A Plan For CT House Employees To Stay Home

CT House Rules has a great post about a terrific idea being floated by Rep. Larry Cafero and "the Fighting 44"

Telecommuting

“We want to make Connecticut and its government ‘Leaner and Greener’ with a test program to allow staff to work from home one day a week,” said House Republican Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr. of Norwalk. Four-day work weeks should also be considered, he said.

These House Republicans are really thinking out of the box, and it is extremely refreshing. It is more and more apparent that Republican House members really care about the issues that affect CT residents and how to save time and money and create efficiencies. This is the kind of thinking that we desperately need in our legislature. Kudos to Rep. Cafero and his forward thinking crew.



Here's some thoughts about the plan:

* House Republican staff members could telecommute one day per week, ensuring that all their legislative responsibilities are covered;
* Staff would use laptop computers that are already available to communicate easily with the Legislative Office Building;
* Because the telecommuting would be staggered throughout the office, no disruption of service for constituents or anyone else who contacts the offices would take place;
* Similar programs have been tried in other states such as Arizona where state workers have converted 181,000 hours of commuting time into productive working hours and reduced air pollution by 175,000 pounds;
* A 2007 national study by the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that telecommuting saves enough energy in the traditional workplace to power one million households for a year. The same study determined that 3.9 million telecommuters saved 840 million gallons of gas.
* Telecommute Connecticut estimates that employees who telecommute save an estimated $1,200 annually on gasoline.

Now, perhaps in November we can just get a bunch of the House Democrats to stay home entirely (big grin).

Big Oil - Are They Really The Problem?

Who is to blame for the high energy costs that we are facing?

1. Oil companies that are reaping huge profits?
2. Those politicians and regulators and eco-protectionists who have done everything to prevent the exploration and cultivation of new sources of oil and energy supplies?
3. "The Arabs" or other countries who are just not pumping enough of the goo out of the ground to satisfy a growing need across the globe and here at home?
4. The falling dollar; printing more money causes inflation and pushes up the price of fuel.
5. Something else.

Why should Oil companies be punished for trying to make a profit? If government got out of the way and there were a true open energy market there would be competition to drive the prices down. But that's not happening. Instead we get threats from politicians to steal profits and/or force companies to spend profits the way the government wants them spent. We have members of Congress, like Maxine Waters, actually threatening nationalization and takeover of corporations in the name of "protecting the consumer". Like that will solve the problem without creating a lot of even bigger problems.

Consider this: You are a businessman and are in business to make some money. The government decides you are making too much and tells you what to do with that profit. How is that right? Do we not own the fruits of our labor? Should Barack Obama give a portion of his book sales to another author whose book perhaps isn't selling as well, just to make things fair? Wealth re-distribution is un-American. Price gouging is also not morally right - but that is usually corrected by market forces. If there is choice in the market place then the lower priced item will be the more favorable seller. I see that in my own home town - gas stations with lower prices do more business and sell more. It's simple economics.

But I digress...

The development of new energy sources has become a painful and sluggish march.

Yes, we are seeing hybrid vehicles and there are a few advances here and there coming to the market, but we still need oil through this transition period. It will take a while to establish a wide variety of energy choices; but eventually that's where we need to be - hybrid cars, electric cars, hydrogen fueled cars and more.

And as for ethanol:
Overall, the economy has also worsened with the diversion of farmland being used to produce ethanol, which takes more energy to produce than it is supposed to save. The diversion of more of our corn crop to produce energy has also pushed up the price of everything that depends on corn syrup. The price of corn products has also shot up and that includes everything from taco chips to theater popcorn.

Nationalizing the oil industry is not going to solve the problem.
Rationing is not going to solve the problem.
Conservation is not going to solve the problem.
Punishing the oil producers is not going to solve the problem.

And as far as I am concerned the problem doesn't even really come from "those greedy capitalistic oil barons" or that dastardly Middle eastern oil cartel. We import more oil from Canada then we do from Saudi Arabia. In fact, only 16% of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf countries.

The problems that we are seeing comes from smaller supply and a growing worldwide consumption and need for energy as countries are technologically emerging.

Here at home we are choking off our own supply of energy.
We have abandoned nuclear power plants - which by the way are being built all over Europe.
We have abandoned or prevented new oil drilling.
We have not invested in new refineries.
We have not done enough to allow for the development of new energy sources.

With all that nature offers us here at home in the form of geothermal, solar, wind, hydropower, biofuels, oil, coal, nuclear and more, it is incredible that we are squabbling over foreign resources and seeking to control them. I have come to believe that this energy crisis is fabricated and self inflicted solely for political interest and to instill fear and uncertainty.

But let's not solely blame the capitalists. If we didn't have capitalists and entrepreneurs looking to make a buck, we wouldn't have had financial incentives to make the technological advances in the manner that we have. So I won't blame them, and right now there are plenty of those capitalists out there trying to develop new energy solutions. We just have to get government out of the way and allow market competition to let them do it.

Required reading: Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand.

The Democrat Convention - The Lunatic Left RFP

Oh my goodness - green lunacy at its best. The Eco-fanatics are at it again in planning for the The Democrat National Nominating Convention on Aug. 25-28 which will bring about 50,000 people to Denver.

This article in the Denver Post just cracked me up:

Fried foods are forbidden at the committee's 22 or so events, as is liquid served in individual plastic containers. Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable. The food should be local, organic or both.

And caterers must provide foods in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white,"
...

Caterers praise the committee and the city for their green ambitions, but some say they're baffled by parts of the RFP.

"I think it's a great idea for our community and our environment. The question is, how practical is it?" asks Nick Agro, the owner of Whirled Peas Catering in Commerce City. "We all want to source locally, but we're in Colorado. The growing season is short. It's dry here. And I question the feasibility of that."

For the Democrats, who are of course the "party of the people" (i.e. the poor and down-trodden) it looks like this is going to cost a bundle to pull off. Everyone knows that using organic and local products hikes the costs. I wonder how many people taking advantage of the Left's expansive social programs will actually be able to afford to go to the convention. Perhaps they'll be looking for government grants for their travel expenses. But I digress...

They say that this strict green agenda is likely to live on after the last piece of confetti is dropped (oh... perhaps they won't be doing that... and aren't helium balloons destructive to the environment as well?) because they are creating a brochure that "the city will distribute widely to help guide local businesses interested in improving their green practices".

But is the DNC really being green?

Joanne Katz, owner of Three Tomatoes Catering in Denver, cheers the committee's environmental aspirations and is eager to get involved with the convention, but she wonders if some of the choices the committee is making are really green.

Compostable products, such as forks and knives made from corn starch, are often imported from Asia, delivered to the U.S. in fuel-consuming ships. But some U.S. products are made from recyclable pressed paper. Which decision is more environmentally sound?

Decisions, decisions.

Oh and the footprint - don't forget the carbon footprint....

The committee is working with other groups to develop a carbon-footprint "calculator" that will measure the environmental impact of each event and suggest an "offset" — a fee — that will go toward a fund helping to match carbon losses with carbon gains.

"That's a fun one," Burnap says. "If these event planners will calculate and offset, it will start to get the money flowing into the Colorado Carbon Fund, a fund that will reinvest in renewable energy here in Colorado."

One commenter on the Denver Post article said this:

"Al Gore, having just landed in a private jet after hopping the world making millions lecturing the common man on how to live, was lounging by his heated swimming pool in his 20,000 SF house and could not be reached for comment.

Rumor has it he was eating blue food."

LOL - It certainly would be much more down to Earth if they just planned something simple and low cost. What they are spending and what they are spending it on should give the American people pause to see that how they plan this convention is most likely how they will run this country.

Better yet - they might as well call off the whole convention - we all know who the nominee will be .. Time magazine already told us all last week. Do they really need a huge costly eco-friendly extravaganza to reiterate what the media has already told us?

Just how many eco-conscious liberals will be flying in and out of Denver burning millions of gallons of fuel to get there to participate in the Obama Clinton slug fest? As for their recycling efforts...they will certainly have enough recycled party hacks on hand.

Are You A Scuppie?

I had to share this blogpost with you and just explore the concept.

We've heard of Yuppie (Young Urban Professional) and Buppie (Black Urban Professional) and Guppie (Gay Urban Professional) and Dink (Dual Income No Kids) but now there is the Scuppie (Socially Conscious Upwardly-mobile Person)

Their Manifesto is here.
Excerpt:

It is the unalienable right of every man, woman and child to wear stylish, 100 percent organic, sweatshop-free cotton apparel, and to feel befittingly righteous about it. There should be no need to choose between a car’s speed and fuel economy; comfort and conservation; luxury and sustainability.

Looking, acting and being a Scuppie isn’t just for politically correct movie stars, shaggy-haired high-tech gazillionaires and those lucky few who can afford to endow entire hospital wings in Africa or convert their Porsche Cayenne SUVs to run on hydrogen. Neither is social consciousness only for impassioned ascetics who distain flush toilets, subsist on tofu and brown rice, and yearn for the eventual overthrow of the capitalist system. You don’t have to be a zealot or a dilettante, just somebody who want to make the world a better place—and to be comfortable, well-fed and stylish while doing it.

And of course the Scuppie believes:

…that not only is it possible to be an environmentalist and own a dinner table made from expensive, endangered Brazilian mahogany, but you get status points by explaining to visitors that was well worth spending the extra money because the designer uses only wood salvaged from 100-year-old houses in Sao Paulo.

…that you can volunteer at a soup kitchen and still watch “Nigella Feasts” on the Food Network without guilt when you get home—provided, of course, that you have TiVo.

…that going on a protest march is not only a time-honored American way to fight against injustice, but it’s also a good opportunity to sneak in a little aerobic power-walking.

I actually live in a town that is full of Scuppies. People have "Save Darfur" bumper stickers on their Prius. We know a few that wear only the designer clothing they can get from the local Salvation Army Store, so they recycle AND they save money AND they can be pretentious all at once.

You can be healing the world whilst you drive your hybrid to the nearest Starbucks and have a cup of free trade coffee while sporting your 100% cotton clothing and chatting on your iPhone with your stock broker who manages your eco-friendly portfolio. Ahh... to be an American Scuppie.

Alfred Nobel - If You Were Alive This Would Surely Kill You

Al Gore has received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work stemming from his political Shockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth", which is designed to alarm the world about the calamity of global warming as a result of mankind's CO2 emissions and also makes way for justification of global taxation and punishment of countries that dare to contemplate modernization and industrialization.

Of Course Alfred Nobel stipulated that the prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" - but why quibble with details - the committee obviously makes its own interpretation of what Nobel intended.

I have already posted about the sham called carbon offset credits, which Gore promotes. I also posted this piece about the global warming frenzy. It's an anti-business agenda.

Many renowned scientists and climatologists have already debunked Gore's claims and a judge from the UK has even made it clear that if this film of Gore's is played in schools that it must come with a warning and accompanying notes to make sure people do not take the film as complete truth, or mistake if for real science. Watch the BBC clip on that report.

The website Junk Science has more great resources from real scientists. They also promote Demand Debate - which seeks to eliminate environmental bias in education. Another site of interest is Global Warming Hoax.

Perhaps it is time we listen to real scientists instead of alarmist propagandists who wish to make a political statement or help push government grant money into targeted hands. We all know how Al Gore is making money on his own propaganda. Rumors are already flying about how Al Gore will most likely now be drafted into running for president of the US.

I think it is a shame how the Nobel Prize continues to be used for political purposes, and will most likely now be touted as some sort of vindication for Gore's propaganda.

Is there climate change - sure - but not for the reasons cited by junk scientist Al Gore. Here is one REAL inconvenient truth about global warming.

As I have said before: We've had doom and gloomers and alarmists in our midst before - some of them have also won awards and accolades: recall, it was over 200 years ago that Thomas Malthus began ranting about how the world was going to collapse under a sea of people, with no food to eat and nowhere to go. There always seems to be someone suggesting, under the guise of "science", that we are marching to global poverty and ruination.

According to lots of similar pessimistic thinkers and "scientists", we should have been extinct by now. Last I checked, we aren't, and in fact we have a wonderfully bright future ahead as long as we allow ourselves to develop it.

Too bad the Nobel Prize was wasted on such a person as Al Gore.. there are so many more worthy people who could have been lauded.

Chill Out - In Dubai

It's Al Gore's nightmare. An ecological hog.
But the Emirati do not seem to care.

Now they already have indoor ski slopes in the desert there, but this is another tourist spot. The recently opened Chillout - ice bar in Dubai is getting lots of attention.

Chillout, its owners say, is the Middle East's first ice lounge—the latest venture in this desert Gulf emirate, which has been transformed by a mania for the biggest, first or most outlandish.

Gulf men in traditional white robes with wives covered in black cloaks, teenagers eager to experience their first cold blast and Westerners who miss the chill are flocking to the bar-restaurant to hang out in what amounts to a freezer.

Everything is made of ice: the walls, tables and chairs; cups, glasses and plates; the art on the wall, the sculptures depicting Dubai's skyline, the beaded curtains, the 7-foot-chandelier and the barWhile the new, $3 million hangout, which opened in a Dubai mall in June, is expected to become a must-see tourist destination, it also is expected to raise questions about already high energy consumption in this desert land.

...snip...

The average person in the Emirates puts more demand on the global ecosystem than any other in the world, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

Energy consumption in the Emirates runs high for many reasons, particularly because of the air conditioning that cools houses, malls, cars and public places not only during the furnace-hot summers but in the warm winters.

Making matters worse are Dubai's audacious developments. The emirate has transformed itself into a financial and tourism center, building up its name with dramatic projects—the world's tallest skyscraper, island resorts in the shape of palm trees and maps of the world, even an indoor ski slope that still creates snow amid the inferno of summer.

Mike Ebenezer, business manager at Sharaf Group, which owns Chillout, insists it consumes only as much energy as a cold storage facility for frozen foods does.

Ebenezer said that Chillout is the ninth such ice bar in the world, with others in the U.S., Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, London and Italy.

Pretty cool oasis? or just drinks in a freezer?

I dunno - I'm a Starbucks kinda gal myself, and freezing my buns off is not my idea of a good time unless I am playing in the snow. (The real snow, that is)

Garden And Lawn Clippings Just May Fuel Your Car Someday

EcoGeek posted a very interesting blogpost about a different way to produce ethanol.

The State of Georgia has granted Range Fuels a permit to set up the first cellulosic ethanol plant.

EcoGeek posted this:

Cellulosic ethanol is ethanol that comes from cellulose instead of sugar. This is good because most plants don't have a lot of sugar, but all plants have lots of cellulose. So, instead of using food crops, (like corn and sugar cane which have lots of sugar) to create fuel, we can use any crops, like mown grass clippings, fallen tree limbs or corn stalks (instead of corn ears) to create ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol can contain up to 16 times more energy than is required to create it! If that doesn't sound ridiculously impressive, consider that gasoline contains only 5 times more energy than was required to create it and corn ethanol is totally lame, containing only 1.3 times the energy required to create it.

So this is pretty good news, because this idea and the technology behind it is being explored.

Woodchips apparently were used during WW2 as a means of creating energy in what is known as wood gasifiers. That technology is also being explored at the University of Georgia as they work to produce biofuel from trees.

While I'd rather not be cutting down massive amounts of trees for fuel.. I believe that the concept of growing the materials to be used to create fuel for energy is very worthy of exploration. Developing renewable energy sources is very appealing as well as very necessary. I think that we have the capability to develop many alternative fuel sources that will be abundant and eventually relatively inexpensive. There have already been new advances in the development of hydrogen fuels.

Here is an interesting set of questions and answers regarding biofuels.

The Bald Eagle - Removed From Endangered List!

The Bald Eagle, a majestic bird and our country's proud symbol, has made a comeback..and has escaped from extinction. Vast habitat protections and a ban on the insecticide DDT are primarily responsible for the increase in the eagle population.

Amazing.. There were just 417 nesting pairs in 1963.

Today there are nearly 10,000 nesting pairs.

You can read more about it at National Geographic.

All in all, terrific news.
There's more about it here.

Ethanol In Your Tank - It's Not The Answer

Putting Ethanol into gasoline to stretch gasoline usage might be Congress's simplistic short term fix on the road to energy independence, but doesn't anyone remember this study from Cornell University?

Cornell researchers said: Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates and that "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion..

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

According to some mechanics, ethanol eats up the plastic-like lining of the fuel tank and injectors. So it may not be too great for the inside workings of your car either.

Maybe if our legislators at least took some time to read some of these research papers, they would not be so hasty in passing legislation like requiring more ethanol to be put in gas tanks. It might work as a transitional technology to stretch gas mileage - but it's not the wave of the future - and it is not a panacea. It kind of reminds me of mom putting more bread crumbs in the meatloaf to feed a few extra mouths. The extra fillers are not always a good thing when you have a steady diet of it. Maybe it's time to look for another main course.

Quite frankly I am quite annoyed at the Republicans in Congress who refused to allow a vote on a measure that would have required electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their power from wind, biomass or other renewable energy sources. Although I don't like the government meddling and requiring businesses to do anything, we need to start making some changes... and soon. We have a lot of technology at hand, and we should start taking advantage of it.

An Environmental Scam - Carbon Offsets

Suffice it to say there has already been a proliferation of information in cyberspace from articles and bloggers who comment on those articles, which demonstrate the scam of buying and selling "carbon offsets". There have also been investigations by financial publications on the issue. Even publications such as The Economist have weighed in on the subject.

But as I live and breathe, and produce CO2.. I just have to add my own two cents. (even though I briefly blogged about global warming junk science before)

I have spoken to meteorologists and scientists about the notion of "Global Warming" and the theory that it is caused by industrialized nations producing too much CO2. They all say it's a bunch of "hooey". (Well actually they have more scientific terms than that). Basically the climate is changing.. but it is more likely due to solar cycles than whether we are driving an old Chevy, or use incandescent light bulbs, or tote designer re-usable grocery bags when we go shopping. I have seen some of those carbon footprint calculators.. Seems those folks want me to swap living the way I do, for living in a mud hut with no running water... or pay someone some money ... thanks but no thanks. (what a racket!)

What this global warming hysteria seems to really boil down to is an attack on industrialization and especially the stifling of developing industrialized nations. Carbon offset credits will be the initial phase-in of such things as global taxation and energy rationing. It will be a means to further control people and their behaviors, especially as it relates to their energy usage. Talk about taxation and regulation without representation!

Now, don't get me wrong here.. I am as ecologically concerned as the next person. I recycle when I can, and try to conserve resources, and I prefer organically grown or produced food, and I have even installed energy efficient appliances and windows in my house. What gets me is this carbon offset nonsense, because my goodness, it really is such a crock.

The whole premise behind buying carbon offsets is to determine how much CO2 we are producing - as a family or individual - and to pump some money into some activity which would negate that CO2 production, and apparently some people have been duped into thinking that they can buy carbon offsets to pay for their energy excesses. To me, it's turned into nothing more than a "guilt payment".

The Financial Times concluded the following:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Even if global warming was caused by CO2 emmissions, we cannot just buy our way out of the problem and the truth is that buying carbon offsets do absolutely nothing.

The idea that we might cancel our own greenhouse gases by paying for projects that reduce the gases elsewhere was born in the early years of climate politics. It was adopted by the corporate lobby at the Kyoto summit in 1997 and has grown into a large but deeply troubled adolescent - confused, unpredictable, and difficult to trust....A Guardian investigation suggests that many of the schemes on offer here are well-meaning but thoroughly unreliable.

The problem with offsetting is twofold. First, these schemes are unregulated and wide open to fraud. There is nothing but the customer's canniness to stop a company claiming to be running a scheme which does not exist; claiming wildly exaggerated carbon cuts; selling offsets that have already been sold; charging hugely inflated prices. Second, as all the examples above show, even the most well-intentioned schemes suffer from basic weaknesses in the idea of carbon offsetting - an idea which flows not from environmentalists and climate scientists trying to design a way to reverse global warming but from politicians and business executives trying to meet the demands for action while preserving the commercial status quo.

This fails on three points:

1. First, it requires an accurate measure of the emissions to be offset. That turns out to be riddled with uncertainty.

2. Second, it requires an accurate measure of the carbon saved elsewhere. Most of the earliest offset projects involved planting trees, which naturally ingest carbon, a complex and unpredictable process which forbids accurate measurement.

3. Finally, the very idea of offsetting relies on what is known as additionality - evidence that a carbon reduction would not have occurred in the natural order of commercial life.

Yes, Virginia, most carbon offset payment plans are just a means of transferring money from your pocket to someone else's. And if you really want a good laugh you can buy some Carbon DEBITS! yes.. that's right you can offset your environmentalist neighbors' carbon credits! Ah.. seems there is always someone around to figure out a way to make a buck.. capitalism at its best.

Note: If you ever get the opportunity - you ought to watch the BBC produced documentary " The Great Global Warming Swindle" (also available here with French subtitles)
also
Global Warming Hoax Blog site

The Queen's Carbon Offset Visit To The US

Total air miles - 13,317 km or 8,275 miles
Amount of CO2 emitted based on scheduled flights - 1. 5 tonnes
Estimated offset cost per person - £13.20 to £14.18 ($26.22-$28.17) depending on type of offset package
Source: The Carbon Neutral Company carbon calculator

Following the Queen's return to the UK her carbon footprint will be calculated and offset for the first time for a state visit.

The tour of the eastern US has included visits to the Kentucky Derby horse race and the site of the first permanent English settlement in the US - Jamestown in Virginia - to mark its 400th anniversary.

Buckingham Palace will make a donation to an environmental charity to offset the plane journeys made by the royal party.

Meanwhile in London I saw this billboard from Spurt Aviation:


Of course that's caused much controversy.

The carbon offset business is something that I plan to blog more about.. basically kids, it is preparing us all for energy rationing. The whole notion of "buying" carbon offsets is a fraud and a sham.

Carbon Offset travel?
Talk about being "on a guilt trip".
(I think this one might even out do Jewish mothers everywhere).

Toilet Paper Ban? She's Joking... Right?

Singer Sheryl Crow has said a ban on using too much toilet paper should be introduced to help the environment.

Crow suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required".

Well, as it turns out - she was joking...
or at least she claims she was joking.

Additionally:

Crow has also commented on her website about how she thinks paper napkins "represent the height of wastefulness".

She has designed a clothing line with what she calls a "dining sleeve".

The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve" after the diner has used it to wipe his or her mouth.

Gee.. and to think many kids have been doing that for quite a while now, minus the detachability thing.. LOL. Actually the debate still remains: Does one use more resources tossing a paper napkin into the trash, or washing a cloth napkin (or sleeve)?

I think it would be nice if these jet-setting energy hogs who are on a stage that burn more lights than a small city, would stop telling me what I should and should not do to "protect the environment". It's getting a tad annoying.

More About The Missing Bee Population

Reason Magazine offers this piece: Are biotech crops killing America's bees? Apparently the author thinks that the Sierra Club is using this opportunity to bash the bio-tech industry. The author, Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent, states:

colony collapse disorder is not confined to biotech-friendly United States. Hives are collapsing in biotech-free Europe too. The head of the German beekeeper's association says there has been a 25 percent drop in bee populations in Germany. Bizarrely, one particularly irrational German beekeeper blames biotech corn even though the Germany's biotech corn is only 0.06 percent of the total crop. Last week, the Irish Times (subscription required) reported that in Britain 30 per cent of hives inspected so far have been lost and that hundreds of thousands of colonies have collapsed in Spain. Beekeepers in Poland, Greece, Croatia, Switzerland, Italy and Portugal have also reported heavy losses.

The only thing that is clear is that the cause for what is being called "colony collapse disorder" (CCD) is not at all clear.

Check out my previous post about this.

If You Are Really An Environmentalist - Ditch The Prius

This well done report by Chris Demorro is an education about how the Prius is manufactured and what the real truth is about it's "greeness".

Mr. Demorro says that the Prius creates incredible environmental damage just based on its nickel batteries alone, the production of which is a source of some of the worst pollution in North America! It even takes more combined energy to produce a Prius than it does to produce a Hummer! The report is very well researched.

But just say the word "green" and everyone falls for it and jumps on the bandwagon without even checking out what they are being sold.

Check it out:

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.

So there you have it. Maybe the best thing for environmentalists to do is stick with a diesel car and use biofuel or french fry oil to run it, or they could always hitch a ride with someone who owns a Hummer.