Cap and Trade is a Tax - And It's A Great Big One

Australia's Fire - Preventable?

About a year and a half ago I wrote about major wildfires that did significant damage to southern Utah as well as Southern Idaho. There were many associated with those fires who blamed our no-logging, no grazing, no restoration federal policy, fueled by environmentalists, for the fires being so severe and dangerous.

Recently another fire of that magnitude erupted in Australia, destroying property and killing many people. Some of the residents affected by the fire are taking up the same mantra as those I wrote about almost two years ago.

ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne's northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said. "We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."

Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored.

There was widespread applause when Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen said changes were likely to be made about the council's policy surrounding native vegetation.

But his response was not good enough for Mr Spooner: "It's too late now mate. We've lost families, we've lost people."

ht: Michelle Malkin

Alternative Energy Sources

From Orson Scott Card:

The correct solution to the oil problem, according to the Puritans, is to have fewer humans. Now, I haven't noticed them volunteering to lessen the population starting with themselves; nor have I seen their heroes bicycling everywhere (environmental ayatollah Al Gore's plane being a legendary instance).

But they do systematically resist every solution that doesn't involve wrecking the American economy and destroying the American way of life.

No insecticides! But also no genetically altered crops with enhanced resistance to insects and disease!

No coal-fired power plants! But also no clean nuclear plants! (Even though France has proven that standardized nuclear power is safe and relatively cheap.)

Yes, you can build windmill farms -- but you can't put them anywhere.

Solar collectors? Excellent -- but don't put them anywhere, either, because they interfere with the natural ecology -- even in the barest desert. (God forbid that lizards should have more shade.)

Collect solar power in space and beam it to Earth? Fine -- except that you are forbidden to actually receive the power anywhere because it's too dangerous.

Hydroelectric power? Great idea -- except that you can't build a dam anywhere because it transforms a surface environment to an underwater one, which, naturally, annoys the squirrels. Squirrels, being natural nonsinners, take precedence over evil, sinful humans, the only animal that is forbidden to act according to its nature.

Electric cars and public transportation? Great idea -- but not until after we've converted all power plants to non-carbon-emitting fuels. (Never mind that it can only ever happen the other way, converting to electric cars immediately, so they're already in place when the oil runs out or, as I hope, we stop buying it because we've met the need in other ways.)

It's so Calvinist, so Jonathan Edwards. To the environmentalists, the only reason we aren't a spider suspended by God's will over the fires of hell is that spiders are natural and don't deserve to be punished.

We have to do something -- the Environmentalists are right about that. But they are so puritan that there isn't actually anything that you are allowed to do because all the solutions are also sinful.

This Is What We Mean By 'Big Government'

This gem comes courtesy of the Daily Mail in Great Britain. Apparently, their "Environmental Audit Committee" thinks a personal carbon credit system should be made mandatory - meaning the government tells people how much carbon they are allowed to use each year, and gives them a credit card to keep track of it. Every time you buy gas, you'd have to swipe the carbon card to make sure you haven't gone over your limit. Every time your heating bill comes in, it zaps your carbon allotment. The system could even extend to buying food.

Sounds like a great idea! Unfortunately, the rest of the government isn't quite on board yet, saying it's wonderful, but maybe a bit ahead of its time.

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report into the scheme found it would cost between £700million and £2billion to set up and up to another £2billion a year to run.

The scheme would penalise those living in the countryside who were dependent on their cars, as well as the elderly or housebound who need to heat their homes in the day.

Large families would suffer, as would those working at nights when little public transport is available.

It would need to take into account the size of families, and their ages. There is huge potential for fraud.

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the cards would be hugely unpopular. 'The Government has shown itself incapable of managing any huge, complex IT system.' he said.

Or, you could just do us all a favor and end your life now. With fewer of you carbon pigs out there there'd be more to go around for the rest of us.

Biofuels Letter in Deseret News

I sent in a shortened version of my latest biofuels post as a letter to the editor in the Deseret News and it was published last Saturday. Here's the link, and here's the text:

Last November, Jean Ziegler — the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food — called for a five-year ban on biofuel production, stating that diverting corn, wheat and sugar crops to the biofuel industry would cause huge price increases in foods that are staples of the world diet. He even went so far as calling it a crime against humanity. What did the United States do in the face of these warnings? It mandated huge increases in biofuels, of course.

We can already see the consequences of that action. According to the World Food Program, biofuel production is largely to blame for "newly hungry" people in Latin America, Africa and Asia and for food riots in Burkino Faso, Cameroon, Senegal and Morocco.

Corn is so widely used that higher corn prices mean higher prices for just about everything else from meat, eggs and dairy products to hops, malting barley and vegetables.

A child dies from hunger every five seconds. Our country's politicians and environmental activists just made it harder and more expensive to save them.

There were also some interesting comments to the letter, so I'll post them here as well:

Non food stock | 6:06 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Research at USU under a USTAR grant is underway that will derive biofuel from aglae rather than traditional food stock. This is the direction that biofuels should take.

Casey | 6:14 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Cameron - children are acceptable collateral damage in the environmental movement. How many have died of malaria since the ban on ddt? True to their character, they will accept NO responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Biofuels are the latest "feel good" solution our problems. Don't expect anything to change soon. Unfortunately

michaelh | 6:19 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
I agree we must stop this bio-fuel madness! This was tried during the Carter administration. It failed then and it is failing now. There is plenty of oil we are not running out we just need to get the madcap insane global warming nut jobs out of the way. They are going to cause a famine and the deaths of millions of people. When a person is insane to the point of being dangerous to himself and society they need to be locked up in a mental hospital. We need to stop being silent and resist the legislation being suggested by the enviro-insane.
Comments continue below

Timj | 6:21 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Environmental activists? Excuse me?
Don't blame the biofuel problem on environmentalists. Blame it on politicians, farmers, and gullibles.
None of the environmentalists I know think that turning corn into fuel is a good idea. In fact, many are very vocal about it being a bad idea.
Schweitzer | 7:19 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008

Exactly so. The problem with biofuels is, it takes fuel for the body, and turns it into fuel to drag Main Street with. There may be a few exceptions, where the agricultural source of the biofuel is currently inedible and going to waste, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

liberal larry | 7:34 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
The writer is correct that the production of befouls is distorting the price of global food commodities. In fact, almost all commodities are increasing in price because of the increasing consumption of nations like China and India. This is a natural out growth of the planets over population, there will continue to be a competition for the worlds scarce resourses, you better get used to it because there are limited amounts of the earth's oil, water, precious metals, wilderness etc. and no glimpse of population control in sight.

Lionheart | 8:07 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Unintended consequences. Why couldn't this have been predicted. Biofuels take land, water and the net result is not a savings in fuel. The government has been paying the agribusiness to grow these crops and now we are going to have to pay them not to grow them. There are better solutions to the fuel problem.

Dave | 8:50 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
It seems every time politicians make change, things get worse.

Spanish Fark | 9:16 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Dont need to use carn. My truck runs on beer from the Walmarts. At last somebody spells rapporteur right! About time.

bushbot | 10:37 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
This was a really good letter.... see this is the kind of thing that happens when you start going against the laws of nature and trying to make same sex marriage acceptable... everything gets turned upside down: food as fuel, equal rights for animals... where does it all end ?
@liberal larry:no glimpse of population control in sight? You liberals are truly scary.... and you accuse conservatives of being Nazis.

Casey | 10:45 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Larry - I thought that increased consumption in China and India was because of increased economic freedom. People now can afford food instead of starving, and they are choosing to eat. If the government in China would let them they might even choose to have more than 1 child (how can they be contributing to overpopulation with a policy like that?) Economic freedom therefore is not a good thing in the context you seem to be coming from. It means people have more and therefore can conume more. I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks from here.

TeddyR | 10:49 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Casey&Michaelh;
You guys are poorly informed; as stated above, every environmentalist I know is AGAINST food to fuel biofuels projects. Apparently, any old stick is suitable to bash and "environazi" with, whether it's accurate or not.

BBKing | 10:50 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Casey is right on the money. Literally tens of millions of people have died from Malaria primarily based on what is now considered faulty research. In any case, we placed a greater premium on birds than people. Period.

Timj, this movement for biofuels was 100% started by the environmentalist crowd. To say otherwise is to ask us to believe the sun doesn't rise in the morning. I remember friends in Utah country trying to get rid of the fuel additive. All but impossible and founght tooth and nail by EPA and their environmental buddies.

You mention the farmers and politicians, you are correct. What is beginning to happen is big business is learning they can make trillions off of all this global warming junk. Literally, we just outlawed the light bulb. How freaking stupid is that?! No more incandecent lightbulbs by 2014 or something. Holy freaking cow!

The UN estimates that in order to stop "Global Warming" it will cost at least $20 trillion. So yes, farmers are buying politicians so they can get a cut of the $20 trillion.

If you folks would use real science we could begin to solve this. No more junk science please.

John | 11:19 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Corn is not a source of energy. It requires energy to turn it into a biofuel. How stupid are we going to get?

Crude IS a source of energy. Natural gas is a source of energy. There is really nothing else on this planet that is a viable alternative for our transportation. Every other solution that people offer, requires another source of energy, to create.

Turn out the lights, the party is over.

Lionheart | 11:51 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008
To John: The party is not over, pressure, such as the situation in fuel and world distribution is what brings about immense change. Expect something new and wonderful to solve the problem. Have more trust in human consciousness.

liberal larry | 12:27 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
It's common knowledge that biofuels are not working well yet, but they may be more realistic when other organic wastes like grasses and wood chips are used to produce fuel. To blame "radical environmentalists" for this is silly. President Bush is one of the leading proponents of ethanol, and he is hardly an environmentalist.

As third world nations become more consumptive, like us Americans, food, and all other commodities will become more expensive. The pie is only so big, the more people we have, the smaller each piece will be.

Did I call conservatives Nazis? I don't think so, at least not recently

RayCharles | 1:40 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
BBKing;
Perhaps you can list what environmentalist organizations (whose websites we can consult) are pushing biofuels? Your bald assertions aren't making it.
Your comments about DDT are a red flag to any knowledgeable person; it's bunk generated by rightwing radio. DDT laws have always had an "out" clause allowing usage to control mosquitos. Mexico has never stopped using DDT, and has a growing malaria problem. Cite the "faulty research" about DDT; the whole DDT issue alerted people to how chickens come home to roost, if you'll pardon an avian pun. The long-lived toxins that enter the food chain don't only affect pelicans, they wind up in other species at the top of the food chain, including humans.
At any rate, your comments show that you are merely a medium of long-debunked, completely unscientific ravings.

bushbot | 3:05 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
@LL : just wondering what you have in mind when you write about "population control" Sounds pretty ominous

Paul | 4:32 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
I guess, in my view, higher prices are just too bad. People in the US are freezing, from lack of heating oil. We have to get free handouts from Venzuela. What is wrong with converting food grown in the US into fuel for US consumption (assuming there is an advantage to do so)? Starvation in Latin America, Asia, and Africa is something that will always occur, given human's rate of reproduction, so we can only do what we can. I would probably get a bit ticked off if the US Government (or the UN) decided it could and should dictate how I use food I grew (again, assuming I was a farmer). Then again, given the amount of subsidies farmers get, maybe the Government should have a say...

liberal larry | 4:33 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
A lot of factors reduce reproduction rates, I was thinking in terms of availability to free birth control, general resources education for women and girls, monetary incentives to have fewer children. There are lots of ways to have people voluntarily limit the number of kids they have.

bushbot | 5:16 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
From what I have read about demographic trends the world's population is expected to peak between 2050- 2080 (I can't remember exactly) I do know that even in many historically high reproductive areas the trend is to smaller families.
I believe that lower reproductive rates are more of a threat to stability than higher reproduction .... obviously someone has to pay the overhead costs of Government and infrastructure. I have yet to see a Government spending program ever go away. Once they are instituted they are nearly impossible to end ( e.g. social security)
I know one thing... the people having lots of children will be the ones determining where Society heads in the future.

Lew Jeppson | 6:54 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
If the United States government had not funded the interstates in the 1950s, the private networks of electric interurban railways (I bet nobody here knows what I'm talking about) would have survived, thrived and expanded. We would have compact housing and compact communities along them. We would have no global warming and no need for biofuels. A look backward can clue us for the route ahead.

Lionheart | 8:58 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Dear Lew:

Lots of us don't want to live in human coops and will find a way to escape that grim possibility, therefore, freedom to roam the planet and beyond has led to many advances in human history.

2penniesandchange | 9:53 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Lew,
I'm from Los Angeles, and know EXACTLY what your talking about! Red Car? Yes, we had that once. But the freeways got built by car company subsidies, and the transport of choice switched to cars and not electric trains. Now the Angeleno's are paying the price, while the smart ones move to Utah

Stewart | 10:00 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
Grow corn for food, get those nuclear power plants built, and let's get on with plug-in series hybrid cars that in most cases will out perform some of the present models. It will take at least a decade to transition.

Sorry, Lew, you're wrong | 11:40 p.m. Mar. 15, 2008
The decline in private interurban rail began long before before the interstate highways came along.

The Pacific Electric "Red Cars" were being taken out of service in the 1930s, and the Rio Grande Southern had taken their trains off the tracks, replaced by the "Galloping Goose" motor railcars. When the US got into WWII, logistics experts discovered that passenger rail miles were only HALF of what they had been at the end of WWI. 40 percent of the country's passenger railway cars had been burned and their iron parts cut up for scrap.

It was significantly less expensive to switch to buses (using public roadways between cities) than to continue maintaining (and paying taxes on) sole-use rail right-of-ways. It's also more versatile and rapidly modifiable.

In fact, it was this decline in rail capacity which prompted the interstate highways in the first place!

The only interurban commuter rail lines which thrived were those with high numbers of "fixed" commuters on the East Coast, and only those with overhead catenary wires to power the trains (no self-motive interurban commuter train or trolley was operating in the US between 1965 and 1989).

Hope the Front Runner is a success!

Biofuels Kill Children

Last November I wrote about Congress's bill which pushed new mandates for biofuel production. I called it an "Environmental Kneejerk Disaster". Why did I call it that? Because politicians and activists, in a "we've got to do something!" response to global warming's dire predictions, decided that biofuels was the way to go. But back in October 2007 Jean Ziegler called for a 5 year ban on biofuel production, stating that diverting corn, wheat, and sugar crops to the biofuel industry would cause huge price increases in foods that are staples in the world diet. He said,

“It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil which produces food stuff that will be burned into biofuel.”

What did the US do in the face of these warnings? Why, they mandated huge increases in biofuels of course.

We can already see the consequences of that action. Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program was reported to have said recently that there are "newly hungry people" in Latin America, Africa and Asia, and that there have been food riots in Burkino Faso, Cameroon, Senegal and Morocco. And why are they hungry and rioting? Because food prices are skyrocketing. According to Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development,

"Although we are coming off a record corn harvest, the 2008 new-crop corn harvest is more than $5.00 per bushel. The new-crop soybean futures price is more than $12.50 per bushel. In contrast to the 1995/96 high price period, the markets today are not indicating that these record prices are temporary. Farmers can sell their 2009 and 2010 crops for about the same price...

Crop prices at these levels dramatically increase the cost of raising hogs, finishing cattle, and producing milk and eggs. These costs will have to be passed on to consumers through higher retail prices for meat, eggs, and dairy products to keep livestock producers in business. Competition for land between specialty crops, oilseeds, and food and feed grains will also increase the prices of other products such as hops, malting barley, beans, and vegetables. Consequently, we should expect to see increased food prices over the next year or two as these cost increases are passed on to consumers."

These higher prices especially affect the poor, both here and abroad. They already spend a significant portion of their income on food, and have less flexibility to respond to higher costs. People are starving, and will continue to starve, largely because this country's politicians and environmental activists ignored reality, ignored economics, and pushed for this "solution" to global warming.

Biofuels: Environmental Kneejerk Disaster

A common argument for human caused global warming is "even if we're wrong and it's not mankind's fault, shouldn't we do something anyway, just in case?"

Biofuels is the perfect example of why not. Here's the chain of events: Fossil fuels, oil, is blamed for causing global warming. Since everything uses oil, government is petitioned to find alternative sources of energy. As government is wont to do, they identify a solution that is really expensive, provides massive benefits to big business, has been proven to fail in the past and has little prospects for success in the future, and will wind up hurting the poor in the end.

Ethanol and its cousins are the biofuels of choice for most of the world, including the US government. It is made from corn and other plant products. Although it was tried and failed in the past, the recent excitement over global warming has convinced our Congress to shovel money into a failed product. The current farm bill would allocate billions of dollars to biofuels, the majority of which uses corn. Coincidentally, the Senate committee head overseeing the bill is from Iowa, where 12.5 million acres of land is used to grow corn. In addition, the Department of Energy recently gave a Spanish corporation half the cost of building a $35 million biofuels plant in Nebraska.

All of this public money flowing to private coffers, and for what? A highly suspect fuel source that, according to the UN, will be catastrophic for hungry people around the world as it diverts food and land from human consumption. The riches of business and politics come at a heavy price, as the number of starving people, which now takes the life of a child every 5 seconds, stands to increase exponentially.

Global Warming Letter in Times-News

This letter was printed in the Times-News August 30, 2006

The purpose of the letter is to get some feedback. The points I write about are from "A Long Term Perspective on Global Warming" by Petr Chylek. I found the essay during my "debate" on JuniperWest's blog, of which I recently wrote. As I described in that post, I didn't get any useable information from them, so I thought I'd write this letter in hopes of causing more discussion. If you follow the link above to the online version of the newspaper, scroll down to the bottom and there are reader comments. I have to admit, the moon thing has got me stumped. If I see any response letters in the upcoming days, I'll post links to them as well.

Here's the letter:


People talk about global warming as if it's a new phenomenon. It's not. We have ice core-derived temperature data for the last 420,000 years. This data shows that global warming periods have occurred in the past. Our current warming period started 11,000 years ago. It has made the development of our civilization possible. It truly is a remarkable period of the Earth's existence.

In more recent terms, there have been two distinct warming periods in the last 120 years. The first lasted from 1890-1940. We are currently in the second period, which began in 1970. In between, there was a noticeable cooling period from 1940-1970. The drop in temperature during these decades alarmed many scientists, with some even predicting imminent global catastrophes.

The warming trend that began in 1890 was not caused by CO2. The warm periods that occurred 130, 240, 320, and 420 thousand years ago were not caused by CO2 either.

An important predictor of the future is the past. In the midst of the current global warming period, we should be striving to understand our planet's past warming trends in order to better understand the present and prepare for the future.

There Is No Global Warming Consensus

I have recently been involved in an online discussion centered around global warming. It started out innocently enough, when in response to a blog post touting the global warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth", I expressed my uncertainty on the subject. I was then asked by another commenter to provide proof of scientists that don't subscribe to the "truth" that global warming is mankind's fault. So I did.

Apparently the blog owner and the commenter didn't appreciate it.

I asked them to critique my initial findings, but instead I was told I was biased and immoral. They accused me of refusing to listen to their mountains of scientific evidence; the only problem with that being they never provided any. I was amazed and dismayed by how quickly they backtracked from discussing science.

I had no idea what a hornet's nest I was uncovering by daring to ask questions. Coincidentally, Reach Upward posted on the subject of the almost religious fanatacism of environmentalists about the same time I was busily swatting hornets. It has been a fascinating experience for me. Here I was, an honest seeker of knowledge, and my very integrity was called into question.

It was not all a loss, however. While I didn't get much pro-global warming info from Juniper West and friends, I did find enormous evidence that a scientific consensus does not exist. In presenting this evidence, I have realized that the global warming community desperately wants to move past actually discussing their theories. They want action, and they want it NOW. This is why they incessantly claim that the "science has spoken", a consensus has been reached, and wo to anyone that stands in their way.

Here are a few dissenting voices for your consideration:

On April 6, 2006 60 scientists signed a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada asking him to "examine the scientific foundation of the federal governments climate change plans." They go on to say that, "We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy."

Richard Lindzen is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and also one of the most outspoken critics of the global warming hysterics. On July 2, 2006 his op-ed was printed in the Wall Street Journal. His was a piercing critique of "An Inconvenient Truth."

"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended- at least not in terms of the actual science."

Indeed, natural climate variability and our own inability to really understand the compliated and convoluted forces that make up the Earth's climate seems to be a common thread amongst dissenters. A Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax, worte a fascinating paper entitled, "A Long-Term Perspective on Climate Change." I have been too busy swatting hornets to delve deeper into his claims, but he makes a strong case for our current warm spell being nothing more than natural climate activity, especially when viewed in the context of thousands of years worth of the Earth's temperature. He claims, among other things, that we are currently in one of a few of the warming periods the Earth has experienced over the las 420,000 years. Temperatures have consistently risen and fallen over time, we are simply in a rising period that has been extremely beneficial to humankind, allowing us to live and prosper.

Basically, what many of these scientists seem to be saying is that we don’t understand the weather. Crazy, I know. In fact, the text of the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report reads, “…the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing.” There are so many factors involved in the earth’s constantly changing weather that great uncertainty remains as to what the major causes may be; or if there even is one major cause.

The scientists I have quoted here are not alone. Lest you think that there are only a few, and that those few are greedily taking Big Oil’s money in return for their dissenting view, I refer you to a petition compiled by the Oregon Petition Project, and signed by over 19,700 scientists since 1998. The petition says, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Claims of a scientific “consensus” are false. It is the product of desperate people desperately seeking to steamroll their agenda over anything and anyone in their way. It is unfortunate that the discussion has come to this. Discussions of public policy choices should be just that: Discussions. Instead, my own foray into the world of environmentalists seems to be the rule and not the exception, even among scientists. Those that dare to speak up and speak out are treated as heretics; rarely is their science even discussed, rather they themselves are attacked and belittled. Unfortunately, in so doing, science and scientists lose sight of what is most interesting and most beneficial about their work: the search for truth.

Kyoto Protocol

The United States is ruining the world's environment. Many other countries, indeed most of the world's countries, have signed an agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions thereby reducing global climate change. But the US refuses to do so based solely on economic grounds; it would hurt our nation's pocketbook and so we won't do it. Global warming will continue to worsen because the world's largest polluter doesn't have the guts and fortitude to do what the rest of the world has shown a willingness to do.

Well, actually it's the world's largest polluter's current governing political party that doesn't have the guts and fortitude to do what the rest of the world has done. Republicans have long been known to be anti-environment, and Democrats are pro-environment. President Clinton wanted the United States to enter into the agreement and even sent Vice President Gore to symbolically sign it. However, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a resolution stating they would never pass it into law. Our country's anti-environmental stance is not necessarily our nation's fault as a whole. It is the fault of the Republican party.

Hogwash.

The aforementioned agreement is known as the Kyoto Protocol. The meetings to design the agreement began in the early 90's, even before President Clinton took office. It was organized through the United Nations, and many countries were involved. Vice President Gore signed it in November of 1998. However, the signing was merely symbolic as it had to go before Congress to really take effect.

It never officially came to a vote in Congress. Why? Surely it was because the Republicans in Congress blocked it?

Nope.

On July 25, 1997, which was before Vice President Gore signed the Kyoto Accord, a Democrat sponsored resolution was passed by the Senate on a 95-0 vote barring the United States from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. This resolution gives the Senate's reasons for refusing to sign the agreement. The reasons are:

"Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015"

"Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period"

"129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties'"

I might add that the Kyoto Protocol would require the Developed Nations to finance the industrialization of the Developing Nations, without any restrictions on how the funds were to be used.

Perhaps more importantly, according to the United States Senate, Kyoto would allow the "Developing Countries", including China and India, to continue to increase their pollution unabated. So much so that eight years from now their pollution will be greater than that of the Phase I countries'.

Kyoto started as a worldwide pollution control mechanism. It ended up as a free pass to developing countries.

Our Senate, in a bi-partisan 95-0 vote, saved our country from the disaster that would have been further US involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. Hurray for them.