A New Life For Coal Fired Plants

In a bid to avoid public outrage over skyrocketing energy prices and the inevitable brownouts resulting from the planned decommissioning of coal fired power plants across the province, one Albertan believes he has a viable way to smooth-out the transition to renewable sources of energy.


Now a post-graduate student of economics at the U of A who holds a degree in Baking Technology Management (yes you read that correctly) from London's Southbank University, Stam Tollenwonk has been keeping a close eye on the proverbial egg timer of climate change since being slapped with a crippling fine of £3,200 for not reporting an addition of a wood-fired cake oven to his overseas bakery.

"If I didn't suffer from hemophilia, I'd have slapped myself," says the bushy-eyed champion of green alternatives, "I honestly should've known better."    

His idea is to substitute fiat currency and petro dollars for coal... literally.

"Of course it sounds crazy. Burning money? But when you really stop to think about it, all that paper currency wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for fossil fuels. If our aim is really to bury once and for all our dependence on carbon intensive energy, you might just look at burning petro dollars as some kind of poetic send-off,"

Many are skeptical. John McGroovinator, a senior public relations representative for Dugdone Investments based in Lockstock Minnesota feels that the burning of paper currency isn't without its merits, but questions the long-term availability of supply.

"How much paper money is currently available," he questions, "and have they factored-in the burn-rate over carbon output of that plasticized money they use in Canada?"

Stam counters that he has considered the plastic quotient, and looks forward to burning more money if his research grant application is approved.

"In terms of carbon dioxide output, money leaves coal in the dust."  

Terrorists Euthanizing North American Dogs

Innocent Animals Face Certain Death By Wood Chipper

Online analytic efforts have confirmed that a well-known terrorist organization have been adopting a questionable number of dogs from North America.

"There was a glaring uptick in the numbers. We wanted to know what they would want with so many dogs," says Brian Flibette, a senior trends researcher with the Fideletics Marketing group.

"It's not unusual for terrorist organizations to adopt all manner of pets, and dogs are often employed for security around their training facilities, but four thousand dogs a week? And we're not talking the sorts of breeds you'd expect like German Shepherds or Pit Bulls. There's Chihuahuas, Toy Poodles, Pommeranians. Not the sorts of animals well-suited to functioning in any apparent or useful capacity within an extremist environment," he explains.

We asked Muhammed Mohammed Mahmood, a former member of a well-known terror group who now helps anti-terrorist initiatives for various governments to investigate the reasons behind the unusual development. His findings were nothing less than heart-wrenching.

"They're killing them. One by one, they're tossing them into wood chippers and possibly feeding the K-9 pulp to prisoners."

Lollipop Follow-up

Finally! My ship has come in! I was beginning to wonder how long they were going to leave me in the lurch. 

I found a Facebook page disparaging Lollipop Agency's practices, and the testimonials therein generally fit their approach with me. In all fairness, they might have just gotten-off to a rocky start and fully intend to improve their acumen. I did notice they've put some work into their website since I last checked it out a few days ago.

How Many Licks Will It Take?

Admittedly, the reference to one of my less current works - one that I'd taken offline some time ago - did indeed pique my curiosity. In spite of the glaring lack of professionalism behind the correspondence, I decided that engendering a continuance of the discussion couldn't hurt:

Four days later, Paul writes back to inform me that he and Alex need to have a bit of a think over....

...which couldn't have lasted very long because the following arrived about an hour later without any prompting on my behalf:

Not wanting to leave Lollipop in the lurch, I composed the following in response:

Are you on the edge of your seat, esteemed reader? How long before the "takes money to make money" email arrives?

See? We Told You It Would Work!

The specter of climate change hyperbole is sweeping over the prairies, and it's incumbent upon the Province of Alberta to take meliorative action by making high income people pay more for using their refrigerators and furnaces. At least that's the crux of what I've gleaned from the Climate Leadership Report to the Minister.

People of Alberta, I think it's safe to say most of us are in favour of finding innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions - after all, lowered emissions would indicate one of two things: a reduction in overall output; or an increase in efficiency - the latter being the more favourable for what should be obvious reasons.

One might liken it to hunting for food in the wild - if a hunter believes they can ONLY eat the liver and kidneys of their game, then they're going to have to kill a lot more animals to survive than someone who realizes one can also eat muscle and fat too. Likewise, if we're spewing potentially usable energy where technologies exist to harness otherwise wasteful output, then we should embrace new methods.

I don't disbelieve the planet is in the midst of a warming trend. My issue lies with the new targets that the climate gurus (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have set out to achieve: "limiting global temperature rise to 2°C Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030." Even my layman's mind can see the whole framework is disingenuous.


Why did the IPCC opt to use temperature as a goalpost? I think it's quite simply because it's easier to wiggle policy around an arbitrary measure, and the metric-tonne approach wasn't inclined to create a lose-lose situation for the end user of energy fast enough. The lords of the weather needed to instill a belief that we SHOULD be paying more, when in reality, the whole scheme was craftily concocted by globalist parasites. A scheme to make us feel as though we're being environmentally responsible and that the carbon taxes imposed are indeed justifiable.


I know horsepuck when I smell it, and I'd invite anyone to correct any misconceptions I may be under. I can wrap my head around reducing metric tonnes of methane or CO2 output, but to think that doing so will have a measurable effect on global temperature is like claiming we can move the Sun.


 Let's conveniently forget for a moment that China and Russia are outright refusing to believe that their industrial activities have a significant impact on global temperatures over time, and pretend the whole world immediately scrambles to reduce emissions to the point where IPCC recommendations aren't only met, but exceeded.


Alas, by 2030, data from weather stations around the world are STILL indicating an upward trend in global temperatures! Whatever shall we do?

 I see two choices for the big foreheads in such an instance:

1. Proclaim retroactive errors in the ways by which they've been collecting data, thus providing 'proof' that the temperature coefficient actually DID see a reduction, and our efforts weren't in vain;
2. Proclaim that their means of correlating global temperatures with industrial output are primitive by today's standards, and we need to sacrifice more of your money to save the planet.

If in this hypothetical situation of complete international compliance the global temperature data by 2030 is in fact trending downward, they can say, "See? We told you it would work!"

As I've pointed-out, I'm no expert in this field, and quite frankly, it's not a field I'm especially interested in becoming more familiar with. Plus, I'm too poor to have much of a carbon footprint, so I feel a sense of indemnification when it comes to 'doing my part' even if I don't believe it'd make a difference if I started using a diesel generator to power my life.

I do however believe it's in the best interests of both consumers and industry to take a progressive approach when considering their environmental impact from a waste-based perspective. It only makes sense. I simply don't agree with anyone who believes they can predict with any certainty what the average global temperature will be decades from now, irregardless of industrial output.


 

To Block Or Not To Block...

"Why don't you try adblock? It'll radically transform your browsing experience."

I don't doubt it, but quite frankly, I don't mind enduring a relevant ad here and there. Installing an adblocking service is just inviting more third-party vendors to track one's browsing habits.

While it's true that the vast majority of product advertising is wasted on the likes of someone like me since I so rarely buy anything, I like keeping current. I like to know what people are buying and selling, and I appreciate seeing good production techniques or interesting approaches to marketing.

If, however, a website's content seems like more of an afterthought, and the emphasis is primarily on the ads, chances are I'll close the tab shut before the shitstream even finishes loading.