06-12-2011

Do you not get the feeling sometimes that the so-called do-gooders are coming out sometimes with the weirdest of statements. We have the greens all over the world spreading doom and gloom where ever they can. We have Greenpeace blocking essential traffic for only to them known reasons. And then we have the friend of the earth with their always new idea's which make 9 out of 10 no sense what so ever but always cost enormous amount of money while there is never a chance of a real benefit.

We have the collective of the above forcing Councils all over Europe to, make roads narrower to stop the flow of cars, reduce the speeds on the street, and have road humps and traffic calming measures. All those ideas are splendid on paper if you look it from one side only and do not look from the other side or calculate the negative impacts of the ideas.

Stopping the flow of cars means they slowing down, by slowing down they produce more dangerous fumes as the engine cannot burn the fuel proper. If it creates cues on the road then the situation is even getting worse as the cars in still stand position produces three times the level of pollution as a car which drives normal. Road humps and traffic calming measures create a slowdown in traffic it also produced more noise and create extra pollution by sudden breaking of the car what then releases un-burned fuel to the street which could be a severe health and fire hazard.

All in all the so-called reducing of pollution of gasses and noise creates in reality more pollution and more noise. It accounts for a high percentage of lung and throat cancer for protection of the car industry awarded to the smoking of the cigarette. It is proven that near half of the deaths of lung cancer deaths never have smoked a cigarette and 28 percent never was long enough in smoke filled area's to be infected. Still to protect the car industry it is always explained as on-knowingly been in smoke filled areas. It is for that reason that in places where the authorities are subject to the follies of the so-called greens and the friends of earth the air is more polluted from gasses and noise than anywhere else. Industrial pollution is the greatest creator of lung and throat cancer.

However Governments are not willing to risk the economy by restricting the industries fall-out of dangerous fumes and gasses. The same we see with the Holy Cow of the Western civilization the car. By normal use the cars do not pollute extreme, however the speeding restrictions the speed camera, the traffic calming measures, do thanks to the likes of the Greens, the Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Do-gooders without a reliable scientific backing where science is used to create the outcome they want, they need and they want via the Governments to force through.

Fact is that speed does kill, but so does the use of alcohol while driving or driving after the use of alcohol, but still the European countries have not outlawed drink driving total. Drivers still can use alcohol before driving. It would ruin the Drinks industry and their affiliates if drink driving would be forbidden complete. After all who cares for the deaths by road accidents, it happens and it is forgotten. The percentage of alcohol is depending on the state of mind of the driver and even the smallest of intake can have if the mind is in the wrong frame have deadly consequences.

Fact is that pollution kills millions under the heading of smoking cigarettes, pollution that is made worse by the measures of road humps, and other road slowing measures. Is that what the green supporters want more death people because of their one sided idea's. A time and speed calculator in every car would give the police a direct view on the speed driven by the car data could be part of the yearly road worthiness of the car. No need for speed cameras, a simple three times and you are out will work preventive. No road humps and other measures needed and a fortune saved in money and many lives.

It is not so that we dismiss all the actions taken by the so-called green activists as absurd. We do agree that there should be an end to the massive oil production, whereby sea pumping should be stopped soon as possible. Oil companies should be forced to invest in new fuel and new types of fuel, realistically oil will be around for a while but there is no reason why as a start cars should be using an alternative to oil. It is possible now and it should be done now.

We do not buy that global warming either, nature itself tells us that they are in a continues cycle and that this cycle is pursuing its own target and speed. Human arrogance in thinking that the earth react to us and what we doing is an absurdity only the ones with a view for one side of the story would take it serious unless they working for the UN or Governments who want proof so that they can clobber the citizen with scary tales of doom and gloom. Scientist are too quick prepared to create any outcome any Government wants, it is their way to increasing payments, promotion and maybe even an Nobel price, it seems that every one now a day's can buy those prices. We would if it could have been possible to see how those scientist would have responded when the last ice age came to an end, global warming indeed. And that did happen without any car or any industry around in that time; we bet we know the answer which would have been found if those scientists would have been around then, animal gasses after all you have to put the blame on something.

We have no doubt that the sea's are polluted that sea life is severe effected by the waste, even pulverized, is creating at sea. That is indeed human inflicted damage; it has however nothing to do with global warming but all with the UN failing to forbid the dumping of waste direct or via pulverization from ships. If this goes on then we could see indeed new islands to be used, islands of plastic driving together from all parts of the sea by the sea water stream and turbulences.

And so we come at the newest of fantasies launches this time by the so-called friends of the Earth.
Ambitious targets to increase the amount of rubbish recycled in the UK alone could help create more than 50,000 jobs, a report suggested. Again this is a one sided way of thinking. To start there are many items that are combined by the use of plastic/paper/glass in one unit and there is many of it. Then there is the cost of such an idea. It is obvious that the friends of the Earth did not have a clue of the costs that it involved this idea. The study by Friends of the Earth said 51,400 jobs could be created if 70% of waste collected by local councils were recycled. Man can wonder who or what was the point of this study, it cannot be done. it would cost at basic an 1.5 billion on staffing alone plus an extra 800 million on administration costs in tax the Government should receive back an 400 million at most so that the project would cost another near 2 billion. In re-cycled materials they would get back a 350 million however that can only be done if state subsidies are received.

They also suggested that another part of the recycling which would create another 18,800 jobs. It would be if commercial and industrial waste were recycled at the same rate. It would if such a measure would be in place add to the cost of the product which has to be paid by the consumer. According to the study, recycling creates 10 times more jobs than sending rubbish to landfill or incineration, with posts generated in collection, sorting and reprocessing, as well as in the supply chain and in the wider economy. This would cost another 900 million with the tax and recycling benefit only 275 million so that a further negative amount would be created. They base their figures on the EU absurdity of the recycling needed to be 50 % in 2020. A fact that will not be archived by any European country.

That this figure did arise and was used is due to the commissioners of the EU who in reality do not have a clue at what they are talking about and mostly are members of the country’s parliament or Government who needed to be moved to another job, but have in reality not a clue on what it is all about but are supported by the barons of industry and therefore do their bidding. In 2008, the UK for example, recycled around 37% of municipal waste - rubbish collected by local councils from households and other sources such as street sweepings and public bins.

It would need a police state to enforce the recycling as projected by the European dictate and supported by the Friends of the Earth. Wales and Scotland have announced they plan to recycle 70% of council-collected waste by 2025, a target that they will not reach by a long shot and although Wales policing does near the contours of a police state they will not manage this. It are the two only countries in Europe who say that they will archive this 70%.

Friends of the Earth warned the UK would lose out on nearly 25,000 new jobs in the recycling industry and wider economy if it stuck to the 50% target instead of raising its aim. It fails to point out who will bear the costs of this billions project. Do they propose a bin tax as for example in the Netherlands? This created a wave of civilian disobedience; do they propose the same all over Europe?

Man can really doubt the seriousness of the Friends of the Earth, but the reality is they do not have a clue if they launched ideas without explaining the cost factor from both sides and a suggestion on to whom the enormous burden of costs would be charged. Putting figures in a computer and calculates what is put in with the total what comes out is not the scientific way to do things. Computers calculate what people put in them they do not calculate of the info is right or wrong. However it does created an opportunity to create a report that shows all what they want to show. Their vision, their idea's, their produced outcome, right or wrong does not come in to it, science does not come into it, and the outcome they want is all that matters. Friends of the Earth said that recycling is a win-win situation for the environment, which is doubtful and the economy, which is even more doubtful unless they propose that the voters of Europe should fit the bills for the follies of the Friends of the Earth.

Recycling does not stop the pollution it just delay's it slightly. Repacking goods in down breakable packing that would be the way forwards. In short way use plastic as it is proven that down breakable package cost the same and does not pollute. If the Green, the Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace do want to do something let them bundle their energy and persuade the UN to make the use of plastic packing for consumers outlawed.