Mark Solis: email@example.com
I submit to you that the greenies do not actually want "environmental solutions," as they are nothing but the tool of Fabian Socialists, and once they've done their job of wreaking economic havoc, they will find themselves in the same death camps with their former adversaries.
Can you say "New World Order?"
As for "over-reacting"---that's a Government-speak word, first of all. Secondly, you're damn right my blood boils every time I see Man refered to as some "virus infecting Mother Gaia."
I don't need to get any greenie hogwash in my E-mail.
Does man "hurt the environment?" Sure.
Does it NEVER heal? Consider:
1. We could unleash our ENTIRE COMBINED
PLANETARY NUCLEAR ARSENAL, RIGHT NOW,
and a hundred years from now, NOBODY
COULD TELL IT EVER HAPPENED. Just
look at Japan, or the Bikini Atolls.
2. If you really insist on viewing the
Earth itself as an "organism" (rather
than, more correctly, a rock with
organisms ON it), then you are forced
by your own "logic" to realize that it's
a big planet, and it can take care of itself.
3. There are more trees now than there were
200 years ago. This is hard, cold FACT.
Example: Men slash and burn the jungles
(NOT "rain forests") of Brazil. In less
than THREE YEARS, satellite data revealed
that the jungle grew back MORE THAN TWICE
AS FAST AS MAN COULD "DESTROY" IT!!
EVEN WITH FIRE, MACHETTES, AND LEGIONS
4. "Ozone" is a product of atmosphereic oxygen
(which IS down, but PRIMARILY because of the
periodic [200-year cycle] die-off of phytoplankton,
which, tree-huggers notwithstanding, is the
PRIMARY source of planetary oxygen) and solar
As long as there is OXYGEN and SOLAR RADIATI, there is ozone...whether less or more. Periodic "holes" are a function of aurora-like phenomena, sunspot cycles, etc. The last big "ozone hole" was a sunspot phenomenon. Every meteorologist worth a sh** knows that. Fools, incompetents, and rabbid enviro-freaks do not, and will never admit it. It doesn't fit their agenda.
The "environmental movement" is nothing more than the latest manifestation of creeping World Socialism. And DAMN socialism!
The "green" movement is nothing more than the Pale Horse ("chloros," literally "green" horse) of Revelation. Note that it is the last one.
Ass-kick time for the whole world lies dead ahead. Emphasis on "dead." And it won't be because of the stupid "environment." (Try your "green movement" in CHINA---or for that matter, the returning SOVIET UNION.)
Our national founding documents state that all men are CREATED equal---not KEPT THAT WAY ARTIFICIALLY all their lives! And they didn't "evolve!"
"All men are evolved equal...and must be KEPT
equal by artifical means, through Socialism...
equal with trees, equal with grass, equal with
fish...bearing in mind that some are more equal
than others...." [adapted from "Animal Farm"]
DAMN that crap.
I could go on for hours like this, but this will do for now.
Take my name off your "greenie" mailing list.
As for my own sentiments---
PAVE THE PLANET!
...and when Christ returns, we can meet him in the parking lot....
Something fascinating just occured to me:
For all these people who "worship the creation more than the Creator," and who are always raving on about "old growth" trees, etc.:
Is this not directly analogous to abortion? That is, sacrificing the new life for the sake of the old (even if the old life is not otherwise in danger)?
Consider: "old growth" trees are near the end of their natural life cycle. Most trees have a life cycle of around 200-300 years, some more, some less.
The "cycle of life" is RENEWAL. Greenies are supposed to big on "renewal," RIGHT?
So why do they object to the clearing of old growth to make way for NEW growth, for the cycle of RENEWAL?
Young trees cannot grow in a stand choked with old growth. The young trees, though they may begin to sprout, are sacrificed to the old trees, just like babes in partial-birth abortions, made to "pass through the fire to Moloch."
IT IS THE LOGGERS WHO PROVIDE THE RENEWAL.
IT IS THE GREENIES WHO PREVENT IT.
My-my, what a fascinating observation....
"Does man hurt the environment? Sure."
BUT IT HEALS ITSELF NICELY, AND MOSTLY
WITHOUT OUR HELP.
We couldn't destroy the environment if our lives depended on it, and we gave it our best shot. We don't have anything NEAR the required capability.
According to greenie B.S. from the sixties, we all were supposed to be dead about 20 years ago.
Greenie (n., moniker) -- (1) a politically leftist
individual characterized by rabbid devotion to
the use of negative and/or destructive ends in the
pursuit of putting the environment ahead of man at
all costs, whether said ends are verbal or physical;
(2) an uninformed and/or uneducated idiot with no
concept of reality where environmental issues are
concerned (e.g., a "useful idiot," re Marx); (3) a
tree spiker, social saboteur, or unabomber-type
individual; an eco-criminal; an eco-terrorist;
(4) any of a group of "green heads" who annoy me
personally, for whatever reason; (5) anybody stupid
enough to believe that pack of lies written by Gore
("Earth In The Lurch," as Limbaugh [himself a phony
conservative] calls it).
I do not "curse" people who have legitimate concerns about "the environment" AS LONG AS THEY DO THE RIGHT THING. Most I have seen do not. Many others don't have a clue, and are in bad need of getting one.
These people also need to dump their leftist ideologies while they're at it. Practically every greenie I have ever met (yes, I've met them) was a damn Marxist.
People with money who are "concerned about the environment" would do well to connect themselves with legitimate scientists (---now there's ANOTHER arena where I can barrage you with my angst-ridden reparte---) and blow off these tree-hugger types and eco-criminals who want to "save some endangered cockroach," as one Congressman once expressed it.
Wealthy individuals who want to "do something to help the environment" need to get a clear picture of the situation:
There are corporate jackasses trashing rivers, etc., and ENDANGERING MAN (forget the "environment"---MAN is being endangered!!!), AND there are greenies who need to be put in rehab, de-programmed and re-educated, or locked up in asylums, or tried and executed for their crimes against HUMANITY. (There are families of many a dead logger who will say "AMEN" to THAT!!)
Doing something about the corporate jackasses, AND their monetary power-broker elite buddies, is the right way to go. NOBODY (myself included) wants to live by a river fraught with the stench of dead fish and toxic chemicals.
But then, NEITHER do I want people's land taken in the name of "conservation" (especially not of things that either have no great consequence one way or the other, or that have no special value, and that change or die off of their own accord over time), OR people's jobs taken away in the name of "saving old growth" that frankly NEEDS TO BE CLEARED FOR NEW GROWTH, etc. Enough of this Marxist crap.
The wealthy who want to "help the environment" need to be able to do little calculations like the following:
B.S. CLAIM: "100 species die out every day."
Let's see...100 species per day, so that's 2,770 days until nothing's left alive on Earth; divide by 365 days per year...HA! Everything's dead in less than nine years!
Speaking of "some endangered cockroach"...
There IS an "endangered cockroach." I forget the specie, but who cares anyway? It could disappear RIGHT NOW, and all I would say is "good riddance."
People who concern themselves to apoplexy over "endangered species" of nuisance insects have no idea how the "ecology" adjusts in their absence. It's been happening since before man walked the Earth. It will continue.
There are over 277,000 KNOWN species of EVERYTHING (whether plant or animal, man or microbe), and NO ONE will EVER convince me that there is NO "redundancy" built into the system. (Most scientists agree that we have catalogued LESS THAN HALF OF ALL SPECIES.)
You could kill off 90 percent of EVERYTHING, and most people would never know the difference in their lifetimes, IF EVER.
And there would STILL be 27,000 SPECIES of SOMETHING.
Next time somebody brings up the "snail darter," ask them to name 1,000 species of mammals---of any kind.
Here's betting they can't do it off the top of their head.
The monied people concerned about the Danube need to INVEST IN RIVER WATER PROCESSSING TECHNOLOGY, GET THE PERMITS NEEDED TO DEPLOY IT, CLEAN UP THE RIVERS BY THEMSELVES, AND GO AFTER THE BASTARDS WHO FOULED IT, WITH SMART LAWYERS.
Failing that, they can use their money IN CONCERT WITH ONE ANOTHER to do exactly what the traditional power brokers do, but simply in the opposite direction.
And the greenies? Them and their Marxist, eco-terrorist, nature-before-Man crap?
THEY can TAKE A LONG HIKE OFF A SHORT CLIFF.
Have I made myself abundantly clear?
The next comment came after I emailed this to my list:
This quote is from page 61 of Denis Hayes's Earth Day Guide To Planet Repair just published by Island Press.
"The EV1's failure was so total, and so expensive, that it has most likely wrecked the entire market for electric vehicles by major automobile manufacturers."
Denis makes no mention of the 1 million unregistered EVs already in service around the country, in use either as utility vehicles or neighborhood vehicles, and the fast growing car sharing and EV rental franchises popping up everywhere.
This kind of "final verdict" because of the built-in failure of one fish-or-cut-bait challenged manufacturer, who for reasons much deeper than simply limiting sales of EV1 to CA or battery range, play right into the
hands of those executives within GM who positioned the EV1 to be the nail in the EV coffin.
I just hope that folks in the EV industry are "smarter" than this and will change Denis's corporate party line by opening his eyes to the many ways pure 100% EVs are indeed establishing themselves into the marketplace.
Why in the world would Denis be taking this approach. It's reminiscent of his "all or nothing approach" the last time around (circa '70s and '80s), when I was working in this field and on the board of the Tidewater (VA) Solar Energy Association and going to all of the Virginia Solar Energy Association and Solar Lobby stuff. There never seemed to be any REAL interest in at least making strides and inroads; the goal was continually moved to be "just out of reach," and of course I just thought at the time it was "overexuberance" or extreme dedication to the ultimate goals of solar and appropriate "soft-path" migration in technology and its related policy. I'm not quite so naive anymore, but I'm far from cynical. Certainly the need is more dramatic; it's not even funny or ironic that back then, we were importing 40-some percent of our oil and today it's 60-plus percent, from even more unstable foreign sources. I have theories and no small amount of policy history and current data, of course. But I remain a bit mystified by Hayes's approach and commentary. It's reminiscent of other "solar" and "green" folks of that era; as if, "We can't have all of what we wanted," so "humbug!"
We could have made significant inroads into home heating oil if we'd begun then, (in 1980-81) to retrain the guys who handle the regulators on home furnaces, as there were things they could have begun doing with minimal investment to bring about a consumer reduction in both fuel amounts and, eventually, price pressures & supply.
But "nobody" was interested in dealing with guys who wore their names on their shirts. The VSEA and other groups were more interested in fancy "solar homes" in Vail and throughout the south, not the 90+ percent of the existing home base then AND NOW, where the solutions lie...if we can both make them understandable and palatable to the traditional home-owner. That kind of "let's do the sexy stuff" stuff and the elimination by Reagan of the 25 percent tax credit for "appropriate technology" installations, essentially killed our momentum and any gains we might have made in the intervening 20 years. Was this "accidental" or "coincidental?" Of course not, but it's now "spilt milk," isn't it? So why is Hayes now out there "naysaying" it again?
Dick Farley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
P. S. -- The key to progress is making progress possible to the widest number of folks, not using issues to "generate controversy" to power political movements that later fall short of effective action. That's a kind of
"political parasitism," a kind of "bait & switch" issues management tactic that makes a lot of noise at the git-go, then in the long run becomes shrill and tiresome, all "heat" and no light; all "blame" but no real "game" for the real-world folks to become "players" in. Same old, same old...?