Posted by Liberty on December 21, 2008
This should scare you more than the prospect of eating polar bears.
“Educators sometimes give the impression that they are in the business of protecting their pupils from the negative influence of their parents. Schools are sometimes devoted to the project of correcting the “outdated values” that parents have taught their children. That’s bad enough! However, in recent times policymakers and educators have also embraced the idea that through influencing children they can reeducate parents. Instead of parents socializing their children they advocate a reversal in roles.
It is in the domain of environmental education that the project of socialization in reverse is most systematically pursued. Many environmental educators advocate pester power as a contribution to changing the behavior of adults. David Uzell, a professor of environmental psychology at the University of Surrey, recalls attending an educational conference a few years ago where “everyone was absolutely convinced” that pester power was “the answer” to the problem of climate change. Uzell’s own research has focused on what he calls ‘inter-generational learning through the transference of personal experience typically from the child to the parent / other adults / home.’”
First of all, what exactly is a professor of environmental psychology? Are environmental psychologists behind the massive obnoxious global warming propaganda campaign in the MSM? Fortunately, for me, all the “green” advertising and pseudo-news reporting has had the opposite effect that they intend. I can’t even look at a compact fluorescent lightbulb without screaming in rage anymore.
“In the U.S., socializing children through the promotion of environmental education has been practiced in schools for over a decade. The New York Times reports that a new cohort of ‘eco-kids’ devoted to green values ‘try to hold their parents accountable at home’ and adds how adults become defensive under the ‘watchful eye of the pint-size eco-police.’ School districts across the U.S. have sought to capitalize on the idealism of ‘eco-kids’ to integrate environmental values into whatever subjects they can.”
This is only one reason why it is so important for parents to be involved in their childrens’ education. Don’t think that you’re bothering teachers by asking to see for yourself the curriculum being used in your child’s class. Those teachers work for you! If they are teaching based on a biased agenda and undermining the values you’re trying to instill in your child, they need to be set straight.
Posted in Environlunacy, Public education | Tagged: Eco-kid, Environlunacy, Indoctrination, Public education | 1 Comment »
Posted by Liberty on December 17, 2008
Fellow news junkies, remember the AP story from December 14 on global warming by Seth Borenstein?
“When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid.”
This story has been criticized for it’s blatant bias and factual inaccuracy and finally, that criticism is seeing the light of day. From Hot Air blog:
They have a few quotes from actual scientists [note: Al Gore is not a scientist, Mr. Borenstein] debunking this ridiculous article. Also, from Fox News:
“Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man’s activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it ‘irrational hysteria, ‘horrifically bad’ and ‘incredibly biased.’
They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.”
Posted in Environlunacy, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama | Tagged: Environlunacy, Global warming, Media bias, MSM | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Liberty on December 11, 2008
“On Thursday, the California Air Resources Board was expected to adopt what would be the nation’s most sweeping global warming plan, outlining for the first time how individuals and businesses would meet a landmark 2006 law that made the state a leader on global climate change.”
This scares me because Washington State always seems to want to mimic California for some reason.
“California’s 2006 law, called the Global Warming Solutions Act, mandates the state cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The strategy chosen by air regulators relies on 31 new rules affecting all facets of life, from what fuels Californians put in their vehicles to what kind of air conditioners businesses put in their buildings.
The average Californian, for example, can expect to pay to have his or her car tires inflated during oil changes and to pay higher power bills as utilities try to increase their use of renewable energy.
He or she could also see more fuel-efficient cars at dealerships, better public transportation, new housing near schools and businesses, and utility rebates to equip homes to be more energy efficient.
New fees and reporting requirements will accompany the emission rules.”
Here’s the best part:
“Most of the reductions in California’s emissions will come from more detailed regulations that will be written over the next few years, including rules governing a cap-and-trade program that launches in 2012 to help the largest polluters achieve emission cuts.”
They’re implementing this program, protestations from business leaders be damned, and even the regulators don’t know the details yet. How convenient.
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Environlunacy | Tagged: California, Environlunacy, Global warming | 1 Comment »
Posted by Liberty on December 9, 2008
How about we just eat polar bears, since they’re going to die anyway when all the ice melts?
Posted in Environlunacy | Tagged: Environlunacy | 2 Comments »
Posted by Liberty on December 6, 2008
By Adam Rodriguez
“BOISE – Joe Stewart is used to giving tours of his dairy farm. But kids usually stay home. They say it smells funny.
“You stand around several hundred cattle and it’s not that offensive,” Stewart said. “The public restroom smells a lot worse than this does.”
But the Environmental Protection Agency is worried about the smell of methane, a gas that’s produced by cows when they digest hay. Scientists believe methane contributes to global warming. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the EPA was responsible for regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases like methane as pollutants.
The decision has the EPA considering a “cow tax” to curb greenhouse emissions.
According to the New York Farm Bureau, the tax could cost farmers up to $175 per cow – $87.50 for each head of beef cattle and $20 for a hog.
Local dairyman Mike Garner says it would be a death sentence for the already struggling dairy industry.
“I don’t know any dairy that could sustain that kind of fee,” Garner said. “It would put us out of business.”
An EPA media representative for region 10 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Alaska referred all questions to a national spokesman in Washington, D.C. A call to the office was not returned.”
Here’s a little more in-depth coverage:
“For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if a federal proposal to charge fees for air-polluting animals becomes law.”
“‘This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do,’ said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the proposal.
It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.
The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and ‘all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them.’
Sparks said Wednesday he’s worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.”
No surprise here but these regulations are supported by the radical animal rights activist group, PETA. They are hoping to use regulations like this to force farmers into producing crops that are more acceptable to their radical agenda while forcing American consumers to cut back on their meat consumption. Note to PETA: stick to what you do best: protesting the circus and assaulting little old ladies in fur coats.
So, we’re already dependent upon other countries for our oil because environmental activists have made domestic production and exploration so difficult. The price spike that we saw with oil this past summer will be only the beginning. If the environmentalists get their way on these regulations, it will drive American livestock producers out of business and we’ll be stuck getting even more of our food from overseas. As it stands currently, we have an extremely safe food supply here in America but if we deliberately drive our farmers out of business, we open ourselves up to more than just exorbitant prices. Why is our collective memory so short? Not too long ago, America was up in arms because pets were poisoned by melamine-tainted food that was produced with ingredients from China. And how about this summer’s salmonella outbreak that was linked to produce grown in Mexico?
The entire premise behind these regulations is a lie. Global warming is an unproven theory and we shouldn’t be regulating American farmers out of business because of it. It is completely illogical that the natural by-products of breathing and living should be considered as pollutants. It’s my opinion that environmentalists are so tainted by their own feelings of guilt and self-loathing that they simply can’t relate to the rest of us who don’t believe that the Earth is going to hell in a handbasket. I’m an optimist, I love America and I want our society to grow and prosper–environmentalists are pessimistic and frightened and they want to use their negative, alarmist agenda as a club to force the rest of society into submission. This is not to say that Conservatives want a dirty, ailing planet–we’re just seeking balance between responsible stewardship and the growth and potential of all mankind.
[Just a footnote:
If some day we import all of our food from foreign nations and we have to depend upon our socialized health care system to help us recover from food borne illness and industrial chemical poisoning…we are screwed.]
Posted in Arrogant politicians, Environlunacy | Tagged: Agriculture, Arrogance, Environlunacy, Global warming | 2 Comments »
Posted by Liberty on December 5, 2008
“With Washington facing an expected deficit of more than $5 billion in the upcoming two-year budget cycle, environmental groups say they’re heading into the 2009 legislative session with a wish list that adds jobs and revenue.
‘This is not the year to be walking with your hands out,’said Clifford Traisman, lobbyist for the Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters. ‘We believe our priorities go hand in hand with generating a stronger economy.’
As in earlier sessions, the groups have several key priorities, mainly focusing on cutting the effects of global warming. They want more energy-efficient buildings, to auction rather than give away pollution credits that allow industries to emit greenhouse gases and to have polluters pay fees to help clean up Puget Sound and other waters.”
Translation: “We want businesses to pay more for their buildings, pay for “pollution credits” so they may continue to do business and possibly even pay pollution fees.”
Mr. Traisman, how will making Washington even more inhospitable to business generate a stronger economy? Certainly the environmental agenda will require more bureaucrats to administrate the green-ness of buildings, the distribution of pollution credits and collect all the fines from the evil polluters. The last thing Washington State needs is more unelected government drones whose jobs are dependent upon money confiscated from citizens and businesses. And, there is growing dissent among the scientific community about the validity of global warming. Sure it’s been accepted as gospel by environmental groups, the main stream media and Hollywood celebutards but it would be a serious mistake to further hinder Washington’s economy based on an un-proven theory.
Also, I read recently that 20% of Washington’s working population is employed in some capacity by government. [Searching madly for the source on this, no luck so far but 1 in 5 or 20% is the figure that I recall.] Having 20% of the workforce directly dependent upon tax dollars for their own salary is not a good thing. That doesn’t even factor in all of the tax money that those people can potentially spend in the course of their jobs.
Posted in Environlunacy, Liberalism, Redistribution of wealth, Washington State | Tagged: Economy, Environlunacy, Liberalism, Washington State | 2 Comments »
Posted by Liberty on November 24, 2008
“Oil and gas companies appeared to score an all-out victory over the summer when President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling and congressional Democrats let a moratorium expire soon after. But those who think nothing stands between oil rigs and the outer continental shelf are dead wrong.”
Posted in Environlunacy | Tagged: Drilling, Environlunacy | Leave a Comment »