Environmental Talk

“BAM! … Let’s kick global warming up a notch.” ….

I’m sure there are a lot of reasons to get upset about global warming but how it affects the sex life of shrimp isn’t one that’s keeping me up nights.

Still, there are scientists who study the copulating behavior of shrimp and reporters with an agenda and too much time on their hands, so we get a story like this recent one in the Houston Chronicle.

I thought I was doing drugs when I read this article because the author starts with the assertion that global warming is affecting the mating life of shrimp and then proceeds to contradict his original thesis for the entire rest of the article.

Here’s the opening sentence of the article:
“Besides the delayed appearance of waterfowl to southern climates, droughts and forest fires, shifts in the sexual behavior of shrimp may be added to early signs of global warming.”

Amazingly, the very next sentence is:
“The jury is still officially out, and so far no authoritative scientific work on the subject exists.”

Basically, this dude had a deadline, two random events and a bag of weed and just decided to come up with his own crustacean dating theory.

Even the scientist that author John DeSantis interviewed for the article didn’t agree with him. Biologist Martin Bourgeois is quoted later in the article as saying that “increased salt content of local inshore waters may on the surface be a more definitive and explainable cause.”

All I know is that there are shrimp that are getting laid more than these two guys.

It’s also unclear from the article as to what exactly John thinks the problem is. The only effect seems to “bigger white shrimp may now be found in greater numbers in waters closer to shore, which can be a boon for shrimpers who get .. larger specimens.”

Have you ever been at a party where shrimp cocktail wasn’t the most popular hors d’oeuvre? I’d consider stopping by my local SUV dealer for a four hour test drive if it means more shrimp cocktail at the next party.

Oh, sure, women will try to tell you it’s not the size of your shrimp, it’s how you dip it in the cocktail sauce that counts, but we all know that guys with big prawns get all the sexiest party girls.

Larger shrimp that are closer to shore means these sea creatures can also be filmed more easily, thus helping to fuel the growing popularity and demand for animal porn. The Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and YouTube posters will all be competing to get footage of some hot (and spicy) shrimp-on-shrimp action.

This may mean that some of the older, smaller shrimp will have a hard time getting a date but they’ll just have to make up for it by driving around the sea bed in a Porsche.

And, like they say, at three o’clock in the morning — there are no ugly shrimp.

For anyone who likes appetizers, scampi and Cajun cooking, climate change is something that should be welcomed, not feared.

global warming, climate change, shrimp, prawns, sex, Emeril Lagasse, crustacean porn, Houston Chronicle, reporters on drugs

I’ll be hanging out in the mountains for a couple of days….

Hey, gang:

Best regards,
Mark Jabo

“Exciting and new ….”

People talk about “American ingenuity” but the best idea I’ve heard in a long time just came from a guy down in New Zealand.

Paul Bethune invented a high-speed boat that runs on human fat.

Just like that, we’ve solved both global warming and the obesity epidemic.

Paul’s invention is a stroke of pure genius. At last, FUPA energy independence is not just a pipe dream … it’s within our grasp.

But only if you’ve got really long arms.

Paul is going to attempt the never-before-accomplished feat of breaking the around-the-world speed record in an a sustainable fuel boat and win America’s Biggest Loser at the same time.

He’s looking for investors for his project. I, for one, am all over this like a fat kid on cake … at a marina. This thing is going to be bigger than the Segway.

All you need is a couple sumo wrestlers and the football coach of Kansas University and you could stay at sea for a couple years at a time.

Sittin’ on the reinforced dock of the bay….

When you really think about it, the sponsorship opportunities for this kind of ship are mind-boggling.

Plastic surgeons, Richard Simmons and executives from McDonald’s could all retire on the proceeds from a self-propelled, fat-fueled cruise where you were guaranteed to lose weight … or else get stranded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Just off the top of your head, you probably can think of about a thousand Hollywood actors and other celebrities who’d sign up to slim down and island hop at the same time. Heck, the cruise for fashion models would sell out faster than half-price Hannah Montana tickets.

Paul christened his boat, the Earthrace, in an effort to promote environmental awareness.

Next up? A boat named the S.S. Bulimia.

It’s easy to get excited about the possibilities of a boat that is powered by blubber and has a net zero carbon footprint. But, just like with the move to ethanol, there are liable to be winners and losers as a result of the new technology.

If you can sell your fat to help power your car, the drive-through at Kentucky Fried Chicken is going to have to expand to four lanes.

With the resulting increase in the number of thin people around it’s going to be more difficult than ever to find someone to work in the Post Office or the cash register at Wal-Mart.

Since people will be pulling in to fuel up and slim down at the same time, your local gas station will have to start keeping a variety of smaller-sized jeans in stock.

And that vacuum hose machine at the car wash is going to be a veritable gold-mine as a coin-operated liposuction machine.

Before we sign off, I’d just like to dedicate this next video to all those girls who are going to help us break our addiction to OPEC.

Ladies, America salutes you …

global warming, climate change, Earthrace, Paul Bethune, Kentucky Fried Chicken, bulimia, fat-bottomed girls you make the rockin’ world go round

Endangered species ….

One of the many presumed deleterious effects of global warming is the threat to biodiversity. Many reputable scientists and television critics feel the change in global temperatures could alter the composition of various ecosystems around the planet.

Let’s take a moment to examine this problem further.

Biodiversity (from the Latin “bi” meaning to experiment sexually and “oh, diversity” a phrase often muttered by tourists as they ride a New York City subway for the first time) refers to the multi-varied nature of species in a given area.

Biodiversity flourishes in natural, pristine areas such as deep sea basins and tropical rain forests … and not so much in affluent suburbs outside of Atlanta.

One area where biodiversity has thrived is in Hollywood. But global warming is currently threatening one of our most beloved sitcom actors. As global temperatures climbed, parts for this one-time teen idol have dried up. As evidence of exactly how serious the problem is, he’s even had to resort to appearing in his own reality show. We’re way past the tipping point on this one.

Many observers are claiming it may already be too late to preserve baiodiversity in Southern California.

It wasn’t always like this.

Scott Baio first charmed his way into our hearts (and, apparently, Erin Moran’s kitty) as Chachi on Happy Days.

Early in his career, it would have been hard to predict the type of varied characters Scott would play throughout his life as an actor. After featured roles in Happy Days and Joanie Loves Chachi, the evolution of Scott Baio took a surprising turn.

Not content to play a wholesome teen heartthrob, Baio explored new ground as a wholesome teen heartthrob who lived in New Brunswick, New Jersey in the series Charles in Charge.

But were things really as they seemed?

To the untrained observer, Charles in Charge appeared to be a sitcom about a typical Garden State family who needed weekly guidance and life lessons from the live-in help.

In reality, the series was a thinly veiled attempt to promote an alternative lifestyle of bondage and discipline among impressionable teens.

It seems so obvious to us now, but back in the 1980s not many people saw through the veneer of respectability and recognized Charles in Charge was really about a group of submissives who paid a dominant male “nanny” to oversee their every move.

Even the program’s theme song was rife with sexual innuendo:
-

-

I want, I want Charles in charge of me…

The only way the sub-text of this show could have been any more obvious is if Charles wore a leather hood and carried around a wooden paddle and a ball-gag.

After the 1980s, as global warming increased, Scott Baio appeared sporadically on television in guest spots on such shows as Full House, Touched by an Angel and The Nanny. Often, these shows would be sponsored by major oil companies who used the opportunity to argue that rising temperatures hadn’t really affected the actor’s career.

Stories linking Baio romantically sexually to actresses such as Pamela Anderson, Denise Richards and Heather Locklear also led many people to conclude Chachi was as vibrant as ever.

The veracity of these stories was later called into question when it was discovered that Parade, Us Magazine and the National Enquirer all had taken money from Exxon.

Oh, yeah … and also because the stories were reported in Parade, Us Magazine and the National Enquirer.

There are positive signs for baiodiversity. Thanks to guest appearances on Arrested Development, and a new reality show on VH-1 the former teen icon and Hollywood stud, appears to be on an upswing. Constant vigilance will be necessary, however, to assure that Scott Baio is around for our children and on DVD for our children’s children.

While we’re on the subject, we should mention the other big biodiversity news this week. Scientists in Indonesia were surprised to find a new species of giant rat in a remote area of jungle in the Foja Mountains.

Experts were amazed to find a personal injury lawyer in such a remote area.

The rat is said to be five times the size of a normal New York City rat, making it roughly the size of Yankee Stadium.

As if that wasn’t enough good news, the rat is said to be fearless around humans, small pets and light-armored vehicles.

This is a great example of being careful what you wish for.

-

Also cancer-proof ….
-

We’ve done pretty good job up until now with the species we have. Why do we want to go encouraging even more biodiversity?

For the most part, dangerous animals know their place in the world as either the subject of an Animal Planet special or as props in a Vegas magic show.

If we go around trying to stop global warming and encourage biodiversity, who knows what havoc we could cause?

We may find we helped enable a species of giant fire-breathing tarantulas.

Or worse yet … a full-length Joanie Loves Chachi movie.

global warming, climate change, biodiversity, baiodiversity, Joanie Loves Chachi, Scott Baio, Happy Days, giant Indonesian rat, National Geographic, Siegfried and Roy, giant fire-breathing tarantulas

Who can it be, now? …

Whenever I see a story like this next one, I give myself a pat on the back and enjoy a smug inner smile. I take a minute out of my busy day to congratulate myself on the policy I have about generally distrusting “experts.”

Pretty much any time you see the phrase “experts say” it’s usually followed by one of two alternatives:

Either a conclusion so insipid you really didn’t need an expert to figure it out like “Experts Say Driving With Eyes Closed Could Increase Likelihood of Accidents” or “Study Shows People Really Like Sex, Experts Say.”

Or, some wildly insane idea you’d reject out of hand if your best friend came up with it — even if you were both high at the time. Ideas like “Experts Say You Can Reduce the Effects of Aging by Drinking Your Own Urine” or “Training Anteaters to Deliver Babies Necessary to Cut Medical Costs, Experts Say.”

Given my view of the world, how could I resist a story headlined: Baby Tax Needed to Save Planet, Claims Expert.

Needed?! Really? So, there’s nothing else we could do that would help?

According to Associate Professor Barry Walters, families should “pay a $5000-plus ‘baby levy’ at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.”

Even more shocking, “.. he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.”

Wait, …what? You get a $4100 bonus for having a baby in Australia? Crikey! A sexy guy like me could retire in less than a year.

*humming to self … “I come in a land down under…”*

Why does everyone hate babies all of a sudden?

The associate prof goes on to say, “Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society.”

There it is, kids. Climate change’s version of “original sin.” You’re guilty for just being born. All you’ll ever do is engage in “profligate consumption” and emit greenhouse gases. It’s not like you might invent the CFL light bulb or discover an affordable way to harness solar power.

It’s hard to figure out which is more annoying: Walters’ negative view of humanity or his presumption that he knows best how to cope with it.

I think I’d attend a class on people skills given by Dick Cheney before sitting through one of Barry’s lectures on how to save the planet … but I also believe I’d feel a distinct chill going down my spine in both cases.

It is absolutely amazing to me that many of the same people who will rail against the Patriot Act as a violation of individual rights, have absolutely no problem trampling over those same rights in the name of future generations of polar bears or pine trees.

These are two sides of the same coin. In both cases, government officials and other “experts” are trying to scare people into acquiescing in the elimination of their individual rights.

See, you don’t understand (and for some reason can’t possibly grasp) how dangerous al-Qaeda is or how threatened the planet is. So … it looks like we’ll just have to tax you, restrict your ability to choose and force you to kowtow to the whims of a bunch of politicians whose only real interest is in accumulating and exercising power.

If it’s all the same to you, I prefer to find my wisdom elsewhere.

“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”*

Experts say.

——————————–
* -Thomas Jefferson

global warming, climate change, George Orwell, Barry Walters, Men at Work limiting your freedom

They’re so cute when they’re little …..

What kind of histrionics do you think would be involved in a story that combined the global warming debate with elements of the abortion issue?

All you’re doing is combining what may be the two most polarizing issues of our time and throwing them together in a bag to see what happens.

You could combine dog-fighting with a mixed martial arts bout and you still might not be able to create the kind of mayhem engendered by this next story.

The article is from the London Daily Mail and is entitled: Meet the Women Who Won’t Have Babies - Because They’re Not Eco-Friendly.

Let’s take a look at an excerpt of the article and see if we can figure out whose side we should take in this spaghetti fight …

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future …

Toni, from Taunton, Somerset, says: “When I was 21, I considered sterilisation for the first time.

“I’d been on the Pill for five years and didn’t want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely.

“I went to my GP, but she wouldn’t even consider the idea.

“She said I was far too young and told me I could ‘absolutely not’ be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day.” …

When Toni was 23 …[she] found herself young, single and with a new life in London, working for an environmental charity.

But while other young women dream of marriage and babies, Toni was convinced it was her duty not to have a child.

She claims she was far from alone.

“Through my job I made many friends who, like me, were more interested in campaigning, trying to change society and save the planet rather than having families of our own. …

At the age of 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised.

Toni says: “My new GP was more forward-thinking and referred me to hospital. I couldn’t wait for the operation.” …

Toni says: “After the operation, which is irreversible, I didn’t feel emotional - just relieved.

“I’ve never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

“We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.

“Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we’ve just come back from South Africa.

“We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

I think most intelligent people gave up on the idea of journalistic impartiality a long time ago, but it’s pretty clear from the opening salvo of this article that the writer isn’t even going to attempt to take a reasonable approach to the idea that someone may not want to have children.

If you have children or know someone who has children, I think it’s a safe bet to say you probably realize that it’s not all baby-powder smells and bluebirds flying in the window to pour milk on your morning cereal as a rainbow touches down in your back yard.

Having said that, it’s pretty hard to argue that having a baby is the equivalent of launching some kind of ecological Death Star or that your kid will turn into some non-sustainable Antichrist who will result in the demise of mankind.

While we’re at it, let’s give two thumbs down to the doctors in this story who refused to perform a procedure requested by an free-thinking adult patient.

Here’s the deal, Doc: it’s not your body. Certainly you can offer advice to a patient but, if you’re going to take the stance that you know better than your patient about whether she should have children what’s to prevent you from artificially inseminating her against her will?

Jeez! I hate stories like this. It’s like watching Rosie O’Donnell fight with Donald Trump. It’s impossible to know who to pull for because everybody involved is a colossal jerk.

I can’t root for Toni because I’m pretty sure her extreme stance that having children is some kind of ecological crime against humanity will, sooner or later, put her on the front lines of the squad of people advocating mandatory sterilization or family size limits.

The author of the article’s disbelief that anyone could actually think for themselves and come to the conclusion they might not want to have children suggests she’s holding down the opposite tail of the bell curve from Toni.

And the author’s incredibly patronizing use of the word “incredibly” twice within five sentences to denigrate both Toni’s decision and her boyfriend’s decision to support it is incredibly annoying.

Similar to my prediction regarding Toni’s future advocacy, I don’t think it’s a huge leap to suggest that the writer will, from the exact opposite point of view, argue that she and people like her are entitled to make decisions for others about their bodies regarding either sterilization, abortion or the decision to have children.

The only sane person in Looneytown is Toni’s boyfriend who supported her decision and sent her a congratulatory card.

Good for him. You know he must have had to taken the time and effort to write something in one of those blank cards because I’m pretty sure the Hallmark store doesn’t have an “Ovaries Are Overrated” section.

If you don’t want to have children, that’s certainly none of my business, regardless of how you came to that decision.

Just know that it’s the extremism scares me in this case because I believe it means, eventually, you’re going to tell me youhave the right to make that decision for me because, somehow, you feel you can justify your stance as being necessary “for the greater good.”

While you’re at it, please don’t tell me that a decision to not have a child means you have carte blanche to take a guilt-free vacation once a year.

The implication here is that parents are somehow supposed to feel bad if they have kids or take a vacation. If they have kids and take a vacation, it sounds like you want them brought up on charges.

Trust me, if my own childhood is any indication, if anyone deserves a vacation — it’s parents.

So, if you’re a parent, go ahead and take a vacation to Disneyland. You deserve it.

You can always take the kids next time.

global warming, climate change, Disneyland, sterilization, decision to have children, kids, guilt, pride, gluttony, sloth

“And the Nobel Prize for Unsubstantiated Finger Pointing goes to …. “

In case you missed it, there’s a convention of hypocrites climate change conference going on in Bali.

Bali is a tropical paradise, so you might think the main leisure activity would be para-sailing or snorkeling but, as it turns out, it’s much more fun to play pin the blame on the U.S.

You can’t go three feet without some dignitary or publicity-seeking bureaucrat carping how it’s vital that the U.S. signs on to the Kyoto Accord and how it’s absolutely shameful that the U.S. is mucking up the global ecosystem.

There are just a few minor problems. Mostly they center around those pesky little things called “facts.”

The Kyoto Accord was hammered out in 1997. Soon afterwards came the hue and cry for countries to start signing and ratifying a treaty that would pave the way for well-to-do nations throughout the world to give up their sovereignty and transfer wealth to any nation that wanted to submit a bill.

Oh, yeah. Presumably, signing the treaty also meant everyone was going to get reeeaaally serious about reducing fossil fuel emissions.

So, let’s take a look at the results from 1997 to 2004 (the last year of data available) and see all the spiffy benefits the Kyoto Accord has provided.

Over at the American Thinker blog, they’ve done some of the math for us. Here are some of the highlights:

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

“In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. 

Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers.  (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)”

• Maldives, 252%.
• Sudan, 142%.
• China, 55%.
• Luxembourg, 43%
• Iran, 39%.
• Iceland, 29%.
• Norway, 24%.
• Russia, 16%.
• Italy, 16%.
• Finland, 15%.
• Mexico, 11%.
• Japan, 11%.
• Canada, 8.8%.

Are you kidding me? Luxembourg’s emissions are up more than six times that of the U.S?!

We need to start building some more factories right away.

The only good thing is, it’s now way easier to choose your holiday card for Al Gore and 75% of the U.N. delegates….

global warming, climate change, Kyoto Accord, finger pointing, Bali, STFU

Part of the U.N. assistance program….

There are very few things in life that consistently provide the kind of Alice-in-Wonderland type entertainment as the global warming debate.

Take the current U.N. climate conference, for example.

The two-week conference is “considered pivotal in efforts to reduce industrial and other emissions warming the planet.”

You wouldn’t expect the U.N. to host such an important event at, oh, I don’t know … someplace like the U.N. headquarters. This is an “pivotal” conference so, naturally, it’s being held on the Pacific Island of Bali.

Being that it’s so pivotal and just maybe because it’s in freakin’ Bali, the conference is remarkably well-attended. By 10,000 conferees.

Wanna bet they didn’t all get there by canoe?

Geography wasn’t my strongest subject in grade school but I know Bali is really far from everywhere … except whatever island’s next to Bali.

And even that’s a 45-minute ride in a single-engine plane.

I was better in math than geography (plus I own a calculator), so some quick calculations reveal that 190 nations sending 10,000 people to a tropical paradise for an intense two-week session averages out to 53 people per country.

I’m pretty sure there aren’t 53 people in all of Luxembourg, so that means bigger places like South Korea and Sudan are doing their share to pick up the slack.

So, to recap: the U.N., in an effort to reduce global emissions, is holding a global warming conference in a place you can only get to by a long-haul flight on a Boeing 747.

And that doesn’t even include roughly 10,000 trips by taxi from the airport to the hotel in those highly energy-efficient cabs most island countries have.

The only way this conference could have a bigger carbon footprint is if they communicated by smoke signals.

One of the avowed aims of the conference is to figure out how to transfer money from industrialized countries to a variety of small nations in order to help these minor countries “adjust to climate change.”

Having 10,000 bureaucrats converge on an island paradise is a good start. By the end of the two-week session 40% of the hookers in Bali will be able to retire, thus helping to cut emissions of one sort or another.

As long as we’re transferring wealth, why stop at a country that has less people than you could find in your local Bennigan’s on a Friday night?

It’s starting to snow where I am, so I think I need to fill out a grant form so the U.N. can buy me a snow-blower to help me adjust to climate change.

I’ve got my eye on a Toro Power Max 828 XLE. At around $1500, there will still be enough money left over to help all these nations figure out how to deal with a three-inch rise in sea levels over the next 100 years.

It’s holiday season, so maybe a gift phone card is a good idea — then those countries that border the Pacific Ocean can call and get some advice from Holland.

global warming, climate change, Toro Power Max 828 XLE, snow blowers, smoke blowers, United Nations, boondoggle, carbon footprint