'Carbon Belch Day' promotes un-green actions
Smoke cigars, do a partial load of laundry, drink bottled water, and feel no shame. That's what a campaign against a carbon trading bill is urging.
The latest parody of the proliferation of "green" social-networking sites and eco-friendly events comes via "Carbon Belch Day," a campaign from the conservative Grassfire.org alliance that encourages people to pollute as much as possible on June 12.

This carbon calculator encourages ecologically uncouth behavior.
(Credit: Grassfire.org)So far, more than 140,000 people have signed a petition against "climate alarmism," according to Ron De Jong, spokesman for Grassfire.org. If the effort attracts half a million people, it would lead to the release of 105 million pounds of carbon a week from this Thursday.
The effort is strong on shock value, yet weak on social networking and Web 2.0 tools, other than its "belch" calculator. There are no real-world events planned, so expect no sea of SUVs clogging freeways, other than the usual weekday bottlenecks.
The point, instead, is a political campaign to get people to oppose the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would establish a corporate carbon cap-and-trade system, but is already threatened by a promised White House veto.
"Somehow, this bogus idea of environmental indulgences has become accepted as a real and valid way to deal with our carbon guilt," De Jong wrote in an e-mail.
Other popular Grassfire petitions include "Secure our borders" and "Save marriage." Group founder Steve Elliott holds a master's degree in public policy from Regent University, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, which counts many graduates in prominent government positions in Washington, D.C.
The campaign may be a crude attention-getting ploy to which I can be accused of pandering. But its effort seems doomed, swimming against the mainstream tide. Conventional wisdom has shifted to embrace global warming as a near scientific certainty, and, like it or not, popular culture celebrates all things "green."
Even if Lieberman-Warner flops, many experts in the clean-tech sector anticipate a boost as carbon markets expand in the United States, perhaps following the European model, especially as a new administration takes the helm in Washington. Attendees of clean-technology conferences regularly mention the coming carbon markets with the same certainty used to describe melting ice caps.
As carbon trading scales up, however, the next challenge will come as the public grapples with an abstract subject and demands accountability. Personal carbon footprint calculators and offsetting services are hard enough to navigate.
And motivation aside, the "belch" campaign shares a point with which many environmentalists would agree: that promoting fear of climate change could be counterproductive.
Remember the tagline of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? It was supposed to be "The most terrifying movie you'll ever see." A Time magazine cover last spring warned, "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid."
Apocalyptic headlines and images of drowning polar bears sell, but they make people less motivated to "green" their daily habits, according to Michael Shellenberger, author and co-founder of the progressive Breakthrough Institute.
A study commissioned in 2000 by CNN founder Ted Turner found that the more people learned of the dire consequences of global warming, the less they felt they could do anything about it.
"And people were more likely to say they would buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come rather than support increased CAFE standards," Shellenberger noted at a conference earlier in May.
- Topics:
-
Global warming,
-
Policy,
-
Environment
- Share:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us






We should always take the attitude that people who know stuff are to viewed with the utmost suspicion. We don't need those scientist types, and we should take every opportunity possible to pour scorn on their theories and conclusions. I'd much rather base my children's future on someone that knows how to drink a beer and grill a hotdog.
Seriously though, doesn't anyone find it odd that these people seriously believe their opinions should be taken over those who've studied for decades in their areas of expertise, and hold degrees from the best universities in those subjects?
You have to ask what is behind this idiocy. Because actually it isn't idiocy, but rather the defense of the industry that lines their pockets. If serious investment had taken place over the last 20 years into alternative fuels and alternative energy sources, would the average oil tycoon be laughing over $126 / barrel oil and at the same time receiving government grants to the tune of millions of dollars for oil exploration.
If there was true competition to the use of fossil fuels, there would be no need for signing up to green summits or talk of carbon neutrality, because we'd be using non-polluting energy.
But no, instead we have to listen to retard conservative commentators telling us it's unamerican to figure out how to throw off the shackles of our reliance on foreign oil.
Personally I take pride in the quality of our engineers, scientists and the technological advances we pioneer. I find it odd that these people would prefer China or India to take over as world leaders in science and technology. Perhaps they think our armies should go back to using spears and our doctors return to the days of leeches.
Tell you what, next time we both go to hospital for surgery, you can have the guy that only knows how to grill a hotdog and drink a beer, and I'll take the one that has all that suspicious knowledge and propaganda he got from going to a university and medical school.
Global warming denyers are simply inheriting the conspiracy nutjob mantle from Flat Earthers in the 1900s who insisted the world was flat and the moon landing was staged. They will never EVER believe reality. Even if we kept on polluting and what every scientist said would happen, happened years from now and we were faced with cataclysmic environmental devastation, they would blame it on God punishing us for homosexuality.
Do you get vaccinated? Do you drive a car? Do you use electricity? Have you been in an airplane? USE THE INTERNET? If you do not live like the Amish, then the quality of your life is largely the result of the tireless work of scientists who have spent years STUDYING concepts and then coming to CONCLUSIONS which are then IMPLIMENTED in the world.
Why is it that you trust scientists to invent things that will be INJECTED INTO YOUR CHILDREN but you don't trust them to monitor weather patterns?
but no Bagins, you're right, what's a phD? Everyone knows that all they teach you in college is how to salute Mao and spit on the American Flag.
Unfortunately, what you are talking about is absolute disinformation from skeptics. Yes in the 70s, scientists did indeed suspect global cooling. Now skeptics would have you believe it was republican politicians who swooped in and saved us from those nutty scientists, but in fact the SAME SCIENTISTS who predicted global cooling were the ones who said that they were wrong. They followed basic scientific principles: based on some initial observation, they suspected global cooling. To test their hypothesis, they conducted more tests. They discovered they were wrong, and promptly made an announcement that their fears were unsubstantiated and further testing showed their initial hypothesis had been incorrect. With global warming, the follow up testing by thousands of scientists all over the world of the intial global warming hypothesis from 30 years ago showed that they were correct.
Furthermore, no, there ISN'T variation on scientific thought. There is no scientific journal ON THE PLANET which has debated global warming in the past decade when it has become flat out indisputable.
Every now and again I'll come across a list bloggers like to post of about 20 (20, out of thousands, mind you) high ranking, phD holders who do not believe in global warming. yet a simple google search of all of these names reveal that 18 of these scientists are nothing but charlatans. What has happened is they have not done they're own research, they base their findings off of the research of others (for instance, that sun flares cause global warming). The ones who actually DID the reasearch thenn sued these 18 other science for fraudulantly representing their work.
There are however, two on that list that seem on the up an up. One is a Sweedish scientist and the other is an Israeli. They are both highly respected researchers who have done their own research and seem to genuinely disbelieve in human caused global warming.
I'm sorry, but 2 climatologists disagreeing is not "far from settled." It means just that: out of the thousands upon thousands of the world's top scientists, TWO do not beleive in global warming. But hey, if you still hold with the skeptics, I've got some snake oil I'd love to sell you....
Lets get real. The plan to tax sources of CO2 by Oil Man Albert Gore is to tax Humanity every time they exhale. You are the target. You always have been.
Like the income tax, it won't be aimed directly at You, In the Beginning.....
It's all Green, and It's all Good!
Increased CO2 insures the solar input can be made more efficient. Without more CO2 the solar efficiency is incredibly low, like 1% efficient. Plants can triple their output with increased CO2 to work with.
The limiting factor is a lack of CO2
Who is the Target?
As the CEO of a small company which manufactures (among other things) passive solar heating and cooling units, I'd love to see the same kind of encouragement for what we who give a damn about our Holy Mother the Earth - and QUALITY of life on her - have been working on for the past dona hey years as has gone to the oil companies and polluters.
Instead, we've slogged on on our own dollars, so many of us, making slow progress and being hindered by public apathy, ignorance and belief in "someone else taking care of things"; and in the case of us Indns, being told that our Traditional view of humans being a part of a web of life (not the most important part) is "unrealistic" and "backward" - while those same sorts of people 'discover' HR perspectives that come from our Traditions. What's wrong with that picture, hm?
The potential good in this is that as oil prices rise and individual pocketbooks feel squeezed ever more, products such as ours will look ever better, and when enough such units are in use, people will see the truth behind our long-time push for environmental friendliness as the sky and waters clear. Provided enough of us survive the other effects of global warming, such as crop failure....
The enviro-nuts (and I was one at one time, until I started looking at the evidence, then I did a complete 180) need something to terrify people with in order to get their radical agendas put into place.
Apparently, our planet creates oil not just through decomposition and the high-pressure on things like dinosaur skeletons, but through ANOTHER process that we don't understand quite yet.
We just have to learn that the heating and cooling of our planet is BEYOND HUMAN CONTROL OR EFFECT, meaning that unless we do something EXTREMELY major, like setting off multiple nuclear bombs and starting a nuclear winter, we have very little effect on this planet's temperatures.
The ignorance of the misinformed wacko's who believe in global warming are so annoying.
To pronounce that you believe in global warming is like going out of your way to tell everyone that you're a moron.
I think I'll let my car idle for a couple hours and throw a bunch of gasoline on a fire. lol.
My point is that hysteria only begets the same. Doing "something" isn't good enough, any more than "change" is good enough. One must do the right things and must effect appropriate change or the effort is not only wasted but may cause things to worsen.
-
by sigloiv
June 12, 2008 12:08 PM PDT
- I'm puffing on a nice cigar, running my air conditioner at 60 and doing a 1/2 load of laundry. I'm also idling my hummer in the driveway while heating my pool and spa. God Bless America and God Bless people with a brain who KNOW that global warming is a scam.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 33 Comments >>