Thursday, October 22, 2009

Money Grab Or Real Concern?

Remember back to when the ozone layer was being depleted and we were the cause? All our vehicles and refrigerators had to be upgraded and it cost us. Companies made out like pirates. It was totally unnecessary.

You know those new squiggly light bulbs that have been mandated by law? Ever heard of GE? Do you think they might make a fortune on those over priced mercury filled bulbs? Yup, me too. What amazes me is that eco-nuts aren't up in arms about mercury being deliberately introduced into our households. They are strangely silent about that, or maybe it's not so strange.

You know how Suzuki always screams about how "deniers" are all funded by "big oil"? Funny how lots of these supposedly environmental companies are funded by "big business". I guess that's okay in lefty lala land.

Climatism and the new green industrial state

One of the big green lies about global warming science and climate change policy is that the issues are vicious battlegrounds between corporate interests and environmentalists. David Suzuki has been pushing this idea for years, at times going so far as to claim that the National Post and some of its editors/writers are corporate pawns and shills for big business's anti-climate change agenda.

If there's a corporate-driven global PR machine, it's firmly on the side of climate control, grinding out one corporate climate agenda after another, an avalanche of business-government co-operation the likes of which the world has never seen. And smack in the middle of this global PR machine, shifting the gears and greasing the wheels, are the world's leading environmentalists and green NGOs: The World Wildlife Fund, David Suzuki, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defence, Forest Ethics, the Pembina Institute and many more. Together with industry, they pressure government in the creation of the green industrial state.

Renewable energy may well be the best demonstration yet of the folly of climatism. But there is much more to come, at Copenhagen and beyond. Last week, to pick one example, a Canadian green business summit boasted Walmart, Maple Leaf Foods, Coca-Cola Bottling, McDonald's, Home Depot as leaders, with a keynote speech by David Suzuki titled, "Business, like every other sector in society, must understand that being green is about sustainability." He'll be speaking to the converted.

Wonder why businesses like Coca-Cola and Walmart are climbing onto the green wagon? It's the green of profit they see, and the eco-nuts are right there with them, not concerned about actual reductions in CO2, but with lining their own pockets at our expense. With the green parties numbers at around 6%, I suspect that taxpayers are starting to see through the green fog.

Here is what I think is another scam, H1N1. Have you noticed the number of hand dispensers popping up everywhere? A person would be smart to invest in those companies stocks! This isn't just happening in Canada, it is worldwide. Think of the profits companies are making this year by supplying TWO flu shots. The regular flu shots are still being offered, but now we also have the H1N1 flu shot as well! Canada alone has ordered over 50 million of the shots, and we only have 33 million people. So the companies that make the needles, and the containers, and flu shot itself, have more than doubled their revenues because of the WHO saying this MIGHT be a pandemic. More people die of the regular flu every year than has happened with H1N1. Scare the people, grab the money and sit back laughing. Yet diabetics, who need the needles to live, have to pay for them.

Remember how mad cow disease was going to be deadly? Where is all the hype about AIDS? Aren't kids still dying in Africa from malaria? Problem for them is that they don't have any money, so they get to starve and die while the big corporations line their pockets with green dollars and fake pandemic bucks. SARS, global cooling, global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion, bird flu, flesh eating disease, climate grab or real concerns?

Small molecule offers big hope against cancer

Funny no big companies are willing to fund this research because the cure is already a common chemical and there is no money to be made in it's production.


Southern Quebec said...

"It was totally unnecessary."

It is BECAUSE of the changes that the ozone layer has stopped receding...

"Here is what I think is another scam, H1N1"

If we use these dispensers, we don't spread the disease...

Anonymous said...

"It is BECAUSE of the changes that the ozone layer has stopped receding..."

I have yet to see any definitive proof of this.

H1N1 is the new Y2K, plain and simple.

I also read a report this morning that claims a study was done and found that the flu vacine was no more effective than a placebo in eliminating the flu.

liberal supporter said...

It was the success of the Montreal Protocol on CFC's that led many to believe the Kyoto Protocol would work as well. The main difference is that there were not many manufacturers of CFCs and bringing them into a cap and trade system was much easier, and it was successful. I recall the prophets of economic doom at the time, mostly funded by the companies affected. Supposedly the Montreal Protocol would kill jobs and the economy. Their concerns were slightly overstated. As it turns out, all I have to do is pay $25 for CPC removal when I bring an old fridge to the dump. Hardly an economic Armageddon.

I hope H1N1 is the new Y2K. That means a lot of effort to avert a potential disaster will be successful. I always laugh when people claim Y2K must be a hoax because nothing happened, yet we see no terrorism attacks since 2001 (nothing happened) as proof the war on terror worked.

Southern Quebec said...

Eskimo, the flu shot does not eliminate the flu. It lessens your chances of getting it, and if you do get it, it is not as bad.

Also, by doing all of the items that Hunter goes on and on about(ad naeseum) the government is being pro-active rather than re-active -- which would cost a lot more later.

Kunoichi said...

LS, it turns out CFCs had nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer. It was always there, growing and shrinking regardless of what we did. CFCs, however, were replaced with the far more dangerous and less stable HFCs. Not a good trade off.

I'd recommend the book, Scared to Death, for a fascinating and eye-opening read about various scares over the last few decades.

liberal supporter said...

LS, it turns out CFCs had nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer. It was always there, growing and shrinking regardless of what we did. CFCs, however, were replaced with the far more dangerous and less stable HFCs. Not a good trade off.
Perhaps you'd like to correct the wiki page on this that makes the erroneous (according to you) claim that CFCs do in fact lead to ozone depletion. Plus they claim that HCFCs are less of a problem than CFCs, and that HFCs do not deplete ozone at all since they contain no chlorine. You could also inform all the references they provide that they are wrong as well (it would help if you provided references for your assertions though).

"Scared to Death" is a book about scare mongering, ironically the book itself is a case of scare mongering. The "anatomy of a scare" is most interesting though, and reminds me a lot of the leadup to the Iraq war, complete with sexed up data, shouting down of all deniers, and endless hype.

hunter said...

It reminds me a lot of the eco-nuts right now using CO2 as a scare tactic. CO2 is natural and necessary but the eco-nuts call it a pollutant. That's scare mongering at it's finest!

Kunoichi said...

Speaking of hand sanitizers...

LS - good God, who still considers wiki a reliable source for anything? But if you insist...

...for a starter.

The problems with HFCs is that they are more dangerous and less stable. CFCs were used because they were safe to handle and transport, and very very stable. I didn't mention a thing about chlorine or the ozone hole. I didn't think I had to, since I'd already stated that CFCs weren't the cause of the ozone hole already.

Did you actually read Scared to Death? Because if you have and came to the conclusion it's a scare mongering book, there's not much point in discussing anything further. You've got the blinders on pretty tight.