Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique to remove natural gas and oil from shale formations, has been under withering assault from environmental groups for much of the last decade. Fracking has been blamed for contamination of drinking water, air pollution, earthquakes, water shortages, global warming, radiation discharge, and even cancer. But it appears that environmentalists have lost the battle against fracking.
For years we argued that the farming community should respect OUR right to be organic. Now we’ve switched to denying our neighbors THEIR rights. And that goes against everything it has ever meant to be organic.
In the 1980s I devoted a lot of effort to debunking a torrent of Green lies about pesticides and herbicides. This was before the Greens latched onto “global warming” which has since become “climate change” and the subject of a recent White House report filled with dire predictions of planetary doom and disaster.
After the global warming-battling Edwardsport coal gasification power plant used more power than it generated during the September-to-November time-frame, earlier this month information filed with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission showed the Duke Energy facility operated at less than 1 percent of capacity in February.
Mischa Popoff is one of the most formidable opponents of the organic food movement, as this video of his speech to the Far West Agribusiness Association clearly shows. The simple fact that he is carrying to the masses is that the organic industry, particularly the organic certification industry, is a big racket.
The IPCC was set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. It has enlisted thousands of scientists to contribute to its scare campaign, but as Joseph Bast, the president of The Heartland Institute, noted in a recent Forbes article regarding the vast difference in the assertions of the IPCC scientists and those of its puckishly named Nonintergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), “What is a non-scientist to make of these dueling reports? Indeed, what is a scientist to make of this?”
Consumers considering installing solar panels on their rooftops have far more to think through than the initial decision to “go solar.”
They may search for the best price, only to discover, as customers in central Florida did, that after paying $20,000-40,000 for their systems, they are stuck with installations that may be unusable or unsafe. BlueChip Energy—which also operated as Advanced Solar Photonics (ASP) and SunHouse Solar—sold its systems at environmental festivals and home shows. Buyers thought they were getting a good deal and doing the right thing for the environment. Instead, they were duped.
Legislators in Harrisburg are considering a proposal from state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Wayne, that would make Pennsylvania the first state to impose a statewide tax on the use of plastic bags.
As the pumped-up spectre of climatic catastrophe continues to deflate, Ruper Darwall’s new book makes a handy guide to the conceits, careerism, delusions and blatant misrepresentations that debased the good name of science and set the stage for economic ruin.
The recent typhoon that hit the Philippines- Typhoon Haiyan- has caused an uproar from the global warming alarmists. One such alarmist, Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post on Tuesday in which she identified global warming skeptics as “morally evil”.
Scientists at the forefront of global warming activism published an open letter encouraging their fellow warmists to embrace safe nuclear power as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. If environmental activist groups honestly believe humans are causing a global warming crisis, they will eagerly join in support.
The U.S. Department of Energy has a plan to reduce the cost of solar power by a factor of 4 by 2020 with the hope that solar would increase from .05% of our power to 14% by 2030. The motivation is, of course, to reduce emissions of CO2. This is Climate Realism, very similar to Socialist Realism.
People who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming do so because psychologically they want to believe in it! There are two fundamental reasons for that desire, or need to believe: money and power.
President Obama’s speech last week that re-emphasized his commitment to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions brought dismay to those who appreciate affordable energy, but it sparked a celebration among corporate types who have long sought caps and taxes on CO2.
The fact that natural gas is only given cursory mention, rather than being an integral part of Obama’s National Climate Action Plan, exposes his true motives—which, I believe, are not really about carbon emission reductions, but rather furthering America’s declining international status. Why else would he emphasize what has proven to not to work and eschew what we know to be effective?