Federal Assclowns Fine Energy Company For Lowering Costs And Improving The Environment

What Happened When One Company Lowered Its Costs and Improved The Environment? Government Fines. – Daily Signal


Here’s how the federal government rewards an energy company for upgrading its power plants to lower costs for families and businesses and improving the environment: slap them with a nearly a million dollar fine, force them to close power plant units and lay off employees and make them millions of dollars in environmental mitigation projects.

If that sounds backwards to you, well it is.

In a lawsuit that lasted 15 years, Duke Energy and the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) reached a settlement where Duke “will pay a civil penalty of $975,000, shut down a coal-fired power plant and invest $4.4 million on environmental mitigation projects.”

The EPA and Department of Justice brought the suit against Duke Energy in 2000 arguing that the company failed to comply with the Clean Air Act when the company modified 13 coal-fired units in North Carolina.

At issue is the New Source Review (NSR), one of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. Power plants must meet certain air quality standards, and companies must follow Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules to demonstrate that the construction and operation of new projects and major modifications will not increase emissions above a specified threshold.

Therefore, if a company wants to make plant modifications that improves the power plant’s efficiency, it will trigger New Source Review and the EPA will regulate the plant to meet the most recent emissions standards.

However, what constitutes a significant modification is subjective under the rules. The amendment excludes routine maintenance, repair, and replacement, but what falls under the definition of significant modification remains murky, despite multiple administrative attempts to clarify the meaning. The lack of clarification also forces companies into years, if not decades, of litigation over NSR violations. Such is the most recent case with Duke Energy.

Companies could be allocating resources to invest in new equipment and provide jobs that benefit energy consumers, but instead have to waste resources fighting ridiculously long and unnecessary lawsuits. Even though companies argue in court they complied with the law, the result will be a settlement where the federal government hands down millions of dollars in fines, and forces the closure of power plants, killing jobs in the process.

New Source Review is a cost to both the economy and the environment. Plant upgrades can improve efficiency and reduce operational costs, thereby lowering electricity costs for families and businesses, increasing reliability, and providing environmental benefits.

Nevertheless, because those upgrades trigger a New Source Review, the policy discourages new investment and keeps power plants operating less efficiently than they otherwise would.

Although increasing the efficiency of a plant will likely cause it to run longer and consequently cause the plant’s emissions to rise, NSR does not account for the emission reduction that would occur if a less efficient plant reduced its hours of operation to compensate for increases in operation of a more efficient plant.

That is why Congress should repeal New Source Review.

New Source Review is a bureaucratic mess that prevents plants from operating at optimal efficiency. Power plants are already clean because companies equip them with sophisticated, state-of-the-art pollution prevention technology to ensure safe operations no matter how long the power plant runs.

Repealing NSR would not be a free pass for companies to pollute but instead allow them to improve plant efficiency, reduce emissions and also increase power generation to meet U.S. energy needs.



Then the EPA came for your mud puddles……………

The next president and Congress have to turn back the tide of regulation

The Wall Street Journal reported, via Instapundit:

The Clean Water Act limits the federal government to regulating the “navigable waters of the United States” like the Colorado River or Lake Michigan. In 1986 the EPA expanded that definition to seize jurisdiction over tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Now it is extending federal control over just about any creek, pond, prairie pothole or muddy farm field that EPA says has a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway.

The agency defines waters as “significant” if they are “located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark,” or, alternatively, within the 100-year floodplain and 1,500 feet of the high water mark of waters already under the government’s jurisdiction. That’s already a lot of water, but there’s more.

The EPA acknowledges that the “science available today does not establish that waters beyond those defined as ‘adjacent’” to these “significant” waters should be regulated. But forget science. The agency says its “experience and expertise” show there are “many” other waters that could have a significant downstream effect. Thus the EPA establishes an additional standard for significance that covers just about anything that’s wet.

Australia to UN: take your climate tax and stick it!

God bless them!

FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week’s global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference.

Love this story


Did I ever mention I can speak Liberalese?

Liberalese being the native tongue of Libs, Leftists, Progressives, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. Not only can I speak this strange and intellectually vacuous language, but I can also translate Liberalese to actual English. I do this as a public service, because I care about truth. Take this piece that Weasel Zippers found

Via CNS News:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted a video on its website to provide the definition of environmental justice, specifically when it comes to communities.

“The health of a community suffers when people don’t have access to healthy homes, healthy food, transportation, fresh air and safe neighborhoods,” the narrator stated in the video.

She is Dr. LaToria Whitehead, who works in CDC’s Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch.

“I’m also an environmental justice specialist,” Whitehead said.

The video opened with a closed grocery store as a backdrop, with Whitehead informing viewers that the part of Atlanta where the video was filmed has double the rate of poverty as the national average and that 28 percent of residents don’t have their own transportation.

“When the supermarket behind me closed it had a big impact on the community’s ability to get healthy food,” Whitehead said. “This is one example about how environmental justice doesn’t live here.”

“Environmental Justice. What does it mean?” the headline on the video read.

“Environmental justice means that everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment regardless of race, income, gender or nationality,” Whitehead said.

First of all, most of this is pure and simple fertilizer, or BS  if you prefer. Focus on the last paragraphs

“Environmental Justice. What does it mean?” the headline on the video read.

“Environmental justice means that everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment regardless of race, income, gender or nationality,” Whitehead said.

So what are they REALLY saying? Well, they are saying that “environmental Justice” gives Big Brother or Big Government the right to dictate what you drive, how much energy you use, force you to recycle and to redistribute wealth, and trample your liberty in order to gain more control and power over you!

See how easy that is

Study: Electric Cars More Harmful To Environment Than Gasoline-Powered Cars

Study: Electric Vars No Greener Than Gasoline Vehicles – UPI

Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.


Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.

Electric cars merely shift negative impacts from one place to another, he wrote, and “most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed. But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard.”

Political priorities and corporate influence have created a flawed impression that electric cars significantly reduce transportation impacts, he said.

“Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars starts to appear tantamount to shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another,” Zehner, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, said.

Zehner, once an electric car enthusiast who has since changed his position and become an activist looking at a number of so-called green initiatives, is the author of the book “Green Illusions.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Oh Good Freaking Grief! Less ice = Climate Change, and More ice = Climate Change

The latest from the Al Gore Church Cult of Climate Change Via Pirates Cove

One of the bad parts about having a heavy interest in the whole anthropogenic global warming debate, what Warmists call “climate change” in order to blame everything on Mankind, is that it is often like being in an airport full of Hari Krishna’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Occupiers who just won’t stop their insanity (which might not be fair to the first two) (via Tom Nelson)

Increased Ice-Formation in Antarctic Sea Caused by Climate Change: Study

The records of melting ice in September 2012 showed that ice is disappearing at an unprecedented rate in Arctic sea. But on the other side, a record high of ice formation has been recorded in Antarctic sea.

After such results, scientists want to know that if nature is playing an equivalent game negating all the speculations that global warming is due to human intervention.

And the recent studies done in this regard shows that the answer to this speculation is `no’ and suggests that human activities are mainly responsible for the change in weather throughout the globe which includes lessening of ice in one ocean and thickening in other. The records of the ice formation on Antarctic sea reveals that the summer melt of land ice on Antarctic Peninsula have increased 10 times in last 600 years which is highest level in last 1000 years.

In related news, there were thunderstorms here tonight. Apparently, thunderstorms have NEVER EVER occurred before and right wing bloggers or “climate change deniers” if you prefer, are to blame. Yes, that is sarcasm, and no it is not too far removed from the BS the Left spews.


Just imagine if George W. Bush had said this

Just close your eyes and imagine

Via Slate:

[A]s usual, and in keeping with the high-minded tone of his speech, there were few policy specifics. (The Washington Post’s Brad Plumer has  a good rundown of what might be feasible in the president’s second term.) What was interesting was how he framed the issue: not just as one of responsibility to future generations, but as one of responsibility to God. Here’s what he said:

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”

If Bush, or any Republican had said that, the Leftists heads would be exploding. Odd how they do not mind when a fellow Leftist mentions God.


MSNBS strikes again blames Hurricane Sandy on you know what

Oh Good Freaking Grief! These mental midgets act like hurricanes are new

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Oh no, here comes Rep Henry Waxman aka Nostrilsaurus Rex calling for hearings on Hurricanes and climate change.

The top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee is urging Republicans to hold a hearing in the lame-duck session on links between climate change and Hurricane Sandy.

Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) letter to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), makes Waxman the latest of several Democrats to cite the massive storm when calling for tougher action to battle global warming.

Wednesday’s letter argues that regardless of what happens at the ballot box in November, “the election should be a time to return to fact-based policymaking.”

“Hurricane Sandy is exactly the type of extreme weather event that climate scientists have said will become more frequent and more severe if we fail to reduce our carbon pollution. That is why we are writing to request that you hold a hearing on the storm and its relation to climate change in the lame-duck session,” Waxman and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a top lieutenant on the committee, wrote.

All I can ask is what monetary stake does Rep Waxman have in pushing this BS?


New Study: No Proof of a link between Climate Change and Severe Weather


Alternate headline? Severe weather not caused by climate change, Al Gore hardest hit. William Teach has the scoop

(Washington Post) The study (abstract): “Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge”, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, states its objective plainly:

Due to the intense media coverage of and great public interest in the 2011 disasters, we suspect that many [meteorologists] have received inquiries or have a personal interest about the nature of these events in the context of long-term trends and potential climate change. This paper is meant to present a clear record that can be used by meteorological professionals about what is known and unknown and why.

What’d they find out?Summary: Good long-term records of thunderstorms don’t exist and there’s no clear physical reason why to expect they would have changed.

Summary: Records of past tropical storm and hurricane activity are likely incomplete. While the frequency of Atlantic storms has increased since 1970 when observations have been more reliable, the cause of this uptick is not agreed upon.

Summary: There’s indication big snowstorms have increased over the last 60 years but no clear explanation for the change. The increase in big snowstorms has occurred even while the number of years with very little snow has stayed the same or increased. And there’s no evidence of meaningful changes in ice storms.

Summary: Reliable data indicate heavy precipitation events are increasing and rising amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to human-caused warming offer a good, but not necessarily complete, explanation.

But, the Warmists will still tell us that the science is settled


DaleyGator DaleyBabe Tori Praver leads us on a Rule 5 Journey

Some others Rule fiving it this week

The Other McCain had their Rule 5 Sunday, on Monday last week

Bob Belvedere appreciates the adorable Rashida Jones

Donald Douglas links this video of US soccer star Alex Morgan posing in body paint

William each has his Sunday Pin-Up going on

Of course, that in no way atones for Donald posting links to a video of the talentless she-beast Lady Gaga When asked the age old question of “would ya?” about Lady Gaga, I answer HELL NO!

Pirates Cove has another “If all you see…” post up, mocking members of Al Gore’s Church Cult of Global Warming Climate Change that features the Dutch women’s field hockey team. I must admit, I did not think of climate change looking at said photo. But, I have decided that if I were overwhelmed and kidnapped by the Dutch women’s filed hockey team, I would be cool with that!

Speaking of hot Dutch women, check out Rio Norte!

As usual Theo has lots of Totty

Fritz likes the tax policies of one Laetitia Casta

I’m 41 likes Croatian basketball? Or This hot Croatian basketball player

NeoSexist wishes Angie Harmon a happy birthday

Pitsnipes has a hottie with an “assault weapon”

POH celebrates beach volleyball

American Perspective likes Duchess Kate

Classic Liberal enjoys Amy Smart

The Eye is on Sofia Vergara

Proof Positive wonders if a woman named Elisabetta Canalis can be anything but hot

Guns and Bikinis seems to endorse same sex couples, as long as it is two hot women

Hookers and Booze has, well about what you might expect from a blog called Hookers and Booze

Randy has his Thursday Tart

Reaganite Republican has yet another Fox News Babe

Zions Trumpet has some pretty faces to admire

TeresAmerica has Jenna Jameson

The Chive has hot girls, in the middle of nowhere

More updates later

Those Damned Dirty Dinosaurs!

Flatulent bastards! 

Cover of "Dinosaurs (Popular Science Mini...
Go ahead! Pull My Finger!

(Daily Mail) — Dinosaurs may be partly to blame for a change in climate because they created so much flatulence, according to leading scientists.

Professor Graeme Ruxton of St Andrews University, Scotland, said the giant animals spent 150 years emitting the potent global warming gas, methane.

Large plant-eating sauropods would have been the main culprits because of the huge amounts of greenery they consumed.

The team calculated the animals would have collectively produced more than 520m tons of methane a year — more than all today’s modern sources put together.

It is thought these huge amounts could easily have been enough to warm the planet.

It is even possible that the climate change was so catastrophic that it caused the dinosaurs eventual demise.

One of the animals, a 90-ton argentinosaurus, which measured 140ft in length, would have consumed at least half a ton of food in one day.

After breaking down in the animal’s stomach it would have produced thousands of litres of the greenhouse gas compared with a modern cow which only produces 200 litres of methane daily.

Methane is up to 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2).

It is created from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources which include landfills, natural gas, petroleum sources and agricultural activities.

Scientists claim humans have pushed levels of the gas up 2.5 times higher than they should be and estimate this is responsible for 20 per cent of modern global warming.

Cows and other livestock currently only emit about 100m tons of methane a year.

According to Professor Ruxton and his co-researcher David Wilkinson, of Liverpool John Moores University, this is only a fifth of what was produced when Dinosaurs walked the Earth.

‘In fact, our calculations suggest these dinosaurs may have produced more methane than all the modern sources, natural and human, put together,’ said Mr Wilkinson to the Sunday Times.

Yep! It is now official, EVERYTHING, except Al Gore of course, did cause, will cause, or is causing global warming, climate change, global cooling, or whatever they are calling it this week!

Climate Change Nazis looking to silence dissent

Soylent Green has the story, and links. Go check it out then ask yourself this. How long until our FCC tries to take a similar approach

I saw this first at Ozclimatesense, but the link is to Simon at ACM because he has created a new site to allow Aussies to fight this–while they still can…

They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!

So, understand, this is threatening Australians now, and not just larger blogs either, but pretty much any blog that dares express views that Leftists disagree with. So, how soon does the FCC take this up? How soon would Obama,with a new term in office, seek such a law? And understand this,he might even seek to bypass Congress on this. Recall that Congress shot down Cap and Trade,and Obama just went to the EPA to bypass them. Do not think he would not attempt the same strategy with the FCC.

I had a steak last night, Al Gore hardest hit

The angriest Envirocrat is back,and he wants you to stop eating meat

Al Gore wants society to ditch meat-heavy diets and go organic to combat global warming.

“Industrial agriculture is a part of the problem,” Gore said Friday during an interview with FearLess Revolution founder Alex Bogusky. “The shift toward a more meat-intensive diet,” the clearing of forest areas in many parts of the world in order to raise more cattle and the reliance on synthetic nitrogen for fertilizer are also problems, he added.

Blah, blah, blah, am I the only one tired of these talking points? I bet not, and I doubt I will be the only one PO’ed that Gore is now playing The Race Card

The former vice president also criticized climate change skeptics, urging those who support curbs to greenhouse gases to “win the conversation” when it comes to global warming. He compared the struggle against climate skeptics to the fight against racism during the civil rights movement.

When racist comments would come up in the course of conversations, “There came a time when people said, ‘Hey man, why do you talk that way? That’s wrong, I don’t go for that, so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’

Is there any smear the Left will not use to get their way? Is there any point where they look in the mirror and think “you know if I have to lie, or use smear tactics to win the debate, maybe I am wrong on the issues” When do Leftists reach that point? Sadly, never it seems.

Hurricane hysteria gives way to global-warming hype:

Was Hurricane Irene caused by global warming?

How Global Warming Is Making Hurricane Irene Worse
Thnk Progress

Global Warming’s Heavy Cost
The Daily Beast

And if you don’t buy into the hype, you’re anti-science.

As I already said, these people really need some new BS to spew.

Goverment idiocy exemplified!

In just on word, ETHANOL! Milton Wolf sums it up very well

One day historians will be truly baffled why 21st-century Americans burned their food supply in their gas tanks which artificially inflated both food and gas prices and caused food shortages for third-world nations all in the name of preventing the fictitious man-made global warming.

As Wolf points out, ethanol cannot support itself, it has to be supported by subsidies, and mandates. Yet, despite it failures, our government continues to pour our money into this farce! Frankly, it is pretty simple, or it should be anyway, that any industry that cannot support itself should never receive subsidies. Come to think, why should the government subsidize any industry? If government really wanted to help, it would stay out of the way!

Paging George Orwell

What might he say about this?

The global warming true believer crowd is losing the climate change argument. Their back up plan is to silence the other half of the argument and censor anthropogenic climate change skeptics.
(MailOnline)– Opponents of global warming should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby, the corporation will rule.

The BBC is set to publish a report tomorrow on its science output announcing changes to rules on impartiality.

Following the overhaul, programme makers and broadcasters will be compelled to give less prominence to those who oppose the scientific community’s majority view.

I suppose some views are MORE equal than others?

Your Marxist Moron of the Day is…………

Environmental journalism supports the protecti...
Image via Wikipedia

Brought to us by William Teach

Eleni Towns at  partisan hack and uber alarmist Joe Romm’s website

Many of the GOP presidential candidates are seeking the votes of church-goers and religious conservatives by presenting themselves as strong defenders of their faith.

However, while candidates mostly agree with their respective churches on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, they are mostly silent when it comes to environmental issues. Why? Perhaps because their stances directly conflict with the positions of their churches.

A number of leading candidates have embraced an extremist anti-environment platform, in which they deny climate change science, call for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency, and support the deregulation of the oil and coal industries.

Your weekend dose of climate change fear mongering

The Al Gore Church/Cult of Climate Change preaches that pretty much everything is caused by, or causes global warming these days, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, the inability of fish to smell, and apparently to hear, tsunamis, wildfires, beaches are all caused, or at least worsened by the much dreaded, feared, and largely concocted “climate change”. Likewise, the Cult of Gore preaches that everything causes this climate change. William Teach has done an excellent job of chronicling the fear mongering of the Cult of Gore. Here are a few of the things, according to the Gorists, that are dooming us, especially Chicago  which will be turned into Baton Rouge soon if the climate change menace is not halted apparently. And really, what would be so bad if that happened? Chicago would actually get to see some quality SEC football instead of that Big Ten stuff. Anyway, here are some of the things causing our impending demise

Your DVR

Your cat, especially, I would suppose, if your cat uses your DVR

Your smart phone

Angry Birds

Your Ice Maker

Your kids, well actually anyone’s kids

People who are pro-life


Finally, I leave you with this  Cult of Gore theory, drinking booze and or cooking will kill us all!

You said you wanted more hysteria, here you go

In the next decade, the effects of a rapidly warming climate could kill 5 million people—as many as live in Singapore or Finland. More than 99 percent of those deaths will likely occur in developing countries, and almost four-fifths are expected to happen in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. There could be as many as a million climate-related deaths each year by 2030 if nations don’t significantly cut planet-warming emissions, according to a report released Friday.

That was your crystal ball moment. Now for your eating moment

But you might want to pause before blaming climate change on tomato-hauling tractors and methane-belching cattle: Your kitchen is the single greatest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in the food chain. By some estimates, cooking accounts for 37 percent of the greenhouse gases generated in a potato’s life cycle, almost twice as much as shipping them to market.

OK, climate alarmists, time to stop cooking your food. Please take pictures of you eating only raw meals, and send them in….what, you refuse? Bad climate alarmists, no biscuit! Unshockingly, this Washington Post story doesn’t allow comments. Make sure you ask Brian Palmer, the writer, if he has stopped cooking at ask.the.lantern@gmail.com. Now your drinking moment

Murder in Detroit, overworked immigration judges, bruisers-for-hire on Indian reservations: If you’ve been reading Mother Jones lately, you’re probably ready for a stiff drink. Not so fast! In terms of greenhouse-gas emissions, US booze manufacturers release the annual equivalent of 1.9 million households. How’s that for a buzzkill? The good news is that you have choices. Here are a few tips for drowning your sorrows sustainably.

Well, great! I guess we are all pretty much f***ed, so I am going to go cook a steak, do a couple of shots, program my DVR, and then, my cat and I will just wait for the tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis, or maybe those deaf and blind fish to kill us all!

Your Marxist Moron of the Day is……….

Brought to us via William Teach, who discovers a real  devotee of climate change “science”

Imagine my surprise, and delight, to find a post at Think Progress that combines globull warming insanity and Palin Derangement Syndrome, all written by a bat guano crazy progressive (h/t to Tom Nelson, who pulled out the relevant quotes) In Her Own Words: My Imaginary Interview with Sarah Palin

Our guest blogger is long-time commenter Richard Brenne. He teaches a NASA-sponsored on-line Global Climate Change class and serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication.

Brenne:…Is there anything you do that doesn’t involve making sure peak oil and climate change cripple civilization and kill billions in all future generations?

Palin: No! I love that smell of the emissions!

Brenne: Does ingesting all those emissions give you any digestive tract issues?

Palin: I think my problem is that I do have the fire in my belly.

Brenne: I can tell. (Cough. Cough.) Could we open a window?

Palin: Oh it would be a blast if they were all this loud and if they smelled this good!

So, Palin wants to cripple civilization? And kill billions? Hmmm, why would a true worshipper at the Cult of Gore mind those things? After all is not a significant portion of the climate change crowd convinced that there are too many people on the planet? And crippling civilization? What does Mr Brenne think will happen if the draconian demands of the Cult of Climate Change are fully met?

Hardball: Global warming debate heats up

Via Weasel Zippers. It is hard to believe that even Matthews believes his own rhetoric. He has degenerated into a nutcase that spews out the most inane statements anyone could imagine.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Batshit Crazy Virus Strikes, Sigourney Weaver Hardest Hit

Via The Pirates Cove where William Teach exposes an ugly truth about the Sigourney Weavers of the world

Isn’t it funny how the methods to deal with anthropogenic global warming always seem to revolve around Someone Else Doing Something? Ms. Weaver, a wonderful actress, is over at the Huffington Post giving us A Secret Weapon for Fighting Climate Change: Empowering Women

Over the past month, I have been speaking to women in Canada and the American Midwest about a powerful force that discriminates against us. I am not talking about the glass ceiling or sexists bosses, although we all know those still exist. I am talking about climate change.

Ah, so Climate Change is sexist now? It is actively seeking to discriminate against women? Is that what Ms Weaver believes? Or is she simply being over dramatic to get people to believe her spiel? More importantly, can she get any nuttier in her claims?

If you ask people the tools we need to stop climate change, most talk about wind and solar energy, fuel efficient cars, and biofuels. But there is another solution that is not so widely known: empowering women.

Empowering women you say Sigourney? William Teach likes the sound of that, but points put that when nuts like Sigourney, and don’t you have to be a nut to be named Sigourney, talk about “empowering women” they actually mean kill babies.

Empowering women sounds like a good idea, especially since they are treated like 2nd class citizens in so many of the 3rd world sh*t holes, er, developing nations, around the world. Especially in the Muslim dominated ones. Sometimes, women are worth less than the farm animals, so, raising their stature, treating them as equals, like in the developed world, would be fantastic…..what’s that? That’s not what Sigourney is talking about?

Most women and girls want more control over how and when they build their families, and most development organizations support that aim. Now researchers also recognize that what is good for women is also good for the planet.

Two groundbreaking studies, one from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and one from the Futures Group, found that simply by meeting women’s existing needs for voluntary family planning, we could reduce carbon emissions by between 8 and 15 percent.

That is the equivalent of stopping all deforestation today.

And there you go, Sigourney Weaver is so deranged that she thinks killing unborn babies will reduce the sexist effects of non-existent global warming, I mean climate change. Good freaking grief!