Shaking My Head (Part 1, probably)

As I was getting on the freeway this morning, in front of me was a late-model gold-colored Subaru Outback (NV plates 912-TKR) with a “Keep Tahoe Blue” sticker. For those who don’t know of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, it’s a local environmentalist group focused on water clarity, but also concerned with scenic beauty.

You can imagine my shock and surprise, then, when the driver tossed a blue cardboard package out the window.

Now, I do not know for certain that the driver was the owner of the car, and the sticker. It may be that he was borrowing the car, and didn’t want to forget to remove his trash when he returned it. I only know that he is a litterbug.

P.S. I had tweeted a couple of weeks ago about seeing a KTB sticker in Russian. It is an official product of the LSLT, as is the Spanish-language one.

What's the Latest Buzz?

Last week on Twitter, there was a link to an article about researchers discovering a virus that may be responsible for the drastic population drop in honeybees in the last few years. Then, as I was driving to work today, I saw a car with the personalized license plate "BEELACK". It was a black car, so that's probably what the plate refers to, but it could also be read as "bee lack". Just a few minutes later, there was a truck trailing a boat that was named "Bye-BEE", as shown by the word "Bye" and the picture of a bee--although it looked more like a bumblebee than a honeybee--painted on the stern.

Have any of my readers heard any news of the current state of honeybee colonies? Please leave a comment on the blog or on Google+, or send me a link on Twitter.

Follow the (Dirty) Money

It is way too late and I'm tired and cranky, so please forgive me if the tone of this post gets a little brassy. I couldn't sleep without getting this out, though, so here we go.

It hit the news Monday that the "eco-friendly" water-saving low-flow toilets that have been installed in San Francisco--heavily promoted by city/county government--have resulted in a backup of waste material in the city's sewer systems. This is because there isn't enough water flow, now, to push the sludge through the century-plus-old system before it sticks to the old sludge that's there. The backups cause a stench to rise to the streets, especially during the summer when it's warmer. If you've been to a Giants game at AT&T park, you probably know what I mean.

In both those articles, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission is quoted as saying that water consumption has been reduced by "about 20 million gallons", as if that is a significant amount. There is no mention of the total consumption, or what part of the total 20 million gallons represents.

Well, over at Lew Rockwell's blog, Jim Brownfield has references and shows his work, and comes up with a figure of 0.08%. Let me say that again. Water consumption in San Francisco has been reduced, since the installation of low-flow toilets began, by 8/100 of 1%, or 8/10,000 of the entire consumption. And that's rounded. The actual figure is around 0.078324%.

I'd also like to point out that Jim uses consumption figures from 2007-2008, which, if you still want to claim the low-flow toilets have had any effect, may already have been reduced. That means the actual reduction percentage would be less than what he calculated.

There could be any number of factors contributing to the reported reduction. It's been wetter than usual here in western Nevada the past few years, and the storms generally come through the Bay area first; maybe people just aren't watering their lawns as much. Or maybe people are getting sick of the nanny-city, or can't find work or afford the taxes, and are moving out. Maybe the toilets really have contributed to the reduction, which is statistically insignificant.

Oh, the articles also mention that over $100 million has been spent so far on sewer system upgrades, with more likely to come. I wonder if some of the same manufacturers or distributors of those low-flow toilets also supply sewer system parts? Or if some of the same people own large shares of companies that supply both?

Pondering

I've been thinking about this today, and I can't wrap my head around it.

The Bible says drunkenness and extra-marital sex are wrong, and Christians generally tend to avoid those behaviors, or at least agree that they should avoid them.

The Book of Mormon (I've been told) says that "hot drinks"--meaning coffee and tea--are bad and should be avoided, and the Mormons I know do avoid them. Many of them avoid caffeine altogether.

The Q'uran says to avoid alcohol (of the vine or the grain, according to The 13th Warrior), and devout Muslim do not drink alcohol.

Even outside of the realm of spiritual religion, people who believe that fast food is bad for them generally avoid it. Vegetarians avoid eating meat, and vegans (how is that pronounced, anyway?) avoid all animal products, including dairy, eggs, and animal oils used in foods.

So why is it that people who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) use electricity? Unless it's generated by nuclear or water power--both considered by many to be environmental hazards themselves--virtually all electricity is the result of burning fossil fuels. Isn't it hypocritical for people to use computers to write about how we should reduce or stop burning fossil fuels? What about going on television? I can't even imagine the power consumed by television cameras, studio lights, transmission towers, let alone all those big-screen plasma sets to tune it in. I'm not even going to mention those who travel the country, or the world, in gasoline or diesel powered vehicles and in jet aircraft, to rail against the very civilization that gave them those tools, for using those tools.

Why don't people who believe in AGW go live on a self-sufficient plot of land far away from electrical transmission lines? Maybe some Amish in Pennsylvania would be willing to sell part of their land.

Smart Grid Features Available Now!

In Wednesday's mail (2010/05/25) was the scariest piece of literature I've seen in a long time. No, it was not a piece of political campaign literature, although our primary is less than two weeks away. (I voted early, as soon as the polling place opened on the first day of early voting, so I simply throw away all candidates' mailings I receive.)

No, this was an offer from the utility company to participate in the "Cool Share" program. Just for signing up, we would be supplied with a "web-programmable thermostat"! These thermostats "can cut your cooling and heating costs by as much as 10% annually", according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy. And they allow me--and who knows how many bureaucrats--to manage my home's energy use. Remotely. From the internet. Regardless of how I've set it.

Now, they are careful to point out--on the reverse side--that these thermostats "do NOT allow [the utility company] to 'control' your home temperature". They say nothing about other organizations, such as the Department of Energy.

Of course, one of the bullet point advantages of these thermostats is that they "help…Reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

In a sidebar on that side, there is an explanation that in the Cool Share program, when it is very hot (104°F and above), the air conditioning unit will be placed in "conservation mode" for generally no more than three hours. They claim that this would typically happen only on weekdays, not weekends or holidays, except in case of…wait for it…"emergency."

As an additional enticement, participants can get $1.00 for each of these "conservation period[s]", up to a maximum of $29.


UPDATE 2010/06/12 I received a card in the mail explaining that this program is available only in Southern Nevada. That explains the references to 104° temperatures.

It is a Religion: More Evidence

"What is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."--Al Gore

Never mind the idea that God has provided for our redemption through Jesus Christ. It is environmental law--and socialized medicine, and all the other means of controlling the people of the world through laws and regulations, no doubt--that will provide redemption for humans.

It is the notion that man can be perfected if given the proper indoctrination and training by other men that drives these nutcases to their leftist ends. They have rejected the idea that man is imperfect by nature and can only be perfected by the Grace of God. So there must be something to fill the void, and they believe it is they and their rule that will do it.

Even if you don't subscribe to the Christian beliefs, do you really want these people prescribing your behavior? I certainly do not.

This is Why Polar Bears Attack People

NewsBusters® posted an article with this video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, along with the quote below it. Their quote is longer, and has emphasis on his conclusion. I wanted to emphasize a few words in his argument.



"Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature," Ratigan said.

He said first, "warmer", then "higher", then insists on it being "any temperature." Which is it? It can't be both.

This kind of inconsistency knows no bounds in progressive speech. If people were actually taught to think, like in the private school I attended, nobody would believe any of it.

The End of Yucca Mountain Does Not Mean the End of Nuclear

Michelle Malkin has a recent piece on her blog, which seems to suggest that the fact that Obama's budget provides $0 funding for the Yucca Mtn Nevada nuclear waste dump means that his administration lied about wanting to pursue nuclear energy in America.

My first reaction is, "Good! The State Bureaucratic Apparatus is actually refusing to spend money on something!"

Furthermore, I have heard Gov. Jim Gibbons express on more than one occasion his belief that the Yucca Mtn project was conceived as a way to ensure the American nuclear industry was shut down once and for all. He is against the project not on environmental grounds--he's a trained geological engineer--but on the grounds that the spent fuel should not be simply dumped and sealed. Instead, he favors reprocessing the spent fuel into new fuel rods that can be used in even more efficient ways in new plants.

The best way the administration could support a growth in nuclear energy in the U.S. is to appoint judges who won't rule against new plants because of environmental law; better yet, propose the repeal of the legislation that allows environmental groups to bring suit after suit to retard or stop the construction of new nuclear plants. And that wouldn't cost a bit!


The fact that the administration is not proposing these changes, not the failure to fund a particular project, is what puts the lie to Obama's statement.

Saving the Environment

In conjunction with "Earth Day", my company displayed signs about things to do that were environmentally responsible. Each was titled:

SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT
ONE CHOICE AT A TIME

with the "O" in "ONE" represented by a little planet--centered on Australia, of all places!

This got me really steamed, so I wrote the little piece that follows. Since it would probably not be a wise choice to post it in my workplace, I decided to start a blog and present it here.

“SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT”

As opposed to what?
Spending it?
Abdicating it?
Relinquishing it?
Wasting it?
Ruining it?
Killing it?

How arrogant must one be to think we humans could accomplish any of these?

People who want to control your lives are counting on your emotional response to this language. They want you to give up your personal decision-making freedoms in favor of being told what’s good for everyone. They want to subject you to everyone else, which in reality will subject you to their will. They will decide what you can do based on whether it’s “good for you.”

Please think. Think what the logical consequences of this behavior must be. Think about what they say will happen, contrasted with what is actually happening.

On the first “Earth Day” in 1970, speakers quoted scientists as saying that:

• Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in just the next few years alone.
• By 1980 the life expectancy of all Americans will be 42 years.
• By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by 1/2.

Since 1970, U.S. population is up 50%. Miles driven has increased by nearly 160%. Life expectancy? Well, you may be dead and not know it, according to those folks in 1970.

Saving the environment? How about saving our freedoms?

Please think.