Myth of Man Made Climate Change & Other Draconian Legislation

There is a strong link between an increase in number and intensity of solar flares and global warming. This can largely discredit and override any influence humans may have on the changes in temperature on our planet in recent history. Research tends to suggest that major variations in global temperatures are beyond humanities control; and instead tend to be at the mercy of the sun's activity. Moreover, every couple of million years there is a slight tilt to the planets axis, causing major changes to the climate and structure of the earth. Volcanoes erupt, hurricanes happen and tornadoes take place either more or less frequently. These are natural phenomenon, definitely not man made. Man has not been an inhabitant of this planet long enough to be able to take such arrogant credit for all the wrongs of the world. Not to mention the globe changes: animals become extinct, new species become plentiful, the climate varies, the seas rise, the seas fall, tsunamis happen and the land structures morph. So what else is new?

One of the laws of Nature and Physics is that nothing stays the same, and would we really want it to? For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Matter may change from ice to liquid to gas; but it is never totally destroyed. Organic matter eventually decomposes. The atoms and molecules become further apart as it decays, then are absorbed in the earth, used as nutrients for plant life, which are eaten by animals, and the cycle goes on and on in perpetuity.

However, one digresses. The point is, Nature takes care of herself. No matter how far advanced humanity is now, we cannot make more than an infinitesimal bit of difference to the landscape of this vast Earth we currently call Home. Should we be good stewards of the earth? Absolutely we should; but let us not confuse responsibly disposing of our litter, waste, and oil byproducts as well as keeping endangered plants and animal life off the extinction list with what is currently being proposed by our illustrious leaders in Congress and the Executive office, this being the Cap and Trade bill.

This bill is nothing more than a power grab accomplished through exorbitantly high taxation of energy usage by individuals and big companies alike. This bill if passed will destroy our way of life, as we know it. It will stifle future and present innovations and technological advancements. It will discourage any use of energy and encourage global "spreading of the wealth", or in other words moving nations down to the lowest common denominator in technology, inventions and innovation. What our Government will glean from this is a vastly enlarged government comprised of enlarged bureaucracies and increased tax revenues allowing even more entitlements to be created. This in turn furthers the long arm of Power these self-defined elite in the Government already have. For with every entitlement come more taxes and less money for the individual citizens and states to spend. With every entitlement come more regulations, each monitored and enforced by the Government or delegates of. On a global scale, one might even begin to imagine a one-world order managed by super elite heads of Nations. Why one might wonder was it so necessary to have an international summit to discuss 'Global Man Made Warming', when it has been debunked so recently?

This is even after the massive Health Care Insurance Bill, another massive power grab that will cause increased taxation, bureaucracies and lower quality of health care due fewer resources, increased waiting time and restricted opportunity to see ones physician. Let us not even mention the cuts in Medicare.

However, to return to the subject of Cap and Trade, which lists as a poison, of all things - CO2. CO2 is an element necessary for all types of life to flourish. Its existence is vital in keeping the Earth from becoming a rotating globe of cold rock; for without plants to use the sun's rays to photosynthesize carbon dioxide to oxygen, which in turn promotes a green house effect, the earth would be un-inhabitable. Thus, through plant life the bi-product of CO2 is Oxygen, which all animal-life to one extent or another need to survive.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) describes only the first year of taxes that ultimately will build upon itself in perpetuity under the Cap and Tax bill. Under this Cap and Trade system, the government sets a limit or cap on the total amount of carbon, which will be emitted nationally. Companies will be forced to buy or sell permits to emit carbon dioxide. As time goes down, the cap is cranked down to reduce total carbon emissions and companies will be forced to comply and ultimately die.

The gross domestic product (GDP) is manipulated downward. The sinister premeditated point of Cap and Trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that each American uses less. Unfortunately, these higher prices will not be limited to the price of electricity or gas. It will show up in every manufactured good, from plastics, food and cars. Plastic is composed of a bi-product of oil. How many things can you think of that are composed of or wrapped in plastic? Consumers will have no choice but to cut back on spending, resulting in fewer products produced which in turn, results in even higher unemployment as no new jobs will be created, and staff cutbacks on existing ones are made. Companies will eventually move their products over seas, but the result will be the same. Low-income Americans, through necessity tend to devote more of their day-to-day income to energy bi-products such as food, gas to get to work and money for electricity. Thus, they really will be hit the hardest as they have more to lose.

This big government, high taxes, a stimulus bill that did anything but stimulate the economy, the incongruous and blatant disregard for the People's wishes when passing the new Health Care bill behind closed doors through thinly veiled bribery, threats, and an unconstitutional usage of Reconciliation to enact a Bill they otherwise did not have the votes for -- these are some of the things Tea Party people are concerned about. Also, our decreased national security under this current administration: Obama's constant bowing to and apologizing for America to our enemies, snubbing our allies, and signing a contract to disarm our nuclear warheads; while our enemies maintain their own nuclear arm heads, all these things will just be a byline if we pass Cap and Trade and sign the treaty into international and national law. Tea Party protesters have the facts, know their history and are justifiably alarmed at the swiftness and direction our country is being hijacked.

Self appointed policy and trend setters have vilified, and in the process implemented political correctness in our speech and even in our behavior, even as far as in the armed forces to the extent that the Fort Hood massacre prosecuted by a self admitted Muslim extremist and the Christmas Day underwear bomber both are swept under the rug as criminal acts, rather than the first terrorist acts they were, committed on the American homeland since 9/11. The Pentagons answer to the Fort Hood massacre was more political correctness and encouraging more Muslims to enter the armed forces, ostensibly as translators, without profiling or background check, as a show of continued goodwill. Intimidation of Americans through vilification, political correctness and slander appear to be the phrase of the day, especially against Tea Party members and conservatives.

During the initial phase of debate in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments to the bill, to be used as a safety net in the quest of not destroying our economy further by initiating a yet untried but potentially devastating change that once implemented would be all but impossible to repeal: the first amendment was to suspend the program while in the implementation phase if gas hit $5.00 a gallon; the second was to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over the year 2009; and the third was to suspend the program if unemployment hit 15%. The Democrats defeated all three, tending to indicate they already had inside knowledge that all these would happen if the bill passed and became law of the land. Britain is already experiencing these effects and they have had the Green program in effect only a few years. This climate bill is likely to be the biggest tax bill in American history. This is unfortunately, saying a lot considering the past 15 months. Americans should be wary.

With Congress solidly Progressive and willing to pass any legislation the President wants, the time has come to protect your future and find a good home-based alternative to make money. Check out my website and get instant access to my secret self-employment options.

Jimmy Mack
http://www.worknowfromhome.net

Climate Change and Australia

Introduction

It is now well documented that humans are causing climate change by adding huge amounts of carbon dioxide (C02) and other greenhouse polluting gases into the atmosphere. Despite its relatively low population total of approximately 22 million, Australia is not only a significant contributor to the current carbon problem it will suffer major impacts if the trend of increasing temperatures continues. The main reasons for this claim are as follows:

Australia is a major contributor to Climate Change

Australia is a major contributor to the current climate change situation for two main reasons. Firstly, Australia has large amounts of coal reserves and has been a leading exporter of coal to Japan and Europe for many years. The biggest source of greenhouse pollution is burning fossil fuels such as coal for energy. As a result, Australia has provided the resource for many countries to emit large quantities of carbon and as such has a moral obligation to tackle climate change. However there are many factions within Australia who are opposed to fighting climate change. The Australian Coal Industry sees action against climate change as a direct threat to their livelihood and will threaten the job security of its employees. They fear that as the rest of the world moves to renewable energy sources in order to meet their carbon reduction commitments, the demand for Australian coal will reduce. Rather than allowing a drop in the demand for coal to impact their business, forward thinking Australian coal producers should be looking to develop alternative energy sources. There is a great opportunity for Australian energy producing organizations, located in the sun blessed country, to become world leaders in renewable energy such as solar power, creating thousands of jobs and providing new export opportunities.

Secondly, statistics show that per head of population, Australia is at the top of the rankings when it comes to carbon emissions. There are many theories on why this is the case, ranging from the large distance between major cities to the high availability of cheap coal fire energy. In any event it is a statistic that Australia cannot ignore and the countries politicians must show leadership to nearby developing nations by taking a stance on climate change. Unfortunately some sections of Australian politics are taking the opposite approach by deliberately stalling any serious action on climate change for fear of the impact on the economy. These groups fail to see the reality that the impacts of climate change can also result in large scale economic losses. This was the case in 2006 when the combined impact of Cyclone Larry, severe drought and bushfires wiped billions off the Australian economy and impacted on the hip pockets of ordinary Australians through increased food prices and higher insurance premiums.

Australia is vulnerable to continued climate change

Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change as it is one of the driest inhabited continents on the planet on par with Africa. Australia is currently enduring a record breaking drought and water rationing is now a standard practice in most capital cities during the summer months. The economic and psychological impacts on Australian farmers have been particularly devastating and a number of rural communities have been decimated by the ferocity of this unprecedented drought. Continued climate change will only make Australia drier and drought conditions will become the norm in many areas. Water shortages in large cities will be commonplace, further forcing up the price of essential food produce. The likely alarming impacts on future generations should be sufficient incentive for any Australian to do everything they can to fight climate change and in fact any behaviour to the contrary could be deemed as criminally irresponsible.

The majority of renowned climate experts and scientists agree that large parts of the Arctic and Antarctica are melting at alarming rates as higher global average temperatures continue to rise. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that as large areas of land base ice continue to melt, the inevitable result is an increase in overall sea levels. As an island continent with the majority of the population living in cities located in coastal areas, Australia is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. There have been a number of reports of luxury waterfront properties in some areas of New South Wales and Queensland coming under threat of rising tides, forcing home owners to flee their property. This trend has not escaped the notice of insurance Companies who are have sharply increased home insurance premiums in some coastal areas to match the higher risk.

Conclusion

As a major exporter of coal and leading the table on carbon emissions per head of population, Australia has an obligation to take a leadership role in the global fight against climate change. Furthermore, as one of the driest continents Australia will be particularly impacted by increasing temperatures and its coastal regions will be vulnerable to rising sea levels. As a result Australia has many reasons to play a leadership role in the global fight against climate change for the sake of current generations and future generations to come.

These articles are written by Tony Innes who has a unique blend of business experience and environmental knowledge. Tony has over 20 years experience in the finance sector, is a Certified Practicising Accountant and holds an Economics Degree from Adelaide University. Tony has a Post Graduate in Business Sustainability and is a member of the Al Gore Australian Climate Project team. Tony Innes is the Managing Director and co-founder of Sustainable Directions) in Adelaide, South Australia. ( http://www.SustainableDirections.com.au ). He can be contacted on 0416 097 790 or at tony@sustainabledirections.com.au

Cities, States, and Others Step Up Action on Climate, Despite Federal Reluctance

Last year, Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall issued a harsh warning of the consequences of climate change: mass chaos, national security crises and food shortages. If climate change occurs abruptly, the report declared, there could be a catastrophic breakdown in international security. Wars over access to food, water, and energy would likely break out between states. Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct by 2050 due to the effects of global warming.

Climate change is the most serious challenge facing the international community. In order to plan for a sustainable future - one that meets needs today without compromising meeting the needs of future generations - global warming must be addressed. We have arrived at a stage in human evolution that requires international cooperation - a stage which demands that world leaders put world priorities ahead of national political agendas in order to halt the peril threatening humanity.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) asked all nations to renew their commitment to implement policies based on the three pillars of sustainable development - economic, environmental and social - in order to arrest environmental deterioration and revive world economic growth. In particular, the report stated, poverty has played a major role in environmental degradation. Not only is it our moral obligation to eliminate poverty, the report revealed it is essential to protecting and improving the environment. Further reports have concluded that environmentally unsound technology has been exponentially far more detrimental to sustainable development than even population growth. In order to achieve sustainable development, the Commission reported, our cities must be considered in the global concerted effort.

Rural-to-urban migration and its negative impacts must be stopped, or better, as Urbanist Kaarin Taipale puts it, we must "transform urban growth into an engine of sustainability." Since three-fourths of the global warming pollution could be solved if we decreased burning fossil fuels, one of the most effective ways to transform urban growth is by switching to alternative energy sources. Fortunately, there are many means of harnessing energy which have less damaging impacts on our environment than fossil fuels, and we already have developed all the technological resources needed. Now we must admit there is a problem and start working in the direction to make this transition. If our current leaders do not want to face this pressing challenge with integrity, then as Leonardo Dicaprio urges, we need to vote for leaders who care about the environment and our health and the future generations.

A Call to Action

On October 25, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) called for a national energy strategy enlisting the oil industry in a process that would help consumers while making the transition to alternative energy technologies. Her plan redirects the hidden "tax" that Americans are already paying to OPEC and the oil companies, but she explained "lasts only long enough to kick-start the alternative energy market that we all know is out there."

Speaking to Cleantech Venture Network, a group of venture capitalists who recently were named by Wall Street Journal reports for their success in developing clean energy as a viable investment category, Clinton emphasized the immediate concern which is how to help citizens pay their bills and keep the economy moving in the face of dramatically higher energy costs. There is no question, she said, that our failure to make better energy choices is sapping our pocketbooks, limiting our competitiveness, threatening our environment and even our national security. "Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made that brutally clear."

The far reaching problem we face, Senator Clinton stated, is coping with the impacts of massive economic development and competition for oil in other parts of the world such as India and China in the next twenty years. "Loosening environmental standards or opening up a new oil field or two is not going to offset this seismic shift in energy demand," she explained. Her plan unburdens the American people of foreign oil dependence, investing a portion of the profits into the U.S. energy future, instead of regimes we would never choose to subsidize.

The oil industries can choose to either reinvest their profits into America's energy future or contribute to a new Strategic Energy Fund, she said. The Strategic Energy Fund would help consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promote adoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies, while stimulating research and investment by the private sector. She also recommends assessing an alternative energy development fee for those companies deciding not to directly reinvest in our energy future. That fee, she explained would help fund energy transition.

"The Fund could generate as much as $20 billion a year to help with home heating oil costs and develop new energy strategies." In this way, she explained, we would reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, make existing alternative technologies more affordable, jump start our technology, and regain U.S. world leadership. It's got "Made in America" written on it, in addition to providing a role model for developing nations.

The "energy revolution" can be as big and important as the industrial revolution and the explosion of the information age. However, we have to do what America has always done when faced with a big challenge, she said, "roll up our sleeves and dedicate this country to finding a solution." In effect, she explained, "the country that put a man on the moon can be the country to find new lower cost and cleaner forms of energy. Our nation needs it. Our planet needs it."

Addressing Climate Change

The Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 articulated the need to include humanity as well as environmental protection in the sustainability equation. Hence, it concluded, the critical problem of poverty must also be addressed. When the United Nations authorized the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, it had already realized poverty had deepened and environmental degradation had worsened since the 1992 Summit. The world needed a new summit of actions with results, and not just intent.

Managing urban environmental conditions ultimately belongs with national governments, businesses, scientific bodies, and communities working together; but history shows us U.S. involvement has always sped and strengthened global progress in improving urban environmental conditions for sustainable development.

Although the United States makes up four percent of the world's population and produces 22 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, it's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol's call for reductions in the greenhouse gases merely underscores Federal unwillingness to address climate change. Claiming that the treaty would raise energy prices and kill five million U.S. jobs, the Administration has even raised questions about the scientific legitimacy of climate change. As British Petroleum CEO John Browne put it, "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted."

According to a study published by Princeton professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, the U.S. could reduce emissions to below the 1970 levels just with its current technology. "We in fact already have everything we need to face this challenge," Vice President Gore has said, "save perhaps political will. But in our democracy political will is a renewable resource."

Embracing the Urban Challenge

The former Vice President challenged the notion that addressing the problem of climate change would harm our economy. "Incredible opportunities in addressing climate change are available that would help, not hurt, our economy," he said. Citing how the city of Portland, Oregon, independently decided to reduce greenhouse emissions below the Kyoto limits, Gore reported that Portland has come within a hair of achieving its goal "and has prospered economically while doing so."

More than 160 cities have already made commitments and are involved in combating global warming by reshaping their cities through innovative programs and technologies. Mayors across the country created a coalition of their own to deal with climate change.

Worldwide, cities and provinces are working together to end global warming: 675 localities in thirty countries are now documented participants. Moreover, 152 U.S. cities and counties and 100 Canadian localities have joined in Cities for Climate Protection program created and run by ICLEI. Scores of major U.S. cities have already reduced their emissions below 1990 levels, saving $600 million through efficiency measures. These coalition mayors say they have made urban living more eco-friendly while creating local jobs. They have also agreed to pressure Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emissions trading system.

Critics say U.S. government efforts are coming too slowly. According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Administration is spending $2 billion on initiatives to promote renewable energy, clean-coal technology, hydrogen-powered vehicles, and nuclear power. President Bush's energy bill, which went into effect in August 2005, calls for industry to slow emission increases, but it still does not demand an overall reduction.

Senator Clinton explained emphasis must not only be placed on increased use of alternative energy sources, but the federal government must offer direction by setting clear, measurable goals. In this way, she said we can assume leadership in solving our energy crisis. Therefore, as part of her national energy strategy, she is calling on Washington to replace its entire fleet of government vehicles with fuel-efficient cars and trucks by 2010.

Urbanist Kaarin Taipale explained what's wrong with the tempo of the forthcoming energy mandates from the Bush Administration. "They are just now calling for gas efficiency changes, not only are these efforts coming as too little, too late; they only save a few gallons of gas while cars are heavier, using more energy through electronics and air conditioning."

Besides, she said, making cars more energy efficient will not solve our urban problems alone. "Cities must be made to have mass transportation accessible, viable, and not just for the poor," she stated. We need to build cities where people do not depend on their own private car. "I'm not talking about green ideology; where we use bicycles and suffer - or where we all live provincial and primitive lives," she explained. She then cited Manhattan as an example: even though it was not originally purposely planned to be energy efficient, the city offers a great transportation system. In most cities in America - and even more in the rest of the world where buying American cars imitates the American Dream - the car is a status symbol, a signal telling people how well you are doing. "But in Manhattan," she said, "this is not the case. Everyone takes some form of public transportation, not just the poor."

Addressing Climate Change at the Clinton Global Initiative --Thinking Outside the Barrel

"We face a global emergency; a deepening climate crisis that requires us to act." -- Al Gore

The Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in Manhattan on September 14 -16, 2005, served as a catalyst for spurring community-level development while providing a supportive atmosphere from which to facilitate pro-development policies at regional and national levels.

During the session on Climate Change, Senator Clinton remarked that while the Federal government has avoided responsibility for climate change, state and local governments have been providing models for action. The very large disadvantage of this state and local leadership, Senator Clinton warned, "is it could lead to a patchwork of regulation, which I think would be very unfortunate and would pose extra burdens on the private sector." In effect, she said, it is the private sector that has a big stake in pushing for a real national response - one that will actually deal with the problem, not continue to deny it or postpone it.

Senator Clinton described her visit to Barrow, Alaska, where she met with a number of the scientists who have been charting climate change for 30 years. While 'off the radar' for many of us, the situation there is having very problematic effects for all of us. One professor studying the effects of Permafrost thawing explained that, as the Permafrost melts, it releases carbon and methane which makes our global warming worse. When Clinton asked him what an individual citizen could do to solve the problem, he responded, "plant more trees." Trees have a sequestering ability. They absorb the excess carbon dioxide in that atmosphere and in return give back clean oxygen. That's something every one of us can do, she added, alone, with family, group, neighborhoods, and communities. And the other is: each of us can make decisions that insure we are as energy efficient as we can be in our homes and in our places of business and try to make better choices about transportation. While these individual choices might seem very small in and of themselves, she told us, in the aggregate, they can also influence policy.

Tom Roper, retired Victorian Parliament and current Project Director of the Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative (GSEII), represents a group that must rely on the International community. While the small island developing states (SIDS) are collectively the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation, Honorable Roper explained, they are most impacted by climate change. In addition, island states contain a disproportionately high amount of below poverty level income citizens. "Most SIDS are ill-equipped to deal with their existing environmental problems," said Roper, let alone the predictions of rising sea levels. The 43 members of the Alliance of Small Island States represent 50 million citizens. No where are people more at the mercy of international inaction. Roper is supervising projects on the small islands to serve as a role model of sustainability which incorporates energy efficiency and renewable energy. "They are tackling their own economic and social issues as well as environmental," Roper said. "These nations are not just complaining; they are taking action," he added.

Pennsylvania and Perhaps Louisiana . . .

Kathleen McGinty, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and former principal environmental advisor to President Clinton, offered a project to reduce greenhouse gases in Pennsylvania. The project is committed to providing the resources to enable a clean energy future in Pennsylvania through up to $1 billion in tax-free bond financing to build renewable and efficient power plants and fuel production facilities.

Governor Rendell's administration has committed itself to: adopting greenhouse gas tailpipe standards, replacing dirty, inefficient power plants, and securing passage of one of the most far-reaching clean energy laws in the nation.

On a final note: at the Clinton Global Initiative, many found one recommendation most compelling - rebuilding New Orleans as a model of energy efficiency. The city of New Orleans, like older cities, was not built to withstand the effects of a level 5 hurricane. It flourished during a time when the effects of global warming were not yet known. Global warming, however, has been increasingly creating erratic weather patterns with more frequent, extremely severe storms. What better way to target climate change and create hope than by turning New Orleans into a model city for a new, more intelligent tomorrow. As one Climate Change session participant put it, "we've got to think outside the barrel."

Elizabeth Autumn, MBA, is a freelance reporter. She covers environment and corporate governance issues and specializes in media analysis. Completing her Masters in Environmental Management at Harvard University, Elizabeth also writes for Crane?s Magazine, Create Magazine, and Publishers Weekly. Prior to this she was a freelance producer for Fox News, in addition she worked for CBS News and on the Emmy-Award winning CBS Documentary "9-11".