The Tree Hugger Hypocrisy: A Double Edge Sword To Going Green, Or just smoking it.


Welcome back to another double-edged sword, this one is of treehugger hypocrisy.
Today we are going to be discussing the renewable energy movement, backed by the scam of climate change.

In recent years I have witnessed things like, the want to get electric cars to the masses (which haven't happened) backed by so-called global warming and increased consumption of fossil fuels. I have to argue this point though, how does one charge up these cars? I think the point is to use a source of energy that is "green" and to disconnect from burning fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum, and other "bad" forms of energy. If one charges an electric car using their main power grid which is powered by nuclear power or coal power isn't that just increasing the consumption of these very things?



All modern technology including "renewable" energy depends on the non-renewable resources that make it possible. For example, every step in the production of solar photovoltaic (PV) power systems requires a perpetual input of fossil fuels - as carbon reductants for smelting metals from ore, for process heat and power, international transport, and deployment. Silicon smelters, polysilicon refineries, and crystal growers all require uninterrupted, 24/7 power that comes mostly from coal and uranium. Additional mineral resources and fossil energy are needed for constructing PV factories, process equipment, and manufacturing infrastructure. The only "renewable" materials consumed in PV production are obtained by deforestation - for wood chips, and by burning vast areas of tropical rainforest for charcoal used as a source of carbon for silicon smelters. Both media and journal claims that solar PV can somehow "replace fossil fuels" have not addressed the “non-renewable reality” of all the global manufacturing supply chains necessary for the mining, manufacturing, and distribution of PV power systems. Some often-cited accounts of solar PV production exclude raw materials and silicon smelters from the PV “supply chain” entirely, which obscures the profoundly non-sustainable basis of PV technology. A more complete overview of commercial PV production is presented, from the sources of raw materials to the deployed array.



It was once one of Europe’s largest coal-burning power stations. Now, after replacing coal in its boilers with wood pellets shipped from the U.S. South, the Drax Power Station in Britain claims to be the largest carbon-saving project in Europe. About 23 million tons of carbon dioxide goes up its stacks each year. But because new trees will be planted in the cut forests, the company says the Drax plant is carbon-neutral.

There is one problem. Ecologists say that the claims of carbon neutrality, which are accepted by the European Union and the British government, do not stand up to scrutiny. The forests of North Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi — as well as those in Europe — are being destroyed to sustain a European fantasy about renewable energy. And with many power plants in Europe and elsewhere starting to replace coal with wood, the question of who is right is becoming ever more important.

Since 2009, the 28 nations of the European Union have embarked on a dramatic switch to generating power from renewable energy. While most of the good-news headlines have been about the rise of wind and solar, much of the new “green” power has actually come from burning wood in converted coal power stations.

Wood burning is booming from Britain to Romania. Much of the timber is sourced locally, which is raising serious concerns among European environmentalists about whether every tree cut down for burning is truly replaced by a new one. But Drax’s giant wood-burning boilers are fueled almost entirely by 6.5 million tons of wood pellets shipped annually across the Atlantic.


Wearing a helmet while sleeping, The new requirement

The part where people always argue decreasing the carbon footprint humans leave behind is pretty stupid if you ask me, especially when people argue that greenwood burning is renewable and better for the environment, though most green wood burning requires an accelerant like natural gas to function. I mean burning trees in your bonfire pit when they are wet would require an accelerant also.

All plants, in fact—use the energy of sunlight, and through the process of photosynthesis, they take carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and water from the ground. In the process of converting it into wood they release oxygen into the air. SO LETS CUT THEM DOWN YOU DUMB FUCKS!!!

I in no way am an environmentalist, I just find it hilarious that the very people that call themselves environmentalists actually believe this rhetoric. They must wear a helmet while sleeping to prevent losing any more brain cells.

Burning wood may be close to carbon neutral in some situations, such as where it is clear that cut trees are replaced with the same trees, one for one; but trees take decades to grow and in others, it can emit even more carbon than coal. The trouble is that regulators are ill-placed to tell the difference, which will only be clear decades after the presumed emissions have been tallied — or not — in national carbon inventories.

The one certainty is that if things do not go according to plan, Europe’s promises for meeting its Paris climate commitments will go up in smoke. And the U.S.’s own CO2 emissions could resume their upward path even quicker than President Donald Trump intends.

I also am in no way supportive of Michael Moore but his recent production on this topic has a wealth of information that has allowed me to label the whole "GO GREEN" movement utter bullshit.

3 columns
2 columns
1 column
1 Comment