With climate change becoming more of a hot topic, people are seeking out different ways to limit their negative impact on the environment. From people taking their electronics to proper receptacles to creative DIYers turning spent lightbulbs into candles, the general population is looking for new ways to help the world around them. All of that is fine for recycling small items, but what about the larger items that people get rid of on a daily basis? For example, if you’ve ever junked a car, you might be left wondering what happens to it and if there was a better way to dispose of it that creates less waste.

In some cases, disposed vehicles are left sitting in landfills where they decay and negatively impact the surrounding environment. This is the case in Bermuda. Cars are lined up in a landfill where they decompose in the elements and pollute the ocean around it.

“This is an appalling situation and it is setting a terrible image,” Greg Wilcox, president of Kansas City, Missouri’s Midway Auto Parts, said. “We need to recognize that we have to start doing something now that will be sustainable for the future.”

Luckily for Bermuda and the world at large, there is a way to dispose of an old vehicle while still helping the environment; recycle the car.

While the concept has been around for a while, there still seems to be a large number of the population who don’t know that they can recycle their vehicle. The advantages of doing so also remain unknown.

There are immediate benefits from recycling cars including:

• the reuse of steel from vehicle frames
• the proper disposal of fluids like oil and gasoline
• the reduction in greenhouse gases produced from manufacturing steel

By reusing the large amounts of steel from a car, manufacturers don’t have to go through the harmful process of refining iron ore using coal to create steel. This reduces the greenhouse gases created during the process. This also helps save limestone since the mineral needs to be destroyed when mining for coal. With the coal being unnecessary here, the limestone doesn’t have to be disturbed. In general, recycling steel uses less energy (about 74%) than the energy it takes to produce steel from scratch.

All of the fluids from the junked vehicles will be properly disposed of instead of seeping into the ground and ultimately affecting groundwater and the surrounding population. These fluids include oil, gasolines, anti-freeze, and even mercury. These fluids have to be properly discarded in order to eliminate the chance of environmental contamination.

When recycling a vehicle, people are surprised with how much of the car can be repurposed as they stand. Salvage yards will sift through left over parts in order to fix them up and resell them at discounted prices. This is possible because the majority of accidents that render a vehicle useless don’t destroy other parts of the car. Since the salvage yards will ultimately be making money by repurposing the harvested parts, they’re willing to pay people for their vehicles. This in turn benefits you, the owner, while keeping harmful materials out of landfills.

There are other ways that can benefit you and environment at the same time. There are manufacturer buyback programs. Most vehicle manufacturing companies will offer to buy back your old vehicle when it gets close to its end. They may offer you money for the car or, if it is in bad shape, they will offer to tow it, dismantle it, and recycle it for free. If your manufacturer doesn’t offer this, there are independent companies that will buy your old car for cash. These businesses are becoming so popular that quick internet search will help you find one.

There are also charities available where they’ll help you recycle your vehicle. In these instances, the money you’d get from a buyback program would go to a designated charity and the vehicle will be completely repurposed. Here, you’ll usually have an opportunity to get a tax break by making a charitable donation, too.

For those who are interested in helping out their local community while still helping the environment, there are city organizations that allow you to recycle your vehicle in a way that will keep the reusable resources within your community. They will usually pay you for your vehicle or will allow you to write it off on your taxes. Similarly, you can research local scrap companies that can help you repurpose your vehicle in a way that benefits your surrounding area. Doing this will also allow you to support a local business.

So, how can you recycle your car? You’ll want to start by researching cash for cars companies in your area. Once you get in contact with a preferred company you can reach out to them usually by phone or email. Most companies will give you a free, no obligation quote for your car. You’ll most likely need to provide them with the make, model, and year of your vehicle as well as the mileage. If you think that the quote is fair, you can then bring your car in if the cash for cars company doesn’t offer a pick-up service.

These are only a handful of reasons why choosing to recycle your vehicle is better than simply junking it in the old fashioned way. You’ll be doing your part to better the environment while potentially putting cash back into your pocket. If you’re considering recycling your car in the near future, be sure to research your local companies and your local environmental laws in order to do it the right way.

In a recent statement, Chris Huhne, an active voice for climate change, has likened the cause to fighting Adolf Hitler. It’s clear that this comparison is just another way to scare the masses into believing the climate change theory that Huhne and his cohorts are spreading.

In addition to this comparison to Hitler, Huhne has also stated that climate change will make the likelihood of wars and civil unrest increase. Couple these statements with other ones made by Greenpeace regarding the state of the oceans and the United Nations trying to create a worldwide government through their Peacekeeping efforts in order to handle the unrest that climate change will supposedly bring about, and you get a fear-based society that will believe what they’re told out of panic. This is one of the most important tools that climate change activists are using to gain and maintain control. This was made clear during the Copenhagen COP15 where the opening video was a blatant fear mongering message that was meant to create terror instead of to inform people.

In order to keep people on their side and to continue to maintain control of the conversation, these activists are pushing the fear element further and labelling their adversaries “deniers” as a way to demonize them further in the eyes of the people. This label is an obvious link to the terms used for people who deny the Holocaust which makes the jump to comparing the fight for climate change to fighting Hitler reasonable in their minds. One would think that this leap in logic would seem to undermine their scientific arguments, but clearly they think differently.

World leaders who oppose a global agreement to tackle climate change are making a similar mistake to the one made by politicians who tried to appease Adolf Hitler before World War Two, a British government minister said on Thursday.

Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Huhne said governments must redouble efforts to find a successor to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol on emissions, although it was unlikely that a breakthrough would be made at a conference later this year in Durban in South Africa.

The global economic crisis has pushed the search for a legally binding treaty to limit planet-warming emissions down the political agenda and countries do not want to lose their competitive edge by going it alone on strict climate targets, he said.

In a speech urging countries to keep pressing for a climate deal, Huhne evoked the memory of British wartime leader Winston Churchill and the fight against Nazi Germany led by Hitler.

“Climate change is getting less political attention now than it did two years ago. There is a vacuum, and the forces of low ambition are looking to fill it,” he said. “Giving in to the forces of low ambition would be an act of climate appeasement.”

“This is our Munich moment,”

“Climate Appeasement.” Someone threw away quite a bit of money to come up with this gem.

If you put Huhne’s statement about Climate Appeasement in perspective with Britain’s recorded CO2 output (2% of the actual worldwide aggregate) it is quite outlandish, which fits Chris Huhne well.

Wind power, the renewable energy that will save the world from global warming, is actually an environmental disaster that is directly affecting the bird population in certain places and causing a nuisance to the people who live close to these monsters. They’re also causing environmental problems for countries like China who are manufacturing the turbines and are actually failing at producing reliable energy.

In a previous post regarding the disrespectful placement of wind turbines on the D Day beaches of Normandy it was concluded that leftist propagandists would be up in arms if this are were home to a threatened species of bat: “Now if the area around the Normandy beaches were home to a threatened species of aquatic fruit bat then every NGO from Greenpeace to the WWF would be up in arms.” It’s now apparent that this assumption is wrong and that the wind turbine comes second to none for climate change activists. This is seen through their quiet attitudes regarding the slaughtering of bird species caused by the wind turbines.

As California attempts to divorce itself from fossil-fueled electricity, it may be trading one environmental sin for another — although you don’t hear state officials admitting it.

California’s green energy is growing quickly with wind turbine growing the fastest. As this happens, wildlife experts are warning that this renewable energy source will have a negative impact on the bird species in the area including the numerous protected eagles, owls, and hawks.

“The cumulative impacts are huge,” said Shawn Smallwood, an expert studying the effects of wind farms on local bird populations. “It is not inconceivable to me that we could reduce golden eagle populations by a great deal, if not wipe them out.”

There are about 2,500 of these golden eagles in California and the biggest wind turbine farm is said to kill about 80 of these eagles each year, on average. Instead of being concerned about this number, the state is looking to triple their wind turbine capacity in order to generate 33% of its electricity from green energy by 2020.

“We would like to have no bird deaths and no bird injuries. But, once again, we have to balance all the needs of society. All the people who want to flip their switch and have electricity in their homes,” said Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County planning commissioner.

In this push for more wind turbine farms, Kern County picked out an area of 225,000 acres slightly north of Los Angeles due to its wind resources. Sadly, this same area is a hunting ground for birds of prey as well as a migratory path for birds that travel from Canada to Mexico with the change of seasons. The correlation between hunting grounds and wind farms seems to be the updrafts that are produced in the areas. This means that birds of prey will most likely be put to the side in favor of wind farms.

Apparently, the left only cares about the needs of society over the environment when it comes to climate change. One can be sure that if the societal needs had to do with oil rigs, the same people remaining silent on the death of birds would be up in arms against the oil companies.

“Politics plays a huge role here,” Smallwood said. “Our leaders want this power source so they’re giving, for a time being, a pass to the wind industry. If you or I killed an eagle, we’re looking at major consequences.”

Smallwood and cohorts are quite shocked that the US Fish and Wildlife Service haven’t taken action against the wind turbines in order to enforce the US Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

“There’s a big, big hypocrisy here,” Sue Hammer of Tehachapi Wildlife Rehab in Kern County said. “If I shoot an eagle, it’s a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice.”

When similar environmental tragedies happened, like the 2009 Exxon oil spill that killed around 85 birds across five states, they were fined $600,000. Similarly, an Oregon utility company, PacifiCorp, had to pay up $10.5 million when 232 eagles died after power lines were placed in Wyoming. One more instance of companies paying up for harming protected species was in 2005 when a fish hatchery owner had to pay $65,000 and spend six months in a federally-run halfway house after shooting an eagle for feeding out of his business’s hatchery.

Despite these cases of companies and individuals being held responsible for harming wildlife, the USFWS has yet to punish any wind turbine company for their role in the deaths of protected bird species.

This is obvious hypocrisy and shows everyone that wind farms are above the law and that anything that shows them in a negative light should be downplayed or simply ignored. This hypocrisy has always been a cornerstone of Al Gore’s climate change rhetoric. Simply put, “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.”

The wind turbine symbol of all that is good, renewable, green and politically correct is in reality an environmental holocaust for countries, such as China, that manufacture wind turbine parts, a subsidised failure at reliable electricity generation globally, they blight the lives of people forced to live within their shadow and they kill birds in huge numbers.

The wind turbine symbol of all that is good, renewable, green and politically correct is in reality an environmental holocaust for countries, such as China, that manufacture wind turbine parts, a subsidised failure at reliable electricity generation globally, they blight the lives of people forced to live within their shadow and they kill birds in huge numbers.

Yesterday Aardvark blogged about the desecration of the D Day beaches by bird choppers and finished the post with, “Now if the area around the Normandy beaches were home to a threatened species of aquatic fruit bat then every NGO from Greenpeace to the WWF would be up in arms.” Unfortunately, it seems that Aardvark was wrong because wind turbines are, in fact, one of the most sacred icons in the political church of climatology: “As California attempts to divorce itself from fossil-fueled electricity, it may be trading one environmental sin for another — although you don’t hear state officials admitting it.”

Wind power is the fastest growing component in the United States’ green energy portfolio, but wildlife advocates say that many proponents for the wind turbines are overlooking a detrimental consequence–dead birds, including many protected species of eagles, hawks and owls.

“The cumulative impacts are huge,” said Shawn Smallwood, one of only a handful of recognized experts who study the impact wind farms have on migratory birds. “It is not inconceivable to me that we could reduce golden eagle populations by a great deal, if not wipe them out.”

California is home to roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state’s largest wind farms kill, on average, more than 80 eagles each year. California is set to triple the number of wind farms in the coming years as it continues in its attempt to become the first state in the nation to generate one-third of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2020.

“We would like to have no bird deaths and no bird injuries. But, once again, we have to balance all the needs of society,” said Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County planning commissioner. “All the people who want to flip their switch and have electricity in their homes.”

Kern County officials have identified nearly 225,000 acres north of Los Angeles as a prime wind resource area. Unfortunately, the area’s rolling hills and mountains are also prime hunting grounds for raptors and also a common pit stop for migratory birds traveling between Canada and Mexico. The updrafts enjoyed by birds of prey are ideal for generating wind power.

Balancing the needs of society against something eco, green and fluffy, but only when Climate Religion is being blindly followed. Imagine the uproar and fuss environmentalists would make if it were “Big Oil” or fracking responsible for changes to that much landscape.

“Politics plays a huge role here,” Smallwood said. “Our leaders want this power source so they’re giving, for the time being, a pass to the wind industry. If you or I killed an eagle, we’re looking at major consequences.”

Smallwood and other experts say it is almost inconceivable the United States Fish and Wildlife Service hasn’t stepped in, since it is the entity that enforces the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

“There’s a big, big hypocrisy here,” Sue Hammer of Tehachapi Wildlife Rehab in Kern County said. “If I shoot an eagle, it’s a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice.”

Her point is not far off from the truth.

In 2009, Exxon pleaded guilty to causing the deaths of about 85 migratory birds in five states that came into contact with uncovered waste tanks filled with crude oil. Exxon was penalized with a fine for $600,000.

Similarly, PacifiCorp, an Oregon utility, was ordered to pay $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by colliding with power lines in Wyoming.

In 2005, the owner of a fish hatchery was ordered to serve six months in a federal halfway house and to pay a $65,000 fine for shooting an eagle that was feeding at his uncovered fish hatchery.

Wind power in the United States generates 41,400 megawatts of electricity. California represents just a fraction of that total, which suggests that the number of raptor kills is considerably higher nationwide. Shockingly, according to records, USFWS has not prosecuted a single company for violating one of the many statutes protecting threatened and endangered birds.

As a prophet for the church of climatology, Al Gore forbid that there should ever be anything negative published about the planet-saving bird chopper. Prosecuting a company that distributes electricity and has birds fly in to its power lines is certainly frowned upon, and instead should be swept under the rug to avoid the acknowledgment of any violations made by a church of climatology-approved energy generation facility. Hypocrisy has always been the cornerstone of Al Gore’s religion where the rest of us lesser-beings are told how to live our lives by the self-appointed guardians of the planet. The mantra we are supposed to follow is “Do as I say, not as I do.”

The Number Game Behind the Alleged Consensus

A poll was conducted amongst environmental scientists where they were asked whether or not they believed that global warming is due to human activity. According to the results of that poll, 97 percent agreed that it was caused by human activity. While this seems like a significant amount, the numbers are skewed. There were 10,257 scientists that were polled but only 77 of those actually replied to the poll. So, in actuality only 97 percent of those 77 respondents concluded that global warming was due to human activity, not 97 percent of the entire 10,000+ panel.

This poll was conducted prior to the COP17 in Durban. So, of course, this inflated poll was used to further push the agenda of climate activists who are scaring everyone into believing that the end is near even though there was been a decline in that belief. This happened even though there was a majority of people who believed that climate change talks would soon die out. Pushing this issue were the supposed journalists at the Guardian who believe that all climate deniers are irrational.

The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW “predictions” has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can’t stand up to any form of scrutiny.

This isn’t the first time that numbers were played with in a way to further the leftist climate change agenda. There was a previous claim that 2,500 IPCC scientists supported the IPCC report that was originally released in 2007. It was later found out that only 25 scientists actually supported the claims made in the 2007 report.

In response to this number game, researchers from the University of Illinois created a short online survey in an attempt to draw up more numbers in support of the report. This is the survey that is first mentioned in this article. They sent the survey to 10,257 scientists and received 77 responses. The survey consisted of two questions, one of which was the dead horse issue of whether or not global warming was directly linked to human activity. Seventy-five of the 77 responses agreed with that notion.

There you have it! The highly touted 97%! It’s nothing more than a farce.

In addition to the flubbed numbers, the researchers only asked specific scientists to participate in the survey. The specifically stayed away from the branches of science that have been vocally critical of the AGW theory. This includes solar scientists, astronomers, meteorologists, space scientists, physicists, and cosmologists.

During this same time period, there were also a number of warming alarmists complaining about CO2 emissions in London. At that time the Climate Reality website stated:

London has been called “the world in one city,” and with the summer 2012 Olympic Games, that has never been truer.

In this case Climate Reality was pretty spot on; the London Olympics stopped worrying about their carbon footprint pretty quickly.

During this period there was also an article in the Guardian regarding hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. This, of course, linked all of these disasters to man-made climate change with the inflated 97% figure used to really drive the point home.

If one were to really do the math, 75 scientists who agreed with the poll divided by the full panel of 10,257, the real consensus dwindles down to a lackluster 0.73%. This makes one wonder, if Anthropogenic Global Warming was really a concern then why does such a steep majority of scientists disagree with the notion?