Pope: Stick to Matters of Faith. You are Wrong About Eveyrthing Else.

In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.





Dear Pope Francis,

Stick to matters of faith, where you are infallible.  On all others, please refrain from your terribly ignorant stances.

The greatest threat to Christianity comes from Islamic terror, not the environment.

Billions for Green Jobs and No Jobs

$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs --$9.8 Million Per Job

By Michael W. Chapman and Fred Lucas

June 20, 2012
cnsnews

 (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.

The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.

The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.

For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.

In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.

These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.

The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.

For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”

The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.

The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”

Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.

Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.

obama

UN: Led by Bolivia jumps over the edge

United Nations

Very unhealthy.  The UN typically deals with three issues - the inane and unnecessary, condemnations of Israel, and wasteful and unhelpful. 




U.N. Prepares to Debate Whether 'Mother Earth' Deserves Human Rights Status



By Jonathan Wachtel
April 18, 2011
FoxNews.com



United Nations diplomats on Wednesday will set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of “Mother Earth.”


A bloc of mostly socialist governments lead by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.

Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community -- plants, animals, and terrain.

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding -- an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.

“The concept ‘Mother Earth’ is not universally accepted,” said a spokesman from the British Mission to the U.N. about Bolivia’s proposal. “In general, our view is that we should focus on tackling important sustainable development issues through existing channels and processes.”

The General Assembly two years ago passed a Bolivia-led resolution proclaiming April 22 as “International Mother Earth Day.” The measure was endorsed by all 192 member states. But Bolivian President Evo Morales envisioned much more, vowing in a speech to U.N. delegates that a global movement had begun to lay “out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

Morales, who repeatedly says “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism,” called for creating a charter that defends the right to life for all living things. Morales, who was named World Hero of Mother Earth by the General Assembly, has since made great strides in his campaign.

In January, Bolivia became the world’s first nation to grant the natural environment equal rights to humans. Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth is heavily influenced by the spiritual indigenous Andean world outlook that revolves around the earth deity Pachamama, roughly translated to Mother Earth.

The Bolivian law establishes 11 rights for nature that include: the right to life and to exist; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered; the right to have nature’s processes free from human alteration. The law also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth to act as an ombudsman, which will ensure nature is “not being affected my mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities.”

Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet.

Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6. U.N. critics slammed the decision to devote an entire day debating Mother Earth legislation as not only a waste of time and resources, but a major blunder.

“The UN is a one-act show,” said U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the U.N., in which “Western democracies are responsible for the world’s ills and developing countries are perpetual victims.”

Bayefsky said the General Assembly’s focus on Mother Earth distracts from more pressing issues and problems at the U.N.

“The rights of inanimate objects violated by developed countries are considered a useful focal point this month,” she said, adding that, “Syria is scheduled to be elected next month to the U.N.’s top “human” rights body, and Iran is on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.” Syria is one of the sponsors of the “Mother Earth” treaty.

Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N., Pablo Solon, who will represent Morales at the debate and ‘expert’ panel discussions at U.N. headquarters, said, “Presently many environmentally harmful human activities are completely legal,” including those that cause climate change.

“If legal systems recognized the rights of other-than-human beings,” he says, such as mountains, rivers, forests and animals, “courts and tribunals could deal with the fundamental issues of environmental contamination.”

It is not clear if Bolivia’s new tough environmental laws will actually go as far as to protect life forms like insects, but the legislation does include all living creatures.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UN

Recycle and Get Checked on.

Is anyone against a cleaner community?  Is anyone against recycling and using less and polluting less?  But of course that would be how the argument would be framed for those opposed to this system.





New recycling bins with tracking chips coming to Alexandria

By: Markham Heid
Examiner Staff Writer
May 6, 2010



Alexandria residents soon will have to pay for larger home recycling bins featuring built-in monitoring devices.

The City Council added a mandatory $9 charge to its residents' annual waste collection fee.

That cash -- roughly $180,000 collected from 19,000 residents-- will pay for new larger recycling carts equipped with computer microchips, which will allow the city to keep tabs on its bins and track resident participation in the city's recycling program.

"If you know who's participating in the programs, you can focus your education and outreach to those who are not participating," said Stacy Herring, Alexandria's recycling coordinator.

Rich Baier, Alexandria's environmental services program director, said the city will use direct mailing campaigns and public presentations to target neighborhoods -- not individuals -- that lag when it comes to recycling.

"We're just trying to get the biggest bang where we need it for the buck," Baier said. "We don't want to get into exactly what people are recycling."

The new carts will come in sizes ranging form 25 to 65 gallons, and will sport wheels and lids. While the $9 charge is mandatory, residents may keep their old 18-gallon bins if they so choose.

Councilman Frank Fannon, the lone City Council member to oppose the new recycling bins, said he was against increased government spending, not recycling.

"I thought this was just another fee that we didn't have to pass on to the residents," he said.

Herring said the city conducted a survey among Old Town residents last May that found 60 percent wanted larger bins. She also said other jurisdictions had implemented bigger recycling bins and had seen recycling rates shoot up as a result.

"The larger the container, the more people recycle," Herring said, citing a study conducted by Eureka Recycling, a Minnesota nonprofit organization that promotes recycling.

Alexandria recently reported a 29 percent recycling rate to the state. Virginia requires most localities to recycle 25 percent of its waste, while the Environmental Protection Agency advocates a 35 percent target.

Baier said larger bins increase recycling rates because residents tend to throw their excess recyclables into regular trash cans once their recycling bins fill up.

He also said litter was a problem with the current bins, which don't have lids to prevent light materials from blowing out into area neighborhoods.

Venishka Hurdle, who coordinates recycling education programs in Arlington, said the county implemented larger, tracking-chip loaded recycling bins last year and saw the curbside recycling rate jump roughly 24 percent. The county's overall recycling rate is about 40 percent, she said.

"They've been a huge success," Hurdle said of the new bins. "Residents love them, and they recycle more materials as well."

Hurdle said Arlington County is collecting data from the bins' microchips, but had not yet used that data to improve recycling outreach and education programs.

Alexandria residents can expect to see their waste collection fees jump up in July, and likely will receive their new bins this summer.


A a glance


» Cost to Alexandria residents: Roughly $180,000, or about $9 per bin

» Bin size: Ranges from 25 to 65 gallons, replacing the old 18-gallon bins

» Time frame for implementation: August or September

» Alexandria's current recycling rate: About 29 percent

» Alexandria's target: 35 percent

» Expected recycling rate increase using new bins: At least 2 percent

Source: Alexandria Department of Transportation and Environmental Services


















 
 
 
 
privacy

Blow up the cars

Feds won't retry Caltech student for arson


The Associated Press


 11/10/2009



LOS ANGELES—Federal prosecutors say they won't retry a California Institute of Technology graduate student on arson charges for helping firebomb dozens of SUVs in the San Gabriel Valley.

Monday's decision in Los Angeles doesn't affect the sentence for William Cottrell. In September, an appeals court overturned his 2004 conviction on seven counts of arson but he's still convicted of conspiracy and is serving 100 months in prison.

A federal judge could decide Monday whether he will serve the remainder of that sentence or release him.

Cottrell also was ordered to pay $3.5 million in restitution.

In 2003, authorities say Cottrell and two other people—who remain at large—burned or vandalized more than 130 SUVs in an environmental protest.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Euros and Trash

There is an assumption in this article. I do not doubt Ms Rosenthal's desire to offer another voice, but in the end, it is not much different than talking around an issue - it is because it is and because it is, I believe it and because I believe it, and all the evidence supports it, it must be and consequently because it must be, it is and ergo I believe it.

Europe has NOT met ANY of its standards set by Kyoto since the enlightened world signed off on Kyoto - they are all over the limits.

Europe is the EU and the EU includes Germany and Sweden and France and ... and they all exceeded their limits.

If a country exceeds its limits and a country is comprised of people, then the people have exceeded the limits and Sweden is no model for very much.

Another argument and Ms Rosenthal outlines it - WE are not Europe, thankfully. If we were, we would be as pathetic as those countries with their insipidly pathetic governments. We are much more - it is not Europe producing great anything any more - it is the United States. From technology, medicine, industry, military protection, and entertainment and the arts - we are the model - and that definition of us, is in part linked to our lifestyles, our liberties, our behavior.

If we were cramped in a 1200 sq ft apartment, using a train or subway, I am quite sure Americans would view living quite differently and our role in the world. Expectations for human behavior would decline as we lose sight of a standard we seek all men to rise to, and instead we all fall to the lowest levels.





What Makes Europe Greener than the U.S.?

Mon Sep 28, 2009



By Yale Environment 360 - Yale Environment 360
By Elisabeth Rosenthal


It was late and raining this summer when I approached the information desk at Stockholm's Arlanda airport to inquire about how best to get into the city center. "The fastest is the train, but there are also busses," the guide said.


"Are there taxis?" I inquired, trying hard to forget the reminders on the Arlanda website that trains are "the most environmentally friendly" form of transport, referring to taxis as "alternative transportation" for those "unable to take public transport."

"Yes, I guess you could take one," he said, dripping with disdain as he peered over the edge of the counter at my single piece of luggage.


I slunk into the cab, paid about $60 and spent the 45-minute ride feeling as guilty as if I'd built a coal-fired plant in my back yard. (Note: the cabs at Arlanda are hybrids.) Two days later, although my flight left at 7 a.m., I took the Arlanda Express. It cost half as much and took 15 minutes to the terminal.

Europe, particularly northern Europe, is far more environmentallyconscious than the United States, despite Americans' sincere and passionate resolution to be green. Per capita CO2 emissions in the U.S. were 19.78 tons according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which used 2006 data, compared to 9.6 tons in the U.K., 8.05 tons in Italy, and 6.6 tons in France.

Why have Americans made so little headway on an issue that so many of us feel so strongly about? As a U.S. journalist traveling around Europe for the last few years reporting on the environment, I've thought a lot about this paradox.

There is a fair bit of social pressure to behave in an environmentally responsible manner in places like Sweden, where such behavior is now simply part of the social contract, like stopping at a stop sign or standing in line to buy a ticket. But more important, perhaps, Europe is constructed in a way that it's pretty easy to live green. You have to be rich and self-absorbed, as well as environmentally reckless and impervious to social pressure, not to take the Arlanda Express.

In Europe it is far easier to channel your good intentions into action. And you feel far worse if you don't. If nearly everyone is carrying a plastic bag (as in New York City) you don't feel so bad. But if no one does (as in Dublin) you feel pretty irresponsible.

Part of the problem is that the U.S. has had the good fortune of developing as an expansive, rich country, with plenty of extra space and cheap energy. Yes, we Americans love our national parks. But we live in a country with big houses. Big cars. Big commutes. Central Air. Big fridges and separate freezers. Clothes dryers. Disposable razors.

That culture - more than Americans' callousness about the planet - has led to a lifestyle that generates the highest per capita emissions in the world by far. Per capita personal emissions in the U.S. are three times as high as in Denmark.

But even as an American, if you go live in a nice apartment in Rome, as I did a few years back, your carbon footprint effortlessly plummets. It's not that the Italians care more about the environment; I'd say they don't. Butthe normal Italian poshy apartment in Rome doesn't have a clothes dryer or an air conditioner or microwave or limitless hot water. The heat doesn't turn on each fall until you've spent a couple of chilly weeks living in sweaters. The fridge is tiny. The average car is small. The Fiat 500 gets twice as much gas mileage as any hybrid SUV. And it's not considered suffering. It's living the dolce vita.

My point is that the low-carbon footprints depend on the infrastructure of life, and in that sense Europeans have an immediate advantage. To live without a clothes dryer or AC in the United States is considered tough and feels like a sacrifice. To do so in Rome - where apartments all include a clothes-drying balcony or indoor rack and where buildings have thick walls and shutters to help you cope with the heat - is the norm.

In many European countries, space has always been something of a premium, forcing Europeans early on to live with greater awareness of humans' negative effects on the planet. In small countries like the Netherlands, it's hard to put garbage in distant landfills because you tend to run into another city. In the U.S., open space is abundant and often regarded as something to be developed. In Europe you cohabit with it.

Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or Rome simply can't accommodate much traffic - it's really a pain, but you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.

Still, I still marvel at the some of the environmental strategies I've witnessed in Europe.

In old Zurich, for example, to discourage waste and reduce trash, garbage collection has long been limited to once a week (as opposed to three times a week in much of New York); recyclables like cardboard and plastic are collected once a month in the Swiss city. Since Zurich residents live with their trash for days and weeks at a time, they naturally try to generate less of it - food comes with no packaging, televisions leave naked from the store.

As I nosed around the apartment of a Swiss financial planner, she showed me the closet for trash. A whole week of her life created the same amount as the detritus of one New York takeout Chinese meal.

Likewise, in Germany, I've seen blocks of townhouses that are "passive" houses - homes so efficient they do not need to be heated. And an upscale suburb that had banned cars from its streets; you could own a car, but it had to be kept in a garage at the edge of town where parking spaces cost over $30,000 a year, meaning that few people owned cars and those who did rarely used them for small daily tasks like shopping.

Both were upper-middle-class neighborhoods, but I was struck by how different these German suburbs felt compared to their U.S. socioeconomic counterparts. Houses are smaller and few are detached. A passive house has to be under 2,000 square feet and basically box-like in order to make it energy efficient. "If someone feels like they need more than 2,000 square feet to be happy, well that's a different discussion," a passive house architect said.

Many Americans regard these kinds of approaches as alien, feeling we could never go there. I'm not sure. The Europeans I meet in these places are pretty much just like me, inclined to do the right thing for the environment, but insistent on a comfortable life.

There is nothing innately superior about Europe's environmental consciousness, which certainly has its own blind spots. In Italy, where people rail against genetically modified food, people routinely throw litter out of cars. In Germany, where residents are comfortable in smaller energy efficient homes, there is still a penchant for cars with gas-guzzling engines and for driving fast on the autobahn.

I believe most people are pretty adaptable and that some of the necessary shifts in lifestyle are about changing habits, not giving up comfort or convenience. Though I initially railed about the hassle of living without a dryer or air conditioning in Rome, I now enjoy the ritual of putting laundry on the line, expect to sweat in summer, and look forward to the cool of autumn.










environemnt

To Wipe or Scratch

Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet PaperSoft Toilet Paper's Hard on the Earth, But Will We Sit for the Alternative?


By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 24, 2009

ELMWOOD PARK, N.J. -- There is a battle for America's behinds.

It is a fight over toilet paper: the kind that is blanket-fluffy and getting fluffier so fast that manufacturers are running out of synonyms for "soft" (Quilted Northern Ultra Plush is the first big brand to go three-ply and three-adjective).

It's a menace, environmental groups say -- and a dark-comedy example of American excess.
The reason, they say, is that plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. They want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods.

It has been slow going. Big toilet-paper makers say that they've taken steps to become more Earth-friendly but that their customers still want the soft stuff, so they're still selling it.

This summer, two of the best-known combatants in this fight signed a surprising truce, with a big tissue maker promising to do better. But the larger battle goes on -- the ultimate test of how green Americans will be when nobody's watching.

"At what price softness?" said Tim Spring, chief executive of Marcal Manufacturing, a New Jersey paper maker that is trying to persuade customers to try 100 percent recycled paper. "Should I contribute to clear-cutting and deforestation because the big [marketing] machine has told me that softness is important?"

He added: "You're not giving up the world here."

Toilet paper is far from being the biggest threat to the world's forests: together with facial tissue, it accounts for 5 percent of the U.S. forest-products industry, according to industry figures. Paper and cardboard packaging makes up 26 percent of the industry, although more than half is made from recycled products. Newspapers account for 3 percent.

But environmentalists say 5 percent is still too much.

Felling these trees removes a valuable scrubber of carbon dioxide, they say. If the trees come from "farms" in places such as Brazil, Indonesia or the southeastern United States, natural forests are being displaced. If they come from Canada's forested north -- a major source of imported wood pulp -- ecosystems valuable to bears, caribou and migratory birds are being damaged.

And, activists say, there's just the foolish idea of the thing: old trees cut down for the briefest and most undignified of ends.

"It's like the Hummer product for the paper industry," said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We don't need old-growth forests . . . to wipe our behinds."

The reason for this fight lies in toilet-paper engineering. Each sheet is a web of wood fibers, and fibers from old trees are longer, which produces a smoother and more supple web. Fibers made from recycled paper -- in this case magazines, newspapers or computer printouts -- are shorter. The web often is rougher.

So, when toilet paper is made for the "away from home" market, the no-choice bathrooms in restaurants, offices and schools, manufacturers use recycled fiber about 75 percent of the time.

But for the "at home" market, the paper customers buy for themselves, 5 percent at most is fully recycled. The rest is mostly or totally "virgin" fiber, taken from newly cut trees, according to the market analysis firm RISI Inc.

[So the more accurate number is 5% of 5% ... not 5% of all trees. 5% of 5% of the trees cut are for triple soft toilet paper. And perhaps we could do away with triple and stick with double, but we do not need to do less. What we can do is work on the 26% used up in packaging. Lower that by 10% and you can average the savings. Maybe you should follow Sheryl Crow - the environmentalists. If all of you only use 2-3 strips, then the rest of us can keep our triple ply.]


Big tissue makers say they've tried to make their products as green as possible, including by buying more wood pulp from forest operations certified as sustainable.

But despite environmentalists' concerns, they say customers are unwavering in their desire for the softest paper possible.

"That's a segment [of consumers] that is quite demanding of products that are soft," said James Malone, a spokesman for Georgia-Pacific. Sales figures seem to make that clear: Quilted Northern Ultra Plush, the three-ply stuff, sold 24 million packages in the past year, bringing in more than $144 million, according to the market research firm Information Resources Inc.

Last month, Greenpeace announced an agreement that it said would change this industry from the inside.

The environmental group had spent 4 1/2 years attacking Kimberly-Clark, the makers of Kleenex and Cottonelle toilet paper, for getting wood from old-growth forests in Canada. But the group said it is calling off the "Kleercut" campaign: Kimberly-Clark had agreed to make its practices greener.

By 2011, the company said, 40 percent of the fiber in all its tissue products will come from recycled paper or sustainable forests.

"We could have campaigned forever," said Lindsey Allen, a senior forest campaigner with Greenpeace. But this was enough, she said, because Kimberly-Clark's changes could alter the entire wood-pulp supply chain: "They have a policy that . . . will shift the entire way that tissue companies work."

Still, some environmental activists said that Greenpeace should have pushed for more.

"The problem is not yet getting better," said Chris Henschel, of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, talking about logging in Canada's boreal forests. He said real change will come only when consumers change their habits: "It's unbelievable that this global treasure of Canadian boreal forests is being turned into toilet paper. . . . I think every reasonable person would have trouble understanding how that would be okay."

That part could be difficult, because -- in the U.S. market, at least -- soft is to toilet paper what fat is to bacon, the essence of the appeal.

Earlier this year, Consumer Reports tested toilet paper brands and found that recycled-tissue brands such as Seventh Generation and Marcal's Small Steps weren't unpleasant. But they gave their highest rating to the three-ply Quilted Northern.

"We do believe that you're going to feel a difference," said Bob Markovich, an editor at Consumer Reports.

Marcal, the maker of recycled toilet paper here in New Jersey, is trying to change that with a two-pronged sales pitch. The first is that soft is overrated.

"Strength of toilet paper is more important, for obvious reasons," said Spring, the chief executive, guiding a golf cart among the machinery that whizzes up vast stacks of old paper, whips it into a slurry, and dries it into rolls of toilet paper big enough for King Kong. He said his final product is as strong as any of the big-name brands. "If the paper breaks during your use of toilet paper, obviously, that's very, very important."

The second half of the pitch is that Marcal's toilet paper is almost as soft as the other guy's anyway.

"Handle it like you're going to take care of business," company manager Michael Bonin said, putting this reporter through a blind test of virgin vs. recycled toilet paper. Two rolls were hidden in a cardboard box: the test was to reach in without looking and wad them up, considering the "three aspects of softness," which are surface smoothness, bulky feel and "drapability," or lack of rigidity.

The reporter wadded. The officials waited. The one on the right felt slightly softer.

That was not the answer they wanted: The recycled paper was on the left.





Given their concerns about the trees being slaughtered so that we might have triple ply ... I decided I would go to my local Albertsons and purchased Quilted Northern's triple ply.















toilet paper

Global Warming? It ain't as bad as cocaine (according to the British)

columbia



Cocaine users are destroying the rainforest - at 4 square metres a gram

The Guardian
Wednesday November 19 2008


Four square metres of rainforest are destroyed for every gram of cocaine snorted in the UK, a conference of senior police officers as told yesterday.

Francisco Santos Calderón, the vice-president of Colombia, appealed to British users of the class A drug to consider the impact on the environment. He said that while the green agenda would not persuade addicts to give up, the middle-class social user who drove a hybrid car and was concerned about the environment might not take the drug if they knew its impact.

Santos said 300,000 hectares of rainforest were destroyed each year in Colombia to clear land for coca plant cultivation, predominantly controlled by illegal groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as Farc.

Officers were told cocaine and heroin use cost the British economy around £15bn a year in health and crime bills.

Santos outlined to the Association of Chief Police Officers how lives were lost in the illegal cocaine trade in Colombia. He said landmines that were used to protect crops and processing labs killed almost 900 civilians this year.

Farc and other groups funded by narcotics production were also involved in kidnapping. The Colombian-French politician Ingrid Betancourt was held for more than six years before her release earlier this year, and Santos himself was kidnapped and held by a cocaine gang for 18 months in the 1990s.

He told the Belfast conference: "If you snort a gram of cocaine, you are destroying 4m square of rainforest and that rainforest is not just Colombian - it belongs to all of us who live on this planet, so we should all be worried about it. Not only that, the money that you use to buy the cocaine goes into the hands of Farc, of illegal groups that plant mines, that kidnap, that kill, that use terrorism to protect their business."

Santos said many middle-class Britons who used cocaine were unaware of its environmental impact. "For somebody who drives a hybrid, who recycles, who is worried about global warming - to tell him that that night of partying will destroy 4m square of rainforest might lead him to make another decision."

Santos said Europe was experiencing a boom in cocaine use among more affluent people that was comparable with that seen in the USA 25 years ago. Everyone, he said, had a duty to change their behaviour to halt a rise in demand that was destroying his country. "We call it shared responsibility, We can't do it on our own. We need everybody's action; police here, police in Colombia, the authorities in both countries and the consumers too. If there is no consumption, there will be no production.

"There is a sense of frustration, because here drug use is seen as a personal choice and to some extent cocaine is seen as the champagne of drugs which causes no effect and is a victimless crime. It is not victimless."

Bill Hughes, the director general of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, told the conference that the UK was a very attractive market for drug traffickers. "There is still a lot of disposable income; the risk compared to the US if you are caught is felt to be much less," he said.

The £15bn cost to the economy reduced the amount of money available for schools, teachers and police officers. He said traffickers moved their drugs from South America to west Africa, and then to the EU and Britain, often operating through insecure countries with poor law enforcement. Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands were major staging posts on the trafficking routes and much of the synthetic drug market was supplied from the Netherlands. Hughes said the proceeds of crime were undermining or corrupting governments globally, with the trade worth £4bn-£6.6bn in the UK.

Britain's coke habit
• The UK has the highest number of cocaine users in the EU, according to the latest figures
• Acpo was told that 14% of the UK's population had used cocaine. After increases in the last few years, numbers who took the drug were now stabilising
• The drugs come to Britain from South America via west Africa. Drugs are often trafficked through insecure countries with poor law enforcement
• Figures from the British Crime Survey this month suggested about 810,000 Britons had taken cocaine in the last year
• Some 3% of people questioned admitted using class A drugs over the past 12 months, which was less than in the previous year

*************************************

We will soon hear from the drug producers - they will plant trees for every 4 grams you buy. Do their part for the environment!!!!





drugs

GLOBAL WARMING ... maybe not. No scientific consensus

Where there was consensus, or so Gore lectured us, apparently it is less consensus and more debateable now - and that is exactly what many are doing - debating the issue. Anyone who disagreed up until now has been told they are the fringe lunatics - apparently a majority of these physicists are on the fringe.





Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM

'Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate'

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

[To read the remainder of the post, click on the title link above.]












fringe lunatics

Merger of US earth sciences agencies

Very bad idea.

Very, very bad.


Merger of US earth sciences agencies proposed



This is bad on so many levels.

First, set this specific issue aside and let me ponder the wonders of a right-wing theological take-down of the US government. What if the religious right staged a coup and took control of congress and the executive and judicial branches. Why would that be a concern for anyone? But a joint world science body would not be a threat? Clearly, to those people fearful of the religious, they would not be at all concerned about science becoming one world body, for science is rational and scientific.

What about in the 1970s when the world science ALL pointed to an ice age coming. Every major science agency and respectable sort believed in the coming ice age (including James Hansen - employee of George Soros). Now imagine if we had had the world body in 1978 - the science of a coming ice age would have been foisted upon us only to learn thirty years later that it wasn't ice we should worry about, just the opposite -melting ice.

Then imagine all the other areas that these world bodies would dictate to the governments of the world - how much we should produce, who should produce, the areas that should be used for growing, areas used for living - science will, without bias, change our environment for us.

Won't that be nice.

We would need a regulatory agency to oversee the world body of science ... and that regulatory agency would be comprised of whom? And what would you call it? All the benefits mentioned in the AP article are negated, in my opinion, by the international control over sovereign states - the goal all along of some.

Bad idea. Bad bad idea.

The US can sort out whatever issues face us, working in cooperation with other agencies - which we do already. We do not need to combine them into a world federation science agency to solve issues we cannot solve on our own.



Bad idea.




one world government




world government





UN

Senator Bingaman - Obama Endorsement. What it doesn't take to get elected Senator in New Mexico

... Brains.


Nicely worded phrases, idealism packaged in words, cliches all - how do we transfer to automatons, some degree of intellect simply because they regurgitate stock phrases.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico:
"Our nation faces a daunting number of critical challenges: reasserting America's leadership in the world, meeting our needs for energy independence, addressing global warming, making healthcare accessible and affordable, positioning our economy to effectively compete globally, and extricating ourselves from the war in Iraq, to name a few ... To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction."

This was his endorsement speech of Barrack H. Obama.

So, let us consider his statement, word for word, phrase for phrase as we all do every time Bush speaks. Goose and Gander.

- Our nation faces a daunting number of critical challenges
* This one is a good start. No one doubts this to be true. Take a truism and then blend in opinion to lend credibility to your assertion.

- reasserting America's leadership in the world
* Do we not lead today. Are we not holding sway today. Have I not heard Democratic leaders say - If Bush told the Sauds to lower oil prices they would. Do we not have the strongest alliances with France, Germany, Russia, Britain, Australia, Italy, Canada ... yes, we do. Our relationship with those countries today is stronger than at any time during the Clinton administration. So what is this idea of reasserting America's leadership ... ???


-meeting our needs for energy independence
* Allow drilling in Anwar. Allow oil exploration off California's coast, the same coastal areas where other countries currently seek oil. Allow oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico ... in areas where other countries are currently exploring. Provide tax breaks for companies to dig for oil in the shale rock of the Rocky mountains. The untold trillions of barrels available became financially feasible at around $75 a barrel. Provide tax incentives to purchasers of any car that gets higher than 35 mpg. Provide rebate for people to sell their old cars. DO THIS and we will not need Middle Eastern oil. We will be independent within 7 years.

- addressing global warming
* It's been addressed. Thank you. The scientific consensus isn't. We will continue to use our technology to develop more efficient methods and in doing so we will reduce emissions without taxes or rate increases, without any UN agency, without any government involvement. Unless government will offer rebates to get rid of old a/c and old water heaters, fridges, and other electrical equipment as an incentive to the consumer and to help defray costs. DO THIS AND WE WILL REDUCE EMISSIONS LOWER THAN KYOTO WITHOUT SIGNING A RESTRICTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE KYOTO.


-making healthcare accessible and affordable
* This issue is one of the most complicated and misunderstood issues, even more misunderstood than Iraq, as it began long before Iraq.

First, we should sort out a few points before explicating the statements further. I will pose a couple questions and you imagine the first words that come to mind: desert, rum, airline.

Now, without my knowing you picked sand or heat for desert - why didn't you pick cool water or freezing temperatures. For rum why didn't you pick sugar. For airline why didn't you pick Brasilia. Do you think if I set you and four friends in a room and commanded you to research airlines you would ever mention Eastern Airlines or Pan Am? Why not.

When considering health care options we can only consider those options within our world of knowing - so we can look at British models, French models, Canadian models, Swedish models ... we cannot conceive of a plan that does not exist because we as mere mortal beings do not have the mind to conceive of that which cannot and has not ever existed.

The British and French, Canadian, German, Swedish models (with a few minor variations) - the government divides the country into regions or provinces or counties and each REG/PRO/COU gets a certain amount of money BASED upon certain criteria: population, average patient cost X avg pop. That money became the base for the PRO/COU/REG. It works for ONE fiscal year. Assume each province gets $1,000,000,000. That is divided up between hospitals and regional medical centers out of which doctors would work. You want to go and see an Ears Nose and Throat doctor. You call them up, they say, call your family doctor first. You tell your family doctor you would like to see the Ears Nose and Throat doctor. He says he needs to see you first. Come in next week. You make an appt to see your family doctor and go in. he checks you out and says you don't need to see the EN&T doctor, you just need some medicine. You go home, have the same problem. You call the family doctor, he tells you to wait three days for the meds to work and let him know. The third day is Friday. He doesn't work Sat or Sun. You call him Monday. He agrees to see you again, you go in, he checks you and decides that yes, there is an issue and writes out a referral to the EN&T doctor. You call the EN&T doctor and they tell you your appointment will be in two weeks. If you cannot wait, you can go in to the hospital.

You wait two weeks. The EN&T doctor sees you and determines that you have an inner ear infection and you have lost 5% of your hearing. Recourse: NONE. Assume you didn't lose any hearing - it has now been three weeks you have suffered and will be another 2-3 days before the new meds can provide relief.

Now, imagine you go in for open heart surgery. It is October 30. Surgery costs $150,000 plus ancillary costs of another $75,000 for the first six months after surgery including room, meds, care. Another $10,000 in costs for the following two years. You go in October 30. You are 67 years old. What do you think they will tell you? Here is a hint. EVERY BLOODY SILLY PENNY THAT YOU THINK COSTS TOO MUCH AT THIS BLOODY MOMENT WILL COST THE SAME BLOODY AMOUNT IN SWEDEN, BRITAIN, CANADA ... SAME. The difference is the amount is deducted from the total available amount for the province/county/region. They say they can get you in for surgery on November 20. The problem, many people will need care between November and December 31. Many people who are younger and more productive. It is likely they will put you off until January 2. How likely. In Canada: 100% certain they would. In Britain: 98% certain they would. In Germany: 80% certain. Pretty certain.

Why? because models such as those require INPUT to provide OUTPUT. It is a cost benefit analysis. You are 67, no longer paying taxes on income and not as beneficial to society as you were at 50, whereas 40 year olds are more productive and need help. Why spend $400,000 on you when they can spend $400,000 and three people in their twenties and get more taxes out of them! AND THAT IS HOW THEIR SYSTEMS WORK. When older British citizens need real medical care, they come here. When Canadians need real care, they come here.

Well, what about the right of people to care? NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES can be denied health care for lack of money. NO ONE, NEVER, NOT HERE. You may not get to go to UCLA or to the PPO doctor down the street, but you cannot be denied emergency health care in this country now or ever. Not legal and not illegal - everyone gets the care. If you have no money and are pregnant, you go to county hospital, apply, fill out forms, wait, are seen by a doctor, they provide you with meds and whatever else you need all FREE* or at low cost depending upon how much you make and can pay. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. Now, some people do not like the lines and waiting and the cattle mentality of those places. AND YOU THINK what is being suggested by Obama and Clinton would make the rooms any less CATTLE LIKE? Silly you. You have no clue.

That is all the time I have to spend on this issue which has been discussed and explicated so many times at greater length and in more detail elsewhere.

* NOTHING is FREE. if you get a box of pampers from the hospital, the charge of $40 will be deducted from the funds provided by the government raised through taxes, paid by people who pay taxes.



- positioning our economy to effectively compete globally
* what in the heck does this mean. Bill Clinton positioned us to compete globally and the giant sucking sound followed. You cannot create industrial jobs in the US. Steel is gone. you cannot restart steel, especially if you want to save the environment. You cannot bring back the auto industry with workers paid salaries that make lawyers fees in Europe comparable. This is one of those cliches that means little but sounds good. What will you do? Put more people to work? 2/3 of ALL jobs in the US are in the small business sector - not counted by the national unemployment figures. Yet taxes raised on people who make $300,000 would place small business owners in jeopardy for they would count as the extreme wealthy even while they employee a few workers and pay them living wages. Raise the taxes on the rich says Hillary - but a person who makes $500,000 and owns a small business pays taxes on the $500,000 and cannot hire new people, must lay off one person, cannot expand their business ... to satisfy the greed of some.You hurt the economy more. You are more destructive. Set off a nuclear bomb and do less damage.


- extricating ourselves from the war in Iraq
* Neither Obama nor Clinton would remove EVERY military person from Iraq. NEITHER. NEVER. Not in any way shape form, not now or ever. Whatever YOU think they have promised, THEY WILL NOT. WHAT will happen is, if god-forbid either wins, a MASSIVE media spectacle of a few troops changing chairs, but it will sure look like they are leaving and whichever will be standing out front telling us they kept the promise ... and those troops will end up back in Iraq at a later date under an agreement signed with the US that can only be terminated by the Iraqi government for a very long duration of US protection.

The above isn't an opinion. It has been stated several hundred times in different ways on different forums. For ANYONE to believe otherwise is a sign of mental stupidity and retardation of the most severe order. Then, when everything does not transpire as your delusional minds believe it should based upon promises made, you will go in to meltdown and blame Bush. Silly fools. I am telling you now - have your meltdown now and save the time later. By the way, the idiot Senator Bingaman, he knows all this as well. He is pandering and the people of New Mexico do not deserve a pandering fool in the US Senate.


- To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground.
* So calling republicans names helps heal a division? telling 30% of this country that their strong view on US security is foolish and wrong - that will heal anything? Telling over 50% of the country that we need to apologize to the world when it is the other way around, that is insulting to us and that will NEVER heal anything. This is the most asinine of his statements. What is the general complaint people have about voting - there is no difference. Well, partisanship is what makes the difference. One side believes that we, the United States, have the unilateral right to protect ourselves and our interests without consulting anyone. The other side do not accept that premise. That is the simplest way to decide which side you are on. Common ground: we all are human, we all breathe, we all like children and puppies, we want to live in peace, we value human life, we want all people on earth to live in peace and without death looming over them ... that is where our common ground ends. Versus the rest of the world who may or may not believe that premise.

- We must move the country in a dramatically new direction.
* We were in one direction under Clinton. At the end of his term - the economy tanked. The stock market dropped like a meteor. China used our technology to develop ICBM technology. North Korea developed nuclear weapons. That was the Clinton path. So Mr Bingaman, what path is it you wish us to take? Should we consult the UN more? The Useless Nations of the world are useless on everything but Unicef and WHO. They are an impediment to peace. You want us to consult our allies more - which ones - Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Britain, Canada, Russia. All of them are better friends with the US at this moment than during the 1990s.


Hyperbole and cliches are all Bingaman and the losercrats have in their bag of tricks. Unfortunately they are matched up against the retardicans who couldn't get a hole in one if they were in the hole, holding the ball.

We all lose.

Food and the Environment: Starve them to death - say the envirofreaks.

Save the planet Mr. Gore. Stop the use of fossil fuels. Switch to safer (they are not) agri-fuels. Yes, and as I have already mentioned several times, the damage is irreparable - the social, political, and human cost will be staggering.


April 19, 2008:
World food prices put Latin America against the ropes - Feature
Posted : Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:31:06 GMT
Author : DPA

Buenos Aires - The impact of rising food prices on world markets is already putting Latin America against the ropes: as regional giant Brazil insists its focus on biofuels has nothing to do with the price increases, Mexico is bracing itself for a hard time, and others are dealing with riots. "Don't come tell me that (food) is expensive because of biodiesel," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said this week. In the South American nation, the alternative to petrol is made from sugar.

"It is expensive because the world was not ready to see millions of Chinese eat, millions of Indians, Brazilians and Latin Americans eat three times a day," Lula said in a speech before the opening session of the 30th Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).


April 12, 2008. AP: IMF Head Warns About Food Prices

April 12, 2008: AP: Haiti: Unrest, rioting, food prices jump. UN police officer killed. Where is Danny Glover and whatshisnameonehitwonder.

Globally, food prices have risen 40 percent since mid-2007. Haiti is particularly affected because it imports nearly all of its food, including more than 80 percent of its rice. Once-productive farmland has been abandoned as farmers struggle to grow crops in soil devastated by erosion, deforestation, flooding and tropical storms.

The U.S. State Department has issued a statement banning government officials from traveling to Haiti and advised American citizens to consider leaving the Caribbean country. An estimated 19,000 U.S. citizens live in Haiti, most dual-nationals who live in the capital. More than 140 American citizens have been kidnapped since 2005, but few were short-term visitors, the U.S. Embassy said.

April 4, 2008. Now the concern over social unrest as rice prices jump

April 3, 2008. Corn prices rise and spike. Chicago Tribune.com.

MSNBC.com, March 14, 2008. Why Your Food is Costing More Money.

It's Getting Hotter

Not.


According to UN meteorologists (read: Usually Nincompoops), the temperatures are cooling and have not risen globally since 1998. BBC, 4/4/08.

We should begin preparing for the ice age on its way. Oh, and message to Gore ... global warming does not cause global cooling. The case is not closed on global warming and the only people who are certain and closed to the questions are closed-minded fools reminiscent of the Catholic Church and Galileo.

While we are at it, we may as well pay attention to all the weather disasters to prove global warming, as has been suggested - ooops. Lloyds of London warns of lack of natural disasters having an effect on insurance companies ... they will have to start lowering their premiums.
The Guardian, 4/4/08.

Now who could possibly be pushing this agenda (besides Gore who wants to keep his Oscar - and would he do all this even if it was proven otherwise, likely)? Hmmm. The World Bank is one answer. Reuters 4/4/08.

Recycle or Go To Hell

This would be a good poster for the tree-hugging environmentalists. perhaps an effort by the church to attract more attendees.

Telegraph, March 3, 2008. The Vatican warns that not recycling has become a new mortal sin (not a venial one for which there is hope).