• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • When Environmental Activism Does More Harm Than Good

    Last night Heritage hosted the world premiere of “Not Evil Just Wrong,” a feature-length documentary that reveals the true cost of global warming hysteria and the unintended consequences of radical environmental policies that have been going on for decades. The film was broadcast live on Ustream.tv and screened at 6,000 different locations in 27 countries.

    The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis recently exposed what would be the unintended consequences of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation. CDA found that far more jobs would be destroyed than green jobs created, households will lose income, and the economy as a whole will be operating $9.4 trillion under its potential from 2012-2035 – all because of cap and trade.

    “Not Evil Just Wrong” puts a face on the story that Heritage economic modeling has been telling as it documents the story of working Americans who work for industries that rely on fossil fuels, which is a massive part of the nation’s economy. For instance, “Small towns in the heartland, like Vevay, Ind., will become bastions of unemployment and poverty. Breadwinners like Tim McElhany in Vevay will lose their jobs — and will have to start borrowing money again just to buy bread for their families.”

    It also brings into the question the alarmism of global warming hysteria by interviewing scientific experts on climate change. Two of those skeptics, Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT and Donald Roberts, professor emeritus of tropical health in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, were part of a panel following the screening at The Heritage Foundation. Andrew Breitbart moderated the panel that also included John Fund, columnist at the Wall Street Journal. You can find a video of the panel discussion here.

    The film also makes note of Gore’s rejection of the use of DDT to combat malaria in Africa despite the World Health Organization lifting its ban on DDT three years ago. And this, if nothing else, should be the take away: There’s a right way and a wrong way to protect the environment. Americans are completely capable of being good stewards of the environment without the government telling us how or why.

    And the wrong way is when environmental activists lobby for government policies and fail to take into account the unintended consequences that lead to environmentally destructive outcomes, economic devastation and worse, the loss of human life. The DDT example is just one item of a laundry list full of environmental policies gone badly. The ethanol mandate to reduce reliance on fossil fuels also happens to destroy rainforests and cause food shortages, especially for citizens in developing countries where corn-based foods are a staple in their diets. The government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to improve the number of miles per gallon cars and trucks achieve also made vehicles lighter and less safe, increasing the fatalities from car crashes.

    There is a general problem that these policies divert resources away that could be used for more efficient use, or that we’ll have $9.4 trillion less available resources to combat real catastrophes because of policies that will make negligible reductions in the global temperature – like cap and trade.

    Not Evil Just Wrong” takes a good look at the real damage environmental extremism can do. While it’s not available for viewing online, you can purchase it  here.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    32 Responses to When Environmental Activism Does More Harm Than Good

    1. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      Make no mistake about it.

      This "global warming BS" is nothing more than a means to money then power.

      Taken in the context of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty, this is "spreading American Citizens Wealth" on a global basis.

      And, it will do nothing to reduce global warming. It will economically and financially emasculate us. It will bring our standard of living down.

      Those that hate America, both within and overseas, will create the ultimate humility by making us disproportionately pay – forever.

      Anyone that believes Al Gore and the liberal "big-hitters" will suffer is delusional. They will "feel good" about themselves and laugh all the way to the bank.

    2. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      @ Freedom of Speech TX

      You are clearly uneducated in the matters and affairs of sustainable energy and effects of accelerating global climate change. i do not blame you though it is hard to see through all the BS and that is what I hope to help you understand in my rebuttal to your statement.

      First of all renewable energy in America is the fastest growing sector since the PC took us by storm. America through incentives and industrial grants has secured it's rightful place as the leader of the renewable energy development sector. We have the most powerful solar modules, the cheapest manufacturing price worldwide. We also have GE which is leading the way in regards to wind energy technology. I am not sure but I beleive GE to be the most efficient and largest wind turbine available on the market.

      Now if you think that renewable energy and cleaning our pollution up is a means to control then you are completely wrong my friend. Home power generation of Renewable energy technology first and foremost de-centralizes energy production. You are now in charge of producing the energy at your house for much cheaper rates than the utility company. In my area of New Orleans my Solar customers see roughly a 15% return on there initial investment annually through energy savings. Money you can put in the bank and make even more money on. The ROI can be anywhere between 5-8 years depending on system specifications whether or not it's battery back up or just a straight grid tied application. Panel are warrantied for 25 years and guarantee a certain amount of energy production at that given time or will be replaced.

      Ultimately you are Hedging against increased energy costs in the future. Historically we have seen an approximate 6.5% annual increase in the cost of energy. As government subsidies shift away from coal, oil and natural gas our prices will continue to rise.

      So now I ask to you my friend how are you not taking back control by utilizing this technology and supporting America by doing so. The by product of all the economics behind buying sustainable energy for your home is clean pollution free energy production. Not such a bad trade of for a 15% annual return on your investment.

      If you would like more information please fill out an inquiry at my site http://www.theicenow.com for a free consultation on energy options in your area. I would love to show you what you can do to take control and help you gain some faith in the future of America.

      God Bless

    3. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Texas forgive me left you my parent company website my website in http://www.theicenola.com come for a free consultation! let me help you to empower yourself.

    4. Geraldine Hannan, Wo says:

      I believe in these reports wholeheartedly and they make me happy that we have The Heritage Foundation. The experts there are marvelous!

    5. Pingback: Obama to Undermine US Sovereignty? « VotingFemale Friends Speak!

    6. TonyfromOz Coomera Q says:

      Nicolai Alatzas

      Wonderful news.

      I was wondering if you might explain to the readers how your solar panels can generate power during the night. Also, because we know they cannot, might you explain how you can store the power generated during the day for use at night.

      That being the case then, your panels are just revenue neutral, because for residential usage, the main power consumption is from when everyone gets home from work as the Sun sets, so consumers with panels installed still consume power from the grid during those times, and those are the times of highest usage.

      So with that in mind, might you then explain how much the feed in tarrif is, and how long it would take to pay back for the initial installation.

      Might you also mention the cost for say, a normal 6KW system to power an average sized house, the fitment, the inverter and the labour cost, and then extrapolate that back, including the cost for power usage during non daylight hours from the grid, and how long it would take to repay that investment.

      Also, keep in mind that the panels would need to be kept pristine by washing each day, a trip onto the roof. Also, might you also mention how much of a boon these will be in the cold North East in areas covered by snow for extended periods.

      What sort of commitment are we looking forward to, staying in that one house until it is paid off, or can they just be packed up and taken with you each time you move.

      Also, might you explain how Solar photovoltaic, concentrating solar and wind can only produce power for eight hours at best out of every 24.

      This is really wonderful news.


    7. Ed Darrell says:

      I found several significant errors in the trailer of the film. If the cause is just and right, is it necessary to exaggerate charges against Rachel Carson?

    8. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Dear Nicolai,

      Thank you for educating me on this issue.

      I humbly agree that I am ignorant on man-made global warming, probably because it is a lie.

      Not long ago it was a coming "ice age". I believe THAT gentleman is now a Czar.

      You address solar and wind turbines. I find that interesting in that our leftist elitists don't want the "visual impairment" in THEIR backyard.

      Nevertheless, you have your opinion and I will endeavor to continue my education on issues.

      Trusting this is satisfactory,

    9. Bobbie Jay says:

      Nicolai Alatzas,

      I agree 100% with the comment written by Freedom of Speech and appreciate 100% with tony's comment in rebut of your uneducated thinking in the "scope" of all things effected.

      Pollution is pollution. You can't clean pollution you can only reduce it. Which has and continues to be done outside of your unawareness. How much of other people's money (tax subsidies) are you getting?

      Man does not cause global warming and what you may be involved with was by the influence of deception and government. All of this is nothing but rhetoric and is deeper then waste of time, money and the human mind…save yourself, have some dignity and stop depending on government and their clear and present, daily deception. If government has to take money from the private sector, IT'S CORRUPT AND ISN'T WORTH IT!

      Keep in mind, Nicolai Alatzas, the human life span has INCREASED. To remove what is available and replace with renewable, will sicken and kill. No evidence of man-made global warming, just manipulation and coercion to give you the wrong ideas.

    10. Jim Franklin, Boise, says:

      With my masters and doctoral work in Geography including weather and climate, it is interesting to note that Gore presents the same reasons for Global Warming as was presented in our graduate seminars some years back for a cooling trend that was to lead to an eventual Ice Age that CO2 and the greenhouse effect would limit the rays of the sun reaching the earth and therefore the world would esperience a cooling effect. Now if all those who believe in the AlGoreism would just stop exhaling all that CO2 the rest of us would be a whole lot better off.

    11. william simpson says:

      Its not about the environment, but about giving pols the right to tell you what to do, how often you can do it, and to ration the things they think you have no right to (power, transport, packaging, chemicals) which will ultimately raise prices to where only rich green pious folk can afford the bills

    12. Beth, Maryland says:

      I used to consider myself somewhat of an "environmentalist" but since ALGORE's hysterical rantings and the release of his film, I've realized this rabid "environmentalism" is just a disguise for more government control and higher taxes.

      AND of course, it reaps in millions for people such as ALGORE.

      "Global warming" is a NATURAL cycle. When dinosaurs were present, most of the planet was tropical. Back in the 70's we were being told of an impending ICE AGE!

      This is all political, and is in conjunction with the U.N. efforts to take control of the world!!

    13. 73shark says:

      CO2 despite what the EPA says is not a pollutant. It is a part of the photosynthesis process whereby plants use and create oxygen. Greenhouses use CO2 to enhance plant growth.

      In the mid-70s these same "scientists" said the next Ice Age was coming and the planet would use up all of the oil. Gee, I guess they missed that one.

    14. The Quadfather says:

      I used to be "into" alternate energy as a hobby. I built a solar hot water system that worked quite well. I looked into all sorts of ideas that might reduce my cost of living which was my main motivator. Solar was just too expensive at the time. It seems to me that it would be a great way to reduce the cost of air conditioning which maxes out when the sun is bearing down hard. If it could be done economically, I would be willing to do it. That said, on the other hand, these things, in order to be viable, need to compete on the open market, not under some system where by the costs of fossel fuel is artificially inflated. The envirowhackjobs do not want to do that. They want to create a false market and set up a system of purchasing permits called "credits" that is essentially a tax, so they can do god knows what with the money. If anyone really thinks it will be used to plant trees in the Amazon rain forest, dream on. But what ever it is used for, you can bet it will be wasted, as much as federal income taxes are now. Control? you bet! it is controlling me when you take my money for which I worked hard. That money represents time spent working and so it is a form of coercion, of slavery sans chains.I understand that some taxes are necessary, but for instance is it necessary that I pay taxes to support some creep "artist" who immerses a crucifix in a jar of urine and calls it art? Art should stand on it's own. If people want to pay for that, let them. But don't force me to pay for the absurd. Why is it that government buildings in big cities always have some ugly piece of scrap metal out front of the building? Is that art? What the hell does it mean? And as for energy, I say build more coal plants and fire 'em up!

    15. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Ok I got a lot of response regarding my letter and I would first like to address:

      Texas Freedom of Speech.

      No Environmental Agency or (Lefty's) are saying wind turbines are bad in your back yard. Some beach communities have stood against the implementation of putting Wind Turbines along the shoreline in sight of the Beach. If you can site at least one legitimate Lefty that says turbines are bad in general I will eat my words. If you site PETA or some other brain dead agency this does not count lol. But I assure you having been to the Gulf Coast region in Louisiana nothing is more disgusting than a horizon burning with oil drilling platforms and watching pellets of oil wash up on our shore. Needless to say it's not a pretty site.

      Bobby Jay and Jim Franklin:

      I will address together, had you read my statement fully you will note that it is not this term "Global Warming" rather Global Climate change and how our impact has a direct correlation to environmental changes. Whether we are cooling or warming melting or freezing is not the issue. We now understand that our planet will definitely be impacted by our short. Let this mistake not be hindsight is 20/20. Real viable energy sources are available to us and the industry needs a push.

      William Thompson

      I have solutions to seriously impact your environmental impact for the good with little or no out of pocket expense and actually impact you financially for the good. I do not offer solutions to my customers that will not repay them. I do not promote "Green" because it is cool or trendy. I don't think Hybrid cars are a solution or building with ridiculous materials is your duty. I bring real viable solutions to control and hedge against future energy costs and the by product of which is beneficial to the environment. If you can stomach it come by my website and let me show you the facts. I have taken on my role and my company not to become rich but to educate people and give them the facts.


      I think the other responses address some of your animosity towards the green movement. And don't get me wrong their are definitely powers that be that seek to feed the people disinformation for the benefit of their own greed.


      Co2 is definitely not a pollutant nor has anyone claimed it to be polluting. But increased CO2 levels effect climate change for the good or the bad. It has become the poster child of the Green Evolution and this is at best sad. We should be talking about Hydro-Carbons, Mercury and many other pollutants that come from the smoke stacks of coal and other fossil fuels. Not to mention the environmental impact of mining and drilling for these goods. Check out Bute, Colorado for some more info into the environmental impact of strip mining. ANd strip mining is the leading supply of coal. Whether or not the can burn it clean doesn't take away from the impact of mining it. And last we have Nuclear Power to supply about 20% of our electricity. No nuclear power plant has ever created enough power to pay for the installation, monitoring, maintenance and removal or storage of waste. In the next 20 years there won't be a city in the country that won't have volatile Nuclear waste on it's way to a dumping ground deep in the mountains of Rocky Mountains. Not to mention that these containers they are carrying in can not withstand prolonged temperatures of over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. Or the penetrating force of high powered civilian weaponry.

      Why do we have to have a failure to make a change for the good my friend. This country was founded on our Forefather's making sacrifices for our future generations.

      So with all this hate for subsidies to get a remarkable infrastructure off the ground that has no long term health or environmental effects on the citizens of this world. There is no mention of removing the subsidies of Oil, Gas, Coal and Nuclear Power?

      As a centrist I believe this issue to not be right or left up or down just the right decision for the children of this world.

      We are all scared and if we can stop letting the wedge issues come between everyone we can stand as one "We the People" and take back what is rightfully ours.

      God Bless you all and thanks for the wonderful forum to address these very real issue's.

    16. TonyfromOz says:

      Nicolai Alatzas.


      So many replies, and I get ignored.

      Have you no responses for what are completely valid points?


    17. Nicolai Alatzas says:


      I somehow over looked your comments and I will be more than pleased to answer your questions.

      First of all I never said solar power alone was the solution to anyone's energy problems. It is merely a piece of the pie in regards to how we generate our electricity. Your questions raise several interesting arguments to the short comings of a strictly Solar Grid. Yet this is merely a piece of the pie when in comes to a countries renewable energy portfolio. You addressed energy storage, solar is only available in the daytime, peak energy demand, and what is the ROI of solar?. I will address all questions in my response to you.

      Performance and Returns on Investment-

      In America peak demand for energy use in the day time. This is when our factories, businesses and homes with central cooling systems use the most energy. In California peak demand rates for energy exceed 65 cents per kW hr. Some states like where I live in Louisiana we only pay one flat rate of about 13.5 cents per kW hour. With current electric rates increasing nationwide on Average at about 6.7% annually on average over the past 30 years in America. Certain spikes in energy cost are directly related to world events which mostly associated with the middle east. These events dramatically increase the cost of energy for a given period but we usually see it level out and plateau. The costs of solar array whether it's 1 kW or 20 kW pays for it's self in approximately twice in it's life time. Meaning a $25,000 investment will create approximately $50,000 worth of energy when calculated the inflated rate of the dollar and energy. However with state federal and utility rebates that vary state to state you can see a return on your investment anywhere form 6 years up. Here is Louisiana given an optimal array meaning pointing due south and at a 29 degree angle will pay for the initial system costs every 7 years. That's is a 400% return on the initial investment over a 30 year period. This includes cost of replacing ones inverter. Some new inverter technology has a such as The Enphase Microinverter has been tested to have a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) rating of 331 years. Depending on the type of solar cell and glazing used to sandwich the cells can last anywhere from 30 year – 100 years. I personally have panels that have been in operation for over 20 years and they are operating at about 85% of what they originally did. Keep in mind that I use NREL (National Renewable Energy Labs) data when figuring in the ROI of any given system. We use a derate factor of 77% of the specified DC energy source. This factors in soiling, loss of power through cables, conversion efficiency of the inverter and a few other minute factors that lower overall performance. You also mention (CSP) Concentrated Solar Power which is in fact just a solar concentrator utilizing a lot of mirrors on focal energy with a Fresnel lens. This type of energy is capable of holding great amounts of heat through the night which are adequate to produce power which exceeds day light. Some CSP's utilize molten salt which can boil water for steam generation into the night. Every year Solar cells become more and more efficient and every year they become cheaper and cheaper. The industry needs help to escalate production and help to move product and technology worldwide. The technology will get good enough so that the only sensible thing to do is put enough solar power on your roof to offset all of your energy production. Utility Companies will soon not have to worry about supplying future energy growth and will move into grid maintenance and back up energy providers.

      In regards to Solar is only available in the daytime-

      Well this is a irrelevant argument no one in their right mind is saying that solar alone is the answer to energy production worldwide. Fortunately for us we also have wind, hydro electric and tidal generation which can actually see greater production periods at night. It is estimated that wind production in the Midwest alone would be adequate to power the entire US. But we need better infrastructure que Obama's plan for a smart energy grid. Hydroelectric damn and generators placed in rivers which are actually giant turbines in moving bodies of water. America has great bodies of water that are capable of generating huge amounts of electricity. With the exception of solar they are all capable of producing power 24 hours a day.

      Energy Storage-

      Last thing to talk about is energy storage. First of all we have battery storage. Batteries are notorious for being a wasteful and costly energy storage. But there is promising technology on the market that will make battery storage a cost effective option in regards to energy storage. Just think cell phones in the 80's were actually bag phones. My father who was in the Computer industry actually let me bring one of these out with me. I thought I was so cool with my bag phone can you imagine if technology hadn't advance over the past 30 years and we all had to have back packs to power our cell phones. Anyway my point is technology advances and things become possible. Two other promising forms of energy storage that I can think of off the top of my head come in the form of Hydrogen and Mechanical storage. Hyrdrogen Storage utilizes electrolysis which most of us know very well.

      Hydrogen is a great means to store energy because it is the third most prevalent element on Earth and the most abundant throughout the Universe. This can be stored in compressed tanks or in solid metal canisters called Metal Hydride. Compressed tanks can be a volatile hydrogen storage but is deemed safe enough to drive down the highway from the Department of transportation. Risk of fire is minimal as compared to a gasoline powered cars with think tanks and large amounts of heat. Metal Hydride is a solid metal tank that has a molecular structure that allows hydrogen to pass through the metal much like a water through a sponge when heated slightly and trapped inside when cooled slightly. Hydrogen is often feared and mislabeled as dangerous. This generally comes from vivid images of either the Hindenberg burning to the ground or thought of the Hydrogen Bomb. First I would like to point our that the Hindenberg didn't blow up nor did everyone die. This is because Hydrogen when released into the atmosphere tends to escape and combine with oxygen to form water molecule. Hydrogen can be utilized in any common combustion engine or in fuel cells to create power. One other great thing abotu Hydrogen combustion is that it will burn off hydrocarbons and CO2 in the atmosphere basically capable of reversing the whole worlds Carbon footprint fear.

      The last form of energy storage is mechanical storage. Mechanical storage is the most efficient energy storage world wide. The most common form of mechanical storage is flywheel technology utilized in server rooms around the world. This is not new technology by any means buses in some parts of Europe in the 50's utilized this technology to power the large electric motors. The basic premise of this technology is probably on your wrist right now. Like winding your clock or watch once a day this will get your through your day or in this case night. But because of it's size and need to charge relatively often it was phased out for the combustion engine. Currently California is installing 2 100 kW flywheels to store energy from one of it's (CSP) plants. This technology is advancing quickly as composite materials have greater reduced the size and increased the strength and reliability of these systems.

      I believe that wraps up your questions Tony. If I left anything out please let me know.


    18. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Please join my Blog @ http://www.theicenola.com/ice-blog.html to look at current technologies and feasibility. I offer a free analysis to anyone inquiring about there home and what technology would be best for there house. We only have offices in New Mexico and in New Orleans but I am more than happy to help talk you through any questions or concerns you have. As you can probably already tell I love a good conversation and I love a good challenge.


    19. Bobbie Jay says:


      If it is such a good and necessary idea, the private sector would've picked up on it without government insistence. Without tax dollar assistance. And if you have decency, you must be conducting your business without stealing from taxpayers? Is this true?

      I feel sorry for you and will continue to pray for those that choose to refuse the truth and ignore the hardships this corruption it will cause. May God Bless you and guide you.

    20. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Bobbie Jay,

      Are you trying to say that Oil, Gas, Coal, and Nuclear power went in to place without incentives? If so you are terribly wrong and misguided. You should look into the history of how these major corporations came into place. Not to mention that most of these companies have moved to offshore accounts and developing third world countries and stripping them of their resources without that money ever touching the US. Look at who is developing the Kurdish oil exploration in Iraq.

      As far as the private sector has developed without dipping into the tax base. Are you implying the US government should allow other countries to run and control the future of renewable energy? We are already have the most efficient and cheapest renewable energy sector which employs real people here in the US. We even produce our technology cheaper than China. So I would have to disagree with your remark our private sector is geared to becoming the world leader in Renewables.

      Or are you saying that polluting and destroying natural resources is a means to an end?

      The incentives in place only go to Tax-Payers so if your implied remark is nonsensical. If you don't pay taxes your not eligible for any tax incentive in regards to implementing sustainable power resources on your property.

      What kind of ROI does coal, oil, gas or Nuclear have? The answer is none! It is a never ending cycle of digging into your taxes, equity and future.

    21. Bobbie Jay says:

      I don't care how these businesses came about. I don't care how much they make. What I care about is that they had the freedom and the intelligence to do it. When private business are corrupt they're found out. When government is, well, look at the indignation they are displaying NOW. WE'RE FORCED TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY.

      Private sector is held to be honest as they have a set of rules and laws to go by and are ALWAYS HELD ACCOUNTABLE at their expense. Obama's government has over 30 people salaried by us, as CZARS, WHO HOLD NO ACCOUNTABILITY AT OUR EXPENSE! Not to mention all other areas of unaccountability at tax payers expense. And if a person of this country chooses their freedom to conduct businesses somewhere else, that is their choice. For the most part it was forced upon them due to government regulations, mandates, taxes. Cheapest renewable energy sector? I'm forced to subsidize and buy? The government taking favor to a non-existence and forcing tax payers to fund the way?

      I'd like to see expansion in the oil, gas, coal, nuclear fields here in America. In the mean time, you can work on the renewables at your own expense like the private sector would. It doesn't make sense, Nicolei, that the government would give our money to other countries (to pollute) pumping oil when we have it in our own back yards? When people could be employed freely and through profits of the business not taxing, stealing, thieving from the tax payers. The unemployment in this country is deliberate and could "change" tomorrow with intelligent, reasonable, sensible leadership.

      Man-made global warming is nothing but a ruse to destroy the economy, and you're helping. Private sector is efficient and doesn't prey on the privacy of the tax payers. May you open your eyes to see the numerous inconsistencies. May you come to be a person of honesty and conduct your life and business at your own expense and without stealing from others.

    22. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Bobbie Jay,

      You are clearly confused and this type of ignorance should no longer be tolerated.

      First of all no one stopped drilling for oil. If you think for a second that oil companies are not continuing to drill and explore for oil your dead wrong.

      Are you suggesting that a coal miners life is of quality? Or that the destruction of Natural Resources is necessary?

      Or are you saying that you demand oil, gas and coal subsidies but Renewable Energy should "stand on it's own two feet".

      I think you might also be confused on how I get paid. I don't take money from government private industry and citizens pay me. I have never received a check from the government.

      If your talking about Federal Buildings implementing renewable energy systems and sustainable building standards at the cost of the tax payers than again you are confused. Life cycle costs and analysis of buildings are done and sustainable strategies are implemented to save money over the life of the building. Thus is the long run saving the tax payer billions. Spend a little now save a lot later.

      What is your plan for the future? If fossil fuels are a finite resource than what do we do when there is no more? If we don't implement technology and changes now how will we be able to in the future?

      And you can argue Global Warming till your blue in the face but it does not have anything to do with the bottom line. It's unfortunate that you refuse to educate yourself. You can live your entire life believing the world is flat. But even after your dead the world will continue to be a sphere.

    23. Nicolai Alatzas says:


      Great little video that Shell put out. Yeah that's right Shell Oil…..

      I thought the Naysayers would like this one.

    24. Bobbie Jay says:

      No insults necessary, Nicolai. You have no common sense. Subsidies going to oil, gas, nuclear and coal is because they WORK! Yours is speculative at best! More work then it's worth, getting us nowhere very slowly. finding more inefficiencies and dangers. I didn't say I was against cleaner fuel. The pollution has been greatly reduced in the fuel we currently have.

      What I am against is anyone suggesting global warming is caused by man and we have to take these costly steps to make no difference in the near or far future so you can make a profit. Man is not going to stop a meteor from hitting if earth is in it's course, Nicolai. Not your solar panels or Wyoming's wind mills. They will just add to the mess. Remember the earth is round…

    25. Bobbie Jay says:

      How are natural RESOURCES being destroyed. If they aren't being used they wouldn't be called RESOURCES. Use them while you perfect renewables.

    26. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Bobbie Jay,

      Air, Water and Forests are routinely destroyed and polluted in strip mining operations around the world. It just can't be helped. Look up Eastern Kentucky where the mountains have literally been leveled off and turned into to deserts. Coal plants are talking about pumping CO2 back into the ground and storing it in the empty coal mines. This ads to the cost of coal and really takes it out of competition with renewables.

      And we are using fossil fuels while we perfect renewables. That is the whole Idea behind a huge push into renewables.

      Get them right before we run out of the other stuff. So hop on board Bobbie Jay lets get this done before the people loose their option for energy independence.

    27. Bobbie Jay says:

      In this country, more forests have been ruined by neglect and poor government decisions then the production of energy fuel. Air pollution has been greatly reduced, and WATER has been the cleanest it's ever been! As I've mentioned the human life span has INCREASED! Although I appreciate and respect your passion, THIS IS NOT A CRISIS, Nicolai. And because it is not a crisis, nobody in renewable energy should be getting a bump from the taxpayers. You mention "around the world," so why not bring your business to the countries that don't have the means to reduce their pollution? You mention "coal" referring to cost and damage. Gas and nuclear are clean energy fuels with less land waste then wind turbines, less costly then solar and more sustainable and efficient then wind and solar combined.

      Because the government hyped this up to be a life threatening "CRISIS" many have lost their trust of government altogether. Especially when people like Gore, AND EVERYBODY BEHIND THIS GOVERNMENT MADE-CRISIS, continues to make millions off this government deception. Something isn't right, Nicolai. LOTS AND LOTS OF NOTHING BUT CORRUPTION!

      Why don't you innovate plans that will help people be prepared for nature's unpredictable onsets? I didn't say I don't believe in global climate change. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS CAUSED BY MAN!

    28. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      The real issue is that those resources are limited my friend. We need long term energy solutions now before they all run out. Watch the video…..

      And explain how windmills have more waste than nuclear.

    29. Bobbie Jay says:

      those resources, if you are writing in reference to gas, nuclear and oil, are in abundant supply. limited only because of government authority who's compelled to increase government where they don't belong creating crisis after crisis and unemployment along the way. "long term solutions" in wind that doesn't always blow and sun that doesn't always shine, sounds like a lot of inefficiency and future crisis. Keep your business going Nicolai, but know, as this is not a crisis, you should be on your own two feet. There is no reasons but government's own, for this country to hold back jobs over this fictitious man-made global warming.

    30. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Energy Myths Debunked

      1: solar power is too expensive to be of much use.

      Today’s bulky and expensive solar panels (solar cells, also called photovoltaics or PV) capture only 10 per cent or so of the sun’s energy, but rapid innovation in the US means that the next generation of panels will be much thinner, capture far more energy and cost a fraction of what they do today. First Solar, the largest manufacturer of thin panels, claims its products will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations by 2012. Other companies are investigating even more efficient ways of capturing the sun's energy, for example the use of long parabolic mirrors to focus light on to a thin tube carrying a liquid, which gets hot enough to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity.

      Myth 2: wind power is too unreliable.

      During some periods in 2008 the wind provided almost 40 per cent of Spain’s power. Parts of northern Germany generate more electricity from wind than they actually need. Northern Scotland could easily generate 10 or even 15 per cent of the UK’s needs for electricity at a cost that would comfortably match today’s fossil fuel prices.

      Myth 3: marine energy is a dead-end.

      Designing and building machines that can survive the harsh conditions of fast-flowing ocean waters has been challenging and the past decades have witnessed repeated disappointments. In 2008, however, Britain has seen the installation of the first tidal turbine to be successfully connected to the UK electricity grid in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, and the first group of large-scale wave power generators have been installed 5 km off the coast of Portugal.

      Myth 4: nuclear power is cheaper than other low-carbon sources of electricity.

      The new nuclear power station on the island of Olkiluoto in western Finland is a clear example of the high and unpredictable cost of nuclear plants. Electricity production was supposed to start in 2008, but the latest news is that the power station will not start generating until 2012. The impact on the cost of the project has been dramatic. When the contracts were signed, the plant was supposed to cost €3bn. The final cost is likely to be more than twice this figure. A second new plant in Normandy appears to be experiencing similar problems. In the US, power companies are backing away from nuclear because of fears over uncontrollable costs.

      Myth 5: electric cars are slow and ugly.

      We are very close to developing electric cars that match the performance of conventional vehicles. The Tesla electric sports car, sold in America but designed by Lotus in Norfolk, amazes all those who experience its awesome acceleration. With a price tag of more than $100,000, late 2008 probably wasn't a good time to launch a luxury electric car. But the Tesla has demonstrated to everybody that electric cars can be both exciting and desirable.

      Myth 6: biofuels are always destructive to the environment.

      Making some of our motor fuel from food has been an almost unmitigated disaster. It has caused hunger and increased the rate of forest loss, as farmers have sought extra land on which to grow their crops. However the failure of the first generation of biofuels should not mean that we should reject the use of biological materials forever. Within a few years we will be able to turn agricultural wastes into liquid fuels by splitting cellulose, the most abundant molecule in plants and trees, into simple hydrocarbons.

      Myth 7: climate change means we need more organic agriculture.

      Most studies show that yields under organic cultivation are little more than half what can be achieved elsewhere. Unless this figure can be hugely improved, the implication is clear; the world cannot feed its people and produce huge amounts of cellulose for fuels if large acreages are converted to organic cultivation.

      Myth 8: zero carbon homes are the best way of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.

      Buildings are responsible for about half the world's emissions, and domestic housing is the most important single source of greenhouse gases. But making a building genuinely zero carbon is extremely expensive, and just focusing on the about 1 per cent of the housing stock that is newly built each year has no effect on the remaining 99 per cent. In Germany a mixture of subsidies, cheap loans and exhortation is succeeding in getting hundreds of thousands of older properties eco-renovated each year to very impressive standards and at reasonable cost.

      Myth 9: the most efficient power stations are big.

      New types of tiny combined heat and power plants are able to turn about half the energy in fuel into electricity, almost matching the efficiency of huge generators. These are now small enough to be easily installed in ordinary homes. Not only will they generate electricity but the surplus heat can be used to heat the house, meaning that all the energy in gas is productively used. Some types of air conditioning can even use the heat to power their chillers in summer.

      Myth 10: all proposed solutions to climate change need to be hi-tech.

      The advanced economies are obsessed with finding hi-tech solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these are expensive and may create as many problems as they solve. Nuclear power is a good example. But it may be cheaper and more effective to look for simple solutions that reduce emissions, or even extract existing carbon dioxide from the air.

    31. Allison says:

      Not Evil, Just Wrong considers many matters that relate to emissions trading legislation in powerful fashion, yet the film is as much or more concerned with people as it is with science. For, in the end, it is people, and especially poor people, who are going to be hurt by the current propaganda campaign against the environmentally beneficial trace gas that carbon dioxide in fact represents.

      Planet Earth’s climate, indifferent to puny human interventions, will simply continue on its majestic way – irrespective of ministrations that we might or might not attempt. Watch this film, and use the knowledge that you will gain to lobby your Senator to vote against the Australian emissions trading bill.

    32. Kyle says:

      Many viewers (including me) were expecting the documentary to be strictly on the global-warming issue, since dialogue on that issue is in a critical phase in U.S. politics. So when a relatively large segment of the movie was about the insecticide DDT, it seemed incongruous — at least at the beginning. Eventually a realization hits that the controversy over DDT and that over global warming are both examples of the environmental movement’s disregard for the effect of their policies on the well-being of the human race. And how environmentalists — at the highest level, not the college student next door who has no idea of what is being done in the name of being “green” — consider mankind to be an alien life form on the planet, while protection of the snail darter is to be accomplished at any cost. With less and less energy to supply water and sanitation, cultivate and process food, provide health services, and allow us the many other modern life enhancing amenities we enjoy — how many lives would be sacrificed to the “green religion” of the environmentalists?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.