Sunday Silliness: 'Euthanise your old pet' to save the planet

Ms Tremayne

People send me links to stuff. This one came in a few days ago, and with it came a message to STOP HAVING BABIES (in capitals). The link points to a highly credible-looking site purportedly selling carbon credits, but it’s clearly an elaborate hoax as the carbon credits are apparently on “backorder” – LOL!

The purpose of the site, I eventually established, is to advertise a (genuine) book, “Biodiesel – A Novel”, which is available on Amazon, and judging by the comments may actually be a good read. An extract is available here.

The worrying thing about this whole yarn was the length of time it took me to work out it was a hoax. We have read stuff like this from genuine extreme-green advocates, so I wasn’t entirely sure whether it was genuine or not.

Here are a few extracts from an article by “Daphne Tremayne” entitled The little things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint (and think to yourselves how many times you may have read similar exhortations from the environmental headbangers):

Like me, you’ve probably realized that everyday living is a catastrophe for the environment!  In many ways, our modern lifestyle has done so much to contribute to ecological degradation and Global Warming.  But have you ever really considered what you can do to change things?  Here are just a few little things you can do to reduce your Carbon Footprint!

  • Stop Having Children

      I know!  I know!  Children are as cute as all get-out, but have you ever really considered how much carbon one child puts into the atmosphere?  Over a single lifetime, the amount is practically immeasurable.  One of the best all-around things for the environment would be fewer people in the world…

  • If You Must Have Children, Buy Baby Credits

     Baby Credits are similar to regular Carbon Credits, however, instead of being backed by non-productive parcels of land, Baby Credits are backed by non-productive women of child-bearing age…

  • Slow Down Your Breathing

      It sounds silly, but breathing is actually a major source of atmospheric carbon.  One of the ways you can reduce your Carbon Footprint is to breathe less.  That’s right, breathe less!  You’re probably asking yourself how that’s possible, but believe it or not, yoga is a great way to slow down the metabolism and reduce the need for excessive breathing.  If you’re not already into yoga, consider taking classes at your local studio.  Soon, you’ll be breathing less, and as an added bonus, feel much less stressed out!

  • Reduce Your Use of Paper Products

     Consider switching to a reusable toilet sponge.  Store your toilet sponge in a mild vinegar and water solution in a receptacle next to the commode and use it the same way you would toilet paper.   Instead of discarding your sponge, rinse it after each use before placing it back in the vinegar and water solution…

  • Euthanize Your Old Pet

     Pets have become a common feature in most homes and are an attribute of the modern, Western lifestyle.  We all love our dogs and cats, but really, when you think about it, pets are a major producer of excess carbon.  One of the best ways to reasonably enjoy your pet and reduce your overall Carbon Footprint is to determine in advance how long your pet should live.  As a family, set a date when your pet will be euthanized.  One great way to teach children the value of pet euthanasia is to turn the occasion into a family celebration.  Let’s say you’ve set March 10, five years from now, as your pet’s euthanasia date.   For the next five years, celebrate March 10 as your pet’s special day, with a family party and perhaps a visit to your pet’s future burial spot.  Teach your children to think of the occasion as a birthday in reverse.  A predetermined euthanasia date will encourage your family to love and care for your furry friend while it’s still young and playful.  What’s more, pre-planing for pet termination not only works towards reducing your family’s Carbon Footprint, but guarantees long term reduction in veterinary expenses. 

There’s plenty more at the link.


"Rights of Mother Earth": barking madness from Durban

Durban nightmare

This is what you get if you fill a room full of extreme greens – total nonsense. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. Here are some of the key points from a draft (or should that be plain “daft”) document from Durban, and a glimpse at the kind of world we may inhabit if the lunatics ever get to run the asylum:

  • A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
  • “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
  • “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.
  • War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
  • A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.
  • The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.
  • The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.
  • The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).
  • The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.

You just can’t make this stuff up, unless you’re in a hermetically sealed eco-bubble disconnected from reality, just like Durban in fact.

Read it all.

And whilst you’re over at Climate Depot, read the “A-Z Climate Reality Check” (65 page PDF).

Food: the next Green bandwagon?

Time for change

The ecotards are always looking out for the next scare, you know, the one to replace the current one when people wise up to the fact that it was all a crock of s**t. It’s still likely that biodiversity will be the scare du jour in the coming years (see here), with the same universal UN/Green aims of control of the proletariat: regulating people’s lives, taxing them more and generally interfering in their affairs. However, Time magazine has another idea:

These are dark days for the environmental movement. A year after being on the cusp of passing landmark legislation to cap greenhouse gases, greens are coming to accept the fact that the chance of national and international action on climate change has become more remote than ever. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under attack by newly empowered Republicans in Congress who argue that the very idea of environmental protection is unaffordable for our debt-ridden country. Accustomed to remaining optimistic in the face of long odds, the environmental movement all at once faces a challenge just to stay relevant in a hostile political climate. In 2004, authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus faced a harsh backlash from the greens when they released a polemic essay called “The Death of Environmentalism,” but now it appears they might have been ahead of their time.

Even as traditional environmentalism struggles, another movement is rising in its place, aligning consumers, producers, the media and even politicians. It’s the food movement, and if it continues to grow it may be able to create just the sort of political and social transformation that environmentalists have failed to achieve in recent years. That would mean not only changing the way Americans eat and the way they farm — away from industrialized, cheap calories and toward more organic, small-scale production, with plenty of fruits and vegetables — but also altering the way we work and relate to one another. To its most ardent adherents, the food movement isn’t just about reform — it’s about revolution. (source)

Notice how it’s never, ever, about actually making things better, it’s about “political and social transformation” or “altering the way we work and relate to one another” or “revolution” – dismantling capitalism, scaling back Western economies and advancing socialist/Marxist ideals. Yet the warmists yell “conspiracy theory” when sceptics allege ulterior motives for environmental campaigns – when they all but admit it themselves! Why is there a publication called Green Left Weekly? Why not Green Right Weekly? Because the environmental movement is so bound up with socialism and Marxism that the two are virtually identical.

%d bloggers like this: