An alarming environmentalist concept may actually impact the speed of global warming—luring the average American male into the web of green conspiracy. That concept is the encouragement of beer drinkers to switch from canned and bottled beer to kegs of draft beer at home. While the thought of reducing the cost of a twelve ounce beer to as little as fifty cents, may be part of the appeal, the superior taste associated with draft beer could seal the deal for the environmentalists. Roaches are all for the masculine pursuits of human males when it comes to car races or chugging a few cans during the three hours of a one hour football game. But, we feel the need to discourage the idea of beer drinking without our due benefit of conventional waste from the bottles and cans that are so important to building landfills. Do you really want the last rituals and rights of manhood disappearing because of a green alternative with “up front” benefits? We, certainly don’t!

Admittedly, saving twenty-five cents a beer would add up to $200-500 a year in savings for a lot of guys who regularly enjoy the taste of carbonated barley products. For some of the larger-bellied, the savings could be enormous. But what about the more petite consumer? Will he be able to finish the 165 glasses of beer loaded inside a full keg—before it begins to lose some of its flavor after four months? That would mean drinking about nine 12-ounce beers a week —or 7 pints! Oh sure, they sell smaller kegs that would only require drinking 2 to 4 glasses of beer a week but how many men can consistently drink that much beer—week after week?

Keg beer does not offer the convenience or pleasures of bottled and canned beer: You need either a glass to pour into or a long hose attachment to sip directly from the beer tap. The ability for some to impress friends would be lost, because crushing a keg on your forehead would just hurt. Try to open a keg with your teeth and you will find that you will never be able to eat a chicken wing again. For the anti-social among you, only a serious cache of weapons and the testicles to use them, could ever hope protect you from the onslaught of friends dropping by to watch the game on your TV and have a few brews from your keg.

Forget the fact that you could have a beer tap in your home for about $75, if you have an old refrigerator to convert, or $350 if you want refrigerator, taps and all as one package. (We think you’d be hard pressed to find a used home unit for sale unless you regularly scan the obituaries.) Forget the pleasures of 50 cent beer and reduced halftime runs to the store. Forget that your wife can’t keep count on what you drink because there are no empties and the remaining beer is hidden inside a keg. Forget everything good you’ve heard about having draft beer served cold from a keg in your home. It’s far too late for you to start thinking about the environment now. Plus it’s downright selfish to begin to do so just for your own personal pleasure.

According to an article on the enemy site GreenUpgrader, a public bike rental system is now in use, just to the north of real America (the one with a President). Apparently in Canada it’s as simple as: grab a bike, ride it where you want and leave it where you are—without maintenance worries, bike theft or pulley-suspension systems to hang a bike in your living room. It all sounds grand for a nation of people raised on free heart surgery, a stable economy and moose hunting. But, what about the country that sits below, the one that works for a living?

These bikes carry only one person at a time; a modern SUV can hold six to eight extra-wide people. Although one seldom actually sees more than one or maybe two people in a traveling SUV, the vehicles are more practical should a driver ever come upon a group of humans needing rapid evacuation from a burning shopping mall. With a bicycle, it’s every man, woman or child for themselves.

When not in use, these shared bikes are stored in racks occupying sidewalks. Where does that leave people who need to walk from their car to their destination? In contrast, parking cars in an orderly fashion, at the otherwise unusable curbs on the edges of the street, keeps the sidewalks clear—not blocking the free and open spaces that belong to the public.

According to the article at GreenUpgrader.com, the electronics used to handle billing and other wireless communications are solar-powered. But, your own human scientists have predicted that the sun has a limited lifespan and will last not much longer than Earth’s fossil fuels (relative to the lifespan of the universe). If you know it’s going to run out, why even start using it?

This deeply concerning concept of a shared transit resource is nothing less than another form of Canadian ecommunism. Big cities in real America dare not allow this idea to spread onto their own streets. Keep in mind that this is a social concept born of French-speaking people. People who have already overtaken the only livable section in the otherwise English-speaking nation of Canada—n’est-ce pas?

Pepsi and “Guardian Angel” POM
take over the bike lane on Arguello Blvd.

Hope may be at hand for reducing pollution caused by the bicycling habit, starting, in of all unlikely places, the liberal bastion of cities, San Francisco. The city and county of San Francisco is currently in the second year of a ban that halts the creation of new bicycle lanes, bicycle racks and other items catering to this demanding minority.

Although it hasn’t stopped the boldest of the pedal-pushing group from continuing their ways, the two-year old ban on bike lanes has helped curb the desire for the more timid members of society from trying to take up the sinister activity. Certainly, it is keeping children off the streets and in their homes where they can avoid the higher demand for oxygen from this muscle-building activity.

The reason for the court-ordered injunction, putting a halt to further bicycling growth in San Francisco, is to require that exhausting studies be performed to determine the exact environmental impact of painting separate lanes on existing roads. There could be no better illustration of our own suspected hidden dangers of bicycling than this environmental injunction and the fact that the city’s own attorney could find no legal means to challenge it.

Perhaps this will put an end to the idea that San Francisco is a city with crazy ideas.

Most people don’t think much about the pollution caused by bicycles, in fact they often think of bike riding as a “green” activity.

Consider for a moment that regular exercise can cause the human body to expel many toxins. What happens to these toxins when they are released? One might suspect that unloading human toxins into the environment could someday have a devastating impact of its own.

(more…)

An anti-car cyclist who writes nasty letters to oil companies and a vegan who sends scathing letters to meat packers are both annoying to business and wasting their own time. Companies who’s business is not with you are not going to care what you say about their business. Clearly, a gadget freak, even one who pays little attention to recycling or resource and materials waste, is going to have ten to fifty times the environmental impact on business that a whining little email writer will.

For every sincere and positive letter from a customer that suggests a way to cut down on waste, companies get thousands of nasty letters from people who don’t use their product and never intend to (they say it in their message). So, the next time you think about sending off one of those mass mailings to some poor sod in a corporate customer service cubicle who has to read it for minimum wage, try to consider the actual zero impact of your email and give it a rest.

If you are a customer of the company, just continue to do nothing to praise or improve the company’s environmental intentions or efforts. It’s you that these companies actually do want to hear from. To the roach point of view, you’re the dangerous one. You’re the one who needs to keep quiet if the planet’s to stay on track for its pending heat wave.

A surprising report in The New York Times reveals how oil companies have stealthily become new leaders in the environmental movement. They (oil companies) have adapted a progressively liberal policy of increasing fuel costs at an alarmingly steady rate, with the probable goal being to curb fuel consumption across North America. According to the Times report, their efforts are working.

The oil companies are charging a lot of money for gas so that Americans will reduce their gas usage. (Note: This will not adversely impact final dollars spent on gas at the pumps, only the amount of gas that the money will purchase.)

(more…)