Environmentalism
NewsHour tonight did a story on pollution. It noted, among other things, that Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and that Seattle has a new "green" City Hall that emits fewer greenhouse gases and, supposedly, saves energy. And that Seattle City Light predicts they will create no net emissions by the end of this year.
The report neglected to mention that the U.S. Senate -- which must ratify all treaties -- turned down Kyoto 95-0 in 1997 (3.5 years before Bush took office), and that there is no reason to think whatsoever that the President could get it passed, even if he wanted to.
The report say the reason Bush pulled out was that he said "the science about global warming was unclear," but the real reason is much more complicated: the United States grew a lot more during the 1990s than most countries, so in order to cut emissions to 1990 levels, they would have to cut a lot more than other countries. This was evident even in 1997.
And even if the levels were modified to make it less respectively painful, it would often have to be done in a way that would significantly harm American jobs, which the Senators -- Democrat and Republican -- simply would not agree to.
The reporter also apparently didn't know that the new Seattle City Hall uses a lot more electricity, while housing far fewer employees, than the old Seattle City Hall, and that Seattle City Light thought it was going to use significantly less electricity, which calls into question the reporter's touted prediction of creating no net emissions by year's end.
And despite all this, Washington state is requiring all new publicly funded buildings to be "green," which will cost millions, still abiding by the myth that it will be cheaper in the long run.
Update: See below for an example of how Wikipedia editors often intentionally censor and misrepresent the facts. In this case, someone replicated and claims different results from a published study, and that information has been excised from Wikipedia. (Follow the circular logic: they remove it because it is not from the scientific literature, and the scientific literature won't publish it because it is already "widely dispersed on the Internet.") And they even misstate the actual study, saying it was about the term "climate change" in the literature, when in fact it was about the term "global climate change." Word to the wise: don't trust Wikipedia for anything that is controversial.
The report neglected to mention that the U.S. Senate -- which must ratify all treaties -- turned down Kyoto 95-0 in 1997 (3.5 years before Bush took office), and that there is no reason to think whatsoever that the President could get it passed, even if he wanted to.
The report say the reason Bush pulled out was that he said "the science about global warming was unclear," but the real reason is much more complicated: the United States grew a lot more during the 1990s than most countries, so in order to cut emissions to 1990 levels, they would have to cut a lot more than other countries. This was evident even in 1997.
And even if the levels were modified to make it less respectively painful, it would often have to be done in a way that would significantly harm American jobs, which the Senators -- Democrat and Republican -- simply would not agree to.
The reporter also apparently didn't know that the new Seattle City Hall uses a lot more electricity, while housing far fewer employees, than the old Seattle City Hall, and that Seattle City Light thought it was going to use significantly less electricity, which calls into question the reporter's touted prediction of creating no net emissions by year's end.
And despite all this, Washington state is requiring all new publicly funded buildings to be "green," which will cost millions, still abiding by the myth that it will be cheaper in the long run.
Update: See below for an example of how Wikipedia editors often intentionally censor and misrepresent the facts. In this case, someone replicated and claims different results from a published study, and that information has been excised from Wikipedia. (Follow the circular logic: they remove it because it is not from the scientific literature, and the scientific literature won't publish it because it is already "widely dispersed on the Internet.") And they even misstate the actual study, saying it was about the term "climate change" in the literature, when in fact it was about the term "global climate change." Word to the wise: don't trust Wikipedia for anything that is controversial.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment