Saving the Planet is for Suckers!

I couldn't help laughing as I read this report by the U.K. government regarding disposable diapers versus cloth diapers (or nappies as the Brits call them):

A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings. (Well, at least they're trying to be transparent.)

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed civil servants not to publicise the conclusions of the £50,000 nappy research project and to adopt a “defensive” stance towards its conclusions (e.g. Those are not the disposable nappies that I knew!).

The report found that using washable nappies, hailed by councils throughout Britain as a key way of saving the planet, have a higher carbon footprint than their disposable equivalents unless parents adopt an extreme approach to laundering them (in other words, make your kid wear the same one for three days straight and then wash them by pounding them on a rock).

To reduce the impact of cloth nappies on climate change parents would have to hang wet nappies out to dry all year round, keep them for years for use on younger children, and make sure the water in their washing machines does not exceed 60C.

The conclusions will upset proponents of real nappies who have claimed they can help save the planet. (Ya think?)

The report found that while disposable nappies used over 2½ years would have a global warming , impact of 550kg of CO2 reusable nappies produced 570kg of CO2 on average. But if parents used tumble dryers and washed the reusable nappies at 90C, the impact could spiral to . 993kg of CO2

So what can we conclude from this report?

1. Cloth diapers are a major pain in the butt that won't save the planet and so all you "greenies" that use them just to feel noble--sorry!! You are NOT reducing your carbon footprint so you'd be better off buying carbon offsets from my brand new company Plant a Tree for Gaia (TM).

2. Many entities with an agenda (i.e. the UK government in this case) will squelch reports that disagree with their preconceived notions and promote those that agree. This is called propaganda.

3. It's best to view studies with a critical eye, no matter what side of the debate you're on. This study may mean something, but I'm sure another study will come out in the future that contradicts this one. So I think one should just use a little common sense, not follow trends.

For example, I use disposable diapers because they are convenient, sanitary, and they reduce the risk of diaper rash because they are so absorbent. I'm not really concerned about the amount of waste that they generate because I live in Texas--there is a lot land here, much of it barren. Cloth or reusable diapers, on the other hand, are not convenient, not as absorbent, and use up a lot of water in washing them (Plus they have a high yuck factor). Water is a precious commodity in Texas, especially in the summer. Most summer we end up rationing our water for our yards. So there is no compelling reason to switch to disposable diapers.

As far as the argument for reducing one's carbon footprint, I'm all for saving energy (it saves me money) but I'm not convinced that reducing carbon output is going to make a bit a of difference in our planet's well being. As I said before, I'm agnostic on "global climate change" based on carbon output. There's compelling evidence on both sides of the debate. one of the biggest reason I tend to be skeptical is because Al Gore (a.k.a. the Goracle) is one if its biggest proponents and if you remember the 2000 elections, he tends to exaggerate everything. Plus he's a flaming hypocrite based on his owning a huge house and luxury boat, not to mention his jet-setting around the world. Basically, if the Nobel Peace prize committee and Hollywood love him, then I'm pretty sure he's full of it.

NEWSFLASH! Unknown blogger endorses John McCain!

I haven't posted anything for a while, mostly due to computer issues and a continuous aversion to writing. But if you can't tell from my earlier posts, I'm a news/politics junkie. My recently acquired Centro phone allows me to feed that addiction--I can get the latest poll results and campaign gaffes in seconds whenever I want. However, blogging on a mobile phone is virtually impossible unless you want to be at it all day and have huge blisters on your thumbs. Truthfully, I can't wait until this election is over because it is stressing me out--BIG TIME. I know this is supposed to be the Democrats's year to win back the presidency because President Bush has been such a MISERABLE FAILURE or so the MSM tells me, but I really can't believe that a majority of my fellow citizens would vote for Barack Obama. Although McCain is not my ideal candidate (Mitt was my man), he is light years beyond Barack Obama and thus I am officially endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin for POTUS/VPOTUS. I know, I know...I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear they've been endorsed by a blogger of little consequence.



My philosophy of government is pretty simple--leave me the heck alone so I can take care of my family! I like low taxes, accountability, efficiency, and most of all, COMPETENCE in my government. Republicans have been pretty good at the first thing, but have been pretty lax on the latter three. But the Democrats have been consistently bad on all four things for a very long time. When was the last time you heard of a fiscally conservative Democrat? Usually, they want to tax more, spend more, and add numerous more governmental programs.

To me, the entire Democrat platform is based on envy--which results in at best socialism or at worst communism. Obama revealed his socialist philosophy in his comments to Joe the plumber. Spread the wealth? Are you kidding me? Believe me, it is possible for the poor to be as greedy and envious as the wealthy. It's a human failing, but it is not a good idea on which to base one's government.

I'm not a libertarian a la Ron Paul in that I believe that every single department or governmental program not specifically mentioned in the Constitution should be eliminated, but I do think that the bureaucracy should be considerably trimmed and made more efficient. I don't think tax dollars should go to fund the National Endowment for the Arts or PBS and numerous other pet projects i.e. get rid of pork barrel spending. I'm a federalist in that I believe that the federal government has usurped too many powers that should be relegated to the states. For example, I think states should be able to regulate abortion and marriage laws without the interference of the feds. If a state (with consensus of its citizens) wants to allow gay marriage, I'm okay with that (but don't approve of it) as long as it is not forced on the rests of the states by the courts.

I also think states and local governments should be allowed to legislate moral and social issues based on what their citizens prefer e.g. if one silly state wants to legalize drugs and/or prostitution that is their prerogative. And they shouldn't ask for federal money to bail them out of the resulting fallout from their poorly thought out social programs.

Some moral issues such as abortion (and previously slavery) involve human rights, and I think the federal government is obligated to step in, e.g. the 13th and 14th amendments. The 14th amendment didn't just protect former slaves, it prevented states from abusing minority citizens. For example, under the 14th amendment it would have been illegal for the state of Missouri to expel Mormons simply because they didn't get along with their neighbors. I would not be opposed to an abortion amendment that prohibits abortion after the first trimester except in the case where the mother's health is at significant risk. An amendment would also be voted on by the citizens and not forced on the country by the judiciary. Obama et al. don't seem to have a problem with judicial activists judges, while McCain opposes them and favors strict constructionists.

In conclusion, I'm supporting McCain/Palin because I think they are less likely to take money out of our pockets and waste it on stupid things that the federal government has no business doing.