April 22, 2009, - 12:07 pm

Earth Day Green Hypocrisy Costs Taxpayers Mucho Money, Obscures Astronomers’ View

By Debbie Schlussel
It’s bad enough that airhead, fake “conservative” Elisabeth Hasselbeck was pimping Earth Day and the “endangered rainforest” crap on us on today’s edition of ABC hag-fest “The View.”
But the green movement is not just a lie. It’s costly and draining taxpayers’ money by the gazillions. And it affects the ability of astronomers to view other planets.

Streetlights were the first big users of electricity. Now, they are being re-engineered to improve efficiency, but at a cost that today’s municipalities might have a tough time covering.
San Jose, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley, is testing a concept called “adaptive lighting,” in which streets can be made brighter, darker or even be illuminated with flashing strobes upon command.


By summer, the city will have installed 125 streetlamps using LED technology, in one of the biggest urban tests of the science so far in the U.S. . . .
But the cost savings will take time to materialize. . . . Many cities have LED traffic signals, but because of the high cost of producing white light with LED, local governments have been reluctant to install them in streetlights. The effort is further complicated not only by strapped municipal coffers, but resistance from star-gazers and others who object to LEDs brighter glare. . . .
San Jose expects to spend $150,000 to $200,000 on a pilot project in its Hillview North neighborhood, and it is seeking an additional $2 million in federal stimulus funds to enlarge the test.
The LED streetlights being tested in San Jose could save anywhere from 10% to 60% on energy use, depending on their brightness. The white LEDs will have a range of between one and 82 watts and will replace 55-watt, yellowish sodium-vapor lamps. . . .
But for now, many cities see little financial advantage to switching their lighting systems.
It can cost $600 to install a single LED streetlight, compared with $200 for a sodium-vapor lamp. What’s more, utilities often charge cities a flat rate based on the number of streetlamps they operate, regardless of use.
Fourteen miles east of San Jose on Mount Hamilton, the astronomers at the Lick Observatory have another concern: The bright white light of LEDs illuminate the night sky and obscure views of planets and stars. The scientists helped San Jose select its sodium lamps in the 1980s because the observatory can filter out yellow light. “Going to any other kind of lighting is detrimental,” says Burt Jones, the observatory’s assistant director.

It’s interesting that these new LED lights might only save San Jose 10%. Plus the city pays a contractor to control the lighting–something they didn’t have to pay for with regular lighting.
Think about that the next time you hear bimbos and airheads (like Elisabeth Hasselbeck) telling you to go green to save the rainforest.
You’re not saving anybody . . . except some lighting companies and contractors who are making out very well from these ridiculous, costly switchovers.
Now, you’ll excuse me, as I go out to do errands and ask for a few more plastic bags to “destroy the environment.”
**** UPDATE: Reader Bob adds:

LED traffic lights and street lights will/don’t fare well in the colder climates. By their nature, LED’s do not produce much heat and without that “waste heat” cannot keep themselves clear of ice and snow! LED traffic lights quickly become covered and obscured by blowing snow and freezing rain.

3 Responses

My contribution to prevent “global warming:”
1 – To celebrate “earth day,” today and for the next seven days I’ll turn on all the incandescent lights of my home, 24/7.
2 – I’ll buy a second Hummer.
3 – I’ll keep my tap water running night and day.
4 – I’ll buy a second washer and dyer.
5 – I’ll fly more instead of driving short trips.
6 – I’ll keep on using plastic bags for groceries.
7 – I’ll run all my electronics day and night whether I need them or not.
8 – I’ll destroy my backyard tree.
9 – I’ll use more sprays of all sorts.
10 – I’ll eat more red meat.

Independent Conservative on April 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm

It is with Great Honor that I Salute the Fabulous Automotive Engineers at the Society of Automotive Engineers Convention at Cobo Hall in the Motor City this week, while simultaneously excoriating the whacked out “Green” Propaganda Machine of “Earth Day”. I refuse to worship at the altar of “Gaia”.
In France, Engineers have “Rock Star” status. They are revered as Scientists, not vilified as they are here in the US as “geeks”. France derives roughly 85% of its electricity primarily through Nuclear Power Plants. All facets of building and maintaining power plants are supervised by Engineers. France has so much excess raw electrical power, that it sells power to nearby countries such as Belgium… I digress. The following is a take on the Global Warming/Engineering controversy.
Engineers win, hand down, I might add. Sending it up the flagpole once more…Thanks.
Though I am not trained in the Fine Art/Science of Engineering and remain a small guppy in the food chain of life, I think that there is something fishy going on in the “global warming” propaganda machine. Though I am not an expert, it would seem that if you compare the disciplines of Engineering and “Global Weather/Warming Forecasting”, you can infer that Automotive Engineering is a Hard Science. “Global Warming,” Soft. Engineers use hard data, math, measurement, specifications, physics, testing, testing and more testing, validation, calibration, algorithms (no pun intended), yada, yada. Unlike Hollywood celebrities, Engineers “act” for the betterment of Function, Safety, and Society. Climatologists, well, sort of, rely on 100 year weather tables and some would say, dare I say it, extreme speculation. As in, “I think it’s getting warmer. How can I use statistics to get everyone else to feel that way? And make a tidy profit as well.” There is an estimate of more than 6 Trillion dollars to be made on this Forecast of Fear. Some of the biggest names in “Global Warming” have already joined forces to capitalize on this huge emerging market, which they, in fact, created. What is Deadly Serious, however, is the Hard Science of Setting Engineering Standards.
At this point I would like to submit an e-mail, somewhat edited and embellished, for clarity, sent to Congressman Rep. Mike Rogers R-MI (One of the few MI Congressmen who actually testified before congress in favor of the Domestics.):
“I am writing you to protest the extremely bad decision to let Federal Judges set Corporate and Fuel Emissions Safety Standards. Since when would a Judge or Congressional body tell the Expert Engineering Staffs in many disciplines of Automotive Engineering how to do their jobs? Would Congress let Judges dictate how many volts of electricity are allowed in a pacemaker? How to do brain or heart surgery? What movie George Clooney should make? (Naw. J/K) Would a Judge tell Pharmaceutical companies the dosages for drugs? Has the Domestic Auto Industry, the last bastion of a hobbling U.S. Manufacturing Base, become the “Whipping Boy,” the Public Pinata for the spineless? I hope not.
What is the scientific background of these congressional emendators in automotive emission standards? Where did they get their Engineering Degree? I heard that if you increase CAFE standards, it becomes a Safety issue, i.e. smaller cars = Less Safety. And potentially more Injuries and Fatalities. That should be obvious to the naked eye. It was better when our Congress was concerned with the Health and Safety of ALL citizens, not just Powerful Super Greenish Niche Lobbyists. How can people who know nothing of Automotive Engineering make decisions that will impact the Health, Safety, Life and Limb of All Americans? Let’s perpetually punish the Producers, (i.e. Domestic Auto Makers and their Suppliers.) and give the real Polluters, China and India, a pass.” Pathetic! Let the Engineers. Engineer. Using Hard Science not Fairy Weather Tales.” Grab your wallets. Hide the outlets and clean up your “carbon footprints”, here comes “cap and trade”…

Roads Skolar on April 22, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Less than 2% of our electricity is generated by petroleum; mostly in Hawaii. How does cutting down on electricity usage free us from petroleum dependence?
When the price of gasoline shot up over $4/gallon last summer, politicians talked about “the energy crisis”, windmills and solar panels. Few if any talked seriously about replacing petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system.
Today, the electric vehicle is in the embryonic stage; a propulsion system that will actually displace petroleum and Saudi petro-power. What are the politicians doing? That’s right! Raising the cost of electricity and KILLING the electric vehicle before it’s even born. Do you REALLY think they’re doing it for “global warming” or do you think Saudi petro-dollars are pushing this policy?
The “global warming” movement is a distraction that takes our attention away from replacing petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system. This is the message that must be made when confronting “the green movement”.

There is NO Santa Claus on April 22, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field