10 More Environmental Quotes You Won’t Believe Were Said

10 More Environmental Quotes You Won’t Believe Were Said

Not long ago, we collected ten amazing environmental quotes you won’t believe were said. Well, the list of whacky statements about the environment and energy is almost endless. We can only take in so much at a time though, so I found just a few more nuggets of wisdom I think we all need to digest.

1. “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.” – George W. Bush 
Bush bid bon voyage with this gem at the 2008 G-8 Summit in Japan. For one thing, I think this “joke” is in pretty bad taste. In addition, the statement wasn’t even accurate. George should have known that the United States is actually the world’s second largest polluter, behind China. Maybe he’s just vying for the number one slot.

2. “So, if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?” – Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois)
I assume Rep. Shimkus is referring to reducing carbon emissions, not use. Either way the answer is the same: no. Just no. We are not robbing plants of food.  They have all the carbon dioxide they need; trust me.

3. “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.” – Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)
There are a few problems with this one. First of all, no one said carbon dioxide is a carcinogen. A carcinogen is a chemical known to cause cancer. Carbon dioxide is not on that list. Second, cows, when they “do what they do” are infamous for emitting methane, not carbon dioxide.

Get your gases straight, John.

4. “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” – Dick Cheney
So let me get this straight, Dick. You admit that conservation is virtuous; I can respect that. But, virtue has no place in government policy?  At least you’re honest.

5. “How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?”- Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)
Rep. Barton asked this question of then Energy Secretary Stephen Chu at an Earth Day hearing back in 2009. (We can prove it. There’s a video.) Chu reminded Rep. Barton about plate tectonics, and the millions of years of geology that created today’s fossil fuels. Chu didn’t have time to complete the lesson though.   He left Barton with the notion that “it just drifted up there.” Close enough.

6. “For the life of me I can’t understand why BP couldn’t go in at the ocean floor, maybe 10 feet lateral to the – around the periphery, drill a few holes, and put a little ammonium nitrate, some dynamite in those holes, and detonate that dynamite, and seal that leak. Seal it permanently.” – Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Okay, am I the only one who can’t understand, for the life of me, how blowing up an uncontrollably gushing oil well in the ocean could possibly improve the situation? (For the record, Bill Clinton made similar statements about blowing up the well. I don’t agree with him either.) Luckily, engineers were able to seal the leak without the need for heavy explosives. Destroying more of the ocean floor in an already decimated ecosystem just makes me shudder.

7. “We’ve got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?” – Lee Iacocca
This quote is attributed to Lee Iacocca while he served as the VP of Ford Motor Company in the late 1960s. Supposedly, he said this in objection to the Clean Air Act, which was passed in 1970. Iacocca was vehemently opposed to the legislation, believing it would cripple manufacturing.  I don’t know about him, but I go through a lot of air on a daily basis. The cleaner, the better.

8. “We can’t just let nature run wild…” – Former Alaska Governor Walter J. Hinkel
Hinkel said this while serving as Governor of Alaska in the early 1990s. He was specifically referencing the nasty habit wolves have of hunting and eating moose in the state. Human hunters are fond of moose, so Hinkel wanted to get rid of some wolves and save the moose for people.

That darn natural food chain keeps interfering with hunting season.

Now for some intentionally whacky statements:

9. “I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.” – Sheryl Crow
Luckily for sanitation fans everywhere, Ms. Crow was actually kidding when she posted this statement online following a tour to raise awareness for global warming. I think we can all agree that there are better (and less icky) ways to be eco-friendly.

10. “According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought.” – Jay Leno 
Yeah, I’ll admit it. Al Gore can be pretty annoying.

Okay, this list goes to eleven:

11. “Carbon dioxide is natural, it is not harmful, it is a part of Earth’s lifecycle. And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance, reduce the American standard of living, to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in Earth.” – Michele Bachmann
She’s actually serious, and to be fair, she’s not wrong about carbon dioxide’s natural role on Earth, so kudos for that. But justifying greenhouse gas pollution as arbitrary? Bachmann needs to read one of those studies she claims don’t exist; the ones that show carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There are hundreds, so it shouldn’t be hard to find.

Our constitutional right to freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. I encourage anyone and everyone to express their opinions and concerns no matter how misguided. If nothing else, statements like these make for entertaining reading.

What’s your take on these quotes? Please, exercise your First Amendment rights in the comments below!

Why Utilities are Forcing You to Install a Smart Meter

THIS ARTICLE IS SHEEPLE PROPAGANDA!  DON’T BUY THIS MESSAGE!  IT IS BRAIN WASHING TECHNIQUES AND MARKETING ON THE PART OF AMERICA, INC….SANDAURA

Why Utilities are Forcing You to Install a Smart Meter

Sarah Battaglia

smart meterYou can run from them, but you can’t hide. Smart meters are on track to become the next big necessity for both residential and commercial energy users.  Navigant Research forecasts the economic opportunity from these state-of-the-art devices will reach about $57 billion worldwide in the next 10 years.  So if you have hesitations about installing a smart meter, it’s time to bury the hatchet, hold out the olive branch, and let bygones be bygones. 

What is a smart meter exactly?

Picture your current electric meter – the one that the “meter reader” comes by to inspect periodically throughout the year. (Or used to, anyway.)  Now take away the spinning dials, add a digital interface, and you nailed it.  These high-tech devices are used to provide two-way communication between your home or business, and the utility.  With the proper tools, you are able to continuously monitor and store data about your energy consumption, typically in intervals of hours, days, weeks, months, and years.  But there’s way more to these doodads than just interval metering.

More reliable service

With the convenience of utilities interacting with the electric grid, you receive superior service.  If there’s a power outage, your utility will be able to detect it sooner than it could with a traditional meter.  If your electricity gets turned off because of late payment, your utility can turn it back on remotely, instead of sending a technician.  And if you have any questions, a service representative can most likely answer it without sending the infamous meter reader.[the utilities are not transparent or forthright. They don’t tell the truth about the harm the technology does. They don’t listen to those who are sick from this technology…sandaura]

Greater control

With a smart meter, you have greater control over your electricity usage.  If you choose to participate in time-based rates through your utility, you have the freedom to potentially lessen your monthly bill by limiting your electric demand during “peak hours,” which typically occur during summer afternoons.  Some utilities even provide their customers with alerts to warn them when they are moving into higher-priced electric tiers.  [but not control over our health…sandaura]

New ways to monitor

How do you monitor your electricity consumption with a traditional meter?  That’s right – you don’t.  A smart meter allows you to view your daily usage through your utility’s website.  Soon, you may even be able to track your consumption in real-time, depending on your location and what your utility offers. [There are safer ways to do this…sandaura]

With this much power and detailed information at your fingertips, who needs an analog meter?  This seems to be the thought process of the utilities lately, as many of them are requiring the installation of smart meters.

Still not convinced you need one? [NO, WE DON’T NEED ONE..SANDAURA] Be prepared to pay.  Utilities like Baltimore Gas & Electric are charging customers a one-time fee of $75 and an additional monthly fee of $11 for not having a smart meter installed.  When you’re faced with the ultimatum, which will you choose?  [I would choose my health over a few more buck, which is illegal to be charged in the first place because those who choose to keep a smart meter are complicant to exposing your neighbors to radiation poisoning…Sandaura]

Would you pay extra to avoid having a smart meter installed?

No. They’re extremely useful, and I don’t know why everyone is freaking out.Yes! Those things are ticking time bombs! [Sarah, either do your homework to better understand the truth about the dangers of RF pulsed radiation exposure or get a real job that does not pay you to lie about the smart meters]  check your soul; do you still have one?  Or did you sell it?]…..Sandaura

http://www.yourenergyblog.com/why-utilities-are-forcing-you-to-install-a-smart-meter/

Warning: High Frequency – A true story of a family exposed to radiation poisoning.

Warning: High Frequency

Consider this story: It’s January 1990, during the pioneer build-out of mobile phone service. A cell tower goes up 800 feet from the house of Alison Rall, in Mansfield, Ohio, where she and her husband run a 160-acre dairy farm. The first thing the Rall family notices is that the ducks on their land lay eggs that don’t hatch. That spring there are no ducklings.

artwork showing an antenna with radial lines depicting radio waves and a suited figure holding a phone to his headIllustrations by Michael Morgenstern, mmorgenstern.com.

By the fall of 1990, the cattle herd that pastures near the tower is sick. The animals are thin, their ribs are showing, their coats growing rough, and their behavior is weird – they’re agitated, nervous. Soon the cows are miscarrying, and so are the goats. Many of the animals that gestate are born deformed. There are goats with webbed necks, goats with front legs shorter than their rear legs. One calf in the womb has a tumor the size of a basketball, another carries a tumor three feet in diameter, big enough that he won’t pass through the birth canal. Rall and the local veterinarian finally cut open the mother to get the creature out alive. The vet records the nightmare in her log: “I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire practice… All of [this] I feel was a result of the cellular tower.”

Within six months, Rall’s three young children begin suffering bizarre skin rashes, raised red “hot spots.” The kids are hit with waves of hyperactivity; the youngest child sometimes spins in circles, whirling madly. The girls lose hair. Rall is soon pregnant with a fourth child, but she can’t gain weight. Her son is born with birth defects – brittle bones, neurological problems – that fit no specific syndrome. Her other children, conceived prior to the arrival of the tower, had been born healthy.

Desperate to understand what is happening to her family and her farm, Rall contacts the Environmental Protection Agency. She ends up talking to an EPA scientist named Carl Blackman, an expert on the biological effects of radiation from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) – the kind of radiofrequency EMFs (RF-EMFs) by which all wireless technology operates, including not just cell towers and cell phones but wi-fi hubs and wi-fi-capable computers, “smart” utility meters, and even cordless home phones. “With my government cap on, I’m supposed to tell you you’re perfectly safe,” Blackman tells her. “With my civilian cap on, I have to tell you to consider leaving.”

Blackman’s warning casts a pall on the family. When Rall contacts the cell phone company operating the tower, they tell her there is “no possibility whatsoever” that the tower is the source of her ills. “You’re probably in the safest place in America,” the company representative tells her.

The Ralls abandoned the farm on Christmas Day of 1992 and never re-sold it, unwilling to subject others to the horrors they had experienced. Within weeks of fleeing to land they owned in Michigan, the children recovered their health, and so did the herd.

Not a single one of the half-dozen scientists I spoke to could explain what had happened on the Rall farm. Why the sickened animals? Why the skin rashes, the hyperactivity? Why the birth defects? If the radiofrequency radiation from the cell tower was the cause, then what was the mechanism? And why today, with millions of cell towers dotting the planet and billions of cell phones placed next to billions of heads every day, aren’t we all getting sick?

In fact, the great majority of us appear to be just fine. We all live in range of cell towers now, and we are all wireless operators. More than wireless operators, we’re nuts about the technology. Who doesn’t keep at their side at all times the electro-plastic appendage for the suckling of information?

The mobile phone as a technology was developed in the 1970s, commercialized in the mid-80s, miniaturized in the ‘90s. When the first mobile phone companies launched in the United Kingdom in 1985, the expectation was that perhaps 10,000 phones would sell. Worldwide shipments of mobile phones topped the one billion mark in 2006. As of October 2010 there were 5.2 billion cell phones operating on the planet. “Penetration,” in the marketing-speak of the companies, often tops 100 percent in many countries, meaning there is more than one connection per person. The mobile phone in its various manifestations – the iPhone, the Android, the Blackberry – has been called the “most prolific consumer device” ever proffered.

FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/warning_high_frequency/

Quebec City firefighters ask Hydro-Québec to leave smart meters alone

Quebec City firefighters ask Hydro-Québec to leave smart meters alone

Hydro-Québec says smart meters belong to the utility and aren’t the cause of fires

CBC News Posted: Mar 05, 2015 3:26 PM ETLast Updated: Mar 05, 2015 3:26 PM ET

Hydro-Québec reimbursed Bob Aubertin for the cost of hiring his own master electrician, who found the utility was charging him for the wrong usage.

Hydro-Québec reimbursed Bob Aubertin for the cost of hiring his own master electrician, who found the utility was charging him for the wrong usage. (CBC)

Quebec City’s fire department says Hydro-Québec has been too quick to remove smart meters from the scenes of fires where faulty wiring may be an issue.

The fire department says the meters are sometimes gone before investigators can look at them to find out whether their wires might have been damaged, which could lead to a short circuit and a fire.  

“A fire is considered a crime scene and at a crime scene evidence should be left alone,” said France Voiselle, a department spokeswoman.

But Patrice Lavoie, a spokesman for Hydro-Québec, said the meters belong to the public utility and the meters don’t cause fires.

“We are totally entitled to bring them back to our office,” he said.

“But in that case has it been too quick? That’s what we’re trying to figure out.”

The more likely culprit is the box that holds the smart meter, if it’s not properly installed, Lavoie said.

He said Hydro-Québec doesn’t install the boxes and aren’t its responsibility.

“That belongs to the client that doesn’t belong to Hydro Quebec,” he said.

“It’s your own electrician.”

Lavoie said a professional association of electricians in Quebec has sent a letter to all their members reminding them to check up on their clients’ boxes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-firefighters-ask-hydro-qu%C3%A9bec-to-leave-smart-meters-alone-1.2983309

MICHIGAN-City seeks legal opinion on regulation of smart meters

City seeks legal opinion on regulation of smart meters

“This is a good starting point to let them know we’re unhappy, and hopefully this letter will make them aware that there are a lot of people out there who are not happy about this, especially the people of Sterling Heights,” said Councilman Joseph Romano.

According to City Manager Mark Vanderpool, the Sterling Heights City Council has been the recipient of significant public comment by “a group of passionate residents and non-residents” who are vehemently opposed to Advanced Metering Infrastructure, better known as smart meters, on issues involving safety, privacy and cost.

In response, the City Council adopted a moratorium in 2013 that opposed the installation of smart meters in Sterling Heights until such time that an opt-out program is available for residents who do not wish to have one installed on their residence.

“This moratorium, as well as others adopted in many other Michigan municipalities, prompted the Michigan Public Service Commission to issue an order directing the utilities to provide information regarding their plans for smart meter deployment, including whether an opt-out program would be offered,” Vanderpool said.

After receiving input from the utilities and public comment, the Michigan Public Service Commission concluded that while AMI is a safe technology, an opt-out program should be available for those people opposed to its installation.

“The MPSC approved DTE’s opt-out program, which provided for installation of a non-transmitting smart meter, and payment of a one-time installation fee of $67.20 and a monthly charge of $9.80 for manual meter reading,” Vanderpool said.

However, as concerns about the cost of the opt-out program continued to grow, city officials responded by sending letters to State Sen. Tory Rocca, and State Reps. Jeff Farrington and Yanez urging their support of pending legislation that would afford opt-out participants the option of keeping the existing electromechanical meter installed on their residences.

“Despite these efforts, there continue to be unsubstantiated claims that the city can adopt an ordinance banning smart meters,” Vanderpool said.

“Due to the substantial financial risk associated with attempting to enforce such an ordinance, the City Council directed City Administration to prepare a resolution that seeks an opinion from the Michigan Department of the Attorney General on the question of whether a Michigan municipality has the power to regulate AMI meters.” Continued…

READ FULL STORY HERE: http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2015/03/06/news/doc54f9b197c2385706383351.txt

Indiana-Citizens have concerns about smart meters

Citizens have concerns about smart meters

Posted: Friday, March 6, 2015 6:00 am

Oldenburg Town Council members continued a conversation about smart meters March 2 that began last month. Several citizens in attendance were concerned about this issue.

At the February gathering, Dr. Tom Konnersman said these devices “transmit over radio frequency fields,” and since the technology is developing so quickly, there have not been adequate health studies to determine the effects of long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation.

He said, “I contacted Douglas Esamann, who is the chief executive officer of Duke for Indiana, by letter, saying I don’t want smart meters on my property, and got a call 48 hours after the letter was sent.

“I asked him several questions about what’s going on with the smart grid as far as Indiana. He said there are a few (meters) that have been put into place as study models. Some are activated, and some are not. I wondered if there was a possibility there is a smart meter in Oldenburg, and he said, ‘There’s a possibility’ …. (and) I know there are a few here already.”

Konnersman revealed he learned that Duke has finished the smart grid in Kentucky and most of Ohio. “They are getting ready to march into Indiana, starting in northern Indiana and working their way south.

“If we’re going to do this (put a stop to smart meters in town), we have to do this as a community …. I did speak with my brother, who is a retired corporate attorney, and he said there is no reason why Oldenburg can’t set up an ordinance to stop it, but we need to do it soon.”

Town attorney John Kellerman reported, “I have asked the Indiana Association of Cities & Towns if they have an ordinance for this, and they don’t …. (and) no local municipalities have ordinances in place.”

Town council member Dennis Moeller said he would contact Duke Energy to see if a representative could attend next month’s meeting to address questions about smart meters.

Diane Raver can be contacted at diane.raver@batesvilleheraldtribune.com or 812-934-4343, Ext. 114.

http://www.batesvilleheraldtribune.com/news/local_news/citizens-have-concerns-about-smart-meters/article_6af1b34f-9058-5f14-973a-11bc297d966c.html