Catastrophic Results Through Unfounded Global Warming Solutions

April 18, 2009

One Ponzi scheme is all but settled — the boondoggle, debt-creating stimulus bill which is all about the transfer of power from the private sector to government control. Unfortunately the pork-laden, non-stimulus bill will pass in one form or another.

Even while Obama was using fear to convince the American people that failure to act quickly on the stimulus bill would turn a crisis into a catastrophe, the Obama administration was simultaneously setting in motion another leg of its power grabbing mission aimed at regulating and controlling free enterprise — its “greening” of America wish list.

Most disturbing is that the “greening” mania is based on the myth that CO2 is causing global warming — now promoted as climate change to cover all possible climatic variation — when carbon dioxide is a natural part of our soil and our atmosphere. Plants need CO2 to flourish. A plant denied carbon dioxide is like a human being denied oxygen. Both will die.

It is expected that the EPA will follow through with its proposed regulations for CO2, as announced in an advance notice in July of 2008. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the proposed regulations would cost the American economy easily $7 billion by 2029; result in millions of job losses, especially in the manufacturing sector; and drive up gas prices, food, transportation cost, and the price of manufactured goods.

A study done on Dec. 10, 2008, by Dr. Tim Ball, a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, concluded that pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. Typically C02 is described at 0.03 percent. The current amount of CO2 in the air is around 0.04 percent.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, a Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University, in disputing the notion that human-caused carbon dioxide is behind current warming, wrote how reducing energy use by 30 percent within twenty years to bring the U.S. with the “Kyoto Protocol” treaty — the goal of the Obama administration — would only slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It is also a myth that the earth’s temperature is spiking. Over the centuries the atmosphere has repeatedly warmed and cooled. Many experts have noted that the globe hasn’t warmed since 1995. Pravda reported on January 9 that the earth is on the brink of entering another Ice Age.

The U.S. is presently experiencing a bone chilling winter, yet global warming continues to be mumbled to the shivering masses. Polar ice is accumulating faster than usual. Germany has had its coldest winter in a century. Heavy snow fell in France and Spain. Just recently England experienced paralyzing blizzard conditions. Even so, global warming disciples have suggested this year’s wild winter spells are proof of climate change!

Unfortunately many scientists have reaped millions from climate-change research which politicians utilize to make their points to the public. Such scientists do not care to examine the facts, but instead have turned their support for global warming into a cash cow through the use of grant and research money in the billions of dollars. Now hundreds of millions more for climate change research is being proposed for inclusion in the proposed stimulus bill!

Throughout the world there are thousands of promint scientists who believe that the warming and cooling of the earth is a cycle of nature that is unconnected with man’s activities. Dr. Will Happer, a prominent award winning Princeton University physicist once associated with Al Gore, declared in December of last year that man-made global warming fears are “mistaken.” He, along with 650 other dissenting scientists, signed on to a 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works.

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel and author of “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam,” calls global warming “a hoax, bad science, and the greatest scam in history.” On Jan. 31 Czech president Vaclav Klaus, a climate change skeptic, and whose county holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, had these words for Al Gore while both were attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the completing theories. I do listen to them.”

The key players are now in place in Washington, D.C. and in state governments across this nation to enact laws that tax citizens for their carbon footprints soon after the EPA officially declares CO2 a pollutant. Accordingly, the Obama administration will mark a new era in U.S. climate policy that has been eagerly awaited by countries and environmental groups who believe global warming is an urgent world-wide problem.

President-elect Obama provided these thoughts in a pre-recorded video message to 800 attendees from the U.S. and foreign countries at a 2008 mid-December Governors’ Global Climate Summit hosted by CA: “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. . . . and once I take office you can be sure that the U.S. will once gain engage vigorously in these (UN climate) negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

In the same video message Barack Obama applauded the California’s approach to green issues, indicating that he wanted to base his greening of America on the great policies that CA has followed for years. Such a policy would be problematic, for under the mantle of environmental consciousness, as reported by Max Schulz in Human Events the week of Jan 19, “California’s model is broken: The state is bankrupt and so are its ideas on “green” economics.” CA has more businesses than any state in recent years and is facing a $40 billion deficit.

Another clue into the approach to climate change by the Obama administration came on January 13 at a confirmation hearing for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. At the hearing Clinton spoke of climate change as a national security threat, with wars being fought over basic resources like food water and arable land.

In the aftermath of her confirmation, Clinton has vowed to use her cabinet position to shape foreign policy that would fight climate change. She views the upcoming 2009 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen as the next opportunity for the U.S. to ratify a climate change treaty like the Kyoto Protocol which was rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1995 by a vote of 95 – 0.

Troubling is President Obama’s appointed energy team. It resembles an extreme green team rather than a pro-energy team. Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, thinks electricity prices are anomalously low; Ken Salazar (D-Colorado), heading the Department of the Interior, often opposed energy leasing on federal lands and in offshore areas; John Holdren as science advisor is know for his doom and gloom rhetoric; and Carol Brower, the president’s top assistant on every and climate policy, has a long history of placing environmental concerns above that of affordable energy and economic growth.

A Human Events article during the week of January 5 cautions the American people to expect Obama’s team to look with disfavor on coal and nuclear power, to support high European taxes on gasoline, and to favor investments in alternative forms of energy such as windmills, solar power, and other power sources that meet the criteria of clean and green energy.

Already the push toward the greening of America has begun. In the first week of the Obama administration, President Obama issued two Executive Orders that instructed key federal agencies to reexamine policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that emit fewer greenhouse gas emissions (CO2). Lighter cars made of aluminum and plastic will achieve a higher Café standard, but they will also result in more injuries and deaths. It is folly to believe that government can revive the already failing auto industry by telling them what kind of cars they must produce, if people are not interested in buying the small, mandated green cars

Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, told reporters on Feb. 3rd that the Senate is ready to enact climate change legislation and that major climate change legislation could be introduced “in weeks, not months” that would include limiting emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide, such as emissions from coal-fired power plants and fossil-fueled vehicles.

Major policy shifts in climate policies WILL happen in the Obama administration.  Many countries and environmental groups are already hailing the new era of U.S. climate policy under President Obama. Laws will be legislated and heralded by green crusaders, which will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Included in Obama’s plan is an aggressive cap and trade system — Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 — which would mean that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas emitted would be charged to the polluter. In a moment of candor during the campaign season, Obama admitted that his cap and trade plan would bankrupt coal plants and cause energy prices to skyrocket.  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers has projected that a Carbon Tax would potentially decrease U.S. GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

Another myth held by many and being advanced by the Obama administration is that alternative fuels will save this nation and the planet from a catastrophic melt down. Accordingly, wind mills, solar power, and ethanol are being pushed as tomorrow’s answers to today’s prayers.

Regarding ethanol, it has been proven to be an unacceptable alternative fuel source. Ethanol is 20% to 30% less efficient than traditional gasoline, it is costly to make, and it wouldn’t survive in a free market without generous subsidies mandated by Congress using our tax dollars. The use of corn to produce ethanol has also resulted in higher food prices, as farmers are growing corn for fuel rather than corn for human consumption. Corn-based ethanol in gasoline also increases overall emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

What about wind power as an alternative energy source? S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery in their book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1,500 Years) have this to say: “Windmills are huge structures that produce very little electricity – and then only when the wind blows within certain speed ranges. The cost of wind is not competitive and wind farms would not be constructed without massive subsidies.

Wind energy is growing rapidly in percentage terms only because the base from which it starts is tiny. EIA projects that wind energy will supply just 0.0025 percent of the U.S. electricity generation in 2020. Windmills produce only when the wind is blowing and the feasibility of storing electricity in batteries is limited and very expensive.”

Patrick J. Michaels in the November 2008 issue of Townhall magazine describes wind energy as a dubious investment and that without subsides it is nearly twice as expensive to produce as coal-fired electricity. He further notes that “wind turbines produce most of their electricity during off-peak house when wholesale electricity prices are lowest, and very little electricity during hot summer days, when wholesale electricity prices are highest.” Can you imagine having a one in three shot that you’re TV or light switch will turn on!

Despite the strikes against wind power, my home county, Lake County, IL, is exploring the wind issue. A few months ago the Lake County News-Sun, formerly the Waukegan News-Sun, reported that Libertyville trustees have agreed to amend the village code to allow for wind turbines to generate electric power. A more recent New-Sun article on Friday, Jan. 30, recounted how the Lake County Board is looking into having a wind farm near Wadsworth covering 380 acres, which would have up to 10 wind turbines, and which would generate up to 15 to 20 megawatts of energy, enough to provide electric power to 3,000 – 5,000 average homes.

Referenced in the Wall Street Journal on August 25, 2008, was how wind turbines made by Suzlon Energy Ltd. (the world’s fifth-largest wind-turbine maker by sales) are cracking because they cannot handle the wind.

Solar power also fails as a dependable and viable alternative energy source. Singer and Avery have this to say about solar power in their before-mentioned book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1,000 Years): “Impressive amounts of (desert) land area would have to be devoted to this use in order to replace fossil fuel supplies. Most of today’s solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity, are produced with expensive silicon”

The authors then go on to relate how there is some experimentation being done by a French-Italian company to use cheaper organic materials such as plastics to bring down the price of producing solar energy. Even so Singer and Avery conclude that solar radiation is relatively dilute as a viable alternative energy source.

Reported in the Heritage Foundation’s “Morning Bell” report on July 14, 2008 was shocking news that the world is powering up while America is powering down. The world seems to know that green sources of energy are inadequate to keep their people out to poverty. Countries in Europe to South America to Asia countries are building coal and nuclear power plants at a dizzying pace while also drilling for oil wherever they can find it. Will America be left behind by an administration that kow-tows to extreme environmentalists?

The Obama administration seems willing to impose a death wish upon this nation by its allegiance to an out-of-control environmental movement with its advocacy of carbon-emissions legislation which would limit needed energy sources.

Given the stance of the Obama administration, shouldn’t the real beneficiary of any carbon-emissions legislation be the revival of the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry has submitted 18 proposals for 28 new reactors before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Obama’s environmental allies seem ready to lie down in front of bulldozers before allowing a nuclear reactor to be built. Global warming has become a new religion for these hard core environmentalists.

In California electrical generating capacity has not kept up with its rising demand. Because of environmental opposition to coal, oil, gas and nuclear power, the state has not built any new power plants in more than twelve years. It is frightening that Obama is using California’s and its failed green energy policies as his standard bearer for the rest of the nation!

And what about the status of energy needs here in my home state of Illinois? I’ve already recounted how wind turbines are being considered in communities not far from my Lake Bluff home in northern Illinois. The location of the proposed Wadsworth wind-farm is only miles away from a dual nuclear plant at Zion, IL, which was prematurely shut down in 1998.

The shutdown of an extremely low cost and carbon-free, already-built source of massive amounts of low-coat electricity, defies logic, when the nuclear facility could save northern Illinois consumers millions of dollars in energy purchase costs while reducing massive amounts of carbon output, particularly when Illinois customers have already paid for the plant and funded the decommissioning trust out of the own pockets in prior rates.

Exelon, the owner of the dual Zion Nuclear Plant, admitted in 2007 that the scarcity of low cost power in Illinois is driving up and will keep high for years unless low cost generation is built. The Zion Nuclear Plant needed new steam generators to remain operable. An unanswered question is why Exelon changed the steam generators at the Bryon and Braidwood Nuclear Sites in Illinois but allowed weeds to grow around the Zion Reactor Site? Illinois legislators and citizens should care.

Each of the Zion reactors would produce 1,000 megawatts of energy. Now contrast that to the measly 15 to 20 megawatts of power that would be generated by the proposed Wadsworth wind farm covering 380 acres of land.

Do wind farm proponents not realize that the life expectancy of windmills is about 20 years, which is about one fourth the life of a nuclear power plant? In addition, nuclear power plants don’t fail its customers. They run at a high capacity factor without being subjected to the wind blowing or the sun shining.

It is disconcerting that the Obama administration has bought into global warming big time. Their views are dangerous because drastic actions to curb CO2 will negatively impact the lives of the American people as they decimate this nation’s economic engine. This at a time when many reputable scientists are convinced that climate change is a natural phenomenon and that the earth has seen cycles lie this one on the average of about every 1,500 years.

Historic records indicate that people suffered during the “Little Ice Age” from around 1400 to 1850. Food became scarce and people starved. During the “medieval warm period” around 1100 A.D, when temperatures were at least as hot as they are now, life was good. There was plenty of food, even a surplus.

It was encouraging to learn from a recent Rasmussen poll that 59 percent of those surveyed don’t believe mankind is warming up the planet despite the scenarios of doom and gloom coming from Obama and his fellow Democrats.

According to CFACT (Collegians For a Constructive Tomorrow), a program formed to dispel the myth about global warming on college campuses: “Genuine environmental stewardship” is all about advancing practical solutions and approaches based on facts instead of Al Gores’s agenda of alarm and hysteria based on poor science. ” It is also “about intelligent conservtion of our resources, not reckless government intrusions in our businesses and private lives.”

At a time when many Americans are being indoctrinated in a belief system based on a political agenda rather than science, it becomes the responsibility of those who have not drunk the global warming Kool-Aid to question and to confront those who are pushing global warming propaganda.

Proposed climate change legislation that seeks to limit coal, oil and nuclear as sources of energy must be opposed in mass by the American people, unless they view with fondness the horse and buggy days. Not to do so would mean a victory for global warming alarmists and their agenda.

Is this the change the American people were hoping for?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s