Won’t somebody please think of the iguanas!

Frozen iguanas falling from trees in Florida. 

I say that we need to start traveling in private jets, driving Hummers, leaving our cell-phones plugged in all night, eating red meat, and keeping our homes at orchid-growing levels of warmth.   Each of us have to do our parts to save the poor iguanas!


More liberal misogyny. How’s that one-child policy working out for Chinese women?

According to Canada’s national newspaper, it’s working so well that it should be made planet-wide:

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

Now, the writer doesn’t say how this would be implemented, but presumably it would involve the same forced abortions (what was that about choice?), unbalanced sex ratios, and female infanticide that the Chinese currently contend with.   

But what are the human rights of a few women, when it’s for the environment

As a side note, I tend to get annoyed when commentators say something along the lines of “The New York Times says . . . ” and quotes from an editorial.  It’s not dishonest per se, but somewhat misleading, as this is just one editorial, not the entire paper, advocating this position, wacky as it may be. 
Here, I could find no evidence that this is an opinion piece.  It is not listed on the paper’s opinion sub-page, although the writer does appear to have a blog linked to the opinion page that lists a slightly different version of this article.  Furthermore, opinion works appear to have a “/opinion” web address, but this has a “/story.” 

Therefore, the Drudge headline stating that “Canada’s National Newspaper advocates [this crap]” is entirely appropriate.

Prosperity is a necessary element of caring for the environment

Jonah Goldberg looks at Copenhagan:

The historical record is clear: Democratic free-market nations are better at protecting their environments than statist regimes for the simple reason that they can afford to. West Germany’s environment was far cleaner than East Germany’s. I’d much sooner drink the tap water in South Korea than North Korea.

Mugabe rails against capitalism as if he has a better idea of how to run things. That’s almost funny given that Mugabe has destroyed what was once a great cause for hope in Africa, in large part by abandoning capitalism and democracy. Zimbabwe now has the highest inflation rate in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies. Let’s hope nobody was taking notes when he was giving out advice.

Moreover, capitalism, and the wealth it creates, is the best means of bending down the population curve. Don’t take my word for it. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that “affluence is correlated with long life and small families” and that growing prosperity will cause world population to decline even further.

Want to know the best way to heal the planet? Create more rich countries. Want to know the best way to hurt the planet? Throw a wet blanket on economic growth.

 But please, read the whole thing.

Kick his butt, Sarah

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin have had a bit of a dust-up

Sarah Palin is hitting back at California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s dig at the former Alaska governor over the issue of climate change.

“Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment?” Palin wrote on her Facebook page Tuesday night. “Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change.”

Palin’s comments came hours after the California Republican questioned Palin’s stance on climate change in an interview with the Financial Times at the Copenhagen climate change summit
“You have to ask: what was she trying to accomplish?” said Schwarzenegger, who has backed strict new emissions controls to combat climate change. “Is she really interested in this subject or is she interested in her career and in winning the (Republican presidential) nomination? You have to take all these things with a grain of salt.”

The former Republican vice presidential nominee has questioned whether human activity contributes to climate change, and wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post last week blasting the cap and trade policy promoted by the Obama administration to limit emissions. She has also called on President Obama to boycott the Copenhagen conference.

Why is Gov. Schwarzenegger at all concerned with what an out of work facebook commentator has to say about presidential policy.  Doesn’t he have a failing state of his own to worry about? 

Besides, you know she could so kick his ass.

Wow, FoxNews Really is Evil

They just found a way to make me feel bad about eating Thin Mints!

Inside the [UN Climate] conference was an exhibit hall with everyone from Yale University to the Girl Scouts (did you know when you buy their cookies you help support their global warming efforts?) to the International Trade Union Confederation, who explained to me that their needs to be a “just transition” which includes a global jobs retraining program as well as a global welfare program for displaced workers who cannot be retrained.

On the plus side, it smelled delightfully like french fries*

Spotted these guys around Knoxville. 

Photo_102308_002 (2)

In case you can’t read it, the sign in the window says “Green Jobs Now!”

Photo_102308_001 (2) 

As in, “We want somebody else to give us Green Jobs, Now. (No, we aren’t offering anything in return, why do you ask?)”

 * The vegatable oil powered bus smelled like french fries.  I didn’t get too close to the passengers, but I’m gonna guess they smelled significantly less pleasant.

How a liberal ideology would weaken a group that they claim to empower

Half Sigma takes to task a New York Times blog post discussing how simply fantastic life would be if we just did away with cars.  HS does an excellent job discussing how this idea is a luxury for upper class people, or an impediment for those too poor to do anything else, but for everyone else, it costs a heck of a lot more to go car-less(and livesomewhere that’s possible) than to livein the burbs and drive a reasonably reliable vehicle. 

It has been argued by some that not owning a car saves you money, but my argument is that the opposite is true. Manhattan, the only place I’ve ever lived where it’s reasonable for people to make do without a car, is ridiculously expensive compared to everywhere else. It’s a lot less expensiveto live somewhere else and own a car, than it is to be carless in Manhattan. A one bedroom apartment costs $3000/month. A $700/month apartment someplace else would free up $27,600/year to cover the cost of car ownership. On top of that, the local income tax rate is around 10%, higher than any other place in the nation.

So, going car-less hurt the poor and middle class.  No kidding.  But what HS doesn’t address is how much it would hurt another group that liberals constantly claim to stand for: Women. 

Ever since I was old enough to have the Independence to do so, I have known that it is downright stupid to walk around by myself at night in many parts of this world, even in places I know and where the crime rate is relatively low, I have avoided it, and did my best to ensure that my girlfriends did likewise.  In college, it made for a great way to flirt with the fellows- what red-blooded American boy would resist the opportunity to flex his chivalry muscles and see a lady to her dorm room door?  (Of course, when boys weren’t available, girls made a point to walk in groups, but that was less fun.)  Obviously, this rule extended to biking, public transportation, etc., but driving (with doors locked, windows rolled up, and foot ready to jump on the accelerator should anyone get close) certainly seems a lot more safe. 

Now, I know that my methods are far from perfect; strangers jumping women and having their way with them are relatively rare occurrences, and males could get mugged just as easily as females, but there are chances that I am and am not willing to take.  Losing a wallet is a far more acceptable risk than encountering a criminal, who is bigger, faster, and stronger than me, and not having any way to avoid it. 

Take away our cars, and after dark (which, remember, can come as early as 6:00 PM at some times of the year) we are no better than women in Saudi Arabia, relegated to our homes or to the protection of trusted males.