Stop the Stupidity!

I found this new career opportunity online today. Global Warming is going to make Y2K look like a legitimate threat! If you think that you got fleeced for Y2K you ain't seen nothing yet!

If you want to wallow sideways in the public trough here is the perfect opportunity for you. (What do you think Al Gore is doing? I'll bet he is beating these salary levels too.):

Carbon coach
Reducing contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, or the carbon footprint, is one huge step toward sustainability, but few guidelines exist for how companies gunning to be green should proceed. Carbon coaches offer this essential information. In addition to calculating carbon footprints and offering advice for offsetting them, carbon coaches help companies fit sustainability into their overall mission. Their services range from providing branding strategy for "green" product launches to advising companies on their relationships with NGOs....

Few guidelines exist, indeed. In fact I read an article today about how the UN is now saying that bio-fuels will cause more trouble than they will mitigate, but I will get to that in a moment. Back to the article at hand.

Most carbon coaches work at consulting firms, where they command salaries ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 for entry-level positions and $60,000 to $100,000 for mid-level positions.

Sadly, folks working for not-for-profit companies aren't going to make that much. "Non-profit organization salaries aren't as high; an entry-level carbon coach with a master's degree can expect a salary of $30,000 to $50,000." Well, it's for the children, though, right? Just like John Edwards' compassionate legal work for all of those poor children, right? It WAS for them, wasn't it? But then why did he take HALF of the rewards in legal fees? But I digress...

In another "What the crap?..." story, check out this headline from across the pond:

A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus. Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiancé Dani Graves….

WHAT?!!! Yes, I read that right.

Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

Well, can't say that I could see that happening here... the very suggestion that a woman wear a leash would end up sending a fellow to the dentist for a new set of teeth with most of the women I know. People are weird.

So back to the UN article I was talking about earlier. I find it hilarious (in an infuriating sort of way) that the UN is backpedaling on its claim that bio-fuel will be the great messiah of our poor, little, carbon-polluted world.

...Regan Suzuki of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization acknowledged that biofuels are better for the environment than fossil fuels and boost energy security for many countries. However, she said those benefits must be weighed against the pitfalls — many of which are just now emerging as countries convert millions of acres to palm oil, sugar cane and other crops used to make biofuels.

...Foremost among the concerns is increased competition for agricultural land, which Suzuki warned has already caused a rise in corn prices in the United States and Mexico and could lead to food shortages in developing countries.

Is anyone besides me not surprised that no one stopped to think about the possible negative effects of this policy? Politicians never do. Just like the stupid bill that was passed by the geniuses in Washington that outlawed incandescent light bulbs - while favoring fluorescent bulbs that contain heavy metals and other serious toxins. I stopped needing someone to wipe my nose about 34 years ago, thank you very much.

Here's a shock for you: I am totally in favor of the development of alternative / renewable fuel sources. I suspect that I just surprised some of my more loyal readers with that statement. Why am I in favor of the development of alternative fuels and new technologies? Do you think that it is because I am concerned one iota about global warming? NOT A CHANCE.

The reason that I support bio-fuel development is because (based on my own reading) it looks like a relatively small farm could produce enough ethanol to allow a family to cut its dependence on oil severely if not completely. I am sick of the oil companies and commodity traders and the local gas stations charging as much for their product as they can without starting a riot.

They know that there is no competition for their product. They have a captive market. Americans can't just stop driving cars. The public transportation infrastructure does not exist on a large scale and the structure of our communities is not conducive to public transportation. Big oil knows that they have us between a rock and a hard place. The development of bio-fuel technology gives me the chance to produce my own fuel and stick it to the man. Viva la revolucion!

Anyway, this new "concern" by the UN is a big smoke screen in my opinion. They are already looking for a graceful way to escape the corner they have put themselves in by buying into the Chicken Littles' dire predictions and drinking the loonies' Kool Aid. See, it will cost all of the big wheels in the UN too much profit if petroleum goes away. They can't have that, but in the meantime they will line their pockets with ummm, spend waste trillions of dollars (yes, Virginia, that is trillion with a "t") until everyone figures out that the sun still keeps coming up in the morning and realizes that all this climate change is a bunch of hooey. (Then they'll blame Al Gore for it all, but he'll shift the blame to President Bush somehow.)

Come QUICKLY, Lord Jesus!