Environmental Propaganda And The 10:10 No Pressure Campaign

From Capitalism Magazine

Nihilism, destruction for the sake of destruction, is their guiding creed. Death is what they call success. The terrorist is consistent: he rides with his victims into the nirvana of a jet-fuel inferno. The radical environmentalist rather exempts himself for the moment while awaiting the demise of millions. “Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along,” claimed one famously, his prayers answered by the malaria that resurged after DDT was banned. The unabomber was more specific, personally addressing his victims, but also sparing himself momentarily to continue his rampage. As to the anarchists, the front page of the Wall Street Journal of September 11 is particularly poignant. In a story about anticipated anti-trade protests in Washington D.C., an official pledged: “D.C. is not going to burn.”
–
Ultimately the nihilist wishes to bring the world back to pre-civilization. Radical Islamics want a medieval religious state in which wealth is denied, art is destroyed, heretics are killed, and all are subordinated to Allah’s spokesmen. The anarchists want to destroy the technology needed to feed millions and to return to subsistence farming.
–
But even these are too advanced for the radical environmentalists. “The search for a postmodern ecological cultural paradigm,” claims one professor, “leads to the recultivation of Paleolithic consciousness.” In the Paleolithic period, however, man did not yet even farm. He chipped stone tools, finding and grabbing what he needed. He death by age 30 was his contribution to a beautiful world. In Afghanistan, the life expectancy is now 42-to an environmentalist, almost heaven, and to an anarchist, blissfully devoid of evil businesses.

And from George Reisman – A word to Environmentalists.

The “extremists” among you openly call for the death of 1 to 6.4 billion human beings. The “moderates” among you openly call for the forced reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 90 percent within a few decades, which would serve to reduce energy use almost to the same extent. Such a severe reduction in energy use follows from the fact that there are no presently existing large-scale viable alternatives to fossil fuels other than atomic power, which is regarded by most members of your movement as a death ray and is opposed more vehemently than fossil fuels. Furthermore, the likelihood of ever finding and developing such alternatives will be greatly reduced by destroying the energy sources we do have and need to increase. So what your movement advocates is mass death or, at the very least, dreadful mass impoverishment whose outcome will be tens or hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths and a life of misery for those who survive.

Enviro-statism:

10-08-10

California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards. . .

The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9

While I am writing this post, I am sitting in ikea, waiting for a couch cover.

The Swedish retail giant IKEA announced Thursday it will invest $4.6-million to install 3,790 solar panels on three Toronto area stores, giving IKEA the electric-power-producing capacity of 960,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. According to IKEA, that’s enough electricity to power 100 homes. Amazing development. Even more amazing is the economics of this project. Under the Ontario government’s feed-intariff solar power scheme, IKEA will receive 71.3¢ for each kilowatt of power produced, which works out to about $6,800 a year for each of the 100 hypothetical homes. Since the average Toronto home currently pays about $1,200 for the same quantity of electricity, that implies that IKEA is being overpaid by $5,400 per home equivalent.
–
Welcome to the wonderful world of green economics and the magical business of carbon emission reduction. Each year, IKEA will receive $684,408 under Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green energy monster–for power that today retails for about $115,000. At that rate, IKEA will recoup $4.6-million in less than seven years–not bad for an investment that can be amortized over 20.
–
No wonder solar power is such a hot industry. No wonder, too, that the province of Ontario is in a headlong rush into a likely economic crisis brought on skyrocketing electricity prices. To make up the money paid to IKEA to promote itself as a carbon-free zone, Ontario consumers and industries are on their way to experiencing the highest electricity rates in North America, if not most of the world.
–
The full scale of Ontario’s green energy spending extravaganza is hard to convey in a few words, but here’s a list of the increases in dollar spending Ontario’s electricity consumers will have to bear during 2015, in millions of dollars:

Feed-in-tariff $3,848

Renewable energy $330

Renewables — other $96

Bruce Power $74

Bruce Power new $461

Ontario Power Generation $237

Natural gas $192

Non-utility generation $170

Conservation $267

Transmission $1,012

Distribution (non-green) $293

Distribution (green energy) $759

TOTAL 2015 COSTS $7,739
–
According to Aegency Energy’s calculations, the cost of power produced by IKEA solar panels at 71.3¢ will reduce carbon emissions at a cost of $1,384 a tonne if there is a corresponding reduction in Ontario’s need for gas-fired electricity production. That number compares with official national and international carbon tax ideas involving maybe $25 a tonne or, at the extreme, $200 a tonne.
–
Average per-capita carbon emissions in Ontario are said to be about 15 tonnes. The government’s schemes suggest that reducing Ontario carbon emissions by say 20% to 12 tonnes would cost $5,000 per person or upwards of $15,000 per household per year. That’s a lot of Billy shelving.

shouldn’t ikea be giving me this couch for free???

Banned!? My dear fellow, that would never happen.

clearly this is THE subject of the century. global warming happened many times during earth’s history as well as cooling. so why the panic one would ask. one unmistakeable fact is that earth is in a warming phase that has and will continue to have a profound impact on our ecosystems and consequently our economies. man made or not, let’s leave that to the politicians and various interest groups to fight about. important for me as a human being having produced children, is that we need to get clear on the real science about the warming and, in the event it causes serious harm, to figure out what we can do about it. i for one am not prepared to take the risk that global warming will destroy my great grand children’s environment or that of any other great grand children. that is my position. i call for uncorrupted scientists and technologists to stand up (if they are still around) and come up with practical solutions. that is what our world and our future generations need. bickering over who is to blame for what doesn’t impress me and has never solved a single problem.

31,487 American scientists have signed the “Oregon Petition”, including 9,029 with PhDs. This petition says “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”