Hillbilly White Trash

From NRO:

This is very big. Over in the UK, a group of Greenpeace supporters trespassed on to a coal-fired power station and started vandalizing it, painting a message to UK Prime Minister Gordon Borwn about global warming. They were arrested and prosecuted. Their defense strategy was to claim a "lawful excuse" on the grounds that their actions could help prevent significant damage to others' property that would result from global warming. Their defense witnesses included James Hansen, Al Gore's adviser and head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and Zac Goldsmith, ultra-wealthy heir of Sir James Goldsmith and a wannabe Tory MP. The strategy worked. Yesterday, a jury returned a majority verdict, acquiting the so-called Kingsnorth Six. As The Independent put it, the jury decided the "threat of global warming justifies breaking the law."

The ramifications are huge. Operators of coal-fired power stations in the UK have just been stripped of legal protection from the criminal actions of the environmental lobby (to call them extremists would be wrong — this is the mainstream). It is perfectly possible that a future jury will find differently, but the chances of that happening have fallen dramatically. Investor confidence in coal energy will therefore be damaged. There will be huge political risk in building a new coal plant. Existing coal plants will come under literal attack.

This is, as Matt Sinclair points out, the frosting on a cake of anti-energy pressures:

Coal is out. The same people hate nuclear and will work to delay new nuclear plants. Renewables are marginal, even according to the Renewable Energy Foundation. North Sea Gas is running out, so the only solution to keep the lights on is kowtowing to Vladimir Putin and Gazprom.

Let us also be quite clear why this has happened. The energy industry in the UK and Her Majesty's Government have allowed the environmental groups free rein to delegitimize coal (and oil for that matter). They have invested nothing in defending fossil fuels, legitimizing their product or in advancing strategies to combat global warming that do not involve getting rid of coal. As a result, the jury was, in a literal sense, prejudiced against coal. The benefits of affordable energy for the many must be championed, otherwise we will end up with expensive energy for the few.

More discussion on the role of James Hansen here (a plausible case is presented that Hansen has breached codes of practice) and on the role of Zac Goldsmith and where this leaves the Tories here (together with a handy list of links to more Britblog commentary).

A court in the United Kingdom has just ruled that fealty to the religion of global warming is legal justification for anarchy.

Private property no longer exists in Britain as long as the property can be "plausibly" tied to "climate change".

The end of the UK is in sight. They have passed the tipping point and I no longer believe that it is possible that they can be saved.

The United States needs to begin planning for a "post-UK" foreign policy. And the American people need to contact their elected representatives and demand that James Hanson be fired at once. A man who supports terrorism, environmental or Islamofascist it makes no difference, has no business on the government payroll as a janitor much less the head of an important NASA installation.

H/T: Wolf Howling

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.

"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.

This is bad news for two groups of people. The first are the worshipers in the First Church of Global Warming. Global warming has been the best hobgoblin the left has ever manufactured as a means of terrorizing the masses into surrendering their wealth and liberty. If it finally becomes untenable they simply don't have a replacement hobgoblin warming up in the bullpen to replace it.

You see the big global chill which is coming upon us is caused by changes in solar output. It is completely beyond the ability of Man to alter it in any way whatsoever. Therefore global cooling cannot be used as an excuse for raising taxes or increasing regulation.

Worse for the left the increasing cost of heating our homes will cause the pressure to drill for our own oil reserves to intensify.

The other group which will be harmed by global cooling is everyone else in the world. Contrary to the hysteria of the left-wing global warming wackjobs a warmer earth would be a good thing. Historians call the climate of around 6000 years ago (the time when human civilization arose) the "climate optimum". It was eight degrees warmer then than it is now.

Global cooling, on the other hand, will decrease the growing season in the world's most fertile farming areas. It will cause sharp reductions in the global food supply and sharp increases in food prices. This will lead to famine in poorer areas and leave the populations of most of the nations of Central America, South America, Asia and Africa vulnerable to outbreaks of pandemic disease.

If you doubt me consider that it was the stress on the population of Europe caused by the food shortages brought about by the "Little Ice Age" of the Middle Ages which opened the door to the bubonic plague which killed anywhere from 30-60% of the population.

The greatest threat we face is that Western governments are so invested in global warming alamrism (because of the opportunities for growing government power) that they will be unable, or unwilling, to shift gears and engage in the kind of planning and preparation which would mitigate the consequences of the coming cool down.

John Ringo's latest novel The Last Centurion deals with global cooling a worldwide influenza pandemic and a government (headed by a president known as "the Bitch") which remains committed to the religion of global warming even as the nation freezes.

I found this on Frontpage Magazine:

The ongoing energy crisis – with skyrocketing prices, short supplies and growing environmental concerns – has again brought to the fore the advantages of nuclear power. With zero carbon footprint and abundant fuel supply, nuclear energy is not only relatively inexpensive but also the most environmentally friendly means of electricity generation.

Many advanced countries have long structured their energy policy around this fact. Leading the way is France which derives nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. It is followed by Lithuania (72%), Belgium (54%) and Sweden (52%). Other developed nations that get a substantial portion of their electricity from this source include Switzerland (40%), Germany (32%), Czech Republic (31%), Japan (30%), Finland (27%) and North Korea (26%).

Not content to lag behind, many developing nations are now also taking the atomic road to address their energy needs. New reactors are being constructed in China, Russia, India, Brazil, Romania, Bulgaria and Kazakhstan among others.

But while the world is increasingly going nuclear, the United States is falling behind. Today nuclear energy accounts for only 18% of our electricity production, a decline from the early 1990s when the figure was well over 20%. The explanation is simple: No new reactor has been built in this country in nearly 30 years.

For many years now it has been impossible to build a nuclear plant in America, as every such project is opposed – often hysterically – on safety grounds. Not surprisingly, since after many years of relentless propaganda many people believe that a nuclear reactor is a ticking bomb which can potentially set off a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to popular perception, nuclear power is the safest method of electricity generation. And even though the possibility of disaster is routinely given as the reason for not building, accidents are extremely rare. In fact, there have been only two notable ones since the inception of the atomic age. Their impact, however, has been enormous, for they have been passed off as “evidence” of nuclear power’s unsafeness. This is truly unfortunate, since any honest evaluation leads to the opposite conclusion.

The most serious accident on record took place in the nuclear facility near the Ukrainian city of Chernobyl, then part of the former Soviet Union. On April 26, 1986 an explosion took place in the plant’s number four reactor and was followed by a massive release of radioactive material. The initial flare-up claimed 54 lives. Four thousand more died in subsequent years as a result of exposure, mostly from thyroid cancer.

Though Chernobyl is often given as evidence of dangers of nuclear energy, there is virtually no chance that a similar event could take place in the western context. Built in what was essentially an impoverished third-world country which had little respect for human life, the reactor was designed with scant regard for safety and most rudimentary safeguards were omitted in order to save money and meet deadlines. During construction, paperwork was falsified to show that non-existent safety devices were in place. To give an idea of the carelessness involved, bitumen – a combustible material – was used in the construction of the reactor building and the turbine hall.

To make things worse, in the mid-eighties the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink of collapse and lacked the financial resources to conduct proper maintenance. Finally, the unsafe situation was further exacerbated by the kind of overt negligence that is endemic in state-run enterprises.

Contrary to what most people think, the Chernobyl disaster was not caused by an explosion of nuclear material. The initial event was a steam explosion which tore the roof from the reactor and exposed its nuclear core. Because of the gross heedlessness in design and construction, the reactor had no containment vessels to capture the escaping radioactivity. Containment vessels have always been a standard feature of reactor designs, but the cash-strapped Soviet regime did not consider them necessary. Had they been in place, the amount of radioactive material released would have been significantly smaller.

Of the subsequent 4000 deaths most could have been prevented had the Soviet government promptly evacuated the nearby communities. The communist leadership, however, refused to notify its citizens of the danger and for days denied that anything happened at all. It thus needlessly and criminally exposed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to excessive levels of radiation.

Rather than an indictment of nuclear power, Chernobyl was from beginning to end a classic case of communist incompetence and malfeasance. As such this event is irrelevant to safety considerations in a western setting.

The only serious accident in a western nuclear facility occurred in the United States. In March 1979, one of two reactors at the Three Mile Island Generation Station in Pennsylvania experienced a partial core meltdown. The chain of events began so inconspicuously that it took operators many hours before they realized that anything had gone amiss, but once the incident became known the coverage bordered on hysteria.

A number of “experts” came forth evoking cataclysmic scenarios. Environmental and peace activists joined hands to demonize nuclear power as dangerous and destructive. The frenzied coverage combined with fantastic claims made a deep impression. In the months and years that followed books, movies and songs were written about the incident. Bruce Springsteen put out a tune called “Roulette” and Jimmy Buffett sang "I don't want to land on no Three Mile Island/Don't want to see my skin a-glow."

But amidst all the hysteria and alarmism, one important fact seemed to escape general notice: No one was killed as a result of this supposedly catastrophic event. Not only there were zero fatalities, there was not one injury. Jimmy Buffet’s reference to glowing skin notwithstanding, not a single person was exposed to a dangerous degree of radiation. Among some 25,000 people who lived in the close vicinity of the site no one was harmed in any way. A government study found that “there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects.”

The absence of injuries should not surprise given the limited extent of the initial explosion and the fact that only a small amount of dangerous radioactive substances escaped. Because of this, the damage was almost wholly confined to the plant site.

It is a lasting testament to the mendacity of foes of atomic energy that the frenzy they whipped up was a major factor in stopping its development in the United States. Thanks to their hysterical claims public support for nuclear power dropped from 70% before the accident to 50% afterwards.

The World Nuclear Association describes the devastating impact this event had on America’s nuclear industry:

Nuclear developments in the USA suffered a major setback after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, though that actually validated the very conservative design principles of western reactors, and no one was injured or exposed to harmful radiation. Many orders and projects were cancelled or suspended, and the nuclear construction industry went into the doldrums for two decades.

That even with no fatalities, no injuries and no great environmental damage the Three Miles Island accident is the most serious event involving a nuclear plant in the West is a powerful testimony to the extraordinary safeness of atomic power. In the course of more than 40 years of civilian nuclear power generation by more than 400 western-built reactors no one was ever killed or even injured by a radiation leak. Those isolated casualties that did take place were invariably a result of general occupational hazards common to all industries.

Statistics and studies consistently show that nuclear power is the safest method of electricity generation both for those directly involved and the general public. One of the most in-depth and comprehensive surveys on this subject was conducted by the University of East Anglia in the early 90s. It studied fatalities in the United States and Great Britain which occurred as a result of primary energy production in the period between 1970 and 1992. The record shows that fatalities were highest in the coal industry (6400) followed by hydro power (4000) and natural gas (1200). At 31 deaths the nuclear industry posted the lowest figure by far. The number was in fact 40 times lower than that of the next safest method. All 31 were workers on facilities and – it bears repeating – not one died as a result of radiation. This means that not a single member of the general public was ever killed or harmed by civilian nuclear energy.

This phenomenal safety record is due to the extreme care with which nuclear plants are constructed and operated. Western type reactors are built to the highest standards based on stringent safety requirements, advanced designs, careful workmanship and best materials. They invariably incorporate multiple levels of safety redundancies and utilize diverse systems for fault detection. Each safety system usually has more than one backup and is designed to accommodate human errors. Today’s reactors are built in such a way that even the most serious type of accident – the meltdown of the nuclear core – is to be contained wholly within the plant site without the need for evacuating nearby residents. Such is the care exercised in the construction of an average nuclear reactor that safety systems account for about one quarter of its capital cost.

Despite the industry’s superb record, nuclear power is still seen by many people as inherently dangerous. This perception runs completely contrary to reality and is a result of the lies and distortions that have been spread about this subject.

It is one of the great ironies of our time as well as a masterstroke of political demagoguery that safety concerns have been used to stop the development of the safest source of energy in the United States. It is time to rationally assess the facts and reverse this situation. It is time to resume the development of nuclear energy in this country.

I couldn't agree more. I cannot see why America is generating so much as one volt of electric power by any means other than nuclear. Oil, natural gas and coal are needed for motor fuel. There is no reason to waste them in electric power production.

Once again we find that a bad situation is the fault of the left. The hysteria the environmentalists and their bought dogs in the Jackass party have created has set the United States back decades.

Counting our oil shale we have more petroleum than the Middle East. Counting our coal we have more energy reserves than the entire rest of the world.

There are two people who could announce that they were going to do everything in their power to see that America would develop its own energy resources. That announcement would send the price of oil plummeting.

Who are these two people who could hand us $2.25 per gallon gas overnight if they just were willing?

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

They could lower oil prices with just a press release but they refuse to do so.

Why?

Cartoon from Red Planet.

From The Herald Sun:

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?

Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.

Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan -- one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.

The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.

Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing -- by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants -- that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.

Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same -- especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels."

So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.

Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."

In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."

The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."

Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before.

So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?

Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.

Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."

In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all.

Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ."

It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."

Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.

For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it.

The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".

Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.

In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions -- delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke.

And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built -- that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.

So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?

Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.

Just try to imagine a major American daily newspaper writing an article like this and telling the truth about global warming.

I feel sorry for the teenager who has been driven over the edge by the high priests of the global warming cult, but I blame his parents for raising so weak minded a child.

Perhaps the sanity of the Indian scientists will spread to the USA? Dare we hope?

The left's policies always come with some kind of negative unintended consequences which can range from the merely comical to the downright lethal. The CAFE Standard (Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards) is one of the ones with lethal consequences, as seen in this National Center for Public Policy Research study by Ryan Balis.

On the heels of the Arab oil embargo, in 1975 Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as a regulatory solution to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil and gasoline consumption.1 CAFE standards mandate that vehicles sold in the U.S. meet fuel efficiency - or "fuel economy" - standards. Current standards require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks.2

Beginning in 2008, "one-size-fits-all" CAFE standards for light trucks will be phased out. New regulations will divide light trucks into six categories based on vehicle size - each category having its own mpg target.3 However, the fuel economy for these vehicles will be raised from the current 22.2 mpg to 24.0 mpg in model year 2011.4

According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimate, implementing this change will cost American consumers over $6.71 billion in added vehicle expenses from 2007-2011.5 Yet Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, calculates that the fuel savings will be a mere 0.44 billion gallons of gasoline annually.6 On average, U.S. cars and light trucks consume some 11 billion gallons of gasoline each month.7

Despite the new regulatory "reform," high gas prices have lawmakers in Washington debating, once again,8 whether to impose even steeper CAFE standards. For instance, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed burdensome across-the-board legislation to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg on both light trucks and cars by model year 2017.9 Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have also recently called for CAFE increases.10

But such increases have unintended safety consequences for the safety of drivers and passengers. The reason is because carmakers build lighter and smaller cars that burn less fuel to comply with CAFE standards.11 The trade-off is these lighter, smaller cars fare much worse in violent crashes, resulting in greater rates of death and injury for occupants.

A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.

* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12

* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13

* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14

* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15

* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16

* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17

* Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18

From Rasmussen Reports:

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

This should be good news for Republicans who ought to be able to point out that since Democrats regained control of both houses of the legislature that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket. They have utterly failed to accomplish anything other than hold an endless series of hearings about the war in a vain attempt to find George W Bush guilty of some kind of war crime.

Meanwhile the chickens of chickens of environmental extremism are finally coming home to roost in the form of $4.00 gasoline and the public has finally had enough.

The great hope here is that as the people finally wake up and realize that the eco-Nazis have lied to them about the environmental dangers of offshore and Alaskan drilling they will also examine what other thing they have been lied to about. Things like the supposed danger of nuclear power and perhaps even the entire global warming myth.

The left has wanted sky-high gas prices for years. Now that that those high prices are the political results might be very different from what the Democrats expected and hoped for.

Does this imbecile really believe this stuff? I mean I know that his party is in bed with the eco-Nazis but does he really believe their bilge?

Listen up friends this is what you get when you put Democrats in power. They want the price of gas to be over $4.00 per gallon. They want it to be too expensive to drive a private automobile. They want to force you to live in large cities like rats in an overcrowded cage. They want you riding public transportation so that they can tell you when, where and how to go. They want to make you dependent so that they can wield power over you. By the way, this is also why they want socialized medicine and gun control and over the top welfare benefits. The more handouts you take the weaker you become and the more easily controlled you will be.

They say that drilling now wouldn't bring the price of gas down right now but when will these "clean, carbon-free, renewable energies" that they gibber about bring the price of energy down? We know how to mine coal, drill for oil, build nuclear power plants and we are very close to developing a way to easily extract the oil from oil shale.

We don't have any idea how to build a solar cell that converts anything but the smallest part of the spectrum into electrical power nor do we have the slightest idea how to build genuinely efficient wind or tidal power generators. If we did we would already be doing it.

The fact is that saying that new technology will make oil obsolete is like saying that one day we will mine the asteroid belt for its mineral wealth. A true statement but something that is somewhere off in the future - how far off in the future we have absolutely no way of knowing. RIGHT NOW we need energy that we can count on, that we understand and that our technology is already able to provide and that means oil.

So Drill Here, Drill Now and Pay Less. Go sign the petition!

It is certainly a vintage vehicle. And now Prince Charles's beloved Aston Martin DB6 is running on vintage too.

A nice little white from a vineyard in Wiltshire, to be precise.

As part of cutting his carbon footprint, the prince has converted the 38-year-old classic car - a 21st birthday present from the Queen - to run on 100 per cent bioethanol fuel distilled from surplus British wine.

Well at least someone has found a good use for British wine.

Seriously, what a friggin' moron, inbred jug-eared freak.

Dr. Tracy C. Miller, associate professor of economics at Grove City College and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision and Values, analyzes the economic and environmental consequences of ethanol subsidies:

U.S. government mandates for increased ethanol production ignore economic reality, diverting a growing portion of U.S. cropland from food production without taking account of the cost of doing so. As more land is used to produce corn, production of other crops has declined to the point where the United States has actually had to import wheat. Because the United States is a major producer and exporter of food and feed grains, reductions in U.S. output have a major impact on world food and feed prices. As more corn is diverted to ethanol production from feeding livestock, meat prices have risen as well.

Corn is a very expensive source of fuel, not just because of its value in feeding livestock, but because of the resources involved in converting it to fuel. The amount of energy required to produce a gallon of ethanol is almost as much as the energy that results from burning the ethanol. When factoring in the other costs of using corn to produce ethanol, it should be evident why it is a waste of resources.

There is nothing inherently wrong with growing crops to produce fuel, even if doing so causes food prices to rise. Rather, the extent to which corn and other crops are used for fuel should be determined by the choices of consumers and producers in response to market prices that are unhampered by government intervention like those mentioned above—this is also known as free market prices. Because free market prices reflect people’s voluntary preferences, market prices serve as indicators of relative scarcity, reflecting the priorities of all who could potentially benefit from what could be produced from the land. Competition for resources in the market will result in those resources being used for purposes that consumers value the most. Without market prices, government officials lack the ability to estimate accurately the net benefits of additional ethanol production for society. Unlike consumers who bear the costs of their decisions through the prices they pay in the market, government officials do not bear the full costs associated with their decision to subsidize ethanol.

Ethanol subsidies and mandates also contribute to environmental degradation as more land is plowed and more pesticides are used to increase yields. They contribute to rising government deficits as well. The only reason for politicians to continue these policies is that farmers and residents of rural communities, whose incomes increase as a result, will reward them with more votes. If more Americans can become informed about how much this is costing the rest of us, perhaps our elected representatives will see that they might actually lose votes by continuing to support this waste of taxpayers’ money.

Let us please, please, please stop this ethanol lunacy now.

And I'm not talking about Al Gore!

THERE IS A SURE-FIRE WAY to make the news these days: Just issue a press release beginning with the words, "New scientific study shows," and have it assert a conclusion that the MSM fervently want to believe--especially if the resulting story would serve to debunk or refute a Bush administration policy. Slam-dunk! Your press release will become news!

You are skeptical, you say? But what other explanation is there for the decision by CBS and MSNBC to post on their websites a ridiculous story about a new scientific "finding" that global warming is causing an increase in the world's earthquakes--an item that was even linked for a time on the Drudge Report.

Now I am not a scientist, but the idea that a few alleged degrees of warming--with none apparently in the last decade--could cause an increase in earthquakes seemed pure quackery to me. So, I decided to perform Google and Yahoo searches of the "scientist" who had issued the finding, one Thomas Chalko, MSc, Ph.D. In less than five minutes I found that Chalko was perhaps the last person who should be quoted on the purported impact of allegedly man-caused global warming.

Chalko is best described as a pseudo-scientist--at least when it comes to the fields of global warming and earthquakes about which he was quoted by CBS and MSNBC as an authority. He is not a meteorologist. Nor is he a geophysicist or seismologist. His website reveals that he is into "self healing," "vibrations," and alien visitations. Thus, he writes:

Chalko's "aural" workshop promises to explain "how to see your own aura," and "the meaning of the aura and its colors." Chalko also writes in the online NU Journal of Discovery--which he founded and for which he appears to be the only writer--that global warming could cause the earth to explode:
One doesn't have to be a scientist to know this is beyond nutty.

Wait it gets even worse. The story published both by CBS and MSNBC is a verbatim copy of an article on Chalko's website, which announces: "Earthquakes 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago." The article begins:
Now, here is the headline and opening of CBS's June 18 story (now removed) purporting to be from the AP (but I couldn't find an AP story on Chalko's prediction): "Today's Quakes Deadlier Than In Past." The entire story is exactly as it appears on Chalko's site, beginning with:
Ditto MSNBC, only MSNBC went even further, linking to a Chalko article in NU Journal of Discovery, and even included his personal contact information!

The media love to repeatedly parrot the liberal meme that the Bush administration is scientifically ignorant. But the Chalko non story shows that many in the MSM are the true scientific ignoramuses--as well as true believers. Even if a story that is patently ridiculous comes across their transoms supporting their mass-think, and, better yet, purports to be based on a "scientific study," why bother with fact and source checking?

No wonder the public is fast losing faith in what the media tell them. File this debacle under Stupidity in the Media.

I just love it when these morons wind up with egg all over their faces. A thousand thanks to Wesley J. Smith for doing the research on this one.

From The Politico:

Despite Al Gore’s choreographed endorsement of Barack Obama on Monday, top Democratic strategists don’t expect the 2000 Democratic nominee will risk his environmental agenda by campaigning vigorously in this year’s presidential race.

Al Gore is not going to appear at campaign events with Barack Obama because he is afraid that he will be put into a situation where he can't avoid being asked hard questions about the lack of evidence supporting his global warming hoax.

The global warming house of cards is beginning to collapse and he knows it. He intends to ride it for as long as he can and milk it for as much as he can and he is desperate to stifle any real debate.

Artwork from The People's Cube.

WASHINGTON -- The environmental movement, only recently poised for major advances on global warming and other issues, has suddenly found itself on the defensive as high gasoline prices shift the political climate nationwide and trigger defections by longtime supporters.

Opposition to offshore drilling -- once ironclad in places like California and Florida -- has begun to soften. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida on Tuesday eased his opposition to new energy exploration off the coast.

"Floridians are suffering, and when you're paying over $4 a gallon for gas, you have to wonder whether there might be additional resources that we might be able to utilize to bring that price down," said Crist, a Republican.

At the same time, pressure to drill is mounting.

President Bush today is expected to call on Congress to lift the ban on new offshore drilling, and a House committee will consider a proposal to relax the moratorium.

John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, opposed new offshore drilling in his 2000 presidential campaign. He said Tuesday that he now supported lifting the long-standing ban.

"I believe it is time for federal government to lift these restrictions and put our own reserves to use," the Arizona senator said in a Houston speech on energy security.

Much of the nation's coastal waters are off-limits to new oil and gas leasing until 2012 under executive orders first issued by Bush's father,President George H.W. Bush, in 1991 and extended by President Clinton in 1998. In addition, Congress has taken action annually since 1981 to preclude drilling in coastal areas.

But high petroleum prices have caused policymakers to begin rethinking a variety of issues, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration and imposing mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions from oil refineries and power plants.

If it took $4.00 gasoline to get us to open our own reserves then $4.00 gasoline was worth it.

The fact is that Americans are spoiled. We are rich and powerful and have developed a mindset that tells us that we somehow are entitled to have our own way in everything. Just listen to the way that Rush Limbaugh constantly misuses the concept of American exceptionalism. The fact is that we bought into the myths peddled by the eco-Nazis because it made us "feel good" to do so. Oil from the Canada and Mexico and the Middle East was cheap so we could afford to close off our own supplies in the name of the great goddess Nature.

The left-liberal is never happier than when he/she has found some way to imagine themselves occupying the moral high ground without actually doing anything or suffering any inconvenience.

Of all the unpleasant sights in this world the most sickening is the preening moral vanity of the modern Western liberal.

Environmentalists are increasingly concerned. Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund called this "the most risky year in 29 years" for the drilling ban.

Good! I hope their hearts literally fail them for fear because these environmentalist ass-hats would serve their fellow man far better by being turned into fertilizer than they ever have through their activism.

Environmental groups, as well as McCain's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, argued that renewed offshore drilling would not increase supplies or lower prices for years. They warned that new drilling off California and other states would carry the risk of pollution.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to McCain's campaign, acknowledged in a conference call to reporters that new offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on supplies or prices.

But he added: "There is an important element in signaling to world oil markets that we are serious."

That message that we are serious is why the mere announcement that we are going to drill offshore and in ANWAR would cause an immediate drop in the price of oil of at least $30.00 per barrel. If Obama and the congressional Democrats would issue a joint statement that they are committed to victory in Iraq and are willing to stay as long as it takes that would cause another $25.00 drop in the barrel price because there is an "uncertainty premium" built into the price of oil due to fears over the future of the Middle East.

Bottom line: Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. Go here and sign the petition.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- An influential coalition of Fortune 500 companies and environmental groups that was formed to support climate-change legislation has splintered over the Lieberman-Warner bill that is headed next week to the Senate floor.

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership formed last year won't take a position on the bill, although nine of its members - including General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), Alcoa (AA, Fortune 500) and four utility companies - signed a letter to senators backing the legislation.

The letter, also signed by big environmental groups and obtained by Fortune, says: "Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America's economy, security, quality of life and natural environment."

But other members of the coalition known as U.S. Cap, most visibly Duke Energy (DUK, Fortune 500), a coal-burning utility, are strongly opposed. "It's going to translate into significant electricity price increases," says Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO.

Without widespread corporate support, passage of the bill - already a long shot at best - becomes even more unlikely this year. President Bush remains opposed. House Democrats have been slow to act.

Besides that, a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and the sluggish economy makes it difficult to win votes for a regulatory scheme that will raise the prices of electricity and gasoline. In fact, a key purpose of the bill is to put a price on the emissions of greenhouse gases, as a way to speed the transition to a clean-energy economy and slow down global warming.

With the Senate scheduled to begin debate Monday, lobbying and advertising around the bill are intensifying. (Here's a new TV commercial supporting the bill from Environmental Defense Fund, and a radio ad opposing the bill from the Club for Growth.) But even supporters concede that the debate will set the scene for action in 2009.

"This will put us in a position to have action next year," says David Doniger, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a supporter of the bill. "We expect in the Senate that the 60-vote rule will be applied. That's a hard one to get over."

"It's a teachable moment," agreed Scott Segal, an advocate for coal-burning utilities that oppose Lieberman-Warner.

The Lieberman-Warner bill sets a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that would reduce them by 70% by 2050. Companies would need permits to emit pollutants that cause global warming. The government would allocate some permits to utilities and industrial companies, and auction others to generate revenues. The question of how to distribute permits and what to do with the money divides even supporters of greenhouse gas regulation.

As currently written, Lieberman-Warner might fall short of a 50-vote majority in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes required to close debate, insiders say. Presidential candidates (and Senators) Clinton, McCain and Obama all support climate-change legislation.

This is why I am not so terrified of an Obama administration as many of my conservative friends are. Congress is comprised of politicians who wish to be reelected. This need to take reelection into account is especially acute in the House of Representatives every member of which stands for election every two years.

House members are extremely reluctant to vote for legislation which will have a pronounced negative effect upon their constituents when those negative consequences will manifest in the short term. This is why Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine plan failed to gain even one vote when it was put before the House.

There are politicians out there who are stupid enough to be global warming true believers. John McCain and Joe Lieberman are two such idiots.

Interestingly enough Al Gore is apparently not a global warming true believer. Otherwise he would be willing to publicly debate the issue with a global warming skeptic. He consistently refuses to engage in such a debate and channels much of his energy into trying to convince the media to stop even acknowledging that there is an ongoing debate about the issue.

But that is a topic for another post so let us get back to the central issue. The next Congress will not hand the next president a blank check even if that president is Barack Hussein Obama. With a Democrat president and a Democrat congress the Democrat party will be extremely reluctant to see the enactment of any measure which will cause a near-term economic downturn.

They will also be extremely reluctant to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq, not when it becomes their war to win or lose.

Not that Obama and the congressional Democrats will suddenly start to act like conservatives. It is simply that they will have a strong incentive to govern in the Hubert Humphrey liberal tradition rather than in the left-wing moonbat Jimmy Carter tradition.

Of course congress will be very willing to do things with terrible results - as long as those terrible results will not manifest themselves in the near term. For example amnesty for the tens of millions of alien criminals who are infesting our nation. As long as they write the legislation so that the "path to citizenship" doesn't open up for 25 years most of the men and women who vote for it will either be retired or dead (FDR knew that Social Security would go bankrupt, but he also knew that he would be long dead when it happened).

The moral of the story is that we are going to have a hard four years ahead of us, but all is not lost. Everybody in Washington except for the few genuine conservatives who remain is at least pretending to be a global warming true believer but the global warming bill is going to go down in bright hot carbon-emitting flames. No politician is going to vote for something which will cause the price of gas to rise to $7.50 per gallon when the price rise is near term and undeniable.

Some congressmen will vote for the measure secure in the knowledge that it will fail. That way they can go back to the eco-Nazis and say "well, I tried", but that vote will only come with the certainty of failure.

Conservative grassroots group Grassfire.org wants people to waste as much energy as possible on June 12 by "hosting a barbecue, going for a drive, watching television, leaving a few lights on, or even smoking a few cigars."

The point: the group wants to "help Americans break free from the 'carbon footprint guilt' being imposed by Climate Alarmists."

Grassfire.org says it's skeptical over claims that man-made sources of carbon dioxide emissions -- from automobile exhausts to manufacturing plants -- are raising the Earth's temperature at a dangerous rate. Theories about global warming were highlighted by former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Grassfire.org president Steve Elliott, in a statement, said such theories are off the mark. "It's time for Americans to purge ourselves of the false guilt that Al Gore and the Climate Alarmists have placed on us," Elliott said.

Grassfire.org said it chose June 12 as the day it wants Americans to rev up their SUVs because it coincides with expected debate in Congress over a $1.2 billion carbon tax rebate program. "Carbon Belch Day will have at least as much impact on the so-called 'planetary emergency' of man-made global warming as the goofy save the earth mandates telling us to turn our lights off for an hour," said Elliott.

Cities around the world went dark for an hour on March 31 to mark "Earth Hour," an event created by the World Wide Fund for Nature to inspire people to find ways to use less energy.

Grassfire.org is the latest group to question whether global warming is a real phenomenon, or whether it's as severe as portrayed in Gore's film. London's Daily Telegraph this week called environmentalism "the new secular faith."

The paper said the United Kingdom's carbon credits program for industry is "just like the medieval trade in indulgences, where remission for sins was granted by the Church once the sinner confessed and received absolution."

Noted physicist Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, has also questioned the accuracy of global warming theories, as have a number of other academics.

This is a wonderful idea!

Here is how I intend to spend Carbon Belch Day:

Rise early and leave the house with my air conditioner, computer and television still running, at at lest one incandescent bulb still burning. Take my least fuel efficient vehicle to a shooting range in the next county and burn up at least 300 rounds. Then take a nice long drive on the Blue Ridge Parkway. While on that drive I will smoke a Hoyo de Monterrey and drink carbonated beverages, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. On the way home I will pick up a bag of charcoal and some Hebrew National all beef franks (take that Hamas) and have myself a nice little cookout in my back yard. That evening I will watch a DVD while drinking more carbonated beverages and smoking a Romeo y Julieta Vintage. I will then go to bed after leaving the porch light (an incandescent bulb) on to burn through the night.

H/T: Shooting the Messenger

I demand an investigation into the symbiotic relationship which BIG OIL has with left-wing politicians and environmental activists!

Even a child can understand the effect that the law of supply and demand has upon price. If demand rises without an accompanying rise in supply price will rise. If demand falls without an accompanying reduction in supply the price will fall.

What has happened in the oil market is that the developed world has continued to grow, increasing their demand for oil, while the economies of China and India have exploded. Those two nations are busy building a massive industrial infrastructure with the accompanying need for electrification.

This has resulted in a sharp increase in the demand for petroleum. However the world supply of petroleum has not increased to match that increased demand. Therefore consumers are bidding up the price of the now scarce commodity.

Marginal reductions in demand are possible through conservation however marginal reductions in demand only yield marginal reductions in price and are overwhelmed by the ever increasing demand from Asia.

The obvious answer to the problem of high oil prices, and the high gasoline and diesel and heating oil prices that go with higher per-barrel prices for crude oil, is a dramatic increase in supply. Since most OPEC nations' only export is petroleum it is not in their interest to do anything to reduce the price of oil, at least not by much.

The best way for the American consumer to get relief at the pump would be for America to increase its own oil production. This can be easily accomplished by removing the legal restrictions on drilling in Alaska and on the continental shelf in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. Removing the legal obstacles to the mining of oil shale and coal would give the confidence they need to invest the billions which would be required to bring coal liquefaction technology to the US and begin exploring the most efficient way of extracting the oil from shale.

I have heard that coal liquefaction and oil shale extraction both require a per-barrel price of $75.00 to be profitable. The price of crude is currently over $130.00 per barrel. The time to begin drilling and mining would seem to be now since within 10 to 15 years the US could more than double the world's supplies of oil. However the domestic oil companies are currently reaping massive profits from the increased world price of crude and if we began exploiting our domestic resources that would reduce the world price of crude to $75.00 per barrel and lock it in until advances in technology brought the price down even more.

Right now BIG OIL is making money hand over fist and the only downside for them is bad will from consumers, which they cannot do anything about, and the prospect of a "windfall profits tax" being imposed on them by politicians. However any kind of tax is simply a cost of doing business which they will happily pass on to the consumer.

So it is not in BIG OIL's interest to increase supply and who is providing them with a ready-made excuse not to develop our domestic reserves? No one but the left-wing Democrats in the United States congress (and some turncoat Republicans like John McCain)!

THAT'S RIGHT! The lunatic fringe environmentalists and their bought and paid for Democrat lapdogs in congress are IN BED WITH BIG OIL in a conspiracy to fleece the American consumer in order to line the pockets of the DNC, The Sierra Club and DICK CHENEY'S BUDDIES IN THE OIL BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

I demand that politicans like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer be put UNDER OATH and forced to explain why they are doing the bidding of BIG OIL and helping BIG OIL steal from their constituents in order to increase the already obscene profits of DICK CHENEY'S BUDDIES IN THE OIL BUSINESS!!!!!!!

When did the Democrat party and the environmental lobby go on BIG OIL's payroll? How much are DICK CHENEY'S BUDDIES IN THE OIL BUSINESS paying Al Gore to spread his global warming alarmism?

The American people have a right to know!

The Daily Mail calls out some celebrity hypocrites on how their personal energy use fails to match their green activism:

Chris Martin

WHAT HE SAYS: The mild-mannered lead singer of Coldplay counteracts the environmental impacts of his band's tours and CD production by paying for mango trees to be planted in developing countries.

The theory is that the extra carbon emitted as a result of the band's activities will be soaked up by the extra tree growth.

WHAT HE DOES: According to singer Alison Goldfrapp, Martin flies home between gigs: "We supported Coldplay and Chris Martin used to fly home on his jet, go home, write songs then fly to the next gig. I thought: "What? Are you insane?"

Environmental campaigner George Monbiot says: "It's probably fair to assume he flies at least 100,000 miles (or ten return journeys averaging 10,000 miles each) in his private jet each year.
"If so - and even before taking the rest of his activities into account - he would be exceeding his fair share of carbon by 250 times."

Sadly, many of the 10,000 mango trees planted by carbon-offsetting firm Future Forests on Coldplay's orders to "offset" the carbon produced by the album A Rush Of Blood To The Head died.

Many experts now say carbon offsetting via tree planting is nothing more than a scam allowing rich polluters to feel better about themselves.


Leonardo DiCaprio

WHAT HE SAYS: Pumped millions of his own money into producing the environmental documentary, The 11th Hour, due to be released on DVD next month, and claims that if we do not radically change the way we live right away, the Earth will be destroyed.

Like many Hollywood stars keen to flash their eco- credentials, he drives a hybrid petrol/electric car which uses less energy than a regular vehicle in cities by switching to battery power in heavy traffic.

He says: "I've been driving a hybrid car for five, six years now. My house is built green, I have solar panels."

WHAT HE DOES: Although he flew his family from Paris to Rome on a private jet in October 2006, since 2007, DiCaprio has been trying to live down the tag of "Leonardo the Learjet liberal" and publicly eschewed the use of the fuel-glugging private aircraft.

"I try as often as possible to fly commercially," he declared at the Cannes Film Festival last year. By Hollywood standards, that makes him a hairshirted hero - but of course there are times when only a private jet will do.

During an interview with his co-producers, one TV interviewer challenged DiCaprio to "take a pledge and promise never to get into a private jet again" - something he has so far been unwilling to do.

Brangelina

WHAT THEY SAY: At first glance it seems that Pitt - who drives a hybrid Prius, has been a vocal and financial supporter of a drive to build eco-homes in flood-ravaged New Orleans and last year even guest-narrated a segment of green documentary called e2: The Economies Of Being Environmentally Conscious - is doing his bit to combat global warming.

"There's a lot of problems in the world right now because of our dependency on oil," Pitt gravely warned his fans in a recent interview.

WHAT THEY DO: In fact, Pitt and his partner Angelina Jolie are massive consumers of oil thanks to their addiction to private jet travel.

In 2007 they took literally dozens of such flights between them around the world. In August, Pitt flew from Chicago, where he was watching his partner work, to LA to perform jury duty and then flew back to Illinois the same day.

Recently, the couple touched down at Nice airport aboard their own "PJ" - burning an estimated 11,000 gallons of fuel on the trip from America.

Pitt would have to drive his Prius to the Moon to offset that. Oh - and did we mention that Jolie is pregnant again?

Soon it's going to require two people carriers just to get the multi-national Pitt- Jolie family as far as the airport.

Madonna

WHAT SHE SAYS: After she headlined the London segment of last year's Live Earth concert, memorably derided by Matt Bellamy of rock band Muse as "private jets for climate change", she was lambasted not just for her giant carbon footprint but also for owning a share portfolio with more than £1million invested in oil exploration, mining and other environmentally unfriendly projects.

In the wake of the furore, her spokesperson issued a statement saying: "Madonna's agreeing to sing at Live Earth is merely one of the first steps in her commitment toward being environmentally responsible.

"She is educating herself and her family and has begun to make changes around her that reflect her awareness and concern for the future of the planet."

WHAT SHE DOES: Madonna's carbon footprint for 2006 was estimated at 1,018 tons - more than 100 times that of the average Briton.

And it seems the "changes" she is prepared to make do not extend to using ordinary airlines. For New Year she jetted to India with husband Guy Ritchie, her son and five friends in her own jet.

John Travolta

WHAT HE SAYS: "Everyone can do their bit," Travolta said when he visited Britain last year to promote the launch of his little-seen movie Wild Hogs, and went on to declare that global warming is "a very valid issue - we have to think about alternative methods of fuel".

WHAT HE DOES: Travolta, a licensed pilot, owns five private planes - a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstreams and a Learjet - which he keeps in his garden next to a private runway.

When he was flying himself back to the U.S. the staggering scale of his environmental vandalism was revealed when he landed the 707 in Ireland to refuel and it was reported that he was the only person on board the flying stretch-limo. In a normal configuration, a 707 can carry 150 passengers.

Barbra Streisand

WHAT SHE SAYS: "Everyone has the power to make a difference by making simple, conscious decisions in their everyday lives," Streisand writes on her website and then posts a list of "Simple Things We Can All Do To Help Stop Global Warming".

These include switching to modern long-life lightbulbs, cleaning the condenser coil on your fridge and waiting until you have a full load before running your dishwasher.

WHAT SHE DOES: No sign of Streisand cutting down on laundry.

On tour in the UK and Ireland last year, Streisand's contract specified that she required the production office be supplied with "120 bath-sized towels immediately upon arrival".

It was also revealed that the vehicle list for her show comprised "13 53ft semi-tractor trailers, four rental vans, 14 crew and band buses and one limousine".

And, of course, she made the 'simple, conscious' decision to travel all the way from Manchester to London aboard a private jet. Why don't I feel quite so guilty about switching on my half-empty dishwasher now?

They mention a couple more, like Sting and his wife Trudie Styler and Prince Charles. And we could add arch-hypocrite Al Gore the self appointed potentate of all things green who nevertheless lives in a mansion whose energy usage exceeds some Third World countries and who flies on private jets whenever he finds it convenient.

What the Daily Main needs to understand is that these celebrity alpha-hotels don't feel like hypocrites because in their own minds they are special and entitled to things which should rightly be denied to lesser mortals.

Just like gun grabbing celebrity grotesquerie Rosie O'Donnell walks around with a small army of armed to the teeth bodyguards to protect her and her family. She simply believes that she and her partner and their children deserve to be protected by firearms while you and your spouse and children do not.

This sense of entitlement is so basic to the way that O'Donnell and the others view themselves and their place in the world that I seriously doubt that they have ever felt the slightest temptation to question it. When they are called on the hypocrisy which is transparently obvious to everyone besides them and their sycophantic hangers-on they feel unfairly attacked and singled out for persecution because of their activism.

Now I want everyone to understand something. Human-caused global warming is a myth. It is simply the best hobgoblin that the Left has come up with to frighten the mob into surrendering their wealth and their liberty. As far as I'm concerned Travolta can buy himself a 747 and have it modified for mid-air refueling and spend the next ten years flying around all by himself and never touch the ground.

If you have the money to live in a mansion the size of the Biltmore House and fly private jets and drive nothing but Hummers and Vipers then more power to you, as long as you come by it honestly. But do not step out of your Hummer on the tarmac of the private jetport and lecture the rest of us on how we ought to use leaves instea