I've Been Duped

Well, folks, it appears that I fallen for one of those hoaxes that travels around via email.

If you look back to my "Death Culture of the Greens" posting, I talked about mercury poisoning from compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and added a picture of a foot that had been supposedly severely injured from such a bulb.  I have since been informed that this is not true, and the amount of mercury in a CFL is not enough to cause such harm.  Seeing that the source was a safety circular from a Fire Department, I thought it to be true.  Apparently, it is either a doctored newsletter or they fell for the hoax as well.

So, I am now telling you that the CFL threat to your health is not severe (thank goodness).

Here are some resources about the hoax and CFL safety.

The hoax: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/mercury-exposure-foot-injury.html

CFL Safety: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1207293983993

However, this does not change the Green desire to vilify humans and seek the reduction of our footprint on the globe.  The CFL, however, is not an outward example of that desire.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Deciphering the "Green" Economy

Happy Earth Day.

Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day.  It is also the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, the father of Russia's socialist economic system.  Coincidence?  Judge for yourself after you consider what I am about to say.

Have you ever wondered why all this "green" terminology like "sustainable development" never makes any true sense?  I believe I have broken the "green" movement's code and deciphered what all the "green" and "sustainable development" gibberish really means--and it's all related to the establishment of world-wide socialism.  (How ironic that the code is broken on Earth Day.)  We The People are being assailed from all sides with this global socialism hogwash.  It is time we stop falling for all this "green" rot, stand up for ourselves, each other, and our nation, and put an end to it.

I will first present some background information on socialism, show how the "green" lingo translates to what its leaders are really trying to achieve, and then show you how the translation can be applied to a United Nations document on the Green Economy, entitled "Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective."  

1. Background information on a socialist economy. (from Wikipedia)

Socialist economy.  A socialist economy is based on some form of social ownership, which includes varieties of public ownership and independent cooperatives, over the means of production, wherein production is carried out to directly produce use-value, usually, but not always, coordinated through economic planning and a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind or a direct measure of labor-time....  A socialist economy is a system of production where goods and services are produced directly for use, in contrast to a capitalist economic system, where goods and services are produced to generate profit (and therefore indirectly for use). Goods and services would be produced for their usefulness, or for their use-value, eliminating the need for market-induced needs to ensure a sufficient amount of demand for products to be sold at a profit. Production in a socialist economy is therefore "planned" or "coordinated", and does not suffer from the business cycle inherent to capitalism. In most socialist theories, economic planning only applies to the factors of production and not to the allocation of goods and services produced for consumption, which would be distributed through a market. Karl Marx stated that "lower-stage communism" would consist of compensation based on the amount of labor one contributes to the social product.  (Summary: a small group of "smart" people are going to tell you what is good for you, what is not good for you, what you need to have, and what you don't need to have.)

Full employment [in a socialist economy]. Every worker was ensured employment. However workers were generally not directed to jobs. The central planning administration adjusted relative wages rates to influence job choice in accordance with the outlines of the current plan.

2. Deciphering the "green" lingo. Based on the attributes of socialism and the way the "green" movement uses their terminology, I have assigned the following translations to the commonly used "green" lingo.  Try these transformations with other sustainable development documents and see if they continue to make sense.

climate change = the (negative) impact of free-market capitalism 

resource intensive or unsustainable growth models = capitalism

green economy = centrally planned global economy

sustainable development = global socialism/socialist

sustainable = centrally managed 

development = socialist/socialism

climate smart = centrally managed

green = centrally approved/managed/planned/controlled/sanctioned/directed

3. Translating the code to what they really mean in a UN document.  "Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective" (31 October 2011)

Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Centrally Planned Global Economy Green Economy A United Nations System-wide Perspective

31 October 2011

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

In September 2009 the United Nations (UN) Environment Management Group agreed to establish an Issue Management Group on a Centrally Planned Global Economy Green Economy. This group was tasked to prepare a report to assess how the UN system could coherently support countries in transitioning to a centrally planned global economy green economy. The report is expected to facilitate a common understanding of the centrally planned global economy green economy approach and the measures required for the transition. The report is envisioned to also contribute to the preparatory process for the 2012 UN Conference on Global Socialism Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) where “the centrally planned global economy green economy in the context of global socialism sustainable development and poverty eradication” is one of the two themes along with “the institutional framework for global socialism sustainable development”.

A centrally planned global economy green economy is an approach to achieving global socialism sustainable development. It requires breaking away from free-market capitalism resource intensive growth models, a transformation of consumption and production into more socialist sustainable patterns, and increased value added created and reinvested in resource-rich supplier communities in the developing world. The context for this approach is the increasing resource intensity of consumption in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Europe developed countries even though their production is becoming less resource intensive, which implies the shifting of environmental impact to other countries through international trade. At the same time, the resource intensity of both consumption and production in developing countries may increase in absolute terms in their industrialisation process. These trends tend to exacerbate resource constraints and breaking the planetary boundaries.

A broader context is the projected population growth, which further raises the stakes in poverty reduction efforts. These efforts depend on higher consumption and production. Without appropriate policies in place, population growth will further significantly increase pressures on all natural resources. The likely growth of the world population from 7 billion today to over 9 billion by mid-century requires a considerable increase in economic output to ensure food security, reduce poverty, raise living standards, and create full, productive, and remunerative employment for the populations. Demographic change together with urbanisation not only heightens the need for a swift transition to a centrally planned global economy green economy, but also calls for policies to address population dynamics within a human-rights based framework. These policies, most notably, include universal access to reproductive health care and family planning as well as the empowerment of women and appropriate investments in education, especially for girls and women who are too often left behind.

In these contexts, a centrally planned global economy green economy requires the inclusion of the marginalised in all development processes. It also requires the reduction of gaps between developing and developed countries and regions in labour productivity and in the capacity to generate and have access to technology and scientific knowledge. It requires bolstering the capacity of developing countries to develop, review, and implement science, technology, and innovation policies that are oriented towards centrally provided green solutions to the climate, food, and energy crises. This includes strengthening science education, enhancing research and development (R&D) capacities, and fostering innovation through South-South Cooperation, North-South Cooperation, and public-private partnerships. For commodity-dependent countries, it is particularly important that they have access to centrally planned global new green opportunities to diversify their economies.

Specifically, in a transition to a centrally planned global economy green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments, and other economic activities - in line with domestic development agendas and contexts - towards:

• Reducing carbon emissions and pollution, enhancing energy and resource efficiency, and preventing the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, including the development of efficient, clean, and low environmental impact technologies, buildings, and transport infrastructure, investments in renewable energy, application of the life cycle approach, promotion of environmental goods and services, centrally managed sustainable sourcing of materials, and the maintenance and restoration of natural capital consisting of land, soil, forest, freshwater, the oceans, marine resources, wild fauna and flora, and other biodiversity components; and 
• Improving access to energy, food, freshwater, biological resources, sanitation services, public health and health care, new jobs, labour protection, social protection systems, information and communication technologies (ICTs), and training and education including education for global socialism sustainable development and the promotion of centrally managed sustainable consumption. 

Priorities should be given to developing public policies that meet social, environmental, and economic objectives, that focus on centrally managed sustainable livelihood approaches, that increase access to services for the marginalised, and that bring about the required structural change associated with a centrally planned global economy green economy transformation. But a centrally planned global economy green economy is not a one-size-fits-all path towards global socialism sustainable development. From its dynamic policy toolbox, decision makers - local or national - can draw ideas coherent with their specific global socialist sustainable development agendas and contexts. 

Proper incentives provided through economic instruments, regulations, sound framework conditions for innovation and technology diffusion, distributional policies, and voluntary initiatives can help channel investments - public and private - towards targeted sectors and enhance the effectiveness and fairness of such investments. They can also affect incentives and public awareness, thereby contribute to behavioural changes in production, consumption, and lifestyles. The mix of public policies for a centrally planned global economy green economy will differ across countries based on their specific socioeconomic conditions, institutional settings, resource endowments, and environmental pressure points. All countries, however, stand to gain from pursuing a centrally planned global economic green economic transformation, achieving direct economic gains through enhanced resource productivity and new sources of growth and jobs from innovation and the emergence of centrally planned global green markets and activities. In certain economies, a major development benefit of moving towards a centrally planned global economy green economy is manifested in greater human health and well-being as a result of lower pollution. 

If you are interested in seeing the rest of the document deciphered, go to "Deciphering the Green Economy."

Happy Earth Day.  It's not as innocuous as you think.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Gov. Romney's Climate Protection Plan

I published this piece on March 22, 2012, after discovering that Governor Mitt Romney openly supported a Climate Protection Plan for the State of Massachusetts.  This is significant as many of the Governor's policies bear significant similarities to the policies of the current Administration.  I believe that the "Anybody but Obama" philosophy is by its very nature fallacious, and that every candidate must be properly vetted so we nominate a true conservative who believes in the Constitution and acknowledges that we as humans cannot create a utopia for the American people.  --AAE

While governor of the State of Massachusetts in 2004, Mitt Romney enacted the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan.”  Within the document, he did not commit to a position on global warming, climate change, or the human impact on it. Instead, he believed that regardless of whether or not climate change is really occurring, the Climate Protection Plan makes sense for the economy, quality of life and quality of the environment in the State of Massachusetts (see page 3 of the Plan). So Mitt Romney supports green actions not because they help protect the environment, but because they make good economic sense.  Would he still feel the same way if he were President of the United States...that all these climate change initiatives (like funding renewable energy technologies—e.g. solar panels) make sense for the economy of America as a whole?

  

Here are some of the provisions of the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan:

1. Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 75-85% below current levels in the long term (year not specified). (page 8)  (By the way, their definition of GHG includes carbon dioxide, which is considered to be the chief GHG.  Humans are therefore technically polluters.)
2. Massachusetts committed $17 million to purchase renewable energy. (page 8)
3. Acquire clean, fuel-efficient vehicles for the state govt fleet. (page 9)
4. Stimulate the market for environmentally preferable products. (9)
5. Encourage municipalities to purchase renewable energy. (9)
6. Guide municipalities to think and act regionally. (9)  (If taken to the national level, then the US would have to think globally which would be in line with the UN’s Agenda 21 thinking.)
7. Urge communities to join the Cities for Climate Protection campaign. (9) (This is a United Nations program run by the UNFCCC supporting Agenda 21 goals.)
8. Create a carbon dioxide registry with other states. (9)  This creates a system compelling organizations to report their GHG emissions and for the government to then enforce compliance based on the information.  “A carbon registry would help to address that concern by crediting companies for their measurable greenhouse gas reductions, and converting those reductions into credits that can be traded on a market, or saved for later.” (27)
9. Create an emissions banking and trading program. (9) In my analysis, this is basically a fine on those organizations that do not meet government standards for GHG emissions.  They use creative language to say that they are “buying credits” instead of paying a fine.  See page 27 of the Plan to see a full description of the program. One particularly disturbing statement indicates that we may eventually have to comply with an international system for controlling GHG: “Many corporate leaders have come to believe that CO2 and other greenhouse emissions will ultimately be regulated, capped, and potentially taxed – probably through an international system.”  Also: “Tradable credits could be generated in a variety of ways, including energy conservation initiatives, generation of solar or wind power, landfill methane recovery, composting, new recycling programs, forestry management, or new tree plantings.” (27)
10.  Implement a program to reduce the emissions of highly warming specialty gases. (10)
11.  Promote renewable energy through the implementation of the statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard. (10)  This directs a certain percentage of retail electricity to be produced from renewable resources--4% in 2009, to rise 1% per year until told otherwise.
12.  Participate in and support the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. (10)  Directs the power sector to reduce GHG by 10% by 2018.
13.  Bring new renewable energy technologies and systems to the market through the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s Renewable Energy Trust (“the Trust”) (10) This comprises five areas: Green Power, Green Buildings and Infrastructure, Industry Support, Education and Public Awareness, and Policy.  See page 30 for more detail.
14. Launch a partnership between the Office for Commonwealth Development and the Trust to fund climate change initiatives. (10)
15.  Work with utilities to promote residential energy efficiency.  (10) Raise prices to reduce demand?
16.  Implement new appliance energy-efficiency standards.  (10) Can suppliers support the new standards?  What is the resultant increase in cost of the item for the people?
17.  Reducing the energy demanded by homes, offices, and industries.  (10) Throughout this portion of the Plan it refers to “sustainable” designs, using language similar to that of the United Nations for their Agenda 21 and sustainable development.
18.  Consistent with the Romney administration’s Fix It First policy, the state is committed to aligning spending decisions with policies that encourage sustainable development by investing in areas where infrastructure already exists, focusing resources on the state’s existing roads and bridges, and encouraging people to travel in more climate friendly ways, especially via mass transit.  (11) Using the term “sustainable development” puts the Plan in alignment with the UN’s Agenda 21 language.
19.  Encourage the demand for and sale of hybrid cars and other efficient clean vehicles. (11)  This includesincentives to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles (who pays for the incentives?) and to implement stronger vehicle emissions standards.
20.  Help citizens working in tourism, agriculture, commercial fishing, aquaculture, the wood products industry, water supply protection, and other natural resource-based enterprises, to adapt to the growing impacts of climate change. (11)  It also describes the role of forests thusly: “Forests act as beneficial “carbon sinks” by temporarily removing and storing carbon dioxide. This keeps CO2 out of the atmosphere where it causes warming, which in turn threatens the long-term survival of the forest.”  (11)
    These next four points seem very in line with the UN’s Agenda 21.
21.  Promote a new forest vision that integrates carbon resource management with other natural resource goals. (12) The amount of carbon stored or sequestered by these activities will be measured and monitored over time to ensure that real carbon benefits accrue, and to better understand the long-term benefits of such programs. The state will focus on measures including:
1. Tree selection that will both increase carbon storage and shepherd adaptation to climate change over time.
2. Continued support for urban tree planting programs. Additional shade in certain urban areas mitigates the “heat island effect,” and an urban tree-planting program can help lower energy demandby diminishing the need for air-conditioning. Reducing the size of the heat island has the additional benefit of reducing the formation of ground-level ozone smog in our cities.
3. Including carbon resource management as one criterion in the management plan of state forests and other public lands. The state will encourage similar practices on private lands affected by conservation restrictions.
4. Renewed research on the role of controlled and uncontrolled forest fires in returning carbon to the soil rather than emitting it into the atmosphere. (46-47)
22.  Promote municipal strategies that preserve trees. (12) Encourage land and building development practices that preserve existing trees during construction, encourage the planting of native replacement trees, and emphasize reforestation of cleared land in and around developments. (48)
23. Continue aggressive open space protection efforts. (12) Open space preservation can help discourage sprawl, reducing transportation emissions and acting as an important greenhouse gas sink. Massachusetts will continue its efforts to acquire and protect open space.  This is the scariest point of all.  Can eminent domain play into this—taking people’s property for the sake of protecting the planet?  Can humans no longer expand (“sprawl”)?  Has the government decided that humans have expanded enough?  Is private ownership of land coming to an end?
24.  Make our farms full partners in climate protection and mitigation. (12)  More locally grown food to reduce CO2 produced by transportation to market; use nitrogen fertilizers only when necessary; alter agricultural practices to reduce CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide; site wind turbines on farm land; convert marginally useful farmland to forest. (49)

Throughout his campaign, Mitt Romney has highlighted his experience as a businessman and has claimed it will help him make better economic decisions for the United States as President.  I am not a businessman, so I will have to let the businessmen of America judge for themselves whether or not his Climate Protection Plan makes sound economic sense.  I only have one question though: if his Plan truly made good economic sense, why does Massachusetts have to force agencies, businesses, and individual citizens to comply with its provisions?  Wouldn’t the free market naturally embrace it if it made good economic sense?

I wonder if he also felt that his universal health care plan for the State of Massachusetts made good economic sense.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinion or official position of any US Government Agency.

Taxes By The Mile In The USA?

Taxes By The Mile In The USA? The Proposed Vehicle Mile Tax A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet They are testing the waters again in Washington. Always looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis to squeeze even more money from the taxpayers of America. There is a proposal being floated about in “Foggy Bottom” to tax US drivers for every mile they drive in their cars, trucks, vans, SUV’s, or whatever. The Congressional Budget Office is referring to it as the “Vehicle Mile Tax” or VMT. Here’s what has happened: Due to the high per gallon price of gasoline many drivers have greatly reduced the use of their cars and trucks. My truck, for instance, is virtually parked. I drive it one or twice a week and then only on short hops -- all within the city limits. My truck is ten years old but has only about 50,000 miles on it. But it uses more gasoline than the family Buick. So it remains parked. It would seem that most American families are doing the same thing or something very much akin to it. A huge portion of the per gallon price of gasoline is state and federal taxes. So, you can imagine that when Americans began driving less and using less gasoline, the tax stream from gasoline into the tax coffers of the states and the federal government went from a roaring stream to a trickle. And THAT got the attention of the “taxaholics” in Washington, DC and in the states. Thus the proposal to tax American drivers for every mile they drive -- and that is on top of the taxes we are already paying on every gallon of gasoline we purchase. I must tell you that my state, North Carolina, has one of the highest taxes on gasoline of any state in the Union. So, when I heard about the “mileage tax” proposal, it got my attention. Just so we are clear: I HATE the idea! In 2008, here in North Carolina, something called the 21st Century Transportation Committee recommended the state adopt a “taxes by the mile” plan. As I understood the proposal, the state would carefully record the miles each Tar Heel driver drove, over the preceding twelve months, and the vehicle’s owner would be charged the appropriate amount in taxes for each mile driven. As North Carolinians take their cars in each year for the mandated annual state inspection (which by itself is a gigantic tax scheme!) The mileage on the odometer would have been recorded. This was to be the source of the mileage figures used to tax NC drivers. Transportation experts told us then that sometime later the state could switch to GPS tracking of NC Drivers. This scheme was called the “Road Use Tax.” It is interesting to note that NC had a Democratic Party controlled legislature in 2008. So what happened? The NC voters told the Democrats in the NC Legislature to hit the very road they wanted to tax -- and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature. Oregon and California have also considered imposing such road taxes on their citizens, as well. The fact that driver’s pockets would be picked by a “tax by the mile” (Vehicle Mile Tax) road tax was just too much for the North Carolina voters to stomach. There is another disturbing aspect of these mileage tax rip-offs; the device attached to our cars would also emit a signal, much as a GPS device does, that would allow the government to know where we are, in our car, at all times. Sounds incredible, does it not? THAT HAS been suggested. More than likely, it would be continuous tracking of our road miles. Either way, it is just more big brother government intrusion into our lives. Look: US drivers pay approximately 35 billion dollars in federal gasoline taxes annually. You’d think our highways would be paved in gold rather than asphalt! This whole thing smacks of another trick by the liberal-socialists to herd Americans into mass transit. It is all a part of the “green agenda” to deprive Americans of their celebration of freedom – the automobile – in favor of bicycles, trolleys, and commuter trains, etc. There is an editorial at the Washington Times we urge you to read. It is entitled: CBO’s toll-road fib. You will find it HERE. “Motorists are one of the most overtaxed groups in America, and the automobile has done more to enable this country’s economic success than any other invention.”(Read the entire article in the Washington Times HERE.) I am inclined to believe this is more of the leftist agenda to dismantle America until it becomes just another third-world country. J. D. Longstreet