Wanna Be Green?
An environmental message from Political Nightmare.com....
Don't worry, I haven't joined Earth Liberation Front or any of those whack job environmental groups. I'm just hear to report some facts. An old Marine buddy of mine, (aka Maverick who comments here from time to time) sent me this article by Neil Reynolds that points out some things that will shock you because they go against everything you hear in the news and from environmetal groups.
I'll just point out some facts from the article that really speak for themselves, and sum it up at the end.
This is very interesting, from the article "Want to be a green nation? First, get rich":
-California's wineries put more VOCs (volatile organic compounds) into the atmosphere than California's cars, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.-
Point of Interest: For those of you that don't know, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi owns two vinyard parcels totaling over 24 acres in Napa Valley.
From 1990 through 2004, UN figures show increases in Green House Gas emissions as follows:
United States: 13.3%
Canada: 24.2%
Spain: 44.7%
Portugal: 36.7%
Ireland: 25.6%
Greece: 25.8%
Finland: 21.5%
Austria: 16.5%
You notice who has the lowest increases on that list? In fact, if you average out those increase percentages from Europe and Canada, they more than double the increases of GHG emissions of the United States. You may notice France is missing from the above figures. That's because in the same time period, they have actually decreased their GHG emissions by 1.9%. Interestingly enough, it's only a 1.9% decrease despite the fact that they get 70% of their electricity from nuclear power. (and all that radio active waste that it produces...)
And who keeps pushing Kyoto?
Ah, but what about Hydrocarbon emissions? Surely the U.S. is doing awful in that category, right? Wrong. From the article:
-Consider the unilateral reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from cars and trucks in the U.S. in the past 40 years. In the 1960s, these emissions averaged 10.2 grams per mile. In the 1970s, they averaged 1.8 grams per mile. In the 1980s, they averaged 0.4 grams per mile.
As reported by the EPA in 2004, they now average 0.2 grams per mile.
Hydrocarbon emissions, a source of particulates found in air pollution, have fallen in 40 years by 99.3 per cent.-
Down by 99.3%? That can't be right can it? With traffic the way it is today? So many more cars on the road? Well, according to the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators (page 49) it is absolutely true.
One more thing from that same page of the same report:
-It's is important to note that these emissions rates per mile are not an average for the whole auto fleet, but apply to all makes and models uniformly. In other words, the frequently heard claim that large SUVs "polute more" is a myth.-
Let me say that again...
The "claim that large SUV's pollute more is a myth."
That's beautiful. In the article linked above, Neil Reynolds goes on to say:
-According to a 2006 environmental report by two think tanks (the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute and the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute), this is mythology. SUVs have produced the same VOC emissions as regular cars since the 1996 model year. They have produced the same nitrogen oxide emissions as regular cars since the 2001 model year. Average vehicle emissions — for cars and for SUVs — are falling by 10 per cent a year. -
The same VOC emissions as regular cars? Wow, that sure puts a dent in the enviro-weenies agenda doesn't it?
I don't claim to be an expert on environmental matters. But it seems to me we here in America have more will, more resources, and more freedom to do the things that need to be done. Not only to produce wealth, but to produce wealth that will aid in protecting the environment.
I don't believe we need to sign a treaty with other nations that will limit us economically. With all the talk about Global Warming, GHG emissions are the subject of much debate and frankly, much paranoia from the enviro-weenies and Al Gore. It appears to me we are limiting ourselves and producing far better results than those that decry us for not signing their treaty. And we're doing it while producing more wealth and creating more jobs than those in Europe. Our unemployment rate is nearly half of the European Union. And with all their liberal leanings and good intentions towards the poor and the environment, they seem to forget that the cure for poverty is wealth. And apparently, it is the cure for the environment as well...
Oh, and one more thing. The "claim that large SUV's pollute more is a myth."
Don't worry, I haven't joined Earth Liberation Front or any of those whack job environmental groups. I'm just hear to report some facts. An old Marine buddy of mine, (aka Maverick who comments here from time to time) sent me this article by Neil Reynolds that points out some things that will shock you because they go against everything you hear in the news and from environmetal groups.
I'll just point out some facts from the article that really speak for themselves, and sum it up at the end.
This is very interesting, from the article "Want to be a green nation? First, get rich":
-California's wineries put more VOCs (volatile organic compounds) into the atmosphere than California's cars, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.-
Point of Interest: For those of you that don't know, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi owns two vinyard parcels totaling over 24 acres in Napa Valley.
From 1990 through 2004, UN figures show increases in Green House Gas emissions as follows:
United States: 13.3%
Canada: 24.2%
Spain: 44.7%
Portugal: 36.7%
Ireland: 25.6%
Greece: 25.8%
Finland: 21.5%
Austria: 16.5%
You notice who has the lowest increases on that list? In fact, if you average out those increase percentages from Europe and Canada, they more than double the increases of GHG emissions of the United States. You may notice France is missing from the above figures. That's because in the same time period, they have actually decreased their GHG emissions by 1.9%. Interestingly enough, it's only a 1.9% decrease despite the fact that they get 70% of their electricity from nuclear power. (and all that radio active waste that it produces...)
And who keeps pushing Kyoto?
Ah, but what about Hydrocarbon emissions? Surely the U.S. is doing awful in that category, right? Wrong. From the article:
-Consider the unilateral reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from cars and trucks in the U.S. in the past 40 years. In the 1960s, these emissions averaged 10.2 grams per mile. In the 1970s, they averaged 1.8 grams per mile. In the 1980s, they averaged 0.4 grams per mile.
As reported by the EPA in 2004, they now average 0.2 grams per mile.
Hydrocarbon emissions, a source of particulates found in air pollution, have fallen in 40 years by 99.3 per cent.-
Down by 99.3%? That can't be right can it? With traffic the way it is today? So many more cars on the road? Well, according to the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators (page 49) it is absolutely true.
One more thing from that same page of the same report:
-It's is important to note that these emissions rates per mile are not an average for the whole auto fleet, but apply to all makes and models uniformly. In other words, the frequently heard claim that large SUVs "polute more" is a myth.-
Let me say that again...
The "claim that large SUV's pollute more is a myth."
That's beautiful. In the article linked above, Neil Reynolds goes on to say:
-According to a 2006 environmental report by two think tanks (the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute and the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute), this is mythology. SUVs have produced the same VOC emissions as regular cars since the 1996 model year. They have produced the same nitrogen oxide emissions as regular cars since the 2001 model year. Average vehicle emissions — for cars and for SUVs — are falling by 10 per cent a year. -
The same VOC emissions as regular cars? Wow, that sure puts a dent in the enviro-weenies agenda doesn't it?
I don't claim to be an expert on environmental matters. But it seems to me we here in America have more will, more resources, and more freedom to do the things that need to be done. Not only to produce wealth, but to produce wealth that will aid in protecting the environment.
I don't believe we need to sign a treaty with other nations that will limit us economically. With all the talk about Global Warming, GHG emissions are the subject of much debate and frankly, much paranoia from the enviro-weenies and Al Gore. It appears to me we are limiting ourselves and producing far better results than those that decry us for not signing their treaty. And we're doing it while producing more wealth and creating more jobs than those in Europe. Our unemployment rate is nearly half of the European Union. And with all their liberal leanings and good intentions towards the poor and the environment, they seem to forget that the cure for poverty is wealth. And apparently, it is the cure for the environment as well...
Oh, and one more thing. The "claim that large SUV's pollute more is a myth."
Labels: Politics
posted by Goose at 20:30
4 comments
links to this post
