The Green Police gave her grief about this.

Enter Jennifer Aniston, the former Friends star who has successfully transitioned from TV to motion picture fame and cares deeply about conservation. In her contribution to a 2007 book about “saving the planet one simple step at a time,” Aniston reveals she takes three-minute showers and brushes her teeth in the shower. “Every two minutes in the shower uses as much water as a person in Africa uses for everything in their life for a whole day!” she explains.

Well, it’s good to know that Aniston has been consuming less water than the rest of us climate change deniers… in a $42 million Beverly Hills mansion. No cognitive dissonance there! Except, apparently, Aniston has recently decided that the lavish crib is “too much” for her, and she will be downgrading to a “wooden box” a la Mad Men’s Vincent Katheiser trailer a la director Tom Shadyac $4.95 million Manhattan luxury apartment. Now, I’m no expert on New York’s housing market, but that doesn’t quite sound like the kind of humble life that, say, we middle-cass flyover troglodytes already live, right?

The story’s been getting legs in the press (coincidentally, around the same time as her own legs showed up in a trailer for her next film) because she bought the place using a trust fund that was set up in her dog’s name. Eh, let people have their inside jokes, I say; this is a more illuminating detail: “As well as the penthouse, she snapped up two other small units in the building.” So, not only is she buying more expensive housing than a person in Africa can afford over an entire lifetime with the apartment itself, but she needs even more space–all for her and little Norman, the corgi-terrier mix.

It’s been almost half a decade since An Inconvenient Truth came out. I’m no scientist, but the fact that I can count the number of true climate change alarmists who have actually scaled down their standard of living (even though they still work in one of the most unnecessary wasteful industries in the country) on one hand is all I need to know about that documentary’s warnings. Note to Jenn: since neither you nor your peers are exemplifying a real solution for global climate catastrophe, does it really make sense to move to a city that will become the Ground Zero of rising ocean levels?

And as you know, carbon is evil. Like me, but in chemical form.

So, here we are, sitting atop the nexus of lefty journalism, where the writer has managed to slap together two tasty slabs of PC red meat: feminism and environmentalism.

Yes, men are pigs, but not just to women. They’re pigs to the planet too. In an amazingly clever move, Time used a picture of Homer Simpson to illustrate the piece!

The caption: “A typical man.”

Which makes me wonder: what kind of picture would you need to illustrate a writer for Time?

My guess is, it would be the long gone Cathy, from the comic strip… Cathy.

She and her stringy-haired neuroticism will be missed. I loved her fearless take on lip gloss.

Or maybe it was her bumbling husband, Irving Hillman. Boy does he love gadgets -even if he didn’t know how to work them!

Ack indeed.

Anyway, I digress – the reason why men emit more carbon is because we eat more meat, and travel a lot. Women eat more leafy crap- and they’re less likely to fly all over the place, for work.

So is this where environmentalism takes you?

For women climbing that career ladder, and doing what men do – they must stop all that because their behavior can only harm the planet. To save the earth, they should stay home, wash dishes with non-phosphate detergent and change the baby’s recyclable diapers. Probably barefoot.

At least Time has the courage to point this out.

But I wonder if their female employees will take heed and go home.

After all, the planet is more important than their progress.

And if you disagree with me, you’re worse than Hitler.

Tonight:

Rick Leventhal

Kimberly Guilfoyle

FNC.com’s Chris Kensler

The elevation came in the form of a supercilious warning to put the brakes on the world’s second largest proved oil reserve. It could, he feared, become a curse if not properly managed.  This revelation came upon reflection via a government sponsored helicopter tour and a token chat with a group of not-so disenfranchised First Nations peoples in the area. (In 2009, oil sands companies contracted more than $890 million for goods and services from Aboriginal owned businesses and employed 1600 Aboriginals in permanent jobs).

And with that, Mr. Cameron and the media were able to close the case on the oil sands, as Mr. Cameron purportedly had to jet.  It’s not Mr. Cameron’s fault, completely. The oil complex is just that – complex.  It’s not the kind of business one just picks up as a hobby horse.  Sure, Cameron can regurgitate the technical terminology if he likes. It would be difficult for a techno-geek of titanic proportions to resist a sexy term like steam gravity assisted drainage (SAGD).

Here is where I suggest “putting the brakes on.”  Perhaps a moratorium on incendiary statements by celebutantes or politicians a-la-Pelosi who are not able to, because of their lack of training, do the type of deep comprehensive assessment required for these matters.

There are a few facts that cannot be disputed and you will get those out of Mr. Cameron, the enviro-statist and their press sycophants.  In this case it can be narrowed down to just two: the area containing the deposit and the size of the estimated reserves in Alberta.  Then it’s down the rabbit hole we go.

The oil sands deposit covers an area that would equate to the size of England (54,132 square miles).  For Americans without passports, that is the size of the state of New York.  Of the total 170.4 billion barrels of remaining established reserves, about 80% is considered recoverable through in-situ (no tailings ponds and contrary to what is stated results in significantly lower GHG and energy intensity) the remaining 20% will be mined.  Total estimated reserves are actually 1.7 trillion barrels but at this stage only 10% are recoverable at current technologies and prices.

To put these numbers to reality, to date only 0.3% of the total oil sands area has been disturbed, roughly equal to a small to medium sized city. Even more crucial to understand is that as only 3% of the total surface area could ever be mined (the deposits lie deeper than 75 meters) which leaves 97% of the surface area with some, but not much, industry impact.  Mathematically this scales the land disturbance of oil sands development back to about 0.5% the size of England, and all area that are mined need to have a reclamation plan laid out by producers.  In respect to Alberta’s boreal forest, in 40 years of oil sands activity, a mere 0.02% of the boreal forest has been disturbed.

In 2007 Alberta became the first jurisdiction in North America to legislate GHG reductions for large emitters. However, industry had already vastly mitigated its footprint and has every incentive to do so. Less energy in for every barrel of oil out means increased cash flows.  Strong show of cash flows increases marketability to shareholders and helps shield a company from the inherit volatility of commodity prices.  At current rates of production, 2.6 MMbbls/d, about half bitumen (WCS) and half synthetic light (SCO), the oil sands are responsible for 0.1 percent of total world emissions and that number is doubtful to increase much even if production ramps up to 4MMbbls/d as projected by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

As far as climate change is concerned, the oil sands are not really Alberta’s dirty secret at all.  Environmentalists may still choose to call this resource “tar sands” like the brat at school who won’t let a nickname die, but they would be better served to make their mockumentaries where GHG is unregulated such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, or Venezuela where Hugo Chavez may believe he can bend time and space. And of course there’s no place like home; the GHG from the oil sands equates to only 1% of the emissions of the U.S. power sector where coal happens to be the “King of the World.”

Just like little bit of meat will never do for a vegan, neither will a little bit of oil development for an environmentalist. Therefore there will always be an entire portion of the story that the enviro-statists will obfuscate.  This is the basic social cost/benefit analysis that economists are required to do.

As the leading exporter of crude and petroleum products to the United States, Canada is not only the safest, most secure supplier, but an economic partner.  The North American energy complex is one of the most valuable business chains in the world precisely because every aspect from Main Street to Wall Street is linked and integrated.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs will depend on the oil sands both directly and indirectly in the coming decades. The input goods, materials, and services for oil sands and in the U.S. oil shale – tires, trucks, gauges, pumps, steel, are produced across North America. It is this understanding of the political economy of North American oil, and how it positively impacts the average person, which the enviro-statist circumvents every time.

As one final example I will let Mr. Cameron’s own words to MSNBC hit the nail on the head.  “[T]here’s an opportunity for all of North America to be weaned to some extent off of OPEC oil so that’s why it makes me very nervous… we need more science… we have the capacity for ecological disaster here on an unprecedented scale…”

As standards of living and GDP per capita increases worldwide and millions of individuals are lifted out of poverty, the global demand for energy is expected to increase by as much as 40% over the next two decades. Given even the most ambitious outlook for alternatives, biomass, hydro, and nuclear, unconventional oil remains the integral component of non-OPEC supply. There would be no realistic manner to supplant unconventional production other than increasing the call-on OPEC crude.

In reality, the disaster has been averted.  Thankfully, enough people understand the inextricable link between North America’s oil (and gas) resources and economic growth and prosperity for all.

Walt Kelly’s propaganda poster premiered on Earth Day I, 1970. 

It now conjures a circular firing squad of misanthropes in light of Franny Armstrong & co’s radical environmentalist 10:10 campaign’s evil, child-snuff fantasy film “No Pressure.” 

Revealed by the film is the wicked heart beating within the apocalyptic religion of environmentalism; a self-loathing, anti-capitalist, anti-Western-civilization political haven for deracinated communists, anarchists and their useful idiots after the fall of the Bolshevik utopia. 

The anti-scientific wave of contempt and rage cresting within these totalitarians since the revelation of the infamous East Anglia University Climate Research Unit’s “Hide the Decline” e-mails now crashes, Humpty-Dumpty, shattered and exposed on the rocks of their great Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change fraud.  

Unable to contain their emotions, environmentalists have apparently abandoned all hope and entered an intellectual hell, in which they demonize their fellow man, not just as polar bear exterminators but child-killers. 

Of course, it can’t be kindly teachers’ fault for Pushing Junk Science on Children, no. She’s just exploding her dissenting students because “climate denier” parents, of Fox News have alienated the little malcontents from Green partiinost orthodoxy. 

Another indication of the depths to which collective salvation environmentalists have sunk to fulfill their destructive ends is an Act-Responsible advertisement, also promoted on Discovery Company’s Treehugger subsidiary in 2009:

Act-Responsible agitators preached: 

“Humankind is at the center of our planet’s equilibrium.
By protecting our planet, we protect ourselves. The Expo mobilizes each of us to ACT to preserve our future.” — Isabel Kurata 

“The ads featured, in majority new to the public, were produced for NGOs and public institutions, as well as for companies committed to corporate social responsibility. The Expo allows the general public and professionals to grasp the complexity and vast issues of Sustainable Development, making it accessible to all and giving keys to start acting and adopting behaviors respectful of future generations.” — Sophie Guerinet 

“Sustainable Development,” a.k.a., “responsible development,” is a UN wealth redistribution boondoggle designed to destroy American sovereignty. 

Writing this week about 10:10’s “No Pressure,” Treehugger’s Sami Grover: “found the whole thing kind of funny.” 

On the other hand, “Look at this ad and ask yourself… What Kind Of Person Thought This Was A Good Idea? — The Environmental Movement: Pro-Environment, Or Anti-Human?” 

Still others take the crisis of faith deadly serious: 

“Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury – the phenomenon is an actual fact. All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.” – Osama bin Laden, October, 2010 

Saul Alinsky would of course denounce and reject rhetorical radicals such as the producers of this film, its ideological defender-apologists and creators of like-minded, hanging-children ads because their clumsy hubris — with its slash & burn tactics — hurts the revolution’s progress. 

Facetious gallows humor relativism: “TreeHugger / ChildStrangler, to-may-to / to-mah-to“. 

During his latest Weekly Address, President Obama, in true believer Alinsky realistic radical form, stated: 

We’re putting Americans to work producing clean, home-grown American energy that will help lower our reliance on foreign oil and protect our planet for future generations… We know the choice that’s right for America.  We need to do what we’ve always done – put our ingenuity and can do spirit to work to fight for a brighter future.  

Pictures are worth thousands of words, or even thousands of unread legislative pages. 

So, perhaps a debt of gratitude is owed Franny Armstrong, et ilk for their unintentional failure to carefully toe environmentalism’s one party line. They have unwittingly provided powerful imagery to recall whenever self-anointed world savior politicians, judges, bureaucrats, or propagandists with their celebrity spokesmen advocate or attempt draconian legislation like “Cap & Trade/Tax”, EPA policies and regulations designed to kill American jobs and economy, or dangerously unscientific rulings that CO2 is a “pollutant.” 

Even if the Supreme Court was correct ruling that CO2 is a pollutant, Lord Monkton places in stark reality the demands of the AGW agenda:

To mitigate just 1 C (2 F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year. So the analyst, as a thought-experiment, would shut down the entire world economy, emitting no CO2 at all. Even then, and even on the incorrect assumption that the UN’s exaggerated projections of the effect of CO2 on temperature are correct, it would take 67 years to mitigate 1 C warming.

Do the math.

“A brighter future,” Mr. President… at what cost? 

Ready! Aim! Fire!

Disney is famously apolitical. In fact, it probably prides itself as an anti-political organization. For years its calling card has been producing family oriented fare that would be welcome in any American household.  Indeed it famously declined to distribute Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which Moore managed to turn into a David v. Goliath story about censorship and corporate greed. This allowed the millionaire filmmaker to find another large corporation to distribute the documentary… whilst getting huge publicity railing against large corporations.  Disney managed to survive this potential blow to their non-political reputation and saved their brand.

But tomorrow, it appears, Disney will be suspending those principles and will engage in political programming. To mark Earth Day the channel is carrying a raft of programs which push the Green/Environmental agenda.

Why would the company that stood up to Michael Moore be willing to make such a bait and switch?  My best guess is that these shows will not appear to be political programming.  But this is a fallacy.  One of the great victories for environmentalists in recent memory is that they have been able to portray environmentalism as apolitical.  And this will be on full display tomorrow on Disney Channel.

Banning fossil fuels or pushing recycling or opposing dams or mining projects are deeply, deeply political actions. They damage communities, they chase jobs out of the country and they tell people where and when they can work and even if they can keep their jobs. When the likes of James Cameron flies to an impoverished region to stop a dam, he may feel good about himself but this means many people will suffer without clean water or cheap electricity.

Environmentalism is politics at its most basic.

Disney and America need to understand this

****

FROM THE EDITORS: Here are some more details into what is actually going on.  From the fan site Disney Dreaming:

Playhouse Disney will encore green-themed episodes of “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse,” “Handy Manny,” “Special Agent Oso,” “Imagination Movers” and “Jungle Junction” (8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., ET/PT).

Joe Jonas and Demi Lovato star in two new Disney’s Friends for Change: Project Green spots stressing the importance of protecting the planet’s oceans and waterways (6:25 p.m. and 6:55 p.m., ET/PT). Throughout the evening, Disney Channel will encore Disney’s Friends for Change: Project Green anthem, “Make A Wave,” performed by Jonas and Lovato, which will also be featured in the upcoming Disneynature film “OCEANS,” opening in theaters Earth Day 2010.

Disney Channel continues its Earth Day celebration with encore presentations of environmentally-themed episodes of hit series “Phineas and Ferb,” Hannah Montana,” “The Suite Life On Deck” and “Wizards of Waverly Place,” followed by an encore presentation of Disney Channel Original Movie “Minutemen” (6:00-10:00 p.m., ET/PT).

Of course, we haven’t seen any of the shows yet and there is certainly a chance Disney will have managed the politicize our kids’ television programming in a tasteful and educational way, but just in case they let us down, here are where we anticipate landmines:

-Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, 7:30am: Goofy is accidentally cloned.
-Special Agent Oso, 8am: Oso helps Joshua recycle.
-Imagination Movers, 9:30 am: The Movers teach our preschoolers how to save energy.
-Handy Manny, 9am: The Earth Day Challenge; Manny’s truck engine is replaced.
-Jungle Junction, 10 am: When Taxicrab’s cactus begins to wilt, he takes it back to the desert; Carla helps Crocker create a compost heap.

If these programs are political, as we suspect they will be, Disney Channel will be not only be targeting our kids, but our kids too young to attend school.  Only kids kindergarten-age or younger (as well as out elementary schoolers taking a “Mental Health Day”) will be home from school at 10am when Carla teaches The Crocker the importance of composting.

Make sure to keep an eye out for environmentalism in Disney Channel’s prime-time line up as well, as some of the shows that target older audiences might also have some green messaging.  As we learned two years ago, there isn’t anything cooler than “change.”

As always, we trust our readers to help us cover the Disney Channel, so let us know what you saw.

Many moons ago I wrote about how phony environmentalists use their so-called ethical beliefs to justify arrogant and asinine behavior. Examples abound: a socialite rails against plastic bags, as she boards her private jet to eat bat testicles with a shaman. An angry, goateed celebrity rails against neocon chickenhawks, days before being arrested for domestic abuse. A scabby rock star condemns us for not giving enough to the poor, as he passes chlamydia around like a snack tray.

Well, now research has backed up what we already knew: environmentalism is just a shield for jackasses to act more jackassy.

In a University of Toronto study, students were asked either to buy eco-friendly products or their conventional counterparts. For the green buyers, their good behavior (gauged by a number of tests) dramatically dropped. They cheated on games, lied to the researchers in order to win cash, and in an honor system designed to pay everyone – the greenies stole six times more than the eco-less consumers.

Also, they skinned and ate thirteen cats.

But look, you don’t need a study to tell you this. Just look around. Right now as man-made global warming science falls apart like a house of cards made of poop, you’re seeing the real character behind those once considered noble, earth-loving warriors emerge.

They’re petty, lying creeps.

See nutbag butterfly expert Paul Ehrlich… once again, rearing his ugly head. Back in 1968, this bozo predicted that hundreds of millions would starve to death in decades, and suggested placing sterilizing agents in the water. He predicted food riots across the globe, and blamed western civilization for everything. And, yet despite this charlatan never being right about anything…. he’s back. In the thick of the climate-gate scandal, he urged his global warming “colleagues” to go after the skeptics, instead of improving the science.

No surprise. What drives green activism isn’t saving the planet – it’s a hatred of humanity, and an envy of those who succeed. Ehrlich, and these “colleagues,” see environmentalism as a game they can finally win – where counterfeit catastrophes create careers, and you – the individual – are always to blame.

Think about that the next time some idiot asks you about your light bulbs.

Our guests tonight: 

OK GO.

yep, they’re fun!

Plus, the lovely Patti Ann Browne!

The hilarious Amy Schumer!

the impeccable thinker Stephen Kruiser!

seeya! ]]> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/03/11/daily-gut-slime-is-almost-always-green/feed/ 74 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/02/17/daily-gut-some-subversive-movie-ideas-for-james-cameron/ http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/02/17/daily-gut-some-subversive-movie-ideas-for-james-cameron/#comments Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:24:35 +0000 Greg Gutfeld http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=310562 So James Cameron was just on “The View” Wednesday morning, and he was disarmingly frank about the premise and purpose of his film, “Avatar.” He plainly explained it was anti-corporate, and that his goal was to take that “subversive” message, and wrap it up in an entertaining vehicle in a way that America, or the world, would swallow it whole.

Check it out here:

I admire the guy for admitting that. But I just don’t see the subversion he’s talking about. I can’t remember the last time I saw a “pro-corporate” movie, which to me would be truly subversive. I mean, can you imagine a director making a film about a drug company that works tirelessly to come up with medications that saves millions of lives? That’s happened in real life – more than a couple of times. Still, no movie. However, Hollywood craps out a pro-environmental, anti-big business flick faster than I can say “Pass the Charmin.”

And I can say that pretty fast.

Anyway, I saw “Avatar,” and being from Fox News, naturally I rooted against the Navi. Not because they were holistic earthers. I just hated all the jewelry. It reminded me of a spa I went to in Santa Fe. Still, it was a great flick – as long as you separate fact from fantasy. In Cameron’s fantasy, Marines become mercenaries who arrive to a peaceful place and destroy it. In our reality – around the same time that flick was making millions – Marines were actually landing in Haiti, saving lives during one of the worst tragedies in recent memory. In the world of make believe, we are evil. In the real world, we aren’t so bad.

I don’t expect the idiots who watch “The View” to get that. But I’m sure the rest of us do.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a Navi-hating homophobe who kills blue people for fun.

Tonight!

We’ve got Bill Hemmer! Alex Blagg! the adorable Kelly Evans. And Dr. Gary Alter, noted plastic surgeon!

But shockingly, things may be different this year. Some members of the press were left off the list, and it looks like those invited won’t be enjoying the typical “receiving-line photo.”

What? Did I just say what I think I said?

Can we rewind that please?

But shockingly, things may be different this year. Some members of the press were left off the list, and it looks like those invited won’t be enjoying the typical “receiving-line photo.”

I know, I know. How will the reporters cope? I mean, sure – we all have problems this year. Because of the recession, I’m cutting back on unicorn ornaments and Vicodin. But the real tragedy is the denial of those precious few moments standing next to the Commander-in-Cuteness. I can’t imagine anything more horrible – and believe me – I’m really good at imagining horrible.

I think one print reporter said it best when he told Politico: “The White House is magical at Christmas.”

So true, but it’s even more true now that we have an authentic Santa Claus living there, a transcendent being beloved by the media because he promises them stuff they want so badly: a cleaner planet, an end to American arrogance, an increase in global popularity and – fingers crossed – federally funded abortions! We might even get a revamped Fairness Doctrine, but only if we wish really hard!

Anyway, “Red Eye” is coming to the rescue. While there will be no receiving line at the White House, we’re having one at “Red Eye.” I’ll be dressed as an elf, and I’ll even be making my special homemade egg nog.

What can I say: we love to receive. Some say too much.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a homophobic racist who hates the planet.

Tonight’s Guest:

Mike Baker!

Jill Dobson!

Joe Devito!

and…Dr. Michael Baden!