Interesting post from Trey Garrison:
Urban yokels like to complain about urban and suburban sprawl, but it turns out one of the reasons the DFW has been spared from the national real estate bubble is because — with the exception of the forwardDallas! plan — Dallas and the surrounding ‘burbs aren’t saddled with onerous “smart growth” regulations.
That’s the takeaway from this report from Wendell Cox at newgeography.com.
EXCERPT from Lights Out in 2009? (PDF)
While renewable energy proponents, and some elected officials, are saying that the U.S. needs to only add renewable power facilities such as wind farms, the annual capacity factor of wind generators is typically about 25 – 35 percent. However, the probability that wind generators are available at their rated value during annual peak periods is only between 5 – 20 percent and varies greatly from year to year and region to region. Wind cannot be considered a reliable baseload capacity resource. . .
It pointed to the fact that “environmental activist groups” are now:
- Suing to block the construction of virtually every single baseload coal-fired power plant, in spite of advanced environmental technologies these plants would deploy.
- Gearing up to block construction of any baseload nuclear power plants across the West.
- Suing or protesting virtually every proposed lease on public lands in the Rocky Mountains for natural gas drilling.
- Working to slow or stop the completion of the two main multi-year, stakeholder-based transmission corridor processes that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress approved as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
- Pushing for additional endangered species designations, which will make siting and construction of both power plants and transmission lines difficult.
- Pressuring government leaders to limit access by larger, baseload technologies to the region’s high-voltage transmission grid and, instead proposing to artificially favor non-baseload, intermittent power facilities that will (at some point) further stress the reliability of the entire Western grid.
Related report: Britain could be short on electricity in a few years
The [REF] report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”
The final nail in the green coffin of the American economy: Obama to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, 16Oct08
The Cognitive Dissonance of the Media in relation to Global Warming
EXCERPT:
it is especially pathetic sophistry to claim, as dedicated `global warmers’ are wont to do, that `natural forces’ are having the temerity to “suppress” `global warming’. The fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.
Cognitive dissonance: when belief in a grand narrative persists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying.
Another Prominent Scientist Dissents from Warming Fears at an International Conference
The Senior Economics Writer for the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, writes about the authoritarian climate surrounding recycling in his op-ed “Gang Green” (a very appropriate title on several levels).
Excerpt from the article:
Do-gooders also once wanted to “celebrate diversity,” but total conformity seems to be the aim of those in Seattle these days, where the city has started putting green tags on garbage cans of homeowners who don’t recycle. Enthusiasts boast that there is a very positive “Scarlet Letter” effect to subjecting non-compliers to public scorn. So you can almost hear the kitchen conversations: “Jimmy, I don’t want you playing with the Williams boys anymore; their family doesn’t recycle.”
Many studies have shown that the environmental benefits from household recycling are minimal or at least highly exaggerated (because it uses a lot of energy and those recycling trucks emit a lot of greenhouse gases). America is not in danger of ever running out of landfill to store our garbage. For example, a study by Daniel Benjamin, an economist at Clemson, finds that we could store all of America’s garbage for the next century within the property of Ted Turner’s ranch in Montana, with 50,000 acres undisturbed for the horse and bison.
In reality, household recycling is mostly about absolving the guilt of Lexus liberals who just hate themselves for enjoying an affluent 21st-century lifestyle. The aim seems to be less saving nature than building self-esteem.
And it has worked. Too well. I can barely tolerate the proud recyclers, hybrid-car owners and “save the polar bear” button-wearers who smother us with their self-righteousness. A few weeks ago I was at the house of some friends, and I accidentally tossed a plastic Gatorade bottle into the glass recycling bin. You would have thought that I had made a pass at their daughter.
Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes with rich irony that “we now live in a society where Sunday church attendance is down, but people wouldn’t dream of missing their weekly trek to the altar of the recycling center.” These facilities, by the way, are increasingly called “redemption centers.” Which is fine except that now the greens want to make redemption mandatory. Oh, for a return to the days when someone stood up for the separation of church and state.
I recently became a Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP). A key tenet of systems engineering is that the system must be optimized, not just one or two parts. Has anybody ever done a pollution, energy and economics life cycle study of curb side recycling? Or do we think just feeling good about massive diesel trucks picking up bits of paper, glass and plastic in front of our homes each week is all it takes to ‘be green?’ Why not shut down household recycling if we’re concerned about air pollution in Dallas-Fort Worth? Or is it only productive enterprises that must be penalized to meet an overreaching 2010 ozone standard (e.g., when you can fill your gas tank, use drive-through windows or operate off-road construction equipment?)
Related:
11Aug08: Female teenager observed in my North Texas chiropractor office wearing a Keller ISD T-shirt with the gold Indian headdress over the top right shoulder and the in-your-face command “RECYCLE” in 3-inch high gold letters across the front. Indoctrination of the young.
The collectivist turning on the light switch commercial to fight “climate catastrophe.” (Note the solar-powered clothes dryer at the beginning.) First off, there is no “climate catastrophe.” Second, Al Gore’s commercial reminds me of a 1940s Soviet work poster where the worker ants in the Soviet economy all band together for the good of the state. Third, covering hundreds of square miles with windmills and solar panels is the most inefficient and EXPENSIVE way to generate electricity and will harm our existing power plants. The 50,000 green jobs that nobama touts must be the ones that clean the solar panels and pick up the dead birds around the windmills. The Texas PUC Commission will cast final votes before the end of 2008 to spend $6 billion to run power lines to windmills that generate power 25 percent of the time! Would you buy a car, an appliance, or a MP3 player that you could only use 25 percent of the time?? This is insanity and you will pay for it.
Tarrant County commissioners may put tax dollars behind green movement (Star-Telegram, 10Aug08)
At a recent meeting, commissioners debated whether the county should pay more for 100 percent recycled paper or go with the less expensive grade made of 30 percent recycled material. For legal size paper, the greener kind is 61 percent more expensive, or about $27 more per case. “Do we make a commitment, or do we just talk about it?” VanRavenswaay asked her fellow commissioners. “I want us to go with 100 percent, and I don’t want an option available because a commitment won’t be there if we have an option available.”
Note the “I know what’s best for you” tone of the Commissioner while she uses your tax dollars. Choice is no longer an option in your eco-fascist future. Growing corn for fuel has caused 75% of the increase in food costs. So what if people in the bottom billion die, food costs more, you get worse gas mileage and your equipment is damaged. The eco-totalitarians, and those who subscribe to their ‘America must be weakened’ policies, know what’s best for you.
Related: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason, 04Aug08
“Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle. The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.”
Latest: House Republicans oil protest to resume August 4.
I was pleased to see that our U.S. Congressman, Dr. Michael Burgess, joined the revolt on Friday afternoon, 01Aug08, against the draconian tactics of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi wishes to replicate the failed energy policies of California on a national level. Democrats have even shut down the normal budget procedures to prevent Republicans from offering amendments to appropriation bills that would open a debate and a vote on drilling for more oil in our country. Reducing the price of gas, putting people to work and sending less money overseas to tyrannical governments for a resource on our own shores is not even worth considering in the mind of a Democrat. Everything is subjugated to the green religion and the global warming superstition. Amazing.
The actions of Rep. Burgess and others on the darkened House floor (Democrats turned off the lights and the microphones) reminded me of several short patriotic featurettes from the late 1930s I recently viewed. In these three color shorts (all available via Netflix), John Litel plays Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. He galvanizes his fellow countrymen to action against a tyrannical government in 1775-1776. These inspiring featurettes would add value to a KISD history class.
Kudos to Rep. Michael Burgess and others that support drilling for oil. They need to keep up the pressure and open our shores and ANWR to oil drilling. Hurricane Katrina took out Gulf oil platforms and we never heard about big oil spills. This, and the Audubon Society drilling on nature preserves, is proof that drilling is environmentally sound.
House GOP revolts over gas prices, 01Aug08
In total, 48 Republicans spoke on the floor Friday, offering remarks ranging from the impassioned to the plainly partisan. Michigan Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter declared, “This is the People’s House. This is not Pelosi’s Politburo.” He later pretended to be a Democrat, walking to their side of the floor to announce all the votes they had prevented. . .
Three images and one scientific fact: global temperature varies naturally.
(Click image for full size view)
Dec. 1979 Time magazine cover
April 2008 Time magazine cover
In 1979, protecting a human family was the imagery. In 2008, animals (usually penguins or polar bears) are often the images found in Time covers, film and other media. The degradation of humans due to unneeded energy rationing or carbon offsets is a secondary concern, if one at all.
Related:
Leaving the church of Al Gore and entering the bright sunshine of climate reality.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. . .
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
- The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. . . .
- There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. . . .
- The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year. . .
- The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion. . . .The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. . .
Australia is openly debating the theory of global warming. Check out the seven charts hosted by the polar bear.
“I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life. So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it. If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy. My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.”
So why is the Grapevine City Council spending tax dollars to reduce ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions when there is no problem?
“. . .the City Council voted unanimously to join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, a Toronto-based association. For a $600 annual membership fee, the city gets software and help in further cutting energy consumption and harmful emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. “ICLEI’S goal is to determine emissions of greenhouse gases,” said Matt Singleton, Grapevine’s Public Works director. “We will determine what our greenhouse gas emissions are, set a goal and work toward achieving that goal.. . .
By talking with other cities in the group and using the software, Grapevine will have a clearer picture of where it stands in its efforts to cap greenhouse emissions, Grapevine City Councilman Mike Lease said. “I’m excited that we have already been taking steps all along to reduce our carbon footprint on the planet,” Lease said. “I think that . . . we will create a baseline to monitor our progress.” – “Grapevine joins group that helps the environment.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 4, 2008
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” - John Maynard Keynes
Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy — especially the fact that Gore didn’t ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn’t even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore’s wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!
The irradiation of food to kill disease-causing bacteria would dramatically reduce deaths from salmonella, E.coli bacteria and other microbes. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 75 million Americans (1 in 4) get sick and 5,000 die every year from food-borne bacteria. Three children died in Washington State in early 1993 after eating Jack in the Box hamburgers contaminated with E.coli bacteria. In Fall 2006, spinach contaminated with E.coli bacteria killed three people, including a toddler, in an outbreak that affected 200 people in 26 states. Salmonella, the bacteria in the June 2008 tomato contamination, causes fever, diarrhea, stomach pains and headaches. In early 2008, it was reported that food poisoning can result in long term and severe health problems.
Medical costs and lost worker productivity due to food poisoning were estimated at $35 billion per year in 1997. Any discussion of reducing medical costs in the U.S. should include the use of irradiated food to reduce needless deaths and illness from disease-causing bacteria.
Food is irradiated by passing it in front of a strong radioactive source (Cobalt–60) that kills insects and bacteria in the food with gamma radiation. The food becomes no more radioactive than your teeth after getting a dental X-ray. Irradiation has been used for years to sterilize medical equipment, bandages, contact lens solution, condoms, tampons, and food for astronauts and for those with damaged immune systems, e.g., cancer patients. Irradiating fruit allows it to be fully ripened on the vine, rather than being picked green to keep it from spoiling before it reaches the market. This improves the taste and results in a much longer shelf life. In addition, irradiation can greatly reduce the use of pesticides.
Irradiated food is clearly marked on the grocer’s shelves by a logo called the radura (see Figure below), a leafy flower enclosed in a half-broken circle. This makes it easily distinguishable from non–irradiated food, e.g., food treated with chemicals and preservatives. You are free to choose the food you wish. Food suppliers have been reluctant to sell irradiated food because of possible adverse publicity or the tacit admission that the non-irradiated food they sell has bacteria in it. However, test marketing in the U.S. has met with success. The results from irradiation have been compared to that achieved from pasteurization which dramatically increased the safety of milk and other food.
Over 40 countries have approved, and many organizations, including the World Health Organization and American Medical Association, support irradiation. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved irradiation for spices, wheat, flour, pork (to prevent trichinosis), poultry (to eliminate salmonella and other bacteria) and ground beef. A food industry petition to greatly expand food irradiation to include many ready-to-eat products, e.g., fresh bagged greens and tomatoes, has been awaiting review by the FDA since 1999. The FDA approval in 2006 of spraying viruses on meat to kill only ONE bacteria is a limited and potentially hazardous approach. Irradiation would kill many more bacteria without the potential unintended consequences of a chemical being sprayed on our food.
Since some grocers think customers are afraid of irradiated food, I make it a point to ask my store manager for irradiated products and let them know there’s a market for clearly labeled and safe food. I would much rather eat irradiated food (as do astronauts and cancer patients) than be sick, die or have my kidneys fail and be on dialysis for the rest of my life.
References:
Irradiated food symbol
A really good article in the ST today about a building that is using a more common sense approach to “Going Green.”
Mitchell Schnurman: There is more than one way to go green
By Mitchell SchnurmanStar-Telegram Staff Writer
Like most home builders these days, Frank McCaslin is especially eager to sell his stock of finished houses. But he’s passing on the chance to add an environmental seal of approval from the local builders association — a label that declares Green Built North Texas.He’s not down on going green. He just believes that buyers are most interested in the green that saves money, especially as utility prices soar. So he focuses on simple ways to cut electric and water bills without worrying about issues like salvaging drywall scraps.
“Everything I use is off the shelf,” McCaslin said, “and people save a lot.”
Conservation used to be primarily a matter of social conscience, but higher energy costs have made it a financial imperative, too. Texas’ scorching summers and high electric rates put our utility spending among the highest in the country.The home-building industry is touting green initiatives here and nationwide, hoping to spark interest in its innovations and help break a terrible sales slump. For consumers, the trend is both promising and confusing. Energy efficiency can cut operating costs significantly, but home buyers have to decide what part of green building matters to them, what’s worth the price and, as with any hot trend, what’s mainly hype — known as greenwashing.
McCaslin’s approach is old school. He has been building custom homes in Tarrant County since 1976, and energy efficiency is a cornerstone of his sales pitch. He’s settled on a dozen techniques that work well in our climate and deliver a measurable return.
It’s not complicated; by relying on his experience and common sense, he’s found applications that pay off.
That’s far simpler than programs, like Green Built, that have the same goal and are establishing national and local standards for green building. They use point systems and a cafeteria-style approach that lets builders and buyers pick among strategies to score bronze, silver or gold designations.
Adding solar panels, for instance, brings a lot of extra points in the ratings from the National Association of Home Builders. And in a North Texas example, Green Built builders can choose among three ways to reduce waste: a rainwater catch system, high-performance fixtures or a drip-irrigation system.
The formal systems have two objectives: to build eco-friendly homes that use fewer resources and to develop a green brand that resonates with buyers.
About 70 builders in North Texas have agreed to adhere to the Green Built standards, including Wall Homes in Arlington, which signed up last week. President Steve Wall said it was the right thing to do and said it would cost less than 1 percent of the home price to meet the rules; that’s less than you might expect, because many builders are already using green building techniques.
Still, Wall said, “It’ll probably to be difficult to recover all of the costs” because most buyers are unwilling to pay a premium to be green.
The contrast between McCaslin’s approach and a formal rating system illustrates the challenge for consumers. It’s tough to determine what works best, and new technologies are emerging regularly, often with claims of fantastic savings.
Formal green programs often cost more and deliver less than promised, one researcher says, while low-tech, even obvious moves — turning off computers at night, for instance — produce good results.
“Cookie-cutter approaches have a real marketing advantage because everybody can claim they’re green,” said Todd Myers, environmental director of the Washington Policy Center in Seattle. “But a green seal may be as much about marketing as saving money.”
For the research group, he looked at school construction and energy bills to compare the effects of green building. That’s more reliable than comparing homes, because sizes and energy use are similar among schools. He found that green schools spend more on energy, in part because they have larger windows (to let in more natural light) and extra systems to recycle air (required for airtight buildings).
A Tacoma, Wash., middle school, built to a high green standard, was projected to save 35 percent on energy. But Myers says it used 25 percent more energy than the average Tacoma middle school.
In the best cases, building supervisors applied their experience and focused on improvements that had the most impact, Meyers said. And on mandates that didn’t offer much promise, they did the minimum.
In the past, most home buyers didn’t think about green building. Even today, given a choice between extra insulation in the attic and hardwood floors, most choose amenities they see. But the green movement represents a great opportunity for builders because new homes have a decided edge in the efficiency race.Compared with retrofitting an existing house, it’s relatively inexpensive in new construction to upgrade windows, air conditioners and plumbing and install radiant barriers in the walls and attic. Some cities are mandating green building standards, but it’s the builders and entrepreneurs who are innovating.
Some building materials, such as insulated panels, are so effective that they can reduce energy costs to a dollar a day, said Bob Morris of the home-builders association in Dallas. And McCaslin uses a recirculating pump on water heaters that, with the flip of a switch, gets hot water to far reaches of the house. That saves water, and for much less than fancy systems.
All of McCaslin’s energy steps, from upgraded windows to radiant barriers and compact fluorescent light bulbs, add about $2,730 to the price of his $400,000 homes. He says that most families would save that much in the first year or two.
That’s the kind of green everybody appreciates.
I think this is the right approach, common sense applications of experienced home builders rather than touting some “Green Seal of Approval” from some organization.
But, you won’t see this approach being touted much by the regional and national powers that be. They want a central clearing house to be able to tell you that you are a Green Builder or you have a Green Fleet Policy.
Even if it costs more money and saves less energy to implement thier policies.
Whenever you see, hear or read of Al Gore or others pushing the ’chicken little’ story of climate catastrophe, remember this: the actual data demonstrates that they are either lying or incredibly ignorant. Every greenhouse gas and carbon reference that planners bring to Keller or Texas or the U.S. courts, etc. to justify their top-down, command and control, central planning ‘fix’ is based on a BIG LIE.
Mayor Cluck of Arlington, former Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, other Texas mayors (and of course the eco-activists) are featured in a documentary, Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars, bragging about their role in blocking eight new coal plants for Texas. Since the actual data below shows that CO2 bears no relation to global temperatures, and the new coal plants would have been cleaner than old coal plants that could have then been retired, the clucking Mayors have done Texas air quality a GREAT disservice.
The actual data shown in these charts will help you enjoy your daily carbon footprint without guilt or fear. I suggest you print these out and hang next to your TV and on your efrigerator to (1) counter the upcoming $300 million propaganda telling you the EXACT opposite of what these graphs show and (2) educate children that are brainwashed in schools daily with the BIG LIE. Source: ICECAP
CO2 increases from 1997 to 2008 while global temps flatten
Click chart to enlarge
Global temps decline from 2003 to 2008
Click chart to enlarge
Excerpts from Challenging ABC News’s Attack on Climate Scientist S. Fred Singer, Reuters, 25Mar08:
“The earth’s surface temperatures have registered no warming trend since 1998, even though the levels of atmosphere CO2 have continued to increase strongly.
“In 2000, the sunspot numbers turned downward, which historically has predicted a decline in the earth’s temperatures roughly a decade later. The sunspot indices have continued to predict cooling ever since.
“Last month, three of the world’s major monitoring sites announced that earth’s temperatures actually declined from January 2007 to January 2008 — the first such global temperature drop in 30 years. The Hadley Centre in the UK, NASA, and the University of Alabama/Huntsville all reported the decline.
“Josh Willis, a researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, recently told National Public Radio that the oceans had stopped warming 4-5 years ago, based on key information from new high-tech ocean buoys.
“The embarrassing truth is that the weak correlation between earth’s temperatures and human-emitted greenhouse gases is rapidly worsening. The CO2 correlation with earth’s thermometer record since 1860 is less than 22 percent. The correlation between earth temperatures and sunspots is 79 percent and strengthening.”
The ocean buoy data is a fascinating example that illustrates the utter stupidity (unknown unknowns not considered) of the general circulation computer models (GCCM) used as the basis for climate alarmism by the chicken littles.
Have any of our Keller students put together a science project using real climate data as shown here? In March 2008, I spoke to 95 high school students (four pre-AP Physics-Chemistry classes) at Lewisville High School about careers in science and engineering and lessons to be learned from junk science (e.g., the climate alarmism scam). I can speak here in Keller if anybody interested.
Related:
