There Really Is Something Ironic About This

Lately those opposed to constructing wind farms off of our coast have cited the number of dead whales that have washed up on our shores since we started exploring on our shores and building platforms for those wind farms. There is also a move (which I admit I was unaware of) to construct floating solar farms. Aside from any other considerations, how much toxic liquid would a broken solar panel release into the ocean? I have no idea–I am simply asking the question.

On Thursday, Watts Up With That posted the following headline:

The World’s Largest Floating Solar Farm Wrecked by a Storm Just Before Launch

That can’t be good.

The article reports:

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Who could have predicted acres of fragile floating structures would be vulnerable to bad weather?

Madhya Pradesh: Summer Storm Damages World’s Largest Floating Solar Plant at Omkareshwar Dam (Watch Video)

Indore: A summer storm on Tuesday damaged a floating solar plant at Madhya Pradesh’s Omkareshwar dam. The floating solar plant, situated in the backwater of the dam, is the biggest of its kind in the world. A joint venture between  Madhya Pradesh Govt and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), the project was nearly completed and ready for its launch. A part of the project became operational last week.

The project near the village of Kelwa Khurd, aimed at generating 100 MW of electricity, with additional capacities of 88MW at Indawadi and 90 MW at Ekhand village. However, on Tuesday, summer storms with the speed of 50kmph hit the project and threw the solar panels all around the place. No employee was fortunately injured.

The article concludes:

Plastics tend to disintegrate under tropical sunlight, especially when in contact with water or water spray. Ultraviolet from the sun drives exotic chemical reactions, which leads to chemical breakdown.

Metal sitting in water is difficult to manage, even stainless steel is not immune to corrosion. All metal structures in contact with water need to be protected with sacrificial anodes or comparable protective measures. Electricity and metal are an especially bad combination, any electrical fault which causes a current to run through metal in contact with water can cause corrosion to occur thousands of times faster than normal.

Let us hope developers and politicians take the hint, and stop throwing our money at inherently flawed ideas like floating solar arrays.

Sometimes things that look really good on paper just don’t work.

 

The Next Big Climate Scare

In America (and in some other places) we just aren’t paying enough attention to our impending doom due to global warming, global cooling, or whatever climate change is currently fashionable. Therefore, it is time to raise the stakes to get our attention. Brace yourself, we are about to start hearing about deaths due to climate change. How you actually calculate that is a mystery, but that hasn’t stopped the propagandists yet.

On Thursday, wattsupwiththat reported:

The next big climate scare is on the way. Advocates of measures to control the climate now propose that we begin counting deaths from climate change. They appear to believe that if people see a daily announcement of climate deaths, they will be more inclined to accept climate change policies. But it’s not even clear that the current gentle rise in global temperatures is causing more people to die.

In December, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at COP28, the 28th United Nations Climate Conference, and mentioned climate-related deaths.

“We are seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate,” she said. “And by far the biggest killer is extreme heat.”

According to Ms. Clinton, Europe recorded 61,000 deaths from extreme heat in 2023, and she estimated that about 500,000 people died from heat across the world last year.

Global temperatures have been gently rising for the last 300 years. Temperature metrics from NASA, NOAA, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom estimate that Earth’s surface temperatures have risen a little more than one degree Celsius, or about two degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 140 years. But are these warmer temperatures harmful to people?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most cases of influenza occur during December to March, the cold months in the United States. Influenza season in the southern hemisphere takes place during the cold months there, April through September. The peak months for COVID-19 infections tended to be the cold periods of the year. More people usually get sick during cold months than in warm months.

More people also die during winter months than summer months, according to many peer-reviewed studies. For example, Dr. Matthew Falagas of the Alfa Institute of Medical Sciences and five other researchers studied seasonal mortality in 11 nations. The research showed that the average number of deaths peaked in the coldest months of the year in all of them.

It’s easier to stay healthy when the weather is warm–the sun provides Vitamin D, and as long as you don’t overdue it, fresh air and sunshine are healthy.

Please follow the link to the article. It includes some very interesting charts, including the one below:

 

Numbers don’t lie.

Settled Science?

First of all there is no such thing as ‘settled science.’ The scientific method calls for constant questioning and re-evaluating. Second, if something is declared settled science, you can be sure that someone with a potential financial gain is promoting it (sorry for my cynicism).

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat reported that the idea of net zero carbon is based on insufficient date. Wow. We are crippling some of the world’s major economies based on insufficient data.

The article quotes and article from The Telegraph posted on Saturday:

Britain’s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key net zero recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.

“They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.

Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by Chris Stark, the Climate Change Committee’s chief executive. He said: “Might be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data … is ‘an entirely valid criticism’.”

The CCC said that Sir Chris’s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver “a reliable decarbonised power system”.

The article at WattsUpWithThat concludes:

It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.

In addition, the whole of the CC should now be disbanded. Unfortunately it is still required by law, but it should now be staffed by truly independent members, with a remit to prioritise energy security and cost/benefit goals. The ideological pursuit of Net Zero must not override the wellbeing of the British public, put its energy security at risk or make the public worse off.

But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.

So why are we even thinking about doing some of the things we are doing to bring down carbon?

Carbon Credits Are Unraveling

On Friday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about the very predictable unraveling of carbon credits. This is not a new phenomena.

In 2003, CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) was founded. It was assumed that when Democrats got control of Congress, they would pass Cap and Trade legislation and carbon credits would be exchanged through CCX. Some major Democrat figures were heavily invested in CCX. Cap and Trade never passed and the CCX began laying off employees in 2010. (article here)

Yesterday WattsUpWithThat reported:

The world of carbon credits has long been presented as a major tool for supposed climate woes. Advocates of this system have been quick to sing its praises, positioning it as the ultimate solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. But skeptics, like yours truly, have long pointed out the inherent flaws in such a system. Now, even The Guardian, a publication that has been a staunch advocate of climate alarmism, seems to be having second thoughts. It’s almost as if they’re saying, “Oops, maybe the skeptics had a point.”

The Guardian’s Late Awakening

The article from The Guardian delves deep into the world of carbon credits, questioning their actual impact on reducing emissions. It’s almost amusing to see them now asking:

“Carbon credits are supposed to offset the emissions caused by companies and individuals. But do they really reduce greenhouse gases?”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases

A question that should have been asked and critically examined long before jumping on the carbon credit bandwagon.

The Mirage of Offsetting

The Guardian highlights a significant concern: the illusion of offsetting. Purchasing carbon credits doesn’t necessarily equate to genuine offsetting of emissions. Many of these credits are tied to projects that would have been executed regardless, meaning no real reduction in emissions.

“Many of the projects supported by carbon credits, such as the construction of windfarms and solar parks, would have been built anyway.”

In essence, it’s a system that allows companies to parade their “green” credentials without making any tangible changes to their carbon footprint.

The Inconsistencies of Carbon Credit Accounting

The article also sheds light on the convoluted and inconsistent world of carbon credit accounting. With no unified standard and a lack of rigorous oversight, it’s a system rife with potential for manipulation.

“There is no single standard for carbon credits, and critics argue that this has allowed projects that do not deliver real-world emissions reductions to flourish.”

It’s a system that skeptics have long warned about, and it seems these concerns were not unfounded.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. People are beginning to wake up.

About Those Canadian Wildfires…

On Saturday, Anthony Watts posted an article at wattsupwiththat about the Canadian wildfires that have polluted the east coast of America for the past week or so. Mr. Watts explains that not only are the wildfires NOT the result of global warming, but that there were notable wildfires long before the invention of the automobile and the industrialization of America and other countries.

The article includes the following graphs:

The article also notes:

Temperatures in the United States are virtually unchanged from 2005, when a new state-of-the-art climate monitoring system called the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was put in place by NOAA. However, this data is never reported to the news media on NOAA’s climate reports for the United States.

The scientific evidence does not support the theory of global warming. However, there is major economic and political change that can be accomplished by promoting the theory of global warming, so the theory will continue to be promoted.

 

 

Was This Money Wisely Spent?

On October 25th, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about spending on green energy and the results of that spending.

The article reports:

Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division): “Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.” … The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.”

The article includes the following graph:

The article also includes the following Tweet:

I think it is time to go back to the drawing board.

How To Create Questionable Numbers

Recently wattsupwiththat posted an article about the new surface station report. Surface stations are the instruments used to measure changes in the earth’s climate. They are what the climate change cabal uses to justify creating havoc in the American economy. The other reference for this article is the actual report.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here are a few pictures that illustrate the problem with some of the devices that are supposed to be tracking temperature change on the earth:

The article at wattsupwiththat states:

For more information, or to speak with the authors of this study please contact Vice President and Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364.

This new report is a follow up to a March 2009 study, titled “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? which highlighted a subset of over 1,000 surveyed stations and found 89 percent of stations had heat-bias issues. In April and May 2022, The Heartland Institute’s team of researchers visited many of the same temperature stations as in 2009, plus many not visited before. The new survey sampled 128 NOAA stations, and found the problem of heat-bias has only gotten worse.

“The original 2009 surface stations project demonstrated conclusively that the federal government’s surface temperature monitoring system was broken, with the vast majority of stations not meeting NOAA’s own standards for trustworthiness and quality. Investigations by government watchdogs OIG and GAO confirmed the 2009 report findings,” said H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environment Policy at The Heartland Institute who surveyed NOAA surface stations himself this spring. “This new study is evidence of two things. First, the government is either inept or stubbornly refuses to learn from its mistakes for political reasons. Second, the government’s official temperature record can’t be trusted. It reflects a clear urban heat bias effect, not national temperature trends.”

There are a lot of ways to manipulate numbers to prove a point. A good statistician can actually adjust numbers to prove almost anything. When you locate your climate measuring devices near heat sources, it’s a pretty good bet that you will statistically be able to show that the earth is warming.

A New Level Of Insanity

On Saturday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article explaining how cancer treatments contribute to global warming.

The article notes:

Operating rooms are a massive source of greenhouse gas production for hospitals, representing 70% of their waste and generating three to six times as much carbon as the rest of health systems.

Cancer care is an obvious target for greener efforts within surgery, Berlin notes, because it often involves intense levels of care over a short period of time.

Plus, minimally invasive surgeries that require a lot of energy, including robotic-assisted operations, have become common treatments for cancers ranging from colorectal and uterine cancer to head and neck cancer. A robotic-assisted hysterectomy, for example, produces as much carbon as driving more than 2,200 miles in a car — the equivalent of a road trip from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Los Angeles.

“If we can lower our greenhouse gas output, we have a chance to extend the lifespan of our patients and expand access to timely care,” Agbafe said. “And we think it’s really important that the surgical community is proactive at being at that table.”

…Some sustainability shifts may come even sooner at Michigan Medicine.

For instance, the Department of Anesthesiology recently launched the Green Anesthesia Initiative, or GAIA for short. Its mission: become more environmentally conscious about the types and rates of anesthesia its providers use, another area Agbafe and Berlin say is ripe for improvement.

“This is a topic of fairly intense discussion right now in the field, and I’ve been thinking about it for a while,” said George Mashour, M.D., Ph.D., the chair of the Department of Anesthesiology and the Robert B. Sweet Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of Michigan Medical School. “Unlike other industries, I don’t think that we require massive disruption in order to make progress because, fortunately, we have options.”

Several inhaled gases regularly used for anesthesia are A-list offenders when it comes to greenhouse gas production. Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas, is a greenhouse gas, a direct ozone depleter and does not dissipate from the atmosphere for more than a century after it’s produced.

However, the inhaled anesthetic sevoflurane has much less of an environmental impact than nitrous oxide and other common inhaled agents, so Mashour says it would be a good alternative.

“The overall goal is to shift away from some of these egregious culprits and start making better choices about which drug we use and then also how we use it,” Mashour said.

Do we really want the climate police controlling the medical profession? This could be very bad very quickly.

Now Even The Climate Is Racist

It has long been known that cities are hotter than the countryside. Some of the ‘scientists’ measuring global warming have purposely put some of their temperature measuring devices near air conditional exhausts or runways where planes idle to make sure that the surface stations show an increase in temperature. In 2012 a study was posted at WattsUpWithThat explaining that half of the global warming in America is artificial. Yesterday CNN posted an article explaining that urban heat is worse in black neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia, due to racism.

The article reports:

On a warm September afternoon, Mona Scott sat on the front porch while her home baked like an oven. As she ran a frozen water bottle across her forehead and arms, Scott told CNN her air conditioning broke 10 days earlier and had not yet been fixed.

“The windows are painted shut,” Scott said. “We come outside at night to sleep because it’s too hot inside.”

Like Scott, residents in the low-income communities across south and southwest Atlanta are struggling to cope with the hottest summer since the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s.

Why are the windows painted shut? Can’t you scrape the paint off and open them?

Note: “the hottest summers since the Dust Bowl period of the 1930’s.” If global warming has been happening so rapidly, why was this the hottest summer since the 1930’s? How many SUV’s were driving around in 1930?

The article continues:

Across America’s largest cities, Black homeowners are nearly five times more likely than White families to own homes in these historically redlined communities, according to a study by Redfin. These communities, like where Scott resides in South Atlanta, endure the greatest burdens of our rapidly warming planet, and now tend to be the hottest and poorest areas.

Extreme heat threatens the health and well-being of underserved communities today, while predominantly White neighborhoods reap the cooler benefits of decades of investment.

“I went to get groceries the other day and I thought I was going to pass out.” Scott told CNN. She said she suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes, which are underlying health conditions made worse by excessive heat.
Keeping the lights on is hard enough financially for Scott, and so many other disadvantaged community members, let alone having access to reliable air conditioning.

Do these residents have jobs? If not, how much do these residents receive a month in housing assistance, food stamps, and basic welfare payments? Are they required to work for these payments? How is that money spent?

The article also notes:

Some cities, like New Orleans and New York, suffer from the worst urban heat in the nation, according to a recent study by Climate Central. Atlanta, affectionately known as “Hotlanta,” is also particularly hot.

Spelman College, a historically Black college in Atlanta, partnered with a NOAA campaign and other universities to map the hottest and most vulnerable communities. Spelman’s involvement is significant because it is the first time a historically Black college or university has led an initiative such as this, Na’Taki Osborne Jelks, assistant professor of environmental and health sciences at Spelman College told CNN.

“As we think about global challenges like climate change, this is one of the issues that disproportionately impacts Black and other communities of color,” Jelks said. “So, it’s very important that we are at the table.”

Am I supposed to believe that global warming seeks out minority communities and makes them hotter? I don’t think so. Not all of the poor who live in urban areas are minorities. Not everyone who lives in a southern urban area is a minority. Everyone who lives in a city lives in a place where it is warmer than the corresponding rural area. That has nothing to do with race, creed, or color–it is simply science. I object to the idea of trying to turn climate change (the climate has been changing since the earth was created–why else did they find evidence of plant life under the ice in Greenland?) into a racial issue.

Some Inconvenient Facts

On Wednesday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about a new paper authored by glaciologists Bohleber et al, 2020 of the Austrian Academy of Science.

The article notes:

Dr. Sebastian Lüning earlier today released his latest Klimaschau report, No. 6. In the first part he looks at glaciers in the Alps over the course of much the Holocene.

It turns out that Most of the Alps were ice-free 6000 years ago, glaciologists have discovered.

In his video, the German geologist presents a new paper authored by glaciologists Bohleber et al, 2020 of the Austrian Academy of Science. The Austrian-Swiss team discovered from ice cores that the 3500-meter high Weißseespitze summit was ice free 5900 years ago.

Much warmer in the early Holocene

Lüning next shows why the Alps were ice-free 6000 years ago by using a chart by Heiri et al 2015, which shows it was some 2°C warmer than today.

Beginning some 10,000 years ago, after the Ice Age ended, all glaciers below 4000 meters elevation in the East Alps melted away over the years that followed. Then beginning 6000 years ago, cooling started again and the glaciers returned (neoglaciation). Today temperatures in the Alps are still well below early Holocene levels.

Please follow the link above for further information and to see the charts. This information is particularly relevant as the future Biden administration plans to reenter the Paris Climate Accord. This will cripple the American economy yet do nothing to curb the major air polluters India and China. This is an instance where we truly need to follow the science and realize that the earth’s climate is always changing and that we are not in charge of it. Cleaning up the air is a good idea, but we have been doing that during the past four years in America.

It Really Is A Matter Of Perspective

Yesterday WattsUpWithThat posted an article that puts the claims that July 2019 was the hottest July ever in perspective. I don’t claim to be science oriented, but I can look at pictures and learn from them.

The article included two pictures that tell the story:

For people who actually understand scientific papers, the article refers to an article by Dr. Roy Spencer titled, ” July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record.”

The earth’s climate is constantly changing. Some scientists in the 1970’s said we were heading for a global Ice Age; others predicted a period of warming. So far, no scientist has created a computer model that is accurate. The weatherman can’t even tell us if it will rain tomorrow. At any rate, July 2019 was not the warmest July ever.

The Problem Is Underneath–Not Above

In August 2018 (yes, I know that was last year, but I missed this), The Climate Change Dispatch posted an article with the following headline, “Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming.” Wow. Who knew?

The article includes the following photo:

The article reports:

In what amounts to dissension from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climate change policy, a series of just-released studies by working-level scientists prove that geological and not atmospheric forces are responsible for melting of Earth’s polar ice sheets.

NASA Antarctica Study October 30, 2015

This research study authored by NASA Glaciologist Jay Zwally concluded that Antarctica is gaining, not losing, ice mass and thereby challenging the conclusions of many previous studies, most importantly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report (see the quote from the study below).

“A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

“The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

The article continues:

The conclusions of this NASA study were immediately challenged by numerous climate activist groups and biased media outlets (see here). These challenges have since been proven incorrect for several reasons.

Statements by NASA Glaciologist Jay Zwally concerning his soon-to-be-published Antarctic follow-up study reconfirm that Antarctica is gaining, not losing ice.

The results of this follow-up study are bolstered by two other NASA research studies.

The first, dated January 1, 2018, shows that East Antarctica has for many years been accumulating huge amounts of snow that compact into ice and increasing overall ice mass (see here).

The second NASA study released on July 19, 2018, showed that the atmosphere above the Antarctic Continent has been continuously cooling and not warming for many years (see here).

Obviously, it’s impossible to melt Antarctica’s glaciers via atmospheric warming when the atmosphere is not warming.

Lastly, a NASA study dated Feb. 20, 2018, concludes that outflow of East Antarctic glaciers into the ocean is stable and not increasing (see here). This is proof that East Antarctica’s ice mass is not being diminished by glacial outflow into adjacent oceans.

Bottom line, research by NASA scientists clearly shows that the well-documented ice loss in West Antarctica is more than accommodated by ice gains in East Antarctica. Contrary to hundreds of pro-melting articles, Antarctica’s ice mass is increasing!

When you read an article about man-made climate change, consider the following:

In March 2016, I posted an article with the following:

…Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

It’s really not about the climate.

In Case You Were Worried About This…

Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat is reporting today:

A new Policy Brief from The Heartland Institute shows there is no evidence of acceleration in the rise of global sea levels since the 1920s and concludes the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) concerns over this issue is “without merit.”

The Policy Brief, titled “Global Sea Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data,” authored by Dr. Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. David Legates, professor of climatology in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, is taken from a chapter of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, a report fromthe Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

According to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, “it is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios due to increases in ocean warming and loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.”

However, Idso, Legates, and Singer argue “sea-level rise is a research area that has recently come to be dominated by computer models. Whereas researchers working with datasets built from long-term coastal tide gauges typically report a slow linear rate of sea-level rise, computer modelers assume a significant anthropogenic forcing and tune their models to find or predict an acceleration of the rate of rise.”

…Instead of accelerated sea-level rises, the authors find “the best available data” shows “evidence is lacking for any recent changes in global sea level that lie outside natural variation.” They point out that if the negative effects of the claimed accelerated rise in sea level, such as a loss of surface area, were to be visible anywhere, it would most likely be in the small islands and coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean. However, research indicates many of these islands and atolls are actually increasing in size. Simply, they are “not being inundated by rising seas due to anthropogenic climate change.”

Fears of an accelerated rise in sea levels caused by anthropogenic climate change are misplaced and overblown. Further, this fearmongering should not be used by policymakers in coastal states and cities to advocate for policies that would seek to limit or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions.

No, we are not all going to drown in five years because of sea-level rise. Some politicians are screaming ‘the sky is falling’ because they believe it will get them the votes of young people who are not scientifically schooled. The earth’s climate is cyclical, we are in a cycle. There will be another cycle. We need to do what we can to limit pollution, but in the end, we are not important enough to make a significant difference. Pride is one of the things the fuels the extreme environmental movement.