data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8a036/8a0362afae5b5265faf823c8db3ef9a6315a3eb4" alt=""
Source: Chelsea Green /Christian Monitor
1. Get out of Iraq $200 billion
2. End Bush tax cuts $250 billion dollars
3.Invest in sustainable technology- New National Institute for Sustainable Technology $30 billion: battery, biomass, solar, food supply needs R & D
4. Global Commons: Need a cooperative framework
Ratify: Kyoto reach agreement on post Kyoto framework
Ratify: Convention on Biological Diversity
Ratify: UN Convention of the Law of the Sea
5. Honor: Geneva Convention
6. Stop corn to ethanol program - $6 to $7 billion No corn based ethanol. Corn needs to be used for food. It makes not sense because it still produces green house gases and it drives up food price. It is a profound blunder. $6.5 billion dollars wasted
7. Invite world leaders of Dry-land regions to a world conference and discuss water conservation.
8. Reinstate giving money to United Nations’ population fund to help control world growth.
9. Rebuild competence in Washington: cabinet level-Department for Sustainable Development. Interlink climate, food, water production—Cabinet Level Department
10. The Millennium Development Goals put into practice in policy.
A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
We've had a national stalemate over climate-change policy seemingly forever. Do you think that might change soon?There's a 90 percent chance that within the next 18 to 24 months, we will get a strong cap and trade bill. It will be here because all three presidential candidates have come out in favor of the idea.
But why has Washington dodged the question on how to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels for so long?The science is overwhelming. Why haven't politicians moved more quickly? There are entrenched interests which want to keep the status quo...We've made this our main priority by far but we're up against big, vested interests. Also, the issue's been polarized and become part of the political divide in this country. It's been identified with liberal Democrats and there's been an almost religious conviction among almost half the population that this can't be true. They hear their opinion leaders like the president and (Sen. James) Inhofe saying it can't be true. Getting past that divide has been really, really hard. But I think we're past that.
Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, has a 20 minute interview explaining how the science of climate change is shifting, and how a little global warming would be a good thing, and the reason not to vote. (download the original). This was published in Scientific America. Interesting interview. He makes it sound like there are skeptical scientists that are offering another view about the 'global warming' debate. He says that 3/4 of the world's scientists don't believe that it is caused by climate change.
He sounds very scholarly. However, a closer look at their organization, Heartland Institute, you will see that Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, and Cato Institute. Joseph claims in his interview that "he hates politics and politicians" but he spends ten minutes parroting the message in his video is definitely a neoconservative message that brought us George Bush, Dick Cheney, the Sub prime lending mess etc. His employer is the clearing house for their policies statements that go out to the politician who then decide what rules that we should live by.
Sorry if I'm a skeptic about his "independent" analysis of the global climate change debate. There were no corporate sponsors for this event, however, the organizations they represent are heavily subsidized. This is so disingenuous.
This video is evidence of the economic warfare that we are about to engage in over the idea of Global Warming and CO2 reduction. The Skeptics vs. The Alarmists. There are serious economic interests at risk. Many of the skeptics represent the current status quo, the economically entrenched powers that command the economy at the highest levels. They are about to come out swingint and they are going to warp themselves in a cloak of credible science while expounding their economic dogma that spreads doubt into the debate. This in tern will cause more confusion and ultimately reinforce the status quo. Behind the scenes, there will be big money at stake and we will see the clash of the titans as this plays out.