Politics

How Greenpeace Games the System

This is a summary of a talk by Dr. Willie Soon presented at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness conference on July 20, 2019.

This analysis can be applied to many radical environmental organizations.

You can download the PDF – 75 pages- of the full paper upon which the talk is based. One of the authors of the paper is Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace. Moore has dis-owned Greenpeace because of their policies.

Some excerpts from The Greenpeace Business Model:

Although Greenpeace relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their messaging.

Greenpeace has successfully created a public perception that they are fighting to protect humanity, nature and the environment from the evils of corrupt industries and vested interests. This perception is so popular and wide-spread that whenever Greenpeace speaks out on an issue it is automatically assumed to be true, and anybody who questions Greenpeace’s claims is assumed to be corrupt. However, as we will discuss in this report, the reality is almost exactly the opposite…

Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:

1) Invent an “environmental problem” which sounds somewhat plausible. Provide anecdotal evidence to support your claims, with emotionally powerful imagery.

2) Invent a “simple solution” for the problem which sounds somewhat plausible and emotionally appealing, but is physically unlikely to ever be implemented.

3) Pick an “enemy” and blame them for obstructing the implementation of the “solution”. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.

4) Dismiss any alternative “solutions” to your problem as “completely inadequate”.

At each of the four stages, they campaign to raise awareness of the efforts that they are allegedly making to “fight” this problem. Concerned citizens then either sign up as “members” (with annual fees) or make individual donations (e.g., $25 or more) to help them in “the fight”. This model has been very successful for them, with an annual turnover of about $400 million. Although technically a “not for profit” organization, this has not stopped them from increasing their asset value over the years, and they currently have an asset value of $270 million– with 65% of that in cash, making them a cash-rich business. Several other groups have also adopted this approach, e.g., Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Although their business relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their messaging. As a result, their campaigning efforts appear to resonate strongly with left-leaning parties and liberal media. By draping themselves in “moral clothing”, Greenpeace has been very effective at convincing these progressive organizations that anything Greenpeace says is “good” and “true”, and whatever they criticize is “bad” and “corrupt”. However, as we discuss in this report, Greenpeace is not actually helping to protect the environment, or exposing real problems. Instead, they are:

1) Creating unnecessary feelings of guilt, panic and frustration among the general public. Greenpeace then make money off this moral outrage, guilt and helplessness.

2)Vilifying the innocent as “enemies”. Once you have been tarred by Greenpeace’s brush, any attempts to defend yourself are usually treated with suspicion or even derision.

3) Deliberately fighting honest attempts by other groups to tackle the “environmental problems” that Greenpeace claim need to be tackled.

4) Distorting the science to generate simplistic “environmental crises” that have almost nothing to do with the genuine environmental issues which should be addressed.

Conclusions about Greenpeace from the full paper:

1. They are intentionally fooling the public about the “vested interests” associated with each of their campaigns.

2. In order to create the impression that “the science is settled” on their campaign issues, they oversimplify the often quite-nuanced views of the scientific community, and simultaneously try to shut down any further scientific enquiry into the topic.

3. They are intentionally shutting down genuine discussion on implementing solutions on the environmental “crises” they claim to have identified.

4. They are distracting public attention away from genuine environmental concerns.

Related:

Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé (link) In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.

Climate Madness 8 – global warming is racist and will cause moose to freeze

As you read the items below, remember this:

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us. -Paul Driessen

Dirty Politics:

WIKILEAKS: ThinkProgress Trashes A Climate Expert’s Career To Appease A Hillary Donor

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

ThinkProgress Editor in Chief Judd Legum sent an email to a billionaire donor bragging how the liberal blog’s environmental writer targeted a climate researcher who challenged a major Democratic talking point on global warming, according to leaked emails.

The blog’s environmental arm, ClimateProgress, took issue with pollster Nate Silver’s 538 website, hiring Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. to write about global warming issues. Pielke is no skeptic of man-made warming, but he challenged a Democratic talking point that global warming was making extreme weather more severe.

ClimateProgress is part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which was created by Clinton’s presidential campaign chair John Podesta. Read more

From the climate science “experts”

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016

by Sarah Knapton

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more ice now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012. Read more

Eye roller: we measured sea levels in the wrong places, therefore it’s ‘worse than we thought

by Anthony Watts

From the UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

New research published in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels may underestimate the amount of global average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century. Dr. Philip Thompson, associate director of the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), led the study.

“It’s not that there’s something wrong with the instruments or the data,” said Thompson, “but for a variety of reasons, sea level does not change at the same pace everywhere at the same time. As it turns out, our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average.” Read more

Study: Global Warming Causes Cold Winters

by Eric Worrall

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research claims that global warming is the root cause of recent spate of cold winters in the Eastern United States. But don’t worry – as temperatures rise, the warming effect of global warming will overcome the cooling effect of global warming. Read more

Huffing and puffing over HFCs won’t cut global warming

by Christopher Booker

Back in 1987, when there was a huge panic over the hole opening up in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, 197 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, the world’s first major environmental treaty, agreeing to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in everything from refrigerators to hair-sprays, which were supposedly causing the ozone to disappear.

How far this has actually been responsible for the fact that the ozone hole has recently been shrinking is still a matter of scientific dispute. But CFCs have been widely replaced by hydrofluorocrabons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air-conditioning, which, because they are short-lived, were viewed not to be damaging to the ozone layer.

However these HFCs are even more powerful greenhouse gases than the CFCs. So the Montreal Protocol must now be amended to ban these wicked “pollutants” as soon as possible, not least in light of last December’s Paris agreement that supposedly pledged the world to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.Read more See also: The biggest players in the chemical industry were all too happy to line up behind the United Nations (U.N.) deal to cut hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) from air conditioners, freezers and other appliances. Link

Bad timing: Study Claiming Less Rain Published in the Middle of a Flood

by Eric Worrall

A study led by ANU Professor Neville Abram, which claims climate is driving clouds south, resulting in less rain reaching Australia’s Southern Coast, has been published in the midst of massive flooding in South Australia. Greens of course blame climate change for the deluge. Read more

Brainwashing and the Thought Police:

Climate Change may destroy sunsets — Southern Cross Uni teaches children

from Australia

Apparently CO2 can absorb sunsets:

The Climate Change Challenge will be held at the Lismore campus where students from ages 8 to 15 can take part in the ‘photo voice’ competition, where they can use photography to have a voice on the issue and win prizes.

‘Some students take photos of beautiful things such as sunsets or waterways and then write about how it could be lost or destroyed because of climate change. Some take photos of land that has been bulldozed; they are very aware about how plants repair from damage, produce oxygen, absorb CO2 and so on. (Source)

Don’t say Climate Change: “Its a poisonous term to use”

by Eric Worrall

EPA funded Sociologist Sabrina McCormick has some advice for city officials trying to push their climate projects past the legislature: The best way to fight climate change? Don’t call it climate change. McCormick said she learned that many city officials believe the key to getting everybody on board to battle climate change is to avoid uttering the words “climate change.” It’s “a poisonous term to use.” Read more

To Fight Climate Change Attorney General Eric Schneiderman Deputizes Thought Police

by Jeff Stier, New York Observer

With his latest plan to punish even thoughts and speech related to climate change, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has raised the eyebrows of even his fellow climate-change activist Democrat attorneys general. Officials from a number of state AG offices expressed anxiety about Schneiderman’s controversial plan to investigate and possibly prosecute not only energy companies, but think tanks, for challenging the science underpinning some of the more alarmist statements coming from the Al Gore camp of the party on climate issues. Newly-released emails, obtained under freedom of information laws, reveal a level of discomfort with Schneiderman’s strategy. (Source)
Guardian: Global Warming Is ‘Racist’

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

Just when it seemed that climate change fantasies couldn’t get any more bizarre, the liberal UK newspaper The Guardian has launched the wild theory that global warming is essentially a “racist” crisis, perpetrated by wealthy whites against poor, vulnerable blacks. The “reasoning” behind the outlandish hypothesis runs something like this. Begin with the unprovable premise that “Britain is the biggest contributor per capita to global temperature change.” Next, assume that Britain “is also one of the least vulnerable to the effects of climate change,” whatever that means. Finally, declare that “seven of the 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change are in sub-Saharan Africa.” Et voilà, climate change has just become a racial issue, wrought by selfish white people on unsuspecting blacks. Read more

Scary stories:

Global warming may cause moose to freeze

JACKSON, Wyo. – Global warming might cause moose to freeze to death in Yellowstone National Park.

As explained in Headwaters, a special environmental supplement to the Jackson Hole News&Guide, moose populations in Jackson Hole have declined significantly in recent years, as they have across the northern United States. The reason for the decline is complicated. Wolves have taken moose, and grizzly bears have been expanding their presence. But climate could be the biggest challenge. Part of the problem is ticks. A moose with too many of the parasites during the winter can lose its hair and freeze to death. Read more

Climate change threatens status of several British mountains

Staff writers, News Corp Australia Network

Several mountains in the UK could literally disappear from the map because of climate change after it was revealed that rising sea levels could see them reclassified as hills. Read more

NYTimes & Zika: a brief case study on climate change hype

By David Wojick

The folks who make their living by hyping the supposed threat of runaway global warming use a lot of scary language in the process. Here the ever creative New York Times has set what may be a new standard in scary climate change hype, by tying it to the Zika outbreak.

In our Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases we point to the press exaggerating unproven scientific hypotheses that support government policies. Policies that depend on scaring people are especially subject to this kind of press bias. The NYT has provided a fine example of this sort of scientific distortion, one that is worth analyzing to see just how the game is played. Not surprisingly, they do this in what they call a “Science” article.

It begins with this ever so scary headline:

“In Zika Epidemic, a Warning on Climate Change” Read more

Money and Regulation:

STUDY: US Carbon Tax Would Devastate Economy And Not Change Temp

by Andrew Follett

Newly proposed carbon taxes would devastate the U.S. economy while doing nothing to reduce projected global warming, according to a new study published by scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Researchers found that carbon taxes cause considerably more economic damage than generic taxes do and disproportionately target the poor, so even a revenue-neutral carbon tax would probably reduce economic growth while doing little to fix global warming. (Read CATO report)

There are all sorts of things wrong with a carbon tax, but primarily, it does little to nothing to limit carbon dioxide emissions to the extent necessary to have any appreciable impact on the future course of the earth’s climate, and it produces a net drag on the economy.

Only four nations — Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland — actually have carbon taxation today. The largest economy to ever have a carbon tax, Australia, repealed it in 2014 over concerns it was harming the economy.

Critics have said carbon taxation disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. A 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that a carbon tax would double the tax burden of the poorest households, making it effectively impossible to have both a carbon tax and a living wage. Read more

Germany’s Bundesrat Resolves End Of Internal Combustion Engine

by Bertel Schmitt, Forbes

Diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles officially are an endangered species in Germany, and possibly all of the EU. This after Germany’s Bundesrat has passed a resolution to ban the internal combustion engine starting in 2030, Germany’s Spiegel Magazin writes. Higher taxes may hasten the ICE’s departure. Read more

UN Brokers New Global Green Tax on Air Travel

by Eric Worrall

The United Nations has brokered a new international agreement which forces airlines to pay for “green” projects. By 2035, the UN expects the deal will siphon $24 billion / annum from the pockets of air travelers. Read more

Taxes Are Purgatory In The Religion Of Environmentalism

Environmentalism drains our wealth in a doomed effort to buy us salvation.

By Georgi Boorman

Long has it been noted by conservative commentators that environmentalism is a religion, in which Earth becomes a deity, carbon emissions become sin, and environmental activism is the pursuit of paradise through good works.

But no longer is climate-change alarmism a cult of the hippie left. It has grown into a full-fledged establishment, a church, if you will, complete with funding (separation of church and state need not apply here), dogma, and clergy. Unlike the religions of old, there is no “wall of separation” between this church and the state, and that means a portion of our taxes ($39.14 billion were earmarked for energy and the environment in 2015) are really a tithe to the church.

Such an intertwining of faith and government merits a discussion of how the religion of environmentalism practically impacts us all: namely, how it is draining our wealth in an effort to buy us salvation. Read more
President Obama Demands Intelligence Agencies Draft Plans to Combat Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

President Obama is asking 20 federal offices to work together on a national security strategy to address climate change.

How does the CIA, the NSA, and all the other agencies in the bottomless government agency alphabet soup respond to a demand that they plan for combatting climate change? Do they simply analyse what is happening around the world, and make stuff up when it becomes apparent that climate is not a significant issue? Or do they try to look busy, by harassing ordinary people who oppose government policy? (Source)

France Bans Plastic Forks And Knives … Because Of Global Warming

by Chris White, Daily Caller

France passed a law to outright ban the use of all plastic cutlery in an effort to fight man-made global warming. The law, which goes into effect in 2020, mandates that all disposable utensils and dishes must be made of biological, rather than petroleum-based, material. It is part of the Energy Transition for Green Growth, a plan that amps up France’s efforts to combat climate change. Read more

Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered

by Andrew Follett

This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry. Read more

Cow Fart Regulations Approved By California’s Legislature

California’s Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence and manure – both blamed for releasing greenhouse gases.

The measure was approved shortly before the end of the legislative session Wednesday after its author, Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, agreed to give dairy farms more time to comply.

The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions associated with manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. Methane is one of several gases known as short-lived climate pollutants that don’t persist for long in the atmosphere but have a huge influence on the climate. Read more

Climate Madness 3

Scanning the news, we find both amusing and politically ominous stories about global warming. Climate alarmists may be painting themselves into a corner: Australian Attorney General George Brandis has stirred the climate pot down under, by asking a simple yet devastating question. “If the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?” “Wouldn’t it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers’ money and research capacity …to allocate its resources to an area where the science isn’t settled?” (Source)

Brandis is right: this whole global warming scam is diverting taxpayer dollars from useful research and projects. It is a colossal waste.

Here are some global warming stories that caught my eye.

Proposals and claims from academia where research grants and salaries may depend upon there being a climate crisis:

This month’s winner for craziest proposal:

Ecosystem Translocation: The latest Climate Engineering Brainstorm

Stephanie Boyer, senior lecturer at UNITEC Institute of Technology (New Zealand) is worried that plants and animals can’t move fast enough to survive climate change. His solution: give nature a helping hand, by digging up entire ecosystems, and moving them hundreds of miles, to maintain optimum climatic conditions. Read more

Claim: Climate Change will Stop Women from Wanting Sex

Women don’t like to sweat while having sex, so they are less likely to have sex in warm weather, according to the latest climate health claim. While it is very difficult to isolate and measure the impact of temperature on our sexual patterns, an American academic said this connection could become increasingly important. Alan Barreca, an associate professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, is one of three economists who studied almost 80 years of weather and birth data between 1931 and 2010, and found a strong link between weather and birth rates. Read more

(If that claim is true why are the highest birthrates in the world in the tropics?)

Politics and National Security:

Climate Change Politics Threaten National Security

By Leigh Thompson

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan makes carbon reduction, not reliability, price, or safety the priority of the electric grid. But, forced closure of coal-fired power plants, making up nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electric generation, will undermine the stability of the entire electric grid and present a significant threat to our national security. Read more

Former Army General Completely Dismantles Claim Global Warming Causes War

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

Former U.S. Army Gen. Robert Scales took on claims by the Obama administration that global warming is America’s biggest national security threat and that rising temperatures will cause more violent conflict to break out around the world. “The administration’s new-found passion to connect climate change to war is an example of faulty theories that rely for relevance on politically-correct imaginings rather than established historical precedent,” Scales told senators during a hearing on environmental policy. “The point is that in today’s wars, politically-correct theories inserted into a battle plan might well extend war needlessly and get soldiers killed.” Read more

Costs of Paris Agreement

According to a new Heritage Foundation study by Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David Kreutzer, implementing the Paris climate agreement would result in $2.5 trillion in lost GDP by 2035. Possible impact on climate: using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures. In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100. Read study

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

From former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. So what is the goal of environmental policy? “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

Read more from Investors Business Daily.

Environment:

Judge Orders U.S. to Address Climate Threat to Wolverines

By REUTERS

SALMON, Idaho — A federal judge rejected a decision by U.S. wildlife managers to deny wolverines Endangered Species Act protection, ruling the government erred in discounting the threat posed by climate change to the weasel-like predator of the Northern Rockies.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2013 proposed an endangered species listing for the estimated 300 wolverines believed to still inhabit the Lower 48 states, most of them in the snowy peaks of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Interior Department agency said then that human-caused global warming was lessening mountain snows needed by wolverines for building dens and storing food. But the Fish and Wildlife Service abruptly reversed itself in 2014, deciding against special protections for wolverines on grounds that it lacked sufficient evidence that climate change was harming the animals.

Read more This one can set a dangerous precedent if it proceeds.

Runner-up for craziest scheme:

US Senate Considering Albedo Modification Geoengineering Proposal

The US Senate is considering funding for albedo modification geoengineering experiments – pumping particles or aerosols into the stratosphere, to reflect sunlight back into space, and counter the alleged impact of elevated CO2 levels on global climate. In essence, this proposal would put more pollution into the atmosphere . It is difficult to imagine a more ridiculous waste of taxpayer’s money. The US spends taxpayer’s money regulating coal plants, forcing any coal plants which survive Obama’s war on energy, to fit expensive scrubbers, to remove particulates from their emissions. (Source)

Free Speech:

Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming Skepticism

by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just been subpoenaed, as part of Al Gore’s Climate Witch hunt. This is a move which so blatantly reeks of McCarthyite abuse of power, even some proponents of climate action are horrified at the attack on freedom which this subpoena represents.

CEI has long been a champion of sound climate change policy, and opposed previous attempts to use McCarthy-style tactics by officials aiming to limit discussions between nonprofit policy groups and the private sector regarding federal policies. CEI has not broken any laws, they just disagree with official policy and are being punished for that disagreement.

You don’t have to be a climate skeptic, to recognize that an attack on freedom of speech, in whatever guise, is an attack on everything which America stands for.

More than anything, this authoritarian, un-American attempt to silence dissent betrays the weakness of those perpetrating this attack on the CEI. In a Republic, people who have a compelling case to offer, don’t have to intimidate their political opponents into silence, to win the argument. Read more

Related:

Criticizing the mainstream is highly risky: Young scientists forced to conform to established models to avoid putting careers at risk

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

Young university researchers are quasi forced to submit themselves to the trends of the day, i.e. the overriding mainstream in any particular scientific field:

The principle is ultimately always the same: Foremost one has to be an often published and often cited figure in his/her scientific field in order to be able to contribute to the ranking of a university. But how does one often publish or become often cited in respected journals of his own field? The most important principles are: Adaptation to the mainstream and do not question any established theories or models. All submitted articles first must go through a peer-review process where champions of the scientific discipline evaluate it. Under these circumstances a young researcher has no option but to go along with the mainstream theories represented in the top journals and to use the empirical processes that are currently in trend. Only in this way does he/she have any chance of having enough publications to make him/herself eligible to be a professor. Through this very kind of pressure to conform applied by top journals is science obstructed rather than promoted. (source)

More junk science:

An Overheated Climate Alarm

by Bjorn Lomborg

The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat. (Read more from WSJ)

 

See also:

Climate madness 2

Global Warming – The Madness of our Age

The Bankruptcy of Climate Science

Grijalva’s anti-jobs bills

Southern Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva, friend to the pygmy owl and illegal immigration, who a few years ago encouraged businesses to boycott Arizona, is continuing his anti-mining, anti-jobs, anti-Arizona economy stance with introduction of several bills to Congress.

The “Southern Arizona Public Lands Protection Act of 2013” H.R. 1183, proposes to ban new mining claims.  The Act will, subject to valid existing rights, withdraw “all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, and the mineral materials laws” on all National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties. Grijalva has introduced similar bills every year since 2007.  This will preclude all new mineral exploration in Southern Arizona.

Southern Arizona is mineral rich with several operating mines, soon to be operating mines, and very good country for mineral exploration.

So-AZ-copper-resources

Arizona mining directly employs 11,300 people, who earned $1.22 billion in 2011. Arizona mining companies spent a total of $2.80 billion in 2011 purchasing goods and services from other Arizona businesses which supported an addition 8,700 jobs. In 2011, the mining companies themselves paid $212 million in business taxes to Arizona governments. Employees of mining companies are estimated to have paid $96 million in individual taxes.

Grijalva states concern about our “valuable natural heritage” but seems to ignore the fact that mining is part of that heritage.

Mr. Grijalva notes on his website that he is against a land exchange that Resolution Copper is seeking with the Forest Service to enable Resolution to develop a copper mine near Superior, Arizona. The proposed underground copper mine could supply 30% of America’s copper needs and bring $1 billion per year to the state’s economy for 60 years. In the land exchange, Resolution Copper would get 2,422 acres from the Forest Service in exchange for 5,344 acres of environmentally sensitive land.

Grijalva’s “Grand Canyon Watershed Protection Act” would make permanent the “temporary” withdrawal (for 20 years) of one million acres near the Grand Canyon to prevent uranium mining.  Uranium mining on the Colorado Plateau near the Grand Canyon poses no danger to the Colorado River water quality according to several studies. (See: Uranium mining and its potential impact on Colorado River water)

The “Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act” would establish a 3,325 acre National Heritage Area in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties which could have adverse affects on private property.

For a long time, Mr. Grijalva has been a tool of the environmental industry to the detriment of his constituents, their jobs, their safety, and the Arizona economy. He has supported establishment of wilderness areas along the Mexican border which would interfere with the Border Patrol’s ability to monitor the border.

As one of Mr. Grijalva’s constituents, I urge him to show more concern for people and their economic environment.

See also:

Our unsecured border – causes and consequences

Taxes and Spending

The Federal budget is in the red. Democrats propose to increase certain individual income tax rates in an effort to close the gap. Will it work? History says no. Look at the graph below. It shows that revenue from individual income taxes has been fairly constant no matter what the tax rate has been. That is because low tax rates provide incentive for individuals to generate more income which generates more tax revenue. Higher tax rates do the opposite. Apparently many members of Congress are ignorant of this fact.

tax-receipts

The federal government, with its “entitlement” programs, is committed to increased spending for social security, medicare, and medicaid. By some projections, the cost of those programs will exceed revenue from income tax in about 2052. What then?

spending

It is unlikely that Congress will significantly cut this “entitlement” spending. Their solution instead is more taxes. Perhaps that is why there is a great effort to impose a European-style value added tax (VAT). Such a tax would expand government and raise prices on almost everything we buy. It will transfer vast sums of money from productive use to wasteful government control.

The rational thing to do would be to cut spending, particularly in the realm of government healthcare, but that is probably politically impossible, especially with the current crop of Congress people. The problem will not go away if we ignore it. There are some hard choices to be made about all government spending. It is better to plan now and begin to make those choices rather than wait for even more drastic consequences to be forced upon us.

Obama Warmed Over

The greatest danger we face from global warming is that politicians think they can do something about it.

On December 6, negotiations will begin in Copenhagen for a new agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The hope is these talks will produce commitments from each nation that, collectively, would keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. That will require deep cuts in emissions, as much as 80 percent among industrialized nations, by mid-century.

In his Sep. 22 speech to the UN’s Global Warming Summit, President Obama said:

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it – boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

Reality check: Global temperatures have been steady or falling since 2000, and the lack of activity on the sun portends further cooling. Also civilizations flourished in previous warm cycles. Where is the empirical evidence that climate change is ” serious, urgent, and growing?”

See the “WryHeat” blogs:

Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t matter And Natural Climate Cycles

Obama: “Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.”

Reality check: Sea levels have been rising on and off since the end of the last glacial epoch13,000 years ago. The rate of sea level rise has not increased in recent decades over the nineteenth and twentieth century average. See: Sea Level Rising?

Obama: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

Reality Check: There is no upward global trend in storms or floods. Besides, increased storminess is associated with colder climates. Clarke, M.L. and Rendell, H.M. 2009. The impact of North Atlantic storminess on western European coasts: a review. Quaternary International 195: 31-41.

Obama: “More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

Reality Check: The geologic record and other proxies show that in North America, droughts equal or greater in magnitude to those of the Dust Bowl period were a common occurrence during the last 2000 years. Studies in other parts of the world show no evidence that warming increases the frequency or severity of droughts. (CO2Science.org database)

It seems that President Obama is long on flowery rhetoric and short on facts. And he seems to be ignoring the costs.

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report “The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions” shows just how weak the case for the proposed cap-and-trade plan really is. In fact, the CBO demonstrates that the theoretical benefits of Waxman-Markey to the United States fall far short of its costs. Also, the CBO report reveals that the costs borne by the U.S. may exceed the benefits to the entire world. The CBO estimates that even a pessimistic estimate of the danger posed by climate change is 3 percent of GDP, which won’t occur until 2100. At the same time, CBO estimates the hit to the U.S. economy from H.R. 2454 is in the range of 1.1 to 3.4 percent of GDP by the year 2050.

By the logic of the climate bill, we will be spending current dollars in the hope of saving future discounted dollars. The effect of carbon restrictions in the U.S. will be further discounted if other countries don’t go along with their own restrictions. See

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15010 for an analysis of the CBO report.

Of course, if Congress fails with Cap & Trade, the EPA is set to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant based on some fantasy data, mainly from the IPCC.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

Why are many politicians pushing for carbon control? Some may be doing it through ignorance or hope of political gain, but others realize the controlling carbon controls energy, the life-blood of industry. With government control of energy, governments will control the means of production, and that is the definition of socialism.

It is time to ask all our senators and representatives: “where is the evidence.” I’ve asked that question in letters to President Obama several times so far, but he must be too busy to respond, or maybe John Holdren is still looking for it.