|D.C. to Bonn|
|June 14, 2009||By Pat Carlson|
In just one week I traveled between two polar opposite worlds. One composed of the light of scientific truth and hope for the future of mankind the other composed of a dark cloud of deception filled with catastrophic lies and a loathing for mankind. The Heartland Institute held its Third International Conference titled "Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis" on June 2, 2009 in Washington, D.C. and at the same time in Bonn, Germany, June 1-12, 2009, the UN global elitist began the second of a series of interim negotiations on a new climate change treaty they hope will be completed in Copenhagen, Denmark next December.
The Heartland Institute held their second international conference only three months ago in New York City, NY but because things are moving so fast both domestically and internationally on climate change, it was felt a short, one day conference was needed to bring conservatives up to speed on actions. The main topic of the conference was the Waxman/Markey bill seductively, titled American Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). This bill will cap CO2 emissions while creating a market system for credits or offsets of emissions. It is comparable to the rationing coupons issued during WWII for gasoline or certain foods. When people used up their coupons they either waited until more were issued or they borrowed, traded or bought someone else's. The main difference between this example and the proposed cap and trade bill is, it will be imposed on businesses and energy companies, but the cost will be passed on to every American. According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, Americans will have to find $3900 a year more in the family budget if cap and trade is passed.
Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin spoke at Heartland's conference. He said the Republicans in the US House are not allowed to use the phrase "cap and trade." They must call it "cap and tax." If someone slips up, they are fined. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and ranking minority leader of the Senate Public and Environment Works Committee, told the conference not to be depressed when the Waxman/Markey passes in the House, because he said, "If the trends we are experiencing right now continue" it will never pass the US Senate. The trends he speaks of are a recent Rasmussen Poll conducted showing only 34% of Americans blame humans for global warming." This is the lowest finding and a reversal from a year ago. Also, Senator Inhofe says there are some new Democrat Senators who do not march in lock step with the other Democrats.
Senator Inhofe was also encouraging about the threat from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. He said the senate can stall these regulations by saying it will produce "harmful affects" and then a call for a Congressional Review. He said the EPA would then file a lawsuit which would probably be tied up in the courts for years.
The third impressive speaker at the conference was Dr. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, an economics professor at the King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain. Dr. Calzada has released a "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" in March about green jobs in Spain. This study should be very instructive for America and President Obama since he's held Spain up as a shining example of one of the European countries whose "governments have harnessed their people's hard work and ingenuity with bold investments that are paying off in good, high wage jobs." President Obama has promised to "create 5 million 'green jobs'" with an investment of $150 billion over ten years.
Dr. Calzada's study concluded that for every green job created 2.2 were lost. Since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each "green job" while at the same time destroying 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Also, only one in ten of the green jobs created was permanent. These were related to the operations and maintenance of renewable power systems. The other nine relating to construction, fabrication and installation were only temporary.
In Senator Inhofe's remarks concluded by comparing all the bailouts of the past year to the Waxman/Markey bill, calling it the biggest bailout of all at $6 trillion causing "all pain, no climate gain."
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks are still deadlocked between developed countries like the US and the EU over how much money and technology will be given to developing countries like China and India if emission caps are binding for all. Developed countries want binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emission commitments from developing countries and the developing countries want to know details of the money and technology transfer first. Neither side will budge. The two top people of the US Delegation, Todd Stern and Jonathan Pershing, took a short trip to China during the conference for high level talks hoping to move the discussions along. They returned "very pleased" and with a proposed new plan.
The Obama delegation's new idea is built around "actions" (any action expected to reduce GHG emissions) and "outcomes" (GHG emission reduction targets). The plan calls for developing countries to submit a national plan to the international community of actions and outcomes with only the action being binding. Meanwhile, the developed countries are expected to make binding commitments for outcomes, finances, and technology transfer. But this is just the same old plan just different rhetoric. Sorry guys we're smarter than that. Todd Stern recently stated, "We understand China's paramount need to grow and develop for its people...our demand is that the development.....is based on low carbon emissions." So the Obama administration has now decided to reverse the 12 year resolve of the US not to sign onto any agreement that would hurt the economy and would not require similar binding commitments from developing countries.
Estimates of the financial and technological needs of developing countries range from $392 billion to $997 billion per year by 2030 for both mitigation and adaptation. These numbers have become so exorbitant the countries who need to pay must be convinced of the magnitude of their guilt. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recently stated there are 300,000 deaths per year due to climate change and that number is expected to rise to 500,000 in the future. To further make the case of guilt, comparable medical terms are being used such as "sudden and slow onset" disasters caused by climate change. A "sudden onset disaster" is a flash flood or river rising and a "slow onset" disaster is a drought. Many people are being displaced because of these sudden and slow onset disasters creating the need for another new term, in stead of refugees we now have "environmentally-induced migrants." The guilty will be expected to pay for insurance policies covering the "environmentally-induced migrants" against "sudden and slow onset" disasters to satisfy the mitigation part of the treaty.
Literally everything is being blamed on climate change down to headaches and the over-crowded buses in Mexico City according to Anna Romero of the Pew Environmental Organization. It is the responsibility of developed nations to pay their "historical debt" to "the most vulnerable who have contributed the least" to climate change and have the "right to a fair allocation of atmospheric and development space." It would be so much more honest if they said, "We're jealous of your lifestyle. Give us your money and technology."
UNFCCC Secretary General Yvo de Boer was asked by a reporter if he fully understood what he was asking the developed countries to do in GHG emission cuts and financial contributions. The actual question was, "I wonder if you are living in fairyland?" The Secretary General was taken back by the question, but I believe he gave us a rare glimpse at the truth. His first response was, "I can assure you I am not living in fairyland." Then he added after some reflection, "The only dirty thing left for us to do without paying for it on earth is pumping GHG's into the atmosphere. What we are moving toward.....is an approach where every company and every country will have to buy the right to pump garbage into the atmosphere and that, we will be doing through a financial mechanism that insures we are talking about the distribution of gain rather than the distribution of pain."
The gain is the redistribution of the wealth of developed countries to China and India with no commitments or pain on their part. The UNFCCC meets again in September in Bangkok for more interim talks.