Me, I drive a pair of Jeeps these days, an inline 6-cylinder ’94 Wrangler Sahara that gets about 14-20 MPG, and a V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trailhook that has a tow-capacity of 7400 lbs and logs in 13-22 MPG — and I use a gasoline mower and other gasoline powered tools, as well as pamper with extravagant and delicious CO2 buffets the 5 trees on my property, whose consequent oxygen production fuels even more human exhalation — which makes me something of an environmental hero. An earth warrior! A goddamn saint of the glorious blue-green orb that houses our (for the most part) semi-perambulatory parasitic meatsacks!
Honestly, someone should build a frickin’ statue to me. With smelted ore. Heated by dirty coal.
Because I am making life possible. Extending it on this planet, in fact. Unlike the greedy, sanctimonious assholes whose subsidized electric vehicles are not only a net negative for the environment, but they’re far less safe, to boot. Which in thes short run means more dead children. And more dead elderly. Some of them likely orphans. With autism.
And in the long run? The extinction of humans.
So then. Not to sound too preachy, but our earth-saving mission — we of the giant carbon footprints, the modern fighting force for humanity’s prolonged survival — requires a kind of in-your-face activism. Opponents of earth-saving green houses gases — carbon in particular — should therefore be mocked, ridiculed, ostracized, condemned. And to do that, we need a label to tag them with — as one might tag an ancient, tiny-brained alligator gar — so that we can study their peculiarly de-evolutionized behaviors even as we readily identify their dangerous social and ecological ignorance.
And I think I’ve come up with such a name: carbon deniers.
I’d say we should sew to the sleeves of their trendy hemp shirts a little earth patch encircled by a bold red line and containing a red line through the center, but unfortunately, that kind of behavior, though probably appropriate when dealing with such carriers of human plague, is rather…historically fraught.
And I’m just not that tacky or insensitive a fellow.
(h/t Mark Levin)
Every time I hear someone pontificating about renewable energy, I ask him why he’s so anti-science? I then point him to this article which demonstrates that it’s physics which precludes us from using things like wind or sunlight to meet our energy needs. Unfortunately, the useful idiots will continue to go along with the fraud of “green” energy/global climate change until there is no liberty left.
BTW, add an to your heroism copious use of charcoal to grill steaks. There’s a bonus, as it pisses off PETA, as well.
It would take an enormous amount of the surface area of the earth being covered in some kind of “solar energy” system to even come close to generating enough power. The energy density of the light from the sun is just not high enough.
Wood, coal, oil, and nuclear energy sources represent more and more dense sources of energy. None of them could be replaced by an effing solar panel, which in any case takes more energy to produce than it captures in its lifetime.
I want to tack on “physics deniers” to the “carbon deniers” moniker. Let them own their ignorance.
Cranky, to get enough energy via solar or wind alternatives for US consumption would require the use of the entire continental US west of the Mississippi River. The article in my first comment sets it out brilliantly. The “greenies” seem to be continuing the search for perpetual motion.
I all in favor of solar energy, once it’s been captured by trees and other plants. Makes for good BBQ.
But, but, Science!
Science! Fortified by scholarly activism aimed at executive actions and messaging massaging to make that medicine go down smooth.
ha-rumph!
I just read the article, Shermlaw. It should be required reading for all lefties. They supposedly like science, right?
I knew a lefty once. We were watching a movie in which there were tanks that had a solar panel on them for some reason. He actually believed that if solar panels got “good enough” it would be possible to power a tank with one. I tried to disabuse him of this notion, but was likely unsuccessful.
They believe what they want to believe.
Well, we all know what the eternally youthful Robert F. Kennedy would say about that pipe dream, don’t we? Heroic, I say.
Not just Science!, but Forward! Science!
What’s needed here is Leadership!
Hey Jeff: Your name is being used in vain over at Ricochet.
Environmentalist endorse wind and solar precisely for the reason that they know it is impractical to meet current energy needs. Endorsing alt energy gives them cover for the misanthropes they actually are (or socialists/communists/marxists they actually are).
If solar produced as much energy as hydroelectric, they would hate it too.
You wrote an admirable response, dicentra.
You wrote an admirable response, dicentra.
With the 200-word limit on comments, including quotations.
Cripes, it’s worse than Twitter.
bgbear, you are correct. There are the true believer greens whose fantasies include eliminating 90% of the human population and living like aborigines, the useful idiots whose environmental consciousness is based upon repeated viewings of Bambi when they were impressionable six-year-olds, and the politicians who will gladly use the first two groups to acquire more political power while still enjoying first class flights to Davos. A pox on all their houses.
Me, I drive a pair of Jeeps these days, an inline 6-cylinder ’94 Wrangler Sahara that gets about 14-20 MPG, and a V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trailhook that has a tow-capacity of 7400 lbs and logs in 13-22 MPG
Piker.
My F-250 gets 12.5 on a good day.
You know what they say about men who have an ‘enormous carbon footprint’…
They’re chick magnets, Bob?
Two words on that.
Al Gore.
Oh ick!
Let me just say three words: ‘large hockey stick’, IYKWIMAITYD.
“ONE-POINT-TWENTY-ONE GIGAWATTS!!!!!”
[…] GOOD NEWS! Your enormous carbon footprint is the only thing saving the world! … […]