The Reality Circle

5.1 The Green Illusion

This is where different product manufacturers profess to offer green products, to appease green political-activists, but in reality this is not the case.

5.1.1 Appliances

Appliances are now often manufactured in a green-illusion way that requires them to operate for longer to perform the same task; they are then sold for the same price under the pretence that the purchase will be saving the environment. However, the results never quite add up. For example, washing machines now have energy ratings on them that purportedly save water or electricity, but the science is quite different. The washing machine might cost less per hour, yet it equally takes longer now to produce clean clothes, or the headline "energy saving" figure might only be achievable if there is a half-load of washing in the machine. The result being that there is a need to wait around to administer a second load or to run two appliances simultaneously. Either way, the electricity and water consumption is likely more than reverting back to an old top-loader! A whole website could easily be dedicated with similar examples of this ideology (commonly known as "Greenwashing") where companies capitalise on fabricated environmental claims.

5.1.2 Containers

Another example is fresh food items that are increasingly being sold without plastic lids, e.g. yoghurt, so the consumer is now far more likely to spill the contents because the provided paper lid is not as durable; this results in the necessity to buy more, and that often requires driving to the store, thus allegedly destroying the environment in the process! The minds of the environmentally-mindless (who invent these changes for distorted statistical purposes) demonstrates that those who construct environmental-thinking are motivated by something other than the environment; this is often about appeasing a few environmental protestors that might otherwise disrupt company operations. Companies that do engage in environmental product downsizing do benefit from falling production costs. Will the end of year bonus be used environmentally though? If not, then the environmental savings have just been eroded!

5.1.3 Automobiles

The idea of "going green" has also influenced cars. This would be acceptable if they were actually "greener", but batteries (used in electric cars) do not work well in the cold (they need more power and in freezing temperatures they may not even charge), and in the hot they overheat and have to be cooled before the battery can be charged. An analogy can be drawn with wind turbines: these do not work when there is no wind, and if there is too much wind, which is equivalent to an average windy day, then they have to be deactivated for safety reasons. In extreme circumstances wind turbines are deactivated to prevent them blowing over in high wind. The blades of wind turbines can freeze in extreme cold temperatures; moreover, it is not uncommon for wind turbines to catch on fire if they develop a fault; furthermore, both electric-car batteries and wind turbine blades have virtually no recycling capabilities, and both have a higher environmental impact, in terms of CO2, than combustion cars or other methods of producing electricity instead of wind turbines, for example, nuclear power. The electric car is so bad for the environment that if the lifespan of the car is not at least 80,000 miles, then not even a single ounce of CO2 will be saved when the overall production process is factored into the equation, so electric-cars scrapped early, due to being unwanted or damaged, have caused a far greater environmental impact in terms of air quality. The same applies to wind turbines when factoring in the amount of concrete, metal and spare parts—their effectiveness is negligible; moreover, there is a detrimental effect on marine life, e.g. whales, and the cost of producing electric is astronomical when compared to other methods.

5.1.4 Recycling

Recycling is another "green illusion" lucrative-business; some countries utilise ships that allegedly transporting recyclable material around the world, from one country to another, before a negligible amount is extracted for recycling, and the rest is either burnt or placed into landfill; there simply is insufficient demand in the world for certain recyclable material—especially certain plastics.

To determine your level of indoctrination (into the world of recycling) you could attempt the following experiment: try to place a piece of cardboard, or an empty can, into a non-recycling bin at a recycling point—some readers will be unable to complete this task; if you are one of those, then you are not alone as lab-rats/mice can also be trained to place items into certain compartments out of fear of punishment. A lab-rat will also receive no proof that placing anything into a particular compartment will actually offer any benefit to the rest of the rats/mice, but they will still comply because maybe the lab-technician will offer them food for their compliance. When have local government ever published statistics that "X" number of tons of recycling have now resulted in "Y" number of tons of recycled products? This website does not condone lawbreaking, so this is a thought experiment only, and in many countries there are financial penalties for not recycling. Furthermore, cartons are expected to be washed (before they are collected from households) in certain countries; this had the advantage of solving the water-shortage crises as this was no longer portrayed as an environmental issue once the recyclable refuse was required to be washed.

Pollution created from transporting recyclable material, less the amount that will eventually be recycled, equals the fabricated reality of recycling, so why are claims made that recycling makes a difference? Speeches like this: "if elected I will ensure that we recycle more"—the political donors demand it—and the "Green Agenda" creates power and money.

5.1.5 Green Causes

The "globalists" create NGOs that purport to support "green causes"; government borrowing increases to support these causes, and the transfer of money to the globalists is complete—they are all political activists (supporting globalist politicians) that support the expansion of funding for the environment and "climate change". The idea of having cleaner air is good for the health of a population, but all too often this concept is exploited (for wealth creation) without actually producing the claimed results.

5.1.6 Politically Green

The green illusion also extends to politics too. For example, the majority of "green causes" originate from the Democrat Party in America. This is because companies that purport to be "green" often donate to the Democrat Party as they are able to reward their donors with lucrative "green" contracts when they ascend to positions of power. However, the illusion occurs because in politics the majority of left-leaning parties will accept donations from anyone in order to retain power. For example, the Democrat Party are also heavily funded by defence companies, who support wars, so at the same time they purport to be saving the planet, they are also being funded by weapon-building companies that cause destruction to the planet and have a huge environmental impact. Therefore, claims of wishing to save the planet (by preventing oil drilling etc.) is because the environmental companies contribute higher donation funding to their re-election campaigns. The golden rule (for restoring reality) is that if a politician states that something is good for you, or the environment, then it is probably best to examine where their donations originate from. After all, any researcher can rearrange facts, in a research report, to prove a premise, so it is often difficult to determine what is real and what is political rhetoric—the latter is usually accurate. Numerous genuine health and environmental concerns are deliberately not highlighted by the Democrat Party because there is no power or money in that particular "cause"; for example, the increase in child illnesses.

5.1.7 Carbon Neutral

In many cases corporations do not even attempt to recycle, instead they use a process called "carbon offsetting". This involves producing an unreliable estimate of their company's CO2 output, and then planting enough trees to allegedly absorb that amount of carbon and produce the offset amount of air; this is providing there are no "extreme weather events" or a lumberjack does not fell any of the trees.

5.1.8 Fossil Fuels

The first thing to debunk about fossil fuels is the idea that they only originate from fossils. This is simply untrue and fossil fuels are in an abundance on the planet, albeit that most of the resources are further down in the earth than can be currently extracted due to the limitation of current drilling technology. However, there is still currently enough, and this is a renewable resource, along with nuclear power, that will be able to power all the needs of the planet for the foreseeable future. Fossil fuels (e.g. coal, natural gas and oil) contain hydrocarbon (hydrogen and carbon), and CO2 is an emission from energy and material production of fossil fuels. Secondly, the planet needs CO2; it ensures that plants and trees can grow. If there was no CO2, then plants cannot grow and the animals have nothing to eat, which in turn would result in no meat or plants for humans to eat, so if the far-left radicals want to prevent CO2, by eliminating animals in our meat based diet, then they will still need CO2 to produce a plant based diet. CO2 is found on other planets too, which likely have no life, and it is hypothesised that CO2 is abundant throughout the universe. Therefore, this cannot be exploited for far-left political rhetoric and neither can methane be exploited as a way of obviating cows because methane only lasts for around a decade in the atmosphere, so it poses no long term threat, and CO2 is important for life.

The burning of fossil fuels around densely-populated areas could be restricted under the argument that it was imperative for the creation of higher air quality, but the argument that it impacts climate change is unproven and a potential factor for increasing poverty.

All over the world farmers are being encourage to rewild their farmland in order to create biodiversity; re-wilding will purportedly lower global temperatures (achieve "net zero") as the farm animals would be obviated and food would be imported instead using ships and aircraft. This has lead to global protests from farmers that are no longer able to make an independent living from their land; particularly, as farming and fishing is increasingly being labelled as "ecocide". This has lead Denmark to introduce a farming tax on the greenhouse gases produced by livestock starting in 2030. The more independence a citizen has, e.g. working their own land, then the less control a government has in implementing globalism ideology.

 

 The Reality Circle Model