I just can’t resist this. In what world does it make sense to save the planet and refuse to burn too much carbon dioxide, by cutting down trees, which–last time I checked–breathe in carbon dioxide.

Associated Press story.

My favorite quote from a man who spent $70,000 on solar panel equipment and THEN went next door to demand his neighbor cut down his redwoods (Apparently he never thought about it or talked about it with his neighbor BEFORE investing $70,000):

“I think it’s unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor,” he said.

Wow…take away? The real trick here is that when I was younger I thought I remember redwood trees being absolutely sacred in California. Turns out this law that says it’s illegal to block solar panels with your trees was written in the 70s.

The tree-owner’s defense?

Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.

But the solar panel investor counters:

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

Only in California would you have a “I’m greener than you” pissing contest in a court of law. And, I have to say, this is the problem I have with the religion of global warming: That is that it completely sacrifices common sense conservationism on the altar of “reducing our carbon footprint” and completely dismisses the whole “act local” part of the equation.

The REALLY neat thing is that it makes the “classical” environmentalist concept downright reasonable and logical.  So maybe after all of this trend of global warming becoming “mainstream” and scientific fact by scientific consensus, might drive yours truly to be a real rebel and become a tree hugger.

This is proof positive that some people can convince themselves of anything. The Berkeley City Council has not only made it against the law for Marine Recruiters to recruit in Berkeley, but has allowed and encouraged the organization called “Code Pink” to actively impede the Marines from doing so.

…The council also voted 8-1 to give the anti-war Code Pink organization a designated parking space directly in front of the U.S. Marine Corps’ 64 Shattuck Ave. recruiting office and encouraged Code Pink to “impede” Marine recruitment. It’s pretty clear that Spring has heard of free speech, but she has no idea what it is.

It’s one thing for Berkeley to pronounce U.S. troops, who put their lives on the line every day to defend America, as unwelcome. That’s protected speech — that signals Berkeley residents’ disdain for U.S. troops. It’s also the sort of rude, we’re-better-than-the-rest-of-America action that invites outsiders to wonder if a city that tries to divorce itself from military recruitment deserves the benefits that the federal government bestows.

Further evidence that in the bizarro world of the radical left, free speech only applies to those who agree with the radical left point of view.