‘Greta shaming’


Posted by Ed 5 mths ago
‘Greta shaming’ trend in Israel discourages plastic utensils with ‘dystopian’ cut-outs of teen climate activist
Photos of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg are popping up in cafeterias across Israel in a “green” trend designed to shame diners out of using plastic cutlery. Many online saw shades of Orwell in the new fad.

Dubbed “Greta shaming,” the trend has swept workplace lunchrooms in Tel Aviv, with eco-minded workers placing photos of a disapproving Thunberg alongside disposable forks and plates, casting judgement on anyone who dares to ignore their environmental footprint.


Please support our advertisers:


Ed 5 mths ago
The could be the beginning of something very big.   
Why stop with plastic forks... let's create a list of targets for Greta Shaming:
Airports:   does anyone really need to take that flight to Phuket for what amounts to a completely pointless weekend lying in the sun drinking Mojitos?      Let's mobilize a force to shame people entering the airport
Shopping Malls:  another pair of shoes - really?  I've got black and brown work shoes...  two pairs of running shoes...  a couple of pairs of casual shoes.   Enough!   Let's get some people into Times Square IFC etc... to confront anyone who buys stuff they don't need.   Perhaps we can force them to show us their sneakers with holes in the soles before we allow them to buy a new pair!
Ski Lifts:  I was actually thinking about how much electricity a ski lift uses in a day the last time I was on the lift in Queenstown.   I even tried to google that to find out and could not get a straight answer - so I am betting that it's a huge amount (and the hills don't want to divulge that for obvious reasons).   
Anyway think about skiing... we jump on chairs (manufactured in factories...) and are dragged up a mountain by a cable ... we gleefully wind down the mountain (on skis and boots made in factories).... round and round we go.   
Is this really necessary?   Of course it isn't.  Let's get some people out at the ski hills and Greta Shame these despicable wastrels!!!!
Feel free to post your targets for Greta Shaming...   in the meantime I will add some more capacity to our servers because this list is going to be endless.... 

Please support our advertisers:
bananaq 5 mths ago
we can add to the list to stop building cars, private plane, private helicopters. lets all walk going to work. May i know how Greta will be travelling back to Sweden.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
Those Amazon Returns? They’re Killing the Environment.
Sending back unwanted holiday gifts is a time-honored tradition. Now it’s becoming a crisis.
In December, American consumers will return more than 1 million packages to e-commerce retailers each day. It's a flood of unwanted stuff that’s expected to peak on Jan. 2, which UPS Inc. cheekily calls "National Returns Day.”
For UPS and other shippers, that's reason for plenty of post-holiday cheer. For everyone else, those tens of millions of packages are a real problem. By one recent estimate, they accounted for 5 billion pounds of landfilled waste in the U.S. alone and an additional 15 million tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
At a time when consumers and companies are otherwise rethinking consumption choices in light of climate change, e-commerce returns amount to a hidden environmental crisis.
Of course, the “money-back guarantee” is likely as old as retail itself, and many storied brands built their reputations by honoring it. The benefits don't just accrue to consumers; a retailer that stands by its products likely sells more of them.
L.L. Bean Inc., the outdoor-goods company, offered a lifetime return policy for more than a century, and prospered because of it. Likewise, recent studies of e-commerce suggest that lenient return policies correlate with more returns and an increase in purchases.
As far back as 2010, Zappos.com, the pioneering shoe retailer, bragged that its best customers were the ones who returned the most products.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk
Experts predict up to 1,500 individual private flights in and out of airfields serving Swiss ski resort for World Economic Forum

Please support our advertisers:
bananaq 5 mths ago
Greta is just a scam. The only person benefited from this scam is Al Gore.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
'How Dare You' ...  Greta on lead vocals:

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 5 mths ago
China To Unleash Tsunami Of Mega-Polluting Coal-Fired Power Plants

In recent months, emotional eco-activist Greta Thunberg who has become synonymous with the global anti-global warming climate change movement has made consistent appeals at the developed world, demanding an end to its evil, polluting ways. She even went so far as to sue some of the bigger carbon polluters in the world — Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey — for violating her rights as a child by failing to adequately reduce emissions.

And yet one nation has consistently escaped her steely gaze: China.

Which is unfortunate, because whereas many of the nations that have provoked Greta's ire in the past have made concerted efforts to reduce their emissions, it is the world's biggest polluter, China, that has curiously evaded her anger.

Hopefully that is about to change because as the FT reports, China is set to add an army of new coal-fired power plants equivalent to the EU’s entire capacity, as the world’s biggest energy consumer ignores global pressure to rein in carbon emissions in its bid to boost a slowing economy.

Across China, a whopping 148GW of heavily-polluting, coal-fired plants are either being built or are about to begin construction, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors coal stations.
Putting that number in context, the current capacity of the entire EU coal fleet is 149GW, or the same as what China is about to add.

What's worse, and what has paradoxically not been noted by Greta yet in her global crusade against pollution so far, is that while the rest of the world has been largely reducing coal-powered capacity over the past two years, China is building so much coal power that it more than offsets the decline elsewhere. Ted Nace, head of Global Energy Monitor, said the new coal plants would have a significant impact on China’s already-increasing carbon emissions.

"What is being built in China is single-handedly turning what would be the beginning of the decline of coal, into the continued growth of coal," he said, adding that China was "swamping" global progress in bringing down emissions.


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
More shaming - Monster Trucks need to be banned immediately.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
Shame on APPLE!!! 
How Dare They force us to buy new phones every couple of years!!!
Darn, This Is Inconvenient: Apple Is Destroying the Planet to Maximize Profits
Stripmining the planet to maximize profits isn't progressive or renewable--it's just exploitive and destructive.
How do we describe the finding that the planet's most widely-owned super-corporation is destroying the planet to maximize its smartphone sales and profits? Shall we start with "inconvenient?" Yes, we're talking about Apple, famous for coercing customers to upgrade their Apple phones and other gadgets if not annually then every couple years, as the most effective way to maximize profits.
Unfortunately, smartphones require stripmining the planet, as described in this report, Smartphones Are Killing The Planet Faster Than Anyone Expected Researchers are sounding the alarm after an analysis showed that buying a new smartphone consumes as much energy as using an existing phone for an entire decade.
Smartphones are particularly insidious for a few reasons. With a two-year average life cycle, they're more or less disposable. The problem is that building a new smartphone--and specifically, mining the rare materials inside them--represents 85% to 95% of the device's total CO2 emissions for two years. That means buying one new phone takes as much energy as recharging and operating a smartphone for an entire decade.
despite the recycling programs run by Apple and others, "based on our research and other sources, currently less than 1% of smartphones are being recycled," Lotfi Belkhir, the study's lead author, tells me.
The researchers point out that mobile apps actually reinforce our need for these 24/7 servers in a self-perpetuating energy-hogging cycle. More phones require more servers. And with all this wireless information in the cloud, of course we're going to buy more phones capable of running even better apps.
As consumers, we have more reason than ever to hesitate when it comes to our next shiny tech splurge. The bottom line is that we need to buy less, and engage less, for the health of this entire planet.
What would happen to Apple's gargantuan profits were it to design, build and market smartphones and other devices to last a decade or longer? We all know what would happen: sales and profits would fall off a cliff, and hundreds of billions of dollars in stock market "wealth" would vanish as Apple stock declined to align with much lower profits and the end of the "endless growth" story.
Unfortunately we need economic growth... because the global population is growing .... so we need jobs for the new people ... so they can buy food and clothes and shelter.... 

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
And here we have automobiles speeding round and round and round burning huge amounts of petrol.... 
This is right up there with downhill skiing in terms of a shameful activity. 
We must ban all car racing immediately.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
We will need to add Climate Conferences to our list of shame ...  because the elites who attend fly in private jets, yachts, helicopters etc....
Let's shame and ban private jets altogether... here's a recent shot of jets at the airport in Davos for a climate conference

Please support our advertisers:
ed_lefeva 4 mths ago
Not very clear what is the subtext here ED. You seem to dislike Greta and think the environmental awareness she’s triggered is a joke? Am I getting that right?
Bananaq doesn’t deserve much comment.. but have you read the news? Have you realised what our fossil fuel subsidised lifestyles have done to the planet? You want to point the finger on China? Sure, but let’s remember that just emissions accounting should take into account consumer footprint (ie emissions linked to all imported goods) which makes places like HK or the UK greenwash themselves while living largely above the global average.

Your shaming of the Davos talks (and I personally feel private jets should be the first to be largely restricted) feels like those critics of Greta sailing to the US - damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. Truth is big changes are needed, and yes, we’ll definitely have to justify spending energy which we simply cannot afford to spend without damning our future.

(and the whole diatribe about our kids needing aircon and all..., come on, it’s the trend of comfortable living where parents just systematically want the best / most comfortable for their children, blaming the kids? really?)

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
What I am pointing out is that if you are going to shame someone for using a plastic fork... then  you need to shame them for a thousand other things. 
Shame on anyone who skis. 
Shame on anyone who flies to a vacation spot.
Shame on China for building hundreds of more coal plants
Shame on those who fly in private jets.
Shame on anyone who takes a private car instead of the bus - or walking 
And here's the big one --- we add nearly 100,000,000 nett new people to the planet each year - and they all want to go on holidays and ski and consume.... that's another Philippines full of people....so shame on everyone for procreating.   
Of course the things that I waste energy on are absolutely necessary --- but what every else wastes energy on --- well that is just shameful - and to be criticized.
I know people who will not accept a plastic bag --- but they have no problem with ordering a tonne of stuff on the internet -- which is flown to them from overseas --- and packed in enough heavy plastic to make a thousand plastic bags out of --- because they apparently needed that stuff. 
 This is what is known as hypocrisy, at best.
The only way we can stop these emissions is if people adopt the lifestyle of  Thoreau in Walden....
Is anyone willing to live in a shack in the bush grow their own food and buy nothing?

Please support our advertisers:
bananaq 4 mths ago
Trump is right. the environmentalist wants to ban the plastic straw but forget the plastic plates, utensil and cups. What we can do is blame the scientist that develop plastic for example. If not for them fast food and takeaways will never be invented and we dont have much waste.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
Plastic bags were apparently invented with the intention of saving the environment....

Plastic bags were invented to save the planet, according to the son of Swedish engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin who created them in 1959.

The bags were developed as an alternative to paper bags, which were considered bad for the environment because they resulted in forests being chopped down.

They were significantly stronger than paper bags, which meant – in theory – they could be used over and over again.

However, single-use plastic took off and now our consumption of this polluting material is one of the biggest threats facing the world’s seas, with marine plastic set to outweigh fish by 2050.

Raoul Thulin, son of Sten, told the BBC: “To my dad, the idea that people would simply throw these away would be bizarre.

“He always carried [a plastic bag] in his pocket folded up. You know what we’re all being encouraged to do today, which is to take your bags back to the shop, he was doing back in the Seventies and Eighties, just naturally, because, well, why wouldn’t you?”


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
Plastic or paper: Which bag is greener?
'Four times as much energy'
In 2011 a research paper produced by the Northern Ireland Assembly said it "takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag."

Unlike plastic bags (which the report says are produced from the waste products of oil refining) paper requires forests to be cut down to produce the bags. The manufacturing process, according to the research, also produces a higher concentration of toxic chemicals compared with making single-use plastic bags.

Paper bags also weigh more than plastic; this means transportation requires more energy, adding to their carbon footprint, the study adds.

Morrisons says that the material used to make its paper bags will be 100% sourced from forests that are managed responsibly.

And if new forests are grown to replace lost trees, this will help to offset the climate change impact, because trees lock up carbon from the atmosphere.

In 2006, the Environment Agency examined a range of bags made from different materials to find out how many times they need to be reused in order to have a lower global warming potential than a conventional single-use plastic bag.


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
I highly recommend the series 'Utopia'      
Summary:  leaders understand that overpopulation will devastate the planet so they use sinister methods to try to sterilize most of the population...   a group of people get wind of the plan and attempt to stop it arguing that people should have the choice to reproduce -  even if that means the planet's collapse. 
Here is the Mother of All Shaming Scenes:

Please support our advertisers:
ed_lefeva 4 mths ago
Thank you for your contribution Bananaq.

Thank you for elaborating ED. The impression I am getting from reading you is that shaming is a bad thing with no limits, everyone is selfish and that the only solution were we to try and fix this is living like cavemen, therefore we should give up.

I'm not sure shaming is necessarily a bad thing, and I suspect it plays a rather big part in our societies, for good and bad probably. Most often people don't tell huge lies in public because they would be afraid of public shaming and reputational damage (that is until Trump, social media, etc..).
People at cocktail parties don't simply empty the jar of cookies into their pockets to take and eat over the weekend.. at least not yet. Shame keeps us in check, and in many ways, Trump is a good example of someone who has no shame and how complex it is to handle when our institutions were built on the assumption that people in power would have a semblance of shame. Maybe a bit more shame might do us some good.. and the case of plastic cutlery shows that there is a consensus on that at least.
Society is just at the beginning of a thought process as to finding what is indeed shameful, and there will be overshoots for sure.. but trial and error is part of the search for sustainability.

Well yes, we all wish everyone else would make the sacrifices for us, that's a pretty natural human wish, explains why the west blames China, China blames the US, Norway blames India, Europe blames Brazil and we go round in circles and end up doing nothing while the situation degrades. That said, we also have the capacity to make sacrifices for the greater good, which we've proven a few times before. The obvious example is wartime Britain (obvious to me based on my education, there are of course 1000 other valid or better examples).
Rationing, from one day to the next.. because everyone understood the stakes, and there was a degree of social justice in the impact of rationing and the war effort.

Now the situation is pretty awful indeed, so we might be living like cavemen before long whether we give up our skiing holidays or not, but at this point the catastrophe we are facing could still be a 10 or a 3 on a scale of devastation based on our efforts... so do nothing? Is that all you have to offer?
There are a thousand things we can do to mitigate climate change which don't mean necessarily a caveman life - kill the beef industry and rewild huge tropical areas for sinking carbon and preserving biodiversity (although i think it is exaggerated i was reading the beef industry occupy an area the size of the US, Canada and China combined), transform our cities and make green public transport or cycling the absolute priority in cities over private cars (average utility of a private car is 3%), improve airconditioning/heating methods, incentivise travel by train and reflect the true cost of fossil fuels with a steep carbon tax, bring in rations for social justice if necessary, develop clean and safe low-pressure nuclear, population degrowth, etc..
None of these solutions is perfect, or enough on its own, but our governments have in effect not tried or started doing anything, so they seem to agree with you largely. The conversation is moving fast however, the presence of dedicated climate debates in the elections in the UK and the US amongst others, is shows the electoral priorities is shifting.

I like to think that the changes above might actually yield a healthier, happier world; more physical activity, more reliance on each other, more local lives and more trust, more accountability, more adventurous travels, more valued goods, more valued meals, more appreciation for the nature we are a part of.

As for the Greta picture by the plastic cutlery, I like to think George Orwell would approve.

OK I shut up now!

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
The problem is .... unless we are all willing to live 'like cavemen'  then there is nothing that can be done about OUR continuing demolition of the planet. 
Nobody is going to give up their car and walk everywhere... 
Nobody is going to give up their vacations...
Nobody is going to live in a hut in the bush...
Nobody is going to stop shopping for that second pair of shoes...
Yes some may give up using a straw or a plastic fork... and if that makes them feel good and that they are saving the planet then fantastic (but very obviously they are not).
Which makes me wonder if the whole campaign against straws is simply a PR exercise aimed at creating a villain --- getting people to focus on it --- eliminating the villain -- and making people feel that we are making progress in our fight to stop ourselves from demolishing the planet.
Pick on straws because straws do not matter - we could never produce another straw on the planet again and nobody would miss them.
However ban all plastic --- or ban all air travel ---  and then you have a real start....   notice how the campaign never targets anything meaningful....  because we'd have a huge problem if we banned anything meaningful.... ban air travel and the global economy would collapse.
So let's pick on straws..... 
'The Numbers Are Just Horrendous.' Almost 30,000 Species Face Extinction Because of Human Activity  Read More 
There is actually one solution to the problem....  it's not very palatable though.....

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
Fossil fuel burning leaps to new record, crushing clean energy and climate efforts

Despite decades of promises to prevent a climate crisis, the primary cause of it — global fossil fuel burning — continues to increase rapidly. Last year's record-breaking burn was a doozy.

That's according to data in the latest "BP Statistical Review of World Energy."

And renewable energy — a hoped-for climate solution — has not only failed to halt the explosive rise in fossil carbon burning, it's falling ever-further behind.


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago

Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.

All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.


In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).



Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago

The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy

Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage (if we want electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind is not blowing), and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.

Greta Thunberg:

You have declared yourself a leader and said that your generation will start a revolution. You have comported yourself as a credentialed adult and climate change activist who has fearlessly addressed politicians and world leaders.

You have dropped out of school and declared that there isn’t any reason to attend, or any reason for you to study since there will be no future for you to inherit. You have, rather than attend your classes, been leading Friday Climate Strikes for all students in your generation across the globe.
Your attendance at oil pipelines has been striking. There, you unequivocally declare that all oil needs to remain in the ground where it belongs.

I shall, therefore, against the backdrop of your activism, address you as an adult rather than as a child.


In September of 2019 you crossed the Atlantic in a “zero carbon” racing yacht that had no toilet and electric light on board. You made an impassioned plea at the United Nations in which you claimed that, “we have stolen your dreams and our childhood with our empty words.”

You claimed that adults and world leaders come to young people for answers and explained in anger: “How dare you!” You claimed that we are failing you and that young people are beginning to understand our betrayal. You further declared that if we continue to fail your generation: “We will never forgive you.”

You have stated that you want us to panic, and to act as if our homes are on fire. You insist that rich countries must reduce to zero emissions immediately. In your speeches you attack economic growth and have stated that our current climate crisis is caused by “buying and building things.”

You call for climate justice and equity, without addressing the worst polluter on the planet China; the country that is economically annexing much of Africa and Latin America. You dare not lecture Iran about its uranium projects -- because that’s not part of the UN’s agenda, is it?


You proclaim that we need to live within the planetary boundaries, to focus on equity and “take a few steps back” for the sake of all living species. You resent the hierarchical distinctions between human and animals and entertain no qualitative distinction between a monkey, a malaria-infested mosquito and a snarling hyena.
You mouth slogans such as: “We have set in motion an irreversible chain reaction beyond control,” and you advocate for universal veganism on the Ellen DeGeneres show.
You do not buy new clothes, and you don’t want the rest of us to either. You want us all to stop flying in jet planes without giving us an alternative as to how we would re-transform our financial and trading systems—to say nothing of our personal enjoyment of the world—without regression to a primeval era.
Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome.

There are a few things that we, the rational adults of the world who are not bowing to you like guilt-ridden obsequious Babbitts need to say to you, Greta.

First, we did not rob you of your childhood or of your dreams. You are the legatee of a magnificent technological civilization which my generation and the one before it and several others preceding it all the way to the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance, bequeathed to you.
That growth-driven, capitalist technological civilization has created the conditions for you to harangue us over our betrayal. It is a civilization that eradicated diseases such as small pox from the word, and that lifted millions out of abject poverty in a universe you think is dying and decaying.
It assured you a life expectancy that exceeded that of your ancestors. Most likely by focusing on economic growth which you demonize, and scientific advancement, that civilization will further enhance a robust quality of life and health for your descendants.

Here is a hard truth to ponder, Greta: if the great producers of this world whom you excoriate were to withdraw their productivity, wealth and talents—in short—their minds from the world today, your generation would simply perish.

Why? Because as children you have done nothing as yet, with your lives besides being born. This is what we expect of children until such time as they can be producers by learning from their elders. You are understandably social and ecological ballast. You are not yet cognitively advanced to replicate the structures of survival of which you are the beneficiaries.

Children are important installments on the future. We have invested in you. It is you and your smug generation which think they have nothing to learn from the older ones who are failing themselves.

Whom do you expect to employ the majority of you if you have neither the job credentials or life competency skills to navigate the world? The future unemployable-skipping- school-on-Friday obstreperous children?

The truth, as one anonymous blogger aptly put it, is that your generation is unable to work up to forty hours per week without being chronically depressed and anxious. Its members cannot even decide if they want to be a boy or a girl, or both, or neither, or a “they.”

They cannot eat meat without crying. I might add that your generation needs “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” as pre-conditions for learning in school. Its members have a pathological need to be coddled and protected from the challenging realities of life.
Your generation is the biggest demander and consumer of carbon spewing technological gadgets and devices. An hour without any of them and too many of you succumb to paralyzing lethargy.
Your generation is the least curious and most insular set of individuals one has ever encountered. Your hubris extends so far that you think you have nothing to learn from your elders.

Yes, we have betrayed you: by capitulating the world of leadership to bored, attention-deficit children who spout bromides, platitudes and slogans that a rudderless and morally relativistic culture accepts because a significant number of its denizens have become intellectually bankrupt and morally lazy.

The logical endpoint of your ecological vision would see us living in primeval conditions eking out an existence in jungle swamps in which we would regard poisonous snakes and man-eating tigers as our moral equals.

We would have to adapt ourselves to nature rather than adapt nature to meet our needs, like all members of civilized civilizations do. Your vision would see us foraging for mushrooms and plants without knowing which were inimical to our digestive systems.
Under your system we would swelter from heat, die from rampant plagues and starvation because there will be no air-conditioning units, no sophisticated plumbing and irrigations and sewer systems, no anti-bacterial soap made from animal matter, no pesticides and chemicals to sanitize our food and drinking supplies: just one primordial swamp of human putrefaction.


If civilization is left in the hands of your ecofascist supporters we will be living in grass huts, drinking animal feces infested water, and shrinking in fear from polar bears instead of killing them for food when they attack us.

Greta, living in complete harmony with nature is the death of creativity. Understand this. All great civilizations were forged in the crucibles of proper exploitation of the earth.

Those who lived on land with oil and did nothing with it never had a right to it in the first place. Non-usage of God’s resources is the cardinal sin because it results in the un-development of our human capabilities, and makes us indistinguishable from beasts.

Your generation needs to be taught the morality of wealth creation, rather than only parasitically benefiting from it. The only revolution you will lead is one into nihilism and civilization regression.

You need to learn about the moral case for fossil fuel. You owe it to yourself to understand how as, Kathleen Hartnett White has detailed, the harnessing of the vast store of concentrated energy in fossil fuels allowed mankind, for the first time in human history, to escape intractable constraints and energy limits that had left all but the very privileged in total poverty and depravity.
Before the Industrial Revolution all societies were dependent on a very limited flow of solar energy captured in living plants for subsistence needs such as food, fuel and shelter.

But we, the creative enterprisers, will not go back to the Dark Ages. Your philosophy can be summed up as follows:

What was good for my anthropoid ancestors is good for me. Do not rock the boat, or even build one as that will require cutting down a tree. Do not disrupt nature.

Do not dare to see the earth as rightfully belonging to us. We don’t have the right to use our brains in a manner that can transform our needs into a material form. Let’s conveniently forget that production is the application of reason to the problems of survival.
Let’s all diminish the grandeur of man and his luminous potential. Crush the Thomas Edisons of this world.

The apocalyptic world vision you hold has been a strip landing for those who have hated progress throughout history.

Your apocalyptic predictions have been made for millennia, and, we’re still here. We will still be here long after you’ve grown up and we have forgiven you for skipping classes, thereby lowering the intelligence quotient of an entire generation.

Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics.

Rather harsh....  I would argue that Jason is as delusional if not more delusional than Greta.
We lived as hunter gatherers for the better part of 200,000 years (much longer if we consider pre-homo sapien species...)   
During that period we were living sustainably....  when overpopulation struck, we died off just like all other animals....
Then we discovered fire ... and then we started farming ... and then we had the industrial revolution ....  and now we do not die off ...  and now we are nearly 8 billion....   
Sure we have iphones and tvs and AC and planes trains and autos and Facebook and cinema and so on ....
But we also take epic amounts of ant-depressants...  huge numbers of poeple are not happy...
 We are wiping out fish populations --- we are extincting tens of thousands of other species --- we are running out of fresh water...  the list is endless....
Our situation is NOT sustainable.    So who is Jason to mock Greta?  Sure Greta is naive or even delusional.... but at least she identifies the problem (even though there really is nothing that can be done to mitigate this without returning us to the caves...)
But sorry Jason --- you have it wrong --- 'progress'  will lead to our downfall.  

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago

After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN the other day, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years.”

So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.”

We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.

From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but cycling through the freezing builds resilience.

Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking.

Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room.

The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.

For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothes line to dry, just like my parents and grandparents used to do.

Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.

We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen and jute. Also can’t have clothes made on wool, because the emissions from farting sheep are supposedly causing bad weather.

It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.

Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.

We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.

From now on, at 7 p.m. We will turn off the WiFi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world.

This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on anymore vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.

Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.

We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet.

Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect.

And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.

Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.

Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.

No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2.

We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? All bad for the climate!

We will replace her memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horse hair pillow.

And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication.

Facewashers will all be linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.

In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.

If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her new way of life.


(Name Withheld)



Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
We'll need to add the internet to our List of Shame:
‘Tsunami of data’ could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025 

Global internet traffic will increase nearly threefold in the next five years says the latest Cisco Visual Networking Index, a leading industry tracker of internet use.  

“More than one billion new internet users are expected, growing from three billion in 2015 to 4.1bn by 2020. Over the next five years global IP networks will support up to 10bn new devices and connections, increasing from 16.3bn in 2015 to 26bn by 2020,” says Cisco.  
A 2016 Berkeley laboratory report for the US government estimated the country’s data centres, which held about 350m terabytes of data in 2015, could together need over 100TWh of electricity a year by 2020.
This is the equivalent of about 10 large nuclear power stations.

According to the report published by Ericsson, every GB of data that is transported over a mobile network, or in simpler terms 3G or 4G, utilizes 2kWh of electricity.

So if you happen to use Facebook for about 10 minutes as you wait to board the plane to Bermuda, you would consume enough electricity that would be enough to power your LED bulb for an entire hour. Similarly, a Netflix video streamed for 90 seconds would consume enough energy to power the same bulb for another two whole hours.

If you still enjoy downloading movies, then a average hollywood movie, from the world wide web is about 700MB to about a GB in size. Downloading it through mobile data is enough energy to have powered that LED bulb for 200 hours.

This doesn’t include the amount of power that the phone and the data centre consumed for the minutes that the movie was downloading.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
Climate activists seen in video trying to block freight train hauling coal.
Here's a better (and safer) solution --- just stop using electricity... the coal trains will stop immediately...

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago
Interesting what you get when you use long term charts:
Global Temperatures past 20 years:
Global Temperatures past 140 years: 
Global Temperatures past 10,000 years: 
One more:

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 4 mths ago

Michael Moore began a documentary on alternative fuels, undoubtedly with an eye toward hammering Big Oil, only to discover a corrupt and convoluted world of Big Wind and Big Solar. His long-term collaborator and producer noted:


“It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side. It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us … but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money … It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”


~ Jeff Gibbs, co-producer with Michael Moore of “Planet of the Humans”


Gibbs goes on to say, “This is not a film by climate change deniers; this is a film by people who really care about the environment…
We all want to feel good about something like the electric car, but in the back of your head somewhere you’ve a nagging thought, ’Yeah, but where is the electricity coming from?’”
Michael Moore adds, “I’m one of those people who wanted to believe all of these years that we were on the right path.”
Moore’s and Gibb’s documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” aired at film festivals this summer but has yet to be released to the general public.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
This deserves some mega shaming!
Your brand new returns end up in landfill
Each year, 5 billion pounds of waste is generated through returns. The solution? Welcome to the world of reverse-logistics.

You’ve ordered a new pair of shoes online. They arrive; you rush to the front door and cradle the box as you lift off the lid. You un-tie the laces, guide them toward your feet and… bummer, they don’t fit.
So, back in the box they go and an hour later you drop them at the local collections store. It’s disappointing, but hey, the shoes have never been worn and they’ll be making their way to a new home soon.
Right? Wrong.

So what does happen to our apparel when we order online and then return the items? The reality is that much of it simply ends up in landfill. That is, once its been shipped all over the country, or even the globe, a few times.

Each year in the US alone, customers return approximately 3.5 billion products, of which only 20% are actually defective according to Optoro, a company which specialises in returns logistics.
It turns out that returns not only create a giant carbon footprint, but a real headache for companies.  
That new pair of shoes you sent back, with the open box and the untied laces, needs to be handled differently to, say, a t-shirt with a rip in it.
Many companies simply don’t have the technology in place to handle these nuances in returned goods, so it is often most profitable for them to sell them cheaply to discounters via a web of shipping, driving and flying them around the globe, or to simply truck them to the dump.

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
How Dare I not mention New Year's Eve Fireworks on this thread dedicated to frivolous energy consumption and pollution!!!
Festive Fireworks Create Harmful Pall Of Pollution
Fireworks create highly toxic gases and pollutants that poison the air, the water and the soil, making them toxic to birds, wildlife, pets, livestock — and people.
For some strange reason, people around the world have decided that the best way to mark important holidays and events is to have a public fireworks show.
We choose to celebrate the birth of a New Year, the freedom of our nation, the triumph of good over evil, by blowing things up. 
The Toxic Elements of Fireworks — Pick Your Poison 

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
THE RENEWABLE GREEN ENERGY MYTH: 50,000 Tons Of Non-Recyclable Wind Turbine Blades Dumped In The Landfill
Funny, no one seemed to consider what to do with the massive amount of wind turbine blades once they reached the end of their lifespan. Thus, the irony of the present-day Green Energy Movement is the dumping of thousands of tons of “non-recyclable” supposedly renewable wind turbine blades in the country’s landfills.

Who would have thought?
What’s even worse, is that the amount of wind turbine blades slated for waste disposal is forecasted to quadruple over the next fifteen years as a great deal more blades reach their 15-20 year lifespan. Furthermore, the size and length of the newly installed wind turbine blades are now twice as large as they were 20-30 years ago.
Read more about the unmitigated disaster that is wind energy

Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
Landfill begins burying non-recyclable Wind Turbine Blades
Hundreds of giant windmill blades are being shipped to a landfill in Wyoming to be buried because they simply can’t be recycled.
Local media reports several wind farms in the state are sending over 900 un-reusable blades to the Casper Regional Landfill to be buried.While nearly 90 percent of old or decommissioned wind turbines, like the motor housing, can be refurbished or at least crushed, fiberglass windmill blades present a problem due to their size and strength.

“Our crushing equipment is not big enough to crush them,” a landfill representative told NPR.


Prior to burying the cumbersome, sometimes nearly 300-foot long blades, the landfill has to cut them up into smaller pieces onsite and stack them in order to save space during transportation.


To make matters worse, the blades aren’t exactly compostable. The Casper Sold Waste Manager tells Wyoming News Now they’ll take hundreds of years to biodegrade.


“So Casper happens to be, I think it is, the biggest landfill facility in the state of Wyoming. These blades are really big, and they take up a lot of airspace, and our unlined area is very, very large, and it’s going to last hundreds of years.”


As if that’s not bad enough, NPR reports researchers estimate the US will soon have to grapple with over 720,000 tons of blades over the next 20 years, “a figure that doesn’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions.”


So much for saving the environment.


Please support our advertisers:
Ed 3 mths ago
Here's another item to add to the List of Shame:
Your average marijuana plant is a rather unimposing, forest green weed that blends well with nature. The dirty truth, however, is that the business of growing cannabis is anything but green. In fact, the growing of pot is so power-intensive that its ecological footprint is quickly becoming an environmental nightmare.

The $344 billion cannabis industry is one of the country’s most energy-intensive in the world, frequently demanding an array of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, fans and 24-hour indoor lighting rigs at multiple growing sites.

Just how much electricity does the entire US marijuana industry consume?

The numbers are mind-boggling:

Please support our advertisers:

< Back to main category

Login now