moonbattery logo

Mar 20 2014

Obama Regime Calls for Wooden Skyscrapers to Stop Global Warming

It’s not your imagination. The anti-human envirofascist luddites who rule us really are trying to force us back to the Middle Ages in the name of their preposterous global warming hoax. Now they want us to go back to constructing buildings out of wood — even high-rise buildings:

The White House launched a new campaign to sell its global warming agenda to rural America: “sustainable” buildings, including skyscrapers, made out of wood to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

The Agriculture Department (USDA) announced it was launching a new $1 million program to promote wood as a “green” building material to boost rural economies, as well as a $1 million competition “to demonstrate the architectural and commercial viability of using sustainable wood products in high-rise construction,” according to Department.

Skyscrapers made out of wood. They are serious.

The project … combines parts of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the administration’s push to win over rural America using green jobs. The USDA hopes to spur the use of wood technologies in industrial building projects like “tall buildings and skyscrapers, as well as other projects,” claiming that such buildings would produce be more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions.

According to the bizarre ideology of our rulers, wooden buildings make the weather more hospitable for man-eating polar bears by “storing atmospheric carbon,” thereby preventing the global warming that so conspicuously does not exist.

These lunatics know as much about building as they do about running the health insurance industry. But they are in charge, so they will have their way.

Among the many obvious downsides of wooden skyscrapers are excessive cost, structural weakness, warping, termites, and fire hazard.

On the positive side, Muslims won’t have to hijack airliners full of people to knock them down. A fast-moving Cessna ought to do the job.

Coming soon: government-subsidized high-rises made out of dung. They will be the ultimate in sustainability, and help us to celebrate multiculturalism by embracing the Third-World techniques favored in Obama’s ancestral homeland. Uniquely among government initiatives, dung skyscrapers will actually reduce costs, because the District of Columbia can produce a nearly infinite supply of the building materials required.


Tip and graphic compliments of Stormfax.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Share on Facebook

  • Softly Bob

    The Japanese used to make houses with paper walls. Maybe this will be the next step – paper skyscrapers.
    I think it may be more environmentally friendly to knit buildings though. Buildings made out of wool should keep the green moonbats happy!

  • Henry

    The progs want to murder trees to build skyscrapers? Bring on the Tree Weepers!

    “The project … combines parts of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action
    Plan and the administration’s push to win over rural America using green

    So, construction worker is now a “green” job…

  • Nat

    No way this is for real. This has got to be some kind of The Onion-like spoof.

  • EngineerPoet

    Nope, absolutely serious.

    It came from Vancouver, not Washington.

  • Buffalobob

    Has Rosie heard of this?

  • TED
  • TED
  • TED

    The latest Obama gaffe leaves Putin unamused

  • TED

    What an absolute DUMBASS! And HE is what the left think is an intellectual! Or is it that “always take the opposite of what they say thing”

  • Jester

    Great. Another Solyndra. Three or four guys are gonna become overnight billionaires.

  • SNuss

    Obviously, Obama knows even less about structural engineering than foreign policy or economics.

  • Bodhisattva

    What ELSE could go wrong? Well, wood doesn’t have the strength concrete and steel do – you could not build ‘skyscrapers’ of wood – they would collapse under their own weight.

  • BradenLynch

    Did someone ever tell the POTUS about how we firebombed the hell out of Tokyo? One terrorist with a Bic lighter would be all that is needed to destroy a city. No need for nukes.

    We need to put the ADULTS back in charge now. So much FAIL from this administration and this President. He stated he was ashamed of America; well, I’m ashamed of him.

  • tngmv

    About 35 years ago, when the John Hancock building (a skyscraper) opened in Boston, the windows began falling out, and were temporarily replaced with plywood. Approaching from the south, it appeared to be a wooden skyscraper. Hence the joke (then, it was a joke) “that, only in Boston, the home of MIT would it be tried, the world’s first wooden skyscraper!” We have come (actually, gone) a long ways — backwards!! Now our president is a (sick) joke.

  • detroit58

    Never say never. Just because this article attached “Obama” to the idea, no need for a knee-jerk negative response. SOM thinks otherwise:

  • detroit58

    Ha, attach “Obama” to a story and out from the cave they fly.

    Skidmore, Owens and Merrill thinks the idea has merit:

  • Pingback: Saturday morning links - Maggie's Farm

  • wilfranc

    To those of us with even a basic understanding of statics, the reason we built higher was the advent of metals. All materials have a modulus of elastisicty, bending, shear strength, etc.. When an engineer calculates the loads expected on a building (wind, snow, gravity, dead, live, etc.), he chooses the most economical member that will support that load safely. As mentioned, wood is more likely to burn: the char on heavy timbers do create a sort of fireproofing, but using heavy timbers is not cost effective, nor wise to support light loads. The MOE of SPF#2 is about 1,400,000 psi, the MOE of grade a-36 steel is 29,000,000. But different materials have different qualities. Steel is good in bending, concrete is good in compression and terrible in bending, so the use of both together takes advantage of the properties of both materials. Wood is good for most homes, but try to span a basement area with a wood beam that allows the family to comfortably add a pool table, and it is difficult without going so deep head room is compromised. Wood also sags under its own weight over time without a load. Wood can expand and contract with the weather.

    In other words, I think the decisions of structural safety and economics are best left to those involved in that industry, not an outsider using a first criteria that is not an combination of strength and safety. The factor of importance for use of a building grows as the number of people occupying it grows. The farmer throwing up a barn for his cows does not have the same factor of safety as the engineer designing a building to hold hundreds and thousands of human lives.

    After all this, the best rule I’ve heard is from a state meterologist who said if it isn’t economically sustainable, it isn’t sustainable.

  • Bodhisattva

    Ahh, as long as you’re monitoring my posts, how about your take on this one:

    ON REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER, Shane Smith and Maher were discussing some of the claims of climate alarmists. Smith had recently visited Greenland to document how the ice was melting ‘catastrophically’ there and made two interesting claims:

    1) That if all the ice on Greenland melts it will raise world sea levels 20 to 23 feet. Now calculate the square miles of Greenland, take the average depth of the snow and ice there, then come up with a volume. Keep in mind the volume of ice is greater than the resulting meltwater that comes from it. Now get the surface area of the world’s oceans and computer how that volume of ice and snow meltwater will raise that surface area of the oceans. Anything close to 20-23 feet, or more like 20-23 mm?

    2) Smith also made a claim that the latest IPCC report (one I apparently haven’t read yet, because this claim is the opposite of the truth admitted in the one I DID read) states that we are seeing their worst case scenario come true 60 years early. Now the actual IPCC report I DID read admitted that, as far as temperature rise, predicted versus actual, we are below the best case scenario predicted by previous IPCC reports, not the other way around.

    What’s your take on those claims?

  • Bodhisattva

    Note I didn’t even mention Obama in my response, nor was it ‘knee-jerk’ – rather I stuck to facts: The fact you can’t build a ‘skyscraper’ out of wood because the engineering FACTS prove, beyond any doubt, it’s possible. I don’t care that the Obama administration apparently wants to go back to the years we would clear cut forests in the name of ‘stopping climate change’. Not so sure how the Sierra Club and others will respond to that.

    Plus, I reviewed my post and didn’t see the word ‘never’ in it.

  • detroit58

    For a smart guy, you often overblow. I guess with your two degrees you have more facts than Skidmore, Owens & Merrill – one of the largest and most influential architecture, interior design, engineering, and urban planning firms in the world – about building with wood.

  • detroit58

    FOLLOW-ing your posts – lol. You are a good source of articles AND, when not ranting, can offer some reasonable dialogue.
    I’m surprised you watch Maher.
    1. That number caught my attention as possibly off by some decimal point. If you come across or calculate that number, please do share.
    2. I, too, wondered if there was a new report.
    Looking back through Disqus, I see my long response some time back to your thoughts on renewables and the developing world did not post. When I get time I’ll revisit that as we were getting some good discussion going.

  • Pingback: Wooden High-Rise Buildings to Fight Climate Change? | ▇ ▅ █ ▅ ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅ ▃ ▅ ▅ ▄ ▅ ▇

  • GaryA

    I don’t see that happening, unless the Spotted Owl Coonservation law of 1990 is repealed.

    It has singlehandedly brought commercial logging to it’s knees:

    “The Northern Spotted Owl was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act throughout its range of northern California, Oregon and Washington by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on June 23, 1990[7] citing loss of old-growth habitat
    as the primary threat. The USFWS previously reviewed the status of the
    Northern Spotted Owl in 1982, 1987 and 1989 but found it did not warrant
    listing as either threatened or endangered. Logging in national forests containing the Northern Spotted Owl was stopped by court order in 1991.[3]”


  • jimmy pruitt

    Treehouses, now they want us to live in tree houses. Have they been reading the lord of the rings or Tarzan of the apes?

  • Phil Hemsley

    fascinating talk – but we must beware of facts getting in the way of preconceptions :-)

  • EngineerPoet

    Facts like wood being quite strong enough to build 30-story structures, if it’s used correctly?

    There’s a move to build wind-turbine towers out of wood.  There’s a limit to the diameter of round steel tower sections that can be moved via most major roads, but flat wood panels can be assembled into taller and stronger towers.

  • Phil Hemsley

    Indeed. I think it’s a great idea!

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy