History Channel full length documentary discusses Chemtrails and H.A.R.P. and how they may be used in conjunction with one another. So if you’ve ever wondered what chemtrails are and what they are for you need to see this video.
This technology presents a serious challenge to those who support Al Gore’s version of Global Warming and the remedy of a CAP and TRADE tax.
The documentary is a frank admission that chemtrails and Weather Warfare technology is causing or contributing to Global Warming: “The temperature of the sky is raised to over 100 deg. F. preventing the accumulation of water vapour that would otherwise form clouds and produce rainfall.”
This stunning conclusion is not new, however Al Gore says the discussion is closed. All the while, Gore and the IPCC have consistently avoided discussion of Chemtrails, aerosols or any other alternate man-made causes of Global Warming, preferring to blame CO2 as the culprit by which to impose an involuntary, global tax.
Prison Planet | As hundreds of people die worldwide as a result of record low temperatures in the midst of a savage winter, scientists are preparing for a conference in which they will discuss measures to use geoengineering to block out the sun.
“The summit of climate scientists, to be held in California in March, will examine drastic techniques for slowing climate change that are controversial and have been described as “geo-piracy,” reports the Telegraph.
“Most techniques focus on ways of reducing the sun’s rays by blocking them using mirrors orbiting in space or by spraying sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth.”
Another proposal involves sending spaceships into the upper atmosphere to spray seawater into the sky and reflect sunlight back into space, an idea that would seem more at home in the context of some bizarre alien invasion movie.
“Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well, the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now,” said conference organizer Mike MacCracken.
Governments are already geoengineering the planet in the form of cloud seeding and similar techniques to both cause and prevent rainfall. Many would argue that the upper atmosphere is already being seeded with chemical compounds in the form of chemtrails, which differ from normal contrails emitted by airplanes as they hang in the air for hours and produce criss-cross patterns.
A 2008 KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature. The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.”
KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
As we have previously highlighted, a prominent supporter of geoengineering proposals is none other than White House science czar John P. Holdren, a key Obama advisor who infamously co-authored a book in which he called for a “planetary regime” to enforce draconian population control measures such as forced abortion, infanticide and mandatory sterilization.
In April last year, Holdren revealed that high-level talks had already taken place to explore the possibility of “geoengineering” the environment by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”.
“It’s got to be looked at,” Holdren was quoted as saying, “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” The AP also reported that Holdren said he had raised the concept in administration discussions.
Letting modern day eugenicists like Holdren mess with the planet would be like handing Dr. Josef Mengele control of the health care system. Holdren has proven himself to be a barbarian and a control freak, promoting a brand of bloodthirsty eugenics even more depraved than anything Hitler proposed in his drive for a super race.
Allowing scientists who have been completely exposed as agenda-promoting quacks by the Climategate scandal to experiment with the environment on a mass scale in the name of stopping the increasingly debunked premise of man-made global warming is absolute lunacy and should be stopped at all costs.
___
Emergency measures to slow global warming, such as a ‘solar shield’ to block the sun or artificial trees to soak up CO2, will be discussed at a ‘geo-engineering’ conference.
One proposal is for a fleet of ships that would spray seawater into the sky that would leave behind salt crystals to brighten clouds. Photo: NASA
By Alastair Jamieson
Telegraph | The summit of climate scientists, to be held in California in March, will examine drastic techniques for slowing climate change that are controversial and have been described as “geo-piracy”.
Among the possible measures to be discussed will be ocean fertilisation, which would see iron dumped into the sea to boost plankton growth, and artificial trees that use a chemical process to soak up CO2.
Most techniques focus on ways of reducing the sun’s rays by blocking them using mirrors orbiting in space or by spraying sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth.
One proposal is for a fleet of ships that would spray seawater into the sky that would leave behind salt crystals to brighten clouds, reflecting more sunlight back into space.
The conference, reported in The Guardian, comes amid concern that such techniques may be the only way to prevent average temperatures rising.
Mike MacCracken, a global warming expert at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, who is organising the conference's scientific programme, told the newspaper:
"Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well, the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now."
Scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say the techniques should not be ruled out but that more evidence from experiments is required.
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation recently described geo-engineering an act of "geo-piracy" and warned that the "the world runs a serious risk of choosing solutions that turn out to be new global problems".
However, some geo-engineering techniques are already being used on a large scale. The Chinese government is thought to use cloud-seeding on a regular basis to encourage precipitation in areas hit by drought.
Dow Jones | U.S. legislators have obtained a court order unsealing documents in a case involving a multi-million-dollar cap-and-trade fraud.
Republican legislators say the records--due to be opened to the public in early January--could shed light on the potential challenges of policing a new, trillion-dollar commodities market that would be created under climate legislation that Congress is considering.
In a rare filing by House lawyers, Reps. Joe Barton (R., Texas) and Greg Walden (R., Ore.), the ranking members respectively of the Energy Committee and the Oversight Subcommittee, asked a federal district court in California to unseal all the closed records regarding the successful prosecution for fraud of Anne Masters Sholtz, a former California Institute of Technology economist.
Lawmakers say Sholtz's case could expose the weaknesses of a federal cap-and- trade system because it involved the same market mechanism meant to cut emissions.
In particular, said one Republican aide, the case may shed light on the challenges of prosecuting fraud in such a system.
Sholtz, who helped design a small California cap-and-trade program, allegedly hustled New York Investment firm AG Clean Air out of more than $12 million between 1999 and 2001 by selling fake emission credits.
Despite an estimated $50 million to $80 million in claims against her in bankruptcy filings and nine complaints, she pleaded guilty to one of six counts of wire fraud in 2005. Sholtz received what the lawmakers say was a veritable slap on the wrist for the felony--a sentence of five years probation with one year of home detention.
"Did they not have enough proof? Did they have good leads, but faced practical difficulties? Were there witness, evidence, strategic problems? These are the questions that we hope to answer with the unsealed documents," the Republican aide said.
And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.
Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:
The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.
[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...
Who is Blythe Masters?
She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM's carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):
Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities...
As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.
Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap.
Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:
“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”
Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino -- except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release...
However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:
The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges...The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake...The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress...
Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:
Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it -- because there are financial opportunities”...
Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities...
The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.
“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”
Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, many environmentalists are opposed to cap and trade as well. For example:
Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.
“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed...
“What we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis -- to a jarring and shocking degree -- is what happens in the real world,” she says...
Friends of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won’t just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives -- they’ll get creative.”
Yes, they'll get "creative", and we have seen this movie before ...an inadequately-regulated carbon derivatives boom will destabilize the economy and lead to another crash.
Shell Oil and British Petroleum express their vehement support for a global carbon tax in “Copenhagen Communiqué”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.
Probably one of the most flagrant examples of climate cronyism to emerge from the climategate scandal were emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner” while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.
“Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?” asks Anthony Watts. “Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.”
A “Copenhagen Communiqué” put out by leaders of over 500 global corporations in advance of this week’s summit calls for drastic measures on behalf of developed countries to “de-carbonise their economies” – a move that would completely devastate living standards and lead to gargantuan levels of unemployment.
The communiqué also demands that a global carbon tax be implemented via a carbon trading system. Bear in mind that the very people calling for such a system are the same people who will benefit from it to the tune of billions, as we shall explore later.
The statement calls for, “Measures to deliver a robust global greenhouse gas emissions market in order to provide the most effective, efficient and equitable emission reductions. It would be comprised of a growing series of national or regional “cap-and-trade” markets linked together, in which the “caps” are brought down in line with the
targets that have been adopted for emission reduction.”
The document also states that CO2 emissions need to be reduced by a staggering 50-85% by 2050, a process that would return humanity to a near stone age level of development.
And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe? Greenpeace? Al Gore?
Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam of human-induced global warming.
A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.
According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.
In a speech earlier this year, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.
“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”
Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was subsequently restated by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”
Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.
Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.
Whereas parasites like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, the people who own the very carbon trading systems they claim will save the earth from CO2 emissions, want to enrich themselves to the tune of billions under a cap and trade scheme where they take a percentage of each transaction, the oil companies want to bypass this completely by simply imposing a direct CO2 tax. The consequence for the taxpayer under either scenario will be exactly the same, and the profits under both schemes would go towards filling the coffers of the global government that will enforce the whole scam.
Emphasizing again that oil companies are firmly behind the idea of man-made climate change and the introduction of a CO2 tax, in 2007 the Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the new world order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.
At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a “Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice.”
Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to “Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide.” Rules that no doubt will benefit the Rothschild family empire due to their personal ownership of a huge chunk of the carbon trading market.
Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to exploit global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.
During the 2007 meeting, elitists along with oil industry kingpins called for imposing a $1 dollar per gallon tax at the fuel pump under the justification of fighting pollution and climate change.
Globalists love global warming. Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.
Claims by climate change alarmists that “deniers” are all funded by oil companies is yet another crudely contrived hoax. In reality, oil companies are the most vocal proponents of man-made climate change and the most aggressive in pushing to tax CO2 emissions.
The clips below, taken from Alex Jones’ new documentary Fall Of The Republic, expose how Al Gore serves as the front man for the global carbon tax cap and trade scheme, which is designed to bankrupt the United States and drastically lower the living standards of the American people, while introducing nightmare levels of regulation and bureaucracy into their everyday lives. Get the full DVD here.
Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel
Telegraph | Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.
Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday.
An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances.
He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."
However, some have criticised the move as "Orwellian" and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.
Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: "This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about. It's Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business."
Under the Climate Change Act, Britain is obliged to cut its emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. This means annual CO2 emissions per person will have to fall from about 9 tonnes to only 2 tonnes.
AFP | The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.
"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.
Ownership and sales taxes, about a quarter of the cost of a new car, will be scrapped and replaced by the "price per kilometre" system aimed at cutting the Netherlands' carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent.
"Traffic jams will be halved and it helps the environment," the ministry said.
Dutch motorists driving a standard family saloon will be charged 3 euro cents per kilometre (seven US cents per mile) in 2012. That would increase to 6.7 cents (16 US cents per mile) in 2018, according to the proposed law.
Every vehicle type will have a base rate, which depends on its size, weight and carbon dioxide emissions.
Taxis, vehicles for the disabled, buses, motorcycles and classic cars will all be exempt.
"An alternative payment will be introduced for foreign vehicles," the ministry statement added.
The Dutch cabinet approved the road tax bill on Friday. It will need the backing of parliament before it becomes law.
Raw Story | United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in an opinion piece published by The New York Times, laid out a number of benchmarks for success in the upcoming global climate talks, planned to be held in Copenhagen.
Among them, Ki-moon argued in the Tuesday edition that a "global governance structure" must be levied to ensure that nations collaborate on how resources are deployed and managed.
The editorial, entitled "We Can Do It," urges world leaders toward the accomplishment of three key points: Curbing emissions, investing in green growth for third world nations and establishing a supranational structure to oversee resources.
"Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation," Ki-moon wrote. "Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty."
He continued: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built."
The secretary general's editorial comes amid doubts of the potential for a successful global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. On Monday, a U.N. official with the Climate Change Support Team said, "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go," according to the Associate Press. He reportedly added that it is unlikely a treaty will emerge from Copenhagen.
While the secretary general has praised the Obama administration's strong backing of global climate action, "support for climate change as a political issue is [...] declining in the United States," CBC News noted.
"[A Pew Research] poll of 1,500 adults found just over half of Americans favored setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, while 56 per cent supported U.S. participation in international agreements.
"But more alarming [...] was that the poll found only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is strong evidence that the Earth has grown hotter in the past few decades, down from 77 per cent in 2006."
"American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen," The Guardian noted. "But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen."
The Washington Times| President Obama is on a path toward establishing a one-world government. This is the warning of Christopher Monckton, a former major policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
In December, world leaders will descend upon Copenhagen to sign a United Nations climate change treaty that will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and set to expire in 2012. An agreement has been drafted.
The goal of the Copenhagen treaty is to erect an international cap-and-trade regime to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, said to be responsible for man-made global warming. Recently, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned of a "climate catastrophe" - a rising wave of floods, droughts and shrinking food crops - unless the treaty is signed. Mr. Brown even said global warming would inflict more damage than both world wars and the Great Depression combined; the world has only several weeks to save itself from impending doom.
"If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice," he said. Mr. Brown has thus outdone former Vice President Al Gore in fear-mongering and inciting public hysteria.
Global-warming alarmists are using the myth of climate change to impose an embryonic socialist world government. Following the collapse of communism, the West's progressive elites desperately searched for a viable ideological alternative. They found it in environmentalism.
Although the Green movement wraps itself in the flag of empirical science, it represents the very opposite: a dogma that provides meaning and purpose to its rabid followers. The ideology justifies massive tax increases and government control of the economy; it seeks to cripple free enterprise and curtail market-driven growth. Many of today's Greens are yesterday's Reds.
Global warming is the greatest fraud of our time. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, rather than getting hotter, the Earth's temperatures are cooling. Increasing numbers of leading scientists are challenging the flawed computer models used by eco-alarmists.
Mr. Gore and his supporters cannot answer several simple questions. If the Earth's temperatures are no longer rising, then how can CO2 emissions be responsible for global warming? How could previous dramatic increases in global temperatures - such as the end of the Ice Age - have taken place without concentrations of CO2? The answer is obvious: Carbon emissions are not connected to fluctuations in global temperatures.
The mad drive for an international cap-and-trade system is really geared toward achieving the left's long-sought goal: the destruction of democratic capitalism and national sovereignty. The Greens are poised to succeed where the Reds failed.
The Copenhagen treaty must still be negotiated. Final agreement is far from certain, especially from emerging industrial powers like China, India and Brazil. Yet the draft version is clear about the treaty's essential elements.
It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called "climate debt" - a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.
The Copenhagen treaty seeks to implement a bureaucratic redistributionist agenda; it is a way for Third World kleptocracies to extort enormous sums of money from America and other rich nations.
Moreover, Mr. Monckton points out that, in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.-created "government" responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution. In other words, the draft treaty explicitly demands that the world body erect an international mechanism with the power to impose emission-reduction targets for each country, determine acceptable levels of CO2 and levy global taxes.
The United States would lose control over its environmental policy. Also, it would sign its death warrant as a functioning democracy, enabling the United Nations to administer a fledgling world government possessing the authority to regulate and tax the American economy. The treaty is a sword aimed at the heart of our national sovereignty.
If Mr. Obama signs the Copenhagen treaty, he "will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever," Mr. Monckton recently told an audience in Minnesota. "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created."
Yet the U.S. Senate can avoid this disastrous course. A supermajority of 67 votes is required to ratify the treaty. In 1997, the Senate in a 95-0 vote rejected the Kyoto Protocol, thereby preventing the United States from joining. Mr. Monckton believes that, in order to avoid defeat, Mr. Obama will try to circumvent the ratification process. If he does, he will spark a political revolt that will make the Tea Party protests look tame by comparison.
Mr. Obama has vowed to create a "green economy" based on "green-collar jobs" and "a green New Deal." The Copenhagen treaty would enable him to accomplish his revolutionary ambitions. It would mark his Cultural Revolution - the permanent transformation of America.
Green Tech Media | Geoengineering may not be a last resort to fight global warming any longer – that is, if us humans can't get our act together to reduce the carbon dioxide we're pumping into the atmosphere.
That's the warning that emerged from a Royal Society report published Tuesday. Grand, expensive and uncertain engineering projects – think installing carbon-scrubbing devices across continents or shooting aerosols into the atmosphere to block sunlight – may be humankind's only shot at slowing man-made global warming, the report's authors warn.
That's because current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions aren't going far enough, the report's authors contend.
The world needs to cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to half of what they were in 1990 by 2050, but right now, "Global efforts to reduce emissions have not yet been sufficiently successful to provide confidence that the reductions needed to avoid dangerous climate change will be achieved," the report states.
"It is hoped that post-2012 emission reduction targets will stimulate greater action through more effective mechanisms," the report went on, referring to the upcoming United Nations talks in Copenhagen to craft a carbon-reduction agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol (see The Copenhagen Call: Biz Leaders Back GHG Reduction Efforts).
"But there is a serious risk that sufficient mitigation actions will not be introduced in time, despite the fact that the technologies required are both available and affordable," the report stated.
So, while working toward a huge reduction in emissions, the world's governments should be planning for ways to handle geoengineering projects, the report states.
Those fall into two camps. The first, carbon dioxide removal, involves everything from planting lots of trees to fertilizing the ocean to boost the growth of carbon dioxide-absorbing plankton (see Carbon Capture Firm Could Use the Ocean to Combat Global Warming).
That would get at the root of the problem of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, but is likely to be massively expensive and complicated, the report noted. Of the available choices, ocean fertilization held some of the greatest potential for negative side effects, the report noted.
The second technique, solar-radiation management, could be cheaper and faster, the report states. Solar-radiation management includes such schemes as pumping sulfur into the stratosphere to force the same kind of global cooling that has occurred after massive volcanic eruptions (see Green Light post).
But such sunlight-blocking schemes don't deal directly with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carry the risks of unknown and possible catastrophic side effects, the report warns. Thus, they should only be used if absolutely necessary, the report stated.
Given the challenge facing the globe, geoengineering concepts of all stripes have been getting more serious attention from important parties, including the Obama administration, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Geoengineering will certainly require an unprecedented level of international cooperation, first on researching which ones will work the best and then on spending the billions of dollars needed to implement them, the report found.
German climatologists are pushing for the creation of a "world climate bank" which would allow industrialized countries to purchase emission rights from less-developed nations. The revenues would enable poor countries to finance environmentally friendly economic development.
Der Spiegel | A new study by advisers to the German government has revealed that industrialized nations must radically reduce their CO2 emissions if they want to reach the internationally agreed target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The climatologists are proposing setting up a "world climate bank" to allow countries to trade emission rights.
According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Germany would have to halve its CO2 output compared to current levels by 2020 and cut emissions to zero by 2030 if it wants to remain on track. "These findings are as surprising as they are shocking," WBGU executive Hans Joachim Schellnhuber said about the report, prepared ahead of December's international climate summit in Copenhagen. The German government has up until now been planning much less ambitious cuts.
Climatic Imbalance
The WBGU scientists estimate that no more than 750 billion tons of CO2 can be emitted by all countries collectively between now and 2050 if there is to be a 67 percent chance of the 2-degree goal being met. The target was set at July's G-8 summit in the Italian town of L'Aquila, where leading developed nations discussed measures to limit the effects of global warming.
In their calculations, the researchers allocated the total permissable quantity of CO2 equally among the world's total population. That approach was based on a proposal made in 2007 by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that every individual in the world should have the right to emit the same amount of CO2.
Based on that assumption, each country has a different time limit for cutting its emissions, depending on its consumption of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. For example, relatively poor Bangladesh could maintain its current CO2 emission levels for the next 384 years and still meet the target for its share of total CO2 emissions by volume. India, for its part, could continue at current levels for 88 years. However industrialized states would have to drastically cut emissions within just a few years.
The WBGU experts are proposing that industrialized countries could buy "emission rights" from less-developed countries if they want to continue emitting higher levels of CO2. They suggest setting up a "world climate bank" which would allow industrialized nations to buy emissions quotas from countries with lower levels of CO2 output. The experts estimate that the global trade in emissions quotas could generate annual revenues of between €30 billion and €90 billion ($45 billion and $129 billion). That money could then be used to help the world's poorest countries to finance environmentally friendly economic development.
Germany is already struggling to meet its current climate goals. A recent report by Aachen-based engineering and consulting firm EUtech, commissioned by the environmental group Greenpeace, revealed that Germany would not reach the 40 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 that the government has set as its official target.
Prison Planet | The vampiric and gluttonous feeding frenzy currently being enjoyed by the federal government under the pretext of climate change is set to be expanded with a range of new taxes on products disposed of via waste water, including cosmetics, toothpaste and toilet paper.
The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, introduced last week by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), will be “financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in wastewater, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry,” according to Blumenauer’s fact sheet.
Though the taxes are “designed to be collected at the manufacturer level,” only the most naive would doubt that multinational corporations would just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as is routine.
Items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil will be subject to a 3% excise tax, while water beverages will be hit with a 4% tax, “because these products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to the bill.
The legislation also cites “climate change mitigation” as a justification for imposing the taxes. The Feds’ new feeding frenzy will rake in around $10 billion dollars a year.
The bill even defines “toilet tissue” in section 4172. “The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff,” writes Chris Horner. “The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseam — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems nationwide.”
The necessity of cleaning up a water supply poisoned with the toxic soup of human disposals seems like a reasonable proposal, especially in light of evidence that antiandrogens in our rivers and lakes are contributing to global sperm reduction and essentially chemically sterilizing men, and yet when the filters are ready to be installed at water treatment facilities that would remove this junk, the government steps in and blocks them under the justification that they contribute to CO2 emissions.
The fact that the global warming feeding frenzy has now reached a level of insanity to the point where the federal government is essentially preparing to tax us to defecate and urinate shows how far down the line we really are. What’s next? A tax on breathing? After all, we humans exhale that evil life-giving poisonous gas carbon dioxide. The New York Times actually introduced the idea of the government imposing a tax on breathing in a March 2007 editorial.
As we are lectured about the necessity of why we must have every aspect of our lives regulated and taxed in order to save the earth, we learn that the government’s last efforts to do so, during the ozone layer scare of the 80’s and 90’s, actually harmed the environment.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), introduced in the 90’s to replace ozone-depleting gases in deodorants, fridges and air conditioners, actually “act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.” So while the government was brow-beating us about the evils of emitting CO2 because it apparently caused global warming, they were actually mandating that we use a gas which contributed to global warming to an substantially greater degree.
Reuters | To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.
By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.
With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.
Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Shoibal Chakravarty (Princeton Environment Institute) said, but he did not rule it out: “We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it’s great.”
Times Online | JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
“We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder,” he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.
This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.
Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.
Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”
The Tory leader, David Cameron, has also suggested Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.
Despite these comments, however, government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy. ”
Reuters | The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act soon to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing senior Obama administration officials.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare documentation for a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare, the newspaper said.
There is wide expectation that Jackson will act by April 2, the second anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that found that EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse pollution under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
Jackson said that she had not decided to issue such a finding, but pointedly noted the impending anniversary of the ruling, the paper said.
EPA scientists responded to the ruling last summer with a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health.
The Bush administration, which opposed economy-wide moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, did not act on the agency's finding.
Jackson's decision most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, The New York Times said.
"We here know how momentous that decision could be," she told the newspaper. "We have to lay out a road map."
Jackson said on Tuesday the EPA would reconsider a Bush administration rule to let new coal-fired power plants open without taking climate-warming carbon emissions into account.
It was the second time this month that the administration of President Barack Obama, who succeeded George W. Bush as president on January 20, has diverged from the Bush environmental position.
On February 6, the EPA said it would reconsider whether to grant California and other states the authority to cut greenhouse gas emissions by new cars and light trucks, a request the Bush administration denied.
We just slashed our prices to bare minimum on winter and summer gear at our Cafepress storefront. Most of out T-shirts are $19.99, take advantage of these prices throughout the Spring and help us expand the reach of JustGetThere to your neck of the woods.
Support Us
Help us continue to be a source for illuminating information. Any amount is appreciated. Thanks!
Recent Comments