Another story from The X-tremely Stupid Files

Say what?! NYT features Warmist: ‘How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming’ – ‘Fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption’

www.climatedepot.com... -higher-overall-energy-consumption/

www.nytimes.com...

…inmates generally consume less than an average citizen in the country, so fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption.

Additionally, the money saved from reducing crime would go into the government’s budget and people’s pockets. All that money could be spent in other ways — infrastructure, buildings or goods — that may require more energy to produce or operate, possibly adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

So a basic recap, if we put more people in prison, it'll be better for the planet.


My opinion is obvious.

But is this the next step in the Church of Climatology?

With the decriminalization of marijuana heading our way, it's just a matter of time before someone starts asking about releasing the (insert ridiculous number here) prisoners currently locked away for nothing more than having/growing/consuming a natural plant.

Still though- that's grasping at straws.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Stupid is right. However, this kind of exaggeration is common to many of us. Taking our thoughts and extrapolating them into profound insights. That fact that this dubious thinking made it all the way through the NYT is a sad sad thing.

Hmmm...MORE Big House ass = LESS Green House gas. Brilliant, sez I.

a reply to: DBCowboy
Strange no one seems to consider HAARP as the culprit behind global warming. It must be all the subliminal mind control that they use to throw people off their scent.

a reply to: DaphneSam

If HAARP could control the climate, then we wouldn't need to worry and put more people in prisons, unless someone wants to put more people in prisons.

Get ready for construction bids on the brand new global-efficient FEMA camps.

And watch for Federalized police forces in the big cities.

More than made up for by all the hi speed chases to catch the criminals.

Wait... let me get my head around this...

So anyone who doesn't agree to reduce their 'carbon footprint' to the arbitrary levels that will be established due to the gross uncertainty of the 'science' behind Global Warming can/should be jailed as some sort of community service to offset their polluting ways?

I think my brain just exploded.

Can someone please stop the planet? I think I'd like to get off now.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't think they want to jail just deniers.

I think they want to jail just about everyone.

Depopulation would be even more efficient.

But don't burn the bodies, that would totalize each human's carbon footprint. No, better by far to bury them; let time and pressure turn them back into petroleum over millennia. It will replace the levels of petrol the bastards wasted during their lifetimes.

The graveyards created would help by taking farmland out of production.

Soylent green is Fertilizer! people...

a reply to: TheRedneck

You even missed the best part. . .

While you get jailed for not believing in climatology or whatever, THEY drive to your hearing in a Hummer and take personal vacations on jets to private resorts because it is cleaner there.

The problem with anthropogenic climate change isn't the science. It's the idiots like this that create a hostile environment by which to discuss the issue.

You scare the hell out of people with this crap and you won't find many advocates.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This doesn't look stupid to me. While my priorities are different, I didn't see any flaws in the reasoning.

a reply to: VP740

Except for the fact that using climate change as an excuse to jail people is unethical at best.

Tyrannical really.

a reply to: VP740

You're welcome to your opinion, but my opinion tends to lean towards the idea that we have too many laws and we need to stop putting people in prison for many things.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This doesn't look stupid to me. While my priorities are different, I didn't see any flaws in the reasoning.

In case people are confused by this, I prioritize lowering crime over raising government revenue.

a reply to: VP740

It is ridiculous because the prison population is a tiny fraction of the US. Most of them are poor, and so have a fairly small carbon foodprint to begin with. They probably use as much electricity to power the security lights in the prison yards at night as would be saved by not letting the inmates have basic cable.

the paper amounts to cherrypicking and fishing for rationales.

One weedwacker puts out as much pollution as twenty cars in traffic. In the light of the other sources of pollution, what less than 1% of the population (a poverty-stricken 1%) does, is moot.

a reply to: redempsh

From the article:

“there are probably also productivity effects of reducing crime that lead to more economic growth and more welfare, which may lead to greater energy use and emissions,” Dr. Gillingham said.

Although there is a lot of uncertainty in calculating the rebound effect, the researchers tried to quantify the consequences of reducing domestic burglary by about 5 percent, and determined a rebound effect of 2 percent.

Is a 5% reduction in crime worth the risk of economic growth? Most of us would say yes, but some people have different ideas of how the future should turn out. I don't think these conclusions are founded in ignorance or stupidity, they know full well what their promoting here.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This actually reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. If you were accused of being a a witch, you could either confess and receive a merciful death or resist and be tortured to death. Most of those accused were deemed enemies of the church.

Today, you apparently also have a choice: believe as you are told, without question, without concern for your own best interests, or be jailed and forgotten for daring to not believe.

I guess maybe we've progressed a little... just not enough...

TheRedneck