, and 20% for natural gas. Higher energy costs, fewer jobs, lower GDP; not a good recipe for success.

A recent Rassmussen poll showed that 42% of Americans believe cap and trade will hurt the economy and only 19% believe it will help. In that same poll, 41% of Americans were at least somewhat against the bill, and only 37% are at least somewhat for the bill. The strongest feelings were on the "no" side with 25% strongly opposed and only12% strongly for the bill. A recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Americans favored economic expansion over environmental concerns.

At a time when unemployment is the highest it has been in years, the last thing we need is to pass legislation that will further slow the economy and cost jobs. When the Senate returns in September, the climate change bill will be on their agenda as well as health care. So while more Americans are against cap and trade then for it, why do the Democrats insist on passing a bill that will go against the priorities of the American people? I would say that as usual, the leftist elite believe they know what is better for us than we do. So while the debate on health care reform is vitally important, let's not forget the debate on cap and trade.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Government Study Shows Cap-and-Trade Will Raise Energy Prices (usnews.com)
• In Climate Change Debate, It's All About Jobs (usnews.com)
• NASA's chief climate scientist: Obama's climate bill "less than worthless" (health care reform is unraveling too) (americablog.com)

Another Blow to Consensus

Image via Wikipedia

The Journal of Geophysical Research, after a six month peer review process, has published a new paper that argues that nearly all changes in global temperatures since 1958 can be attributed to natural causes. It is another study that calls into question Al Gore's so called consensus that the science of climate change is settled.

Chris de Frietas, a climate scientist from Aukland University in New Zealand, along with Australian scientists John McLean and Bob Carter are the publishes of the study. Their conclusions are that at least 80% of climate change can be attributed to internal climate systems, specifically El Nino and La Nina. The trio found that their was a direct corelation between those systems and temperature change. Changes in the El Nino and La Nina patterns were followed consistently by changes in temperatures. They also conclude that increases in volcanic activity will have a measured cooling effect on temperatures.

Their conclusions are that there is very little impact by humans on climate change. They do not dispute that there are increase in CO2, but question whether it has an impact or poses any danger. Studies like this should give rise to serious debate, but as de Frietas states the debate has been degraded by politics, ignorance, alarmism, and the claims that the science is settled. He adds that the idea of consensus is unscientific. One thing that probably isn't open for debate is that these three gentleman most likely won't be invited to dine any time soon with the ultimate political alarmist Al Gore.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing (themoderatevoice.com)
• El Nino's back, can affect weather worldwide: experts (ctv.ca)
• El Nino may bring strange weather by fall (calgaryherald.com)

Nuclear Power

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, I posted some of my feelings about the pending legislation for health care reform. It drew a rather spirited comment from the American Idiot, not on the health care debate, but rather on the climate change bill. (I will now refer to the American Idiot as Idiot, with an upper case I. This is not a derogatory salutation as idiot with a lower case i would be.)

Idiot makes the argument that the US should be the leader in developing green technologies. I could not agree more. American ingenuity and know-how should lead the way on these technologies much like they have led the way in other areas (like nuclear power but I am getting ahead of myself). Where we differ is in what to do until these new technologies are developed and on line. I prefer to take an "all of the above" approach. Let's drill for more domestic oil and natural gas, let's build new nuclear plants, and let's develop those green, renewable sources as well. Idiot on the other hand favors abandoning the old technologies in favor of the new. An admirable goal.

Idiot makes the case that in addition to developing these green technologies, we should be exporting those technologies to other countries as global demand for them increases. Excellent point and I concur.

One of the technologies that Idiot rejects that I fully support is building more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is a green technology in that it gives off zero CO2 emissions. Idiot's argument is that it is an old technology, that can not be exported, and then there is the whole nuclear waste issue.

I came across an a Newsweek article by Andrew Bast that discusses some of the issues the US faces if they were to go back to nuclear power. While the US developed the first nuclear power reactors, we failed to keep our edge in that technology. Initially we exported the technology to other countries, now if we were to go back to building nuclear facilities, we would have to rely on the improvements in the technology developed in countries like France and Japan.

France now gets 80% of their electricity provided by nuclear power plants. They now export electricity and technology to other countries. I think Idiot would agree that if we hold the edge in a technology we should do everything to keep that edge to benefit from the exportation of that technology. On another note, how in the hell did we ever let France get better at us at anything other than producing fine wines, though the argument could be made that some of our better California vineyards produce as fine a wine as Bordeaux, but I digress.

In regards to nuclear waste, there is a lot that can be done on that front. First off, several countries engage in the recycling of nuclear waste to produce more energy. Japan in particular has made great advancements in recycling nuclear waste. Recycling, another thing that the greens of the world should be able to get behind.

There are always going to be detractors to any form of energy. Even wind turbines have their detractors, ie they could kill birds or they are an eyesore. The biggest argument against nuclear power is the "potential" for a nuclear accident. Yes that exists, but there have been very few major accidents. The potential exists that I could fall down in the shower and hurt myself, does that mean I should stop bathing? (OK that isn't on the same level as a nuclear accident, but just a cheap attempt at humor.)

Anyway, in conclusion, thank you Idiot for visiting my humble blog. I hope you will come back often. I also linked to your blog at the top of this posting.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NASA's chief climate scientist: Obama's climate bill "less than worthless" (health care reform is unraveling too) (americablog.com)
• Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass climate bill (guardian.co.uk)
• How France Sees Its Nuclear-Powered Future (usnews.com)

Report: Dump Cap and Trade

I didn't want to continue to dwell on the whole global warming/cap and trade subject today, but an interesting report was issued today while Barack Obama and the other leaders are trying to work out an agreement on reducing CO2 emissions. The report, from an international group of academics, says that the Kyoto Protocol has failed. Their recommendations are that cap and trade schemes do not work and should be abandoned.

The group recommends that instead of cap and trade, that emphasis should be placed on efforts to improve energy efficiency and to decarbonize the energy the energy supply. They cite the Japanese model of energy policy of setting realistic targets and working towards real efficiency gains. As an example, they cite the Japanese iron and steel industry as having reduced carbon emissions by 19% strictly from increased efficiency.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 'Time to ditch climate policies' (news.bbc.co.uk)

Fireworks and the USA

Image via Wikipedia

I debated on whether or not to post something about Michael Jackson and the intense media coverage since his death. Perhaps I may make a post about that subject in the next day or two. Instead, since we are fresh off of our 4th of July celebration, I decided to post about two articles that I found on CNSNews.com regarding Fireworks.

By now, if you read here on a regular basis, you know that I think any climate change is primarily solar in nature. I am not a fan of the whole concept of the idea of cap and trade or any legislation that would increase our energy costs or impact our standard of living. I have posted about it here, here, and here.

So what did that little side rant about global warming have to do with fireworks. The first article that I came across talked about the fireworks industry coming under greater regulation if the cap and trade bill passes the Senate. Because fireworks give off CO2 when exploded, the fireworks industry could be subject to the bill. As such, the costs of our neighborhood celebrations will further stretch the already tight budgets of our local governments.

The second article, deals with the fireworks display at the National Mall. Most of the fireworks that were shot off were made in Communist China and not the USA. It just seems extremely ironic, not to mention inappropriate, that on the holiday where we celebrate our freedom as Americans that we would be using fireworks made from a totalitarian regime. I'm just saying.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's Not Really a Party Until Someone Shoots Rockets Out of Their Butt (readwriteweb.com)
• Tom Donohue: Let's Put a Lid On Cap-and-Tax (huffingtonpost.com)
• Al Gore: If you question global warming cult, you're a Nazi (michellemalkin.com)