A NEEDED BUMP
Posted on 11/27/2011 9:04:31 PM PST by neverdem
Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.
Everyone "knows" that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists -- precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee -- who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.
What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, "The Whole Country Can Be Rich.")
President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
A NEEDED BUMP
You say, re a discussion on Newt: Anyone can be wrong (and most of us are are one time or another), but to be willing to examine an issue further and look at more facts and come out on the side of the... newly-discovered truth is a good thing!
'wonder if we could get that on a bumper sticker - or an auto-post to the gang of 'FR Pouncers" who sit at their keyboards 24/7 waiting for any threads that mentions Newt - to jump in and do post-by shootings with deliberate mis-information and malice aforethought - carrying sound byte mantras for the MSM, while offering NO 'advise' on who to support and what their creds or detailed solutions are.
Where have all the great old FREEPERS gone, long time...
maryz - you also might enjoy this testimony that Newt gave - re Gore’s GW - this was in 2009.
Headline: “Newt Rips Gore’s ‘Facts’ To Pieces”
(remember, this was in 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related
Betcha Newt is off Gore’s Christmas card list - AND Pelosi’s ;o)
. . . than which there is no higher recommendation! LOL!
>> “and that it ended in 1998.” <<
.
Why can they not tell the difference between 1998 and 1934?
During the campaign, Obama came out and directly stated the would put the coal companies out of business. I believe he intends to do the same with oil, but can’t make the direct statement because of the uproar. Everything that would increase oil production must be stopped in his mind.
Your delusion must be terminal.
>> “For just about any issue you can think of, re Newt’s stance, a simple one-stop place is Newt.org.” <<
.
To pick up the latest Noot lies and bullshit.
We got enough of his back stabbing when he was speaker. No Noots is good Noots.
I understand. The Left wants to stop fossil fuel use. The Left wants to crush the U.S. economy.
But if the author of the article wants to use the pipeline as an example of global warming alarmism, further explanation is necessary for the objective reader.
The pipeline delay was rationalized by the government on the basis of groundwater contamination. In the case of the pipeline, the anti-fossil fuel global warming agenda is masked. The author could have added one or two sentences to clarify for the reader why he/she used the pipeline as an example in an article about global warming.
Thanks neverdem.
“Carbon trading” is only the tip of the iceberg. It pales in comparison with the concept of “public goods,” the “precautionary principle,” “polluter pays.” They are all part of the new economy and the “Great Transition” including: the Great Rebalancing - markets but where pricing reflects true social and environmental costs and benefits, and a broader definition of “public goods”; and the Great Economic Irrigation taxing environmental and social ‘bads’ such as pollution, consumption and short-term speculation. consumption taxes reflecting the social and environmental costs of goods. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ecosystem_services.htm
Recently, I watched a webinar meeting of the California Water Plan Update. John Lowry of the Department of Conservation talked about Total Resource Management and ecosystem services. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/ac/06.29.11/4a-regionalplanning-doc-jl.pdf
Lowry indicated that the components of an ecosystem (hydrology, biology, geology and social systems) interact to create “ecosystem services.” These include: clean air and water; reducing the severity of floods, droughts, winds and waves; detoxification and decomposition of wastes; soil and soil fertility; pollination; control of agricultural pests; dispersal of seed; nutrient cycling; biodiversity; protection from ultraviolet rays; stabilization of climate change; moderation of temperature extremes; diverse human cultures; beauty and spiritual sustenance. Ecosystems must be managed for diversity and resilience to allow them to respond to change and continue to provide ecosystem services to humans and other populations over the long term.
The new management approach will have greater public involvement, emphasize “inclusiveness” and integrate federal, state, tribal, regional and local goals. According to Lowry, integration of management efforts will incrementally become more commonly used as “traditional methods fail to achieve anticipated results” causing a collapse of the old management system. Further work will be done to define specific ecosystem services of benefit to the public and to determine the management strategies that need to be in place to sustainably produce those services.
Michael Perrone from the Water Plan team talked about the new finance strategy to pay for restoration and to protect natural lands from human impact in order to provide ecosystem services. It is possible to valuate the benefits of restoration/protection by calculating the “avoided costs” of conflicts or by calculating the price it costs to provide what we need artificially. For instance, one can calculate the costs of the loss of “nature’s goods “ such as fish production, erosion control through floodplains, clean water through wetland filtration, groundwater recharge from open land and carbon sequestration from forests by looking at the costs to construct hatcheries, levees, and water treatment plants. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/ac/06.29.11/4b-EcoServices-ACmeeting-jun11-mp+kc.pdf
Additional research indicates that there are already worldwide markets trading in compensatory offsets (mitigation banking) for impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf
Like carbon credit trading, the scheme requires that human impacts be offset in a no net loss (or full mitigation.) This is accomplished by purchasing shares in a fund that will be used to protect or restore land. (In my opinion, this is a scheme by wealthy environmental brokers such as Mr. Gore to grow even wealthier.) Unfortunately, this can mean that rural lands are increasingly “protected” from human use, which can mean leaving rural communities without access to or use of the natural resources that form their economic base. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ecosystem_services.htm
agreed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.