Just What Is The Goal Of Big Green?

We all hear about big oil, big pharma, big agriculture… But how many of us hear about big green? Actually, come to think of it, I’ve never heard the term, so if I’m actually coining it, I want credit for it!

Just kidding.

But the idea of big green has got me wondering just what the actual goal of big green actually is, because the obvious answers just don’t quite pan out.

I recently wrote about the fact that the American Lung Association endorsed ethanol and biofuels in the name of increased lung health. However, a little research found that the ALA was wrong in this endorsement because the life cycle of biofuel production actually puts more lung irritants into the air than conventional gasoline.

So the goal is not increased health.

What about energy independence? Well, as I have recently written about, they have put the brakes on any utilization of our own energy resources in the name of “environmentalism” and have yet to come up with a reasonable alternative to oil. So as need is increasing and global supply is struggling to keep up, I would actually say that our dependance on foreign oil is increasing thanks to big green.

So the goal is not energy independence.

Ok, so it’s about being more efficient. That makes sense, right? Well, what about the fact that most “green” energy sources are actually less efficient than conventional energy sources? Renewable sources like ethanol and wind are actually terribly inefficient which is why they are more expensive than other sources.

So the goal is not about energy efficiency.

Oh, but maybe it’s all about global warming and climate change, right?

Wrong.

It has recently come to light that ethanol actually contributes to global warming (assuming you believe in global warming anyway). Going by the so-called “consensus” on the causes of global warming, it can be said that ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline. Surprised?

There have been three scientific studies done that prove this.

The first study looked at N2O released from corn and rapeseed farming and found that 3-5% of the nitrogen fertilizer used in farming is converted to N20, which has 296 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. So, according to this study:

“The N2O warming effect is 0.9-1.5 times the cooling effect of the avoided CO2 emissions in the case of corn ethanol and 1.0-1.7 times the cooling effect of the avoided CO2 emissions in the case of bio-diesel made from rapeseed.”

And this isn’t even a lifecycle analysis. It simply looks at the N20 emissions. If other elements were factored in, the effect on “global warming” would be even more profound.

The second study looked at the clearing and burning of of peatlands to make room for palm plantations to meet Europe’s biofuel directive. According to the report:

“In 2006, Wetlands International and the Dutch consulting firm Delft Hydraulics reported that almost 12 million hectares of Indonesian peatland have been drained, cleared, and often burned–much of it to make room for oil palms. In the process, approximately 2000 million metric tons of CO2 are released annually, making peatlands destruction a leading source of global warming emissions.”

Nothing screams “green” like clearing natural wetlands so you can produce “green” fuels in the name of environmentalism.

The third report found that if we forested areas instead of clearing them for biofuel use, we would actually pull more carbon from the air than the use of biofuels would offset. The report looks at biofuel vs. preserving forests or reforesting areas and concludes:

“A 10% substitution of petrol and diesel fuel is estimated to require 43% and 38% of current cropland area in the United States and Europe, respectively. As even this low substitution level cannot be met from existing arable land, forests and grasslands would need to be cleared to enable production of the energy crops. Clearance results in the rapid oxidation of carbon stores in the vegetation and soil, creating a large up-front emissions cost that would, in all cases examined here, outweigh the avoided emissions.”

Interesting. So the biofuel mandates are actually contributing to the very “climate crisis” that they are claiming to be combating?

So I guess the goal of big green is not to stop global warming or climate change.

So just what is the goal of big green? It would seem that the overall general population has no idea that the presumed goals of big green are not correct, because if they were aware of this there would [hopefully] be more questions being asked instead of blind following… But before you can go pointing the finger, you need to know what the actual goals are; what it is that big green is actually working for or towards – otherwise you end up looking like some sort of conspiracy kook.

But how do you go about finding out what big green is up to? I mean, I have my theories – money, power, control, popularity – but in the end, how do we know? All we can do is prove that what ordinarily would be the goals given the nature of big green (i.e. environmentalism) are actually false. Is big green really nothing more than a scam? It’s starting to look like that. If global warming is a scam, what’s to say that big green hasn’t just hitched on to the bandwagon and ridden it into scam infamy? Is it so hard to believe that the motivations of power and money are driving this?

It’s something to think about. But think about it quickly, because things are quickly getting out of hand.