We can all fight global warming
Editor’s note: The following column was written by Columneetza Grade 12 student Brittany Betts-Edwards as part of the work experience component of his graduation transitions program.
The baking sun of the approaching summer is starting to feel like we are all ants getting burned under a magnifying glass. Scorching hot!
What happened to the times when it was hot, not scorching? The summers of our childhoods, back when the breeze was actually cold and could send chills down your spine? Global Warming is winning the fight against this. We will be lucky if we ever get to see our old summers again.
If we do not slow down Global Warming, it will get worse. Do we really want it to become more like Global Boiling or something of the like? I sure know that I don’t want that.
“Global Warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century,” as said by online source, Wikipedia.
Solar variations, combined with volcanoes, are natural phenomena that have led to the contribution. But through the natural, there are many unnatural, many that us humans have put in ourselves. Non-renewable resources, with carbon dioxide in the lead, are a huge problem.
Some of our other problems are that some families have too many vehicles when they are not needed. Yes, my family included.
Many families also use too much energy inside their homes when they don’t even need to. As the commercials on Much Music say, “Flick Off!” And pollution? That’s another huge problem. Why do people litter anyway? Not only is it dangerous for our environment, but it also looks disgusting. We really need to stop this mess.
The scorching sun is not only harming us as people, but harming everything around us as well. Because of all the sudden heat waves, sea levels are rising very quickly. Yes, it is true that they would be rising anyway, not this fast though. Global Warming has sped up the process quite quickly. The ozone is turning into a giant magnifying glass over the world due to the depletion.
Solutions are waiting for you everywhere. Look around you. Even the simplest of all things could help. It’s worth it, right?
No one wants to burn up under the sun. You can do things in your home, with your vehicles, inefficient energy, in your yard, and with a littering habit that you may, or may not have.
Sitting in your house alone right now? Take a look around you.
Right there you saw many things that could probably help in our fight — the light bulbs for instance. Have lights that you use often? Switch them to the energy saving fluorescent bulbs. Another bright side to fluorescent bulbs is that they last longer. (Did you know that switching even just one light to a fluorescent bulb saves 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year?) That’s what we are doing in our house. Most of our lights are the fluorescent bulbs.
Do you have a dishwasher? If yes, next time you plan on running it, make sure it is full. If it’s not, wait or do the dishes by hand.
This saves both water and energy, both of which are valuable. Also, you should never leave water on that is not being used.
Fun Fact: Using a clothesline when possible can save you more than 600 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Throughout the summer, we only use our dryer on the days that the clothes are out on the line when it starts to rain.
How many vehicles does one family really need? If it’s nice out, why don’t you walk? Walking is a great way to get around.
Or you could bike, depending on which you prefer. Why not? They are fun, save energy, and help to get you in shape.
What have you really got to lose? But, if you really must drive, think about carpooling.
Get as many of you as you can into the vehicle. Think about it. If you don’t do it that way, most of you will take separate vehicles.
That is a lot of pollution right there.
Fun Fact: leaving your car at home three days every week can save you up to 2,385 pounds of carbon dioxide in one year.
There is so much energy being used, much of which is inefficient. Think about it. Does your television really need to be on when no one is watching it?
How about the light that is on in the empty room down the hall?
Or how about your computer that is sitting there, no one even thinking of touching it for another hour or two? Get up and turn them off; they do not need to be on.
The least you can do with a computer is turn the monitor off. Yes, the monitor uses the most energy out of the entire computer.
Why leave the lights on when you are in bed, or not in a room at all? It is pointless, yet many of us do it. Why? Are we just scared of the dark?
The same things will get you either way. Light will only really protect you from vampires and other monsters of that sort.
Since they do not exist, we do not have to worry about it. Every night before bed, check that all the lights and appliances are off. Either my mother or I make sure to do that every night. Plus, turning them off gives you an advantage in another way: smaller bills.
Stop using powered tools in your yard. Is that really necessary? No. That is the lazy way of doing yard work. You should be using push-mowers, rakes, shovels, and hedge clippers.
My father has a powered lawn mower, but every time he goes to use it, there is something wrong.
Whether it is the cord being chewed by a pet, or being out of gas, it is a problem. With a push-mower, you do not have to worry about those problems.
Litter is a very vile and disgusting habit. Garbage on the ground of the Earth is what second hand smoke is like to people. It is both dangerous and deadly.
Those who don’t do it, have no control, and often can’t escape the smoke.
Well, the Earth cannot escape litter, no matter how bad it would like to. Is it so hard to use garbage cans or recycle? Anything that cannot be recycled could at least be thrown into a garbage can.
Just hold onto the garbage until you come across an appropriate can to place it in. Next time you see someone drop something on the ground, stop him or her and ask him or her to pick it up. If you are too scared to say something, pick it up yourself. Either way, you are helping out and should feel good about yourself. Now that you are doing things the proper way, the world is beautiful and is one step closer to being saved.
Unaware of the places you can go in Williams Lake you can go to recycle? Fear no longer. There are three places that you can go: Hodgson Road, the Recreation Complex, and the Landfill. We are all familiar with at least one of these places.
Things that can be recycled:
•Newsprint (no glossy flyers)
•Mixed papers (no glossy magazines, pizza boxes, or books)
•Tin cans (no aerosol, paint, or metal cans)
•Cardboard
•Glass food jars and bottles (no pane glass, light bulbs, or other glass)
Global Warming is a major problem that needs special attention. We just need to follow these simple steps, and we can save the world in a big way. We should all pitch in; we all want to live, right? No one wants to get burned under that giant magnifying glass.
Summers may never go back to the way that we remember them, but it is worth a try. How are we going to find out if we do not try?
source-http://www.bclocalnews.com
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
G8 To Decide Human Fighting With Global Warming
G8 To Decide Human Fighting With Global Warming
The need for a global warming pact has reunited a Group of Eight environment ministers on Monday in Japan.
U.N. European countries and other developing nations made pressures on the eight ministers to discuss and find a solution for this major issue that is affecting the whole world. They even suggested that a cut of the emissions might be a first step in showing everyone's interest in improving the environment. Therefore, the ministers should set some limits or targets for cutting emissions by 2020.
However, it seems that the ministers from the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia set a target for 2050, not taking into consideration the environmentalists’ frustrations. Moreover, even the Germany’s state minister for environment, Matthias Machnig, agreed that “the next 20 years are very vital, very important for climate change and the decisions we make in this process.”
There was a general opinion that emissions should be cut 50% by 2050 and that countries should take control over the rate of greenhouse increase. However, scientific reviews show that emissions cuts from 25% to 40% by 2020 are a necessity for stopping global temperatures from rising. With the entire math made, U.S and Japan carefully stated that they are not willing to obey.
Reuters announced today that the U.S. Senate would debate on June 2 a bill that could cut global warming emissions by 66% by 2050.
The three-day conference in Kobe was a forerunner for the Toyako summit, which will be held in July.
Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan, one of the largest multinational conservation organization in the world, considers that “G8 failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough at the July summit, although this meeting in Kobe was an opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations.”
source-http://www.enews20.com
The need for a global warming pact has reunited a Group of Eight environment ministers on Monday in Japan.
U.N. European countries and other developing nations made pressures on the eight ministers to discuss and find a solution for this major issue that is affecting the whole world. They even suggested that a cut of the emissions might be a first step in showing everyone's interest in improving the environment. Therefore, the ministers should set some limits or targets for cutting emissions by 2020.
However, it seems that the ministers from the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia set a target for 2050, not taking into consideration the environmentalists’ frustrations. Moreover, even the Germany’s state minister for environment, Matthias Machnig, agreed that “the next 20 years are very vital, very important for climate change and the decisions we make in this process.”
There was a general opinion that emissions should be cut 50% by 2050 and that countries should take control over the rate of greenhouse increase. However, scientific reviews show that emissions cuts from 25% to 40% by 2020 are a necessity for stopping global temperatures from rising. With the entire math made, U.S and Japan carefully stated that they are not willing to obey.
Reuters announced today that the U.S. Senate would debate on June 2 a bill that could cut global warming emissions by 66% by 2050.
The three-day conference in Kobe was a forerunner for the Toyako summit, which will be held in July.
Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan, one of the largest multinational conservation organization in the world, considers that “G8 failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough at the July summit, although this meeting in Kobe was an opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations.”
source-http://www.enews20.com
Monday, May 26, 2008
Many Global Warming Skeptics Are Environmentalists
Many Global Warming Skeptics Are Environmentalists
That’s the interesting take from theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson. He’s becoming a leading voice asking for nothing more than rational discussion on the issue of global warming. He’s a leading voice, but one of the 30,000 scientists who just announced publicly they think government action on global warming would be misplaced. Then there’s this from a Dyson article in the New York Review of Books:
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
source-http://thechillingeffect.org/
That’s the interesting take from theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson. He’s becoming a leading voice asking for nothing more than rational discussion on the issue of global warming. He’s a leading voice, but one of the 30,000 scientists who just announced publicly they think government action on global warming would be misplaced. Then there’s this from a Dyson article in the New York Review of Books:
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
source-http://thechillingeffect.org/
A vision for fighting global warming in Latin-America
Action on climate change must go hand-in-hand with the fight against poverty, Luis Alberto Moreno, president of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), said on Wednesday at the Tel Aviv University Conference on Alternative Energy.
Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno
Photo: Courtesy
Moreno, formerly a Columbian politician and diplomat, spoke of the difference between global warming activism in wealthy countries and in the mostly poor nations of Latin America.
Latin America has as much reason, or more, to be worried about climate change, Moreno said. The poor are more likely to be affected by weather effects and increased food prices that scientists say are liable to result from an increase in global temperatures.
Although Latin America uses relatively less energy than the developed world, due to low income levels, the region's energy needs are growing fast, Moreno said. Energy use in the region will increase by 76 percent by 2030, according to IDB forecasts, requiring a significant investment in capacity.
Understandably, poorer nations are reluctant to invest in expensive alternative energy technologies, but Moreno said alternative energy could actually help the region fight poverty.
One well-known example is Brazil's investment in ethanol production, which has been an economic boon. Brazil's example sends somewhat of a mixed message, though, as ethanol production has raised the price of food, making life very hard for many poor people. Next-generation biofuels may find ways of avoiding what Moreno calls the "food-fuel-wilderness" tradeoff.
Latin America has been investing in other areas of alternative energy as well. Brazil has seen a nine-fold increase in wind power production, while Mexico has recently geared-up capacity to some 500 MW, (though still a paltry amount compared to tens of thousands of total electric capacity in the country).
Hydroelectric power, generated from the energy of river flow, has already been a significant player in Latin America. The construction of dams in such areas as Costa Rica and elsewhere has brought electricity to many rural communities, as well as reduced dependence on energy imports.
Due to the high cost of building dams and turbines, the IDB has been looking at "micro-hydro," smaller dams with shorter construction times, less capital investment, and, hopefully, mitigated environmental effect.
Programs such as micro-hydro, supported by international development money, can strike a formula for fossil-fuel reduction on rural development that is a winning equation for Latin American governments.
After the meeting, Moreno told The Jerusalem Post he had met with officials in Israel, including Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On, and that Israeli opportunities in Latin America could include both renewable energy projects, as well as the spread of modern agricultural techniques.
The recent rise in global food prices means that investment in agri-tech will be more lucrative for farmers, and help solve a dire need for the region's poor.
source-http://www.jpost.com/
Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno
Photo: Courtesy
Moreno, formerly a Columbian politician and diplomat, spoke of the difference between global warming activism in wealthy countries and in the mostly poor nations of Latin America.
Latin America has as much reason, or more, to be worried about climate change, Moreno said. The poor are more likely to be affected by weather effects and increased food prices that scientists say are liable to result from an increase in global temperatures.
Although Latin America uses relatively less energy than the developed world, due to low income levels, the region's energy needs are growing fast, Moreno said. Energy use in the region will increase by 76 percent by 2030, according to IDB forecasts, requiring a significant investment in capacity.
Understandably, poorer nations are reluctant to invest in expensive alternative energy technologies, but Moreno said alternative energy could actually help the region fight poverty.
One well-known example is Brazil's investment in ethanol production, which has been an economic boon. Brazil's example sends somewhat of a mixed message, though, as ethanol production has raised the price of food, making life very hard for many poor people. Next-generation biofuels may find ways of avoiding what Moreno calls the "food-fuel-wilderness" tradeoff.
Latin America has been investing in other areas of alternative energy as well. Brazil has seen a nine-fold increase in wind power production, while Mexico has recently geared-up capacity to some 500 MW, (though still a paltry amount compared to tens of thousands of total electric capacity in the country).
Hydroelectric power, generated from the energy of river flow, has already been a significant player in Latin America. The construction of dams in such areas as Costa Rica and elsewhere has brought electricity to many rural communities, as well as reduced dependence on energy imports.
Due to the high cost of building dams and turbines, the IDB has been looking at "micro-hydro," smaller dams with shorter construction times, less capital investment, and, hopefully, mitigated environmental effect.
Programs such as micro-hydro, supported by international development money, can strike a formula for fossil-fuel reduction on rural development that is a winning equation for Latin American governments.
After the meeting, Moreno told The Jerusalem Post he had met with officials in Israel, including Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On, and that Israeli opportunities in Latin America could include both renewable energy projects, as well as the spread of modern agricultural techniques.
The recent rise in global food prices means that investment in agri-tech will be more lucrative for farmers, and help solve a dire need for the region's poor.
source-http://www.jpost.com/
State needs to stay strong on global warming act
As gas prices creep across the $4-per-gallon mark, most consumers recognize that an inefficient car is a drag on the family budget.
Multiply those high prices across the state and it's clear that heavy oil dependence is a drag on the economy. The more we spend on pricey oil, the less money is available for more productive uses, including job-creating investments.
Worse still, burning oil contributes to global warming, a clear risk to California's economy because of the projected impacts on air quality, public health and mountain snowpack.
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act that was adopted in 2006 to cap greenhouse gas emissions statewide, will help all of us use energy more efficiently, cut dependence on costly oil and reduce the risks of climate change. It's important to keep the state on track toward implementation.
In adopting America's first cap on global warming pollution, California has taken the lead in addressing the interrelated problems of energy security, environmental quality and economic growth.
In our view as businessmen and Republicans, AB 32 sets our economy on a fast trajectory toward greater prosperity and an improved quality of life for all Californians.
First, energy efficiency makes smart business sense. Over the past 30 years, California's groundbreaking energy policies have helped to grow one of the largest, most diverse economies in the world while reducing global warming pollution to the lowest per capita level in the country.
Energy efficiency has cut California's electricity costs dramatically. If California's annual statewide electricity bill were the same fraction of GDP as Texas', for example, Californians would be paying almost $25 billion more for electricity each year. Instead, money not spent on wasted electricity is available for investment, generating economic growth and jobs.
The savings generated by efficiency multiply. According to the International Energy Agency, every $1 spent on high-efficiency electrical equipment, appliances and buildings avoids more than $2 in spending on power plants.
Efficiency is the first vital step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Efficiency can deliver more than 50 percent of the total global warming emissions reductions needed worldwide to keep the climate stable, according to a recent analysis published by the McKinsey Global Institute.
The next vital step is to create market certainty in order to encourage greater investment in cleaner energy technologies. By adopting emissions caps in AB 32, California established certainty in a political environment where uncertainty over inevitable global warming reductions made long-term investment decisions difficult.
Before AB 32's adoption, investment in clean technology – now the third-largest and fastest-growing category of venture capital investment – was going overseas where policies are known and rules are predictable.
After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 into law, venture capital investments in cleaner energy technologies skyrocketed in California. In the first half of 2007, the state attracted 49 percent of all clean tech venture capital in the United States.
Our state also leads the United States in clean tech patent registration – a harbinger of innovation. This is critically important. When California innovates – witness computers and biotechnology – it changes the world and captures a significant share of markets in emerging industries.
Worldwide, revenues from clean energy technology – wind, solar, fuel cells and biofuels – totaled $77 billion in 2007. By 2017, total revenue is projected to grow to $254 billion. Thanks to AB 32, California is well positioned to be a major player in the fast growing clean energy industry.
Grabbing a large share of clean energy's projected growth will keep money and jobs in California. Every year, California exports $30 billion – $2,500 from every California household – to buy fossil fuels. Thanks to AB 32, more of that money will stay home and create jobs here.
Importantly, the benefits will not be limited to a few urban clusters. Because clean energy production is distributed broadly, every part of the state will share in the wealth that it creates. Today, clean energy businesses are popping up in all 58 of California's counties.
Delaying implementation of AB 32 would put that growth potential at risk. If California dawdles, the investments will go elsewhere. Texas will gladly take the wind dollars, Germany the solar and the Midwest will capture the biofuel investments.
In a global market with hungry competitors, the punishment for hesitation is swift and sure.
California cannot afford delay.
California needs to stay on track with AB 32 for the health of our economy and for the future generations that depend on our decisions.
source-http://www.sacbee.com/
Multiply those high prices across the state and it's clear that heavy oil dependence is a drag on the economy. The more we spend on pricey oil, the less money is available for more productive uses, including job-creating investments.
Worse still, burning oil contributes to global warming, a clear risk to California's economy because of the projected impacts on air quality, public health and mountain snowpack.
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act that was adopted in 2006 to cap greenhouse gas emissions statewide, will help all of us use energy more efficiently, cut dependence on costly oil and reduce the risks of climate change. It's important to keep the state on track toward implementation.
In adopting America's first cap on global warming pollution, California has taken the lead in addressing the interrelated problems of energy security, environmental quality and economic growth.
In our view as businessmen and Republicans, AB 32 sets our economy on a fast trajectory toward greater prosperity and an improved quality of life for all Californians.
First, energy efficiency makes smart business sense. Over the past 30 years, California's groundbreaking energy policies have helped to grow one of the largest, most diverse economies in the world while reducing global warming pollution to the lowest per capita level in the country.
Energy efficiency has cut California's electricity costs dramatically. If California's annual statewide electricity bill were the same fraction of GDP as Texas', for example, Californians would be paying almost $25 billion more for electricity each year. Instead, money not spent on wasted electricity is available for investment, generating economic growth and jobs.
The savings generated by efficiency multiply. According to the International Energy Agency, every $1 spent on high-efficiency electrical equipment, appliances and buildings avoids more than $2 in spending on power plants.
Efficiency is the first vital step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Efficiency can deliver more than 50 percent of the total global warming emissions reductions needed worldwide to keep the climate stable, according to a recent analysis published by the McKinsey Global Institute.
The next vital step is to create market certainty in order to encourage greater investment in cleaner energy technologies. By adopting emissions caps in AB 32, California established certainty in a political environment where uncertainty over inevitable global warming reductions made long-term investment decisions difficult.
Before AB 32's adoption, investment in clean technology – now the third-largest and fastest-growing category of venture capital investment – was going overseas where policies are known and rules are predictable.
After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 into law, venture capital investments in cleaner energy technologies skyrocketed in California. In the first half of 2007, the state attracted 49 percent of all clean tech venture capital in the United States.
Our state also leads the United States in clean tech patent registration – a harbinger of innovation. This is critically important. When California innovates – witness computers and biotechnology – it changes the world and captures a significant share of markets in emerging industries.
Worldwide, revenues from clean energy technology – wind, solar, fuel cells and biofuels – totaled $77 billion in 2007. By 2017, total revenue is projected to grow to $254 billion. Thanks to AB 32, California is well positioned to be a major player in the fast growing clean energy industry.
Grabbing a large share of clean energy's projected growth will keep money and jobs in California. Every year, California exports $30 billion – $2,500 from every California household – to buy fossil fuels. Thanks to AB 32, more of that money will stay home and create jobs here.
Importantly, the benefits will not be limited to a few urban clusters. Because clean energy production is distributed broadly, every part of the state will share in the wealth that it creates. Today, clean energy businesses are popping up in all 58 of California's counties.
Delaying implementation of AB 32 would put that growth potential at risk. If California dawdles, the investments will go elsewhere. Texas will gladly take the wind dollars, Germany the solar and the Midwest will capture the biofuel investments.
In a global market with hungry competitors, the punishment for hesitation is swift and sure.
California cannot afford delay.
California needs to stay on track with AB 32 for the health of our economy and for the future generations that depend on our decisions.
source-http://www.sacbee.com/
Global Warming or Planet X
Global Warming or Planet X
There's alot of public data and scientific consensus on the reasons for global warming from increased car emissions to the rapid melting of the artic glaciers. Now, we're being told that we need new and cleaner fuel alternatives which are heavily taxing our food supplies. In our daily hustle for survival have we considered whether or not we are being told the REAL truth?
We must keep in mind that whenever there are global events that can have global impact on human behavior the "actual" truth cannot always be revealed in the manner which we think and feel. Take for example, if all governments would reveal to all people everywhere that alien life forms exist and that they do live inside our planet and governments also are working directly with them on special underground projects how would this effect the overall population...? Naturally, many would panic and chaos would be center stage in all aspects of people's lives.
The subject of this discussion is global warming and more importantly the year 2012 and our planetary positioning within the milky way. Is there a connection? The video Surviving 2012 gives a comprehensive insight to the REAL celestial problems that have been causing global warming as well as disturbances within our solar system. In videos 1 thru 5 you'll discover historical proof as well as scientific extrapolations that point to something far more destructive than greenhouse gases – Planet X! This giant, rogue planet and its 7 billion miles eliptical trajectory is enough to cause perturbations among all the planets in our solar system!
In fact, when governments and the media decide to announce the REAL facts to the general public there may be little time left for planning. After viewing the video I certainly would like to hear our views on the matter. It's not for the faint of heart. The truth of Planet X certainly puts our backs against the wall. Planet X has visited Earth once before and hopefully this time we get to prepare ourselves for the ultimate in catastrophe.
source-http://www.gather.com/
There's alot of public data and scientific consensus on the reasons for global warming from increased car emissions to the rapid melting of the artic glaciers. Now, we're being told that we need new and cleaner fuel alternatives which are heavily taxing our food supplies. In our daily hustle for survival have we considered whether or not we are being told the REAL truth?
We must keep in mind that whenever there are global events that can have global impact on human behavior the "actual" truth cannot always be revealed in the manner which we think and feel. Take for example, if all governments would reveal to all people everywhere that alien life forms exist and that they do live inside our planet and governments also are working directly with them on special underground projects how would this effect the overall population...? Naturally, many would panic and chaos would be center stage in all aspects of people's lives.
The subject of this discussion is global warming and more importantly the year 2012 and our planetary positioning within the milky way. Is there a connection? The video Surviving 2012 gives a comprehensive insight to the REAL celestial problems that have been causing global warming as well as disturbances within our solar system. In videos 1 thru 5 you'll discover historical proof as well as scientific extrapolations that point to something far more destructive than greenhouse gases – Planet X! This giant, rogue planet and its 7 billion miles eliptical trajectory is enough to cause perturbations among all the planets in our solar system!
In fact, when governments and the media decide to announce the REAL facts to the general public there may be little time left for planning. After viewing the video I certainly would like to hear our views on the matter. It's not for the faint of heart. The truth of Planet X certainly puts our backs against the wall. Planet X has visited Earth once before and hopefully this time we get to prepare ourselves for the ultimate in catastrophe.
source-http://www.gather.com/
Global warming solutions a tough sell for San Carlos City Council
The current plan is to hire a consultant to help the city create a comprehensive "climate protection program" as part of its ongoing General Plan update, due to conclude in a year. San Carlos will be able employ information from a regionwide greenhouse gas inventory currently being prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and, like other cities, is waiting on the state to release an estimate of where carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions stood in 1990.
Councilman Omar Ahmad took issue with Grocott's beliefs about climate change but did not press the point. Like Mayor Bradford Lewis, he pointed out that the actions described in the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, such as improving energy efficiency in government buildings or using hybrid cars for city business, were things the city had already started doing and were clearly within its reach.
"We may take some of these actions, we may do something that's even more leading," said Ahmad, who sipped from a reusable water canteen while others on the dais drank from paper cups.
The call to action on climate change was sounded more than a year ago by San Carlos Green, a residents' group that has petitioned the city to adopt green building standards and take other forward-looking steps, such as appointing a "green task force" similar to San Mateo's that would be independent of the General Plan process. The group presented 150
signatures and several letters from local churches and neighborhood associations earlier in May.
The "alternate" letter San Carlos may adopt "essentially has no commitments by the city whatsoever," said Julie Willard, an elementary school science teacher and leading member of San Carlos Green. "We're just trying to advocate for more community involvement in the climate action plan. ... It feels to us like they're trying to contain it from having more public involvement than we'd like to have."
Nearly 850 U.S. cities have signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement since the launch of the initiative, which came in response to President Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In San Mateo County,10 cities have signed the letter, including Atherton, Burlingame, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo and South San Francisco. Others, like Foster City, have adopted letters of good intent that nevertheless carry little language that is binding.
In a presentation on May 12, Moura showcased several of the city's most prominent "green" accomplishments to date, such as a recent campaign to sign residents up for discounted solar panel installations in partnership with San Carlos Green, and its popular "Green Business" certification program. He said San Carlos would likely adopt a regional green building standard currently being developed by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network rather than craft something on its own similar to the stringent new regulations the county recently incorporated. Pacifica established a green building task force earlier this month, and Brisbane has had standards in place for a while.
The city can only afford to spend about $15,000 per year on environmental initiatives, Moura said. San Carlos made headlines for eliminating its solar panel permit fees last year, but on June 30 they will increase to $250 because the city needs the money.
"Other communities are spending from $200,000 to $1 million in this area," Moura said.
Part of the reluctance to act alone on climate change comes from the belief that the city might eventually be reimbursed for fulfilling the mandates of Assembly Bill 32, otherwise known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB32, which only comes into effect in 2012, uses market-based incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
National Sierra Club Director Rafael Reyes said San Carlos shouldn't wait to see what requirements the state would impose, especially since AB32 focuses more on the energy industry and other polluters than it does on municipalities.
"AB32 is a pretty lengthy process. It's not at all clear that there will be specific mandates to cities," Reyes said. "I think there's a sincere intention to move things forward (in San Carlos), but there are a lot of opportunities they should be seizing."
source-http://www.mercurynews.com/
Councilman Omar Ahmad took issue with Grocott's beliefs about climate change but did not press the point. Like Mayor Bradford Lewis, he pointed out that the actions described in the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, such as improving energy efficiency in government buildings or using hybrid cars for city business, were things the city had already started doing and were clearly within its reach.
"We may take some of these actions, we may do something that's even more leading," said Ahmad, who sipped from a reusable water canteen while others on the dais drank from paper cups.
The call to action on climate change was sounded more than a year ago by San Carlos Green, a residents' group that has petitioned the city to adopt green building standards and take other forward-looking steps, such as appointing a "green task force" similar to San Mateo's that would be independent of the General Plan process. The group presented 150
signatures and several letters from local churches and neighborhood associations earlier in May.
The "alternate" letter San Carlos may adopt "essentially has no commitments by the city whatsoever," said Julie Willard, an elementary school science teacher and leading member of San Carlos Green. "We're just trying to advocate for more community involvement in the climate action plan. ... It feels to us like they're trying to contain it from having more public involvement than we'd like to have."
Nearly 850 U.S. cities have signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement since the launch of the initiative, which came in response to President Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In San Mateo County,10 cities have signed the letter, including Atherton, Burlingame, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo and South San Francisco. Others, like Foster City, have adopted letters of good intent that nevertheless carry little language that is binding.
In a presentation on May 12, Moura showcased several of the city's most prominent "green" accomplishments to date, such as a recent campaign to sign residents up for discounted solar panel installations in partnership with San Carlos Green, and its popular "Green Business" certification program. He said San Carlos would likely adopt a regional green building standard currently being developed by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network rather than craft something on its own similar to the stringent new regulations the county recently incorporated. Pacifica established a green building task force earlier this month, and Brisbane has had standards in place for a while.
The city can only afford to spend about $15,000 per year on environmental initiatives, Moura said. San Carlos made headlines for eliminating its solar panel permit fees last year, but on June 30 they will increase to $250 because the city needs the money.
"Other communities are spending from $200,000 to $1 million in this area," Moura said.
Part of the reluctance to act alone on climate change comes from the belief that the city might eventually be reimbursed for fulfilling the mandates of Assembly Bill 32, otherwise known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB32, which only comes into effect in 2012, uses market-based incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
National Sierra Club Director Rafael Reyes said San Carlos shouldn't wait to see what requirements the state would impose, especially since AB32 focuses more on the energy industry and other polluters than it does on municipalities.
"AB32 is a pretty lengthy process. It's not at all clear that there will be specific mandates to cities," Reyes said. "I think there's a sincere intention to move things forward (in San Carlos), but there are a lot of opportunities they should be seizing."
source-http://www.mercurynews.com/
Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming
In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute's website (oism.org). It quickly attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight for the "all scientists agree" mantra of the man-man Global Warming crowd.
Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified scientists. Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made warming skeptics with science qualifications. More than 9,000 hold scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
Earlier this month Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.
Robinson's petition states a truth: "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth's warming since 1850 if it isn't CO2? He points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth's temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn't foresee it.
The correlation between Earth's temperatures and CO2 is only at the "accidental" level—22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels. Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.
The Oregon chemist warns that "no other major scientific problem has ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming." The UN hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of "authors" summarized the discussions into a global action plan. But the UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate. The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit "by the process of elimination" but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of law.
The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity's greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth's net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.
"If CO2 isn't causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, "The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet."
source-http://www.enterstageright.com/
Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified scientists. Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made warming skeptics with science qualifications. More than 9,000 hold scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
Earlier this month Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.
Robinson's petition states a truth: "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth's warming since 1850 if it isn't CO2? He points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth's temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn't foresee it.
The correlation between Earth's temperatures and CO2 is only at the "accidental" level—22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels. Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.
The Oregon chemist warns that "no other major scientific problem has ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming." The UN hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of "authors" summarized the discussions into a global action plan. But the UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate. The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit "by the process of elimination" but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of law.
The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity's greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth's net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.
"If CO2 isn't causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, "The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet."
source-http://www.enterstageright.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
