One Picture Is Worth A Trillion Words

Posted on September 26, 2015 by Tony Heller

This image shows the insanity of greens more succinctly than anything that could be written on the topic.

ScreenHunter_3223 Sep. 26 06.06

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to One Picture Is Worth A Trillion Words

  1. AndyG55 says:
    September 26, 2015 at 10:38 am

    You forgot the green bureaucrats with their hands in the tax-payers’ wallets.

    Reply
  7. rah says:
    September 26, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

    The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

    The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

    The older lady said that she was right — our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain:
    Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.

    Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.
    We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

    But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

    Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

    But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
    Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

    But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

    We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

    But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

    Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the”green thing.” We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

    But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

    We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off. Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much!!

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      September 27, 2015 at 1:33 am

      “Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags….”
      ……
      OOOOPS!

      August 15, 2012 Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness
      Jonathan Klick, Joshua D. Wright

      Abstract
      Recently, many jurisdictions have implemented bans or imposed taxes upon plastic
      grocery bags on environmental grounds. Plastic bags are thought to endanger marine
      animals and add to litter. San Francisco County was the first major US jurisdiction to
      enact such a regulation, implementing a ban in 2007 and extending it to all retailers in
      2012. There is evidence, however, that reusable grocery bags, a common substitute for
      plastic bags, contain potentially harmful bacteria, especially coliform bacteria such as E.
      coli. We examine deaths and emergency room admissions related to these bacteria in
      the wake of the San Francisco ban. We find that both deaths and ER visits spiked as
      soon as the ban went into effect. Relative to other counties, deaths in San Francisco
      increase by 50-100 percent, and ER visits increase by a comparable amount. Subsequent
      bans by other cities in California appear to be associated with similar effects…

      Reply
  9. Justa Joe says:
    September 27, 2015 at 3:07 am

    In a way all those bird carcasses do green the grass in the area surrounding the wind “turbines.”

    Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      September 27, 2015 at 3:29 am

      Isn’t one of the “green jobs” to go around and collect them before anyone else sees them ? !

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        September 27, 2015 at 9:51 am

        The coyotes grabbed that green job and ran away with it…

        The wind industry is hiding over 90% of the bird and bat mortality caused by their turbines. This statement is supported by the industry’s own data and reasonable adjustments for its manipulations….

        I have frequently said the wind industry is hiding over 90% of the bird and bat mortality caused by their turbines. This statement is supported by the industry’s own data and reasonable adjustments for its manipulations. These calculations will help people understand how the industry is using its studies to hide millions of fatalities; they will also help local residents and officials understand “wind farm” impacts and their role in species extinctions that could soon exact an irreversible toll in many regions….

        One of the most effective methods is limiting searches for dead and injured wildlife to progressively smaller areas around increasingly larger turbines – thereby omitting increasing numbers of fatalities as larger turbines catapult birds and bats further, often into grass, brush and wooded areas that hide bodies.

        For the relatively small 50-100 kW turbines at Altamont, roughly 85% of fatalities can be found within a 50-meter search radius, which suggests that this radius is appropriate, if the missing 15% are accounted for. But even with these turbines, industry-paid researchers are able to hide Altamont’s true mortality figures by employing improper study methodologies, raw data manipulation and inaccurate methods for estimating annual death tolls.

        All wind turbine mortality studies find bodies. Indeed, some researchers say wind turbines provide a fatal attraction for birds and bats. It is how carcass counts are conducted and interpreted that renders the process faulty or fraudulent – while also enabling the wind energy industry to claim it has satisfied commitments to reduce bird and bat mortality, and thereby justify installing much larger (and potentially deadlier) wind turbines. Comparing earlier and more recent studies illustrates how this is done.

        In a 1998–2003 study, raptor carcasses were found in searches conducted about six weeks apart. Analysts then developed and applied numerical factors designed to account for the facts that: on-the-ground teams were likely to find only a certain percentage of all dead and injured birds and bats; some wounded individuals would crawl off and die elsewhere; and coyotes, ravens and other scavengers would remove and eat many turbine victims.

        Applying those factors to actual carcass counts, researchers calculated that Altamont turbines were killing 116 golden eagles per year (an average of 10.8 times the actual carcass count per year) Wind turbine mortality for red-tail hawks, burrowing owls and American kestrels were likewise estimated by using factors of 7 to 28 times actual body counts….
        http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2013/wind-energys-government-approved-wildlife-genocide/

        Reply
  10. Dave G says:
    September 27, 2015 at 6:46 am

    Whole birds feed the plants more than just bird droppings.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *