Category Archives: Environment

Environmentalists Are Slow Learners

July 5, 2008 – 8:42 am

The Washington Post complains that the bad ol’ Bush administration is making it easier for some big landowner to develop some of his property. What’s most interesting to me is this reaction:

Environmentalists, to their surprise, found that timber and mining were easier on the countryside.

“Now that Plum Creek is getting out of the timber business, we’re kind of missing the loggers,” said Ray Rasker, executive director of Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit that studies land management in the West. “A clear-cut will grow back, but a subdivision of trophy homes, that’s going to be that way forever.

“It’s kind of the ugly face of the new economy.”

Almost two years ago I wrote about a paper production company that was converting its tree-growing land into residential and commercial development. Development became more profitable for them than growing trees for paper. Perhaps that was partly due to environmentalist campaigns to reduce paper consumption.

My point was that quite often these feel-good activities end up producing the opposite of the desired results. Looks like they’re discovering this to be true in Montana.

By Carson Sasser | Comments (0) |

Glacial Lake Vanishes in Southern Chile

June 21, 2007 – 9:24 am

It was last seen heading east. Officials can’t say at this time that foul play is involved. There are reports though of glowarm alarmists being seen in the area.

Seriously, the Associated Press reports that “a five-acre glacial lake in Chile’s southern Andes has disappeared — and scientists want to know why.”

Why? What’s the big deal about a five-acre lake? That’s just twice the size of my yard. Here in Florida it’s relatively common for much larger lakes to drain into the ground. Most of them refill within months or a few years. One lake in northern Florida has gone through this cycle many times. I don’t remember any of these instances becoming international news.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Science | Comments (0) |

Bush Should Ignore Court on Auto Emissions

April 2, 2007 – 11:12 am

CBS News reports:

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

So what? President Bush should simply ignore the “rebuke.” He should just announce after a few weeks that he has taken “a fresh look” and found no compelling reason to change his current policy.

Anyway, I don’t know how a 5-4 decision by the Court can be considered a rebuke. It would appear that the Court is divided almost down the middle on the issue.

I have said that no bill before Congress should become law without approval by a two-thirds majority. I also believe that all rulings by the courts (Supreme, District, and Appeals) should be unanimous. If a small number of justices can’t reach agreement on an issue, then it should be considered a ‘no decision’.

Another argument for unanimous decisions is that the makeup of some courts — like the present Supreme Court — essentially gives one justice the power to make most rulings. The Supreme Court often decides along ideological lines. The Court is now made up of four liberals, four conservatives and one moderate. The vote of the moderate ’swing voter’, Anthony Kennedy, often determines the decision on major cases before the Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Again, so what? Police have the authority to shoot criminals when threatened by them but they don’t always do so. (Yeah, I know. They do sometimes shoot innocent citizens when they aren’t threatened by them.) ‘Authority’ doesn’t mean ‘obligation.’ If the Supreme Court thinks it does, does that mean that the Court will rule in my favor if I sue the federal government to get them to enforce immigration laws? That may turn out to be the best thing about this ruling: It establishes a precedent that can be used to force the government to shut down the flow of illegals into this country.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Global Warming, Justice System, Majority Rule, Supreme Court | Comments (0) |

Deirdre Imus and Pigs

March 28, 2007 – 8:09 am

This morning on Don Imus’ show on MSNBC, Don’s wife Deirdre made some disparaging remarks about pigs. She said that pigs pollute and cause cancer. The fact that she used the juvenile term for swine instead of the adult term is a dead giveaway that she knows nothing about hogs.

I don’t know how hogs cause cancer. Perhaps there is some way that people cause cancer by eating pork. Does Deirdre think that hogs are on some kind of jihad? That by being composed of very tasty meat they can do their part to annihilate humans?

Hogs may create some pollution in their immediate area but there is one thing for certain: No hog has ever created more than a small fraction of the pollution that Deirdre Imus has created — or will create in the remainder of her life. The average lifespan of a hog is about two years. Deirdre could easily live well past 80 years. Few, if any, hogs jet frequently between their homes in New York and New Mexico. Deirdre could do more to reduce pollution by taking her own life than by trying to prevent hogs from having a life.

All the preachers of radical environmentalism could do more for the environment by ending their lives — or by just staying home — than they do by jetting around the country and world.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Humor | Comments (0) |

Al Gore: Carbon Neutral Rock Star

February 25, 2007 – 10:42 am

Can you imagine the embarrassment a father must feel to turn on his computer and learn that his son is interested in who Al Gore is wearing to the Academy Awards? The Washington Post has published a fawning article by William Booth about how Gore has become a rock star:

In the annals of vice presidential history, tonight will be something different. In his black tux, the man known to his most fervent fans as “The Goracle” will arrive by hybrid eco-limo and, surrounded by fellow Hollywood greenies Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio, will stroll down the red carpet at the Academy Awards to answer the immortal question: “Al, who are you wearing?”

It would be bad enough to learn that a son is interested in what Gore is wearing, but who!? Perhaps Booth is poking fun at Gore or the Oscars, but I don’t think so. Anyway, I’m embarrassed at what a sissy nation we’ve become. There was a time when men had better things to do than talk about clothes — especially what some other man is wearing.

No matter what he’s wearing I think that Al Gore strongly believes in what he’s doing. In fact, I think that is why he was chosen for the role. He is the global warming alarmists’ suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are chosen because they can be convinced that their mission is worth more than their life. Fortunately for Gore he only has to sacrifice his credibility for his mission. After a few years people will become bored with global warming, the climate will swing in another direction or another ‘crisis’ will take its place, and Gore will again be regarded as a dunce. There is the possibility that Gore is just doing it for the money. In that case he’s not dumb, just devious.

Booth mentions that Gore “is on first-name basis, for real, with Ludacris.” On first-name basis with a man with only one name? Perhaps he is poking fun at Gore.

Booth says that Gore is “totally carbon neutral.” How does that square with this?:

Gore worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo. In France, he not only attended the film opening, but presented his 90-minute Apple Keynote lecture to the National Assembly. He did the slide show at the United Nations, the American Geophysical Union, and before conservative activist Grover Norquist’s regular Wednesday meeting.

Does his airplane produce no carbon? No, what they probably mean by ‘carbon neutral’ is that Gore is buying ‘carbon offsets’ to compensate for the carbon his transportation (and several large houses) are producing. To offset carbon one has to consume carbon equal to that produced. An example of a carbon offset is planting trees. It seems that a global warming prophet like Gore would want to do better than just carbon neutral. He could plant all those trees and still not burn all that jet fuel in the atmosphere. (Would that be carbon positive or carbon negative?)

Gore needs to plant a lot more trees than those needed to offset his carbon production because he wants to produce ethanol from wood chips instead of corn. Plant trees for one purpose, cut them down for another and make both seem like saving the planet. That Gore is a clever guy — at least he thinks he is.

By Carson Sasser | Also posted in Climate, Global Warming | Comments (0) |