The Hypocrisy of the Forced Green Movement

The problem with the green movement is it is not naturally evolving but instead; it is being forced on the public by absent minded liberals. This means that American citizens have very little choice in the matter are therefore, paying a high price for energy products which may also be hazardous to their wellbeing. The new energy efficient light bulbs are now our only choice for lighting as incandescent light bulbs have been obsoleted. The new light bulbs not only contain heavy metals such as mercury, but they can emit toxins. Green hysteria is forcing us to use products that are not only a health hazard for humans, but for our environment. Electric car batteries can weigh up to 500 pounds, cost about 10 thousand dollars to replace, and have a life span of about 7 to 10 years. If they are disposed of improperly after they expire, it could undo years of carbonless driving. In fact, emergency services such as the police and fire department consider all electric batteries toxic and have a procedure to deal with auto accidents – once again putting people in danger. Although electric batteries may be considered less toxic than carbon emitting car batteries made from lead, electric car batteries are literally a massive issue because of their size. The Department of Energy is pouring billions of taxpayer money into companies such as Toxco to expand capabilities to recycle these types of batteries. This recycling method is costly both in dollars and energy usage. One approach to extend the life of electric car batteries a few extra years is for utility companies to use them. Utility companies can store energy produced by renewable energy sources during off peak hours in old electric car batteries that no longer work in cars. Remember, when a car battery dies, it still retains about 75% of its usefulness. But still, the green hysteria movement is far too impatient to wait for safer, smaller, more efficient, and cost effective batteries to be invented and / or developed. What is even more troubling is that we can spend taxpayer money to fund the recycling of batteries, but we refuse to spend the money to build new nuclear power plants where spent fuel is recycled similarly to those power plants used in the United Kingdom and France. While environmentalists argue the Fukusima plant accident, in Japan, is reason to end nuclear power, but instead, it should be a reminder that we need to update and or build modern nuclear plants. Most nuclear power plants in the U.S. are approaching 50 years of age and they are obviously outdated and should be updated with the latest safety features including the recycling of spent fuel. One aspect of coal energy that environmentalists despise, other than its carbon emitting dirty label, is the fact the environment is harmed through the mining of this resource. But electric car batteries are made from nickel, lithium, cobalt, and manganese, which also must be mined from our planet. And let’s not forget that one car battery can use several hundred pounds of these metals. Why is acceptable to destroy the earth to mine lithium, but not coal? Why is it acceptable to fund and develop ways to recycle electric car batteries, but not nuclear fuel (even though the technology exists)? Why is it acceptable to obsolete products that are safe and replace them with hazardous products just because they are arguably more energy efficient? Why is it acceptable for the public to pay more for energy usage by forcing them to use expensive renewables when less expensive energy sources exist? These are the hypocritical actions of the progressives to force the green energy movement onto the masses. The bottom line is that conservatives are correct since they are open-minded to the use and development of all energy sources. My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)