Global Warming as Religion
Today, I fell upon this great commentary at the website of the American Institute for Economic Research.
AIER has recently had a conference on Global Warming that scientists and philosophers from all sides attended. You can hear a few podcasts of speeches at this page of their website.
This particular commentary discusses the religious aspects of environmentalism. Boy, do they hit that particular nail where it hurts.
[Thanks to Islamfrominside.com for the image.]
Isn't it true that today's greenies sound just like the religious fanatics they so despise. And aren't those businesses laughable that are kowtowing to them.
I read this article about a huge French supermarket chain named LeClerc that is now publishing the "carbon equivalent value" of items for sale right next to the article's price.
Sounds like having a priest watch every bite you eat at the dinner table.
A young secretary leaving the cash register is informed by her receipt that she has incurred a "carbo equivalent value" of 9.28. She asks herself. guilt-ridden: "Could it be the yogurt containers? Or perhaps it's the transport costs of my imported fruits."
The company has calculated this "value" by estimating the carbon emissions caused by packaging production, transportation, refrigeration, stockage, sales, and discarded by-products.
They probably forgot to include the wasted human effort: It costs 50,000 euros to calculate the carbon impact on one product, making 300,000 euros for 20,000 products.
LeClerc pays only 150,000 euros, because the rest is financed by ADEME ("Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie," or Agency for Environment and Energy Management, a governmental environmental organization) and by the local government of the particular region of France in which the store is located.
LeClerc probably includes their share in their marketing budget.
AIER has recently had a conference on Global Warming that scientists and philosophers from all sides attended. You can hear a few podcasts of speeches at this page of their website.
This particular commentary discusses the religious aspects of environmentalism. Boy, do they hit that particular nail where it hurts.
[Thanks to Islamfrominside.com for the image.]
Isn't it true that today's greenies sound just like the religious fanatics they so despise. And aren't those businesses laughable that are kowtowing to them.
I read this article about a huge French supermarket chain named LeClerc that is now publishing the "carbon equivalent value" of items for sale right next to the article's price.
Sounds like having a priest watch every bite you eat at the dinner table.
A young secretary leaving the cash register is informed by her receipt that she has incurred a "carbo equivalent value" of 9.28. She asks herself. guilt-ridden: "Could it be the yogurt containers? Or perhaps it's the transport costs of my imported fruits."
The company has calculated this "value" by estimating the carbon emissions caused by packaging production, transportation, refrigeration, stockage, sales, and discarded by-products.
They probably forgot to include the wasted human effort: It costs 50,000 euros to calculate the carbon impact on one product, making 300,000 euros for 20,000 products.
LeClerc pays only 150,000 euros, because the rest is financed by ADEME ("Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie," or Agency for Environment and Energy Management, a governmental environmental organization) and by the local government of the particular region of France in which the store is located.
LeClerc probably includes their share in their marketing budget.
Labels: American Institute for Economic Research, economics, global warming, objective discussion of global warming
posted by Katy Delay at 6:50 AM
1 Comments:
The Oreskes study in science cleary shows that the SCIENTIFIC world has no doubt whatsoever about the reality of global warming.
Also, there has been more than enough documented that GW-scepticism is the result of lobby-work designed for the layman to cause confusion. And has no scientific grounds whatsoever
So, i'm afraid the scientific reality is that you'll have to rethink your viewpoint ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home