Environmentalism - wrong in so many ways

Wired magazine, known for it's zealous focus on the latest crazes, takes a look at the latest environmental craze and what people think they should do about it. They don't actually look at the validity of the anthropogenic issue or the dire consequences debate, but at least they add a little bit of objectivity to the climate of climate change.

Putting aside the absolute lie known as 'the coming ice age'. And ignoring the food shortages and high prices caused by biofuel mandates, not to mention the slashing and burning of rain forest in Brazil because of their extremely high biofuel mandates. And forget for a moment the economic impact on the timber industry because so-called scientists failed to realize that spotted owls will fornicate anywhere (they just happen to prefer old growth forests the way hippies prefer rock concerts). The list goes on, but lets ignore all that for the moment. I'm starting to wonder which will be the next abject failure of the environmentalist movement.

I'm addressing this to the local liberal set who go crazy over the crazes. Since they're like most liberals they never really think things through. Let's hope that this gets them thinking instead of reacting to whatever bright ideas blow their way.

Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet

But even organic fruits and veggies are a mixed bushel: Organic fertilizers deliver lower-than-average yields, so those crops require more land per unit of food. And then there's the misplaced romanticism. Organic isn't just Farmer John; it's Big Ag. Plenty of pesticide-free foods are produced by industrial-scale farms and then shipped thousands of miles to their final destination. The result: refrigerator trucks belching carbon dioxide.

They didn't mention the problems with the 'buy local' craze. In our area it means buying from farms that cost more to operate because of high taxes, high labor costs (associated with a higher cost of living) and transportation costs (it still has to get from the field to the table unless you ride your bike to pick up produce from the field.)

In short, I don't believe that growing local crops to support large urban populations is possible because cost effective scalability of local farms isn't possible. In addition, seemingly significant volumes of the greenhouse gas emissions cannot be avoided whether crops are local or shipped in from outside the area. Also, there are efficiencies of scale that cannot be replicated by smaller local farms.

There's the question of being able to 'buy local' in every area of the country where liberals decide an urban center should be. Deserts don't grow much of anything edible and some growing seasons are too short to do much of anything. Regardless of the desire to buy local not every area can support the needs of urban communities. And even if growing seasons allow for nutritious crops to be grown, there's the question of having enough land with adequate soil. Many soils require building up with fertilizers. Natural fertilizers can have bacteria (such e-coli) and other contaminants that can infect crops. In addition there may be an inadequate supply of natural fertilizers to build up enough soil to support the local population.

I don't have specific numbers in front of me but having some experience in agriculture I can tell you that most produce consumes the most energy (and cost) in the first mile(s) and the last mile(s). Plowing, planting, harvesting and packaging are probably the most energy consuming steps. Then there's the processing and/or decaying of the waste material from the plants the crops are grown on. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that composting produces a fair amount of greenhouse gases. These steps are required regardless of where crops are grown.

Also in the producing of crops there's the concentration of the impact of all of this right next to an area that is going to produce more carbon emissions simply because there are more people in a concentrated area. Cities are known for being sources of pollution, both point-source and non-point-source. You're actually adding to the combined output of pollutants by bringing farms closer to the city.

Then there's the long road to the destination which is often by rail, the most energy efficient means of freight transportation. So while this is the big complaint from liberals about not buying local, it probably produces the least greenhouse gas emissions per pound of produce in the process of getting the crops to the table.

After that is the getting it from the distribution center that can handle rail freight to the dinner table, which requires trucks to deliver and cars to get the workers to the various locations, and finally the trip home from the store (or farmers market). This step is going to be required whether it's coming from the distribution center or the local farm.

To sum up, I don't believe that the 'buy local' craze is going to end up having that significant of an effect on the overall impact of food production on the environment.

Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming

I love this quote:

Ronald Reagan's infamous claim that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles" contained a grain of truth. In warm weather, trees release volatile chemicals that act as catalysts for smog. But the Gipper didn't mention another point that's even more likely to make nature lovers blanch. When it comes to fighting climate change, it's more effective to treat forests like crops than like majestic monuments to nature.

Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO₂ in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO₂ gets released.

I've got my chainsaw. I'll meet you all in Pt. Defiance Park. We could do it to celebrate environmentalism on Ronald Reagan's birthday. Wouldn't that be cool? (For those of you with no sense of humor, that's a joke.)

Superefficient Frankencrops Could Put a Real Dent in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Those poor, misguided ELF members going to jail for burning down what they thought was a genetic engineering lab. Don't they know they were hurting the environment, not just by burning buildings (which is a very inefficient way to use resources) but also by the fact that they could have prevented the next wave of genetically engineered crops that cut carbon emissions.

Carbon Credits Were a Great Idea, But the Benefits Are Illusory

Carbon offsets — and emissions-trading schemes, their industrial-scale siblings — are the environmental version of subprime mortgages. They both started from some admirable premises. Developing countries like China and India need to be recruited into the fight against greenhouse gases. And markets are a better mechanism for change than command and control. But when those big ideas collide with the real world, the result is hand-waving at best, outright scams at worst. Moreover, they give the illusion that something constructive is being done.

I guess it will only be a matter of time before Al Gore's investment in carbon trading companies is revealed for what it is, racketeering.

Word out today is that the U.N.'s latest scam is coming to light. Their 'cap and trade' program isn't working. Read more here: Report: U.N. wasting billions on carbon offset scam. Maybe this will one will be the scam that relegates the U.N. to it's rightful place: history. I doubt it, but it would be nice to get rid of that anti-America, anti-Israel kabal that sucks so much from our economy and our security.

Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy

You can worry about radioactive waste or proliferating weapons. You can complain about the high cost of construction and decommissioning. But the reality is that every serious effort at carbon accounting reaches the same conclusion: Nukes win.

Bummer! It looks like, in order to save the planet, we have to play into every eco-freak's worst nightmare: nuclear annihilation. Scary!

Don't Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead

Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer, largely due to the environmental cost of the 30 pounds of nickel in the hybrid's battery.

Better yet, buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. It gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap. Sure, the XFi has no AC or airbags — but nobody said saving the planet would be comfortable, or even safe.

If your knees don't touch your chest when you're in a car, you're destroying the planet.

This points out one of the things that most eco-freaks forget: the cost of construction is part of the cost of the results, both in dollars and in environmental impact. The CATO Institute pointed this out quite well.

Those were the fun ones...

Well, for me at least, that was the fun part of the article. They're still clinging to a couple of ideas like urbanism and fatalism, but what can you do, they've bought into the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

As for the urbanism craze, it's far too complex to address here, so I left it out of these quotes. Don't bother commenting about it.