Home/Blog
As in other religions, most Earth worshipers are more or less hypocritical. Spend a day being “good”, spend the rest of the year failing.
Or maybe just fail every day…
Unless you live your life in as Spartan a manner as Ted Kaczynski, you are probably as big a drain on Earth’s resources as anyone else. I wonder how many people will drive to a tree-planting ceremony today, putting many more times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as that single tree will ever remove? (Of course, when the tree dies, it’s mostly all released again anyway).
Some people mistakenly believe the internet has little impact on our resources:
Of course, we could go into the dark side of the environmental movement, which inevitably involves population control of one kind or another (usually forced upon some far-away people of a different skin color…not upon the enforcers):
I mostly find Earth Day just plain annoying for the rank hypocrisy on display. A state-sponsored religious day of worship, along with all of the 1st Amendment-violating regulations to codify it.
Maybe a nice bonfire to celebrate for those so inclined.
But for me,…
Wow. *slow clap* Why did you stop there? Why not state that a ‘true environmentalist’ would just kill themselves if they REALLY cared about the planet and future generations? You really sound like you have lost all hope in humanity and are just simply waiting to die. I can accept that. As an attempted environmentalist, I too have observed and felt the hypocrisy of trying to do the right thing and yes, as a human, I do ‘drain’ resources. My family uses 350 kWh electricity per month (less than the national average), we drive to work and average 35 mpg (also less than the national average). Is it being conservative or being ‘green’? Is there a difference? Soon, solar panels go up on my house and an electric car replaces a gas car. It consumes resources, yes, but how much will it save? Hypocrisy or no? Yes and no. The challenge is to progress to a lifestyle that has many of the perks we have now, but with an impact closer to that of a Ted Kacynski. Thanks for faulting me for trying, and, Happy Earth Day!
Skip the panels and forget the electric car. You will do far less damage to the environment of you do. No one is faulting your for trying, only for moving pollution elsewhere why you think you are polluting less. Hope your Easter was fine as well.
No, I certainly haven’t lost hope in humanity. I just don’t like to be told what to do by do-gooders who think they know what’s best for the Earth, when they themselves don’t abide by their teachings (Al Gore being the best example).
Who does like to be told what to do?!? I certainly don’t care for Tom O telling me generating my own solar power for my house AND transportation somehow moves the pollution of the previously used coal/oil power to somewhere else (OK, it probably gets exported to China because I’m no longer demanding it, but last I checked, some of their cities are choking on pollution…). To poo poo the entire movement because there’s some pompous pricks seems…well… pompous and prick-y.
To create a straw man: my neighbor likes to burn his leaves on warm fall days. The smoke blows towards my house and through my open windows. I tell him to stop. He doesn’t like being told what to do. Who is more right?
To have smart people such as yourself seemingly condemn the entire movement because you feel like you don’t have the freedom to choose your own path is downright silly. It’s entertaining to make fun of the fringe on both ends of the spectrum: but does it really do anything useful for society in finding the middle ground?
I think Tom O’s point was that solar panels and batteries made in China require extensive energy input of their own, most from dirty coal, and many caustic substances which are being dumped without controls and polluting the land to make those items affordable to you.
Google and you will find where wide swaths of land have been poisoned by heavy metal runoff from the battery manufacturing and silicon tetrachloride from solar cell construction.
Agreed, that is a valid argument, and one must choose among what one believes to be the lesser of evils, for a perfect solution has not been invented yet.
For the committed environmentalist hypocrite it really comes down to “in my neighborhood I am saving the planet. I have solar panels chagrinning my electric car. I am better than you gas using, leaf burning enemies of the planet.”
The price for their smug self-importance is destroying the environment on the other side of the planet.
or…for the committed conservationist: I am moving closer to being self sufficient with my energy needs. And reducing my dependence on the fossil fuel availability and volatile cost. You are free to choose your energy source, YMMV.
Solar panel waste and pollution: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html
Fossil Fuel waste and pollution: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html
I can name a half a dozen fossil fuel disasters off the top of my head: BP/Gulf Coast, Kalamazoo, Mayflower, Exxon Valdez, Gulf War Oil Spill, Elk River. I know of no solar disasters. You can go down to the Gulf Shores and still find tar balls washed up on the beach: BP is done cleaning up: they feel they’ve paid their share.
How about just the disasters LAST YEAR? http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/17/3056321/year-fossil-fuel-disasters/
Stewards of the environment? President Bush in 2006 warned that we were addicted to oil. I have heeded that warning. You do what you want. I can only ASK that you consider the alternatives. If alternative energies don’t work for you economically, then it’s not ready for you.
If you can’t see the forest through the trees, then it’s possible all that lead in the gasoline from your youth must have affected your cognitive abilities.
Tom says:
April 23, 2014 at 2:20 PM
“I know of no solar disasters.”
That’s partly because it provides such a pitifully small share of our energy consumption, so the frequency of bad news and coverage given to it are much lower. But, it’s bad enough even at these miniscule levels. If the sector continues to grow, expect more and worse.
Don’t even get me started about the wildlife Cuisinarts dotting our hilltops.
Maybe you don’t know of the downsides because you don’t want to know. The information is available, if you look.
Bart,
I appreciate your links to the downsides of PV manufacture. I had no idea that Integrated Circuit manufacturing generated so many more environmental hazards than PV manufacturing, but use very similar processes. I know many here would disagree with government regulation, but I’d hope that the entire impact of the production cycle would be under great scrutiny. This technology is too complex for the average Joe to fully understand the complete environmental impacts. In contrast to fracking chemicals not being disclosed due to ‘trade secrets’, I’d hope that the PV and IC industry would remain transparent and continually improve their processes. It appears that the Siemens process has reduced certain pollutants and inputs by 20-50% from early 2000’s. As you said, an increase in production will bring more of the problems to light. I would still contend that, while not perfect, solar energy harvesting must be explored and refined, as the supply of fossil fuels cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Whether you like it or not, in many locations, the economics of solar power has reached parity with fossil fuels and will continue to grow and expand. I believe it’s conversations like these that are absolutely necessary to point out the flaws of the system and to tirelessly work toward solutions. Out of all the comments I’ve seen, I sincerely appreciate yours the most for being direct and supplying the facts.
I firmly believe that the greeny, enviro-liberals will also get behind the cause to clean up the renewable industry and hold it accountable for it’s impacts, but I don’t see them letting go of the concept of harvesting energy from the sun, wind, and waves any time soon.
Peace.
You pat yourself on the back in the first post because of the “environmentalism” you practice. You then get irritated that someone called you out for the shifting of environmental damage elsewhere to account for your solar panels and electric cars and to top it off you poo poo that shift because China’s cities are already choking of pollution. Seems kind of pompous and and prick-y to me.
I fear you will never accept the conservationist underpinnings of an environmentalists actions simply because it’s wrapped in a shroud of a utopian ideal of clean air and water for all.
tom-ay-to / tom-ah-to.
The trick is to “ask” him to stop, not “tell” him.
Perhaps also to accommodate the temporary irritation by closing one’s windows.
Have not the environmentalists moved beyond the “asking” others to stop and/or believe to the “MANDATING” to stop and/or believe? Those truly interested in freedom don’t mandate the use of certain products over others, they allow the people themselves to so choose. Since the people aren’t choosing the way the environmentalists prefer them to, they use the government to force the issue. (Lightbulbs, woodstoves, water collection, etc…)
Now we are getting interesting notes of facism from the environmentalists stating that those of us who won’t comply to their beliefs and dictates should be punished in some way for not bowing to their idols, namely gaia.
Interesting:
Ray says, Say Please. Does this ‘trick’ always work?
Don says, close the windows. (Thereby trapping the smoke already inside the house…can’t vent it, cause the outside air is smokey…)
Barb says, You fascist pig!
I find it interesting that the party that did nothing in this situation is to blame and/or accept responsibility in all three instances. The party burning leaves demands respect, should be tolerated and should be able to do damn well whatever he pleases EVEN IF it affect someone else adversely.
So, correct me if I’m wrong. The person who desires clean air to breathe has no rights whatsoever…unless they say please? Is this only because this person is perceived to be an environmentalist? Or is it because the person who is first to do an action thereby claims the first ‘freedom’? Help, please.
Solar panel manufacturing emits SF6 and other ghg’s that are far worse than CO2. The panels themselves are largely made in China using coal-burning turbines. The amount of CO2 you would save is so pathetically insignificant that it will make zero difference. Further, solar panels have already had a negative impact on the desert turtle habitats in AZ. Solar panels will never be anything but insignificant because of the space requirements. The company I work for installed a 20 MW unit and it returns a negative $10 million over 8 years even after the government funded half the capital via grants and tax credits. Germany has already concluded that their entire country’s effort in alternate energy has accomplished no CO2 reduction and raised everyone’s electric bill 80%. Go ahead and mount your panels and buy your electric car. It accomplishes nothing other than to tell your liberal friends that you “out-liberaled” them. After all, all these efforts are about is feelings; not about truth or facts.
netprophet,
I might believe you more if you provided links to your statements.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/24/myths-and-facts-about-solar-energy/192364
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/for-the-desert-tortoise-a-threat-and-an-opportunity/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I really don’t care what my liberal friends think, as long as they don’t go too far left. My ideal is to out-conserve my conservative friends. (OK, I just have to note: An electric car will travel 100 miles on $1.92 worth of certified renewable energy. Compare that to a high mpg car (35 mpg) costing $10.85 for the same 100 miles, or an average car (21 mpg) costing $18.09 for 100 miles. Conservation FTW!)
It occurred to me yesterday, that anyone talking about “saving the world for our kids”, cannot be serious about carbon because instead they would say “saving the world from our kids”.
[CO2 is a plant food]
Hi Doctor Spencer,
Thanks for the cartoons; much appreciated.
I’ve been pondering lately, and realise that you are the most appropriate person I know of to ask a particular question.
I’m reluctant to ask it, for while it’s unanswered I can dream of being a person who made a significant advance to the sum of human knowledge. But it’s past time I offered up my beautiful hypothesis, to be slain on the altar of ugly fact.
The context of my question is the Earth’s energy imbalance. We know the amount of this imbalance from satellite measurement. I know that satellites ALSO record Terrestrial Gamma Ray Flashes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_gamma-ray_flash for anyone interested), but I don’t know whether they are the same satellites or not. My question is whether the energy of these events is included in the measured Earth’s energy imbalance?
(Unless I’m misreading it, the Wikipedia article has contradictory information, quoting 50 TGF in the main text, but 500 a day observed from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space telescope.)
Obviously there are supplementary questions- Is it enough energy to make any significant difference to the imbalance? I consider one percent or above to be a significant value.
Have I discovered some of the ‘missing heat’? Well, probably not, however nice it is to dream. Yet the remote possibility that I’m on the right track makes it necessary that I at least have the moral courage to ask.
Regards,
Leo Morgan
the terrestrial gamma ray events were actually discovered where I work. Different satellite. But the energy involved is miniscule, much smaller than the total energy involved in lightning flashes from whence they originate (also a miniscule amount of energy compared to the major global sources of energy).
BTW, the global average energy imbalance has NOT been measured by satellite…it’s thought to be only 0.5 W/m2, and current satellites absolute accuracy is over 10 times worse than that. The imbalance is inferred theoretically, or from the warming of the deep-layer oceans.
Crap Earth day again, It’s like 24 Earth hours in a row. Gonna be tough trying to get to sleep with the all the incandescent spot lights on but I’ll try to do my bit for the cause !
I used to regard myself as an environmentalist twenty years ago, but the way these hypocrits get my back up, I’m turning into a red-neck.
Lucky I don’t have a shot gun.
“…imbalance…[of] 0.5 W/m2,…”
And under each square meter of ocean surface is one to two thousand tonnes of water. I think a boy has been sent to do a man’s job.
…actually, it’s over 4,000 tons of water, on average. It has taken 50 years of an estimated average imbalance of 0.25 W/m2 to raise the oceans’ average temperature by a hundredths of a degree.
I was being conservative. And allowing for the fact that the water does not mix ALL the way down until a few hundred years have passed.
This talk of “Oh, the heat has gone into the Oceans” as if it proves global warming is a problem for the environment, gets my goat. For goodness sake, heat going into the ocean is what is supposed to happen, according to elementary physics. It is a heat SINK, with a heat capacity 1,600 times that of the atmosphere. The middle and bottom waters, presently at 1-6 degree C, can suck up any heat we, or Nature, throw at it – at least until the next Millenium.
yup.
Yup.
A ‘real’ environmentalist would actually have a much broader perspective about the Earth than we find in the modern environmental movement. A real environmentalist would understand that all life consumes ‘resources’ and puts back something different (pollution?), changing its environment. If life is present, the environment must be changing. There is no environmental stasis, except in the absence of life. (And even then it is only relatively static.)
A real environmentalist would understand that there is no ‘correct state’ for the environment. The environment has always been and will always be in a state of flux, particularly if life is present, and each state is equally valid. Any judgement as to which state of the environment is better or worse is completely arbitrary and subject to the desires of a sentient species.
A real environmentalist would not ask “How do we save the planet?” Because a real environmentalist would understand that the planet is perfectly fine, just the way it is…always!
A real environmentalist would ask: “So, what do we want and what will it cost us?”
The first cartoon reminded me of the Earth Day where my troop of Boy Scouts spent the day cleaning up a county park. I observed some county workers digging up a 6 inch trunk diameter tree with a tree spade. Then I was approached and asked if some of the Scouts could stand in the back ground as the state governor replanted the tree in the hole it had just came out of.
Hello to every one, because I am actually eager of reading this website’s post to be updated daily.
It contains pleasant data.
Somehow this seems to fit.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/environmental-group-slams-epa-jet-fueled-earth-day-themed-tour/?intcmp=latestnews
I wonder how many PEER people realize they helped elect the person who put her in power?
Full marks for the cartoons.
For those supposed environmentalists who cannot see the humour in them, you are either a very sad individual, or a dedicated activist making a business out of environmentalism.
For those people who always carry around a sign saying “I care for the environment,” then I pity you. Most of us just get on with it and quietly do our bit for the environment, while deploring the hysteria and the tactics/pranks of the professionals.
Thanks for the smile, Dr. Spencer.
“I mostly find Earth Day just plain annoying for the rank hypocrisy on display. A state-sponsored religious day of worship, along with all of the 1st Amendment-violating regulations to codify it.”
So, I presume you object to the Christmas holiday for the same reason? Actually, it’s even worse since that holiday is state-sponsored to the point where they actually give all but their most essential workers the day off!
Glad to have you on the front lines of the fight by us atheists against government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity! 😉
The weakness of the tu quoque argument is that it is fundamentally vying for stalemate. Such a strategy often leads to defeat by the more committed foe. Ask General Giap.
At least the Christians aren’t calling for non-believers to be rounded up and jailed, as the left wing, atheist, eco-progressives are doing for people who do not believe in CAGW…
Here’s is but one example:
“Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist”
Sunday 22 June 2008
James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
When sane climate scientists begin pushing back against the fascist elements (like Hansen) within their ranks, I’ll be willing meet them in the middle…
The appropriate tu quoque response is, they did at one time. That is doubly defeating, because obviously most Christians have evolved, while the Earth worshipers are still carrying on like primitives.
I think you are misrepresenting what Hansen said. In the article it says:
So, no, he is not talking about people who don’t believe in AGW. He is talking about people knowingly spreading misinformation.
Personally, I don’t know if I agree with Hansen that this is what those executive were doing (as opposed to honestly believing what they said). However, if there was sufficient evidence, then I might be convinced. For example, internal documents in the tobacco companies revealed that the heads of those companies were lying to the public (and to Congress, under oath I believe) by claiming that they did not believe that nicotine was addictive when internal documents showed that they not only knew it was but were manipulating nicotine levels to keep customers addicted.
And, by the way, I haven’t heard lots of denunciations from your side of the debate when Monckton calls for the jailing of scientists (http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/time-to-jail-the-climate-scamsters/) under the headline “Time to Jail the Climate Scamsters”:
Not sure it was earth day, but in retrospect, this was my contribution:
The Denier: http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/the-denier/
(And do use it)
Grandma Giles (famous cartoon character in the old Daily Express of London) when she attended political meetings generally summed up the prevailing feeling with:
“Agreed! We hang everybody!”
I recall one cartoon when the Russians were being aggressive in the 1960’s (nothing ever changes); and it was put to the meeting that the best thing to do was to threaten to parachute Grandma Giles into Moscow.
Quote from Shakespeare / Hamlet
“There is nothing either good or bad,
but thinking makes it so.”
I bet he was thinking CO2
I have read so many articles concerning the blogger lovers except
this paragraph is really a pleasant article, keep it up.
Actually no matter if sommeone doesn’t understand then its up to other users that they will help, so
here it takes place.
my web site – ix web hosting help (Krystle)
Good info. Lucky me I came across your website by accident (stumbleupon).
I have book-marked it for later!
Hi, Tidy submit. There’s an problem together with your web-site inside industry, would likely take a look at? For example however would be the market main and also a large part regarding other folks can miss a person’s amazing composing for this reason issue.