November 7, 2012

“Environmental Activists Tell Obama, Climate Change First in Your Second Term”

I still say a two-child limit is the way to go. Otherwise, how are we ever going to get rid of the “carbon pollution” that keeps Robert Redford from having acres of pristine land free from vacationing human parasites?

Cheap energy — and this frakking business has got to stop, pronto! — allows people to be mobile and productive. Which allows them to spread out and consume.  And all of that is scarring the Great Mother.

No. We need to make sure energy costs — and with them, the costs of goods and services — increase, forcing people to return to smaller living units and tighter, more manageable human clusters; and that all the productivity that belches carbon into the air, poisoning it (unless you’re a plant, but we can work on that), decreases.

For the Greater Good.  And so the ultra rich who pretend to champion the people can finally have the class system they’ve always wanted by way of economic gentrification.

CNS:

Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, in congratulating President Obama on his re-election, said he expects the president and the 113th Congress to make “global climate change” a top priority:

“We look forward to working with them to solve our country’s most pressing environmental problems, including global climate change. As the President declared last night, ‘We want our children to live in an America … that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.’”

Krupp said exit polls show that “for  millions of American voters,” Hurricane Sandy and climate change “were decisive factors in this election.”

“As the historic storm just reminded us, we have no time to waste; we must get serious about climate solutions in order to protect our loved ones and communities from terrible impacts — extreme weather disasters, droughts, heat waves, and other dangerous consequences of global warming. Especially in the wake of Sandy, which demonstrated that doing nothing about climate change is much costlier than taking action, this issue clearly should be a top priority for our leaders in government.”

“Climate change” was one of the reasons liberal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave when he endorsed President Obama last week:

“Our climate is changing,” Bloomberg wrote at Bloomberg.com. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week’s devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

Bloomberg noted that President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks and tighter controls on mercury emissions — “which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants.”

Reuters reported Wednesday that shares of coal companies fell in premarket trading on fears that President Barack Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency will impose burdensome regulations that could force coal-fired plants out of business.

Of course, the fact that meteorologists have stated that “global climate change” doesn’t cause the kinds of storms we saw just before the election is irrelevant. It’s the insistence of the false narrative that matters, and the repetition of the Big Lie that sells.

Because that’s the media culture we live in; and we long ago surrendered language to the left who knows how to use it to control us.

And by “us,” I  of course mean all the idiots who will soon be blaming Bush for rolling brown-outs, $5 gasoline, a massive increase in food prices, and the new era of automobile design, built around a top-down mandate for fuel efficiency that simply cannot meet the demands of physics, which ensures that nearly any significant accident will prove fatal to them and their families.

So it’s more like “not us,” I guess.  But you take my point.

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:06am
5 comments | Trackback

Comments (5)

  1. how are we ever going to get rid of the “carbon pollution” that keeps Robert Redford from having acres of pristine land free from vacationing human parasitesjustifying the existence of his tree-eating, deer-scaring, traffic-increasing ski resort?

    FTFY.

    Redford really IS the guy who already has a cabin in the woods and fights to keep everyone else from encroaching.

    He, with all the others, can go straight to hell.

    rolling brown-outs, $5 gasoline, a massive increase in food prices

    That’s the best-case scenario. We may end up with blackouts, $50 gasoline, and no food to buy at all.

    But Glenn Beck was nuts to go all “prepper” on us. Check.

  2. Rats.

    how are we ever going to get rid of the “carbon pollution” that keeps Robert Redford from having acres of pristine land free from vacationing human parasites justifying the existence of his tree-eating, deer-scaring, traffic-increasing ski resort?

  3. $5 gasoline

    More like $2/l gasoline, rationed to 100 l/month.

    (And yes, I fully expect a renewed push for metricification in the second Obama term – it’s part of that Carter legacy, you know…)

  4. More like $2/l gasoline, rationed to 100 l/month.

    That would actually be a substantial saving for me, eCurmudgeon. I’m paying $2.23/l at the moment. And I can only afford 100 l/month.

  5. “…the fact that meteorologists have stated that “global climate change” doesn’t cause the kinds of storms we saw just before the election…”

    I heard this before but I was wondering if you would tell me where I can go to verify this as the mainstream (or is it ‘lame stream’) media likes to perpetuate the idea that global warming is going to make hurricanes stronger and more frequent.

Leave a Reply