AGW Today: Bottled Water Is Global Warming Terrorism

Gotta love this. Daily Tech

A year ago, I wrote a columndecrying the ruinous effects environmental legislation was having on large civic engineering projects in the U.S.  In past decades, environmental activism has blocked countless dams, bridges, and factories, but today, a new milestone was reached. Citing global warming concerns, the California Attorney General’s Office today announced a plan to protect citizens by blocking construction of a major new industrial facility.

What is this new terror of pollution the state of California considers too deadly to build? A massive oil refinery? A vast strip mine? A toxic waste dump perhaps?

None of the above. It’s a bottling plant . . . and it’s bottling water.

The plant is sponsored by Nestle Waters North America, which has been trying for several years to get the project approved. Their original plan was to bottle a million gallons a day, but opposition from the Sierra Club forced the design to be scaled back to half that.  Now the State Attorney General, Jerry Brown, says the plant may have serious effects on global warming, and he will sue to prevent construction from proceeding until those effects are fully evaluated. 

I’ve mentioned the extreme danger of bottled water, how it is going to kill us all, because Mankind is just so damned evil, a few times. It is just so damned evil that government has to kill jobs. All in the name of Saving The Planet from anthropogenic global warming, which is, of course, mostly a pantload based on consensus, rather then science.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “AGW Today: Bottled Water Is Global Warming Terrorism”

  1. Duncan says:

    GLOBAL WARMING DENIER! SAVE MOTHER GAIA FROM THE VIRUS-LIKE MANKIND !!1!1!!!1!

  2. Silke says:

    Teach said: All in the name of Saving The Planet from anthropogenic global warming, which is, of course, mostly a pantload based on consensus, rather then science.

    Teach, why do you accept the findings of the Food and Agriculture Organization in Livestock’s Long Shadow (from 2007) but you do not accept the more recent findings of the IPCC (from 2008)?

  3. LOL, Duncan. 🙂

    Silke, I have never said Mankind had no part, and have even mentioned multiple times that Man’s small piece is from methane, which comes primarily from two source (at least where Man is concerned): agriculture and garbage dumps. It was one part I did certainly agree with the IPCC about. What would you have us do, decrease our food raising?

  4. Honestly, how can you post such crap? Nestle was forced to scale back its plant not by the Sierra Club (who has no significant involvement in this fight), but by a dedicated group of locals who didn’t want 600 truck trips per day (that’s 24 hours per day) rolling through their tiny town.

    Nor did they want to sell water to Nestle for .0026 gallon when that’s about 1/1000 the going rate – and do so in return for a handful of sub-living wage jobs.

    Not to mention the fact that the contract was negotiated by the town’s resource district in secret, with no public input save at the meeting where the district signed the contract.

    I realize how tempting it must be for you to try and bend every fact to meet a fairly distorted world view, but recognize that every once in a while, somebody’s going to call you on it.

  5. Silke says:

    But that doesn’t answer the question, Teach. Why do you accept the evidence in the FAO’s report but not the evidence in the IPCC’s report?

    Teach said: What would you have us do, decrease our food raising?

    Livestock’s Long Shadow had some reasonable recommendations for mitigating the effects of methane from human activities. I would start there.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11256 access attempts in the last 7 days.