Voters beware the salesmen who come with hat in hand, pitching shiny or miraculous services and benefits for a bargain bottom price and the promise of a profit. Your wallets and blank checks are their target. With a ballooning price tag and doubts about federal funding, it is increasingly obvious that voters were sold a bill of goods by the backers of California’s high-speed train to nowhere....
With the European and American economies in the midst of a profound crisis, the drive by United Nations globalists and radical environmentalists to push for economic redistribution in the name of stopping climate change appears to be foundering. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has pushed an ideological agenda since 1992. The UNFCCC will begin this year’s meeting in Durban, South Africa, on November 28, but organizational insiders appear to be despairing before the conference even begins.
In contesting a federal effort to propel Washington’s environmental agenda, House Republicans nixed a congressional proposal to establish a new government program called the National Climate Service. Part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and akin to the agency’s National Weather Service (NWS), the proposed division has been hailed by congressional Democrats as an essential federal service that would help inform farmers, insurance companies, and the general public of projected weather patterns. The central idea, Democrats and NOAA officials note, is that while the NWS provides short-term weather conditions, the National Climate Service would concurrently provide long-term projections of future climate-related events.
While Democrats contend that the service will require no new funding, a House Appropriations Committee news release indicated that Congress had saved $322 million in fiscal year 2012 by blocking the initiative.
The National Weather Service is one of six scientific agencies serving the NOAA and is tasked with offering to the public "weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy." The NWS, formerly known as the Weather Bureau, draws from 122 local weather forecast offices and various national and regional centers to forecast temperature, humidity, probability of precipitation, wind direction and speed, and other weather-related data.
After a series of embarrassing predictions and wild factual errors damaged global-warming alarmists’ credibility — possibly beyond repair — the United Nations is again warning of impending doom: localized floods and droughts caused by climate change theoretically linked to human activity. But skeptics are still not buying.
The new report unveiled over the weekend by the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims extreme weather is set to increase dramatically in the decades ahead. But following spectacular failures in its last major report that turned the climate body into a global laughingstock, the UN used far more caution in attributing its predictions to anthropogenic (human-caused) factors.
According to a draft of the report cited by the BBC, it was only considered “likely” that human activities could be linked to changes in cold and warm days. Meanwhile, there was just “medium confidence” that man is responsible for extreme rainfall changes and “low confidence” that variations in tropical cyclones could be attributed to humanity’s relatively insignificant carbon emissions.
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability,” the draft report admitted. Some climate experts picked up the new cautious tone.
To celebrate America Recycles Day, the Tellus Institute published a study showing the benefits of increased recycling, by force if necessary. The Tellus Institute’s mission is “to advance the transition to a sustainable, equitable, and humane global civilization,” and has published 3,500 studies, analyses, and reports on everything from energy, water, sustainable communities, corporate social responsibility, and climate change.
The increase in federal subsidies for clean energy development from $17 billion in 2007 to $37 billion in 2010 has resulted in a “gold-rush mentality” among developers, according to the New York Times. One of the primary beneficiaries of the rush to feed at the golden trough is David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, who exclaimed that this was a once-in-a-generation opportunity: “We intend to do as much of this business we can get our hands on. I have never seen anything … in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects. [We are] just filling the desert with [solar] panels.”
Crane was joined by Kevin Smith, CEO of SolarReserve, another company enjoying federal subsidies, who said, “It is like building a hotel, where you know in advance you are going to have 100 percent room occupancy for 25 years.”
NRG Energy’s massive solar panel development, California Valley Solar Ranch, consists of nearly one million solar panels that will, according to proponents, produce enough electricity, on clear days, to power 100,000 homes (at least for a couple of hours each day when the sun is near its peak, and if those numbers aren't being gamed). It also consists of massive subsidies from the federal government, the state of California, and, naturally, increased rates for the taxpayers. According to the Times, nearly all of the $1.6 billion project is being subsidized through loans, grants, subsidies, tax abatements, and forced purchases of the electricity by public utilities at higher prices than energy produced by coal or natural gas.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on world leaders Monday to collaborate in financing a multibillion-dollar fund to combat global warming. Speaking at a conference in Bangladesh’s capital, Mr. Ban said global efforts must be taken to establish a $100 billion Green Climate Fund dedicated to taming the "damaging" effects of climate change, and that the global economic crisis should not hinder such efforts.
"The aim of this conference is to get the nations who are disproportionately affected by climate change, the most vulnerable nations, to come together and speak with one voice," asserted Bangladesh's environment secretary Mesbah ul Alam. "Climate change is real and it is affecting us now — we live with floods, with climate refugees, with rising salinity in our coastal areas and with the impact of rising sea levels."
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has taken the somewhat unusual step of declaring that the Earth most certainly will not be destroyed by a massive solar flare. But for adherents of various versions of “end of the world” theories related to the ancient Mayan calendar, it is unlikely NASA’s efforts will do any good.
NASA’s scientists have been trying to answer the burgeoning number of Internet rumors and pseudoscientific claims that have arisen periodically for years regarding claims that the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world on December 21, 2012. In 2009, NASA responded to the release of Columbia Pictures’ movie 2012 with an extended “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) entitled “2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won’t End?” which dealt with many of the claims that had been floating around at that point. As observed at that time, there are parallels between the irrational fears associated with the “Year 2000” (Y2K) computer "bug" and 2012 doom and gloom:
In late October White House Chief of Staff William Daley ordered a complete review of all loan guarantees the Department of Energy has made to various energy projects. The review “is a tacit acknowledgement that the loan program [that supported the now-bankrupt energy company Solyndra]…has raised enough internal concern that an outside assessment is necessary…”, according the Washington Post.
TransCanada’s much anticipated Keystone XL oil pipeline will endure further delay as the State Department announced Thursday a plan to reroute the pipeline away from certain areas that critics claim are "environmentally sensitive."
In a worst-case scenario, one source warned that the move could ultimately derail the seven-billion-dollar expansion, which would transport Canadian crude oil from the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada, southeast through the U.S. Midwest, and then on to the Gulf Coast. The decision would "effectively kill" the project, said Michael Brune, executive director for the Sierra Club. "The carrying costs are too high, and there’s no certainty that at the end of 18 months the pipeline would be approved at all."
As reported in an earlier story by The New American, the Keystone pipeline was originally proposed in February 2005. It has suffered from intermittent delays throughout each phase of its development. Keystone XL, the extension which would expand the pipeline's reach to the southern region of the United States, is now awaiting final approval from the Obama administration; however, the State Department’s rerouting verdict has shattered federal officials’ pledge that a decision would be made by the end of the year.