When Is It Okay to Lie About the Environment, Anytime You Are Promoting Global Warming Theory

Well, as you probably know I run a think tank, and I’ve been quite upset with some of the alternative energy schemes which are far too costly for the generation of energy, as they have a lousy return on investment, and they really are not reliable energy it all. Let’s take wind turbine generation for instance. Did you know it takes CO2 to make the concrete, and the amount of concrete in the base of one of those large wind turbines takes almost 10-15 years depending on how strong the wind in the area is to even offset the carbon created in the making of that concrete? It’s true.

Did you also know that before Nixon signed the “Federal Clean Water Act,” in 1972 that there was a small oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara CA, actually it was between Santa Barbara CA and Ventura CA, and did you know that 163 birds died because they had oil on them? Did you know the environmentalists ran out there with their cameras, and blew the whole event at of proportion? That’s also true. But did you know that these wind turbines are killing birds every single day, thousands of them actually. But apparently, that’s okay because wind energy is considered clean energy, and alternative energy is good – good for whom or what?

Well, that sure sounds great, but wind power is unreliable because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. Therefore it doesn’t solve the challenges we have, as we are in an industrialized nation and we need the power. We need more power not less. Why is it okay to lie about the environment, and attack one source of energy with lawsuits, over regulation, and increased taxes – and then take that tax money, and add to it much more and call it an investment in America while we use those monies to fund unreliable energy?

Read more

Water Footprint: The Next Big Thing

I knew the statistics earlier. One cup of coffee requires 140 litres of water to produce- if it is grown, processed and brewed in the most efficient way. One cup of tea requires 35 litres of water to produce. But little did I know that soon, we will have all the data of water usage for all or most products. A number of diverse groups around the world are working on developing the Water Footprint, and the methodology used is just as diverse. Which one will become “the” methodology is yet to be seen.

The water footprint of a product is defined as the total amount of water that goes into its manufacturing process. Therefore to come back to the coffee example, it includes the amount of water that goes into watering the coffee plants and in cooling the roasters. The actual amount of water that we actually consume is therefore a very, very small percentage of this.

The water footprint of a country is associated very closely with its food imports and the concept of virtual water. Therefore it is important to look at not just the internal water footprint, but the external one as well. Further complicating the fact is that a large water footprint is not necessarily a bad thing. We need to examine where the water is coming from- if it is from a region that has abundant renewable water and efficient management of water, it is alright. The problem arises if the production is done in an unsustainable manner that causes pollution and damages the environment.

Then there is the blue, green and grey water footprint. The blue water footprint is the one most discussed so far. The green water footprint refers to the amount of rainwater that is consumed in the manufacture of a product, while the grey water footprint refers to the volume of fresh water that is required to deal with the pollutants generated in the manufacturing process. Looking at the interplay of the different colours of the water footprint, and monthly water scarcity indices, it is possible to determine whether the products are produced in water stressed regions or in regions where water is abundant.

It is expected that by mid 2012, all products in France will need to have labels with their carbon footprint. On some product categories, they would also need to include their water footprint and biodiversity impact. However, since the water footprint involves a lot more than just what happens in the processing plants, there is a need to involve the whole supply chain and indeed the producers of the raw materials in the chain. Many, especially other European countries are watching these developments carefully to see the impact that it would have on their own economies.

Even if sustainability is the ultimate aim, it may be detrimental to start out with labelling of products at this stage. It can affect poor communities that grow raw materials for exports in water stressed areas of the world. It can affect companies that are located in arid areas. It can affect countries that are dependent on food exports. There is need for the water footprint to be understood by consumers at a level where it is more than just a metric. The complexities of the water cycle and its impact on the environment cannot be melted down to one number. It is important for consumers to make choices based to knowledge of sustainability and water management. Thus, returning to the cup of coffee that I started out with earlier, it may be better to go for it if the coffee is rain-fed from the Kenyan highlands, rather than a cup of tea grown in the dry plains nearby.

Read more