Hope you choke on your steak, you planet murderer

I've mentioned before how nicely the growing list of dos and don'ts prescribed to help us deal with climate change coincides with the longtime agenda of the environmentalist left. Want to leave virtually no "carbon footprint"? Become a vegan Luddite.

A July 18 AFP story fits the template, relating a study that purports to calculate how much closer the Earth came to the brink of catastrophe, just so you could have that steak for dinner:

A kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef causes more greenhouse-gas and other pollution than driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home, according to a Japanese study.

[...] Producing a kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef causes the equivalent of 36.4 kilos (80.08 pounds) in carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, Ogino found.

Most of these greenhouse-gas emissions take the form of methane, released from the cow's digestive system.

That one kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef also requires energy equivalent to lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days. The energy is needed to produce and transport the animals' feed.

The article ends by noting another study that claims organic beef (apparently defined as: the cow ate grass instead of commercial feed) reduces cattle flatulence by 40% and requires 85% less energy consumption.

But don't think they'll be satisfied with getting you to switch to grass-fed cattle. All cattle raised for food are considered to be a nonessential source of greenhouse gases, so there's really no way to eat steak guilt-free, so you might as well give it up. Sigh...pass the tofu, willya?

Surging demand for biofuels leads to destruction of forests

Plantation owners in Indonesia, responding to the quickly growing demand for biofuels, are clear-cutting forests like crazy in order to grow more oil palms, according to this July 13 Reuters story (via PlanetArk.com):

Palm oil companies are burning peat forests to clear land for plantations in Indonesia's Riau province, despite government pledges to end forest fires, environment group Greenpeace said on Thursday.

Forest fires are an annual menace for Indonesia and the country's neighbours, who have grown deeply frustrated at the apparent lack of success in curbing the dry-season blazes and vast smoke clouds, or haze, that smothers the region.

Apart from the health risks to millions of people and damage to the environment, the smoke also releases large amounts of carbon dioxide, fuelling global warming.

[...]Indonesia has a total forest area of more than 225 million acres (91 million hectares), or about 10 percent of the world's remaining tropical forest, according to Rainforestweb.org, a portal on rainforests (www.rainforestweb.org).

But the tropical Southeast Asian country -- whose forests are a treasure trove of plant and animal species including the endangered orangutans -- has already lost an estimated 72 percent of its original frontier forest.

The country is now the world's second-largest palm oil producer and has about 5 million hectares planted with oil palm. The government aims to develop an additional 2-3 million hectares by 2010.

As I mentioned yesterday, the Kyoto Protocol's carbon credit scheme can lead to this kind of unintended consequence as well.

PB&J: The edible carbon offset

Ordinarily, I pay no attention to the efforts by vegetarian and vegan food scolds (such as PETA and CSPI) to get me to forswear meat. However, Bernard Brown's campaign to get people to switch from meat to peanut butter and jelly is attractive enough that I might go along for the ride (for at least one meal, anyway). Although I disagree with Brown's no-meat philosophy, I commend him for presenting his case in a winsome fashion, unlike the aforementioned scolds.

Brown is diligent to remind us that by eating a PB&J sandwich instead of a deli sandwich, we're not only helping to save the life of an animal, we're also helping to save the planet:

A PB&J will slow global warming.

Next time you have one you'll reduce your carbon footprint by saving the equivalent of 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over an average animal-based lunch like a hamburger, a tuna sandwich, grilled cheese, or chicken nuggets.

That's about forty percent of what you'd save driving around for the day in a hybrid instead of a standard sedan.

If you were going to have a ham sandwich or a hamburger, you save the equivalent almost 3.5 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.

So does this mean I can count my PB&J sandwich as a carbon offset?

Gore's popularity turns Democratic candidates green with envy

A July 12 Washington Times article reports that Al Gore's refusal to refuse to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is causing the declared candidates to scramble over one another to proclaim themselves the greenest. A TheyllNeverMoveOn.org online forum last weekend suggests that John Edwards has done the best paint job so far:

Former Sen. John Edwards is the greenest presidential candidate, thousands of MoveOn.org members decided after listening to the Democrats' plans to combat global warming.

Mr. Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, was the preferred choice of more than a third of the liberal political action committee's members who watched virtual town hall forums giving each Democrat three questions.

Mr. Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, outlined his plan to "fight global warming and create a new energy economy" and was the preferred candidate of 33 percent of the more than 100,000 voters.

He received twice the support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, who each were favored by 15.7 percent of viewers. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois closely followed in fourth place at 15 percent.

The Edwards plan — which would ban any new coal-fired power plant from being built in the U.S. — aims to reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama said they would auction off polluter permits and use the money to promote clean energy and alternative fuel research, while Mrs. Clinton said she was "intrigued" by that idea.

Mr. Edwards also pledged to spend $1 billion to make sure America builds "the most fuel-efficient, innovative cars on the planet," stressing the jobs should go to union members in towns hurt by outsourcing. He said he would create one million new "green-collar jobs," a term most Democratic presidential candidates are using on the campaign trail.

It looks like Edwards pulled it off by offering huge plums to two of the noisiest constituencies of the Democratic Party—environmentalists and labor unions.

Of course, if Gore enters the race (and, as I've said before, he'd be a fool not to leverage the popularity he's gained on the left), Edwards can kiss most of that support goodbye.

P.S. Edwards wants to ban new coal-fired power plants and promote clean-energy alternatives, but I wonder how willing he would be to embrace the most promising clean-energy alternative: nuclear power.

(Credit: AmSpec blog)

The Scientific Method v. The Union of Concerned Scientists Method

This 'toon from PhD Comics, 9/6/2006, while not specifically written with the Union of Concerned Scientists in mind, can be applied pretty well to the methodology of that environmental advocacy group. See this earlier post for an example of the UCS Method in action.

(click to view full-sized image)

One significant difference in the UCS' version of The Actual Method is in the Publish Paper step. Instead of submitting their paper to a scientific journal, they self-publish and announce their results in a press conference, and their "hypothesis" (which is never actually called that) is dutifully reported by the media.

I doubt there is any other way they can get their apocalyptic guesswork in print. Let the UCS submit something like this to a scientific journal and see how far it gets them.

The perverse incentive of Kyoto's carbon credits

There is a lot of money flowing around in the carbon credits / carbon offsets industry, what with so many guilt-ridden environmentalists and PR-sensitive corporations funding massive tree-plantings and other projects around the world. At least one nation's leader has noticed that in order for his country to get a piece of the action, it might first have to engage in behavior that is supposedly offensive to those who are driving the credit/offset industry in the first place.

AFP reports in this July 12 dispatch:

Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo on Thursday criticized the Kyoto Protocol on climate change for failing to allow countries like his nation with pristine unharvested forests to earn carbon credits.

"The Kyoto Protocol is limited in that sense, and it's short-sighted in that it encourages bad behaviour basically among countries; if you cut down trees and you plant them back you get money, if you preserve them, you don't get anything," Jagdeo told a forum on agro-energy.

The Guyanese leader noted that Guyana would reap "miniscule" assistance under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol when the South American country begins large-scale production of ethanol and other types of agro-based energy.

He said Guyana has decided to get into the production of bio-fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. But "assistance is miniscule through the Clean Development Mechanism as compared to the carbon credits we could get from standing forests," said Jagdeo, a Russian-trained economist.

So, if Guyana decided to clear-cut some of its forests, it would qualify for Kyoto's carbon credit program to fund the replant.

The environmental left's push for biofuels is leading to the clear-cutting of Amazon forests, and their beloved Kyoto Protocol may lead to the destruction of even more.

"Toxic torts": A great time to be a lawyer

Newhouse News Service reports that the tort industry is rallying the troops to profit from AGW alarmism:

The legal world has been jumping on the bandwagon of those convinced the issues of global warming and climate change are here to stay — and could even prove to be a lucrative new field.

These days, it seems everyone wants to get in on the act, from big law firms starting specialty practice groups, to solo lawyers working on projects, to law schools adding classes devoted to the subject.

Some in the legal world predict climate change work has the potential to be the next big wave of litigation, akin to the huge tobacco and asbestos cases, as lawyers go after energy companies and coal mines that produce carbon dioxide.

While others don't go so far as that, everyone seems to agree attorneys are going to be plenty busy helping towns, companies and residents sort out the legal implications of global warming.

"That's going to be one of the biggest legal practices in the next 20 years,'' said Howard Latin, a professor at Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, N.J., who includes discussion of global warming in his toxic torts and product liability classes.

"It's growing into something very big. It's a whole new industry, so there's always a lot of legal work,'' said Edna Sussman, chairwoman of an American Bar Association committee on renewable energy resources.

A summary of some recent cases shows that lawyers are wasting no time taking up arms against AGW malefactors, real and imagined:

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

• Last May, 10 states sued the Bush administration, saying rules on sport utility vehicles allowed them to spew too much tailpipe pollution.

• A coalition of states brought a federal suit against American Electric Power, the Tennessee Valley Authority and three other power companies trying to get them to reduce their emissions.

• In Mississippi, a group of residents filed a class-action lawsuit against a clutch of oil and coal companies, saying they knew their emissions caused damage to the climate that led to Hurricane Katrina.

Did you notice that last one? Just as with many other issues in past years, junk science will form the basis of many AGW-related lawsuits in years to come.

How to read a New York Times article on AGW

A July 11 New York Times article begins this way:

One-hundred-year floods could come as often as once every 10 years by the end of this century, Long Island lobsters could disappear and New York apples could be just a memory if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report on the impact of global warming by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

As soon as you see that the dire warnings are coming from the Union of Concerned Scientists, you can relax and move on to something else. The UCS has long been a front for the radical environmental left. Whatever their report is about (note that it's released via press conference, not published in any kind of scientific journal), the topic they want us to be alarmed about is usually peppered with extreme, TEOTWAWKI predictions.

You can read the entire NYT article if you like (or the UCS report itself, if you wish). Just be sure to understand the ideological context in which the authors write.

RFK, Jr.: AGW skepticism is 'treason'

Those to attended or tuned into the Live Earth show held at Giants Stadium in New Jersey were treated to a variety of exhortations from the CoGW. Most striking were the words of über-environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who apparently was let out of his padded cell briefly for this event. Newsday reports on his opinion of AGW skeptics, particularly the ones serving in the U.S. government:

"Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

Last I checked, the penalty for treason is still death. I suppose that's perfectly fine with RFK, Jr. and his friends, who have long valued animals over people.

Yes, yes, I know. He wasn't really talking about treason against the United States, but rather treason against Gaia.

Regardless of Kennedy's motivations, I wonder if Mr. Gore is willing to endorse the opinions expressed by his invited guests.

UPDATE: I see in this NY Times article that Gore was smart enough not to allow Kennedy's remarks to be televised. The vast majority of celebrity exhortations were more along the lines of Cameron Diaz' advice for the ladies to turn off the shower while shaving their legs.

Live Earth: CO2 for me, but not for thee

Today's the big day, the unofficial kickoff of the Gore 2008 presidential campaign (unless, of course, he's aiming for something higher).

Gore's political aspirations aside (besides, he coyly denies having any political aspirations), Live Earth is an entertainment event designed to attract the attention of the masses in the name of the most noble Cause of our time: enabling the political and entertainment elites to continue their lavish lifestyles.

During Live Earth, we'll hear those who can afford so-called carbon offsets tell those who can't afford them how to live.

You may think I'm just being cynical, but I'm open to evidence that my cynicism is unjustified. I'm open to hearing the pledges of these elites to give up their private jets, or to give up jet travel altogether. I'm open to hearing the pledges of these elites to give up their fleets of armored SUVs in favor of Toyota Priuses. I'm open to hearing the pledges of these elites to give up their mansions that -- even if they use nothing but compact fluorescent bulbs -- have a huge "carbon footprint" that would beggar people living in more modest neighborhoods. I'm open to hearing the pledges of these elites to eat only locally-grown food -- even better, food grown organically on their own property. Use waterless toilets. Give up the hot water heater. Give up the swimming pool.

I could go on and on, but my point is that those who will be lecturing us on our lifestyle today have no intention of giving up their own.

The U.K.'s Daily Mail has a marvelous rant today on the hypocrisy of the elites as well as the hypocrisy of the event itself, considering the gargantuan carbon footprint it will leave. Entertainers flying themselves, their retinues and their equipment by private jet, often halfway across the globe. Travel by music fans to the various concert venues. Electricity expended at the events. Electricity expended by 2 billion music fans (at least, that's how many Al Gore says there will be) watching for multiple hours on TV. Countless tons of trash left behind by concertgoers (how many trees will end up sacrificing themselves for the Cause?).

Here's how the Daily Mail article describes the environmental impact of the event:

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

I'll do my part for the planet today by declining to watch the TV coverage. Then again, I'll probably offset the savings by mowing the lawn. Sigh.


7/12 UPDATE: Some post-event 'toon reactions (click each to view the full-sized image):

Gaggle, July 9

Bob Lang, July 8

Henry Payne, July 9

Lisa Benson, July 10

The scourge of SUVs in ancient Greenland

Ker Than of LiveScience reports on a shocking study by researchers at the University of Copenhagen that brazenly implies that the earth's climate can vary dramatically without any help from humans:

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland ... was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.

Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.

“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.

Bear in mind that this happened long before President Bush withdrew America's signature from the Kyoto treaty.

Arctic Monkey wisdom

Matt Helders, drummer for the rock band Arctic Monkeys, raises what should be a blindingly obvious point regarding the weight we give to the political opinions of celebrities (Sky News, July 5):

"Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it's like 'who cares what we think about what's happening'?"

"There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?"

Other singers and movie stars -- not to mention Al Gore himself -- could learn a lot from this Monkey. Just because you're famous, it doesn't mean your opinions about the issues of the day are worth a plugged nickel.

Carnival of Climate Change

The Carnival of Climate Change is a blog dedicated to highlighting interesting contributions to the climate change debate by skeptics in the blogosphere. The Carnival is brought to you by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the same good folks who brought down the wrath of the CoGW by publicizing Al Gore's hypocritical lifestyle.

Thanks to the Carnival for giving The Global Warming Heretic a favorable mention in its latest issue!

Humor: Al Gore III's unique carbon offset strategy

From the incomparable Scott Ott, July 5:

Al Gore, the concert organizer and former U.S. vice president, today defended his son, Al III, after the younger Gore’s arrest for speeding and drug possession, applauding his use of the hybrid Toyota Prius to offset the carbon emissions of his smoking marijuana.

“Even at 100 miles per hour,” said the elder Mr. Gore, “the Prius produces less deadly greenhouse gas than a Lincoln Navigator or a Hummer. While I don’t condone getting caught with marijuana, I would venture to say that my boy’s total carbon footprint is still substantially smaller than the median for his socioeconomic and age brackets.”

Ott also managed to get in a dig at Gore 's upcoming presidential campaign kickoff:

Mr. Gore helped organize LIVE EARTH to dramatize the plight of the planet by having hundreds of thousands of people burn millions of gallons of carbon-based fuel to travel to eight locations worldwide where they’ll communally exhale billions of cubic yards of carbon dioxide, generate hundreds of tons of human and artificial waste and expend untold kilowatt hours of electricity.

The Six Degrees of Global Warming

I thought I had posted this idea at my old blog a long time ago, but maybe not. Many others have taken off with the idea, though, so I don't think I can take credit.

Here are the simple rules for the game called The Six Degrees of Global Warming.

1. Start with any Bad Thing or Undesirable Effect.
2. Connect it to global warming in six or fewer steps.
   

You can see the game in action in this blog post by AccuWeather's Brett Anderson:

Many people are promoting the use of ethanol (alcohol made from corn) as a possible partial solution to global warming. A whyfile.org article (Alcohol: Cool Solution to Global Warming?) explains the logic. Not everyone agrees that ethanol will not help to ease any global warming concerns as is explained in this Reuters article (Ethanol May Not Ease Global Warming: UN) that was found in the Sydney Morning Herald indicates; however, more ethanol is being produced.

According to a recent article on ABC News (How More Ethanol Means Pricier Pizza), an increase in production of ethanol has resulted in higher dairy prices since more corn is being used for fuel rather than food for cattle. So, there you have it: more ethanol to try to combat global warming means higher dairy prices, which means more expensive cheese and more expensive pizza. That's right--global warming is causing higher pizza prices!!

Global warming >> shift to ethanol production >> higher feed prices >> higher dairy prices >> higher pizza prices. Congratulations, Mr. Anderson. You made it in four steps!

It appears that Mr. Anderson is having fun here, but far too many out there are in deadly earnest.