Archive for the ‘pollution’ Category

Global Warming – Branson to the rescue

February 9, 2007

We can rest easy in our beds tonight, knowing that the solution to global warming is in safe hands. One of our most popular entrepreneurs, Richard Branson, has come up the solution. His idea is to offer a $25 million dollar prize to the first scientist to come up with a solution to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

There are of course three problems here. One is that, if the past is anything to go by, it will be difficult to get scientific agreement. Two, by the time such a project is completed it will be too late and three, how will the machine or whatever be able to distinguish between so-called man-made emissions and natural emissions?

However, not to miss the opportunity to accumulate some wealth, I have come up with a couple of ideas you might want to help me with Grit.


STEP ONE – Build one chimney in the middle of the Atlantic.  It needs to be 15 miles high and 100 feet in diameter and stand on pylons sunk into the earth.

STEP TWO – Build a second chimney at a spot 180 degrees around the earth from the first chimney with the same dimensions.

STEP THREE – two miles above the earth’s surface around each chimney attach a network of horizontal pipes, one for each country within that chimneys hemisphere. The lengths of these pipes will be to be custom made so that they extend to reach each individual country.

STEP FOUR – At the end of each pipe attach a multi head large extractor fan, rather like a shower head. These will be directed to all points of the compass so that there is even coverage.

JOB DONE. Caution. All of the extractor fans will need to be turned on simultaneously to avoid unbalancing the earth.


Possibly a more simple solution. I am given to understand that man-made emissions can be collected in containers of some nature. Therefore why don’t we constuct a fleet of CO2 garbage shuttles capable of holding these containers and run a weekly CO2 disposal service. By this route we can dump the emissions somewhere in outer space and give the problem to another galaxy.

the Brit

PS: Where do we find the application forms for the $25 million? 

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.

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.

(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

Queen Pelosi?

February 2, 2007

Hi Brit,

I knew when the election results came in last year the Pelosi would be a constant source of inspiration.  I didn’t think it would be this good though, Speaker pursues military flights.  The key to this story is not that Queen Pelosi wants free rides in military planes, being secure and staying in contact with Washington is part of her job as Speaker.  However, she is also demanding, “regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation.”  Sorry, Nanny Pelosi.  You’re are Speaker of the House, not royalty.  Family and friends have to fly commercial.  That’s the price you pay for the new ethics rules.  Besides, you shouldn’t be flying anyway.  Don’t you believe in Global Warming?  Aren’t you concerned about the size of your carbon footprint?  Oh, I forgot.  All that stuff only applies to us peasants.

the Grit

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

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

Democrats causing Climate Change for political gain!

January 26, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, it does seem as if Nanny Pelosi, the Speaker Lady and big gun against Global Warming and Climate Change (if it’ll get her a vote or two,) is another liberal who’s ideology only applies to the common people.  She and a horde of Big Name liberal politicians are off on a quick trip to Iraq to check things out for themselves, Pelosi to meet with al-Maliki in quick visit to Iraq.  Of course, they’re flying, pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the air, not to mention burning untold thousands of tax payer dollars, just to have a photo-op and make a political point.  Typical liberal elitists.  What do you want to bet that they step off the jet right into a convoy of SUVs?

the Grit

IPCC throws in the towel!

January 25, 2007

Hi Brit,

Great news!  The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s lap dog in the Global Warming scheme) has waved the white flag, Warming to raise seas for 1,000 years: U.N. draft.  It now seems that, regardless of what we do, the Global Warming fanatics have decided that it won’t be enough and everyone is going to die.  What a load off my mind!  Now we can instruct our Governments to ignore the twits, save trillions of dollars, and get on with our lives.  Of course, since the IPCC is going to release the report in Paris, France, there may be some doubts as to its accuracy, leaving us stuck with spending lives and treasure trying to solve a pretend problem by politically correct means.  Drat!

There is a funny bit in the article that makes it worth reading:

“The study, by a panel of 2,500 scientists who advise the United Nations, also says that dust from volcanic eruptions and air pollution seems to have braked warming in recent decades by reflecting sunlight back into space, scientific sources said.”

So, for those of you who buy into the Global Warming scam, rip those catalytic converters off your cars and start burning your trash in a barrel in the back yard.  Pollute to save the planet!  Of course, this also means that you can thank the Environmentalist Movement for Global Warming.

the Grit

Celebrities cause climate change!

January 24, 2007

Hi Brit,

While I have suspected this for a while now, finally there’s proof: The private jet set.  Sure, the Rich and Famous talk a fine game, and are quick to tell us common folk not to drive gas guzzling SUVs, but they don’t seem to have any problems zipping around in private jets.  You know, I can’t think of any mode of transportation that belches more CO2 per person mile than a jet.  For that matter, I seem to recall reading that almost all of our Congress people fly home every weekend and back to DC on Monday.  For the Speaker Lady, that’s several thousand high pollution miles.  It makes one wonder just how much of the Global Warming “problem” is actually caused by the very people who are so intent on making us sacrifice to fix it. 

So, I think the first thing Nanny Pelosi should do to prove her sincerity about stopping Climate Change, is to ban private ownership of aircraft.  She should also impose an “air miles” allotment scheme like they’re planning on doing for Carbon emissions.  Then, if the Rich and Famous want to live the jet set life, they’ll have to share some of that wealth.

the Grit

Spam patrol

January 18, 2007

Hi Brit,

Do you understand where and why we’re getting all the spam comments?  Our latest one was definitely not targeted at me, “N Sync Ringtones .”  Does everyone get this junk, or is it just us?  We’ve had this blog for less than three months and, so far, have 290 spam comments.  Is this normal?  Is there a way to track down the culprits and SPAM them to death using the kind that comes in a can?  Would that be justice?  What does the Koran say about spam, either type?

Thank you, Akismet!

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

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

Facts! We don’t need no stinking facts!

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

I hate to say it, but it’s too late to worry about the facts in the Global Warming debate.  Politicians all around have stuck their fingers in the wind of public opinion, and are spreading their sails to ride the hot gale coming from the mouths of the environmentalist wacko movement back into office.  Check this one out: EU plans attack on car emissions.  While I expect a certain amount of insanity from socialists, like attempting to destroy Europe’s auto industry, the surprising naughty bit is down at the bottom.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, “…people should start talking about climate change as a war.  It could lead to the death of millions of people, and it could transform the world economy into a war economy, where every sector was involved in the fight against climate change.”

Is this guy German?

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

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

Talk is cheap and so are liberals

December 22, 2006

Hi Brit,

As you probably know even from so far away, Hollywood is the heart of liberalism in the US.  Almost all of the big stars are, at least to hear them talk, socialist to the core and lovers of Mother Earth.  Of course, when it comes to their own money and their glamorous lifestyles, their principles and causes go right out the window.  Here’s a glowing example:

Study: Television, Filmmaking Industries Are Big Polluters

It would seem that Big Entertainment is as greedy and destructive as Big Oil.  For the sake of the planet and in the interest of justice, I do think it’s time Big Government gets involved and puts some restraint on these horrendous defilers of our precious environment. 

the Grit