Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jul 31, 2012

Sustainable living; more advice from the green lobby

The model eco-house. H/t and image: The Agitator

Kermit The Frog seems to have been on to something in a big way in his song, “It’s not easy, being green” if the folks over at Times Free Press are correct. After years of being lambasted with propaganda on the joys of living ‘sustainably’ it is probably time to look at what we have to do to at least make some sort of effort to please our green elitists.

These people are never pleased for any length of time; always ready to step forward with more demands the moment anyone takes a step back to accommodate them. Some such as Paul Krugman demonstrate the irrationality associated with the belief that CO2 is driving GW. Paul though is one of the saner ones. Some are calling for a eugenics based approach to the problem with calls for the populations of developed countries to stop having children, some expressing a wish for humanity to be wiped from the face of the planet,

Prince Phillip for example wants to be reincarnated as a lethal virus to wipe out humanity. There is though, some speculation as to whether this is due to extreme environmentalism or is simply caused by fifty generations of inbreeding among the royal houses of Europe. Here are a few tips on an ecological lifestyle:

… Today, the average home size in the United States is around 2,700 square feet. That's about five times more than environmentalists think you need. The founder of, for instance, just moved into a sustainable home many consider a model for the future. At 420 square feet, the home comes with movable walls to create separate spaces when you need them.

Environmentalist guru Bill McKibben, founder of, notes that a 60 percent reduction in fossil fuel usage — a number many greenies advocate — would result in a dramatic reduction of carbon emissions per person. Sounds great, right?

"If you carpooled [six miles per day], you'd have about three pounds of CO2 left in your daily ration -- enough to run a highly efficient refrigerator. Forget your computer, your TV, your stereo, your stove, your dishwasher, your water heater, your microwave, your water pump, your clock. Forget your light bulbs, compact fluorescent or not.” …

But surely your electric vehicle will get you around greenly? Unfortunately, no. A recent study by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership suggests electric powertrains actually have a bigger carbon footprint than internal combustion engines once you take manufacturing the battery and producing the electricity into account. Electric cars don't even out with their gas counterparts for about 80,000 miles

The Worldwatch Institute notes the problem with that [renewables] approach, "[I]n order to produce enough energy over the next 25 years to replace most of what is supplied by fossil fuels, the world would need to build 200 square meters of solar photovoltaic panels every second plus 100 square meters of solar thermal every second plus 24 3-megawatt wind turbines every hour nonstop for the next 25 years.
It is probably best not to do all of this straight away. Somewhere right now, there is a greenie writing a missive on just how ecologically irresponsible these recommendations are, and how they do not even begin to address the problem.

No comments:

Post a Comment