A new twist on the Climate Change debate:
Hot Air posted an article today about ethanol in America. The article notes that when the ethanol program (Renewable Fuel Standard) was put in place, it was based on two basic assumptions. The first assumption was that we would be producing huge amounts of biodiesel from sources like palm oil and recycled cooking oil. The other was that we would be pumping out massive volumes of cellulosic ethanol, derived from plants like switchgrass, which grows naturally all across the country. Well, both of those assumptions proved to be false. Because America is now the number one energy producer in the world, it no longer makes sense to use ethanol. Ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as carbon-based fuels when you consider the carbon footprint of its manufacturing process. There are also serious questions about the impact of ethanol on car engines.
The article concludes:
Corn is the least environmentally friendly way to create ethanol. It’s also a very inefficient fuel compared to gasoline so you wind up having to burn more of it to produce the same amount of energy. In short, we’re defeating some of the primary motivations that led us to start down this path to begin with. And yet the program endures for nothing other than political reasons. Midwestern states like Iowa want the government to keep demanding more and more corn ethanol to bolster agricultural markets. Meanwhile, refineries are stuck trading on a corrupt, fake market for RIN credits, driving some of the smaller ones toward insolvency.
The dream of corn ethanol has failed everyone across the board. But like most government mandates, once it’s been summoned into existence, it proves nearly impossible to kill. It would take a tremendous amount of political will to get rid of the RFS now, and that strength clearly doesn’t exist in the Trump administration. You won’t find it among the Democrats, either. And so we keep paddling upstream against the same forces for the foreseeable future.
The closest thing to immortality is a government program.
Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about a recent lawsuit against ice cream makers Ben & Jerry. Ben & Jerry’s owners are liberals who very openly support liberal causes. Their advertising claims that in harmony with their ideas about the humane treatment of animals ans the environment, their ice cream is made from milk from happy cows. I never really considered the emotional well being of the cows that supplied the milk for my ice cream, but I suppose it is a somewhat valid concern. Well, evidently all of the milk does not come from happy cows.
The article reports:
Since most of this week in Washington is already shaping up to be a festival of the ridiculous, we may as well toss a few more logs on the bonfire. Up in Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s, the famously liberal ice cream company, is being taken to court over fraudulent advertising, along with its parent company, Unilever. But this suit has nothing to do with the quality or safety of their product. An environmentalist is suing them because of their advertisements claiming that their creamy products are made from milk from “happy cows.” Not so, says the plaintiff! Apparently, many of the cows are simply miserable.
Ben & Jerry’s and parent company Unilever are being sued for false advertising by an environmental advocate who claims the milk and cream used to make flavors like Phish Food are deceptively marketed as coming from “happy cows.”
In a complaint filed Oct. 31 in federal court in Burlington, Vermont, where Ben & Jerry’s was founded, environmental advocate James Ehlers accuses the company and Unilever of deceiving consumers who buy the ice cream because of its pastoral and progessive image.
“During the past several years, Unilever has breached consumer trust by representing the Ben & Jerry’s Products as being made with milk and cream sourced exclusively from “happy cows” on Vermont dairies that participate in a special, humane “Caring Dairy” program,” the lawsuit claims.
The complaint alleges that less than half of the milk used is from the “Caring Dairy” program.
The article explains the program (and the problem):
USA Today looked into the question and found that the Caring Dairy program is indeed real. In order to qualify, farms have to follow certain regulations for how the cows are raised and what sort of environmental “carbon footprint” the operation has. But it’s not all that large, with only 65 farms in the Netherlands and the United States qualifying.
Even if Ben & Jerry’s had cornered the market on all of them, they probably wouldn’t produce enough milk to meet their needs. The company claims they “hope” to work with more farms like these going forward, but it certainly sounds as if they’re not using 100% “happy cow” milk. So maybe the plaintiff is correct.
I am strongly in favor of treating animals humanely. However, I also believe that animals are not people. What we need here is a sense of balance.
The Gateway Pundit reported the following today:
A slew of A-list celebrities have flocked to Sicily, Italy on private jets and massive yachts to discuss the woes of global warming caused, they say, by things like private jets and massive yachts.
The founders of Google invited a a throng of the rich and famous, including former President Barack Obama, Prince Harry, actor Leonardo DiCaprio and singer Katy Perry for a huge party they’ve dubbed Google Camp.
“Everything is about global warming, that is the major topic this year,” a source told The Post.
The cost of the extravaganza — $20 million.
According to the Italian press, at least 114 private jets will land at the Palermo airport.
So let me get this straight. The Green New Deal wants to cripple the American economy in the name of saving the earth–no more fossil fuel, no more cows, etc., yet the richest of the rich attend a meeting on fighting climate change in machines with some of the biggest carbon footprints on earth.
I guess if we are all going to die in twelve years because of global warming, they are going to go out in style.
We live in a culture where money talks. People give to politicians to support them (and sometimes to gain access), corporations and unions give to politicians, corporations and organizations buy ads on television and radio to support their cause. Consumers have the option of believing or dismissing these ads. Public relations has become a major part of most businesses, politicians, and charities. Well, not everyone is happy with the idea of equal access to the playing field.
The County Compass posted an article today about two groups attempting to limit the free speech of a company they disagree with. NC WARN and Friends of the Earth have begun legal action to ban what the groups allege is pervasive influence spending by Duke Energy.
The article reports:
The petition calls for the NC Utilities Commission to prohibit the use of customers’ money for influence spending by Duke’s two Carolinas-based utilities and the parent corporation. It details how virtually all the spending for political and civic influence originates from customer bills, and how Duke Energy uses an “accounting fiction” to claim that its stockholders or employees pay for image-polishing propaganda, targeted philanthropy, political giveaways and other efforts to buy favor.
The article includes the reply by Duke Energy:
Reached Wednesday afternoon at Duke Energy headquarters, Meredith Archie with the Corporate Communications department released the following statement:
The claims by this organization about our company are patently false and misleading. Duke Energy is proud to make charitable contributions in the communities where we live, work and serve, as well as to participate in public discourse on important policy matters that affect our customers and our company. The dollars used to fund these efforts are funded by shareholders in accordance with the law.
The article concludes:
Chan (Michelle Chan), the V.P. of Programs at Friends of the Earth, echoed Bradford’s (Peter Bradford, a former chairman of the New York Utilities Commission) statements.
“Adequately responding to the climate crisis means not just tackling the technical question of transitioning to renewable energy,” said Chan. “It also means stopping corporate monopolies like Duke from corroding our democracy and standing in the way of the change we need to protect people and the planet.”
First of all, there is no evidence that man’s behavior is responsible for climate change. Secondly, Solar energy may seem like a wonderful thing, but what is the carbon footprint of manufacturing the panels and how can they be safely disposed of since they have a limited life span?
I am not really surprised that two liberal organizations are attempting to shut down the free speech rights of an organization they have decided to demonize. I just wonder what they would do if Duke Energy went out of business–do they use electricity?
The article reminds us of a few basic facts:
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: Secretary of State John Kerry, owner of five multi-million dollar mansions along with a luxury yacht, has seen fit to lecture Indonesians (average income in 2012: $3,420) about why
global warming climate change is “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
…Incidentally, according to World Bank figures, Indonesian per capita greenhouse gas emissions are 1.8 metric tons. The United States: 17.6. Like Al Gore, John Kerry’s per capita emissions are surely a multiple of this, which suggests an obvious first step. What Indonesia is most vulnerable to is following the policy prescriptions of mountebanks like Kerry. The good news it that they know that. India, China, Indonesia, and other developing nations have consistently told our diplomats a version of the following: “We don’t understand you Americans; you expect us to remain poor forever?” Or: “You Americans got rich on fossil fuels. When we’re as rich as you, then maybe we’ll talk about emissions reductions.”
Secretary Kerry’s comments are simply offensive. Aside from the poverty Indonesia is dealing with, the country also has a problem with Muslim terrorists. I really don’t think shrinking their carbon footprint is a very high priority in Indonesia. It is a shame that the Secretary of State was not more aware of or more sensitive to the needs of the country he was addressing.
The article reports:
In an interview with Germany’s mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: “I am a bit drained. I’m now going to take a long, long break. I’ve done three films in two years and I’m just worn out.”
“I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment,” added DiCaprio, in comments published in German.
The article goes on to explain that the actor’s house has solar panels and that he drives an electric car. That’s nice. Has it occurred to him that flying around the world to help the environment is somewhat counter-productive? Is he flying commercial or in a private plane? Has he considered the carbon footprint of his trip around the world to help the environment?
Yesterday’s Daily Caller posted an article called, “What my seventh-grade daughter learned during her school’s “sustainability day.” The students watched a video called “The Story of Stuff.” The basic premise of the video is that we are destroying the planet because of our consumerism. The article lists a few of the points made in the video and then explains how the basic facts (thus the conclusions) are wrong. Please follow the link to the article to see the details. The video is by Annie Leonard and is also on YouTube. This is all a part of the brainwashing needed to get America ready for UN Agenda 21. I have done articles on Agenda 21 in the past (rightwinggranny.com). We need to make sure our children hear the truth at home–they are not hearing it in the classroom.
It has always been interesting to me that those who are criticizing us average people for consumerism seem to have more stuff than the rest of us. There was a dust-up this week about a very exclusive Halloween party at the White House as the American economy was rapidly heading south. Al Gore talks about carbon footprints, but maintains a lifestyle that creates a larger carbon footprint in a day than most of us do in a year. Mucky-mucks travel to conferences on carbon emissions in private jets. I might be inclined to take some of this talk much more seriously if the people talking followed their own advice.