Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Enviromental cost is always carbon footprint in these lame science articles.They do not notice dogma now. Surprise is limited to implications.
The beat goes on in the brainwashed media about all of the Poisonous Carbon must fight. No one will ever question that false premise. These are not scientists but Fake-Science propagandists willfully working for the UN World Government's plan to start its rule with a new World Eco-Crisis Currency. It is first necessary that ALL rational thought that CO2 is actually a harmless, or beneficial, non-polutant gas goes away. I am not a Conspiracy Buff. This Big Lie propaganda is what is hammering us right now. We will all have to adjust to live in a new Super Deception, no questions allowed, faked science world. No wonder Obama will not take questions on Meet the Press.
Another inconvenient truth?
They are comparing Barbaloots to Swamee Swans here. The fallacy of the article is that the Onceler was not constructing residential buildings, but rather manufacturing facilities. It is obvious that high density city dwellings can be more "environmental efficient", but the size of factories has nothing to do with this. There may be similar economies of scale, but they do not make this connection.At least they acknowledge the Oncler's flawed business model. If he had maintained a sustainable supply of Truffula trees, then he could have continued biggering his business. Perhaps eventually he could develop technology to clean up his operation viz, smoggy smog and glupity glup.
I love how this article unabashedly proclaims that the environmentalists' ideal living quarters are a cramped apartment in a crowded city, never mind how we'd actually like to live.I love Dr. Seuss's early books -- Green Eggs and Ham is brilliant -- but his later, more political works are very bad. My kids all hated The Butter Battle Book as much as they hated The Lorax. These books are examples of the low opinion that Dr. Seuss held of most grown-ups.
It is obvious that high density city dwellings can be more "environmental efficient"It might be obvious, but it would still surprise a lot of environmentalists.
Well, duh. Taller buildings use less land for the same amount of interior space. Less land used means more wilderness. People think cities use a lot of land because most people live in them. I reality, it's farms that really cut into wilderness. The higher yields we get from agriculture, the less land we use and the more wilderness we have.So, environmentalists should be for everything that increases urbanization and everything that increases crop yields without polluting the environment. In short, urban sprawl and genetically engineered crops.This is why I think most political goals have very little to do with reality. People value rhetoric over practical results. They say they want something but pursue policies that do the exact opposite.
Post a Comment