Archive for the ‘energy independence’ Category

MP travel expenses

February 14, 2007

Hi Grit

All of the debate about travel costs, its effects on Global Warming and the need to conserve energy is generated by politicians. However, today figures have been published that show just how two-faced these people can be, especially in the UK. You need to bear in mind that there are around 634 MP’s and that the travel expenses are in addition to their salary and other expenses.

The current report reveals that the cost of MP’s travel for 2005-06 was a staggering £4.5 million ($9 Million). Of this £2 million was spent on car travel, £1.5 million on trains and £1 million on Flights. This equates to over £7,000 per MP, or £136 per week, and these figures are rising. However, as can be seen from the report, some MP’s are claiming as much as £44,000 per year, an incredible £850 per week!

There are a number of issues here. Firstly, these same MP’s are telling us to cut down on our road travelling, whilst at the same time failing to take their own advice. On the one hand the government is saying that the congestion on the roads is reaching a gridlock position, yet at the same time over 44% of their own travel is adding to the problem. The difference is that we, as lowly citizens, will not be able to reclaim any “rush hour” mileage cost imposed upon us, whilst the MP will be reimbursed. Every £1 an employee spends on mileage costs them £1.30 of gross income.

Secondly, they keep saying that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce energy consumption, at the same time as they are increasing their own (or perhaps we should all walk so that they can travel in luxury!). Our tax authorities penalise us for the type of vehicle that we drive. For example, the tax levels on a 4×4 (SUV) are far more stingent than a small saloon. For an MP this is not a problem as they reclaim all of their expenses direct from the government.

Thirdly, there are no budget constraints on MP spending. They do not have to answer to anyone regarding the level of their expenditure. Any family is aware that they have to budget their expenditure to match their disposable income, or they will suffer the problems of escalating debt. Similarly, every employee knows that their expenses will not be sanctioned by their employer if it is considered to be unreasonable, and that continual extravagance will be rewarded with unemployment. A corporation is aware that cost control is vital to attracting business growth. An Mp’s attitude is directly opposite to all of these, safe in the knowledge that Joe public will be made to pay for their representative’s extravagance through the tax system, either directly or by stealth.

Standing alone, the MP’s travel expenses are bad enough, but when you add to this their other annual expenses, which on average work out at £110,000 ($220,000) each, and their salary of between £57,000 and £150,000 depending upon their position, it all adds up to an enormous public cost. What is worrying is that this represents just a small fraction of the cost of our government and civil service. In my view the time for “accountability of government” is NOW!

the Brit 

   

Stupid liberals!

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I was reading this, Hybrid-Only Car Service Launches in San Francisco, and it hit me as to just how stupid liberals are, as a general rule.  The key point in this is that, according to the story, the idea is to make rich people flying into Nanny Pelosi’s home town feel better by taking “green” transportation around town, after dumping untold tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere while flying in a fuel waisting jet.  Then I read the details, and was shocked.  Keep in mind that the article is tainted with the usual liberal bias, even though it does throw in a tiny hit about the jet travel thing, but it also includes, “with a fleet of leather-seated Priuses.”  I’m sure that the reporter, not knowing squat about Global Warming, didn’t think twice about this.  However, the secondary part of the Climate Change Conspiracy, the one that really gets the radical liberals frothing at the mouth over its potential for bringing about social change, is the implication of cow farts in heating up the globe.  That would, of course, be the methane content in the massive flatulence produced by our bovine food supply, which is an excuse for left wing groups to insist everyone turn vegetarian.  Thus the paradoxical nature of a “green” car with leather seats.  Oh, well, I am assuming that the leather was produced from cow hide and not Jews, but that is most likely a safe assumption.

the Grit

Look before you leap.

February 5, 2007

Hi Brit,

One of my favorite sayings is, “look before you leap.”  In this instance, the Environmental do-gooders in Europe should have taken this advice, Seeing Red: Palm Oil Biodiesel.  As it turns out, the rush to move to alternative “green” fuels in the EU, has caused massive damage to the ecosystem in Indonesia and Malaysia.  Next time, read the label.

By the way, I’ve added this blog to our reading list.

the Grit

Global Warming 2007

February 4, 2007

Hi Grit

I believe our first post on the issue of Global Warming was getting on for three months ago. Since then I have participated a few times and read with interest all of the comments from both sides of the divide, along with studying all of the literature that people who have commented have posted have directed us towards. I hasten to add here that I am not a scientist, so there are aspects that I would not understand. However, I consider myself an intelligent person capable of assimilating sufficient data and making a reasoned judgement. Therefore, I feel that I have a reasonable understanding of the issues so far made available. A rider to this of course is that, in view of the enormous amount of data on the subject, both for and against, it is impossible for any one individual, scientists included, to be able to assimilate it all and I would be no exception to that rule.

I do not intend this post to become embroiled in detailed scientific argument, as that will produce just a series of scientific counter arguments from both sides. It is my intention to comment on the structure and management of the analysis and the way the global warming issue is being handled.

1.) IPCC REPORT
With the IPCC report being published this month (February 2007) and it being one of a series being produced this year, many are claiming that this puts beyond doubt all of the global warming issues, particularly with regard to this being a “man-made” phenomena. However, whilst I accept that global warming exists, there are several factors that I would take issue with, both in terms of the report itself and the general reaction.

My first point of concern here is the secret nature of parts of the process building up to the report issue. In letters to Governments and Organisations in December and October 2006, although having made these letters public, they have deleted text within them, which appears to be access to the draft report. This raises two issues. Firstly, as the report is intended to benefit all of mankind, why is there a need for withholding any information? Secondly, does one presuppose that, by virtue of some deletions there could be changes of significance that the IPCC would rather the public did not see? In my view, transparency in this above all issues facing mankind is of paramount importance. Anything less is unacceptable.

Terminology
(Un)Certainty – In a document issued in July 2005, the IPCC issued guidance notes regarding the ways the lead authors should address uncertainty. It could be construed that some of these guidance are of a leading nature as it is asking that all issues to be consistent with the approach determined in the document. Another issue related to this document, which I will come to later is Table 4 – Likelihood Scale (on page 4.)

Consensus – My understanding of the term consensus is that it is the agreement of the majority, after having mitigated the objections of the opposing views. I read somewhere that, in this report it was to be a consensus of 300. I believe this needs more clarification. Bearing in mind that the report was produced by over 2,500 scientists, plus 800 contributing authors, plus 450 lead authors, I have difficulty in equating the consensus of 300 with these figures and feel they need further explanation.

Confidence – The levels of confidence are divided into five sectors, as can be seen on page 3 (table 3) of the summary report. On the other hand, the likelihood scale is divided by seven. In my view, this inequality between the two scales is confusing. Surely, it would have been more rational to have equal divisions on the two scales.

2.) The Response
In a number of areas, the immediate response to the report has not been rational. The hype concentrated on the term moved from “likely” to “very likely.” As you say Grit, the latter term relates to 90% probability. However, this also does not accurately reflect the findings of the report.

On the summary for policymakers, page 3, there is a chart of human influence on trends. The chart lists seven areas of influence under three references. The term “very likely” only appears in two instances. In media and other responses, there is no reference to other aspects of this table. Whilst I do not blame the scientists for this, it does appear that the “powers that be” are guilty of misrepresentation in this instance. Again, this raises suspicions in the minds of the public and questions as to the agenda for the report.

Is it thought that the public is not intelligent enough to understand the full information or was the hype deliberately directed by politicians?

3.) Remedies
It is disappointing to learn that a detailed study on remedies will not be available from the IPCC until later in the year. If, as has been reported, we only have ten years to address this problem, I fail to see any conceivable reason why the research on remedies was not designed to produce results in the same timescale as this current report. Six months or more has been lost. The argument that the scale of the problem has only just been defined does not wash as this report follows on from one that was issued six years ago.

Of the remedies that are being put into action, there are some issues as well. Firstly, there is serious concern regarding the consequences on remedies and cooperation between agencies. The case of Basel in Switzerland as I reported earlier is a classic example. Looking to achieve global warming saving measures, people began drilling into the earth’s surface starting a chain tremor reaction that they cannot possibly control, potentially unleashing more harm than good. How many more projects are being mishandled in this way?

In addition, there is the problem that has been raised regarding the potential danger from energy saving light. Has anyone evaluated the potential future harm of following this route, if not, why not?

Only a few weeks I posed the question how do we know that remedies can be controlled. The above are two obvious examples of that not being the case.

Another contentious issue is nuclear energy. Scientists say that this will go a long way to addressing the global warming issue, and I agree that this is one of the most efficient ways of producing energy. However, it is almost impossible to use this option within a volatile world, where there are countries such as Iran and North Korea who could not be guaranteed to utilise this method for peaceful purposes. Similarly, accidents happen as we saw in Russia, and that can be equally damaging.

In the UK, the go ahead has been given to build two huge wind farms off the coast. All of the reporting on this has concentrated on the benefits, which is admirable. Nevertheless, little has been written about the downside of such action. The effect on the bird life needs to be identified, an area where naturalists have raised concerns. But what about the effect on tides and wave patterns?

Finally, in this section, I would like to ask why existing remedies, which require little cost, are not being used. For example, with the airline issue there is a “greener” fuel available, but is currently only being used in military aircraft. The emission levels are significantly lower than normal aircraft fuel and there is, as I understand it, no cost differential. I have heard that the argument against it is safety, which I find incredible. Are we saying that the lives of the military are of less value than other citizens? If not, take the step and change the fuel.

4.) The Carbon Footprint
Much is being made of the need to reduce the global footprint. However, there seems to be a great deal of double standards in this area. The media, the UK BBC organisation being a case in point, are saying that their contribution is by publishing the issues and that, in some way, this seems to exempt them from responding to the carbon footprint limitations. At the same time, the IPCC, governments and other NGO’s are spending millions of dollars transporting thousands of people to conferences and meetings all over the globe. Yet, these organisations are asking us, airlines, and other sectors to reduce our carbon footprint. Surely, one should lead by example. Whatever happened to the ability to achieve video and Internet conferencing?

There is a lot of pressure being placed upon airlines to cut their carbon footprint, yet unless I have missed it, no one has answered the question of why, in the 24 hours post 9/11 when most air travel was grounded, there was an increase in earth warming for that day. Has anyone analysed what effect reducing the carbon footprint, particularly in air travel, will have in this respect? In other words, has the downside of the equation been quantified?

In my view, one of the largest and most expensive carbon footprints is laid by governments nationally and globally. Yet, we see no clear picture of measures that these people are taking steps to address this. In the UK, politicians are asking us to reduce our carbon footprint, and even putting pressure on the Royal family to do so. All well and good, but what do we see the politicians doing? The answer is very little. Do not ask me to do something unless you are prepared to match it and lead by example Mr Government.

5.) Political
I have to admit that I was amazed at the token gestures made by some governments by calling for an hour without lights. This seems to me to have been counter-productive. Did anyone monitor the results of these actions? As I have said, I am no scientist, but from what little I know the resultant surge from it, with all electrical compliances being switched on again more than counteracts the benefits of the gesture in the first place. Has there been a study made of this and is it a responsible response? Surely, such theatricals should have been left until the position was well known by the public and they could have been advised about the cost.

In respect of the above, the political response is similar in many ways to the media reaction. It is uncontrolled, irrational and without serious thought as to how to present the issue in a way that will generate the right response. The political response between nations is also not harmonious, which does little to engender confidence.

6.) The media Circus
Unfortunately, the media circus has continued, even on the latest event. I watched a news programme in the UK, which was designed purely to entertain the public, rather than get the message across. In this programme, they spend the time passing a copy of the report through screens to reporters in different countries, such as Europe, Australia, India and the US. No attempt is made to explain the message properly.

In addition to the previously mentioned carbon footprint of this situation, I noticed also another problem. The report they were passing was a fake. They were wads of blank paper with just the title cover printed. It was obvious from the reporter’s comments that none of them had read any of the documents and it was just a publicity stunt to show how clever the network was.

Can this be the right approach to what is meant to be a serious matter? I seriously doubt it.

7.) The Cost
Another issue that really annoys me is cost, and here I am talking about the financial side. Every aspect of the global warming issue in terms of conservation and remedies always seems to be followed by additional cost to the individual. What happens to the resultant savings from change? Who gets those?

Leaving aside the dangers of energy efficient light bulbs discussed earlier, one of the main reasons their use is limited is the cost. In the UK, they are over 6 times the price of current bulbs. If politicians and scientists are serious about this issue, then use some of the billions of waste to reduce the cost of remedies to a competitive level. It is a short-term commitment. Then demand will grow and the effective change desired will be achieved with far more speed and fluency. Another example is public transport service. Raising prices and cutting services on what is considered a “greener” method of transport does not seem to me to be an approach that will increase its usage.

Every time someone mentions global warming, it seems to result in the public having to put their hands in their pockets. Is it any wonder that this meets with resistance?

8.) Kyoto Agreement
There have been arguments about the effectiveness of the Kyoto agreement, mainly centring on those countries that have not signed up to it. However, there are countries within the agreement that have not met their targets, such as Canada. Before the world goes off trying to find another agreement, we need to know how effective this one has been, and that information has not been publicly forthcoming.

How many countries met the targets set? What effect has it had on carbon emissions? How much worse would it have been were the agreement not in place? Surely, we are entitled to this information in the public arena. If it has not been effective, even with those countries that signed up, then it is the wrong answer or structure and we need to look for another resolution.

The other matter here is the developing countries, which has still not been properly addressed in my view. All this documentation seems to be indicating that the only way they can help is to deprive themselves of the advances in technology that the developed world has. Is this going to be acceptable to them? I cannot see this being the case. Therefore any agreement needs to take their situation into account, without placing an untenable burden on the developed world. 

9.) Nation, NGO Bashing and fairness
Why is it that every time there is an issue of global importance there is an automatic nation, NGO or business witch-hunt? This posturing does nothing to confirm the validity of the situation, in fact the opposite. The French attack on the US is a prime example. It is almost as if it is just a fight amongst politicians to see who can be top dog, rather than a serious issues that requires global accord. Besides, there are other countries that have taken the same stance as the US, so singling out the big boy on the block is not only unfair, it smacks of this will get me the biggest headline. Countries antagonising each other will lead only to one conclusion, namely that nothing constructive will be done.

Other sectors are also being bashed, in my view sometimes unfairly. Business is always a favourite. Whilst I accept that, in some cases their response is not good on some issues, they are generally responsive to consumer demands. In the case of global warming, it is fair to say that in many cases business is being far more positive in their actions than politicians are. For example, the supermarket industry in the UK is taking active reduction measures, whereas politicians are looking at costly offset programmes, which in the end are second best options.

Similarly, I object to some of the rhetoric and language that is used by the various lobbies on global warming, from both sides of the divide. To call someone a denialist or sceptics because they do not accept ones argument is as bad as calling someone an “eco-nut” for proposing the argument in the first place. Serious issues demand serious discussion and conversation and this requires patience. At present, the stance taken by some scientists and many politicians on the issue of global warming is too dictatorial, dismissive and impatient. All it does is make both sides more entrenched in their views, which is counter-productive.

The problem with a divide of this nature is that both sides lose. Both sides spend so much time attacking the other that they do not a) fully understand the argument of the other and b) do not gain from the potential valid points within the others cases, validity that could be of significance to their own studies.

I do not consider myself a denialist or a sceptic on this issue. However, I am also not going to be sat down and told this is the problem and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I need to understand the full facts supporting the issue, including analysis of assumptions; explanations of provable facts and honest acceptance and discussion on those that cannot be proven. I want risk assessment on all aspects of the issue, including remedies and I want acknowledgement of and discussion regarding opposing views.

As I said previously, one of the things that infuriate me about the current IPCC/Political situation is the piecemeal approach. In my years as a business consultant any report that I produced did not only identify and make conclusions about the problem, it was also required to provide recommendations that had been expertly evaluated. If it did not I was failing in my task. Governments and the scientific world have taken six years to prepare this report. I fail to see why, at the same time, and for publication at the same date, the remedial data could not have been produced.

the Brit

Look out! The light bulb police are coming!

January 31, 2007

Hi Brit,

Besides being a sign of the end of the world, it’s also one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read lately, California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012.  (notice the target date)  Of course, since this will leave the poor in the dark, the State will, no doubt, pass out the free bulbs along with free condoms.  However, considering the eco-freak attitude of California’s population, this also proves that they are either poorly informed or insane.  You have read the packages on those fluorescent bulbs, haven’t you?  They contain mercury.  That is, they contain it until they break.  You can’t even throw them in the trash, least they contaminate the local landfill.  So, between all the extra hazardous material clean up teams, the cost of special disposal on a grand scale, and the expense of a light bulb police force to make certain no one smuggles an evil incandescent bulb into the state, I’m not even sure it will save energy.

the Grit

Ethanol, evil, evil ethanol

January 28, 2007

Hi Brit,

As I’m sure you know, our environmentalist wackos have pushed our political wackos into pushing, by law, the use of ethanol combined with gasoline as an “environmentally friendly” and “anti Global Warming” fuel.  As I always figured, being a farmer and a heavy consumer of distilled spirits, growing crops to turn into combustible fuel is stupid, The new gold rush: how farmers are set to fuel America’s future.  Besides the inefficiency involved with producing this “green” fuel, it also, obviously, reduces the available food supply.  The first signs of the damage this will do are in Mexico, A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis.  You should note that, even if they switch from using corn as the base for ethanol production, there is only so much good farming land, but an ever increasing number of mouths to feed.  The only acres left to plant rest under forests so …

the Grit

Blair and Kyoto

January 28, 2007

Hi Grit

I will come back to the issue of Global warming in the next few days, as soon as I have extricated myself from the mountain of paperwork, facts and counterfacts that was forthcoming after the last one. However, the situation regarding Mr Blair’s speech needs to be looked at in a number of ways.

Firstly, one has to remember that he is within six months or so of stepping down from the position as Prime Minister. Thus, technically, nothing that he says at present has any influence upon government policy, nor does it commit his successor to a policy. If I were the cynical type (as if?), I could promote the view that his current round of speeches on important issues is a clever promotional campaign to improve his value on the “statesmen” speech circuit.

Secondly, his praise of Ms Merkel and the German presidency of Europe rings a bit hollow when you consider it in the same context as mentioned in the above paragraph.

Thirdly, the Koyoto agreement we have already mentioned previously and to me, bearing in mind that the developing countries such as India and China will cry foul if their continued development is to be halted, I do not see a prospect of a new more radical formula being agreed in the near future.

Oh why not just a brief mention of Global warming. Our Prince Charles, who cancelled a skiing trip to reduce his “carbon footprint” resulting from emissions, has now been criticised for taking 13 people on an official trip to Canada. I have not seen anyone complaining about the “emission” cost of 30 political parties travelling from their domestic countries to Switzerland, have you?

Hope that explains the Blair position.

the Brit

We’ve been greened!

January 27, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, President Bush is trying to make friends in liberal places: Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Of course, the liberal press isn’t interested, since they hate Bush with an almost religious passion.  Now, if President Clinton had done this, it would be the headline on every major paper and be repeated endlessly on every news show.  Alas, now we’re not only stuck with wasting more Federal dollars on this silly attempt to go green, but Bush isn’t even going to get credit for making the effort.   Pity.

On the other hand, it is cool that the President can do things like this.  Now, if it were me, I’d assign colors to all the Federal Agencies and issue an Executive Order that all Federal Buildings be painted in the appropriate color and that the employees of that Agency dress exclusively in that color.  I might even make them dye their hair.  The IRS, by the way, would get pink as their color.  Could that be why I’m not President? 

the Grit

I do believe we predicted this…

January 23, 2007

Hi Brit,

It would seem that we have ESP, Business smells whiff of money in climate change – Global Warming, Big Government, and Big Business.  OK Brit, concentrate on this weeks lottery numbers…

the Grit

Liberals, living in the past

January 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

While my favorite musical group, Jethro Tull, didn’t specifically target liberals in that song, they are trying desperately to be its target: Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case.  Try to keep up liberal folk.  CO2 bad!  Nuclear power good!  For that matter, didn’t you get the talking points memo?  Terrorism isn’t really enough of a threat to worry about.  Go have a chat with Nanny Pelosi.  Of course, she’ll probably give you a good spanking, but, then again, you might like that.

the Grit

Media bias alert!

January 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

Here we go with the media bias again.  This time it’s leaning in favor of “green” technology, Solar power eliminates utility bills in U.S. home.  Of course, this has been possible for years, but this story touts it as a breakthrough, hiding the tiny catch in the middle of the article.  It turns out that this dream scenario, and who doesn’t want to tell the local electric monopoly to kiss their ass, costs $100,000 up front for a very modest size home.  For those of us who don’t have that kind of cash stuffed in the sock drawer, this means almost doubling the borrowed cost of a new home, and the mortgage payment.  I’ll leave the comparison of your monthly check to the bank and your electric bill to you.  Oh, and don’t forget to add in the maintenance costs of keeping the bird droppings off your generating system.

the Grit

Global Warming politics heats up.

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Once again, I told you so 😉  Six senators back mandatory greenhouse gas cuts, and it’s not just liberals playing the climate crisis card, conservatives are in on this one as well.  And, of course, the liberal press won’t report just how much this is going to add to our utility bills, which are not insignificant at the moment, thank you very much.  It would also stifle attempts to expand our electric production, so California can look forward to more rolling blackouts in the future, which, I have no doubt, will be blamed on President Bush, who will deserve it if he signs any such legislation into law.  I’m going to save the list of Senators sponsoring this bill, and the list of those who vote for it, and can promise them now that my vote won’t tally under their names, unless the electronic voting machines are, as suggested, rigged.

the Grit

Power from space.

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

There is a way to power England with solar power, and only take up a tiny bit of your island: Whatever happened to solar power satellites?  This concept, putting the solar cells in space and beaming the energy to Earth as microwaves, has been around for a long time.  It would have been almost practical back in the early seventies to establish a lunar colony to do the manufacturing of parts.  This was discussed, but the political situation made it impossible to divert the investment capital needed away from social and military programs.  There was also a bunch of chatter from environmental groups, claiming that the SPSs would heat the Earth too much, use too much land for the microwave collectors, and potentially get out of control and destroy all life as we know it.  As I recall, the deciding factor against even putting up a test version was that the USSR would have seen it as a weapon system.  Of course, as energy costs rise and space flight gets cheaper…

the Grit

So the democrats have energy

January 12, 2007

Hi Grit

I see that the lets raise a penny for global warming is catching on, when really what the governments are saying is let’s line our pockets. In fact, if you look at the revenue raised from energy in the western world, it would go a long way to setting up an alternative system. But where does it go? To pay for all the private jets and expensive expenses that keep the politicians in the style to which they want to become accustomed.

Mind you, I read somewhere that we could use solar power. Apparently the US could be self-sufficient in solar power quite easily. All you have to do is cover most of Arizona with solar panels. Now the only thing that bothers me about this is that if we wanted to do the same in the UK, we would have to cover the whole country, because apparently our problem might be greater than yours.

The idea of spending the rest of my life living under a solar panel shield does not appeal

the brit

Democrats solve energy problems!

January 12, 2007

Hi Brit,

Good news!  Our liberal party, the Democrats, have solved our energy crisis.  How, one must be tempted to ask, can they do this in less than a week of legislating?  They’ve fallen back on their tried and true tactics, raise taxes!  Democrats unveil energy package  Simple as that, and the problem is solved.  Assuming that President Bush wouldn’t veto any version of this that lands on his desk, not only will this tax cut Gulf oil and natural gas production, which nasty products lead to Global Warming, but, with convoluted evil genius, it will work to prevent prices on those products from ever falling!  Plus, this will teach Big Oil two important lessons, don’t screw with Nanny Pelosi and start making wind mills because the liberals are going to run you out of business.  Oh, it’s so nice to not have that to worry about any more.

the Grit

UK – EU oil supply problems

January 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

Not to worry for the moment, at least for jolly old England.  It looks like the current problem is only in Germany and Poland:

Russian oil supplies to Poland, Germany caught in Belarus dispute

Doesn’t Britain get its oil from the North Sea? At least there was a Jethro Tull song about that, which is usually a trustworthy source of information.  However, if you just need a worry fix, consider what happened last time Germany and Russia had a dispute in that region.  What was it that comes after II…

the Grit

It’s not only our liberals who suck.

January 5, 2007

Hi Brit,

It does my heart good to see that our liberals aren’t the only ones who talk out of both sides of their mouths, Nimbys can’t be allowed to put a block on wind farms.  It seems like just yesterday that our rich liberals chose their pretty view from  Martha’s Vineyard, a bastion of ultra wealthy twits who don’t want to associate with the common herd, to helping the environment by building a wind farm: heck, just do a Google search to find out the whole nasty history of Ted Kennedy blocking a green power initiative because He didn’t want to see it, or take a chance of running his yacht into it.  Of course, considering his history of murdering people while driving drunk, I can’t really say I blame him.

Once again, we have evidence that Big Liberals don’t want to play by the rules they want us to bow to.  Shocking!

the Grit

Global warming, Big Government, and Big Business

January 5, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’m starting to figure out how the fuss over “Global Warming” is being taken seriously and to the extreme.  Consider the following articles:

Airlines accused on climate change

Miliband warns of lifestyle change

Taken separately, they sound like more of the same old story.  The EU is finding out why the US didn’t jump on the Kyoto treaty bandwagon, and Environment Secretary Miliband is a loon.  However, if you look at the big picture, a pattern starts to emerge, and, as all too many things seem to do, it’s a mosaic done in money.

Since we’re all stuck with Big Government these days, and their primary job is to get bigger, they are constantly searching for new things to tax.  In the airline story, we see that they’ve finally found a way to tax air.  Of course, there’s no way the world economy can support all the new “environmental” taxes that are coming now that there’s a hole in the dike, so a way has to be found to perk up the industrial sector.  Big Business, as one would expect, is all to happy to get in on that.  The lifestyle article gives us a glimpse of what the long term plan is, everything has to go and be replaced by expensive new “Green” technology.  Just think of all the jobs that’s going to create.  Unfortunately, the other side of this coin is a new need to loot the third world, again.  All that manufacturing has to be done in the existing developed countries, since they want the tax revenue, but the raw materials are going to come from the back waters of the world, where they don’t mind the gapping holes in the ground left by strip mining.  The corrupt governments of these countries are going to be bought off with a slice of the tax swag, and some pretty new toys to hand out to the natives.  What a sweet plan.  I wonder who thought of it?

the Grit

Tree huggers just can’t win for loosing.

January 3, 2007

Hi Brit,

This little bit of news was most interesting to me, and most upsetting to the environmentalist wackos, Texas Stays Biodiesel Execution .  While I must say that I’m not surprised at the lack of research before the twits started the movement to biodiesel, I am taken off guard that the responsible members of the lunatic fringe weren’t tared and feathered, before being ridden out of town on a rail.

the Grit

You’ll get a charge out of this.

January 1, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems that we, all of us, have been too creative in the past, and there’s not much left inventors to do.  That’s the only way I can explain how Solar Powered USB Bikini could make it off the cocktail napkin where the idea was first doodled after a long night of drinking, all the way to a working model.  However, it will be interesting to see if any are sold, not to mention, how well they hold up to swimming.

the Grit