Bummer: Marijuana Is Really Bad For “Climate Change”

Of course, pretty much everything of Mankind’s is Bad for climate change, according to Warmists. Gumball Brains emailed me a picture the other day, showing that Pirate’s Cove appears on a map in the Lego Movie. What are Lego’s made from? ABS plastic, which includes coal and petroleum hydrocarbon, so, yeah, fossil fuels, bad for climate. And your bare feet if you step on them.

Anyhow, yeah, pot is bad, per Mother Jones

24 Mind-Blowing Facts About Marijuana Production in America

You thought your pot came from environmentally conscious hippies? Think again. The way marijuana is grown in America, it turns out, is anything but sustainable and organic.

Here are a few choice graphics from the post

And water use is Bad for “climate change”, because we will all live in a drought world (except for those in a flood world), and water is non-renewable in Warmist World

Remember, fridges, especially those with ice makers, are bad, too, because of electricity usage and the coolants.

That’s a lot of energy, hence, bad for “climate change”.

Uh oh. Big “carbon footprint”. That’s the equivalent of 2.087 metric tons. The average world CF is 4 metric tons. People in third world nations average around 2mts. Tsk, tsk. Pot growing in the US is also equivalent to driving 3 million cars yearly.

And, of course, beer is also bad, because it contains CO2 and produces CO2 during the fermentation process. And that looks like an evil incandescent light bulb!

So, essentially, states that allow marijuana use are Bad for “climate change”, especially Colorado, and, according to Warmist doctrine, everyone should be arrested and thrown in jail.

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

6 Responses to “Bummer: Marijuana Is Really Bad For “Climate Change””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Pirate,

    Most activities that require external energy inputs emit significant CO2 – this includes transportation, grow-lights, spreading fertilizer, pumping water, heating, cooling, etc.

    To slow global warming we must reduce our emissions of CO2 from these residential, industrial and agricultural sources.

    This means we need to find alternative energy sources, i.e., that do not emit CO2 or that emit significantly less CO2. Examples are nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas (as a short term transition) generated electricity. Increased efficiency in the use of current energy sources can be of significant help.

    Fermentation adds little to atmospheric CO2. Nor does animal respiration.

    There is no “warmist doctrine” that would throw people in jail for CO2 emissions. Serious climate realists prefer a workable market solution to reducing CO2 emissions, such as a carbon cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax.

    Why is it your goal to spew disinformation and actually reduce the intelligence of your audience?

  2. “Serious climate realists prefer a workable market solution to reducing CO2 emissions, such as a carbon cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax.”

    First, it’s cute how you’re trying to abrogate the phrase “climate realists”, which has already been taken by us “skeptics”.

    Second, it’s interesting that your want Everyone Else to be forced to do something for your beliefs, yet you refuse to change your own behavior. Why is that?

    And, really, if you take umbrage with the article, take it up with Mother Jones, not me.

  3. Blick says:

    That is a fairly heavy energy foot print for Pot growing in the USA. And that does not consider the smoke and CO2 pollution from the use of Pot a lot of which is a foreign import. I hope the taxes on Pot in WA and CO are at least equal to the tobacco taxes. (disclaimer: I don’t smoke) Did those two states add a “carbon tax” to those recreational /luxury products?

    Jeffery; I understand that the carbon tax and cap and trade market is to either change carbon use behavior or offset carbon use behavior. Serious question: I see proposals for the taxes, but I hardly ever see what uses all those taxes will be used for. I don’t hear proposals from the politicians that those taxes will be dedicated to efficiency, generation, CO2 sequestration, etc. Taxes for the sake of taxes or for behavior modification is a non starter for me.

    If behavior modification is the goal, where are all the behavior specialists — psychologists, sociologists, economists, etc. — proposals to get people to willingly change and accept a different life style? All the proposals I hear are the use of force and govt. pressure. Both of those breed resistance and black markets like Prohibition and drug war. Subsidies can help but they have to be crafted very carefully or they are taken advantage of and behavior does not change. Leadership is the best model for behavior change. The parable of the lightbulb: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the bulb must want to change.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Teach,

    “First, it’s cute how you’re trying to abrogate the phrase “climate realists”, which has already been taken by us “skeptics”.”

    The so-called ‘skeptics’ are not skeptics but deniers. Scientists are skeptical by nature. The so-called skeptics are not. The reality is that the Earth is warming – hence, the actual climate realists – and you deny the truth because of ideology. Haha… you’ve already ‘taken’ climate realists. That’s funny.

    “Second, it’s interesting that your want Everyone Else to be forced to do something for your beliefs, yet you refuse to change your own behavior. Why is that?”

    You have 2 lies in one sentence. I do not want to force Everyone Else to be forced to do anything. You have no idea what my behavior is, do you? Why you fantasize about my behaviors I’ll never know.

    The Mother Jones article was factual. Why would I take umbrage with them?

  5. gitarcarver says:

    The so-called ‘skeptics’ are not skeptics but deniers. Scientists are skeptical by nature.

    So people who worship at the alter of AGW and never question anything are the “skeptics” while those who are skeptical about the cause of the earth’s warming are “science deniers.”

    Ya gotta love that lack of logic and thinking.

    I do not want to force Everyone Else to be forced to do anything.

    So you wanting to implement a “carbon cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax” is not wanting people to be “forced to do anything?”

    Tell us all Jeffery, do you think that “carbon cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax” would be voluntary? If so, why aren’t you implementing a carbon tax within your company and your own life?

    You have no idea what my behavior is, do you?

    We keep coming back to the fact that you have written in the past how wonderful your life is and how you use fossil fuels. Now I realize that you have a problem remembering what you have written and said in the past, but there are those of us who do.

    Oh, and by the way Jeffery, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

    Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.

  6. I do not want to force Everyone Else to be forced to do anything

    Really? Isn’t that what cap and trade, carbon permitting, and all the other rules and regulations about?

    Consider the incandescent lightbulb “ban”: it forces everyone to comply because a bunch of people were concerned (yes, this includes some idiot Republicans), and damaged an industry. Cost jobs.

    Scientists are skeptical by nature

    Not climatologist ones. But, then, they aren’t really scientists, more like high priests.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7403 access attempts in the last 7 days.