Focus on your own backyard Mr Redford!

And I mean Literally focus on your own back yard Mr Redford. You know - your 6000 acre eco-ranch. Eco is it? I've been looking at your website for Sundance Resort and having a quiet chuckle to myself. You have a ski resort and 'wide groomed trails' for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. How are those trails groomed? A team of non-flatulent horses pulling downed trees to groom the trails? Oh please.

Guess what else? You can see the ranch from space!!!! Just like you can see the oil sands but when they are finished reclaiming the land, you won't even be able to tell it was even there - like some areas the media likes to pretend don't exist are already reclaimed. A little note on the reclamation process as an aside - I've seen multiple mentions in the news that the oil sands projects have yet to reclaim ANY land. But if you take the time to look up the criteria for a full announcement of reclamation, you will discover that the area has to be free and clear growing on it's own for 25 years before a certificate can be issued. There are large swaths of land already half way through the process but they are forced to wait. So it's not like 'nothing' has been done up there, it's just going to take awhile to receive full official approval of it being a reclaimed area. And there are many in the works - the media just doesn't want you to know that yet.

But I digress. Back to dear Mr Redford who has decided to go full steam ahead at bashing the oil sands projects. I seem to recall him filming a movie with Jennifer Lopez right here in Alberta about 6-7 years ago and gee well - how did he get there? How did the large team of cast and crew get there? How did they travel to and from the filming sites? What kind of fuel filled their buses, trucks, and cars? What was in JLo's gas tank when she stopped at Tim Horton's in Redcliff, Alberta one morning? How did they do some of their work in Medicine Hat, an hour from their main location in Burdett? Was it all run on solar panels and potato juice?

Why is it that these big green celebrities can jet all over the world to spout off about greenhouse gases and the dreaded reliance on fossil fuels, when they themselves use FAR FAR FAR more than all of us regular folks put together? It is really starting to p*ss me off.

I guess my little tiny house is less energy-efficient than the endless list of places to stay at Redford's Sundance Resort. Perhaps one of these several beauties that are 'scattered about the mountain above the resort' were built by elves. Surely no heavy equipment was trundled up the mountain-side to build them. No way! And I would imagine the people must land on top of their luxury rentals after a hang-gliding lesson because there most certainly cannot be roads built to the homes! That would mean trees would be cut down. And the stone fireplaces the site boasts about must be for show. You cannot tell me they are burning wood in there! Well maybe when the rich buddies of ole Bob come and stay, they don't mind a pile of mountain-pine-beetle-riddled wood stacked up against the fireplace. Yup, that must be it.

Speaking of wood, all of these rooms in the resort hotel must have been built using completely dead trees only. Of course there is no mention of that in their green policies but that's okay, I'm sure Bob thought of everything. If you want to get in on his project you can buy some prime housing spots at a cool $1.5 million. I'm sorry but I had to laugh my head off at one particular part in the link about buying a housing lot. It says to 'join us in preserving and enhancing the legacy of this remarkable place'..... by BUILDING on it? Ummm okay. Preserve = chop down trees, stake out lots, build roads, and then build homes. Ya! That makes sense! So it's okay to take out natural areas of a mountain and preserve the area by building homes so no tree will ever grow on that spot again, but it's not okay to extract oil from near the surface of the land and then replant trees and brush that WILL grow in that exact spot. That makes so much sense. Why didn't I think of that?

Another interesting thing I noted on the site was several mentions of wishing for people to carpool or use the bus service to get to the resort, as a way to help with the environment. They offer ski lift ticket discounts for people carpooling with 4 or more people, etc - for example. But when I clicked on the link for How To Get Here and then transportation, I was faced with this perplexing page stating that their preferred transportation service is Medallion Limousine, which is an 'exclusive black car service'. Where is the bus info? I am still looking. It mentions preferring to use 'mass transit' on other pages of the site... but then links you to the exclusive limo service. Oh. Okay.

Another interesting page to read is the Wind Power section under Conserve. If you read carefully, you will notice that it does not say anywhere that the resort USES renewable wind energy to power itself. It says that it purchases Renewable Energy Credits from Renewable Choice. Now some of you might say 'it's the same thing'. But no, it's not. What it means is, the resort uses whatever energy is available for that area (ie perhaps from a coal-fired plant, I havent looked that up yet), and then buys these invisible credits from Renewable Choice which then helps that wind turbine farm keep running. I would imagine that the energy those turbines run gets put into the grid wherever it is hooked up to - but that energy is NOT in fact going to the resort. No where on there does it say anything about USING wind power directly. It just buys credits. So someone else is getting that wind energy, but NOT, in fact, the resort. Oh - that's what passes for 'green' these days, is it?

I checked out the Renewable Choice website to try to find more info for you but it is chalk-full of double-talking mumbo jumbo. Here is a page that is supposed to explain to you what these RECs that Redford's resort buys are for. Yes it explains that the credits you purchase are then added to 'the grid' but that's as far as it goes. What grid? I looked at their map of programs and there were none showing for the whole state of Utah, where Redford's resort is. So where is the energy going? Where did they buy the credits from? How does this all work? And what I have always wondered is this - let's say Mr John Doe lives near a Renewable Choice wind farm. If Robert Redford's resort purchases a whole whack of RECs, does Mr John Doe then NOT have to pay for the energy he gets at his home, and anyone in the surrounding area for that matter, until Redford's credits run out for the year? Or what? Is it free to those who are 'on the grid'? I never seem to be able to find that information whenever I try to look this up. It is baffling.

But here is another way to look at the amount of energy this Sundance Resort gobbles up each year - whether from the wind, the sun, coal, natural gas etc - and it comes from his own website.... It states that each year, the resort uses enough energy to match:
- Planting12,502 mature trees or

     - Not driving more than over 3,068,581 miles in an average   

       passenger car or

     - Taking 263 cars off the road for a year

Thanks so much for giving us a fully detailed view of your carbon emissions Mr Redford and team!! You use enough to match running 263 cars for a year, or driving 3 MILLION miles, or planting over 12000 MATURE trees. That's some fine green-livin right there! WOoooieee! Don't forget to use the preferred limo service when you visit the resort.

Seriously, it just boggles my brain time and time again how some of these people can pretend that they are anywhere near as environmentally savvy as they claim. I looked up some of Redford's former homes (google it yourself, there are too many to list here!) and one in particular was a huge estate that is now owned by Neil Simon. Yes I am sure that Redford tries to live green, but he is NOT 'green',,, he might just be 'greenER' than some of his hollywood cohorts. But he also has the money to put into this while trying to take money away from others by trashing the thousands upon thousands of men women and children who rely on the oil sands to keep a meager roof over their heads.

And to top it all off, you can read about Robert Redford opposing the building of an eco-friendly housing area, using the increased traffic as one reason for not building Affordable Housing or Assisted Living and Retirement units within that facility. Oh so it's not okay for people to drive to and from their homes, but it IS okay for them to use a limousine service to go to and from his SKI LODGE. What a total crock of crap this is. He even has listed on the website that a limodriver will meet people at the Salt Lake City airport (you know, after they take such an environmentally friendly flight) and take them straight to the resort, which is about an hour's drive. So he does not want people driving too and from work at this little proposed housing project, but he does want them driving to and from the airport to his resort. 

Seriously - if anyone reading this was concerned about what Redford had to say about the Alberta Oil Sands, so soon after his protest of the Keystone XL Pipeline, perhaps you should do a little reading on Redford himself and see if he has any business whatsoever slamming down the people who are actually providing him and his clients/visitors with the very fuel they use to get to and from his resort - not to mention the staff, supplies, maintenance, building equipment, etc that zip up and down his roads each and every day. 

LED lights toxic too???

Amid the confusion and controversy surrounding those funky new lightbulbs we are all supposed to use (reports of high mercury levels, how long they actually last, the cost, etc) and the bids to ban incandescent lights in the US, Canada and elsewhere - I just spotted this link on Mike Church's FB page discussing a study by two California universities that found excess levels of lead, arsenic, and other contaminents in LED bulbs (like Christmas tree, house lighting, etc). Oh Joy. So in our bid to try to reduce global warming, another controversial issue that's been raging for many years, we get to poison ourselves on a more direct and personal level with all these new 'energy saving' lightbulbs. Woooooooo!

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/uc-researchers-led-lights-contain-lead-arsenic-8634

Banff holiday Things to Note...

While on a boat cruise of Lake Minnewanka on July 28 2010, our tour leader asked everyone on the boat to point to the 'healthy forest' as we passed between two mountains - one covered in thick tall trees, the other dotted with smaller trees, grass, various other plants, etc. Almost everyone immediately pointed to the thick forest but my boyfriend and I pointed to the other side. Yeah I have an advantage, I am a forest ranger's daughter.... Anyway the tour leader said 'bzzz wrong' to those who pointed to the thick forest. She said 'That is the unhealthy forest. If you notice, there is mainly only one kind of tree as far as the eye can see, and along the shoreline the undergrowth is mostly orange lichen and other thin mosses'. She explained that for the past several decades, park Fire staff would keep careful watch and put out every fire they saw as soon as they could. She pointed to various old fire lookouts along the mountain tops in this huge valley and said they dont use those anymore. She said that they NOW realize that the forests grew unhealthy because they did not allow fires to do their magic - starting things over again and allowing many types of vegetation to flourish. Instead, they have massive expanses of old lodgepole pines stretching as far as the eye can see, and the orange lichen below is actually poisonous to animals so they are moving out of the areas.

Gee, is it possible that environmentalists and conservationists and naturalists were wrong all this time? Shocking! It reminds me of the mountain pine beetle problem and how we should have just burned the crap out of infected forests 30-40 years ago, killing off the beetles and at the same time - wow - starting the forests from scratch and letting nature take it's course. But no - instead we have to drive through the beautiful Rockies and see massive patches of orange dead trees mixed in with the expanse of already unhealthy forests. It's very sad. And it was caused BY people who claim to be stewards of the environment. Hmm... how can that possibly be?

Another thing  I made mental note of while in the Rockies was during our trip up onto Athabasca Glacier at the Columbia Icefield. On the first trip, our tour leader pointed out the date markers, explaining that in 1840 the glacier reached where the current icefield building is right now. If you have been there, you know it is quite a ways from where the glacier toe sits now. Then you cross the highway and a marker tells you this is where it reached in 1890. Wow.. that moved quite a huge amount way back then, before cars were even on the road... hmmm mental note number one. As you move up the glacier valley you notice that the markers get closer together - as in less receeding than the first 50+ years that are marked. Hmmm mental note number 2 - when cars were really starting to get out on the road and belch their fumes, the glacier appears to have receeded LESS. And is still receeding less. Interesting.

But on the way BACK to the icefield building after our tour, our driver mentioned GLOBAL WARMING at least 4 times. He said he hopes that someone smart will be born to fix global warming, and mentioned that at the current melting rate, the glacier will be gone in 600 years. 6 HUNDRED. wow that's still a long time, and considering that it has been melting continuously since at least 1840, that adds another almost 200 years onto it's 'death'. I wonder why it started melting so long ago when global warming could not have been to blame though? Why is it that on the way up, when looking directly at date markers, our driver did not say a single word associated with Global Warming... but on the way down, when people might have forgotten the markers and could not see them straight on, he runs free with it and BLAMES global warming for the glacier melting? We just took it all in, sitting in the back of the bus, and making mental notes all over the place. Hmmm.... that was a pretty strange trip. Global Warming must have been running amuck in the late 1800s to move the glacier toe SO far, eh?

Blurbs

I havent had much time to write in here but some things came to mind over the past couple of weeks....

The Greenpeace demonstration at the Calgary Tower, for example. I watched a news piece where a tourist from Illinois was interviewed and she said something like 'I support Greenpeace' and appeared proud of what they did. The whole time, I was thinking "oh really lady? And how exactly did you get to Calgary from Illinois? did you fly? drive?"... using FUEL of course, either way. While saying she is supportive of what Greenpeace did, there was a banner flying way above her head saying Separation of Oil and State. How did the climbers get the gear they used? How did THEY get to Calgary and then subsequently, the tower? How was their repelling equipment made? What materials and processes were used? Etc etc. The list goes on. It just makes me barf, it really does.

But an added moment for me was the fact that my 13 year old son had been there a few days previously with his family visiting from the UK. They were up in the Calgary Tower. What if Greenpeace had chosen that day for their stunt instead? My son and his young cousins and the rest of his family could have been escorted down by police while the area was secured. Or perhaps their lives could have been in danger, worse case scenario. Why should people be supportive of that? Or the fact that the family made a special trip into Calgary to visit the tower specifically and their visit could have been cut short due to the antics of some extemeists? How long are we going to turn a blind eye to this sort of activity? And who is to pay the bill for the emergency crews and police that were on hand in case of an accident, and to get those fools down? Oh that's right - taxpayers in Calgary, or perhaps the entire province of Alberta, depending on how you look at it with funding and whatnot. That's who pays for these antics - WE do. And yes, the Greenpeace people were traveling in a rental van - which one interviewee on CTV managed to point out on camera. He said 'I dont think that thing runs on potato peelings'. lol.

Anyway it was just something that came to mind while I watched the news coverage. My son being there a few days earlier, and the cost of such endeavors, and what fuels were used to help them put up their anti oil/gov banner, and the travel means of the activists and their supporters. Also wondering how many of them had Blackberrys and IPhones in their pockets so they could Twitter their activities....

"Free Energy"

I have heard the term 'free energy' more and more often over the past several years, as I am sure you have as well. I was just reading an exchange between my partner and several other people on a facebook group in regards to man causing the destruction of the planet.

Repeatedly, the phrase 'free energy' was used over and over, and more pointedly used when speaking of wind and solar panels. Comments such as 'we need to use free energy and get off oil and other fossil fuels'.

While reading through, the same idea kept occurring to me over and over, as it has for years upon years of hearing these types of remarks.

Oil IS free energy.
Natural Gas IS free energy.
Coal IS free energy.
Water IS free energy.
Wind is free energy.
Solar rays are free energy.
Wood IS free energy.

All of those things are given to us by the earth or the sun. They are all provided to us for free. It is the mechanism of discovery, collection, processing, transportation, and distribution that ends up costing money. Whether you use wind power or oil, solar rays or natural gas - it is going to cost you so it is NOT "free energy".

When I was growing up, the terms used most often were 'renewable vs non-renewable resources'. I get that, I'm not stupid. It would be better for us if we used more renewable resources, but to term them 'free energy' is giving the non-thinkers the wrong idea. They hear 'free' and want it. Who wouldn't?? But it is not 'free'.

I wrote a little while back about Calgary's LRT system being claimed as wind powered in several world news articles recently... but when I checked the Calgary LRT website, I read that the city of Calgary PURCHASES the amount of electricity needed for the LRT from a wind farm further south.

Purchases? What? I'm sorry - I thought all this wind energy was free! I am confused yet again *sigh* [sarcasm].

Then I think about the house built in Whistler to celebrate and advertise the possibilities of creating homes that are much much more energy efficient and use very little for heating, cooling, etc. But that home would cost a good half million dollars and most people do not have that kind of money. Wait - it COSTS something? I thought this was all 'free energy'.

Sorry but it drives me freaking insane to hear that. Even if someone were to construct their own wind turbine it would cost something. Even if they used mainly recycled materials, those materials were most likely all made with the dreaded fossil fuels so where exactly did that get them? And then of course don't forget that if everyone starts building these supposedly free turbines and solar panels for their homes, the govts won't let that slide. There will be taxes of some sort of another for it, or the excess energy you collect will be filtered back into the local grid - after you have to pay to tie into it of course.

Exactly what part of these forms of energy is actually 'free' anyway? If people are going to harp on about this, could they at least try to be realistic and go back to the tried-and-true term 'renewable resource' instead of the misguided term 'free energy'?

The Carlin

I've heard bits of this before but thought it was definitely time to post it on the blog in honour of George Carlin and Earth Day.

** Language Warning! **


via Mark Levin and the Washington Examiner
___________
On a side note, it makes me think of the 'green bins' my city has on offer for people who want to place grass cuttings, leaves, etc in a recycle bin that will be picked up like our other garbage (special bin, special truck). The bins will not be available until next week or the first week of May, even though most people have already been working on their spring cleanup to get their lawns and gardens ready for planting/greening.... There is a letter to the editor from an older lady who was ticked off because she called the City to ask about it since she has 25 bags of grass waiting to go and they told her that she could just chuck it out in her regular bin or get someone to haul it to the dump for her, if she is so bothered by the bags sitting around.

Throw it out with the REGULAR garbage? Are you kidding? I thought we were supposed to be Going Green(er) and the city was leading the parade by offering this service... so why is someone at City Hall telling this woman to chuck her grass cuttings out with the regular garbage?

Also, it was advertised that the bins would be 'free' and not add to our bills, but she found out in one of her phone calls that NEXT year they will tack on a monthly charge. That's interesting too since we only have about 6 months of the year that we would have grass and leaves to put out - but the charge is 12 months a year. In the meantime though, since the bins are not ready for delivery yet, just chuck out that nice composte material with the regular trash. City Hall says it's okay :)

Tsk Tsk Calgary

I was reading about Calgary's ranking in the top GHG emissions in the world, in my local paper. HERE is a CTV link.... Upon reading the article, I discovered several mentions of how more densely populated cities emit lower levels of CO2. MORE DENSELY POPULATED.

Shame on you, Calgary, for having such beautiful park systems, large yards, buildings spread out to give people space and a view, a zoo in the middle, large roadways with greenery on either side and between. SHAME on you! How could you do that? It makes people have to drive further to get to work, go shopping, take the kids to school, etc, and now you've ranked yourselves within the TOP 5 worst emitters on the planet. That is just disgusting. Just look at yourselves:

(photos courtesy calgary travel and calgaryarea.com)

You should have squashed yourselves together like,,,, I dunno,,,, Dehli. That would be more fair to the planet, less emissions per capita, a dream come true!

 (photos courtesy http://www.romanvirdi.com/delhi/)

Or perhaps Mexico City would have been a better example to follow:

 (photo: http://www.bugbog.com)

From CTV: ""Of the 50 cities looked at in the U.N. report, only Washington D.C., Minneapolis, Denver and Rotterdam produced more greenhouse gases than Calgary.
Vancouver and Toronto were the other two Canadian cities included in the report. Vancouver produces 4.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita; Calgary produces 17.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita.""

From CBC: ""Calgary produces more carbon dioxide per person in an urban setting than smog-filled Mexico City or New York City, according to a report by the United Nations.

Toronto and Vancouver, the only other Canadian cities surveyed, had emissions of 9.5 tonnes and 4.9 tonnes, respectively. That brings them near the middle of the pack, along with Tokyo and Mexico City.

The electrical grids in those cities run on hydro or nuclear power, whereas Calgary relies on coal-fired electrical plants that create more emissions.

"Calgarians get their power from burning coal. They live in a fairly sprawling city and because we have large homes and we really have no climate regulations in Canada, it's not surprising at all," said Chris Severson-Baker of the Pembina Institute on Tuesday.

"Every time they turn on the lights, turn on their TV, they're essentially burning coal, and that is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and something we could do a lot of work on to reduce."

Higher density, fewer emissions

The UN findings suggest cities with higher densities such as New York City generate fewer emissions per person.
Calgary Ald. Brian Pincott, who sits on the city's environment committee, said higher density — in general, where residences, amenities, and public transit are built close together — can help, but only if it's done correctly.
"What does that density look like? What does the transportation look like? Where do you actually buy your groceries? Where are your schools? Do you walk to those things? Where are your jobs?" said Pincott.
"How do you live in relation to public transit? It's those kinds of things that have to go into making a sustainable, viable, livable city.""
__________________
So after reading the simple words 'higher density" in my local paper, I immediately thought of the Calgary Parks my brother (a Calgary resident since 1998) loves so much.  He lives in the far south of the city and commutes to work. Little did he know, his choice of lifestyle and home are contributing daily to the demise of Calgary in the eyes of the UN and the rest of the world. I should demand that he move back to his old apartment in the middle of downtown so he can watch, yet again, the drunken man crawling under his balcony, the beautiful view of the tightly packed C-Train (100% windpower driven) going by every 15 minutes 3 floors below. How selfish is he to move to an area with more greenery and beauty, more space, and a more open view. He really should be ashamed of himself!

"Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008 & 2009"

No that is not my own heading, that is one taken directly from the US Senate.gov website (US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to be specific).

Props to Biff's Place where I found the .gov link and some excerpts.
______
This is in line with what I have posted in the comments section on various blogs lately. Apparently more people are coming out of the woodwork to poke fun at the idea of AGW, such as Jon Stewart this week. While many are glad this is reaching more mainstream news, I get annoyed that these celebs act as though until these email leaks, there was no reason to doubt Gore et al until now. What? These questions and voices of dissent have been going on for YEARS. But until the release of these emails, many celebs and commentators thought of dissenters as crazy, nut-brained right wingers, conspiracy theorists, grossly misinformed, etc etc.

I recently saw a clip on Canada's Rick Mercer Show where he poked fun at our crazy seasons but it was highly peppered with his support of the AGW theory. His little skit involved renaming 12 months into one long month, all 4 seasons into one word, and wearing a varied assortment of clothing like swim trunks, toque, mittens, umbrella, etc etc at the same time to be prepared for the crazy weather. The gist I got from his piece was that Canada's climate is changing and we better act fast to fix it OR ELSE.

So who is the misinformed one here? Is this the first time in human history, or earth's history for that matter, that the climate went berserk? Is this the first year ever that it still snowed in June on the Prairies? Is this the first year that the first week of October brought -20C to the prairies? I find it ridiculous because there are several accounts over hundreds of years of crazy weather and climate catching people by surprise. My friend is a history teacher and pointed out to me that during the Civil War, the men wore wool coats because it was cold even at the height of summer. What? You mean 150 years ago it was cold enough in July to wear wool coats in the SOUTH? How could that possibly be?

Scientists will be quick to call it a mini ice age or a cooling period and give natural explanations for it (or none), but be just as quick to blame the current changes on humans. Why? How? Are we supposed to just forget about all the other times the earth's climate has changed drastically and focus entirely on what is happening now, and then blame ourselves? I do not understand the concept or rationale behind that at all.

Another thing I am sick of hearing/reading is when someone voices concern, the media or pro-AGW bloggers are quick to point out any affiliations they may have with carbon-emitting companies. Perhaps since my bf and half his family work in the Oil and Gas Industry along with countless numbers of our friends, my opinion doesn't count either because I have a 'vested interest'? YET those same people will cite Al Gore's opinions on the matter repeatedly. Hmmm.... does he not have "vested interest" in this too? He admits having investments with Green companies and when questioned about it, he simply states that he truly believes in it, so he wants to help support the idea monetarily.

Yeah, and with hopes of a huge payout at the end??

Why are his gigantic vested interests okay, but mine and others' are not? I am just hoping to keep our household in the lower-middle income bracket so we can survive without handouts or spending our 40s working jobs we hate. He is set to make multi-millions... Who has the 'most' vested interest here? But it's okay to quote Gore and not okay to quote someone who might have worked for Shell at some time or another. Puh-LEASE. That is just total complete crap.

Larry King/Campbell Brown/Al Gore

So I was just watching Campbell Brown's No Bias No Bull on the news and she had a segment making fun of Carrie Prejean's appearance on Larry King Live. Carrie told Larry he was being inappropriate over some questions he asked her, and in another part she started to take off her microphone because the agreement was to not take any phone calls, but Larry King suddenly went to take a caller (i'll see if I can find a link for this later). Brown said something like 'if you make a sex tape, you don't have the right to call anyone inappropriate' and then she had a little laugh and was highly sarcastic.

Five seconds later, tonight's Larry King Live started with Al Gore as his guest. What? No mention from Campbell about what happened a month ago when a journalist was asking Gore about polar bears and global warming - when suddenly the journalist was swarmed and his microphone was eventually turned off? After Gore refused to answer and instead posed another question back repeatedly. Where is Campbell with her sarcasm and rolling eyes on this Larry King Live guest??

It really is quite pathetic. I swear every show on CNN/HLN is an Op Ed stint even though many of them have made disparaging comments about the 'conservative blogosphere'. How are their programs any different from Op Ed pieces in newspapers or on blogs?

Al Gore and journalist Phelim McAleer:


Thanks to http://deceiver.com/2009/10/12/al-gore-stays-cool-as-a-cucumber-in-a-blast-furnace/ for the vid link.
____
Here is a link to the CNN clip of Prejean on Larry King Live. On Campbell Brown tonight, it was reported that part of the agreement of being on the show was Carrie NOT taking phone calls but I can't confirm that right now.

Post-Holiday Random Musings...

On our 3 day trip through the Rockies (Banff National Park, and the David Thompson area near the Saskatchewan River Crossing), we noticed some interesting things. First off - holy CRAP there was still a lot of snow up there. Mountain after mountain was heavily snow-covered compared to this time last year when we went through, with many peaks looking like they were going to dump it all down into the valleys at once.

But the most interesting thing was visiting two Glaciers and discovering that their receding/melting has DECREASED over the past several years.... WHAT? how could this be? I thought we were being bombarded with the news that glaciers are melting faster than ever before, receding, disappearing, etc etc etc... but no! Actually, the ones around the Columbia Icefield have SLOWED. Crowfoot Glacier at Bow Lake and Crowfoot Mountain was a good example. Even the tourist information signs told us that it may be slowing... Click photo to enlarge and read print on lower left side.

Anyway we had earlier noted that the Athabasca Glacier may appear to be shockingly melted at first, but if you look at each marker they set out, it melted a LOT more between 1890 and 1945 than it did between 1945 and today. What's this? It melted more BEFORE automobiles were in such great abundance? What's this? It melted more BEFORE there were semi-trucks belching fumes around the planet? BEFORE heavy oil and gas production and refineries popped up? Wow... that's pretty interesting, don't you think?

All you have to do is look around... take mental note of things, use your senses, your brain, your thought-powers, and your eyes. Go to a website such as the Dinosaur Provincial Park one in Southern Alberta and look at the history of the prairies. You will see several mentions of melting and freezing going on over the past several hundred thousand or millions of years. A repeated cycle, over and over, WELL BEFORE humans even inhabited this planet, let alone industrialized anything. Think about it, if the earth has done this countless times in the past, why are we suddenly at fault this time? If the climate is changing, and has done countless times over earth's existence, why is it OUR fault this time? I don't get that... They say the melting is speeding up, trying to tell us it is happening faster than any time in the past and THAT'S why it's our fault,,, yet I go up to climb around on some Glaciers and find differing info right there in front of my face. Why is that?

Why are humans being targeted as causing the planet's cooling and/or heating (whichever it is they are going with this week) when it's happened over and over and OVER in the past? Just ask yourself that ONE question and see if man-made Global Warming/Climate Change makes sense... then think about all the commercials, news broadcasts, documentaries, etc you have seen over the past 10-20 years showing melting glaciers and remember that it was happening BEFORE man started driving around in cars.

THEN I want you to watch the short video on this previous post again and ask yourself if these proposals are worth it, when we obviously have no idea how much impact man is having on 'climate change', if any.................. OBAMA'S SKYROCKETING UTILITIES PLAN
___________________________________
Another random musing, unrelated to GW/CC -- I was watching a program the other day where a woman was talking about when she got sick (US) and ended up with a $50,000 medical bill even after her insurance coverage. I was watching her walk around in her huge house, and then she went outside where I saw a new Denali and another large vehicle that looked like a Ford Expedition. All I could think about the whole time was "Why does this woman think it's okay to spend $40-60,000 on a new vehicle to drive around, but she doesn't think it's okay to spend 50 grand on her own life? Her own health?". That truly baffled me. I realize that many families have high bills and don't drive around a Denali or live in a huge house, BUT many of them do and it just baffles me. How much is your life worth to you? Why think it's okay to spend $1000+ a month on a mortgage that will end up costing you 3 times the home's original price tag, or drop $30 grand on a car, but not want to drop 30 grand on their own health? Unbelieveable....

Propaganda For Kids!

My 6 year old daughter came home with a book from Enviro Kids, "Working Together for a Better Future". I've seen these booklets before, the kids come home with them pretty much every year. Fun colouring, activities, etc. This year the cover features a polar bear standing on a barely-there chunk of ice and large lettering above it says "Climate Change Explained"... so as you can imagine it caught my eye and my bf and I decided to read it.... to see what our very young lower elementary school aged children are being taught. I hoped to find lots of info on recycling, tidying up, keeping our parks and streets clear of rubbish - but I found so much more and am VERY angry about it.

Here are some samples: (bold words are my doing)

page 7 - The Greenhouse Effect: Scientists are sure about the greenhouse effect. They know that greenhouses gases make the Earth warmer by trapping energy in the atmosphere. [me: funny, no mention of how many scientists DO NOT KNOW, and in fact refute these claims]

page 17 - Scientists are not fortune-tellers. They don't know exactly what will happen in the future. But they can use special computer programs to find out how the climate may change in the years ahead. And the computer programs tell us that the Earth may continue to get warmer..... as long as we continue increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
[me: what? I thought you said on page seven that they are SURE about it and THEY KNOW it... I'm confused].

But my most shocking and surprising find started on page 63: 'Eat Your Vegetables'. The article begins with the line "Eating less meat and more fruits, grains and vegetables can help the enviroment more than you may realize." Excuse f-ing me??? You are really going to send a book out to 6 year old children and tell them to eat less MEAT?

The article goes on to say other things such as: "Eating meat, eggs and dairy products contributes heavily to global warming, because raising animals for food produces many more greenhouse gas emissions than growing plants."

"A 2006 report by the University of Chicago found that adopting a vegan diet does more to reduce global warming than switching to a hybrid car." UNFRICKEN REAL. I cannot believe I found this stuff in my 6 yr old's backpack.

"Making a salad doesn't take any more time than cooking a hamburger and it's better for you - and the environment." So what, are all our kids supposed to go around eating only salad? Even a vegan will tell you that is not enough. There is no protein in a regular salad, you have to find other things to add (perhaps tofu cubes, etc). But this book, peddled to children, is actually telling them that it is better for them to be a Vegan, not eat DAIRY EGGS OR MEAT (Milk doesn't do a body good???), in order to save the planet.

It then goes on to say that "Raising animals for food also uses enormous amounts of land, water, grain and fuel." Oh really? Well how about ETHANOL production using corn, wheat, and other food crops that environmentalists are pushing for? How many grain crops will go to that instead of to animal feed? Hmmm? Anyone have a guess for me or are you strangely silent. Could THAT be the ulterior motive of this publication? Free up more land and grain for this wonderful fuel replacement for the end days of gasoline? Just something to think about in your spare time...
____________________
That's as far as I have made it through this 144 page EnviroKids.ca booklet. If I can stomach reading the rest, I will be back to update this with my finds.

Update: some more honorable mentions are of course the energy efficient light bulbs, which came at excellent timing since last night another of our bulbs burnt out in less than 16 months. I think there are only 4 left in the whole house and we only just put them in Feb/Mar 2008.

And then at the end of the book is a curious thing -- a science experiment for kids to try that uses baking soda, water, vinegar, and cooking oil. The bubbles will appear when mixing with vinegar but it tells the children it's okay because the bubbles are only carbon dioxide, which is perfectly safe, we breathe it every day, and it's a normal part of the air. This after several pages talking of how we should not be putting CO2 into the skies. Also curious was that several of the advertisers in the booklet, who make it's production possible, are oil and lumber companies lol.

What upset me most was the backhanded way our children are being told to give up foods that the health unit just put out booklets for a month or so ago - like milk! There are always campaigns and milk programs going on at schools to get children to drink more milk, and yet this booklet appears telling children not to drink it because it is contributing to the destruction of our environment! Wow. That totally astonished me and I am not impressed.

More Warming Theories Thrown Into Question??

links via Mike Church

""As shocking as this news is to oceanographers it is even worse for climate modelers—it means that all the current climate prediction models are significantly wrong.""
""A new report by Amy Bower of Wood’s Hole and Susan Lozier of Duke University et al., to be published in a forthcoming issue of Nature, has rocked the climate community's complacency.""
-Conveyor Belt Model Broken

Or check out Sun Heats Earth by Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist from Darsham, England (pdf file) [ Here is another link that's not pdf]

My question is, with more and more of these types of articles and reports coming every day, why are countries deciding to force their citizens to conform to unproven and disproven theories?

Oh and yet another of our energy efficient bulbs blew today, in just under a year. All 3 lights in the bathroom burnt out within the past couple of months so it is now happily lit by the old style bulbs again. I spoke to my mother-in-law on Saturday, who bought her home less than 2 years ago and put those new bulbs in EVERY socket. She has NONE left now aside from a few desk lamps that she does not use very often. The rest have all burnt out and been replaced by the old bulbs. In case anyone is interested, like in the past suggesting I purchased cheap-o versions, this was a General Electric 10W Helical, made in China btw.

more on BioFuels

I have talked about this several times, moving towards biofuels and other green(er) energy sources. I have talked about how it's a great idea, but not anywhere near the stage it needs to be for the fast-actions some are trying to push through bills (such as 20% biofuel and/or electric cars by 2020, etc). I say that they are deluding themselves to suggest people get ready asap for a change because I have read many articles straight from the websites themselves that show how FAR BEHIND they are in actually producing a useable amount to sell to the masses. Now this morning I found an article on Reuters.com that again shows how far behind it is right now, and to top it off, the high prices of corn (US) are affecting the business directly.

Such as ""...ethanol producers have struggled to find profits amid volatile corn prices and plunging gasoline demand and prices. "We have a real dilemma in the industry," Ann Duignan told the U.S. Agriculture Department's annual outlook forum. "As long as nobody's making money, the industry is not viable long term regardless of a mandate.""

""The administration of President Barack Obama has been keen to foster the "next generation" biofuels like cellulosic ethanol made from crop waste, grasses and wood pulp. The fuels are still at the pilot stage and are more expensive to produce than corn-based ethanol.""

I will stress again that I DO think we should always keep working on new sources of energy and fuel, of course we should, that is what humans have been doing since they first fashioned a tool out of rock or wood. We use our minds and create more and more intricate techonologies all the time, leading to great jumps in our capabilities in all sectors. However, we also have to face the fact that sometimes we aren't "quite there yet" and have to be realistic. If we are only making 5% of the new fuels we need, and more would mean devouring FOOD CROPS all over the planet, we need to re-think things. Above it mentions wood pulp and crop waste - that's a good idea, keep working on that! But don't expect people to conform decades sooner than it is even feasible! It's putting the cart before the horse - I finally fully understand that particular phrase! How far are you going to get if you put actions in place to force people to get rid of their gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles, if THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE? Maybe we should all go out and buy a horse and cart actually... Right now I could go out and get a hybrid except for the fact the ones large enough to fit my family of 5 are way too expensive. And not to mention the fact that my utility bills would increase if I had to plug my car in all the time. And not to mention plans in the works for many areas to have increased taxes on their home energy consumption. Hmmm... so if so many people are struggling financially already, why would you think it's okay to cripple them even further by forcing Green Energy useage and increased utility taxes. Also, if it is so expensive to make this stuff, once it fully hits the streets for mass consumption, how much is it going to cost? Go Green but get your personal bankruptcy papers in order while you're at it?? Is THAT plausible? Seriously.....

Here is my little thought - Think of how many people you know that support Feeding People in undeveloped countries, and cry and scream about the waste we have here, make us feel guilty for being able to eat til we burst - but ALSO cry out that we need to increase using CORN and WHEAT for our fuels. Hmm... so they yell at us for not donating enough money to send food to Africa, but endorse using food for filling up their car. Is that not all ass-backwards? Just THINK about it. I wonder how many people could have been fed with the crops used to make the billions of gallons and litres of ethanol Canada and the US have already produced.

Just For Fun...

This is a look at what happened in parts of New Brunswick Canada a few days ago. The reason I am showing them here is to just have people sit back and think for a few minutes - how are electric cars going to work in weather like this? Maybe one of them is buried somewhere in these photos ;) But seriously.. wow that's a lot of snow and it happens in various regions around the world, not just Canada (we really don't live in igloos ya know). I live in an area that's pretty rural and some of the roads are pretty scary in the winter. How is my little putt-putt elec car even going to start let alone plow through this stuff? I haven't seen snow like THIS in Alberta for a very long time, but I have had over a foot of snow in my backyard since December and we are having another week of -30C weather. It was in the -40s in Dec and Jan. So I am just asking - is the push to force people to conform and drive such vehicles even plausible in many regions? Where I live, it takes an hour to get to the next decent-sized town. It's very spread out. My bf drives 30 minutes out of town to get to work every day and trust me, a little wee car isn't going to cut it on those roads even if they were fixed up. Just food for thought because some people have this idea that everyone in the world is going to be bootin' around in Smart Cars someday in the near future and they are just sadly misguided. They tend to think inside the box, in their city limits, and not think about how the rest of the world actually works. I had someone not too long ago tell me that Albertans just don't want to conform! LOL! omg,,, yeah okay Mr Toronto Inner City - you bring your little car-car out here for the winter and tell me how you feel afterwards. Or maybe you should go visit New Brunswick right now and if you can even find your car in the morning, just try starting it and get back to me ;)

It's always fun when you have to dig yourself OUT of your house.Howdy Neighbours! Love the new roof!

Shall we have a patio party?
______________________

Now to be fair, it's difficult or next to impossible for regular cars to go anywhere in this mess either. But guess what can? Those dreaded 4x4 vehicles. When I was a kid this kind of snow did happen in Southern Alberta and the farmers would hop in their big trucks and go around to check to see if all the neighbours were okay. I remember a huge one pulling up my driveway like it was a tank lol. Our GMC Yukon loves snow :) There are a few Smart Cars in my city but I have not seen them on any of the bad icy days. Why not? Oh right - because they are crap in weather like this. But we have snow and ice for up to 6 months of the year so...... feasible? I don't think so.

Wind Turbines

Update:GoneBatty


I lived near the area of Pincher Creek for 3 years. The number of wind turbines has grown enormously, so much so that the area's views have been permanently changed. I am not sure how this is supposed to be environmentally friendly?? It baffles me. There are roads built all around these 'farms', wires and cables sprawling underground, not to mention the ENERGY used to build them, transport them, and run them. It's a strange concept to me. Sure I think we should always always always be looking for better ways to capture and store energy, but covering the countryside with giant wind mills just doesn't seem right. I would like to know how much power these things can make on a good day, how many would be needed to power a small town, and a large city. I have an awful time trying to find that very vital information. It's a bit strange since you can look at a car ad and know how much horsepower it has, how many miles to the gallon, etc - but not a clue on these wind turbines. Here are some photos of the Pincher Creek Alberta area where a lot of the testing has been going on (funded by Canada and America, if not other countries as well). Now imagine having these everywhere you look, covering NATURAL areas....