Monday, April 28, 2008

Global Warming "War" on the world

The recent TIME article on "How to Win the War on Global Warming", may not offer viable solutions for future energy demands of the U.S... but, it does outline a "world economic war on the third world".

TIME states: No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming...

Summarized by Haase
  • Tax billion$ in carbon energy sources we "do not like", to invest in potentially higher carbon producing sources that "appear to be" greener

  • Invest billions to rehash old ideas that failed for decades under grants and subsides with "hope" of yield ing better results

  • Continue to divert billions in wind, solar and bio-energy with "hope" that they become viable enough in the next 10 years to "catch up" with our massive demands

U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. ...the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer with vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday... taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all.

Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth.

Think I'm Kidding? Read the article here

TIME suggests: devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, (What kind of vague langue is this?)

TIME - The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. "Cap and trade changes everything," says Krupp.

Soooo wrong their not even "right".

FACT - Krupp. may be fatality flawed in the amount of financial pain and human suffering this carbon market trading will put onto the world. What good for industrialized nations will reign a "holocaust" on the third world. - Haase

TIME Points out - Dramatic reductions in U.S. emissions won't bring the intended environmental benefits if emissions by other countries increase at the same time. The problem is, if we don't clean up our own mess because developing giants don't have to, what's the incentive for them to clean up theirs? "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inactions and take no steps of their own," says Senator John Warner of Virginia.

FACT - The third world has NO means or incentive to follow U.S. actions and we are a decade away from a coherent dialogue.

In fact, carbonizing rapidly industrializing economies may indeed lead to a war...

Particularly when the painful cuts made by North America, Western Europe and a handful of other OECD economies are dwarfed by the emission trail spewing from China and the rest of the developing world.

As OECD countries begin to tax their own economies by charging growing fees on CO2 emissions, their their trading partners will diminish rapidly.... killing the GDP of those countries whose supply chains depend on OECD countries



FACT: Developing World - Principal Source of Emissions (Source )
Total global emissions have risen by a cumulative 25% since the beginning of the decade. But only a small fraction of those emissions came from North America, Western Europe and OECD economies. In fact, emissions in the most advanced economies of the world have grown by a paltry 5%, one-tenth the 50% increase seen of the developing world.

Over the last seven years, China and other developing nations consist of 90% of Emissions Growth...So great has the recent rise in emissions growth in the developing world been that as of 2005, it surpassed the OECD in total emissions at a massive 2,500 million metric tonnes (mmt) or nearly 55% of global emissions.

Within a decade they will account for more than two-thirds.


How much will it squeeze the U.S. Economy?

TIME - 2% of the GDP for a few years...
It's true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change won't be free. "You want a clean environment, you have to pay for it," says Peter Fusaro, founder of the green investment group.

All based on a flawed hope that;...carbon cap with teeth will boost electricity and gas prices in the short term, before carbon-free alternatives can be scaled to market, and that will hurt those already struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks.

TIME - Offering suggestions that are no better than my Grandmas; America has long been astoundingly wasteful about energy use, but for years, that mattered little because power and fuel were so cheap. "Until recently, using more energy was a way to get more productive," says Kevin Surace, of a green building company. "That doesn't change until energy costs go substantially up."

Think of simple, costless changes like turning off the lights in offices at night—that's "money on the table," Efficiency standards could be put in place for household appliances and lighting as well.

And I would love to see the spreadsheet that depicts this; the words of efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170 billion per year in efficiency improvements like green buildings and higher-mileage cars could yield an additional $900 billion per year in savings by 2020.

TIME - Well it's a crap shoot... go for it!;
But the good news is that there are already thousands of very smart people working on alternative energy...buzzing that "the biggest bubbling is happening in California,"

Adding that:

That's where government can help...whip hand to the process. A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical.

TIME - Pointing out that
"There's no shortage of ways to spend whatever money is made available." Solar, Wind power, tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money.

Suggesting that; Washington should flood the zone with research funding, and refrain from trying to pick a winner... (yikes)

All spending BILLIONS more rehashing a short sighted, misguided future driven by venture capitalist; "developing ways to make better biofuels out of feedstocks like wood chips"???

Finally they suggest more "micropolicies, like tax credits," to further nickel and dime us on feed small misguided projects that offer no ROI.

Summary if we took all the steps outlined by TIME here:
national cap-and-trade system; to break the economy of third world nations
tougher energy-efficiency mandates; should be real easy if we throw money at problems
investments billions more in new public and private green technologies; without strategic investment return projections
absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of gdp a year for some time; to force further decline of world economy

Going green: What could be redder... After formally insulting our nation and taxpayers by calling America a "loser" in the global warming fight; Kristin Modesto, hails "California" as the "leader" with Schwarzenegger, leading the way on global warming... and yes, she is from California.

What happened to one nation under GOD?

Dear TIME, we have strong a comprehensive plan and very few would agree with yours (unless they are carbon market investors)..

Why wage "war" when we can enjoy and prosper from the obvious opportunities in world energy and trading?

This should NEVER be a war effort, but a business plan within global partnerships with ALL.

For over three decades the science and prevention of "global warming" have not changed – but political and media reaction to it has.

I did love the image by Fredrik Brodén in the headlines... very nice TIME;

Now spend more effort on content. - Haase

Sunday, April 27, 2008

The Template for Climate Crisis "Cause"

Biofuels give us an idea what we can expect from "reactive environmental campaigns". All in the name of "the global warming crisis", ...

According to many environmentalists this has accomplished the following:

  • Helped drive up food prices, contributing to a global crisis;
  • Led to "increased environmental damage," including dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico so polluted by fertilizer runoff that nothing can live;
  • Created "incentives for global deforestation, including in the Amazon basin";
  • Reduced U.S. oil consumption by 1% while eating up 25% of our corn production.

If carbon-induced global warming is "Eco-Reactivist's" primary concern then, more food based biofuels will continue to make it worse by clearing agricultural land and rainforests, which absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide.

The paradox is that "in viral medias" short sighted focus on quick fixes that have proven to fail since the 70's, may in actuality cause a enough to environmental damage and pollution to create "true manmade global warming".

By now everyone has witnessed the devastation of food based, subsidized biofuels. Once started, government initiatives are difficult if not impossible to stop, no matter how disastrous.

Taxpayers will still be subsidizing ruinous biofuels when the next catastrophic solution to the imaginary climate crisis is imposed.

This is a call to ALL regulators, policy makers and academic leaders to address this pandemic push to reactively control our planets finite energy, food, fuel and water supplies by posting your years of data and ignored regulations. (find out more at

IF our nations leaders continue : "Base Legislation on newspaper headlines"... "Eco-Reactivist's" may push current energy and environmental problems past the point where even I see a viable solution. - Haase

Message from "Earthdays Daughter" - a long way to go...

38 years later, we have a long way to go before our air is healthy, our water is clean, our communities are sustainable...

A pivotal moment for the environment -We are at a pivotal moment. Unless we act quickly and dramatically to alter our current energy path, climate change will trump all other efforts to protect and preserve our water, air, land and wildlife. Our challenge is to rapidly develop and deploy technologies that put us on a sustainable energy path before irreversible climate change overwhelms us. It turns out this challenge also is an opportunity to transform our economy and assert our energy independence and, in doing so, improve our security as a nation. Tia Nelson, daughter of Earth Day founder Sen. Gaylord Nelson.

Our challenge is to transform understanding into action, and there is no question that climate change must be at the top of our action list.

We know how to do it, and it's effective - Reflecting on the many environmental challenges we face, we should recognize the tremendous progress made since 1970. Our air and water are much cleaner because of the movement spearheaded by Gaylord Nelson. Some argued that regulation would damage our economy. Instead, we adapted. New technologies were developed, and a strong environmental ethic was created. We are much better off because of the changes driven by Earth Day. Roy Thilly is president and chief executive of Wisconsin Public Power Inc.

We're still off track - Much has happened since the first Earth Day. Besides being more tuned in to our relationship with our surroundings and our role in protecting air, water and natural resources for the future, we're witnessing economic development in countries with soaring populations, increasing demand for energy and raw materials.

As such, we can no longer continue along as we did when we celebrated the first Earth Day with Gaylord Nelson in 1970. With American ingenuity and the help of like-minded people in the faith, union and business worlds - and with the assistance of our friends and neighbors - we can increase the use of affordable, renewable energy; we can make our homes, cars and buildings more energy efficient; we can save money, boost the economy and create jobs; - all while leaving a planet that's safe and clean for our children. Eric Uram is conservation chair of the Sierra Club.

Still a long way to go- Much has been accomplished since the first Earth Day, but more needs to be done.

The Clean Air Act amendments passed in 1970 aimed to make our air healthy and to keep it that way. But we still have unhealthy levels of smog and soot in much of Wisconsin, especially in the summer. The Clean Water Act passed in 1972 had a goal of making our lakes and rivers "fishable and swimmable" by 1983, but years later we have beach closings due to excessive pollution and health advisories warning us not to eat too many fish due to mercury contamination.

Certainly, these landmark laws and others have resulted in environmental improvements. Additionally, sewage treatment plants drastically improved some waters such as the Wisconsin and Fox rivers that were largely devoid of aquatic life in 1970 due to the dumping of raw sewage. Yet we still have sewage overflows and excessive nutrient and chemical loading into our waters from polluted runoff.

And some things never seem to change: In the 1970s and today, coal-burning power plants remain our largest sources of air pollution. Several large coal plants were built 30 years ago; today, we have three more under construction. As Wisconsin begins to seriously address global warming pollution, these new coal plants, and 14 older dirty ones in our state, will make significant reductions of greenhouse gases a major challenge. - Keith Reopelle is program director for Clean Wisconsin.

Gaylord Nelson - "The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard."

Read full from JSonline