To paraphrase The Daily Mash, “As an adult, I think the correct amount of energy usage is as much as I fucking want.”
Martin Davis, a retired solicitor from Cheltenham, wants to get rid of the family dog. “There are enough productive animals in the world without keeping unproductive ones,” he tells his wife Caroline. “It uses up time and energy and leaves a trail of dog-food tins and plastic bags.” She disagrees vehemently, claiming that it is natural to have animals in the home; they provide comfort and a link with the outdoors.
It’s the same story with the Aga. Martin says that it gobbles energy and should be turned off from May until October. Caroline defends its multiple uses. She bakes bread in it, makes marmalade on it and dries clothes above it — all activities that would require other sources of energy if the Aga was off.
Must be a fucking hoot round at their house. A retired accountant with an eco-obsession.
If these quibbles sound familiar, it’s probably because you have your own stock of pea-green domestic disputes bubbling away.
Err not really, no.
As climate change and the extent to which we must all play our part in reversing it continues to dominate news agendas, families are becoming increasingly rattled by aspects of green behaviour.
Forget traditional rowing subjects such as who does the washing up or takes the children to school. These arguments have an added moral dimension: it’s not just about individual needs any more. There is a bigger picture. But in saving the world, are we wrecking our relationships?
Shall we leave aside the monumental egotism of anyone who regards any crap about turning lights off or composting their turds as a contribution to ‘saving the planet’? And the imbecility of anyone who lets the fucking idiot media dictate their lifestyle and ideology?
According to Caroline, the problem with eco-arguments is that they can rumble on for months with no resolution. “We end up having to agree to disagree until one of us finds evidence,” she says. “Recently, George Monbiot wrote a scathing article about Agas, their vast carbon footprints and the awful women that love them. Martin went around gleefully waving it at me.”
Caroline, you married a total and utter cunt, dear. Consider putting something fatal in his herbal tea.
To add to the green tensions, the Davises’ 27-year-old daughter Agnes has strong ideas on what constitutes a sustainable diet.
Oh, Jesus. Fucking. Wept.
“I’m horrified by how much meat comes into my parents’ house,” she says. “They eat it with every meal. It’s not just the environmental impact — the energy and methane involved in meat production — but it’s unhealthy.
The Davis family is far from unique. A quick e-mail request for other examples of family environmental disputes brings a flood of replies, many simmering with unaddressed eco-rage.
“The shower versus bath is a classic,” says Sarah, 32, who lives with her husband Pete and five-year-old Daisy. “Pete is always telling me that my baths use up too much water, then he goes for a 20-minute shower. I doubt how sincere his green commitment really is. I think he just likes getting one up on me.”
Interesting that it seems to be blokes doing all this eco-cuntery.
Turning off the lights causes tension between Mike, 39, and his girlfriend Anita. “She turns every light and computer on in the whole house as soon as she gets home,” he says. “I go around after her, turning everything off and quoting the Energy Saving Trust, which says that you need only be out of a room for five minutes to make it worth switching off the light.”
I bet that cunt bought his woman one of those wind-up vibrators, too. If he’s not too po-faced for that.
According to Penny Mansfield, director of One Plus One Marriage and Partnership Research, the reason for all this disharmony is that many people have begun to feel genuinely passionate about people’s duty to preserve the planet.
I think you need to examine the premises again there.
The most likely time for such rows to begin is soon after a first child is born, says Mansfield.
Because when you’re up to your neck in shit vomit and sleep deprivation, the most important thing is eco-mongitude…
“Couples often get along fine until they have children. Then they discover that they can’t split the children in two
Tracey Connolly and Stephen Barker obviously had this exact dilemma. Who’d have thought it boiled down to which of them was greenest?
Donnachadh McCarthy, an “eco-auditor”
who visits people’s homes to give advice on how the occupants can reduce their impact on the planet, has also noted a rise in eco-disputes.
Oh, and beware of even associating with these cockpieces.
Jane and Alan, a London couple who have become increasingly ecofriendly over ten years of marriage. When they rented a villa in Provence last year, they asked friends and family to join them — but they wanted everyone to come by train. Jane’s sister and her boyfriend have high-powered jobs and couldn’t afford the extra time that a train trip would involve, so they asked to travel by plane instead. Jane was furious and disinvited them — although now she acknowledges that you can’t force lifestyle changes on others.
They can shove their villa right up their arses then – good luck getting any more of your ‘friends’ to trudge down to your eco-hovel, dickheads.
Two friends of mine clashed so badly over whether it was ecologically acceptable to shop at Primark that they stopped seeing each other for several months. Like comparing attitudes to childcare and private school, comparing green credentials can take even the closest of friends into dangerous territory, mainly because everyone feels sensitive about whether they are doing the right thing.
Everyone? Not quite. Some of us haven’t completely taken leave of our senses.
And think of all that ecowank the teaching weenies are pumping into your little darlings.
A friend tells me that she was horrified when her daughter’s school pal, who had come round for supper, caught her piling food waste into the normal bin. “Don’t you have a compost bin?” she asked shrilly. “Don’t you feel bad about the space in landfill you’re using up?”
Being shown up by a pint-sized ecowarrior is a powerful incentive to get up to speed in matters ecological.
ORLY? It’s a powerful incentive to issuing clip round the ear and pointing out who pays the fucking bills around here.
Ten-year old Hannah Screen, who lives in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, is always telling her mum to turn off lights and reminding her of what is best for the planet. “Sometimes we do research at school and then I go back home with amazing facts that mum doesn’t know about,” she says. “Recently I told her that if she leaves her laptop on standby, it still uses 80 per cent of the electricity that it uses when it’s on.”
Errr.. no. No it doesn’t, you gobby little madam. Shut your face.
The article goes on and on and on, but you get the picture: cuntsoup.
This idea does get floated occasionally, and I know I shouldn’t let it wind me up, but it does.
In a report published today, the Sustainable Development Commission has called on ministers to bring in the cameras to ensure that motorists stick to the 70 mph limit.
This alone would achieve a reduction of of 1.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, the Commission says.
Okay. Let’s forget the arguments about climate change. Let’s forget the arguments about the futility of an arbitrary speed limit that is lower than much of mainland Europe.
Over the last 18 months, I have been privileged (!) to cover thousands of motorway miles under average speed cameras. Through and around road works on the M1, M6, M62, M18, M25, M3 and M4. There’s now also a permanent SPECS installation covering a new 50MPH section at M3 J2-3.
Three key points need to be made:
- Driving under the constant scrutiny of average speed cameras is much more stressful than otherwise. This makes long journeys un-necessarily tiring.
- The combination of tiring with boring makes accidents due to loss of attention much more likely
- The rolling road block effect that these cameras have causes traffic to bunch and this makes changing lanes – hence joining and leaving the motorway – very difficult.
But I don’t suppose any of this matters to the haters of motoring and motorists.
Shitheads to a man.
For more see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/
I’m staggered I didn’t pick up on this earlier.
The Conservative party’s official website states that David Cameron has given “a commitment to increase the proportion of taxes collected from green taxation, with revenues from the new green taxes going into a families fund that can only be used to reduce other taxes on families”.
It follows disclosures in The Daily Telegraph that motorists and air passengers face higher taxes under the Tories to fund tax breaks for married couples.
More fucking hands in my pockets to pay for cunting breeders.
If you have kids, it’s not my fucking problem. If I have kids, it’s not yours.
GET YOUR THIEVING HANDS OUT OF MY POCKETS YOU SOCIAL DEMOCRAT LEECHES
My mind is absolutely made up now.
I’ll cut my cock off with a copy of the Economist before I’ll vote for these shitbags.
For the pigs, and for the contractors.
Motorists who were forced to abandon their cars in a blizzard had to pay £150 to get their vehicles back after police ordered a breakdown company to tow them away.
Up to 100 drivers left their cars by the side of a dual carriageway, which had not been salted or gritted, after snow and ice made it too dangerous to continue.
When some returned, they discovered their vehicles had been taken to a compound 20 miles away and that they would have to pay a fine and ‘storage fee’ to get them back.
Thieving cunts. Oh and the Parking Nigerians are having a whale of a time too, naturally:
Is there any event that can occur that the state won’t see as a revenue-raising opportunity?
Snow? Don’t fuckin like it.
Bah humbug. At least I managed to dig my car out today.
It’s not going to be long before I punch some cunt from the met office right in the chops.
orly? perhaps if your predictions were a little more reliable (not to fucking say timely), people would have an opportunity to make plans and preparations, instead of having to wait for it to snow, then dash to the shop and buy fucking everything.
Useless public sector global-warming-dick-sucking fuck monkeys. Die.
Well, just to confirm where we are so far:
And coming up after the break:
Which is remarkably similar to something Jahomstradamus wrote several months ago in response to the Met Orifice’s original prediction.
Well well well.. perhaps I should have put some cash down on that.
Recent blogging has been light. In part this has been because I’ve been busy. In part, it’s because I’m in the midst of an episode of CBA syndrome.
Today’s problem is much, much worse. I’ve started 4 posts and abandoned them all as being solipsistic emo shite.
It’s snowing just now, though, and my house is proving almost impossible to keep warm while retaining the ability to move between rooms. I am reminded of the Met Office’s assurance that we were in a for a mild winter.
It’s reassuring to know that some things remain constant.
I smell the work of Ed Bonzodogdoodahband.
Better than believing in a sky-pixie you dead-man-walking motherfucker.
The Prime Minister launched an outspoken attack on climate-change sceptics amid growing signs of public doubts about the scientific and political consensus on the environment.
Well, I hope the Jonah touch comes through again, or it’s going to be a teeth-grindingly surreal 6 months.
At the bottom of the Faily Mail piece linked to in the last post, is a golden quote:
Professor Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, added: ‘The intergovernmental panel on climate change draws on the views of most of the world’s leading climate scientists and they have been quite clear that the evidence shows, with a high degree of certainty, that human activities are now having a substantial effect on the climate.
‘It is simply not the case that there is a substantial number who do not accept a link.’
ROFL. And so the world turns.
Mummylonglegs has spun an excellent piece of work, picking up on Nick Griffin’s shrewd and laudably cheeky move of getting to represent the EU at the Copenhagen Climate Change talks, from an Anti-AGW position.
The reason it’s shrewd is that in the wake of #Climategate, the Anti-AGW bandwagon is just now starting to pick up members of the general apolitical public, who are realising they’ve been had (again!) and none of the other politicians are willing to stand up and say what so very many of us are thinking on the topic of AGW.
My views on AGW are pretty clear: https://aljahom.wordpress.com/category/global-warming-my-arse/
As are my views on the BNP: https://aljahom.wordpress.com/category/bnp/
Now, I still wouldn’t vote for the BNP, but I can’t deny thinking that Griffin is onto a winner here.
And another way to look at it is this: Years of pressure from, and mounting success of, the BNP has forced the major parties, particularly Labour, to finally face and admit the problems of mass immigration.
If Griffin can get up a head of steam on this Anti-AGW thing, it may just, may just, force the other parties in to coughing up the green-pills they gobbled down like John Prescott in a bukkake video.
I’ve been quietly observing the aftermath of the release of thousands of emails from Hadley CRU.
For brevity, some bloggers who have been covering this are:
I’ve not said much about this, because after the stampede of AGW lunacy over the last few years, it seemed too good to be true, to think that the house of cards was about to collapse.
It was entirely conceivable that the whole debate would become about whether or not the emails and data were all genuine and unmodified, and whether we were interpreting private communications fairly.
Happily, it no longer seems to matter. The smoking gun is on its 3rd carton of untipped Gauloises, and powerful people are shouting FIRE!
Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.
Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.
Do read on…
Eamonn Butler is the head of the Adam Smith Institute – a free-market think-tank.
But I’d not be surprised to hear that the Dignitas marketing folk were keen to retain his services.
I say this because, ever since I started reading this:
I’ve been increasingly curious about their services.
It’s an unceasing catalogue of the things that Gordon Brown and his coterie of bastards has done to our country.
Oh sure, there’s not much in there that you couldn’t find on most libertarian blogs, but the sheer scale of their destruction wrought upon the fabric of our economy, society, liberty, privacy, justice system and democratic protections is breath-taking.
I may, in fact, never finish this book, because I decide that I want to live. On the other hand, I may neck a fistful of vallium and get it over with. The book, I mean.
Refer them to this:
Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.
We’ve all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.
It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.
As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.
Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.
But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.
So listen up, you fucking enviro-monkey. Until you stop buying shit made in the far-east, shut your cabbage-smelling yap, unless you want necklacing.
Various bloggers have written about this leak of data and emails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit.
I hope this is all genuine and the gig is now blown on AGW, as James Dellingpole seems to think.
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Lovely, lovely, Roy.
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
Perhaps he doesn’t understand that this whole global warming scam is a tax raising hobgoblin, with the intended side-effect of weaning us all off fossil fuels?
Vegetarian. Hah. As if those precious cunts need to feel any more righteous.
.. or “denormalising pets”
I’m obliged to SteveShark for pointing out this piece in the New Scientist (Ha!).
SHOULD owning a great dane make you as much of an eco-outcast as an SUV driver? Yes it should, say Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, they compare the ecological footprints of a menagerie of popular pets with those of various other lifestyle choices – and the critters do not fare well.
As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution. It is time to take eco-stock of our pets.
Nature is red in tooth and claw, not green, fuckwits. Now to compare apples to quasars.
An SUV – the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison – driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser’s eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares – less than half that of a medium-sized dog.
But why stop there, with this valid, insightful and oh.. completely fucking barmy analysis.
Doing similar calculations for a variety of pets and their foods, the Vales found that cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf), hamsters come in at 0.014 hectares apiece (buy two, and you might as well have bought a plasma TV) and canaries half that. Even a goldfish requires 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres) of land to sustain it, giving it an ecological fin-print equal to two cellphones.
But what kind of muongs are going to take this shit seriously?
This kind of analysis appeals to David Mackay, a physicist at the University of Cambridge and the UK government’s new energy adviser.
Fuck it. Calculate the carbon footprint of traffic wardens I feed to my pteradon, motherfucker.
He believes we should put as much thought into choosing a pet as we do into buying a car.
Actually, I always have done. I don’t care what colour my car is. But do you think I want a blue, green or silver cat? (actually a silver cat would be kinda cool).
"If a lifestyle choice uses more than 1 per cent of your energy footprint, then it is worthwhile reflecting on that choice and seeing what you can do about it," he says.
Okay then. Here’s what I can do. I can look at my bank account and decide “Yup, I pay for what I use. I can afford to use more if I fucking want to, you self-righteous cunts.”
"Pets definitely deserve attention: by my estimates, the energy footprint of a cat is about 2 per cent of the average British person’s energy footprint – and it’s bigger for most dogs."
So let me get this right. You’ve opened the door for sneery cunts to judge me for having cats. Well, fuck you very very much, David Mackay.
Back to the tooth and claw thing though.
Then there are the other environmental impacts of pets. Every year, for example, the UK’s 7.7 million cats kill over 188 million wild animals (Mammal Review, vol 33, p 174). That works out at about 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat. Similar figures have emerged from surveys in the US and Australia.
Oh noes!! Perhaps we should regulate wildlife. You know, all squirrels have to carry an ID card. Cats will have a ration card for mice. Dogs will only be permitted to chase hybrid cars.
There is also a knock-on effect because cats feasting on wildlife can leave wild predators such as hawks and weasels short of food.
I think not. The local raptors and corvids love to mop up the remains of what my cats kill, be it rabbits, mice, rats, or other birds. I also put all waste meat out in the garden for them. I also spend circa £25 PCM on peanuts, for everything from squirrels, to deer, to peacocks, finches and woodpeckers.
Back to talking shit:
Cat excrement is particularly toxic. In 2002, it emerged that sea otters along the Californian coast are dying from a brain disease caused by Toxoplasma gondii. The parasite, which is found in cat faeces, ends up in rivers and estuaries thanks to cat owners who flush their cat litter down the toilet or allow their cats to defecate outside. Dolphins and whales are also affected (newscientist.com/article/dn14037).
So what’s the answer? (As if I give a tin shit)
So what is an eco-friendly animal lover to do? If you already have a pet, then changing its diet can help. Meat is the key, since its production is so energy-intensive.
Uh-oh.. here we go.
As well as quantity, think about quality. "If pussy is scoffing ‘Fancy Feast’ – or some other food made from choice cuts of meat – then the relative impact is likely to be high," says Robert Vale. "If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."
Uh.. right. Fish-heads.
Cat owners could consider keeping Tiddles indoors. "Cats are nocturnal, so the single most important thing people can do to reduce predation is to keep cats in at night," says Michael Woods of the Mammal Society in Southampton, UK.
See, here’s the thing. That’s deliberately and obviously cruel and unnatural. So it contravenes the legal obligation to care properly for one’s pet. You cunts.
And if you are thinking of acquiring a pet? "Shared pets are the best – the theatre cat or the temple dogs," says Robert Vale. But if you must own your own,
Exfuckingscuse me. If I “must own my own”? Hang on a motherfucking moment, you swallowers of goat semen. How fucking dare you.
Think about getting an animal that serves a dual purpose. He recommends hens, which partly compensate for their eco-footprint by providing eggs.
Yeah, because there’s nothing more comforting for an elderly person living on their own than a chicken curled up at the bottom of the bed.
And if you really want to gouge your own eyes out, read their editorial. Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy
UPDATE: In this reductio ad absurdum world, it should come as no surprise that Dunkeegin’s earlier spoof is an alarmingly accurate parallel.
Today, of all days, this is worth a re-run…
WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.
“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”
Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”
Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. “The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims,” a spokesman said.
Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. “The violence was instant,” Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.
“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.” When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.
Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.
They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.
But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. “They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”
Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”
Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.