Stop the NGO Anti-Energy Menace …. Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

The ”new energy” comes out of the proclamations by non-government, non-accountable, and totally irresponsible organizations like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, D. Suzuki Foundation, 350-org, Avaaz, and their THOUSANDS of offshoots, affiliates, sympathizers, hangers-on, and totally blind, deaf, and entirely misled cohorts.

Just look at Greenpeace’s latest demonstration at the hotel of the G7-Energy-Ministers in Germany, on May 12, 2015, at Hamburg, Germany, a prelude to this year’s COP-21 conference at Paris; see the picture below.

Green Peace logo

Let me translate their message on the yellow signs: “STOP COAL & NUCLEAR [power]!”

Charlatans, Idiots, and NGOs

To begin with, both coal and nuclear power are critical components of the energy infrastructure of many nations. Carbon dioxide (the product of burning coal, or wood or other carbon-based materials) has a minimal effect on atmospheric temperature, i.e., the “climate.” Anyone claiming different is a charlatan, idiot, or NGO affiliate.

The 400+ nuclear power plants in the world have had an exemplary safety record for well over half a century. Of the three major problems experienced over that time, the one in the Ukraine (Chernobyl, 1986) was due to un-authorized experiments with manual override of vital safety systems. The second one, at Fukushima (Japan, 2011) would have been entirely avoidable with proper planning and design for that tsunami-sensitive coast. The third event, a genuine accident, at the Three Mile Island plant (U.S., 1979) was well contained due to the existing safety systems; its consequences were negligible as there were no injuries or adverse health effects from it. Over all, a superb safety record of the nuclear power generation systems all around the globe.

Orders of Magnitude

The unfortunate truth is that the “non-governmental organisation” (NGO) zealots have no clue about the orders of (energy) magnitudes involved. For example, in the U.S., with an estimated total of 50,000 wind turbines in place, their combined contribution to the used energy is less than 1% — when the wind blows. The solar power panels deliver a similar amount — when the sun shines.

It is nothing but a myth to think that all that energy used for driving vehicles, trains, machinery, and industry and for lighting and heating (especially at night) can be supplied from such intermittent sources in the amounts required by industrialized nations in the latitudes where they are located. That kind of expectation or claim is simply irrational and idiotic.


Coal alone powers in the order of one half of the world’s need for heat and energy. In developed countries like the U.S., Canada, France and many others, that fraction is somewhat lower and compensated for by natural gas and oil (both also “fossil” fuels) and nuclear power. In the populous countries of China and India, comprising about 1/3 of the total world population, coal alone provides over 50% of the power need. World production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas have been rising and continue to do so. China alone produces and consumes almost one half of the whole world’s production of coal by itself.

There are large areas with coal deposits on every continent, even on Antarctica. In the U.S. alone, there is enough coal in the ground to last for many centuries. Also, coal is easy to transport and to store without concern. King Coal still reigns as the world’s most important power source.

Oil and Gas

Crude oil as extracted from underground and bitumen deposits is the source of another large portion of the world’s energy needs. Refined into gasoline for automotive use, kerosene for aviation use, heating oil for heating purposes, crude oil provides roughly one third of the world’s energy needs. It also is the base from which most “plastic” materials and the feed-stocks for a multitude of chemical materials are made.
Natural gas deposits are found on all continents and with new production methods the supplies have become extremely abundant. In fact, the world is awash in natural gas.

Nuclear -Switzerland

Most developed countries are providing base-load supplies of electric power to their grids with nuclear energy. In the U.S., it’s to the tune of about 20% of all electricity consumed. Other countries have a much higher nuclear power proportion like, for example, France with 80-90%. Other European countries are also expanding their production of nuclear power. Even small Switzerland that is blessed with much water (Hydro) energy resources has five nuclear power plants that produce approximately 40% of the country’s electricity. On a per capita basis that’s one nuclear power plant for each 1.5 million residents. Similarly, the Czech Rep., Hungary and other nations are building new and expanding their current nuclear power facilities.


Despite the abundant fossil oil and natural gas resources of the country, approximately 20% of Russia’s electricity need is generated by nuclear plants. Currently, the country intends to double the number of its operating nuclear power plants to 60.


Even Japan, which shut down nearly all nuclear facilities after the seaquake-caused tsunami that wiped out the power plant Fukushima (NOT designed to withstand that type of event previously known to occur in the area) is in the process of restarting many of them. The only holdup is some legal wrangling in the courts; it’s likely to be resolved soon.

Nuclear-China & India

Both China and India are in the process of designing and building new nuclear power facilities. Altogether in the order of 100 new plants, depending on the time frame you look at. For example, China has currently 21 plants in operation and an additional 28 plants under construction.

India has a similar number of plants in operation and is also planning to build more facilities. In addition, the country is undertaking research to use thorium as nuclear fuel.


What’s happening in Germany is just about the opposite of what’s happening anywhere else in the world. The government there has fallen lock, stock and barrel into believing the claims by the greenies and their cohorts. So far, it has not become a problem but if these crazy energy goals are pursued much longer it certainly will. Then, the country is going to become an energy pauper that must rely on “electricity handouts” from its neighbors all around.

Even with a multiple of the thousands of wind-turbines and photovoltaic cells covering the landscape in Germany at this time, there would be nowhere near enough energy to supply the need for a reliable energy supply. That’s even before the idea of converting gasoline or diesel-consuming cars and trucks to electric battery-driven engines ever gets much traction.

Moreover, the ideas of building large water reservoirs high up in the Alps to store intermittent wind and solar electric power is a pipedream. There simply wouldn’t be enough space, suitable geography and water to do so. Switzerland has some of such reservoirs high up in their mountains but their total energy storage capacities are more like a drop of water on a hot stone.

Stop the NGO Menace

Germany would be well advised to follow the leads of Canada, China, India, and Russia by curtailing the counter-societal activities of NGOs like Greenpeace by prohibiting their political interference, their misleading and false claims, their political activities, their participation in and influence on official committees and events. Unelected and un-accountable NGOs must be limited or prohibited to accept funding from sources outside the country, and ought to be required to complete regular and detailed accounts of their financial affairs and use of funds.

Irresponsible NGOs like Greenpeace are running roughshod over societies. It’s high time to stop that menace!

NGO means Non Governmental Organization and defines any organization that does not include any government or government appointed representatives in their membership. They are usually also not-for-profit and are very often involved in providing information about their cause to government bodies (similar to lobbyists). Some examples are Amnesty International and GreenPeace.

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts

The Environmental Insane Asylum By Alan Caruba

Earth Day was declared in 1970 and for the past 45 years we have all been living in the Environmental Insane Asylum, being told over and over again to believe things that are the equivalent of Green hallucinations. Now the entire month of April has been declared Earth Month, but in truth not a day goes by when we are not assailed with the bold-faced lies that comprise environmentalism.

Around the globe, the worst part of this is that we are being victimized by people we are told to respect from the President of the United States to the Pope of the Catholic Church. Their environmentalism is pure socialism.

Organizations whom we expect to tell the truth keep telling us that “climate change is one of the biggest global security threats of the 21st century.” This was a recent statement by “world leaders” like the G7, a group of finance ministers and central bank governors of seven advanced economies, the International Monetary Fund, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States. On April 17 they adopted a report about the “threat” put together by think tanks that included the European Union Institute for Security Studies and the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.

When I speak of “climate” I am referring to data gathered not just about decades, but centuries of the Earth’s cycles of warming and cooling. When I speak of “weather”, the closest any of us get to it other than today’s, are local predictions no longer than a few days’ time at best. The weather is in a constant state of flux.

Climate change is not a threat and most certainly there is no global warming. As Prof. Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook College in Queensland, Australia, has written, “For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco.”

The fact that the Earth is now into the nineteenth year of a natural planetary cooling cycle seems to never be acknowledged or reported. “The problem here,” says Prof. Carter, “is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike.”

In a book I recommend to everyone, “Climate for the Layman” by Anthony Bright-Paul, he draws on the best well-known science about the Earth noting that “Since there is no such thing as a temperature of the whole Earth all talk of global warming is simply illogical, ill thought out, and needs to be discarded for the sake of clarity. The globe is warming and cooling in different locations concurrently every minute of the day and night.”

“Since it is abundantly clear that there is no one temperature of the atmosphere all talk of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is simply an exercise in futility.” A look at the globe from either of its two poles to its equator and everything in between tells us with simple logic that being able to determine its “temperature” is impossible. The Earth, however, has gone through numerous warming and cooling cycles, all of which were the result of more or less solar radiation.

The Sun was and is the determining factor. The assertion that humans have any influence or impact that can determine whether the Earth is warmer or cooler is absurd.

The Earth had passed through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years before humans even existed, yet we are told that the generation of carbon dioxide through the use of machinery in manufacturing, transportation or any other use is causing the build-up of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. We are told to give up the use of coal, oil and natural gas. That is a definition of insanity!

Here’s the simple truth that most people are not told: The Sun warms the Earth and the Earth warms the atmosphere.

As for carbon dioxide, the amount generated by human activity represents a miniscule percentage of the 0.04% in the Earth’s atmosphere. There has been more carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere—well before humans existed—contributing to the growth of all manner of vegetation which in turn generated oxygen.

Without carbon dioxide there would be no life on Earth. It feeds the vegetation on which animal life depends directly and indirectly. As Anthony Bright-Paul says, “A slight increase in atmosphere of carbon dioxide will not and cannot produce any warming, but can be hugely beneficial to a green planet.”

The Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon, 0.04% Carbon Dioxide, and the rest is water vapor and trace gases in very small amounts. They interact to provide an environment in which life, animal and vegetable, exists on Earth.

When you live in a Global Environmental Insane Asylum, you are not likely to hear or read the truth, but you can arrive at it using simple logic. We know instinctively that humans do not control the waves of our huge oceans, nor the vast tectonic plates beneath our feet, the eruptions of volcanoes, the Jetstream, cloud formation, or any of the elements of the weather we experience, such as thunder, lightning, and other acts of Nature.

Why would we blindly assume or agree to the torrent of lies that humans are “causing” climate change? The answer is that on Earth Day, Wednesday, April 22, we will be deluged with the propaganda of countless organizations worldwide that we are, in fact, endangering a “fragile” planet Earth. We hear and read that every other day of the year as well.

The achievement of the human race and the last 5,000 years of so-called civilization is the way we have learned to adapt to Nature by creating habitats from villages to cities in which to survive and because we have devised a vast global agricultural and ranching system to feed seven billion of us.

As for the weather, John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, says he cringes “when I hear overstated confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next one hundred years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.”

“Mother Nature,” says Christy, “simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, behind the mastery of mere mortals—such as scientists—and the tools available to us.”

Whether it is the President or the Pope, or the countless politicians and bureaucrats, along with multitudes of “environmental” organizations, as well as self-serving “scientists”, all aided by the media, a virtual Green Army has been deliberately deceiving and misleading the citizens of planet Earth for four and a half decades. It won’t stop any time soon, but it must before the charade of environmentalism leaves us all enslaved by the quest for political control over our lives that hides behind it.

We must escape the Environmental Insane Asylum in which they want us to live.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

The Obama Climate Monarchy by Paul Driessen

ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons remains on track. In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant.

And yet President Obama remains fixated on one obsession: dangerous manmade climate change. He blames it for everything from global temperatures that have been stable for 18 years, to hurricanes that have not made US landfall for nearly 9.5 years, and even asthma and allergies. He is determined to use it to impose energy, environmental and economic policies that will “fundamentally transform” our nation.

He launched his war on coal with a promise that companies trying to build new coal-fired power plants would go bankrupt; implemented policies that caused oil and gas production to plunge 6% on federal lands, even as it rose 60% on state and private lands; proclaimed that he will compel the United States to slash its carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and 80% by 2050; and wants electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” His Environmental Protection Agency has led the charge.

EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water, saying this will prevent IQ losses of an undetectable “0.00209 points.” On top of its recent “Clean Power Plan,” EPA is taking over what used to be state roles, demanding that states meet CO2-reduction mandates by reorganizing the “production, distribution and use of electricity.” The agency justifies this latest power grab through a tortured 1,200-page reinterpretation of a 290-word section of the Clean Air Act.

The injuries, abuses and usurpations have become too numerous to count, and involve nearly every federal agency – as the President seeks to make the states and Executive and Judicial Branches irrelevant in his new monarchical “do as I tell you, because I say so, or else” system of government.

Now even the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is getting involved, by dramatically retooling the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their significant decision-making actions on “the quality of the human environment,” anytime they issue permits for projects, provide government funding or conduct the projects themselves.

The law has avoided many needless impacts but has also enabled activists to delay or block projects they oppose on ideological grounds. The new White House/CEQ “guidelines” were issued on Christmas Eve 2014, to minimize public awareness and response. They require that federal agencies henceforth consider potential impacts on climate change, whenever they provide permits, approvals or funding for any federal, state or private sector projects, on the assumption that such projects will always affect Earth’s climate.

Problems with the new diktats are far too numerous for a single article, but several demand discussion.

First, CEQ uses US carbon dioxide emissions as proxy for climate change. This assumes CO2 is now the dominant factor in climate and weather events, and all the powerful natural forces that ruled in past centuries, millennia and eons are irrelevant. It presumes any increases in US “greenhouse gases” correlate directly with national and global climate and weather events, and any changes will be harmful. It also considers emissions from China and other countries to be irrelevant to any agency calculations.

Second, CEQ employs the same “social cost of carbon” analyses that other agencies are using to justify appliance, vehicle and other efficiency and emission standards. This SCC assessment will now examine alleged international harm up to 300 years in the future, from single project emissions in the United States, despite it being impossible to demonstrate any proximate relationship between asserted global climate changes and any US project emissions (which are generally minuscule globally).

Moreover, the entire SCC analysis is based on arbitrary, fabricated, exaggerated and manipulated costs, with no benefits assigned or acknowledged for using hydrocarbons to improve, safeguard and save countless lives – or for the role that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide plays in improving crop and other plant growth, thereby feeding more people, greening our planet and bolstering wildlife habitats.

Third, the expensive, time-consuming, useless, impossible exercise is made even more absurd by CEQ’s proposed requirement that agencies somehow calculate the adverse global climatic impacts of any federally approved project that could emit up to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalents per year. A single shopping mall, hospital or stretch of busy highway could meet this threshold – triggering endless “paralysis by analysis,” environmentalist litigation, delays and cost overruns.

Fourth, CEQ also wants agencies to somehow evaluate “upstream” and “downstream” emissions. In cases reviewing highway or hospital projects, this would entail examining emissions associated with mining, processing, shipping and using cement, steel, other building materials and heavy equipment before and during construction – and then assessing emissions associated with people and goods that might conceivably be transported to or from the facility or along the highway following construction.

CEQ likewise wants project proponents to offset these alleged impacts with equally spurious mitigation projects, which will themselves by subjected to still more analyses, contention, litigation and delays.

Fifth, the proposed CEQ guidelines would supposedly evaluate any and all adverse impacts allegedly caused by climate changes supposedly resulting from fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. But they do not require federal agencies to assess harms resulting from projects delayed or blocked because of the new climate directives. Thus agencies would endlessly ponder rising seas and more frequent and/or severe hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts that they might attribute to particular projects.

However, they would not consider the many ways people would be made less safe by an analytical process that results in more serious injuries and deaths, when highway improvements, better levees and other flood protections, modern hospitals and other important facilities are delayed or never built.

Nor has CEQ factored in the roles of ideologically motivated anti-development bureaucrats in the federal agencies – or the ways Big Green campaigns and lawsuits are sponsored by wealthy far-left foundations, Russian money laundered through a Bermuda law firm, and even grants from the government agencies.

Sixth, in many cases, the CEQ rules could actually be counterproductive even to the Administration’s purported energy and environmental goals. Its war on coal is intended to replace coal mines and power plants with “more climate-friendly” natural gas. However, CEQ’s new guidelines for methane and carbon dioxide could delay or prevent leasing, drilling, fracking, production, pipelining and export of new gas. That would hardly seem a desirable outcome – unless the real purpose is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, increase energy prices, compel a faster transition to unreliable wind and solar power, cause more brownouts and blackouts, destroy jobs, reduce living standards, and keep more people dependent on government welfare and thus likely to vote Democrat.

NEPA is supposed to improve the overall “quality of the human environment,” and thus human health and welfare. That means all its components, not merely those the President and his Executive Branch agencies want to focus on, as they seek to use climate change to justify shutting down as much fossil fuel use as possible, in an economy that is still 82% dependent on hydrocarbons.

The CEQ and White House violate the letter, spirit and intent of NEPA when they abuse it to protect us from exaggerated or imaginary climate risks decades from now – by hobbling job creation, families, human health and welfare, and environmental quality tomorrow. That their actions will impact poor, minorities and working classes most of all makes the CEQ proposal even more pernicious.

When will our Congress, courts and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?

Perverse Climate “Morality” by Paul Driessen

You’ve got to admit, liberal are masters at describing every initiative they launch as “the moral thing to do.” Their campaign for draconian energy regulations and a new global warming treaty is no exception. Protecting people, wildlife and ecosystems from climate catastrophes is the greatest moral cause of our time, alarmist scientists, activists, politicians, bureaucrats, clerics and journalists insist. Rubbish.

It has nothing to do with morality. It’s all about money, power and control. It narrowly defines “morality” to ignore the incredible benefits that fossil fuels and electricity bring to people everywhere – while dismissing the enormous harm their policies will wreak on families and ecological values that they profess to care so much about. And it makes no mention of the fact that they will rarely, if ever, be held accountable for their falsehoods and fraudulent science, or the damage and deaths they cause.

On March 31, President Obama promised to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 emission levels by 2025 and 80% by 2050, taking us back to Civil War era emission levels, 150 years ago. He wants U.S. taxpayers to contribute our “fair share” to a new UN $100-billion-per-year UN slush fund to help poor countries adapt to and mitigate rising seas, storms and other climate change disasters that our plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions allegedly cause. He instructed his federal agencies to implement a host of new rules prior to the December 2015 United Nations climate conference in Paris.

Mr. Obama’s EPA will use “Clean Power Plan” and other regulations to shutter more coal-fired generating plants, issue new methane rules for landfills and natural gas production, funnel countless millions of dollars to activist and propaganda groups, and use sue and settle lawsuits to impose even tighter restrictions. FEMA will require that states use CO2-based computer models to determine how manmade climate change threatens communities, if they want disaster preparedness funding.

The Council on Environmental Quality will require that all applicants for federal project permits fully evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and potential impacts on climate change, to the satisfaction of bureaucrats and litigious Big Green pressure groups. The Department of Energy will issue new efficiency standards that double the cost of pickup trucks and appliances, and spend more taxpayer billions on wind, solar and biofuel loans and subsidies. The Interior Department will close more federal lands to drilling, and exempt more wind and solar projects from endangered species and other environmental laws.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation and World Bank will refuse to lend money for coal-fired power plants, and even most gas-fueled generators and hydroelectric facilities, in developing countries.

These actions will have disastrous consequences. According to the Heritage Foundation, NERA economic consultants and other experts, EPA’s actions alone will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and a $100-billion loss in gross domestic product. By 2030, America’s electricity output will drop by nearly 10% even as we add 54 million people to our population. Brownouts and blackouts will occur regularly, and we will be told to get used to using expensive electricity when it’s available, instead of when we need it.

Poor, minority and blue-collar families will have to find thousands of dollars a year for soaring electricity, vehicle and appliance costs. Small businesses will have to find tens of thousands of dollars to keep the heat and lights on. Factories, malls, school districts, hospitals and cities will have to pay millions more.

Millions of middle class workers will get laid off – in coal mines, power plants, factories, shops and other businesses. Entire families and communities will be impoverished. Bread winners lucky enough to find work will be forced to work multiple jobs, commute longer distances, and suffer severe sleep deprivation.

Families will have to cope with more stress, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse. Nutrition and medical care will suffer. More people will have strokes and heart attacks. More will die. But the White House, EPA and other federal agencies studiously ignore these impacts. The only moral issue they want to talk about is alleged impacts from exaggerated and fabricated manmade climate change.

Two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees survive cold winters by huddling in warm waters that flow from coal-fired power plants. EPA’s plant closures could cause hundreds of them to die, while millions of birds and bats will be slaughtered every year by proliferating wind turbines.

Meanwhile, thousands of elderly people perish every winter from hypothermia, because they can no longer afford to heat their home properly, due to soaring electricity costs under Britain’s climate policies.

In poor countries, millions already die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, because of polluted air from open cooking fires, filthy water, spoiled food, substandard hospitals and squalid living conditions – because billions still do no have access to electricity. Imagine your life following hurricanes or other natural disasters that make electricity and safe water unavailable for a week or month. Then picture living that way for decades on end. White House, World Bank and OPIC policies will save people from “climate disasters” decades from now by killing them tomorrow. This they pass off as morality.

In the years since EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, tens of millions of Africans and Asians died from malaria. Now his daughter is promoting similarly deadly policies, as lead author for the National Climate Assessment, which hypes every exaggerated and imaginary climate scare imaginable. Other Big Green and Climate Crisis radicals oppose GMO crops and chemical fertilizers, and insist that starving, energy deprived families limit their living standards to what is dictated by climate activists and supported by wind, solar and biofuels. The death tolls continue to mount.

African Development Bank’s president Donald Kaberuka says poor nations will no longer tolerate these hypocritical, lethal policies. His bank will continue loaning money for coal-fired generating units. But in a perverse irony, the absence of World Bank and OPIC money means those projects will not have sufficient funding to install modern, readily available pollution controls. So millions of families will finally have electricity and won’t be sickened by wood and dung fires, but new pollutants will needlessly afflict them.

Japan is also financing coal-fired power plants in Japan, India and Bangladesh – often using Green Climate Fund money! It points out that these high-efficiency units burn coal with less pollution and fewer carbon dioxide emissions than older plants – and stresses the importance of helping impoverished countries get reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, improve living standards and save lives.

China, India, Germany, Poland and other countries are also building coal-fueled power plants at a steady clip. And Russia says it will “comply” with any new treaty primarily by emphasizing CO2 reductions due to absorption by forests. At this rate, the United States will soon be the only nation that strangles its economy and imperils people’s health and welfare in the name of stopping climate change.

But the Obama Administration is imposing its authoritarian policies anyway – and justifying them by falsifying temperature data and ignoring the reality that: (1) rising carbon dioxide levels are improving crop and tree growth; (2) temperature, hurricane, sea ice and other trends contradict climate models and manmade disaster hysteria; and (3) any human influences on the climate are drowned out by the sun, deep ocean circulation patterns and other powerful natural forces. No wonder alarmists won’t debate skeptics.

Earth’s climate and weather will continue changing, because the forces driving them are always in flux. We simply have to adjust to them. But Obama prefers the Lewis Carroll approach to climate and morality.

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less,” Humpty Dumpty told Alice, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Alice replied. No, Humpty responded. “The question is, who is to be master, that’s all.”

We the People must not let Obama & Co. be our master. Congress can and should refuse to ratify any climate treaty. It can and should defund these totalitarian initiatives. The next president can and should review and revoke every one. States can and should challenge them in court and refuse to knuckle under.

Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness by Ross McKitrick

Its ideas would send the West back 100 years and keep poor nations impoverished and wretched

A few years ago, a journalist asked me for my thoughts on the importance of
“Earth Hour” – which was reprised this past weekend. What I told him applies
today, perhaps even more so.

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source
of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in
the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable

Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the
availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic
chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on
the same thing, as well as on the ability to provide safe indoor lighting
for reading.

Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is
absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion
of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook
and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of safe hot water.

Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own
homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs
and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke-
and parasite-related lung diseases.

Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the Third World should
realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based
power generating stations. After all, that’s how the West developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do
that. Instead, I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.
Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness.

By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation, it becomes an hour devoted
to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off
trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some
ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically
retaining and enjoying the real benefits of continuous, reliable

People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their
fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other
appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the
hospital and shut the power off there, too.

I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes,
floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For
humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence,
disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief
from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and
advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the
1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply. If, after all
this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions
outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed
into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been
caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an
absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane
obligations. No thanks.

I like visiting nature, but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to
accept the idea that civilization with all its tradeoffs is something to be
ashamed of.

Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, a
Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato