World Wildlife Fund site lets public track polar bears along Hudson Bay

World Wildlife Fund site lets public track polar bears along Hudson Bay

Dec 03, 2007 04:30 AM
Catherine Porter
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

Want to see how climate change is affecting polar bears without adding to the problem by jumping in a plane? The non-profit World Wildlife Fund has launched a “polar bear” tracker site that lets you follow the paths of six female bears with their cubs over the next year. They hope it personalizes the issue for Canadians and drives them towards change.

“This is a Canadian icon species and it’s in trouble,” said Pete Ewins, WWF’s director of species conservation. He travelled to Hudson Bay’s Wapusk National Park this past summer to help Canadian Wildlife service researchers fit two female bears with satellite collars which will transmit data every four days for the next year, when they will automatically detach.

The David Suzuki Foundation has called on the Canadian government to protect polar bears as a threatened species. To date, the environment minister has not recognized the bears as a “species of concern,” despite scientists saying otherwise.

http://www.thestar.com/article/281913

Not all scientists are on board. Are agendas of the social engineers
driving the science?

***The state of Alaska yesterday questioned the scientific justification for proposals to add polar bears to the US endangered species list. Tina Cunnings, a biologist attached to the Alaskan government, questioned whether they needed sea ice to survive, saying they could adapt to hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals. ********
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml

editor’s comment: One wonders how the polar bears survived periods of global warming that preceded the ice ages, e.g. when Greenland was settled by Europeans.

National Round Table on the Environment

This week the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy basically recommended Canadian taxpayers should fall on their swords for the sake of winning a Pyrrhic victory over global warming.

The government advisory panel called for Ottawa to impose a carbon tax on Canadians and/or establish a “cap and trade” carbon emissions trading scheme for industry (which has been something of a fiasco in Europe) to achieve “deep” greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts.

In reality, the NRTEE is telling us to do two contradictory things: Act in concert with the rest of the world to combat global warming and, regardless of what the world does, act unilaterally now.

The NRTEE acknowledges that: “With respect to environmental risk, Canada’s share of global emissions and hence its contribution to the stock of atmospheric carbon is low, and if action is not taken globally, Canada’s efforts alone could do little to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.”

Plus: “We believe that the most critical assumption that the NRTEE has made in its work, particularly in our modelling, is that whatever policy framework Canada puts into place, it is comparable to its competitors and trade partners, predominantly the United States … If our major trading partners, particularly the United States, do not implement comparable policies within a reasonable time frame, the economic risk of the deep domestic reductions investigated in this report rises.”

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Indeed, the NRTEE paper, Getting to 2050: Canada’s Transition to a Low-emission Future warns 10 times that its proposals won’t damage our economy only if the U.S. and our other major trading partners are simultaneously implementing similar measures. Its optimistic economic modelling is based on that.

And yet bizarrely, it also concludes, without qualification, that: “It is not the NRTEE’s view that any of this should be justification for not taking action now to either reduce emissions now, or put in place the most effective policy framework for deep, long-term reductions in the future.” Excuse us?

Canada, which like many countries will miss its Kyoto targets, accounts for 2.1% of global GHG emissions.

The U.S., our largest trading partner, responsible for 20.6% of emissions, has refused to ratify Kyoto since the Clinton administration. What would the NRTEE have us do? Arm-wrestle the U.S. into submission?

Speculation the next American president will ratify Kyoto is merely that, speculation.

In 1997, when GHG guru Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s vice-president, Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, which must ratify Kyoto, voted 95-0 against, arguing it was detrimental to American interests because developing nations weren’t required to cut emissions. Today the developing world, led by China, is balking at accepting cuts even after Kyoto expires in 2012.

As things now stand, the NRTEE is effectively recommending Canadians pay significantly more for carbon (meaning for virtually everything) for decades to come, at the risk of severely damaging our economy, especially in Alberta and Ontario, for what would be a futile gesture to combat global warming even if successful, and even if countries responsible for up to 10 times our emissions do nothing.

But if everyone else suddenly reverses course inspired by our example, we should be okay.

That’s not a policy. It’s insanity.

The Harper government requested this report. It should thank the NRTEE — and shelve it.

---

• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.caTorontoSun.com – Lorrie Goldstein – Only one place for this report

Navajo and Mohawk in Bali Challenge World Bank Carbon Scam

 Editor:
It’s all about the money and control by the corporations, assisted by your Govt. Wind farms are not part of any solution, they are just another part of the scam.

Navajo and Mohawk in Bali Challenge World Bank Carbon Scam
by Brenda Norrell Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007 at 2:45 PM
BALI, Indonesia — Navajo and Mohawk representatives of the Indigenous Environmental Network are now in Bali at the 13th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Jihan Gearon, Dine’ Navajo Nation, IEN energy & climate campaign organizer and Benjamin Powless, Mohawk, Six Nations, Ontario, Canada, IEN youth representative, are gathered with other Indigenous Peoples and taking on the world’s super powers and carbon scam.

Gearon, writing from Bali, said, “What I am saying is that Indigenous People need a much bigger and better seat at the table. Our communities and livelihoods are the first affected by climate change. We are also the most affected by the unsustainable solutions being proposed to solve climate change – nuclear power, clean coal, carbon sequestration, reforestation, carbon trading, etc, etc, etc. Yet, instead of having real input in the UNFCCC process, we have to spend our time picking through words. And while we’re busy doing that, those people who want to sacrifice us to put some dollars in their pockets, make the decisions.

“This past September 13th, the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which protects the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and environment. Yet through the faulty process and false climate change solutions of the UNFCCC, it’s these fundamental human rights that are being violated.

“The Indigenous Peoples here in Bali are asking the UN to live up to their words, to listen to us, and to stop with the false solutions that devastate our lands, threaten our ways of life, and deny our human rights.”

Arizona Indy Media 

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax

Editor:
This is what I and many others fighting wind farms have been trying to tell others for a very long time. Please read the entire article and make sure your local council reads it. One of two things should happen when they read this report. 1) They should be appalled and make a public call for the immediate end to wind farms. 2) They are in on it, at which point you must expose them,for who they are. Traitors against your country.
Maurice Strong, the architect of Global Warming, says “In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” This is and always was about global control by a small group of very greedy people.

The reason Bush and Harper are against signing the pact is that it will mess up their agreement to join Mexico the USA and Canada.

Experts dismiss agenda as “futile,” bureaucratic scheme that will increase human suffering

‘Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax’; ‘The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along – a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile beauracratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.’;

Following a discussion entitled “A Global CO2 Tax,” a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations,” to impose a tax on plant food (CO2).

Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund.” He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled “Multilateral Adaptation Fund”.

In the letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the scientists state, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.”

What we see unfolding in Bali is one of the major final stepping stones on the road to a complete globalist stranglehold on reducing the living standards of everyone in the industrialized world, and a scheme to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty.

Seven years ago former French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.” The imminent agreement arising out of the Bali summit will be one of the final nails in the coffin aimed at decimating the middle class and the right of free people to strive for prosperity and happiness without laboring under suffocating serfdom imposed by unelected elitists.

As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned earlier this year, “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Lindzen is one of over 100 prominent scientists who have signed a letter slamming the UN move as a futile bureaucratic scheme, pointing out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

In comparison, half that number – just 52 scientists – participated in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007.

 

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

The letter goes into detail about several conclusions of the IPCC report that are completely contradicted by recent major scientific studies.

Read the full letter here.

Listed below are the names and credentials of the 100 scientists who signed the letter, again dispelling the myth that the man-made explanation behind global warming is an overwhelming”consensus” view.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Visit Prison Planet

'The biggest environmental crime in history'

 From the Editor
As one who has always had the greatest respect for the environment, I would like to see all the energy needed to extract the oil from the Alberta oil sands be supplied exclusively by wind and solar power. In fact it should be law. The reason it won’t happen is neither are reliable sources of energy. The wind farms and solar parks that are being erected in your backyard are for carbon credits, not energy, to offset the emissions from projects like the oils sands. Kyoto, Al Gore and David Suzuki are complete frauds that all lead back to Maurice Strong.

This Canadian wilderness is set to be invaded by BP in an oil exploration project dubbed …

By Cahal Milmo

Published: 10 December 2007

 

BP, the British oil giant that pledged to move “Beyond Petroleum” by finding cleaner ways to produce fossil fuels, is being accused of abandoning its “green sheen” by investing nearly £1.5bn to extract oil from the Canadian wilderness using methods which environmentalists say are part of the “biggest global warming crime” in history.

The multinational oil and gas producer, which last year made a profit of £11bn, is facing a head-on confrontation with the green lobby in the pristine forests of North America after Greenpeace pledged a direct action campaign against BP following its decision to reverse a long-standing policy and invest heavily in extracting so-called “oil sands” that lie beneath the Canadian province of Alberta and form the world’s second-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

Producing crude oil from the tar sands – a heavy mixture of bitumen, water, sand and clay – found beneath more than 54,000 square miles of prime forest in northern Alberta – an area the size of England and Wales combined – generates up to four times more carbon dioxide, the principal global warming gas, than conventional drilling. The booming oil sands industry will produce 100 million tonnes of CO2 (equivalent to a fifth of the UK’s entire annual emissions) a year by 2012, ensuring that Canada will miss its emission targets under the Kyoto treaty, according to environmentalist activists.

The oil rush is also scarring a wilderness landscape: millions of tonnes of plant life and top soil is scooped away in vast open-pit mines and millions of litres of water are diverted from rivers – up to five barrels of water are needed to produce a single barrel of crude and the process requires huge amounts of natural gas. The industry, which now includes all the major oil multinationals, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell and American combine Exxon-Mobil, boasts that it takes two tonnes of the raw sands to produce a single barrel of oil. BP insists it will use a less damaging extraction method, but it accepts that its investment will increase its carbon footprint.

Mike Hudema, the climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace in Canada, told The Independent: “BP has done a very good job in recent years of promoting its green objectives. By jumping into tar sands extraction it is taking part in the biggest global warming crime ever seen and BP’s green sheen is gone.

“It takes about 29kg of CO2 to produce a barrel of oil conventionally. That figure can be as much 125kg for tar sands oil. It also has the potential to kill off or damage the vast forest wilderness, greater than the size of England and Wales, which forms part of the world’s biggest carbon sinks. For BP to be involved in this trade not only flies in the face of their rhetoric but in the era of climate change it should not be being developed at all. You cannot call yourself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and involve yourself in tar sands extraction.” Mr Hudema said Greenpeace was planning a direct action campaign against BP, which could disrupt its activities as its starts construction work in Alberta next year.

More at the Independent 

Kangaroo Farts Save Planet Earth

From the Editor
I have already booked my flight to Australia to get some kangaroo bacteria put into my stomach. It’s a win win situation for me and the world in general. I will be able to travel anywhere in the world by whatever mode of transportation I choose, knowing I will be offsetting my carbon emissions every time I fart. If you really want to do your part to save the world from GLOBAL WARMING contact me and I will sell you some kangaroo bacteria. Every time you fart you can smile knowing you are helping to save Planet Earth.

I just farted and yes I’m smiling

But  I refuse to  smile about the devastation caused  by the wind industry and truly stunned govt. officials.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroos’ flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

Scientific literature shows that in addition to creating greenhouse gases, cow farts are linked to at least three deaths due to smokers lighting up in sheds and barns where flatulating cattle were being housed.

While the debate over coal fired power stations rages, research has also shown that cows and sheep can contribute between 14-5% of a country’s methane emissions, which are just as large a contributor to global warming as CO2.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle

Biofuels 'crime against humanity'

By Grant Ferrett BBC News

Food prices have risen as more land is used to produce biofuels

A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger.

The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels.

Mr Ziegler’s remarks, made at the UN headquarters in New York, are clearly designed to grab attention.

He complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which created a recipe for disaster.

Food price rises

It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel.

He called for a five-year ban on the practice.

The Full Story 

Wind Energy can Raise Emission Levels

It looks like the World energy Council knows what we already know. How come the govt. seems to be in the dark

*_Technical and Environmental Considerations_*
The bulk of electric power cannot currently be stored in an economically feasible way. It has to be generated at the same time it is used, and electricity grids require power to be supplied
at the rated frequency and voltage, free from harmonics, voltage surges and interruptions. A modern industrialized society depends heavily on stable and high quality power supplies to
run industrial processes and information technology. There are, therefore, a number of operational aspects which have to be taken into account when specific energy targets are considered. For the deployment of renewables on a large scale, these include the intermittent nature of leading sources, the related problems of full integration with grids, low capacity factors and the need for back-up power.
*When renewable energy targets are aimed at the reduction of GHG emissions*, broad technical issues should be taken into consideration. For example, emissions per kilowatt-hour from
conventional power stations are reduced by maximizing their base-load operation; however, integration of some renewable generating capacities into the grid can increase frequency
fluctuations, thus raising the overall emissions levels. Another issue, which in many cases is not fully taken into account, is back-up capacity to provide electricity at short notice, which
most often relies on diesel or coal-fired generating units.

link to the rest of this doc
worldenergy

REDUCTION IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS:

A Report by David White, BSc, C Eng, F I Chem E

Commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation

December 2004

An increase in wind capacity will have to be matched by new
conventional capacity required to cover winter peak demand when there is no wind.
This new capacity would be under-utilised, again raising the unit cost and . UK demand will continue to grow, as forecast by National Grid Transco, and power shortages seem inevitable in the medium term if the “secure” generation
capacity needed to replace obsolete plant is not forthcoming.
• In conclusion, it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required,but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation.

Click here for the full report

The govt. of Ontario is pursuing wind power for one reason and one reason only. To get your vote. There are too many credible reports showing that wind is a poor choice for electrical generation, to come to any other conclusion. Are “YOU” a citizen of Ont. going to sit idly by while your govt, under false pretences, wastes billions of your tax dollars and puts the electrical grid in jeopardy.