For today s episode, we're talking about so-called environmental "superhero" Robert Redford. Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer recently released a new short film about Redford s particular green hypocrisy.
Before the advent of the modern environmental movement, National Review founder Bill Buckley used to proclaim with a glint in his eye that a liberal is someone who wants to reach into your shower and adjust the temperature of the water. Man, oh, man, was he right. The liberals' environmental agenda has brought Buckley's satirical thrust uncomfortably close to reality. See, for example, the Wall Street Journal article "A water fight over luxury showers." Stephen Power reported:
The current issue of the Weekly Standard features a cover story written by my friend Steve Hayward. Steve is the author of books including the two-volume Age of Reagan, Greatness, and The Real Jimmy Carter. He is also the author of the annual review that he calls the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. In the current Weekly Standard cover story Steve turns his attention to energy policy, a subject that spans the period he has focused on as a historian as well as his extracurricular interest in environmental issues. Here is his opening paragraph: If you think the health care debate is a tangled mess, try wading into the thickets of the energy sector, which is high on the Obama administration's list of targets to subjugate. Few areas of national policy offer as bad a ratio of blather to substance as energy. It is a field where clich , wishful thinking, and wince-inducing ignorance dominate the discourse. No matter how patiently or repeatedly the myths and realities of energy are explained, a large portion of the public, along with giddy pundits like Tom Friedman, persist in thinking an energy revolution is one government-sponsored gadget away from being willed into existence. Liberals are the worst offenders, but conservatives have their own energy shibboleths that deserve to be candidly recognized as such. The energy industry itself, me
That s right; we red meat eaters aren t the problem. And poor cows have been getting a bum rap. Via Don Surber: From the London Telegraph: In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating mea
Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, the U.S. Geological Survey said Wednesday. Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25, said Dan Fagre, an ecologist with the agency. He warned the rest of the glaciers may be gone by the end of the decade. "When we're measuring glacier margins, by the time we go home the glacier is already smaller than what we've measured," said agency ecologist Dan Fagre.
Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed a Resolution of Disapproval that would veto the legal force and effect of EPA's determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The Resolution would not veto or overturn the scientific reasoning or conclusions reached by the EPA, though they are subject to question. Rather, as I said, it would veto the endangerment finding's "legal force and effect." By doing so, the Resolution would avert a train wreck. For the legal effect of the EPA's endangerment finding would be an absurdly oppressive regulatory regime. As the energy blog MasterResource explains: EPA and its state counterparts would have to apply the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permitting program to an estimated 41,000 previously unregulated small entities each year, and the Act's Title V operating permits program to an estimated 6.1 million previously unregulated small entities. These administratively impossible undertakings would induce regulatory paralysis, bring construction activity to a screeching halt, and force millions of firms to operate in legal limbo -- all in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. EPA acknowledges the problem but, protective of its turf, claims that it can "tailor" the PSD and Title V programs so that they apply only to large industrial facilities emitting 25,000 (or maybe even 100,000) tons per year of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. But the Clean Air Act plainly states that a source is subject to PSD if it has a potential to emit 250 tons per year of a regulated air pollutant and Title V if it has a potential to emit 100 tons per year. EPA can evade this result only by refusing to follow the law. And if it refuses to follow the law, it will