By Mike Cunningham On January 24th, 2013 at 5:33 pm
I am not the greatest fan of Greenpeace, its self-important stances, its position that it alone knows what is best for us all on this tired planet, and its dogmatic approach to such things as the very existence of Man’s hand within the fact of global warming; but, very occasionally, its pursuits do tend to hit the proverbial nail.
But when they do strike (pardon the pun) oil, I feel that they should be given a wider audience!
Advert courtesy the Times
By Pete Moore On October 28th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
The Telegraph: Fight to save a third of Britain’s trees from killer fungus
A desperate fight has begun to save a third of Britain’s trees from a killer fungus which threatens to bring devastation to the country’s forests.
It looks like serious stuff, so serious (God help the trees) that the government has launched a taskforce to deal with it. The “ash dieback” fungus has laid waste to ash trees across Europe for twenty years now. First found in Poland, it spread across Europe, reaching Denmark in 2002 where it has now destroyed over 90% of ash trees.
It was first picked up in Britain in February this year since when thousands of trees have been burned. And when does a ban on the importation of saplings and trees kick in? Today. Jolly well done to the bureaucrats, they’re as sharp and efficient as always.
(Before someone says it: most forests and trees are privately owned in the UK. Using state power to prevent one private party from acting in ways which would affect and kill the property of others is perfectly legitimate.)
By Mike Cunningham On March 13th, 2012 at 9:11 am
…to get it wrong!
In a puff piece for a new film which tries to depict an old ‘Whale-friendly’ story, the Daily Mail gives a synopsis of the film. It tells of the two adult and one baby whale who were trapped in pack ice near Point Barrow in Alaska. If one likes whales, it isn’t a bad piece, although I presume the part which features the whales in the film will all consist of Computer Graphic Imagery (CGI). It all ends well, except for the baby whale, which died.
But in one image, they undo all the good work previously done, because they just don’t know the difference. Spot it?
Although a beautiful place, the frozen Arctic can also be dangerous for ships and animals alike
By Mike Cunningham On November 3rd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Price Charles’ long-time business interests have always been bundled together under the ‘Duchy of Cornwall’ label, and most successful many of those interests have been. The Prince has also been at the edge of the shelf when it comes to ‘Green’ and ‘environmental’ projects, some of which have garnered criticism, and some not.
But I wonder why the Duchy has steadfastly resisted a Freedom of Information request over the environmental studies supposed to have been carried out before he had his ‘Oyster Farm’ stocked with Pacific oysters, as opposed to the local varieties. As many others have asked before me; if he has nothing to hide, why object?
Is he worried that the Pacific variety might escape, or a ‘super-oyster’ emerge and take over the planet, or is it just that he never had the environmental assessment carried out; or even that he had the assessment, but ignored its findings?
I think we should all be told!
By ATWadmin On July 17th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Congratulations to BP (sorry, British Petroleum) for apparently plugging the Deepwater Horizon wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico.
So what’s the damage?
In the 85 days of the leak, the worst oil disaster in history, nearly 184m gallons of crude oil is estimated to have gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, the ninth largest body of water in the world [...]
The oil that gushed also added to natural oil and gas leaks into Gulf waters. These occur all the time from the sea bed, and the US Department of Energy estimates that there may be 5,000 active “seeps” in the northern Gulf alone. One researcher calculated in 2000 that 500,000 barrels of oil – 84m gallons – naturally gets into the Gulf each year, but is never cleaned up.
So the Deepwater rig leaked around twice as much oil into the gulf as leaks anyway into the Gulf from natural seeps each year. Just twice as much.
Those who reacted to the spill as if their hair’s on fire, predicting ecological doom from the worst spill evah(!) may have had a point if (say) 20 or 50 times the amount of oil which leaks naturally into the Gulf each year had, instead, whooshed out of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead. Since just twice that amount has leaked it’ll mainly go the same way. That is, it’ll be diluted away, some chemicals will evaporate away, some will fall to the seabed, that which is washed ashore will be broken down by bacteria but, in the end, it’ll go.
Sure, some livelihoods and animal life are affected and BP British Petroleum should and is paying the cost. But as for the damage, well, as some did point out, Mother Nature will soon take back her organic juice and leave no trace.
By ATWadmin On February 18th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
When you read the interminable reams of paper shovelled through your letter box, anf after you have combined those instructions regarding the urgent necessity to re-cycle everything with the more agressively-pointed bullshit spewed through the screens and speakers of your television sets on the same subject, you of course would believe that all these ‘experts’ know of what they talk.
You have washed and crushed all your tin cans, being careful of course not to drop any aluminium cans into the same box, because that’s against the rules, and you’ve stored them separately anyway. You’ve stored all the empty glass bottles in bio-degradable plastic bags from the supermarket, tied all the newspapers together, crammed all the plastic milk containers together with the soft drink plastics. You even made a special trip to the Waste Recycling depot with your old computer, because you know that all computers contain toxic materials, and they must be handled carefully, and you just know that you have done your bit for the environment!
Well, not really! You didn’t really believe all the ZaNuLabour bullshit spewed out about how it is saving the planet did you? Well, I’ve got news for you; when your recycled rubbish is pushed and crammed together with all the neighbours rubbish, it was supposed to head for China, where all those industrious little yellow workers beaver away, sorting out all the televisions from the computers, plastic from the cardboard, and then process it into making new computers and boxes for Chinese goods to flood out into the European market. But because of the Global Depression, China isn’t selling much of anything these days, so all the environmentally-friendly electronic garbage heads for: you guessed it; Ghana and Nigeria.
In a superb display of market awareness, the scrap dealers buy the old computers, the rubbish mountains from all the Council waste sites, and ship ‘em out to Africa, because there the scrap dealers know that they can get away with virtually anything, and strip, gouge and burn all the toxic remainder of the batteries and other residue with supreme disregard for any so-called Environmental Laws! Greenpeace slotted a tracker onto an old television set, and tracked it from Hampshire county council’s dump to Nigeria. Still, someone’s made a few bucks out of it, and therefore it’s done well for the environment around some guy’s wallet!
By ATWadmin On January 28th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Interesting to read that recycling could be adding to global warming rather than reducing it, a key government adviser on waste management has said!
Peter Jones suggested that an “urgent” review of Labour’s policy on recycling was needed to make sure the collection, transportation and processing of recyclable material was not causing a net increase in greenhouse gases. Mr Jones, a former director of the waste firm Biffa and now an adviser to environment ministers and the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, also dismissed kerbside recycling collections in many areas as “stupid” because they mixed together different materials, rendering them useless for recycling.
He suggested that much of the country’s waste should simply be burnt to generate electricity. “It might be that the global warming impact of putting material through an incinerator five miles down the road is actually less than recycling it 3,000 miles away,” he said. “We’ve got to urgently get a grip on how this material is flowing through the system; whether we’re actually adding to or reducing the overall impact in terms of global warming potential in this process.”
Common sense – and I bet it will be ignored by the little Hitlers who force the futile recycling agenda upon us. I have thought they have been talking rubbish for some years now and at last a senior government adviser agrees.
By ATWadmin On January 27th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Destroying Britain green and pleasant land in the name of the environment is a great wheeze but not without some complexity even for the architects behind such vandalism.
“Britain’s environmental movement was yesterday presented with its starkest choice yet: whether or not to support the world’s largest-ever renewable energy project which will result in unprecedented ecological damage to one of our most important natural habitats.
The giant £20bn Severn barrage, which would stretch 10 miles from Lavernock Point near Cardiff to Brean Down near Weston-super-Mare, would harness the tides to generate up to 5 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs – the equivalent of eight typical coal-fired power stations. This is crucially important in the fight against climate change.
But environmentalists fear that by blocking the Severn estuary completely, the barrage would destroy vast areas of mudflats and mashes, which are vital feeding grounds for tens of thousands of wading birds, and prevent migratory fish such as salmon and eels from ascending rivers to spawn. Other environmentalists think such a large project would divert resources away from other key renewable technologies such as wind power.
Yesterday the barrage appeared on a shortlist of five renewable energy schemes for the Severn estuary indicating that the project, which the Government is known to favour, is moving closer to formal acceptance. The shortlist will now be the subject of a public consultation and a final decision will be taken by 2010.”
Just a few questions here.
1. Is it ONLY environmentalists who get a say in this? Don’t the people living in and around the area have a right to have their voice listened to? Why is it that only the activists opinion counts?
2. Does defacing such a wonderful natural environment not cause a little hesitation in even the most fanatical greenie?
3. Since the cost of this lunatic scheme massively outweights any benefit, why is this even being considered? Hasn’t the government more pressing financial priorities?
By ATWadmin On January 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Interesting to study this hierarchy of priorities for the new US President as seen by the American people. Shall I leave it to you to break the bad news to the Environ-mentalists?
By ATWadmin On December 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
It’s a case of do as I say, not do as I do when it comes to this wretched government and the topic of C02 emissions. We have all endured endless lectures from the hypocrites in power that we, the people, MUST reduce our carbon footprint, or else. But now it is revealed that public buildings in England and Wales are pumping out 11m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, more than Kenya’s entire carbon footprint.
Unpublished findings of an energy efficiency audit of 18,000 buildings including ministerial offices, police stations, museums and art galleries reveal that the 9,000 buildings audited so far produce 5.6m tonnes of CO2, with one in six receiving the lowest possible energy efficiency rating. The carbon dioxide they produce is the equivalent of all the greenhouse gas emissions saved by the UK’s wind power industry.
How about we close down government, to save the planet?