Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Global Warming

The actual agenda of course is a comprehensive ban on the use of fire. Return with us now to the good old days when we all lived in harmony with nature, huddled together for warmth, and ate meat raw as nature intended.

An extraction of e-mails between climate disaster fans reveals the real truth:
While noting the short-term benefits of the natural gas “bonanza,” Revkin cautioned that “crunchier” government policies were necessary to kickstart clean technologies and impose sanctions on carbon emissions.
“By itself, switching to gas will not reduce emissions to anything like the levels required to avoid a high risk of serious climate change,” Revkin wrote.
The peasants must be forced to not use abundant energy supplies so as to allow the far less efficient alternative and renewable resources to move forward. By the way, "crunchier " policies means jacking your heating and fuel bills through the roof.


Brad K. said...

If we really wanted to limit CO2 emissions, how about localizing. Today we build fancier cars and mass transit to support remote residential layouts.

What about -- 15 years to increase the number of people living within 1.5 miles of both employment and of grocery and household shopping.

What about -- a moratorium on housing developments that don't meet a target of 90% of residents being employed within 1.5 miles? What about a moratorium on removing healthy trees as part of property development?

What about a moratorium on spending government money for anything that diverts ground from growing trees and other grasses? What about a moratorium on durable products with a history of less than 15 years average useful life?

What about a disincentive for employers with average employee turnover or moving from location to location of less than 15 years?

What about a mandate for communities to obtain 75% of consumed foods within 35 miles?

Billll said...

How about some definitive proof that CO2 is a leading indicator of global temperature instead of a lagging one?

Brad K. said...

Whether you call it "carbon footprint" (global warming/climate change/Democratic or progressivism reelection strategy/whatever) or economic sustainability (end of *cheap* energy, unbridled government spending, diversion of food production to corporate/government cash flows, etc.), I don't think it matters.

"Sustainable" is still a worthwhile goal -- it puts off the inevitable collapse when international commerce stops serving hometown America. It puts off food riots around the world "ruining" the cash flow sustaining American farms (i.e., operated today based on cash harvests, not how many people are fed).