COMMENTS: 29
Activists Protest Natural Resources Defense Council for Collaborating With Polluters
December 1, 2009 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email.
Advertisement
November 30, 2009 - A phalanx of NYPD officers on foot and aboard several police vans surrounded the marchers as they walked up Sixth Avenue in the cold rain on Monday, at times pushing people off of the street and back on to the sidewalk. A group of roughly 30 climate activists, joined by award-winning NASA scientist and outspoken climate change expert, James Hansen, chanted as they went: "The earth, the earth, the earth is on fire. We don't need no cap and trade, the market is a liar."
Was it a satellite Goldman Sachs trading office that brought the greens out to the barricades? The Manhattan offices of a large and influential oil or gas company? The downtown penthouse of a Big Coal mogul? Nope. The soggy climate activists were camped out in front of the headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the country.
The activists accuse the NRDC of collaborating with polluters through its involvement with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or U.S. CAP, which is billed on its website as "an alliance of major businesses and leading climate and environmental groups that have come together to call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions." Members of the group include such corporate heavyweights as The Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, General Electric, Shell, Alcoa, BP America and Caterpillar. Other environmental groups involved in the group include Environmental Defense, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and World Resources Institute.
U.S. CAP played a pivotal lobbying role in drafting the massive Waxman-Markey climate bill in the House which, while calling for modest emission reductions, will also create an exponentially lucrative carbon trading market. And many of the largest financial institutions that have been deemed "too big to fail" (Goldman Sachs, Bank of America) are expected to cash in on what some activists have begun to call a new system of "climate profiteering."
Outside of the nondescript office building on 20th Street where the crowd eventually assembled, the NYPD set up a row of metal barricades around the entrance in an effort to keep the protesters away from the front entrance. For every three members of the crowd, there was roughly one police officer, with a total of three police vans and three small interceptor vehicles parked in a line out front.
"You have to be a little flattered by that," said Monica Hunken, a protest organizer who spoke to the crowd on a soapbox on the sidewalk. "They even brought out their pen, it's pretty heavy-handed." That contrasted with the police activity at the launch point for the march -- the Bank of America branch on 17th St and 5th Avenue -- where the group spoke out about the bank's investments in mountaintop removal and oil and gas prospecting. No such safety precautions were in evidence at that site.
The demonstration in Manhattan was one of over a dozen organized by the Mobilization for Climate Justice and organizers of BeyondTalk.net, a website that rallies individuals to commit civil disobedience in the name of climate change action. At least one member of the New York contingent did just that, when he attempted to lock himself to the front doors of the building.
"Stopping coal starts with the NRDC," yelled out Robert Jereski, co-founder of New York Climate Action Group, as he was handcuffed and hustled in to a paddy wagon parked up the street. Jereski was eventually charged with "obstruction of governmental administration" and disorderly conduct.
"I stand here at the NRDC building with a heavy heart. I never thought that in 2009 I'd be standing here decrying their stance on climate," said Charles Komanoff, co-director of the Carbon Tax Center. "What NRDC is championing as a big step forward is actually a baby step forward. NRDC is on the wrong side, cutting deals with their pals in business and finance."
"Come back NRDC," yelled out a voice in the crowd. Overall the lament was in line with much of the sentiment of the demonstration, as many participants described their action as an expression of tough love rather than outright opposition. They say that the NRDC has aligned itself with a broader coalition of corporate interests whose goals and benchmarks for reducing carbon emissions are drastically below what is necessary according to prevailing climate science.
"We appreciate the work that the protesters are doing," said Jenny Powers, National Media Director for NRDC, in response. "Overall I think we're very supportive of any opportunity to bring more attention to this issue. We definitely view it as all of us as being united in the same goal. We're on the same track, we just deploy different strategies."
Although nobody from NRDC stepped outside to discuss the issues with those at the barricades, Powers did say that Dr. Hansen and Mr. Komanoff were invited via email to a meeting with NRDC Executive Director Peter Lehner.
After the demonstration petered out, I spoke with NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen about the meager turnout and the prospects for major policy change going forward.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest News & Politics headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest News & Politics headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 29 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
Yep, Cap and Trade is a Hoax ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 1, 2009 1:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 1, 2009 1:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They will create another "market" that will be manipulated by the same banksters and speculators that caused our current crisis.
The only way to go is a carbon tax and everybody knows it. It is just that in order to get anything progressive you have to pay extortion money.
With health care reform it is guranteed profits for Pharma and Insurance Companies. Now with CO2 reduction it is once again Wall Street that gets to control the action.
This country has become nothing more than a conglomeration of racketeering ... Banksters, The MIC and unHealthy Care Inc are all shaking us down to the tune of trillions of tax payer dollars.
Cap and Trade is just another shake down.
The only way to go is a carbon tax and everybody knows it. It is just that in order to get anything progressive you have to pay extortion money.
With health care reform it is guranteed profits for Pharma and Insurance Companies. Now with CO2 reduction it is once again Wall Street that gets to control the action.
This country has become nothing more than a conglomeration of racketeering ... Banksters, The MIC and unHealthy Care Inc are all shaking us down to the tune of trillions of tax payer dollars.
Cap and Trade is just another shake down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Yep, Cap and Trade is a Hoax ...
Posted by: MT512
Comments are closed-
Global Warming Itself Is a Hoax
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 3:05 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 3:05 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming itself is a hoax, except that is treating the matter far too lightly. In my view even headlines such as "The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation" is treating it far too lightly.
Of course nearly everyone who reads Alternet is brainwashed as if they have all been converted to the equivalent of Roman Catholicism, because Global Warming is considered a Liberal Position, and must be supported in opposition to the evil right. Yes Children, but its not about Politics or Religion, its about TRUTH.
Its not just Alternet of course, in the UK in a recent Climate Change Bill, out of over 600 MP's, only 3 voted against the bill. Does that mean the 3 were wrong, or the only ones who stood up to having their arms twisted behind their back (or far worse threats)?
"The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Tony
Of course nearly everyone who reads Alternet is brainwashed as if they have all been converted to the equivalent of Roman Catholicism, because Global Warming is considered a Liberal Position, and must be supported in opposition to the evil right. Yes Children, but its not about Politics or Religion, its about TRUTH.
Its not just Alternet of course, in the UK in a recent Climate Change Bill, out of over 600 MP's, only 3 voted against the bill. Does that mean the 3 were wrong, or the only ones who stood up to having their arms twisted behind their back (or far worse threats)?
"The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The previous message was brought to you by...
Posted by: ScottP
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: willymack
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Yes Alternet why no reporting on Climate gate?
Posted by: rtq on Dec 1, 2009 5:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: rtq on Dec 1, 2009 5:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it because you have totally sold out and are now part of the problem?
Methinks so.
I have been extremely disappointed in your recent reporting or lack of.
Wont be reading the corporate blather here anymore.
Methinks so.
I have been extremely disappointed in your recent reporting or lack of.
Wont be reading the corporate blather here anymore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Not too surprised -- NRDC seems a little greenwashed
Posted by: MT512 on Dec 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: MT512 on Dec 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a member for a few years but I got tired of their garbage. They'd send me a few sheets of single-sided paper in large envelopes instead of printing on both sides and folding the damn pages. They give silly NRDC-branded trinkets as incentives and send glossy full-color newsletters. They're too fancy and just waste too much for me to take them seriously.
It seems they target comfortable middle- and upper-middle class white stay-at-home soccer moms who are "green" mostly as a fashion statement, who might donate to the group but might not think to commit to the daily chores and sacrifices of actually living a little greener. Basically, the kind of "liberal" that most conservatives seem to think all liberals are--joiners mindlessly subscribing to a fashionable green fad.
I once hollered at the ACLU for having a $100+ per plate fundraiser in my area, and they wrote back basically saying they have to go where the money is, and rich people dig that shit. I could see their point. But now I think, how about educating these fat cats that Step #1 for helping to improve the world is... not requiring your ass to be kissed at expensive gala dinners in order to donate to worthy causes! Are the rich just so shallow that they'll only support other people in tuxedos and gowns? Are they too good to mail in a check or donate online in relative obscurity like the rest of us? Pathetic.
It seems they target comfortable middle- and upper-middle class white stay-at-home soccer moms who are "green" mostly as a fashion statement, who might donate to the group but might not think to commit to the daily chores and sacrifices of actually living a little greener. Basically, the kind of "liberal" that most conservatives seem to think all liberals are--joiners mindlessly subscribing to a fashionable green fad.
I once hollered at the ACLU for having a $100+ per plate fundraiser in my area, and they wrote back basically saying they have to go where the money is, and rich people dig that shit. I could see their point. But now I think, how about educating these fat cats that Step #1 for helping to improve the world is... not requiring your ass to be kissed at expensive gala dinners in order to donate to worthy causes! Are the rich just so shallow that they'll only support other people in tuxedos and gowns? Are they too good to mail in a check or donate online in relative obscurity like the rest of us? Pathetic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Meanwhile: multinationals convinced Canada that the US policy WORKS!
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Dec 1, 2009 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Dec 1, 2009 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
works so well...
that Harper has decided to make a three-year appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president & medical director of Pfizer Canada in charge of... you guessed it!...
who needs drug reviews, when the US obviously can show us how to git-er dun!! ?
shriek
that Harper has decided to make a three-year appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president & medical director of Pfizer Canada in charge of... you guessed it!...
who needs drug reviews, when the US obviously can show us how to git-er dun!! ?
shriek
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
IF we lived in a sane world with honest media
Posted by: Bill Wolfe on Dec 1, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Bill Wolfe on Dec 1, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Hansen's protest in front of the NRDC building in NYC would have a similar impact as the Buddhist monk who lit himself on fire in protest of the Vietnam war/occupation.
See this link for great photo's of the event:
Jim Hansen Takes on NRDC and Bank of America
http://tinyurl.com/ye42wv8
See this link for great photo's of the event:
Jim Hansen Takes on NRDC and Bank of America
http://tinyurl.com/ye42wv8
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Don't You Realise All the Lies?
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some truths instead
1. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a problem. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be highly beneficial for plant life. Humans and animals eat plants.
2. CO2 although a Greenhouse Gas, has a completely insignificant effect on Climate and does not cause Global Warming. It would only do so if levels were of an enormous greater magnitude than current.
3. The Planet has been cooling for the last 11 years, even though levels of CO2 have risen. A Real Danger Could Be a New Ice Age. This would be Catastrophic for Human Life.
4. Pollution is a serious problem from multiple sources including mining and manufacturing. Real pollution can be radically reduced to safe levels by Government Regulation and Technology. Current Government Measures do absolutely Nothing to Tackle Real Pollution which Does Kill Millions of People.
5. If we don't mine and manufacture, then you will not have any energy, nor any cities. Civilisation will revert back over 500 years, and around 6 Billion Humans will Die. You or your Children will probably be one of them.
6. In the US, the environmental movement is very successful at blocking the building of all kinds of New Power Stations - including even Solar. If you don't build New Power Stations, EVERYTHING will fail, when the old power stations are worn out. Millions of Americans will die an Early Horrible Death.
7. On 9/11, the Buildings were Brought Down by Controlled Demolition. Who Was Really Responsible?
8. Since 9/11, Americans have been living in a State of Fear, have invaded other countries who the government suggested were responsible, and have killed and dismembered Millions of innocent People. Americans can now be detained and tortured without Trial and held indefinitely. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and homes and are living in Poverty, even worse than Much of the Third World. Who is Really Responsible for this?
9. All this is not happenning by Accident. It has been planned and is being implemented now.
10. Americans use more Energy than anyone else. How long do you think this will be the case?
Try connecting the dots. Who exactly is responsible for all this? What is their real agenda?
"Think Or Be Eaten"
"Everything we know is wrong. It's the best kept secret out there. The truth is that life is threatened in a world controlled by greed and power. It's time to wake up, rise up and recreate the world that deserves to exist. A place of peace, equality and creativity that forever strives to become the best of all possibilities"
Think Or Be Eaten
Tony
1. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a problem. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be highly beneficial for plant life. Humans and animals eat plants.
2. CO2 although a Greenhouse Gas, has a completely insignificant effect on Climate and does not cause Global Warming. It would only do so if levels were of an enormous greater magnitude than current.
3. The Planet has been cooling for the last 11 years, even though levels of CO2 have risen. A Real Danger Could Be a New Ice Age. This would be Catastrophic for Human Life.
4. Pollution is a serious problem from multiple sources including mining and manufacturing. Real pollution can be radically reduced to safe levels by Government Regulation and Technology. Current Government Measures do absolutely Nothing to Tackle Real Pollution which Does Kill Millions of People.
5. If we don't mine and manufacture, then you will not have any energy, nor any cities. Civilisation will revert back over 500 years, and around 6 Billion Humans will Die. You or your Children will probably be one of them.
6. In the US, the environmental movement is very successful at blocking the building of all kinds of New Power Stations - including even Solar. If you don't build New Power Stations, EVERYTHING will fail, when the old power stations are worn out. Millions of Americans will die an Early Horrible Death.
7. On 9/11, the Buildings were Brought Down by Controlled Demolition. Who Was Really Responsible?
8. Since 9/11, Americans have been living in a State of Fear, have invaded other countries who the government suggested were responsible, and have killed and dismembered Millions of innocent People. Americans can now be detained and tortured without Trial and held indefinitely. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and homes and are living in Poverty, even worse than Much of the Third World. Who is Really Responsible for this?
9. All this is not happenning by Accident. It has been planned and is being implemented now.
10. Americans use more Energy than anyone else. How long do you think this will be the case?
Try connecting the dots. Who exactly is responsible for all this? What is their real agenda?
"Think Or Be Eaten"
"Everything we know is wrong. It's the best kept secret out there. The truth is that life is threatened in a world controlled by greed and power. It's time to wake up, rise up and recreate the world that deserves to exist. A place of peace, equality and creativity that forever strives to become the best of all possibilities"
Think Or Be Eaten
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies? yes we know the liars!
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies? yes we know the liars!
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: Tony/ tobacco/ Exxon/ Inhofe--yes we know the liars!
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies?
Posted by: LightningJoe
Comments are closed-
Global Warming? Crime of the Century
Posted by: wrusssr on Dec 1, 2009 10:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: wrusssr on Dec 1, 2009 10:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has taken the Chicken Little climate gang to the woodshed after reading their emails and correspondence released recently by a hacker onto the internet.
Whatever the hacker’s motivation to distribute the global warmers’ files—laid bare before the world and experts to study—their content reveals an unquestionable, deliberate, perpetration of a global warming hoax upon humanity and the planet; the workings of an organized cabal perpetrating a heinous lie and hoax on humanity to enrich themselves and their handlers.
If you have lots of time on your hands like James Hansen and are willing to shell out dollars to hear him speak, then by all means catch his talks and protests.
But if you want the truth about the global warming, start here:
The Death Blow to Climate Science
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
[Meet] the Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364
Gore’s Manipulation Allowed by Main Stream Media’s Bias, Continues with CRU
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17142
Whatever the hacker’s motivation to distribute the global warmers’ files—laid bare before the world and experts to study—their content reveals an unquestionable, deliberate, perpetration of a global warming hoax upon humanity and the planet; the workings of an organized cabal perpetrating a heinous lie and hoax on humanity to enrich themselves and their handlers.
If you have lots of time on your hands like James Hansen and are willing to shell out dollars to hear him speak, then by all means catch his talks and protests.
But if you want the truth about the global warming, start here:
The Death Blow to Climate Science
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
[Meet] the Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364
Gore’s Manipulation Allowed by Main Stream Media’s Bias, Continues with CRU
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17142
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Global Warming Deniars are Criminals of the century
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Here's the deal
Posted by: willymack on Dec 1, 2009 11:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Dec 1, 2009 11:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have two sides to the climate change "argument", right?
Everyone knows there's two sides to every argument, right?
That being true, BOTH sides must be valid, therefore true, right?
WRONG!
There's only ONE truth here, folks, and that awful truth is that we're poisoning our Mother Earth to the extent that our very continuance as a species is threatened.
Anyway who says different is either delusional, has been bribed by polluters, or just ignorant of the oft- verified scientific evidence that we're on a suicide course, and must make changes to the status quo.
If we continue "business as usual" we're SCREWED, and that's a scientific assesment.
Scientists couldn't care less about politics or politicians, and are a lot more believable than fatheads like Inhofe or the other bumblewits in government and their corporate overlords.
Everyone knows there's two sides to every argument, right?
That being true, BOTH sides must be valid, therefore true, right?
WRONG!
There's only ONE truth here, folks, and that awful truth is that we're poisoning our Mother Earth to the extent that our very continuance as a species is threatened.
Anyway who says different is either delusional, has been bribed by polluters, or just ignorant of the oft- verified scientific evidence that we're on a suicide course, and must make changes to the status quo.
If we continue "business as usual" we're SCREWED, and that's a scientific assesment.
Scientists couldn't care less about politics or politicians, and are a lot more believable than fatheads like Inhofe or the other bumblewits in government and their corporate overlords.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's the deal
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: Science
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Meanwhile...
Posted by: armorypk on Dec 1, 2009 5:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: armorypk on Dec 1, 2009 5:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flooding Swamps Venice
Oh yeah, and the Arctic ice is
thinning.
But I'm sure it's just more BS from Al Gore - whose only motivation is personal greed. Unlike those unselfish, altruistic folk from the coal, oil and nuclear industries.
Oh yeah, and the Arctic ice is
thinning.
But I'm sure it's just more BS from Al Gore - whose only motivation is personal greed. Unlike those unselfish, altruistic folk from the coal, oil and nuclear industries.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Try Maria Cantwell's Source-Taxed Carbon Plan
Posted by: LightningJoe on Dec 2, 2009 5:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: LightningJoe on Dec 2, 2009 5:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may be actually be pretty easy, if we take a different tack on the basic problem. Maria Cantwell, a Representative from WA, has been circulating an idea that hasn't gotten any traction from the Cap & Trade-focused House, but may very well be what we need. I don't know it's proper name, but I call it Source-Taxed Carbon.
What she says is not to tax the USE of carbon, as Cap & Trade is trying to, but to tax the PRODUCERS of all of the carbon-producing fuels we use. This idea has several distinct advantages, compared to C&T.
1) First, it'll be muuuch easier, to monitor and regulate a few thousand producers of energy, rather than at the least, tens of thousands of users of the fuel. Producers would have to comply with the law in order to maintain their license to produce fuel. Far simpler; and a very direct enforcement scenario.
2) The tax would by each unit of delivered energy, on the order, at first, of about two dollars per ton of coal, if my memory serves me. Up to perhaps ten dollars over the plan's implementation years. See Cantwell's office for those details.
3) Taxing production is a much more comprehensive and controllable method than Cap & Trade user-control can be. The latter, in it's greatest reach, only affects some part of the users (seventy percent of users?) Source-Taxed Carbon would get nearly a hundred percent of the producers.
4) This is the good part. Seventy or eighty percent of the gains from the tax would then be remitted back to US citizens in some fashion; whether as a dividend or a tax credit, I don't know. The rest of the revenue would pay for the program, and go for alternative energy development. I say go for eighty.
This plan is not only easier, it also attacks the problem at the front end; after which, all of the incentives down the fuel supply chain fall into order by themselves. Everyone who uses fuel has a clear financial incentive to lower their use, and it largely relieves the consumer of the burden of paying for it all.
First of course you might say well the poor energy companies, having to pay those taxes! But remember that companies don't really pay their taxes. Taxes are just profits that they don't get to keep. It's us, the company's customers, who really pay that tax. They'd be welcome to use their own massive reserves to pay the it, but I think we can assume that they'll pass on that expense to their customers, as they always do. But remember then, the consumer would have tax credits or dividends to pay for most of that increase.
But there's still more. Because the tax is levied on the units delivered to customers, I agree with Cantwell that companies will start looking for strategies to limit their fuel production, in the interests of driving costs up. The angle is that the taxes stay the same, levied per unit, but if the market price of the unit increases, all of that increase in prices stays with the company. Profit Magic! It'll be MORNING IN AMERICA again, um, er, competition will flourish! The government may have to watch out for excessive price-fixing, but I'd say that would be a better-class problem to have, and one that we already know how to deal with, than the current intractable problem of a global thermostat stuck on high and the oil companies dancing in showers of money.
The companies won't be happy about it of course, because they will after all make less; but rich people are never happy anyway, and I don't personally have any emotional stake whatever, in ensuring their future cheeriness.
What she says is not to tax the USE of carbon, as Cap & Trade is trying to, but to tax the PRODUCERS of all of the carbon-producing fuels we use. This idea has several distinct advantages, compared to C&T.
1) First, it'll be muuuch easier, to monitor and regulate a few thousand producers of energy, rather than at the least, tens of thousands of users of the fuel. Producers would have to comply with the law in order to maintain their license to produce fuel. Far simpler; and a very direct enforcement scenario.
2) The tax would by each unit of delivered energy, on the order, at first, of about two dollars per ton of coal, if my memory serves me. Up to perhaps ten dollars over the plan's implementation years. See Cantwell's office for those details.
3) Taxing production is a much more comprehensive and controllable method than Cap & Trade user-control can be. The latter, in it's greatest reach, only affects some part of the users (seventy percent of users?) Source-Taxed Carbon would get nearly a hundred percent of the producers.
4) This is the good part. Seventy or eighty percent of the gains from the tax would then be remitted back to US citizens in some fashion; whether as a dividend or a tax credit, I don't know. The rest of the revenue would pay for the program, and go for alternative energy development. I say go for eighty.
This plan is not only easier, it also attacks the problem at the front end; after which, all of the incentives down the fuel supply chain fall into order by themselves. Everyone who uses fuel has a clear financial incentive to lower their use, and it largely relieves the consumer of the burden of paying for it all.
First of course you might say well the poor energy companies, having to pay those taxes! But remember that companies don't really pay their taxes. Taxes are just profits that they don't get to keep. It's us, the company's customers, who really pay that tax. They'd be welcome to use their own massive reserves to pay the it, but I think we can assume that they'll pass on that expense to their customers, as they always do. But remember then, the consumer would have tax credits or dividends to pay for most of that increase.
But there's still more. Because the tax is levied on the units delivered to customers, I agree with Cantwell that companies will start looking for strategies to limit their fuel production, in the interests of driving costs up. The angle is that the taxes stay the same, levied per unit, but if the market price of the unit increases, all of that increase in prices stays with the company. Profit Magic! It'll be MORNING IN AMERICA again, um, er, competition will flourish! The government may have to watch out for excessive price-fixing, but I'd say that would be a better-class problem to have, and one that we already know how to deal with, than the current intractable problem of a global thermostat stuck on high and the oil companies dancing in showers of money.
The companies won't be happy about it of course, because they will after all make less; but rich people are never happy anyway, and I don't personally have any emotional stake whatever, in ensuring their future cheeriness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Dr. Hansen and Komanoff expose the Natural Resources Defense Council
Posted by: mutualaid on Dec 2, 2009 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mutualaid on Dec 2, 2009 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is awesome!
Exactly where are climate movement needed to be. Fake enviro groups like the NRDC and Sierra Club need to be challenged to demand their leaders don't cut deals with the worst polluters.
The NRDC and other members of US CAPhave pissed off every environmentalist I know by not respecting the science as NASA Climatologist Dr. Hansen and the overwhelming majority of climatologists have researched it: enviro orgs like these which sell out the planet to cut a deal are the reasons we get climate legislation like Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry which bailout Wall Street and the hydrocarbon industries - coal, oil and shale gas.
Shame on the NRDC! Thanks Dr. Hansen and the real grassroots environmentalists!
Exactly where are climate movement needed to be. Fake enviro groups like the NRDC and Sierra Club need to be challenged to demand their leaders don't cut deals with the worst polluters.
The NRDC and other members of US CAPhave pissed off every environmentalist I know by not respecting the science as NASA Climatologist Dr. Hansen and the overwhelming majority of climatologists have researched it: enviro orgs like these which sell out the planet to cut a deal are the reasons we get climate legislation like Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry which bailout Wall Street and the hydrocarbon industries - coal, oil and shale gas.
Shame on the NRDC! Thanks Dr. Hansen and the real grassroots environmentalists!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
ed hardy
Posted by: mxcm428 on Dec 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mxcm428 on Dec 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ed Hardy Tops Seven Ed Hardy Shoes months Ed Hardy Jeans into Ed Hardy Hoodies her Ed Hardy T Shirts pregnancy Ed Hardy Swimwear with her Ed Hardy hats fourth Ed Hardy caps child Ed Hardy Kids Joy Ed Hardy Sunglasses Szabos Tiffany Charms obstetrician Tiffany Bracelets gave her Tiffany Bangles some news Tiffany Pendants she didnt Tiffany Necklaces want to Tiffany Earrings hear Because Tiffany Rings shed had Tiffany Cuff Links a previous Tiffany Key Rings Caesarean sectionv Tiffany Sets the hospital Tiffany and co Charms where she Links of London Charms planned to Links of London Sweetie Bracelets deliver was Links of London Sweetie Watches insisting she Links of London Friendship Bracelets have Links of London Bracelets another one
Links of London Necklaces Szabo Links of London Earrings wanted Links of London Rings a vaginal Links of London Chain delivery and Links of London Pendants argued with hospital executives
Links of London Necklaces Szabo Links of London Earrings wanted Links of London Rings a vaginal Links of London Chain delivery and Links of London Pendants argued with hospital executives
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» RE: Yep, Cap and Trade is a Hoax ...
Posted by: MT512
» The previous message was brought to you by...
Posted by: ScottP
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: willymack
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies? yes we know the liars!
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies? yes we know the liars!
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: Tony/ tobacco/ Exxon/ Inhofe--yes we know the liars!
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies?
Posted by: LightningJoe
» RE: Global Warming Deniars are Criminals of the century
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Here's the deal
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: Science
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Yep, Cap and Trade is a Hoax ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 1, 2009 1:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 1, 2009 1:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They will create another "market" that will be manipulated by the same banksters and speculators that caused our current crisis.
The only way to go is a carbon tax and everybody knows it. It is just that in order to get anything progressive you have to pay extortion money.
With health care reform it is guranteed profits for Pharma and Insurance Companies. Now with CO2 reduction it is once again Wall Street that gets to control the action.
This country has become nothing more than a conglomeration of racketeering ... Banksters, The MIC and unHealthy Care Inc are all shaking us down to the tune of trillions of tax payer dollars.
Cap and Trade is just another shake down.
The only way to go is a carbon tax and everybody knows it. It is just that in order to get anything progressive you have to pay extortion money.
With health care reform it is guranteed profits for Pharma and Insurance Companies. Now with CO2 reduction it is once again Wall Street that gets to control the action.
This country has become nothing more than a conglomeration of racketeering ... Banksters, The MIC and unHealthy Care Inc are all shaking us down to the tune of trillions of tax payer dollars.
Cap and Trade is just another shake down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Yep, Cap and Trade is a Hoax ...
Posted by: MT512
Comments are closed-
Global Warming Itself Is a Hoax
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 3:05 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 3:05 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming itself is a hoax, except that is treating the matter far too lightly. In my view even headlines such as "The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation" is treating it far too lightly.
Of course nearly everyone who reads Alternet is brainwashed as if they have all been converted to the equivalent of Roman Catholicism, because Global Warming is considered a Liberal Position, and must be supported in opposition to the evil right. Yes Children, but its not about Politics or Religion, its about TRUTH.
Its not just Alternet of course, in the UK in a recent Climate Change Bill, out of over 600 MP's, only 3 voted against the bill. Does that mean the 3 were wrong, or the only ones who stood up to having their arms twisted behind their back (or far worse threats)?
"The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Tony
Of course nearly everyone who reads Alternet is brainwashed as if they have all been converted to the equivalent of Roman Catholicism, because Global Warming is considered a Liberal Position, and must be supported in opposition to the evil right. Yes Children, but its not about Politics or Religion, its about TRUTH.
Its not just Alternet of course, in the UK in a recent Climate Change Bill, out of over 600 MP's, only 3 voted against the bill. Does that mean the 3 were wrong, or the only ones who stood up to having their arms twisted behind their back (or far worse threats)?
"The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The previous message was brought to you by...
Posted by: ScottP
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: willymack
» RE: The previous message was brought to you by The University of East Anglia, Norwich, England
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: The lies are spread by tobacco and polluters
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Yes Alternet why no reporting on Climate gate?
Posted by: rtq on Dec 1, 2009 5:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: rtq on Dec 1, 2009 5:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it because you have totally sold out and are now part of the problem?
Methinks so.
I have been extremely disappointed in your recent reporting or lack of.
Wont be reading the corporate blather here anymore.
Methinks so.
I have been extremely disappointed in your recent reporting or lack of.
Wont be reading the corporate blather here anymore.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Not too surprised -- NRDC seems a little greenwashed
Posted by: MT512 on Dec 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: MT512 on Dec 1, 2009 6:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a member for a few years but I got tired of their garbage. They'd send me a few sheets of single-sided paper in large envelopes instead of printing on both sides and folding the damn pages. They give silly NRDC-branded trinkets as incentives and send glossy full-color newsletters. They're too fancy and just waste too much for me to take them seriously.
It seems they target comfortable middle- and upper-middle class white stay-at-home soccer moms who are "green" mostly as a fashion statement, who might donate to the group but might not think to commit to the daily chores and sacrifices of actually living a little greener. Basically, the kind of "liberal" that most conservatives seem to think all liberals are--joiners mindlessly subscribing to a fashionable green fad.
I once hollered at the ACLU for having a $100+ per plate fundraiser in my area, and they wrote back basically saying they have to go where the money is, and rich people dig that shit. I could see their point. But now I think, how about educating these fat cats that Step #1 for helping to improve the world is... not requiring your ass to be kissed at expensive gala dinners in order to donate to worthy causes! Are the rich just so shallow that they'll only support other people in tuxedos and gowns? Are they too good to mail in a check or donate online in relative obscurity like the rest of us? Pathetic.
It seems they target comfortable middle- and upper-middle class white stay-at-home soccer moms who are "green" mostly as a fashion statement, who might donate to the group but might not think to commit to the daily chores and sacrifices of actually living a little greener. Basically, the kind of "liberal" that most conservatives seem to think all liberals are--joiners mindlessly subscribing to a fashionable green fad.
I once hollered at the ACLU for having a $100+ per plate fundraiser in my area, and they wrote back basically saying they have to go where the money is, and rich people dig that shit. I could see their point. But now I think, how about educating these fat cats that Step #1 for helping to improve the world is... not requiring your ass to be kissed at expensive gala dinners in order to donate to worthy causes! Are the rich just so shallow that they'll only support other people in tuxedos and gowns? Are they too good to mail in a check or donate online in relative obscurity like the rest of us? Pathetic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Meanwhile: multinationals convinced Canada that the US policy WORKS!
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Dec 1, 2009 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Dec 1, 2009 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
works so well...
that Harper has decided to make a three-year appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president & medical director of Pfizer Canada in charge of... you guessed it!...
who needs drug reviews, when the US obviously can show us how to git-er dun!! ?
shriek
that Harper has decided to make a three-year appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president & medical director of Pfizer Canada in charge of... you guessed it!...
who needs drug reviews, when the US obviously can show us how to git-er dun!! ?
shriek
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
IF we lived in a sane world with honest media
Posted by: Bill Wolfe on Dec 1, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Bill Wolfe on Dec 1, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Hansen's protest in front of the NRDC building in NYC would have a similar impact as the Buddhist monk who lit himself on fire in protest of the Vietnam war/occupation.
See this link for great photo's of the event:
Jim Hansen Takes on NRDC and Bank of America
http://tinyurl.com/ye42wv8
See this link for great photo's of the event:
Jim Hansen Takes on NRDC and Bank of America
http://tinyurl.com/ye42wv8
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Don't You Realise All the Lies?
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 1, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some truths instead
1. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a problem. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be highly beneficial for plant life. Humans and animals eat plants.
2. CO2 although a Greenhouse Gas, has a completely insignificant effect on Climate and does not cause Global Warming. It would only do so if levels were of an enormous greater magnitude than current.
3. The Planet has been cooling for the last 11 years, even though levels of CO2 have risen. A Real Danger Could Be a New Ice Age. This would be Catastrophic for Human Life.
4. Pollution is a serious problem from multiple sources including mining and manufacturing. Real pollution can be radically reduced to safe levels by Government Regulation and Technology. Current Government Measures do absolutely Nothing to Tackle Real Pollution which Does Kill Millions of People.
5. If we don't mine and manufacture, then you will not have any energy, nor any cities. Civilisation will revert back over 500 years, and around 6 Billion Humans will Die. You or your Children will probably be one of them.
6. In the US, the environmental movement is very successful at blocking the building of all kinds of New Power Stations - including even Solar. If you don't build New Power Stations, EVERYTHING will fail, when the old power stations are worn out. Millions of Americans will die an Early Horrible Death.
7. On 9/11, the Buildings were Brought Down by Controlled Demolition. Who Was Really Responsible?
8. Since 9/11, Americans have been living in a State of Fear, have invaded other countries who the government suggested were responsible, and have killed and dismembered Millions of innocent People. Americans can now be detained and tortured without Trial and held indefinitely. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and homes and are living in Poverty, even worse than Much of the Third World. Who is Really Responsible for this?
9. All this is not happenning by Accident. It has been planned and is being implemented now.
10. Americans use more Energy than anyone else. How long do you think this will be the case?
Try connecting the dots. Who exactly is responsible for all this? What is their real agenda?
"Think Or Be Eaten"
"Everything we know is wrong. It's the best kept secret out there. The truth is that life is threatened in a world controlled by greed and power. It's time to wake up, rise up and recreate the world that deserves to exist. A place of peace, equality and creativity that forever strives to become the best of all possibilities"
Think Or Be Eaten
Tony
1. CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a problem. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be highly beneficial for plant life. Humans and animals eat plants.
2. CO2 although a Greenhouse Gas, has a completely insignificant effect on Climate and does not cause Global Warming. It would only do so if levels were of an enormous greater magnitude than current.
3. The Planet has been cooling for the last 11 years, even though levels of CO2 have risen. A Real Danger Could Be a New Ice Age. This would be Catastrophic for Human Life.
4. Pollution is a serious problem from multiple sources including mining and manufacturing. Real pollution can be radically reduced to safe levels by Government Regulation and Technology. Current Government Measures do absolutely Nothing to Tackle Real Pollution which Does Kill Millions of People.
5. If we don't mine and manufacture, then you will not have any energy, nor any cities. Civilisation will revert back over 500 years, and around 6 Billion Humans will Die. You or your Children will probably be one of them.
6. In the US, the environmental movement is very successful at blocking the building of all kinds of New Power Stations - including even Solar. If you don't build New Power Stations, EVERYTHING will fail, when the old power stations are worn out. Millions of Americans will die an Early Horrible Death.
7. On 9/11, the Buildings were Brought Down by Controlled Demolition. Who Was Really Responsible?
8. Since 9/11, Americans have been living in a State of Fear, have invaded other countries who the government suggested were responsible, and have killed and dismembered Millions of innocent People. Americans can now be detained and tortured without Trial and held indefinitely. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and homes and are living in Poverty, even worse than Much of the Third World. Who is Really Responsible for this?
9. All this is not happenning by Accident. It has been planned and is being implemented now.
10. Americans use more Energy than anyone else. How long do you think this will be the case?
Try connecting the dots. Who exactly is responsible for all this? What is their real agenda?
"Think Or Be Eaten"
"Everything we know is wrong. It's the best kept secret out there. The truth is that life is threatened in a world controlled by greed and power. It's time to wake up, rise up and recreate the world that deserves to exist. A place of peace, equality and creativity that forever strives to become the best of all possibilities"
Think Or Be Eaten
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies? yes we know the liars!
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies? yes we know the liars!
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: Tony/ tobacco/ Exxon/ Inhofe--yes we know the liars!
Posted by: dogtor
» RE: Don't You Realise All the Lies?
Posted by: LightningJoe
Comments are closed-
Global Warming? Crime of the Century
Posted by: wrusssr on Dec 1, 2009 10:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: wrusssr on Dec 1, 2009 10:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has taken the Chicken Little climate gang to the woodshed after reading their emails and correspondence released recently by a hacker onto the internet.
Whatever the hacker’s motivation to distribute the global warmers’ files—laid bare before the world and experts to study—their content reveals an unquestionable, deliberate, perpetration of a global warming hoax upon humanity and the planet; the workings of an organized cabal perpetrating a heinous lie and hoax on humanity to enrich themselves and their handlers.
If you have lots of time on your hands like James Hansen and are willing to shell out dollars to hear him speak, then by all means catch his talks and protests.
But if you want the truth about the global warming, start here:
The Death Blow to Climate Science
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
[Meet] the Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364
Gore’s Manipulation Allowed by Main Stream Media’s Bias, Continues with CRU
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17142
Whatever the hacker’s motivation to distribute the global warmers’ files—laid bare before the world and experts to study—their content reveals an unquestionable, deliberate, perpetration of a global warming hoax upon humanity and the planet; the workings of an organized cabal perpetrating a heinous lie and hoax on humanity to enrich themselves and their handlers.
If you have lots of time on your hands like James Hansen and are willing to shell out dollars to hear him speak, then by all means catch his talks and protests.
But if you want the truth about the global warming, start here:
The Death Blow to Climate Science
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
[Meet] the Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364
Gore’s Manipulation Allowed by Main Stream Media’s Bias, Continues with CRU
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17142
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Global Warming Deniars are Criminals of the century
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Here's the deal
Posted by: willymack on Dec 1, 2009 11:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Dec 1, 2009 11:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have two sides to the climate change "argument", right?
Everyone knows there's two sides to every argument, right?
That being true, BOTH sides must be valid, therefore true, right?
WRONG!
There's only ONE truth here, folks, and that awful truth is that we're poisoning our Mother Earth to the extent that our very continuance as a species is threatened.
Anyway who says different is either delusional, has been bribed by polluters, or just ignorant of the oft- verified scientific evidence that we're on a suicide course, and must make changes to the status quo.
If we continue "business as usual" we're SCREWED, and that's a scientific assesment.
Scientists couldn't care less about politics or politicians, and are a lot more believable than fatheads like Inhofe or the other bumblewits in government and their corporate overlords.
Everyone knows there's two sides to every argument, right?
That being true, BOTH sides must be valid, therefore true, right?
WRONG!
There's only ONE truth here, folks, and that awful truth is that we're poisoning our Mother Earth to the extent that our very continuance as a species is threatened.
Anyway who says different is either delusional, has been bribed by polluters, or just ignorant of the oft- verified scientific evidence that we're on a suicide course, and must make changes to the status quo.
If we continue "business as usual" we're SCREWED, and that's a scientific assesment.
Scientists couldn't care less about politics or politicians, and are a lot more believable than fatheads like Inhofe or the other bumblewits in government and their corporate overlords.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's the deal
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: Science
Posted by: dogtor
Comments are closed-
Meanwhile...
Posted by: armorypk on Dec 1, 2009 5:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: armorypk on Dec 1, 2009 5:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flooding Swamps Venice
Oh yeah, and the Arctic ice is
thinning.
But I'm sure it's just more BS from Al Gore - whose only motivation is personal greed. Unlike those unselfish, altruistic folk from the coal, oil and nuclear industries.
Oh yeah, and the Arctic ice is
thinning.
But I'm sure it's just more BS from Al Gore - whose only motivation is personal greed. Unlike those unselfish, altruistic folk from the coal, oil and nuclear industries.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Try Maria Cantwell's Source-Taxed Carbon Plan
Posted by: LightningJoe on Dec 2, 2009 5:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: LightningJoe on Dec 2, 2009 5:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may be actually be pretty easy, if we take a different tack on the basic problem. Maria Cantwell, a Representative from WA, has been circulating an idea that hasn't gotten any traction from the Cap & Trade-focused House, but may very well be what we need. I don't know it's proper name, but I call it Source-Taxed Carbon.
What she says is not to tax the USE of carbon, as Cap & Trade is trying to, but to tax the PRODUCERS of all of the carbon-producing fuels we use. This idea has several distinct advantages, compared to C&T.
1) First, it'll be muuuch easier, to monitor and regulate a few thousand producers of energy, rather than at the least, tens of thousands of users of the fuel. Producers would have to comply with the law in order to maintain their license to produce fuel. Far simpler; and a very direct enforcement scenario.
2) The tax would by each unit of delivered energy, on the order, at first, of about two dollars per ton of coal, if my memory serves me. Up to perhaps ten dollars over the plan's implementation years. See Cantwell's office for those details.
3) Taxing production is a much more comprehensive and controllable method than Cap & Trade user-control can be. The latter, in it's greatest reach, only affects some part of the users (seventy percent of users?) Source-Taxed Carbon would get nearly a hundred percent of the producers.
4) This is the good part. Seventy or eighty percent of the gains from the tax would then be remitted back to US citizens in some fashion; whether as a dividend or a tax credit, I don't know. The rest of the revenue would pay for the program, and go for alternative energy development. I say go for eighty.
This plan is not only easier, it also attacks the problem at the front end; after which, all of the incentives down the fuel supply chain fall into order by themselves. Everyone who uses fuel has a clear financial incentive to lower their use, and it largely relieves the consumer of the burden of paying for it all.
First of course you might say well the poor energy companies, having to pay those taxes! But remember that companies don't really pay their taxes. Taxes are just profits that they don't get to keep. It's us, the company's customers, who really pay that tax. They'd be welcome to use their own massive reserves to pay the it, but I think we can assume that they'll pass on that expense to their customers, as they always do. But remember then, the consumer would have tax credits or dividends to pay for most of that increase.
But there's still more. Because the tax is levied on the units delivered to customers, I agree with Cantwell that companies will start looking for strategies to limit their fuel production, in the interests of driving costs up. The angle is that the taxes stay the same, levied per unit, but if the market price of the unit increases, all of that increase in prices stays with the company. Profit Magic! It'll be MORNING IN AMERICA again, um, er, competition will flourish! The government may have to watch out for excessive price-fixing, but I'd say that would be a better-class problem to have, and one that we already know how to deal with, than the current intractable problem of a global thermostat stuck on high and the oil companies dancing in showers of money.
The companies won't be happy about it of course, because they will after all make less; but rich people are never happy anyway, and I don't personally have any emotional stake whatever, in ensuring their future cheeriness.
What she says is not to tax the USE of carbon, as Cap & Trade is trying to, but to tax the PRODUCERS of all of the carbon-producing fuels we use. This idea has several distinct advantages, compared to C&T.
1) First, it'll be muuuch easier, to monitor and regulate a few thousand producers of energy, rather than at the least, tens of thousands of users of the fuel. Producers would have to comply with the law in order to maintain their license to produce fuel. Far simpler; and a very direct enforcement scenario.
2) The tax would by each unit of delivered energy, on the order, at first, of about two dollars per ton of coal, if my memory serves me. Up to perhaps ten dollars over the plan's implementation years. See Cantwell's office for those details.
3) Taxing production is a much more comprehensive and controllable method than Cap & Trade user-control can be. The latter, in it's greatest reach, only affects some part of the users (seventy percent of users?) Source-Taxed Carbon would get nearly a hundred percent of the producers.
4) This is the good part. Seventy or eighty percent of the gains from the tax would then be remitted back to US citizens in some fashion; whether as a dividend or a tax credit, I don't know. The rest of the revenue would pay for the program, and go for alternative energy development. I say go for eighty.
This plan is not only easier, it also attacks the problem at the front end; after which, all of the incentives down the fuel supply chain fall into order by themselves. Everyone who uses fuel has a clear financial incentive to lower their use, and it largely relieves the consumer of the burden of paying for it all.
First of course you might say well the poor energy companies, having to pay those taxes! But remember that companies don't really pay their taxes. Taxes are just profits that they don't get to keep. It's us, the company's customers, who really pay that tax. They'd be welcome to use their own massive reserves to pay the it, but I think we can assume that they'll pass on that expense to their customers, as they always do. But remember then, the consumer would have tax credits or dividends to pay for most of that increase.
But there's still more. Because the tax is levied on the units delivered to customers, I agree with Cantwell that companies will start looking for strategies to limit their fuel production, in the interests of driving costs up. The angle is that the taxes stay the same, levied per unit, but if the market price of the unit increases, all of that increase in prices stays with the company. Profit Magic! It'll be MORNING IN AMERICA again, um, er, competition will flourish! The government may have to watch out for excessive price-fixing, but I'd say that would be a better-class problem to have, and one that we already know how to deal with, than the current intractable problem of a global thermostat stuck on high and the oil companies dancing in showers of money.
The companies won't be happy about it of course, because they will after all make less; but rich people are never happy anyway, and I don't personally have any emotional stake whatever, in ensuring their future cheeriness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Dr. Hansen and Komanoff expose the Natural Resources Defense Council
Posted by: mutualaid on Dec 2, 2009 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mutualaid on Dec 2, 2009 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is awesome!
Exactly where are climate movement needed to be. Fake enviro groups like the NRDC and Sierra Club need to be challenged to demand their leaders don't cut deals with the worst polluters.
The NRDC and other members of US CAPhave pissed off every environmentalist I know by not respecting the science as NASA Climatologist Dr. Hansen and the overwhelming majority of climatologists have researched it: enviro orgs like these which sell out the planet to cut a deal are the reasons we get climate legislation like Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry which bailout Wall Street and the hydrocarbon industries - coal, oil and shale gas.
Shame on the NRDC! Thanks Dr. Hansen and the real grassroots environmentalists!
Exactly where are climate movement needed to be. Fake enviro groups like the NRDC and Sierra Club need to be challenged to demand their leaders don't cut deals with the worst polluters.
The NRDC and other members of US CAPhave pissed off every environmentalist I know by not respecting the science as NASA Climatologist Dr. Hansen and the overwhelming majority of climatologists have researched it: enviro orgs like these which sell out the planet to cut a deal are the reasons we get climate legislation like Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry which bailout Wall Street and the hydrocarbon industries - coal, oil and shale gas.
Shame on the NRDC! Thanks Dr. Hansen and the real grassroots environmentalists!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
ed hardy
Posted by: mxcm428 on Dec 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mxcm428 on Dec 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ed Hardy Tops Seven Ed Hardy Shoes months Ed Hardy Jeans into Ed Hardy Hoodies her Ed Hardy T Shirts pregnancy Ed Hardy Swimwear with her Ed Hardy hats fourth Ed Hardy caps child Ed Hardy Kids Joy Ed Hardy Sunglasses Szabos Tiffany Charms obstetrician Tiffany Bracelets gave her Tiffany Bangles some news Tiffany Pendants she didnt Tiffany Necklaces want to Tiffany Earrings hear Because Tiffany Rings shed had Tiffany Cuff Links a previous Tiffany Key Rings Caesarean sectionv Tiffany Sets the hospital Tiffany and co Charms where she Links of London Charms planned to Links of London Sweetie Bracelets deliver was Links of London Sweetie Watches insisting she Links of London Friendship Bracelets have Links of London Bracelets another one
Links of London Necklaces Szabo Links of London Earrings wanted Links of London Rings a vaginal Links of London Chain delivery and Links of London Pendants argued with hospital executives
Links of London Necklaces Szabo Links of London Earrings wanted Links of London Rings a vaginal Links of London Chain delivery and Links of London Pendants argued with hospital executives
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
When Will Obama Stop Trying to Work with Republicans?
Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
White Racial Resentment Bubbles Under the Surface of the Tea Party Movement
