EPA listing CO2 as a dangerous gas.

Well, it finally happened.

A public authority (EPA / US) has on 7th of December 2009 formally declared CO2 being a dangerous gas, and this likely means that others will follow.
If one can do it, why shouldn’t others follow, as this can side-step many issues and fast-track regulations and laws on the subject.

[EPA declaration]

Prepare to hold your breath, or either get taxed having to buy carbon offsets for breathing, or end up in the clink for environmental crimes. .
Pick your favorite poison.

WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”

Although the crafted rules say only facilities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year or more will be affected, businesses fear the exemption may not hold up in court and could now be imposed on many smaller commercial buildings, farms, restaurants, churches and small businesses.

As far as I know, there are absolute no solid evidence that CO2 is a threat to public health – if there were, it would be widely known in no unsure terms by now.
On the contrary, there’s plenty of evidence showing it is not. Evidence with billions of years on it’s neck.

The major one, is CO2 being an absolute necessity for plant life on earth, and therefore an absolute necessity for any life on earth, and I don’t see millions of carbonated soft-drink or beer consumers, or even carbonated mineral water consumers for that matter, having taken ill at any point in time due to it’s deadly CO2 contents…
Some light into this mystery might be shed by another big organisation in US, the mighty FDA (Food and Drugs Administration), that has CO2 listed as an allowed product for use in human foods.

EPA – “greenhouse gases (GHGs (incl. CO2) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”
FDA – CO2 is safe and is allowed for use in food products.

I believe the score table reads: EPA 0 – FDA 1.

Posted in Analysis, News comments, Politicians | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA listing CO2 as a dangerous gas.

On the back of COP15

The commonly unknowns of COP15

A little known and published aspect of the COP15 agreement is the talks of a new world government. run by a UN subsidiary.

If it sounds scary, it probably does so, because it is.

A new world government?

Page 18 in the [UN Framework for COP15 agreement]:

“38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government
; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary
body on adaptation
, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new
funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat
will operate as such, as appropriate.”

As you can read in the subtexts of paragraph 38 and onwards, these proposals will effectively create a superstate run by a sub-organisation of UN, of which no individual country will be in control of, and they will have the rights to make up new international laws, add penalties for non-conformance, add new levies, as well as apply compensations from developed countries towards “victims” of the natural climate change.

It also includes “mitigation actions”, which in practice means among other things the proposed and currently researched methods for sequestration of atmospheric CO2 – or in SCI-FI terms – The UN is effectively drawing up plans to terraform the planet, and change the atmospheric composition, and place it underground in either liquid form or chemically bound.

Wait a minute – Do we actually know what effects this will have on our climate?

Is there ANY available science that shows what effects this will have?

Are the UN sub-committes about to play roulette with everyones lives?

We know by now that CO2 is NOT the enemy, but absolutely necessary for plant life, and if we start reducing the atmospheric contents of the CO2, we will effectively remove plant food, which in turn will reduce the amount of plant growth.
This is not limited to pot-plants or forrests, but food production.

As this world has ever increasing needs for food production by the day, does a reduction of one of the critical components for this make sense?
Of course not.

The planned active “mitigation” of the “CO2 problem” poses the risk of eventual mass starvation, and as a result of this, to war, if we are not able to cope with increasing demands for food.

An article in NY Times put the effects on plant life quite well, and shows that they way forward to combat the growing needs for food, is not to reduce the CO2, and that increased levels has a very beneficial effect on plant life.  The article is quite neutral in that it argues both con’s and pro’s, and allows you to make up your own mind.

UN’s draft, is potentially a very dangerous document, that places the future of the world in a few hands, that are not elected, and since there are little or no transparency, we will not know what the motives are for their future actions are, or what they will be.
It will be the same as handing over the control to a disclosed group acting as a world government, that can at will penalize anyone for anything, as this group will only be responsible to themselves.

This is a truly frightening concept.

How is this to be funded?

You can find these things in the [UN Framework for COP15 agreement].

One interesting note about the whole thing is that while there are “alternatives” or “options”, there are no “and’s” or “or’s” in the text, and this seems to allow for an arbitrary “pick and mix”.

Clause 33 on page 39 outlines the minimum cash flow from industrialized countries to underdeveloped countries;

“33. By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at
least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70–140 billion] per year. [Sources of new and additional
financial support for adaptation [must meet the full agreed incremental costs of adaptation and initially
be within a minimum range of USD 50–86 billion per annum and regularly updated in the light of new
emerging science, financial estimates and the degree of emission reductions achieved.] [will be needed to
scale-up adaptation activities at the country level in developing country Parties].]”

Add to this, suggestions of a global levy of 2% on fiunancial transactions on page 135 of the same;

“Option 7
A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.”

Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

The last one, essentially means 2% of each signatory nations GDP.

Europe’s GDP is roughly $18,400,000 millions ($18.4 trillion), and the US GDP is $14,450,000 millions.

If we take 2% of those two alone, we get $658,000 million, or $658 bn.
Add in a few other nations or regions, and we will soon pass $1 trillion dollars.

If you add up Northern America, Europe, Oceania, and eastern Asia, you will end up with a figure that according to the 2004 figures amounts to appx $2 trillion, or the same as the entire current GDP of Africa.

The GDP is calculated as:

GDP = C + G + I + NX


C” is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation’s economy
G” is the sum of government spending
I” is the sum of all the country’s businesses spending on capital
NX” is the nation’s total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports. (NX = Exports – Imports)

Note that C and G is all based on the individuals (C’s) income and taxation of the same, so therefore, the source is essentially the same pot of money – C, as the money that G has available to spend, almost entirely comes directly out of C’s pocket. They can therefore largely be treated as if the same.
I is largely based on C’s and G’s consumption, and can therefore be said to be based on C, so therefore, a simple removal of 2% of the GDP, will result in removing assets directly from C.

C will have to fork out the difference on top of what he or she is already paying.

If GDP is going to be charged 2% of GDP, and C is the common carrier of the burden, we could theoretically say that:

C is being charged 2% on their individual part of the GDP, G is hit with 2% on their part, I is equally hit, and NX is hit in part locally, part elsewhere, and if we assume that the NX part is in half carried locally, and C is the common source of the economy, C will be hit with 2+2+2+1%, or 7% in directly increased costs.

As a side effect, I will have to counter these 2% by increasing their margin by at least the double to maintain status quo after costs and taxes, and the same goes for G, so the real term will more likely be 2+4+4+2, or a 12% bill that C will be hit with.

This, in turn, effectively means that C will have a wage reduction of 12%.
Not many people have room for this in their budget, and we will see a lot of people breaking under the pressure, especially low-income takers, and the costs to the states will increase, and in turn lead to increased amounts of social benefits for a large group of people, something that in turn, (sorry, long sentence) will have to be countered by G, so the final cost, will more likely have to be a general increase of closer to 15-18%, than the 12%.

This is why this “tiny” 2% levy on the GDP will have more far-reaching impact on the individual people than it seems capable of, where the people is the ones that has to pay for the IPCC’s alleged CO2 impact – an impact that has yet to be seen scientifically proven and shown in practical life, outside of  natural climate cycles.

Add to this the latest news that Africa now demands to get a 5% cut of what is essentially the rest of the worlds GDP.
2% of Europe’s, North America’s, Oceanias and eastern Asia’s GDP is the same thing as the African continents entire GDP.

Please see the previous article about this.

I doubt that the UN drafters really thought about this, and considered the real effects of their proposals, but then, that would not unbe a new phenomenon on the political sky, but on the other hand, if they did, and this is what they had in mind, then this amounts to nothing but modern economic slavery and  penalizisation of people in the developed and democratic countries for fairing better than their unlucky counterparts elsewhere.


Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
UN Framework for COP15 agreement
Carbon Dioxide Rise May Alter Plant Life, Researchers Say – Part 1
Carbon Dioxide Rise May Alter Plant Life, Researchers Say – Part 2
Carbon Dioxide Rise May Alter Plant Life, Researchers Say – Part 3

Posted in Analysis, COP15, Economy, Politicians | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On the back of COP15

Emissions rights in a breath

”The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation. The transformation will be costly, but the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.”

Opportunities for whom, one might ask. Everyone?

“Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it. The transformation will be costly. The flow of capital tells its own story.”

So, who’s money will pay for all this? Who will make the sacrifice? I’ll give you a hint. It is not the politicians, nor anyone else in power. It is always the lowest common denominators.

Yes, the politicians in Copenhagen just might have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation. And do you want the next generation still to be able to breath, without having to pay for it? If so, please implore them to make the right choice.

Damien Fields

Quotations from: The Guardian
Reference document: The Copenhagen editorial

Posted in Analysis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Emissions rights in a breath

1%, 2%, 5%, why not 50%?

Africa is about to turn up the heat on the climate conference by demanding that the developed nations sets aside 5% of their GDP and gives it to them, to compensate them for the effects of global warming.

Some countries gives 1% of their GDP in contributions to develop and aid underdeveloped countries, the UN draft suggested a 2% levy on developed nations GDP, and now, Africa demands 5%.

What is it with Africa?

Despite the money already spent, they have not taken the chance to stand up, and their “leaders” has taken “care of ” the subsidies given, and very little has actually come to benefit the people of Africa.
Why would this be any different this time, and why should Africa alone get 5%, as there are regions in Asia or South/Latin America that would in large meet the same conditions.

Can they actually prove that they have been hit harder by the so called AGW than anyone else, and what they see is not being an effect of their own actions such as deforrestation, burning of land, unsustainable forms of agriculture that we know turns rich soil into desert land, mining operations without consideration of the environment, dumping of toxic waste and so on?

Why not demand 50% of the developed nations GDP while at it, because they have just as good chance to that, as 5%.

5% of EU’s GDP would amount to almost $1 trillion, or approximately €650 Billion.

The combined GDP of Africa as a continent of $2.1 tn, so they effectively demand 1/4 of their combined GDP from EU.

If you add in some others, like Oceania, Northern America, Eastern Asia, you get a combined figure of around (2004 figures) 12.8+14.2+0.7+12.8, or $40.5 tn, and 5% of that is $2 trillion, or the combined GDP of all African countries.

I believe that before any of that would happen, they would have to get rid of their dictators and other shoddy regimes, end their seemingly never-ending wars, start building schools and hospitals that are available to everyone, and start applying sustainable agriculture so that their food supply is secured, as well as making sure there are proper water supplies.

Dumping a pile of money on Africa before these critical issues are solved, will achieve nothing, and Africa’s shortcomings on these issues has nothing to do with AGW or CC.

Africa needs to get their own act together, and before they do, no money in the world will make them happy.

Africa considering tough demands

Posted in Analysis, COP15, Miscellaneous ramblings, News comments | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 1%, 2%, 5%, why not 50%?

Some quotes from the climate people

Having read around a bit, I found some quotes that got me to think about what they were actually saying, who the people and groups behind the quotes are, and how they relate to what is going on at COP15.

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

So, if the data doesn’t matter, and you don’t base your recommendations on what can be found in the data, but models of chaotic systems that obviously don’t have to take the data into account, you are not presenting science, but beliefs or lies.

In the light of climategate, this statement actually makes some sense in that the Hadley series is one of the series that was/is being used by CRU, and if the outcome of their work is based on something where the data is not relevant, then the next logical step is not that far away. The climate models fails to predict, or even follow the real events, and guess what? This is exactly what has been happening, and what has been shown by independent researchers looking into the results presented by CRU and related climate research centras.  The results just doesn’t add up when compared to reality.

Here [www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org] are some independent researchers that truly disagrees with the current agenda of COP15.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

Is removing money from individuals and companies the right thing to do, forcing them to opt for the cheapest (and dirtiest) alternatives, when that money is not being re-invested into green technology by the states?
Taking money off someone without just cause, has a different name and meaning in the more commonly used variations of the languages.

Someone, please define the “right thing”, as the idea I get from listening to these people are along the lines of the “Right Thing” being:

– Outright lies to people,
– Applying non-science (beliefs) to political policies without consideration of the effects,
– Wiping far more pressing environmental issues under the rug,
– Ignoring settled and solid science in favor of non-validated science
… and the list goes on.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

So, if you can’t convince people that you are right using true and honest arguments, then do the next best thing, try to scare the living daylight out of them in order to cough up some dosh for anything they do, and if they don’t buy into that, let’s just tell some lies. Case solved.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

– Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

Now, finally something that actually makes some kind of a sense in relation to what we can see happening, but I can’t say that I like the implications of what is being said.

Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

Posted in Analysis, News comments | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

What is really the issue on cop15

Its no question about it. I am a person that have a lot of doubts about the so called AGW. But the real issue here is not about the climate. Whether we have a warming or cooling or if the researchers showing a warming has cheated or not. That is clearly not the real issue.

The real and very controversial issue is if it is carbon dioxide – CO2 – that is causing it.  Why do I say that? Simple. The documents that many countries are supposed to sign in Copenhagen has 3 major parts.

1. Reduce emission of CO2.
2. Introduce a trading mechanism for treading emission permits.
3. Make UN the “High Court” for some issues related to this.

That is what he documents in Copenhagen are all about. It is all about CO2.
Now let that sink in, and by all means study all the documentation you can get your hands on to see if that is not true.  Sure there might a lot of other things but the the only things that really have a great impact on the world economy and to you as a person are these taxes and restrictions on CO2. To be able to make those drastic reduction on CO2 emissions governments has to in some way or other tax you for emitting CO2. Don’t doubt that. You as an individual are going to pay. And other people will make money trading CO2 emission contracts

Now, why this lengthy discussion about CO2. Again, because that is what it is all about. It is not about the climate. It is not about melting ice. It’s not about saving polar bears. It’s not about raising ocean levels. It is not about cheating researchers. It is not about climate change, the climate will always change. Unfortunately the debate is fought on the AGW proponents terms, namely about the climate.

The debate should concentrate on making absolutely clear that it is CO2 that influence the climate. What I have seen that has not been proved. I have seen the graph that was presented by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”. That graph DOES NOT show that CO2 causes the temperature to rise. It shows that CO2 increases when the temperature rises. And that is governed by a chemical law. Cold water stores more CO2 than warm.

Get back to basics. PROVE that CO2 has a significant influence on temperature and I will make a new evalution. Stop discussing the climate changes. Concentrate on CO2. I regard it complete insane to take the these drastic measures to lower CO2 emission at considerable costs and reduction in living standards on an assumption (not proof) that CO2 has a significant impact on the climate. What I do know is that an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere will stimulate growth. Check the real issues here.


UN Framework for COP15 agreement
CO2 – is it really a demon?

Posted in Analysis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What is really the issue on cop15

CO2 a Dangerous pollutant?

According to Alex Jones at Inforwars.com, Obama is to use the EPA to declare CO2 being a dangerous pollutant.

How silly can it get?

The very gas that is an absolute requirement for all plant life on earth, and subsequently all life on earth, will be classified as a “dangerous pollutant”?

Will this mean that the farmers will no longer be allowed to inject additional CO2 into their greenhouses to boost production?
Will you have to have a special permit to handle this “dangerous pollutant” in the future?

One must ask – has these guys even considered what you get taught in primary school biology classes?

Quote from the article.

“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food,” notes John R. Christy, professor of
Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama. “The green world we see around us would
disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric
CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present
biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the
increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.”

Good to see that some hasn’t forgot their lessons.


Obama to Use EPA to Declare CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

Posted in News comments | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on CO2 a Dangerous pollutant?

In the name of the earth

“If carbon dioxide would be such a big threat to humanity, how come there is such thing as emissions trading? Who could give anyone the right to sell out the survival of mankind in the name of the earth?”

Damien Fields, December 8, 2009

Posted in Analysis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the name of the earth

Copenhagens carbon footprint

Now, we have already discussed the effect of CO2, so based on this, it doesn’t really have any real impact, but let us just have a look at things, AS IF it were to have an impact as claimed by the climate scientists.

The U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, roughly as it has been claimed, to be the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.

There you have it – the same emissions as a small nation in Western Sahara with some 33 million in population, to accommodate 16.500 delegates, journalists and activists during the 12 day event.

Perhaps, the delegates with their 2.5t individual footprint during the 12 days could learn something from the average moroccan with their average footprint of a mere 1.2Kg per year.

To offset these 40,600 tonnes of carbon with carbon credits, the price would be about €390,000 according to [jpmorgan climatecare].

This would according to other estimates be equivalent of planting 243,000 trees, to offset the Copenhagen event.

Posted in News comments | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Copenhagens carbon footprint

The self-fulfilling prophet

You don’t have to be right to get right. But this is far to often what debating is about. To get right. Myself, I prefer dialogue. Not necessarily to reach consensus, but to encourage logical arguments, reflection and constructive social change.

It’s alright to have different opinions. But to be able to trust an outcome of a discussion, at least we have to agree on basic facts. What we can see today, in opinions of climate change, is that we don’t agree on those basic facts – the collection of original temperature data – which practically makes any scientific result based upon such facts useless.

In a scientific view, It doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong. If the basic facts are questionable, for example on such ground that they can’t be verified as genuine, the findings can not be objectively trusted and should by all means be questioned.

It’s easy to get right, when you don’t recognize the right for anyone to say that you are wrong.

Now, Mr. Al Gore has declined to lecture at the climate change conference in Copenhagen 2009. Perhaps that is for the best, but still, the fact remains: It’s easy to win the debate when it comes to confusion whether it’s really a debate or a moralizing monologue, further more no questions allowed.

So, in the meaning of getting right, Mr. Gore seems to have no intention of putting himself in a position where he would have to answer to his previous statements. Therefore, the debate is over. Obviously.

However, this does not stop the rest of the society from discussing these issues, based upon reliable facts. But for those among us that prefer monologue instead of dialogue, for those who wants the debate to be over, for those I have nothing more to say.

And therefore I believe that Mr. Gore should finally shut up.

Posted in Analysis | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The self-fulfilling prophet