GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label stop cap-and-trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stop cap-and-trade. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Obama's Push for Copenhagen Deal Could Violate Constitution

President Obama's mission to save the planet from global warming could end up trampling on the U.S. Constitution, critics say.

When Obama arrives in Copenhagen Friday, he is hoping to cut a deal on a new global-warming agreement. Even though the conference is not likely to produce a legally binding deal, critics say if the president signs an international climate treaty pledging reductions in carbon emissions, he will violate the Constitution.

"President Obama cannot bind the American people to job killing international agreements on climate change without the advice and consent of the United States Senate," former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote Wednesday at the conservative Web site Human Events.

The Constitution states that the president cannot sign treaties without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

But with climate change legislation stuck in the Senate after the House passed its version earlier this year, the White House is flirting with the possibility of taking action without Congress.

Last week, on the day the climate summit opened in Denmark, the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a danger to human health -- a finding that could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants.

While administration officials have said they would prefer Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans fear the EPA, buoyed by its latest finding, is prepared to act unilaterally.

Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate change bill, told Fox News that the Obama administration has the power to act without Congress through the EPA.

"It's no longer a question of legislation or no legislation," he told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "It is now a question of legislation or regulation. The EPA can act.

"And so this is now something which is going to happen. And the only question now is whether or not, as you say, command and control of the EPA is going to be the way in which we solve the problem, or legislation that allows us to protect trade-intensive, energy-intensive industries, to protect consumers."

But Gingrich warned of an uprising if the Obama administration takes action through the EPA.

"Similarly, he can't bypass the peoples' representatives in Congress by having the EPA pursue the same goals through bureaucratic totalitarianism," he wrote.

"This message to the president is also a message to Congress. Should the Obama administration act unilaterally and subvert the Constitution, the American people will rightfully rise up in opposition."

Global leaders were expected to arrive before Friday's summit finale to sign a political outline of a global warming treaty that would set limits on carbon dioxide pollution by the United States, China and India, as well as extend emissions targets for the 37 countries regulated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which was never ratified by the U.S.

So far, negotiations in Copenhagen have been rocky. The Obama administration is looking to strike a loose agreement on guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions, with a binding treaty to follow sometime in the future.

But Obama has received one warning from a member of his party on signing a treaty. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., told Obama in a letter late last month not to commit the U.S. to any binding climate standards in Copenhagen without congressional support.

"As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country," he wrote.

Webb's office could not be reached for further comment.

The Center for Biological Diversity Climate Law Institute, however, argues the Supreme Court has given the president the legal authority to bypass Congress and bind the country internationally through an "executive agreement" and that Congress itself has given the president specific authority to negotiate international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In a report, the institute also claims that Obama could "make an international commitment grounded in his power -- and indeed, his duty -- to enforce existing U.S. environmental laws," such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.

"In short, any one of these sources of authority would allow President Obama to make a binding, meaningful commitment to the international community," the institute wrote in the report, titled "Yes He Can: President Obama's Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress."

"Together, these congressional enactments and environmental statutes give President Obama a very strong hand -- strong enough to do what the science demands, and not just what a divided and rancorous Congress might someday allow."

But others framed Obama's trip to Copenhagen in very different terms.

"Who will President Obama heed?" Vince Haley, vice president of policy at American Solutions for Winning the Future, wrote in an opinion article published in FoxNews.com. "The American people and our constitutional system of checks and balances, or the collection of dictators, tyrants, and most undemocratic heads of government convened by the United Nations in Copenhagen this week?

"They are tempting the American president to do what he wants to do and what they mostly do: ignore the will of their own people and sign a political agreement based on an unconstitutional sham."

Obama, who will have the venomous pro Cap and Trade Nancy Pelosi at his side, can make promises and agreements, but a treaty requires a 2/3 vote of Congress. And if Obama’s commitments are unconstitutional, they can be reversed. Let us hope he chooses not to over-step and to listen to the American people, if not the combination of Copenhagen and passing ObamaCare, another unconstitutional program in many ways that between 66% and 77% (depending on the poll) of Americans do not want will be his undoing. It will make him a one term president, with huge losses in the House, Senate and Governorships in 2010 as well as 2012, hampering his ability of passing additional unwanted legislation in his final two years and very likely having most of his proposed legislation overturned.

Obama’s poll numbers continue dropping as America’s disappointment, fear and anger grows.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill

By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press Writer – 1

SYDNEY – Australia's Parliament defeated legislation to set up a greenhouse gas emissions trading system on Wednesday, throwing a central plank of the government's plans to combat global warming into disarray.

The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.

Rudd had wanted the legislation passed before he attends next week's U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen so he could portray Australia as a world leader on the issue.

The government's next step is unclear. Rudd could use the failure of the bill to call early

elections, but is unlikely to do so before next year, when elections are due anyway.

-------------

10 Top Scientists Say Global Warming Is a Lie!!

10 Dec 08 – More than 650 international scientists are about to make them selves heard at this week's UN global warming conference in Poland. They are there to debunk claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Many current and former UN IPCC scientists have put out a report that debunks global warming. They say that it is all political hype, and point out that the earth may actually be cooling.

The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

Thanks to Joe Herr, John Harper, Mike McEvoy and Marc Morano for this info

Lord Christopher Monckton releases the definitive report on ClimateGate

Let us pray that our leaders have as much sense that Obama does not go to Copenhagen!!

Are You Willing to Pay $145 Trillion for a Program Shrouded in Lies?

UK Climate Secretary to Temporarily Step Down

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Dennis Miller on the War and Troops…Etc

Dennis Miller on the War

Beware the Prophet who stands to make a Profit… Dennis Miller (paraphrased Dennis on the O’Reilly Factor) after seeing the clip of the film maker that Gore would not answer and basically disallowed to speak about his concerns.

Watch and take Part in Big Hollywood Premiere: Not Evil Just Wrong – The Movie Al Gore does not want you to see!!! Perhaps after seeing the video below, this film will have to be re-titled. There appears to be lots of evil!!


Is Obama Poised to Cede American Sovereignty by Signing Global Warming Treaty?

Candid Discussion by Real Doctors on Healthcare Plus RFK Jr on the Truth About Vaccines

America for Sale

The U.S. Debt Clock

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: the Daily Thought Pad - Marion’s Place

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Stop Cap and Trade - “the biggest tax in American history.”


Only the United States Senate stands in the way of what the Wall Street Journal calls “the biggest tax in American history.”

That’s because the Pelosi-led House of Representatives just strong-armed the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as “Cap-and-Trade”) through the House of Representatives.

According to the Heritage Foundation, this massive “national energy tax” could cost the average family "nearly 3,000 per household per year."

House Minority Leader John Boehner points out that it will “put millions of Americans out of work” as American jobs are shipped overseas or lost outright.
Even President Obama admitted that under “Cap-and-Trade” legislation, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

But that’s not all. Apparently, few if any Members of the House of Representatives even bothered to read this massive “national energy tax” before voting on it. Does this sound familiar?

According to Pioneer Press:
"Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'Cap and Trade Energy Bill'), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why.”

Then, to add insult to injury, on the day of the vote, the Pelosi-led Congress added another 255 pages to the bill (which no one had read to begin with) at 3:00 AM (EST) and limited debate to three hours before passing this massive “national energy tax” at 7:16 PM (EST).

And when Boehner tried to read some of the provisions of this bill aloud on the floor of the House, liberals in Congress tried to shut him down.

"Democrats tried to shut me down as I read parts of Speaker Pelosi's national energy tax (also known as ‘cap and trade’) out loud on the House floor. For more than an hour I cited provisions that will destroy American jobs, raise prices for gasoline and electricity, and devastate middle-class families and small businesses," said Minority Leader Boehner.

If we are going to beat this horrifying reality… if we are going to defeat "Cap and Trade," the time to act is now.



Use the button below to send your personalized Blast Faxes to Barack Obama and every Republican Member of the United States Senate - or alternatively to President Obama and all 535 Members of Congress.

Tell them that you oppose the “Cap-and-Trade” scam rapidly making its way through Congress. Tell them that the American people do not want higher utility bills, higher prices at the pump and in the grocery store, diminished freedoms and a lower standard of living to help petty politicians achieve greater political power.
Demand they reject the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act and all other Cap-and-Trade schemes now.


If the button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.


Just What Is Cap-And-Trade?

Essentially, “Cap-and-Trade” is being deceptively peddled as a system to encourage businesses to engage in “environmentally responsible activities.”

But in actuality, it has little to do with the environment and instead is a means to deprive you of your income, control your behavior and repress your liberties.

Remember when President Obama said:
"We can’t drive our SUVs, and eat whatever we want, and keep our homes at 72 [degrees] all the time, whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and keep consuming 25% of the world’s resources with just 4% of the world’s population... That’s not going to happen."

Little did we know that he was deadly serious when he made that radical statement on the campaign trail last year?

Under “Cap-and-Trade,” the government would issue "pollution credits." Once allocated (as the government sees fit) those who use less than their government-imposed allocation can sell them to those who have exceeded their government allocation.
Peter Ferrara, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, writing for The American Spectator explains "Cap-and-Trade" this way:
"Under this policy, every business involving CO2 emissions will have to buy permits from the government for the amount of such emissions, which will be sold in open auctions, where the permit price will be bid up. But the government will limit the number of these permits, and consequently the maximum amount of CO2 emissions allowed. Indeed, over time the government will clamp down on the amount of CO2 emissions allowed by the permits, with the emissions to be reduced by 80 percent by 2050."

And how will “Cap-and-Trade” policies change your standard of living for the worse:

Ferrara explains:

"These increased costs are effectively a new tax on the American people, even though Obama promised in his campaign that there would be no tax increase for the bottom 95 percent of income earners."

Of course, in the strictest sense, “Cap-and-Trade” is not solely a "tax." It’s something much worse.
When the government taxes you, it openly confiscates your income and that income goes directly into government coffers to fund some actual or perceived need.
Under “Cap-and-Trade,” no one in the government reaches directly into your pocket… nothing new is withheld from your paycheck… no new lines appear on your 1040 Form that you send to the IRS.

Instead, the government, which is already taking de facto control of the banking and automotive industry, will have yet another tool in its arsenal to effectively take control of every other company or sector of industry that produces CO2... and that's just about everybody.

And when you complain that your standard of living has gone down, you can be certain that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and liberals in Congress will simply point the finger at “greedy industry” when they know full well that they were the ones that gave this monster life.

In short, “Cap-and-Trade” has nothing to do with the environment, it is nothing more than a mechanism that the government can now use to force others to pick your pocket, and diminish your standard of living in this already queasy economy.



Use the button below to send your personalized Blast Faxes to Barack Obama and every Republican Member of the United States Senate - or alternatively to President Obama and all 535 Members of Congress.

Tell them that you oppose the “Cap-and-Trade” scam rapidly making its way through Congress. Tell them that the American people do not want higher utility bills, higher prices at the pump and in the grocery store, diminished freedoms and a lower standard of living to help petty politicians achieve greater political power.
Demand they reject the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act and all other Cap-and-Trade schemes now.


If the button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.



Fewer Jobs And A Lower Standard Of Living....

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, summed up how “Cap-and-Trade” will change your life for the worse when speaking at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference:

“[L]et me get this straight, we are not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, unless you use electricity. And we are not going to raise taxes on anyone under $250,000 per year, unless you buy gasoline… [or] unless you buy heating oil… [or] unless you use natural gas… And I thought to myself how dumb do they think we are that they can pretend that an energy tax is not an energy tax and…that every retired American who uses electricity is not going to pay it, and every person in New Hampshire who uses heating oil is not going to pay it, and every person who drives a car isn’t going to pay it. I just want to report to Attorney General Holder and President Obama that this is a nation of people courageous enough… to insist that we not be governed by people who won’t tell us the truth.”

Here's what Boehner says about recent “Cap-and-Trade” proposals that are on the table:

“Families and small businesses are struggling to get by, but the Democrats… would raise taxes on every American who drives a car, flips on a light switch, or buys a product manufactured in the United States. In fact it would cost every family as much as $3,100 a year in additional energy costs through their ‘cap-and-trade’ energy tax, and will drive millions of good-paying American jobs overseas.”

And the Republican Study Committee echoes those sentiments:

“At a time when families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, the President and his Democrat friends want to take over $3,000 in new taxes from every American family in order to appease extreme political cronies. This is not a solution. It is a recipe for economic disaster.”

Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation says:

“By limiting the supply of fossil fuels... cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.”

In other words, as far as Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of American wage-earners, forget it. It was nothing more than sleight-of-hand.

But “Cap-and-Trade” is not just a shell game when it comes to your pocketbook. It has the same effect when it comes to jobs.

Remember all those jobs Obama promised to create?

Ferrara puts that illusion in perspective:

"A thorough study on the effects of cap and trade conducted by a leading economics firm, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), concluded that cap and trade would result in job losses of between 1.2 million and 1.8 million by 2020, and 3 to 4 million by 2030. This is roughly the amount of jobs Obama claims will be produced by his economic stimulus package. Slower growth results in a loss of GDP for the American people of nearly $700 billion per year by 2030, which translates into lost household income of $4,000 to $6,750 per year by then."

Make no mistake; “Cap-and-Trade” is not just a confiscatory income killer… it’s a job-killer as well.

And, just where do you think all those jobs are going to go? They're going to go to China and India, countries that have no intention of crippling their emerging economies with ridiculous “Cap-and-Trade” schemes.



Use the button below to send your personalized Blast Faxes to Barack Obama and every Republican Member of the United States Senate - or alternatively to President Obama and all 535 Members of Congress.

Tell them that you oppose the “Cap-and-Trade” scam rapidly making its way through Congress. Tell them that the American people do not want higher utility bills, higher prices at the pump and in the grocery store, diminished freedoms and a lower standard of living to help petty politicians achieve greater political power.
Demand they reject the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act and all other Cap-and-Trade schemes now.


If the button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.



Fraud And Abuse... Rewarding Political Cronies On Your Dime.

Ask yourself the following question. If government controls the supply of allowable CO2 emissions, how long do you think it will take for elected officials to use “Cap-and-Trade” as a tool to reward cronies and punish political enemies?

David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute is one of several commentators who see in this legislation a left-wing plot to reward political friends and punish political foes.
“In the name of environmental protection, Democrats are readying just such a transfer on a scale that would have impressed the Pharaohs. Tens of billions of dollars, possibly hundreds of billions, will be shifted from American consumers of electricity to shareholders of favored utility companies in primarily blue states. Under the leadership of uber-liberal Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democrats are determined to make their plan so complicated that taxpayers will not notice the flocks of dollars migrating from the middle of the country to the coasts.”

Of course, such a dynamic has another implication. “Cap-and-Trade” will be a rich man's game. In fact, one extremely wealthy liberal is already playing the "Cap-and-Trade" game.

That rich liberal is Al Gore, and he lives in a 20-room house with eight bathrooms.
His house - which looks like Tara in Gone With the Wind - burns carbon like you wouldn’t believe. Nashville Electric Service records show that Gore Hall consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year.

To be specific: the Department of Energy says the average American consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours per year. In 2006, Gore consumed some 221,000 kilowatts hours. That’s more than 20 times the national average.

Of course, in his Academy Award-winning film, Mr. Global Warming told Americans to cut down on their consumption of electricity. So when some folks found him in that enormous house, they thought they detected hypocrisy.

Not so, said Gore, “I’m carbon neutral.”

“Carbon neutral?”

Oh yes. At home, Tipper and Al and the kids can burn as many kilowatts and produce as much carbon dioxide as they please - just so long as they buy carbon offsets.

And what are carbon offsets? They are “verifiable reductions in CO2” that somebody else is willing to sell. If a company has some extra carbon emissions lying around, it can sell them to Al Gore so he can cool every square inch of that monster house in the summer and heat it from basement to attic in the winter – just as carbon neutral as he can be.

And which company sold Gore those carbon offsets? It was a company in Great Britain. And guess who owns a huge chunk of that company? You guessed it… Al Gore.

As blogger Dan Riehl put it: Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms."
Do America a favor. Let's defeat this liberal “Cap-and-Trade” scheme right here and right now.



Use the button below to send your personalized Blast Faxes to Barack Obama and every Republican Member of the United States Senate - or alternatively to President Obama and all 535 Members of Congress.

Tell them that you oppose the “Cap-and-Trade” scam rapidly making its way through Congress. Tell them that the American people do not want higher utility bills, higher prices at the pump and in the grocery store, diminished freedoms and a lower standard of living to help petty politicians achieve greater political power.
Demand they reject the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act and all other Cap-and-Trade schemes now.


If the button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.


Yours In Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella

President
Center for Individual Freedom

Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838


CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Contributions to CFIF are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!

United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Senators from your State.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

No More Green Guilt

Every investment prospectus warns that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But suppose that an investment professional's record contains nothing but losses, of failed prediction after failed prediction. Who would still entrust that investor with his money?

Yet, in public policy there is one group with a dismal track record that Americans never seem to tire of supporting. We invest heavily in its spurious predictions, suffer devastating losses, and react by investing even more, never seeming to learn from the experience. The group I’m talking about is the environmentalist movement.

Consider their track record—like the dire warnings of catastrophic over-population. Our unchecked consumption, we were told, was depleting the earth's resources and would wipe humanity out in a massive population crash. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, forecasted hundreds of millions of deaths per year throughout the 1970s, to be averted, he insisted, only by mass population control "by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."

But instead of global-scale famine and death, the 1970s witnessed an agricultural revolution. Despite a near-doubling of world population, food production continues to grow as technological innovation creates more and more food on each acre of farmland. The U.S., which has seen its population grow from 200 to 300 million, is more concerned about rampant obesity than a shortage of food.

The Alar scare in 1989 is another great example. The NRDC, an environmentalist lobby group, engineered media frenzy over the baseless assertion that Alar, an apple ripening agent, posed a cancer threat. The ensuing panic cost the apple industry over $200 million dollars, and Alar was pulled from the market even though it was a perfectly safe and value-adding product.

Or consider the campaign against the insecticide DDT, beginning with Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. The world had been on the brink of eradicating malaria using DDT—but for Carson and her followers, controlling disease-carrying mosquitoes was an arrogant act of "tampering" with nature. Carson issued dire warnings that nature was "capable of striking back in unexpected ways" unless people showed more "humility before [its] vast forces." She asserted, baselessly, that among other things DDT would cause a cancer epidemic. Her book led to such a public outcry that, despite its life-saving benefits and mountains of scientific evidence supporting its continued use, DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. Thanks to environmentalist opposition, DDT was almost completely phased out worldwide. And while there is still zero evidence of a DDT cancer risk, the resurgence of malaria needlessly kills over a million people a year.

Time and time again, the supposedly scientific claims of environmentalists have proven to be pseudo-scientific nonsense, and the Ehrlichs and Carsons of the world have proven to be the Bernard Madoffs of science. Yet Americans have ignored the evidence and have instead invested in their claims—accepting the blame for unproven disasters and backing coercive, harmful "solutions."

Today, of course, the Green doomsday prediction is for catastrophic global warming to destroy the planet—something that environmentalists have pushed since at least the early 1970s, when they were also worried about a possible global cooling shifting the planet into a new ice age.

But in this instance, just as with Alar, DDT, and the population explosion, the science is weak and the "solutions" drastic. We are told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, yet global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes, yet the data doesn’t support such a claim. We are warned of a potentially catastrophic sea level rise of 20 feet over the next century, but that requires significant melting of the land-based ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Greenland has retained its ice sheet for over 100,000 years despite wide-ranging temperatures and Antarctica has been cooling moderately for the last half-century.

Through these distortions of science we are again being harangued to support coercive policies. We are told that our energy consumption is destroying the planet and that we must drastically reduce our carbon emissions immediately. Never mind that energy use is an indispensable component of everything we do, that 85 percent of the world's energy is carbon-based, or that there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon, and that billions of people are suffering today from lack of energy.

Despite all of that, Americans seem to once again be moving closer to buying the Green investment pitch and backing destructive Green policies. Why don't we learn from past experience? Do you think a former Madoff investor would hand over money to him again?

It's not that we're too stupid to learn, it's that we are holding onto a premise that distorts our understanding of reality. Americans are the most successful individuals in history - even in spite of this economic downturn - in terms of material wealth and the quality of life and happiness it brings. We are heirs to the scientific and industrial revolutions, which have increased life expectancy from 30 years to 80 and improved human life in countless, extraordinary ways. Through our ingenuity and productive effort, we have achieved an unprecedented prosperity by reshaping nature to serve our needs. Yet we have always regarded this productivity and prosperity with a certain degree of moral suspicion. The Judeo-Christian ethic of guilt and self-sacrifice leads us to doubt the propriety of our success and makes us susceptible to claims that we will ultimately face punishment for our selfishness--that our prosperity is sinful and can lead only to an apocalyptic judgment day.

Environmentalism preys on our moral unease and fishes around for doomsday scenarios. If our ever-increasing population or life-enhancing chemicals have not brought about the apocalypse, then it must be our use of fossil fuels that will. Despite the colossal failures of past Green predictions, we buy into the latest doomsday scare because, on some level, we have accepted an undeserved guilt. We lack the moral self-assertiveness to regard our own success as virtuous; we think we deserve punishment.

It is time to stop apologizing for prosperity. We must reject the unwarranted fears spread by Green ideology by rejecting unearned guilt. Instead of meekly accepting condemnation for our capacity to live, we should proudly embrace our unparalleled ability to alter nature for our own benefit as the highest of virtues.

Let’s stop wallowing in Green guilt. It’s time to recapture our Founding Fathers' admiration for the pursuit of each individual's own happiness.

**************

Source: Fushion Magazine Preview Article

By Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is located in Washington, DC. It is a Division of the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to advance Ayn Rand's ideas. To learn more go to www.aynrand.org

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources: