The Green Police Live Inside of My Head….

I thought this ad was both hilarious and scary.  I’m sure the enviros saw this ad as a call to arms. 

(If you don’t get the title of the post, see The Dream Police by Cheap Trick.)

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Advertisements

Man’s Best Friend is Killing the Planet

In all the frenzy of Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Kyoto, Copenhagen (the city not the snuff), etc. etc., evidently your lovable dog is killing the planet.  No, I’m not exaggerating. 

In an article from France entitled, “Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man’s best friend,” the author expounds on how detrimental dogs are to the planet.  I decided to reprint the whole article as I find it rather humorous.

PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

“Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.

Other animals aren’t much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France’s 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

“Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly,” Huttin told AFP.

“Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don’t eat meat, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?”

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs — the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars — says defiantly, “Our animals give us so much that I don’t feel like a polluter at all.

“I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

“I don’t want a life without animals,” she told AFP.

And pets’ environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo — owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals’ environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets’ protein-rich meat intake.

“If pussy is scoffing ‘Fancy Feast’ — or some other food made from choice cuts of meat — then the relative impact is likely to be high,” said Robert Vale.

“If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower.”

Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals’ blood.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

“Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,” said Robert Vale.

 

So not only are cows and volcanoes bad for the environment, but I guess we can add dogs and other domesticated animals to the mix.  I wonder how long it will be before we start to get rid of the humans.  Next step: Soylent Green.  I’m just sayin.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Steve Doocy Schools Carol Browner

Obama CzarsThe massive Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill that narrowly passed in the House has made it’s way to the Senate.  Hopefully the Senators will have more common sense than their buddies in the House.  We’ll see about that, but I’m always hopeful.

Steve Doocy of Fox and Friends is not known to be a hard interviewer.  He’s a common sense guy and very entertaining.  He recently conducted an interview with Carol Browner, the Energy Czar.  Mr. Doocy asked a simple question – “Did you read the bill.”  Simple enough right?  Not so much.  It seems that Ms. Browner didn’t read the whole bill.  If you are an insomniac and need some rest – here’s the entire 1200+ page bill.  Sweet dreams.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but if you are the ENERGY CZAR, wouldn’t you take the time to actually read the most important ENERGY legislation in modern times?  If I had this type of careless disregard for my position I would be fired.  The fact is that Ms. Browner doesn’t really care what is in this bill.  As long as she is able to pass sweeping changes to force us all to change our lives and “make the planet cleaner“, then life is good in her mind.  What was the rush?  Why not take a couple days to at least peruse the contents of the legislation?  I’m sure that’s not in her job description – or maybe it’s above her pay grade.

The threat of Climate Change is not a settled matter and should be up for debate, but sadly it is not.  Global Warming skeptics are silenced and ostracised by their colleagues – especially by those in academia.  What happened to looking at the facts and then determining a course of action?  I’m not a climate scientist but I try to use common sense.  Not sure there is any happening in this “debate”.

Good job Mr. Doocy.  Keep up the good work.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

If Green is In, I’m Out

I’m all for conservation. Conserving our parks, making sure we have clean water, reducing pollution – those things are great. I think most rational people agree with my sentiment.

What I am really getting tired of is seeing, hearing and reading about all this “Green” stuff. I’m the type of person who goes the other direction of someone is doing something or suggesting that I do something. If going “Green” means that it will inconvenience me or cost me more money, I’m out.

I don’t buy into all the Global Warming hysteria. There is no credible evidence that Man and our technology has affected the temperature of the planet (minus of course all the sanctimonius Hollywood stars touting the genius of Algore). Many climatologists are actually talking about Global Cooling. Actually, back in the 70’s, this was the hip term. (See Newsweek article from 1974 – http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf). A great history of the warming and cooling from the Business and Media Institute (http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf).

Bottom line is that we are very arrogant if we believe we can actually affect the temperature of the planet. This stuff is cyclical. Considering that we are freezing in 10 inches of snow here in the Midwest, a little global warming would be appreciated.
Get the facts and stop bothering me about going Green.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant