Beyond the Cusp

September 27, 2014

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants Environmental Opponents Imprisoned


Thankfully, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly decided not to run or accept appointment to political office where he might be able to submit such laws regarding, establish regulations limiting or interpret statutes to use to arrest anybody who disagrees or calls for debate the indisputable facts regarding anthropomorphic climate change as he claims that those denying his beliefs deserve incarceration after being tried for crimes of a similar degree as laws against those who commit war crimes. In a Climate Depot Exclusive Interview, they were quite proud and excited to have the actual Robert F. Kennedy Jr. interviewing with them, he stated, “I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.” He lamented and accused skeptical politicians of “selling out the public trust.” But Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saved his most vile vitriol for those favorite punching bags of every extreme leftist progressive viciously tearing into them spitting, “Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continued his rant complaining, “I think it’s treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous, yes I do. They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals. Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offence and they ought to be serving time for it.” But you should not have to take my word for it, not when you can hear it from the mouth of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself in the video below.





Well, where to start, there are so many ripe targets and the most glaring is not even about climate change whether anthropomorphic, caused by the sun or just warming normally after a severe ice age has ended and the next one has yet to arrive, you know, the ice age from global cooling which was the climactic horror being sold back in the 1970’s. horror being sold back in the 1970’s. </a>Perhaps I’ll start with Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s economic comment that the Koch brothers deserved to be incarcerated because, “They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us.” First off, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. degrading anybody for gaining wealth is disgusting when one realized the wealth and privilege he was born into, but I do not hold any animosities to him for his wealth and wish him only more riches as he is able to earn them. The problem is his claim that the Koch brothers coming into wealth and working hard and investing wisely to gain additional wealth makes the rest of the society poorer as their wealth comes at the expense of the rest of the population. This is the classic myth in which there is a set pie which represents all wealth and it never changes so if somebody receives an increase in their wealth then somebody else will have their wealth diminished. So, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the economic pie never increases in size and the economic pie is, will be and always has been exactly one size unchanged and stagnant through all of time. None of the gold, silver, copper and other ores pulled from the ground; none of the vast wealth manufactured since the start of the industrial revolution; all the labor intensive production through all of history; all the crops grown, harvested, and processed or cooked and fed to people; and all the advancements, ideas, inventions, exploration and other efforts of humankind has not produced one iota of increased wealth thus resulting in a situation where any person gaining wealth must take it from another person. We have exactly the same total wealth as did the first humanoid who climbed down from the trees and took up a different direction eventually leading to modern society, they had the same total wealth as is available to modern man. This representation of the economic dynamics is so pitifully flawed and disregard by almost every economist that it is difficult to believe that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ever took an economics course or actually took all of his economics courses from some luddite who believes there is no such thing as manufactured wealth or additional wealth generated over time. I hope he was just repeating the leftist socialist canard used to generate further class hatreds and class envy in order to castigate the wealthy, which actually includes his entire family.


As far as debating anthropomorphic global climate change (or whatever the term it is currently referred to as I have not kept up on the always adapting name fashioned to facilitate rejecting and arguing against the latest scientific data which disproves their last set of claims) that is part of freedom of speech, one of the five rights protected by the First Amendment. People even have the right in the United States to be wrong and even to disagree with the President, going dogma and societal perception, and even with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. My problem with Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s argument other than under the First Amendment is not the part that the Earth has been warming over the past few centuries, even though it has stalled for the past decade or so as the average temperatures have been unmoved when the global averages are considered. I have a problem with the anthropomorphic part of his rant. Natural sources such as volcanos, lava vents, carbon dioxide released by the oceans, carbon dioxide emitted from animals and, in certain conditions, plants all together easily exceed human carbon footprint. But even if the human race produces an excessive amount of carbon dioxide, the United States has made such strides since the middle of the 1960s that demanding the United States address their carbon footprint while excusing nations such as China, Brazil and numerous other developing nations whose reliance on coal and other high carbon fuels pumps far more carbon into the atmosphere than the United States or even all the advanced nations. If the ecological environmentalists really were interested in reducing the carbon footprint of humankind, they should be calling and demonstrating for the United States and the advanced nations of the world to assist the developing and third world nations in addressing their energy requirements and industrial methods by making advanced power production and clean manufacturing systems rather than ignoring their needs and resorting to the cheapest and most available sources of fuel which is usually coal. There are reports that China has put at least one new carbon burning electrical plant online every month. Imagine if they were provided with just scrubbers and modern methods of cleaning these coal plants bringing them up to the standards available in the United States, Canada, Europe, Argentina, Japan, Israel and the rest of the modern advanced nations. By assisting with cleaning the energy production where the most carbon is being placed into the atmosphere instead of trying to destroy the economy of the advanced nations by requiring they shut down all fossil fueled energy plants and rely solely on renewable energy, perhaps we could share some energy technologies which developing nations could easily adapt to their energy plants to reduce carbon emissions. I understood the ideals that the ecology advocates when they demanded that scrubbers and other reduction methods be utilized by coal plants and for their being refitted and modernized but when they called for the shuttering of those very same coal plants after the investments of millions of dollars and efforts to meet the new requirements and then proceeded to demand that hydroelectric generating dams because the rivers must be returned to their natural state, as nature must not be violated or harnessed if such disturbs it in any way, that was one insanity too many. The most absurd protest came as the initial plans were presented for the cleaning of the legendary pollution in the Boston harbor. There was a group of ecological environmentalists protesters who called for leaving the harbor polluted in order to save an organism unique to the polluted waters which thrived on the pollution and any change to the various kinds and levels of pollutants would result in this unique organism’s death. They lost their fight but they did prove that there are those who will protest any cause no matter how absurd.


Back to Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s demand that disagreeing with his views on global climate change and gaining wealth rather than being born into wealth be punished, especially if the ones gaining wealth do so in a manner or have beliefs with which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disagrees. The idea by anybody, especially one from one of the families who have so generously benefited from the blessing of their great nation, demands that debate be closed down and that having an opinion which differs, even if, or more especially, should that opinion be held only by one, that it be made illegal and the holder of that idea incarcerated, that would signal the end of freedom and honor in America. The ease with which so many self-important political and social activists demand that all debate be silenced and those who do not agree be squelched if not arrested for their audacity to hold a different opinion and refusing to wilt before their arrogant anger would be amusing if it were not such a threat to freedom of thought and freedom of speech. May these people never be granted the power to enact laws enforcing their tyranny bringing fascism to the fore destroying all that the founding fathers crafted so carefully. Perhaps that is the greatest insult I felt at the pontifications and imperatives which dotted Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s excerpted interview. Perhaps I am being unfair being so critical as I was not able to find the entire interview though I doubt anything additional which might have been contained in the remainder of the interview would have mitigated the unacceptable parts made public. One has to realize that these excerpts and the quotes available were from a group which supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s positions and would most likely use the parts which they believed would reflect best the content of the interview. I pray for the sake of debate and what has historically been referred to as American fairness that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. never ever hold public office, especially in a position where he has the opportunity to formulate laws or interpret and enforce them as such would be a danger to the nation and its people.


Beyond the Cusp


May 19, 2014

Does a Renewable Energy Source Exist to Replace Coal?

There are rumors that President Obama actually desires making coal use for generating electricity or powering anything from locomotives to furnaces unusable by regulating and adding governmental costs making it financially unfeasible. So, that begs the question of what in the universe can we find to replace coal to produce the almost sixty percent of electricity currently facilitated by coal. There has been the suggestion that these coal fired plants could all be converted to natural gas. Besides the enormous expense of switching from coal to natural gas being prohibitive, not all the coal plants are capable of being easily transformed to coal and others might be more readily and financially affordable to switch to oil fired plants, also a target of the ecological lobby for extinction right behind the death of coal, so that would only be a temporary fix at great expense. Replacing the coal plants with nuclear fueled generation plants would take far too long to bring then on-line and producing as the first set of new regulations and fees on the coal plants are set to be applied this year. President Obama fully intends to keep his promise to make coal too expensive to be a viable fuel for electrical generation. The drive to force the United States to reliance solely on renewable energy production is well on its way to fruition. Coal is simply the first step and it will only be a matter of time before all carbon fossil fuels will be regulated and financially pressured out of business. So, what do we use that is reusable to produce electricity in the future or do we simply return to a pre-electricity society and using candles to light our homes at night and sweaters and blankets to warm us in the cold of winter?


The claim that solar power has become viable is a bunch of eco-propaganda. Hydrogen powered plants are not feasible as it is still far too energy intensive making the hydrogen in quantities necessary to generate sufficient electricity to meet the current needs, let alone the likely increase in the future. If fusion power had been made even possible it might have provided a sufficient alternative to coal. The real problem with finding an alternative to coal is the simple enormity of the demand as there does not yet exists any eco-friendly fuel that could even be considered a viable or available alternative. The one renewable source of fuel that currently exists is the venerable tree but even wood could not be renewed fast enough to actually serve the purpose. There would be other side-effects to attempting to use trees as a replacement and renewable fuel source for coal; it would not leave any wood for furniture, boats, baseball bats, crochet mallets (not an earthshaking loss) or numerous other items many of which are enhanced by the beauty of wood with its natural grains and other qualities. Wood from trees provides a building material unequalled and unreplaceable for many numerous applications. Simply burning trees to make electricity would first of all still produce the same pollutants as coal, as trees left to age deep underground long enough might become the coal in the future, and secondly would denude the world’s forests in a very short time thus making trees actually not workable as a renewable fuel source. Maybe we need to slow down just enough to realize a workable and affordable plan to replace coal as the main provider of electrical generation and phase it out rather than tax and regulating it out with no plan in place to allow modern life to continue. Do we need to find a cleaner fuel than coal? Probably, but coal has been made cleaner and many, if not most, coal fired plants have been modernized and are far cleaner than they were just twenty years ago. Technology has been working to find cleaner and renewable energy sources and will, with time, find the next fuel source. Until that discovery has been made and a reliable and affordable replacement fuel is found, it might be prudent not to burn down the bridges to coal power quite yet. The other thing that needs to be kept in consideration, coal is one of the most cost efficient methods of producing electrical power and without coal fired electrical generation much of the newly developing nations would not have the electrical power necessary to continue their evolution to modernity. With time and the added affluence that will come with advanced abilities and technologies these nations too will transfer to cleaner energy generation. The one truth we have learned from the experiences of European nations, the United States and the rest of the first world nations are that with affluence and advancing technology the amounts of pollution produces as a byproduct of industry and power generation steadily decreases. Should governments apply pressure to facilitate the switch to cleaner energy? Yes, but not at such a price as to make life so expensive that the level of comfort for the majority of the people is destroyed because power becomes too costly. The idea is to progress as quickly as possible without leaving any large numbers of people behind and unable to adapt to the new energies. Time, effort, research and eco-friendly considerations are necessary for progress in energy generation but so is compassion, economics, feasibility studies and a steady, methodical, well-thought-out setoff plans is also necessary if the entirety of society is to be brought into the new eco-energy age as a whole, and that should be the plan, not just a bull-rush, damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead.


Beyond the Cusp


May 15, 2014

Is the United States the Global Pollution Giant Eco-Fanatics Claim

Have you ever got trapped into a discussion on how homogenic global warming is almost completely the fault of the United States and if the United States would simply end its use of fossil fuels the world would become a pristine wonderland? Unfortunately, I have been around long enough to have witnessed the pollution which existed all the way back in those primitive years of the 1970s. Back in that almost Paleolithic era I had a part–time job driving an airport limousine service van from Ft. Collins to Denver’s Stapleton International Airport and as such was often treated during the summer to witness what could only be described as a thick reddish-brown bowl of inversion trapped air over Denver upon clearing the final hill before descending into the bowl which Denver sits right in the middle. The air seldom had an offensive aroma which was overly present but the visage of the haze day after day was telling. This was during an era when Denver had actually exceeded Los Angeles as possessing the worst air pollution in the continental United States. Today the worst of the worst in the United States would have virtually no visible pollution compared to my Denver of the 1970s and much of the air pollution in the United States has been cleared away. The coal and other electricity producing plants have carbon scrubbers and numerous other pollution devices and many of these were put into service even before required by the government and solely in response to citizens’ demands.


When I attended a somewhat well-known nameless university in Cleveland in 1969-70 I got to witness one of the strangest and most spectacular effects of water pollution, the Cuyahoga River literally burning and the fire departments being incapable of fighting the flames as water did nothing to diminish the flames. Come-on, it was a burning river; water does not provide an appropriate solution for every kind of fire. Eventually, after a few days, the Cuyahoga River burned itself out and we had to stop roasting hotdogs on the end of very long radio antennae much to the dismay and disgust of the firefighters. By the way, only the bravest or most fool hardy actually ate the hot dogs, it was mostly a college fun thing that makes far less sense than it did at the time. Tell me you have never done something that you later claimed seemed like a good idea at the time. The point is that rivers no longer catch fire in the United States and both the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie which it feeds are not the polluted fish free waterways they were back then. Even the most ardent skeptic would have to admit, should they choose to be honest, that the United States has come a long way in addressing pollution and is no longer anywhere near being the world leader in placing pollution in the air, water, or most other forms of pollution.


The problem the United States and much of the longstanding industrial nations have regarding pollution is that they are still the favorite targets of the majority of ecology and anti-pollution activists, while the real largest polluting nations such as China, Brazil, India and other up-coming relative newly industrial nations are so more polluting that they could form a league of their own. In many of the largest industrial cities in China people wear HEPA-filter masks or similar air-filtration devices simply to go outside as the levels of air pollution are that dangerously high as to threaten health and possibly lives. The recent Olympics held in China required the near shutdown of the vast majority of manufacturing for weeks before the events in order to make the air and environment sufficiently clean as not to threaten the health of the participants and spectators. In Brazil the burning of rain forest timber lands in order to clear away lands to facilitate additional farming is one of the greatest destructive forces in the world. The favoring of holding demonstrations and large conventions decrying the high levels of pollution are held and aimed at the most developed nations for a simple reason, the comfort and accommodations are vastly superior and the air is breathable. These nations are also mostly open democracies where the ecology demonstrators are less likely to be imprisoned for insulting the government or the national leadership where in many of the newly industrialized and non-industrialized nations where the pollution levels are far worse these things would cause a nasty situation for these well-meaning creatures of comfort. To be completely honest, if I were going to hold some demonstration and my choices of location to protest were between Beijing and Las Vegas, well, let’s just say that would be a non-contest.


Are there still places and items where the leading industrialized nations could improve? The obvious answer is, of course, things are nowhere near as dire as they were fifty years ago. In today’s world the areas which need to address their levels of pollution where it would provide the most significant improvement are not the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and most of Europe but are in much of Asia, South America, Mexico, Africa and the rest of the developing world. So, perhaps the question we need to ask is what can be done that will provide the most bang for the funds invested and how to go about forcing change. Believe it or not the most productive route might actually be nothing more than giving the actual areas which require the greatest attention the most press coverage but done without attempting to fine or punish but to simply reveal the problems. Believe it or not, most governments are not interested in murdering their work force through overt pollution and unsafe levels of toxins in the workplace. But the fastest and most efficient route to alleviating these problem areas is not necessarily through bringing them before international courts or agencies and assigning huge fines for clean-up operations but to allow progress and technology to address the situation just as was the major factor in the more advanced nations. Recent history has shown that with advanced production techniques and advances in production methods and energy production comes a lessening of pollution and that this becomes not only a byproduct of improved technology, but in time becomes an aim and goal of the technological improvements. Setting standards is a laudable function providing these are presented as goals and levels of respected achievement and not utilized as a punitive measure and a means of levying fines and acquiring wealth at the developing nation’s expense. Those same profits which would be stolen through punitive actions could be better invested in improving technology and production techniques and energy generation and these investments will produce far more results than any fine could produce. Reducing pollution worldwide is something which is far more easily advanced through cooperation and sharing those technologies and methods which are most efficient at reducing emissions and other pollutants than is punishing companies and nations vindictively rather than lending a hand up and providing improved technologies and techniques. So, perhaps instead of the next big conference or demonstration blaming the most modern nations for a problem which they have largely addressed already, we should assist those nations where efforts would produce the greatest gains and lead them forward through our examples and not our condemnations.


Beyond the Cusp


« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at