« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The green movement of no

By: Soren Dayton (Diary)  |  December 21st, 2010 at 09:23 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Washington Post has a great story about the meltdown of the green movement. It is about the need of the movement to refocus because, at a critical point, voters — you — rejected their ideas and the people who carried their water in Washington and in the state capitals. What really struck me was that the Sierra Club is shifting focus from raising the cost of energy in Washington to raising it in the states and making less of it:

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, is bolstering its long-standing campaign to block the construction of power plants across the country, assembling a team of 100 full-time employees to focus on the issue in 45 states.

After all, with a growing population, why would the American people need more energy? What is so astonishing about the left is that it refuses to learn from the practical experiences of others. For example, the UK energy crisis.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    It was disturbing today to see the RINO’s out in force rushing breathlessly to sign a treaty with a (former?) communist country.

    In the courtroom, at the ballot box, on the airwaves and the soon to be regulated internet we must keep pushing back the green weenies.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    For all their false claims to be advocates of the poor and middle class, Leftists pursue one policy after another that raises the cost of living for all Americans yet hits those in the lowest income brackets the hardest.

    The recent food safety bill and the continuation of ethanol subsidies raise the price of food.

    Cap & Trade by design would ave raised the price of energy and every thing dependent on transport which, is just about everything.

    The Sierra Club and other earth firsters now want to limit the number of power plants that are built? Why? What is their plan to mitigate the harm to the public from higher energy prices? Or perhaps they know that more money spent on energy leaves less disposable income for consumption. And the Left is solidly against American consumerism.

    As with C&T the Left will demand energy subsidies for the poor thus further reducing the disposable income of the middle class as we not only have to pay higher energy prices but have to also subsidize the poor. We’ll be paying twice for energy price hikes.

    And why is it that the Left refuses to oppose illegal, and even legal, immigration since more people naturally leads to increased demand for energy.

    Is it any wonder that only wealthy countries can afford the luxury of an environmental movement? The rest of the world is just trying to survive and prosper.

    I hate the eco-Marxist Left. They must be fought.

    Do any of these groups get federal funding? If so we MUST work with GOP lawmakers to eliminate taxpayer funding of these, and all, Leftists.

    • astrolite

      There was a quote:”There are over 2 thousand radical green organizations, with a budget of over a million dollars a year” Your local government has very many bureaucratic agencys, Each with their own budget. And in one way or another, they pay cash to the greenies. Consulting, Studies, Mitigation, Ect. Hidden in those bureaucracys are greenies, Even the schools have rules that pay green orgs to brainwash your kids. Here we have a “Environmental College” to turn out new little leftists, the attrocitys done by these leftist academics could fill a book! As: the first one–The librarian (pay $145,000 per year) made two students take off American lapel pins, Because it “might” OFFEND some foreign student (probably getting a free education denied a citizen) to Refusing the Students forming a group tp study “Global Warming” The college’s Statement was: It needs no study, IT IS FACT, UNDENIABLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, the university will not have any question of dogma. YES it is a state sponsered university, gets our taxes. FGCU in Ft Myers Fla.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    I read the following in the Washington Post this evening; “The Sierra Club, meanwhile, is bolstering its long-standing campaign to block the construction of power plants across the country, assembling a team of 100 full-time employees to focus on the issue in 45 states.”

    Your goal to reduce available energy supplies will result in higher energy prices which, naturally, will impact the poor and middle class the hardest. If people spend more on energy it leaves less money for food, clothing, housing, other necessities as well as wants. Why do you support policies that will harm those most vulnerable to higher energy prices and what are your plans to address this if you’re successful in limiting our available energy?

    You have supported ethanol which has done more harm than good to the environment as well as driven up the cost of food.

    You oppose the use of US natural resources that only makes us more dependent on hostile and environmentally backward nations.

    You oppose nuclear power, which is 100% carbon free, and as a result the environmental movement more than the coal industry is responsible for our massive CO2 emissions because without your opposition to nuclear power we could have transitioned to nuclear decades ago and our emissions would be magnitudes lower since, as we all know, electricity generation produces 70% of US emissions.

    And why do you refuse to oppose illegal and legal immigration with the resulting demand for even more energy and consumption natural resources. Your failure to oppose population growth while simultaneously pushing to limit energy supplies is baffling.

    My only assumption on this final point is that it is just cowardice on your part and on the part of the entire environmental movement as limiting population growth is the quickest way to reduce resource demand and the resulting stress on our environment.

    I look forward to your response.

    • astrolite

      100 new lawyers in every state to stop new power plants, and shut down old ones! But the worst thing is asking their clueless sheep to help Obama order an “Omnibus” ruling,to pass the over 200 lost efforts to force their agenda on the various states. In other words after being blocked by you on the state level, they want to pool every disgusting law and rule they were refused! They expect Obama to pass these things over the locals heads! I think that also includes the 24 million more acres of our natural resources, converted to “Wildlands” The destruction of America, the communists could never accomplish in their “Reds” incarnation” they are getting away with in the their NEW “Green” guise!

    • oses

      I’ll respond for them. It’s not about ideology. It’s about scientific fact.

      • walter

        We don’t believe your response. We didn’t then, we don’t now, and we won’t believe it in the future.

        If your “scientific facts” are filled with government regulations, new oppressive high paid government employees, new laws, less freedom, and obvious nonsense, WE REJECT YOU!

        If scientific fact is your premise, Why then was Mitchell Taylor un-invited to the Copenhagen summit? I can tell you your answer. His scientific fact, did not align with YOUR agenda.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

        • oses

          Take a trip to Alaska. Watch the glaciers melt

      • JSobieski

        darn near made me choke on my breakfast

      • itrytobenice

        Are you serious?!?!

        We need a snark tag to help us understand the newbies. It’s hard to tell a troll from a joke sometimes.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • davesinsanantonio

    learn from the European energy crisis, they embrace it. That is exactly what they want here, only more so!

  • highpocket

    the Sierra Club says it is for conservation but works against it. For a period of years in the 60′s and early 70′s most every home heated with oil or electricity. When these costs went up, people began to burn wood for heat and many continue to do so. Because of the rise in food costs because of so much corn used for ethanol, hunting is on the rise and shamefully poaching is also. It appears to me that the Sierra Club is cutting off it’s nose to spite it’s face.

  • miroco

    Saved me some typing on this depressing day. Our own creeps are worse than the commie p—-ks. We forget to watch our traitors like Goober and Mitch, to say nothing of Collins, Murkowski, and Snowe. I say, we need to replace virtually anyone we had last decade—anybody notice the antics of that brain dead airhead McCain this week,?