CONCLUSIONS. (Part 3)

Are there options to replace those coal fired power plants?
Are they viable?
Are they affordable?

A cutback of one third of those coal fired plants means replacing fifty plants in the large baseload area, fifty plants of 2000MW size, and if it is to be considered seriously, then those mid sized peaking plants that are coal fired as well need to be replaced, because a 15% cutback in the total production of electrical power in the US amounts to around 150,000MW of power that need to be replaced.
In earlier posts I detailed each of those proposed replacements. A quick summarising shows that the answer is not a simple one easily come by.

Gas fired combined cycle power plants.
These can be used for medium sized plants for up to 1000MW maximum, but mostly are around 400 to 800MW. The nature of this type of plant make them unsuitable for long term running, so that puts them in the class of Peaking power. Currently, these type of plants are the ones that are being constructed more than any others because they are the quickest to come on line from the time of turning the first sod to completion date. They still use a fossil fuel to drive the turbine, and there are numerous gases that can be used, Propane, LNG, and of late, the newer and seemingly quite attractive Coal Seam Gas. These gases burn efficiently. They are also the most efficient because the heat generated from the exhaust of the turbine is used to drive a second turbine/generator unit. They release significantly less CO2 that those coal fired plants. The drawback is that because of the nature of the jet turbine, they cannot be used for constant baseload power. The cost for a medium sized plant in ballpark terms is around $800 Million, and can be brought on line in around 18 months.

Geothermal Plants.
These plants could be used for baseload power. Provided that the technology can be proven, they provide a good option. What is problematic is the instability of the geological formation and whether or not it can be proven to stay hot enough for long enough for the time needed for a plant of this type to remain in service. The main problem is that unlike other plants that can be built close to water, with these plants, the water needs to be brought to the plant, and brought there in large quantities, hence huge infrastructure costs for the pipes and the numerous large pumps required to move that water. Then the infrastructure for the transmission lines will also need to be constructed adding further to the cost. Even though viable at a pinch, they would be enormously expensive, so funding would be required from Government sources as well as private backing added to the Authority funding, all these costs of necessity being passed to the consumer.

Tidal power and Wave power.
Again, the theory is good. Using the motion of water to drive turbines is a process proven in the two methods of existing large and small scale Hydro power production (Run of river, and pumped storage) that of using the motion of water to drive turbines. However these two processes are only in their infancy, and are only being used in very small scale operation. If the process could be scaled up, the time line would be similar for what Hydro is, with a dam, and it would also be enormously expensive.

These are the smaller options, There are other ‘boutique’ processes, but in the main they are still experimental, small scale, not yet proven as reliable and still decades away from supplying small scale power only.
That then leaves us with the big three that are being touted as the saviour in this situation, the ones that people point at and say that here is the answer. The fact is somewhat different, keeping in mind that even I am a ‘glass half full’ type of guy. Each of these three processes has drawbacks, and those drawbacks are not simple things that we can just work out as we go along.

Wind Power.
Environmentalist would have you believe that this is a major part of the solution. I’m not knocking them but they know the environment ….. intimately, so that is their field of strength, and not the production of electrical power. The inherent problem here is the variability of the wind. To get around that they need to be placed in high wind areas, which sort of defeats the purpose somewhat. Then, each of those huge towers and rotating blades are very, very, big, and only produce around 3MW to 5MW for each structure, so you would need literally hundreds of them. Because of the variability of the wind, they cannot be used for stable baseload power, so are best used in peaking power applications. Keep in mind that if it is to be used to replace one large 2000MW, then you will need 400 to 600 of them, and because they are at best only 30% efficient, you’re looking at multiplying that number by three. What then becomes problematic is the area those towers need to cover, the time for manufacture of the towers and the nacelles with the generators in them, the infrastructure to get that power to the consumers, and the time need to actually construct all of that. The principle of Wind power is a good one, but they will only ever be used for small scale power production for peaking power.

Solar Power.
There are two versions of this solar power, photovoltaics which use the light shining onto solar panels to generate tiny amounts of electricity with hundreds of these tiny cells per panel, and then connecting thousands of those panels together, and the second being solar thermal using the sun shining on mirrors to heat water to steam etc.
This is looked to as the light on the horizon, literally, but again is still variable at best. As soon as a cloud scuds across the face of the Sun, output power shrinks by almost a third and then takes time to work back up. Long periods of cloud deplete considerably the power output. Also, because there is no way to store the electricity, the power is zero during the night time.
The talk of covering vast areas of hot sunny places with mirrors to produce the power is ludicrous. You’re talking of literally millions of mirrors, for not that much in the way of power. The thermal part of the equation has potential using water to boil salt, that salt staying hot during the night boiling water to steam etc, but again the technology is also still in its infancy. As is plainly obvious from this short explanation, the time taken to actually construct the delicately designed mirrors and the solar panels is not a short term thing. Also, the cost of this process is horrendously expensive, and if constructed on large scales would have to be passed on to consumers in the way of higher power bills, and considerably higher.
Solar power again is not the answer for a large scale problem as this is. This process will be used for small scale peaking power plants to augment the power grid in times of most need. The solar thermal option as I mentioned has potential, but again, is enormously expensive when you’re talking of large scale implementation.

Carbon Capture and Storage. The Clean Coal Option.
This is the much touted answer. We get to keep the coal fired baseload plants, because all we have to do is to extract the carbon from the superheated exhaust going up those (thin) stacks. Then we just extract the CO2 part of that exhaust. Then we cool it and liquify that CO2. Then we pump it through hundreds and thousands of miles of pipes with pumps every so often to keep the pressure up. Then we store it onsite. Then we pump it back into the ground to store it between layers of rock for all time. What you need to keep in mind here is that we are talking of millions of tons of CO2,each and every year into the future. As you were reading those previous few sentences, my guess is that the enormity of the situation might have come to you. This is not an easy process, and is not in fact an inexpensive option either.
No, this is enormously expensive. It also is yet to be proven. Solar power, wind power, geothermal, power production from gas, all these options have many plants all over the Planet.
Not one plant of this type is in operation anywhere, not even as an experiment. Sectors of the process are being worked on with small scales, but this option is still only theoretical. The underground areas where the liquid CO2 will be stored haven’t even been found yet, other than being told we can use existing depleted oil fields. At best, and if the processes theory can be proved at all, it cannot be brought into mass usage on a scale needed before 2035 at the absolute earliest.
Why this option is being pursued at all is that the burning of coal on the scale used for power production consumes more than ONE BILLION TONS OF COAL EACH AND EVERY YEAR. Coal currently sells at $150 per ton, so a one third reduction in coal usage is a financial hit that coal mining companies just cannot take. That is what is driving this option, and you’ll hear a lot of it in coming times from politicians who are from those coal mining States, because those States also receive royalties from the mining of coal in their State.

THE BIG PICTURE.
The realisation is slowly sinking in that huge coal fired baseload power in the capacity around 2000MW cannot be simply replaced. There are no hard and fast large scale options that can be used for this purpose.
At the moment in the US, you are actually driving the rest of the World. Each individual process is being developed in other Countries, but in the US you are finding ways to replace power on the scale required. The US uses coal for 50% of its total, while the rest of the Planet’s average is close on 75% The US is moving away from using coal fired plants. The rest of the World is ramping up their construction.
The US is producing 3.5% of its total power from those alternative sources and that percentage is rising each month as evidenced from the monthly pie charts from the EIA, the rest of the World produces less than 1% of its power from alternative sources, and that is shrinking.
Options need to be found, and the best thing is also looked upon as the worst thing.
Time.
Because time is needed to actually construct these replacements.

There is an individual process that can be used to assist in this replacement process, one that is an older type, so it tends to be overlooked. That process is Combined heating and Power, and can be used in the commercial and industrial areas, so each of those areas can incorporate into their buildings the power plant to supply all their electrical needs for heating, airconditioning and all their own power.

Also, now that time has come back into the equation, then options not really deemed acceptable also come back into the picture. Large scale hydro electric plants, and I’m not talking hundreds of these, say a couple of large scale schemes similar to what was done in Australia with the Snowy Mountains Scheme, using snow melt to fill dams to drive hydro plants. Nuclear Power plants now also come back into the equation also. The safety aspect is not a problem any more as these are so highly regulated that they are safer than any other type of plant for the production of electrical power. I’m also not talking numerous Nuclear plants, just three or four large ones in strategic positions where there are large concentrations of power consumers, keeping in mind the biggest users are the industrial and commercial sectors, the residential sector only consuming 38% of all power.

No, the process is well under way in the US, keeping in mind that you are the only Country not to ratify Kyoto, and are actually the only Country working hard at the task of actually finding replacements.

Kyoto calls for the US to build replacements, to pay carbon taxes for producing power from coal fired means, to assist with their construction in those developing Countries, and to pay the money to have them constructed in those Countries.

The carbon tax alone has been mooted at close to Trillions. To replace power plants in your own Country will cost the same. To do it elsewhere on the Planet, then double the other two numbers added together.

Kyoto might be a document for preserving the environment, but the cost will be horrendously and incredibly, even unimaginably huge, and you in the US are expected by the United Nations to foot this bill.

NOW DO YOU SEE WHY THE US DID NOT SIGN THE KYOTO PROTOCOL.

M. Zuhdi Jasser will participate in Pat McMahon’s - The McMahon Group- to air, today, Sunday, July 6, 2008 from 4PM-5PM PST on KTAR News Radio 92.3 FM in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. Jasser will join Pat and along with Diane Brennan and Anna Ramirez to discuss citizenship and immigration.

It can also be heard on the web streaming at the KTAR Website (Just click ‘Listen Now” in the upper right corner of the homepage).

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona.

Exclusive: Islamism and the So-called ‘Muslim Voting Bloc’: Shades of Theocracy

M. Zuhdi Jasser

The modus operandi for the political empowerment of Islamists in America is in full public display during every election cycle. The sad part is few realize how central “Islamic politics” is to the driving force of transnational Islamism and its threat to American security. The incessant attempts by American Islamist groups (like the MAS, CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA to name a few) to collectivize Muslims in the body politic - from voter registrations to their ideological grievance mill - point to their goals.

What better way to push forth a quasi-theocratic political agenda than to deceive the Muslim faithful into believing that their political survival as a minority in America depends upon the mixture of their faith identity with their political identity? These same Islamists spread the ideology of victimization and identity politics among any Muslims who will listen while they internally promote political Islam and Islamist statecraft within the ummah (Muslim community). They use their efforts at Muslim electoral involvement to exploit the spiritual ummah for political purposes. Most importantly, many in the mainstream media (MSM) and government turn to them to purportedly speak for the American Muslim population, even though they have no mandate or significant membership to do so.

The fact is that they (the Wahhabi lobby working in tandem with for what all practical purposes appears to be the international Muslim Brotherhood network) only speak for their memberships, organizations, and donors while certainly not representing the majority of American Muslims. But, what better way for them to cultivate future Islamists than to teach them and non-suspecting American media and government that the faith of Islam is intertwined with their political activism?

Forget party affiliation when they can indoctrinate their Muslim brethren that the Muslim ummah should become their political platform for societal and legal change and division. The mission is clear - first, build a political Muslim identity which drives the activism of American Muslims in their sway. Then, once that bond is created, slip in the agenda of political Islam driven by a domestic and foreign policy agenda which favors the interests of Islamists in government over other ideologies. Motivating a Muslim ‘bloc vote’ is based upon this paradigm of Islamism for the Islamist minority.

Minority politics and the Islamist Agenda in America

In Western nations like the United States where Muslims are a small minority (less than 2% of the population) in a free election system where the laws of the land are secular, Islamist organizations must be far more cunning. They have quickly co-opted the propaganda of victimology and identity politics in order to collectivize American Muslims under their Islamist banners and exploit the grand deception that Muslims are monolithic. Forget the diversity of political opinions within the Muslim community. Forget the wide spectra of political ideology in both domestic and foreign policy with which devout Muslims may agree or disagree. The Islamist movement depends upon the motivating propaganda of victimology and identity while dismissing any genuine ideological debate on issues vital to America first.

Since 2000, these same eleven American Muslim organizations have set out to empower a “Muslim voting bloc.” They then formed the American Muslim Political Coordination Committee-PAC. Back in 2000 on the heels of their lukewarm endorsement of then-Gov. George W. Bush they, along with many other ‘American voting blocs’, went on to claim credit for President Bush’s narrow victory. This year, the same PAC is moving toward a similar strategy claiming that the three priorities for Muslim voters are civil rights, a fair immigration policy, and ending the war in Iraq. This is clearly an Islamist agenda focused on victimology, identity politics, and the advocacy of Islamist interests in Iraq and abroad.

Talk to non-Islamist Muslims not affiliated with these organizations and you will find an agenda which more closely mirrors that of general America - the economy, health care, and national security. The Islamist agenda is simply to exaggerate their Muslim grievance mill so that candidates who are loath to be identified as anti-Muslim will divert the attention of the nation completely away from the national security problems associated with various Muslim ideologies contained within the global movements of political Islam. Again, gone is any discussion of an approach nationally to the forces of global political Islam - other than appeasement.

The Deception of Islamist Collectivism

This Islamist agenda will certainly peak the interests of national media who love a story which pigeon holes voters into bite size demographics - like the “Muslim voter.” Sadly, this deception, no matter what the poll data says about how Muslims vote, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy a decade in the make due to the unbalanced Islamist influence in American mainstream media and foreign Muslim media rather than from any real manifestation of Muslim ideologies. The logic of the Muslim voter is no different than the logic of a Christian voter in a nation which is majority Christian. Certainly, Islamists as a subset of Muslims, who are politically and theocratically-driven Muslims, are a relevant discussion during elections and from a national security perspective. But again, most Muslims are not Islamists. Rather, they look at political issues based upon the political platforms of established American party politics and ideologies - not Islamist politics.

Islamism feeds upon this toxic mixture of religion and politics. It is fueled by the ideologies spewed from the political mosque, pulpit, and imam. Islamism derives its nuclear energy from a much deeper desire to ultimately implement Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence) in government whether covertly or overtly. From the international Muslim Brotherhood, to the global metastases by petrodollars of Wahhabi ideology to the national manifestations of Islamism in the eleven groups of the AMT-PAC these organizations are all about the political empowerment of the Islamist agenda in national politics much more than they have anything to do with the personal faith of Muslims.

A typical example is the electoral antics of the Muslim American Society. Mahdi Bray, for example, stated the following after the victory of James Webb in the Virginia senate race of 2006:

“We delivered 80 percent of the eligible voting Muslims to the polls,” Bray said in July at an Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society convention in Hartford, Conn. “48,000 Muslims voted in Virginia. 93 percent of them voted for Webb, seven percent voted for Allen. Webb won by a slim margin of 9,000 votes. Now I don’t care how you slice it, dice it and I don’t care whether you are a mathematician or not, you can figure this out, that if 48,000 Muslims voted and 90 percent of them voted for the successful candidate, then certainly, and he only won by a 9,000 vote margin - we made a difference.”

Linda Keay of IPT News notes that these numbers were never independently verified. But, what is most interesting is that the shear demagoguery of Bray’s statement again paints a clear picture of the modus operands of Islamists in the United States. They seek to collectivize Muslims in electoral politics and whenever possible in order to spread the impression of their tribal control of the Muslim community and exert pressure on media and government to appease the agenda of political Islam in America.

Empowering Islamist Movements hampers anti-Islamists

It is certainly within the rights of any minority community to unite, circle the wagons, and affect democracy - many certainly do. But, a faith-based voting bloc of Islamists, who are the embodiment of political Islam, is blurring the line between religion and state far too much. It compromises a central element in the defeat of radical Islamism and our counterterrorism efforts - the defeat of the ideology of political Islam (ends) and the fuel for radical Islamism (the means). Political Islam and its stated goals fly in the face of our nation’s principles that led to the tax exemption status for religious organizations. Isn’t the establishment of this so-called Muslim voting bloc one step closer to the behaviors of the theocrats that our ancestors in the Middle Eastern community left behind by coming to the U.S?

A so-called Muslim voting bloc reinforces the stereotype that we are tribal. When we vote for president or any political leader, I believe most Muslims assess a gamut of issues related to our collective American national and state interests, which I believe mirrors most of the rest of the American population. The Islamist agenda is more related to the goals of global political Islam than our own American interests. However, it would be a mistake to conflate Islamists with all Muslims. From economics to health care to immigration to national security and the general role of government, the Islamic faith cannot fit into a single point of view or the three self-centered issues outlined by Islamist groups in 2008. The Islamist doctrine will always try to do that while deceptively exploiting the faith and our faith community.

It is time for media, government, and American citizens to understand and expose the deception that the Islamist agenda is somehow with little critique related to a larger Muslim spiritual agenda. A healthy distrust of the Islamist agenda will actually go a long way toward empowering non-Islamist Muslims to rise against the collectivist behaviors of Islamists on our behalf.

Separating the agenda of political Islam from Islam will need a much deeper reform within our theology. We need to separate the ummah from national politics and Sharia from government. But this will take decades - if not generations, much like it did for the Enlightenment in the West. In the meantime, we should at least refrain from accepting the mixture of the agenda of Islamists with that of all American Muslims. And American Muslims who continue to try and circle their wagons and exploit tribalism,need ask themselves just one question - how relevant would their voting bloc be if American Christians voted en bloc in the upcoming 2008 elections?

[Emphasis mine.  ---ed]

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist. He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

CONCLUSIONS. (Part 2)

Okay, we’ve established that the largest emission of CO2 comes from those coal fired power plants. Here in the US, we are the most technologically advanced Country on the Planet. Surely then, we can find ways to replace those plants with methods that don’t emit as much CO2.

Hatfield’s Ferry Power Plant, Masontown, PA. Image courtesy Allegheny Energy. Click on image to open in a larger window.

Look very carefully at this image, and I’ll explain how you are being unintentionally misled. Photographs like these are shown to you to emotively express the depth of the pollution pouring into the environment from those power plants.

Coal is burned in a furnace. This boils water and turns it to steam. The steam drives a multi stage turbine. The turbine drives a generator, and the generator produces the electricity. Those generators are huge, weighing hundreds of tons and produce huge amounts of electricity. It’s no good trying to make the point that they are releasing pollution into the environment if they show you a static photograph of the plant in normal operation, so they show an image with white stuff pouring into the air from those big fat stacks. Those photographs are usually taken in cool weather because that’s when you best see the white stuff pouring out. That white stuff is water vapour. Those fat stacks you see are the cooling towers placed over the ponds where the water cools after the steam process driving the turbines recycles that water. This is not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) the greenhouse gas, but harmless water.
To the right of those cooling towers there you see the coal, which in this case, looks to be brought up the river on barges, but in most case comes to the plant by rail.
A plant this size could use up to 10,000 tons of coal each day, and some use a lot more. Some plants can use up to 6.5 Million tons of coal per year. Just below the ‘fat’ stack in the foreground, you can see the conveyor belt continuously feeding coal into the furnace. This plant has three large generators. The two ‘thin’ stacks are the actual chimneys where the gases come out, and you can just make out the darker coloured smoke coming from them. When the media show power plants they show emotive images of that white stuff pouring out, they don’t do that on purpose. They just need an image to get their point across. No matter what type of plant they show you, the abiding memory is of these huge stacks belching white stuff. Why they have these ‘fat’ stacks is to direct the vapour upwards so it doesn’t just hang around the main area of the plant. These are vast cooling ponds where the water waits to be recycled back into the boilers to drive the turbines.

Night Skyline New York. Image Siddharth Kapur. Click on image to open in a larger window.

This second emotive image is of the New York Skyline. Again, a night time image like this is also used to unintentionally mislead you. You look at that and think just how much power could be saved if only some of those lights were turned off. Those lights you see there make up only 5% of the power needed to run those buildings. The large percentage of power use in those buildings is needed to keep the air in those buildings at a level that is comfortable for the people working in them. That conditioned air just cannot be turned off at all. It’s not to keep it warm in Winter and cool in the Summer months. It has to be continually left on to keep breathable air circulating in those buildings. It cannot be turned off overnight and then back on the next morning. People work in those buildings at night, the vast army of cleaners, power is also needed to pump water up to each and every floor for the toilets, the water that people drink. Every room on every floor also has to have power supplied for work stations. Power is needed to drive the elevators. The lights in the main also have to be left running for safety purposes. So when you see an image like this, as emotive as it looks the power to those buildings just cannot be turned off at night and then back on the next morning. The power needs to be kept up to those buildings continuously. Not just in New York, but in every city, every workplace, every shopping outlet, every street. The commercial and Industrial sectors consume 62% of the total electric power produced in the US. That power has to be there, constant, regulated, reliable, power.

THAT IS BASELOAD POWER.

Large generators like the ones you see at the plant in that first image are what supply that baseload power. Those large generators run at near maximum for 24 hours of every day, in most cases for 50 to 60 years.

When people rise in the morning, they turn on all the things that they need to get their breakfasts, to shower, get ready for work. The same occurs when you get home from work in the evenings. You run up the heating, the aircon, the TV, the washing machine and dryer.
These two daily spikes are added on top of that set required power (Baseload) and they are called Peaking power.
Smaller generators all across the Country run up to add extra power to that set level to cover the requirements for those spikes. After the spikes they just run back down. This is something that just cannot be done with those large baseload plants because of the immense weight of the generators, and if they were allowed to run down, that weight would bend the shaft making the whole turbine/generator useless. That is why they run continuously, to supply that baseload power. Those smaller generators can be run up and down to add the peaking power when needed.

Large baseload plants are in three categories. Coal fired plants. Nuclear plants, and hydro electric plants. The first two use steam, boiled from the burning of coal, or boiled by the heat generated by the nuclear reaction. With hydro plants, the water from the huge dam drives the turbine.

Smaller ‘peaking power’ plants are gas turbines that use a variety of the gases. Some use liquid fuels. Others are powered by other means, some from wave power, some from geothermal power, some from wind power, and some from solar power.
These smaller plants CANNOT be used to supply baseload power. All they can do is to augment that.

With respect to those using the wind and solar methods, because of their variability, they are unsuitable for use as baseload power, and no matter what ardent environmentalists might like to tell you, they cannot be used for that baseload power. You could cover every vacant piece of land in New York State with solar panels and wind turbines, and still not be able to supply a constant regulated supply to keep that New York Skyline in electrical power.

So, now that we’ve established the need for baseload power, then what are the implications when the Kyoto Protocol is brought into the equation.
It calls for reduction of CO2 emissions back to a level 5% lower than what was being emitted in 1990. Since that time, the US is shown to have increased emissions by a factor in the vicinity of 28%. That means right now, there needs to be a reduction of emissions of around 33%, one third. That’s across the board, every sector, power generation included. Currently the US produces power from coal fired means for just under 50% of the total production. (Keep in mind the World average is almost half as much again, sitting on 72%.) If a one third reduction is to be achieved, then that means one third of 50% or around 15% of the total electric power production in the US.
An understanding of US power usage shows that 62% is used in the Commercial and Industrial sectors, basically, those places of work for the US. 38% is used in the Residential sector.
A simple observation here is that removing that amount of power would lead to unemployment on a huge scale, and the result of that would mean widespread chaos, something not to be contemplated. Admitted, this is worst case scenario I know, and I’m not advocating that, because replacements will be found. (The glass half full principle applies here.)

So, what is needed is two things.
The first is methods of power generation to replace those coal fired plants, and the second is the time to actually construct them and to bring them on line.

Now, the full import of the dilemma is being realised. Mainstream media will preface their media bites showing morning rush hour on the freeways, steel mills belching smoke, and maybe a cooling tower pouring water vapor into the atmosphere.

Until real understanding of the situation is explained to us, then those real implications will not sink in.

This is something that will have an effect upon every single person in the US, and no one is telling us, not out of wilful neglect, but because those who will be the ones to actually tell us, those politicians, and then the branches of the media, (once the realisation hits) just don’t actually realise what these implications are, and what they mean.

I’m going to run with the next post tomorrow morning, and in that we’ll see if those coal fired plants can be effectively replaced.

Exclusive: William J. Federer’s

American Minute

They both served in the Continental Congress. One was elected the second President and the other was elected the third.

Once political enemies, they became close friends in later life. An awe swept America when they both died on the same day, JULY 4, 1826, exactly 50 years since they passed the Declaration of Independence.

Their names were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

In his Second Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1826, President John Quincy Adams referred to Jefferson and Adams, stating: “Since your last meeting at this place, the fiftieth anniversary of the day when our independence was declared…two of the principal actors in that solemn scene - the hand that penned the ever-memorable Declaration and the voice that sustained it in debate - were by one summons, at the distance of 700 miles from each other, called before the Judge of All to account for their deeds done upon earth.”

President John Quincy Adams added in an Executive Order, July 11, 1826: “A coincidence…so wonderful gives confidence…that the patriotic efforts of these…men were Heaven directed, and furnishes a new…hope that the prosperity of these States is under the special protection of a kind Providence.”

Read more articles from Family Security Matters

Once Again, It’s about Associations and Judgment

By Frank Salvato

There has been much ado about Barack Obama’s associations and the judgment used in maintaining and entering into those associations. Obama’s associations with Jeremiah Wright, Williams Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, the Progressive-Left activist group ACORN and his ideological association with Saul Alinsky are all perfect examples of his judgment, his willingness to associate with radical and troubled individuals and organizations. Is it fair to judge Barack Obama by his associations and the judgment used in acquiring and maintaining those associations? Sorry Mr. Colmes, all is fair in love and war…and politics.

Many of us have a friend or acquaintance that may possess a questionable background. Such is life. Many of us like to believe that, with our help, these individuals can straighten out their lives, or “see the light,” setting themselves on a path of health, prosperity and productivity. It is noble to want to help those in need or those whose full potential has not been recognized. It’s what Americans do. But we Americans expect more from our leaders. We do so because we want to believe in them, in their judgment. We want them to have vision and foresight, judgment that proves to us that they possess the ability to stay above the fray. This is exactly the problem that Barack Obama is having with the electorate. His judgment hasn’t allowed him to “stay above the fray.” In fact, by his own refusal to readily explain and disassociate himself with the less than savory characters and organizations noted above, he chooses to remain “in the fray.” Not a good place to be for someone who wants to be the leader of the free world.

A perfect example of Barack Obama’s questionable judgment comes in the form of his selections for his “Senior Working Group on National Security.” As we face a most ominous and violent foe in the form of a cadre of aggressive Islamofascists, terrorist groups who are on record as joining Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa against the United States - a declaration of war against the United States, Barack Obama wants to “turn the page” on today’s “with us or against us” foreign policy.

Barack Obama has been quoted as saying:

“Instead of adhering to a rigid ideology, I want to get back to a more pragmatic tradition of American foreign policy which has been so ably advanced by the people in this room…”

The problem here is that the people he is referring to presided over some of the most horrific decisions in US foreign policy history.

While US Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright did absolutely nothing to thwart the Rwandan Genocide.

From approximately the beginning of April 1994 until late July of that same year - over the course of 100 or so days - over 900,000 Rwandan Tutsis were slaughtered in an open act of genocide by their Hutu countrymen. Despite repeated requests from Rwandan leaders and the General in-charge of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda at that time, Canadian Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, Albright refused to lead, instead allowing her surrogates to issue a repulsive statement, that to help those being slaughtered wouldn’t be politically advantageous for the Clinton Administration or the United States.

In fact, the Clinton Administration - Albright included - refused to even refer to the slaughter as genocide.

During Albright’s tenure in the Clinton Administration - and in addition to the Rwandan Genocide - the US experienced the first bombing of the World Trade Center by radical Islamists affiliated with al Qaeda (1993), the al Qaeda victory in Mogadishu as depicted in the film Blackhawk Down (1993), the alliance with the Kosovo Liberation Army (a radical Islamist group affiliated with al Qaeda) and the Kosovo War (1999), and the bombing of the USS Cole by al Qaeda operatives (2000).

In retrospect, Madeleine Albright’s contributions to US foreign policy culminated in a policy that was not only a complete failure, but one that witnessed the United States literally allying itself with a group affiliated with al Qaeda.

The same can be said for another Obama panelist, Warren Christopher, who served as Clinton’s Secretary of State from 1993 until 1997 when Albright took the mantle.

Then there is David Boren who, as senator from Oklahoma chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 1987 until 1993. When one comes to understand that his position provided oversight to the total of the intelligence community it would be fair to say that the intelligence failures leading to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 happened under his watch.

Greg Craig, in addition to being a senior advisor to Madeleine Albright through her disastrous tenure, also led the legal team that defended President Bill Clinton in his impeachment defense, a defense which failed in the US House of Representatives. He also, in his capacity as a lawyer, defended John Hinckley, the would-be assassin of President Ronald Reagan.

In addition we have former national security advisor Anthony Lake, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, former Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, all of whom served under President Clinton through - let’s cover it again:

▪ The Rwandan Genocide

▪ The first bombing of the World Trade Center by radical Islamists affiliated with al Qaeda,

▪ The al Qaeda victory in Mogadishu as depicted in the film Blackhawk Down

▪ The alliance with the Kosovo Liberation Army (a radical Islamist group affiliated with al Qaeda) and the Kosovo War

▪ The bombing of the USS Cole by al Qaeda operatives (2000).

If that weren’t enough we need to remember that all of the above mentioned were serving during a time when al Qaeda was growing, organizing, training and planning the attacks of September 11, 2001; attacks that could have been avoided had President Clinton’s crack team of policy advisors advised the president to take Osama bin Laden out when they had the chance.

Additional members to Barack Obama’s panel of foreign policy advisors include both former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served on the 9/11 Commission, as did his junior, Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer. Lest we forget, the 9/11 Commission allowed fellow commission member Jamie Gorelick, author of the famous “Gorelick Wall” memo that obstructed terror investigations after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to facilitate the redacting of the commission’s final report by Clinton Administration officials.

The last man standing is former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), who, since his retirement from elected office, has championed nuclear non-proliferation and the securing of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal. To put it mildly, Nunn stands as the lone voice of authority on the issue of foreign policy among his assembled “peers.”

Barack Obama says he wants to turn the page on today’s foreign policy back to a time when it was more “pragmatic.” Once again, Obama fails to “vet the vettors.” Once again, he demonstrates that his judgment is not worthy of the highest office in the land. Once again his associations paint a picture of weak leadership and naiveté.

How else could you explain confusing the notion of pragmatism with assembling a foreign policy team responsible for over a million dead?

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

CONCLUSIONS.

The original premise for this long series of posts was this.
If the Kyoto Protocol is only in place to preserve the environment for future generations, then, surely, that can only be a good thing.
So, why are there Countries holding out on implementing what is called for?
In December the Prime Minister of the Country I live in, Australia, ratified the Protocol and agreed then to start implementing what it called for.
That left only one Country on the whole Planet that has not signed. The United States.

If this is such a good thing, why oh why would they be holding off signing and why did we here in Australia hold off for so long?
For years now we have been force fed how we are destroying the World we live in by polluting the environment that supports us. We have been told at great length that if we don’t do something about it, then we are doomed to increasingly bad weather conditions that will result in the Planet overheating, melting the World’s ice, bigger and wilder tropical storms at latitudes never seen before, the raising of sea levels that will cause low lying areas to vanish into the World’s oceans.
This is something that hasn’t crept up on us, but has been developing over time. It’s just that we have only become aware of it in the last twenty years and it has only come into mainstream widespread coverage in recent times.
The subliminal thing that is used to drive the argument is that this is something we are doing intentionally and callously, and without any thought for the future generations, and that because we are the ones who have caused this, then we should be the ones to solve the problem.

WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

The World’s weather is a delicate entity, balanced by many things. What this argument points to is that what we are doing here on the surface of the Planet is causing something called the Greenhouse Effect. Gases produced by what we do on the surface, raise to the upper levels of the Atmosphere where they act similarly to an insulating blanket, holding in the Planet’s heat, This supposedly raises the ambient average temperature which then plays havoc with our weather.
These gases are called Greenhouse gases, and there are a number of them. Carbon Dioxide is one of them, and this has been mooted as being the largest of them by volume.
Numerous years ago when the argument was first raised, one of the gases was Methane and this was being produced by volcanic action, and as the butt of numerous jokes, livestock, because they ate green herbage and expelled methane, so the ‘cows farting’ jokes proliferated, as this was the largest source of that methane. Very little could be done about methane because you can’t control volcanoes, and livestock is a huge business, mainly for the ground beef trade for ….. well, you know who for without my telling you.
So in recent times one of these other greenhouse gases has come to the fore, one that they tell us we do have control over, and that is Carbon Dioxide. (CO2)

If this is true, then what we need to do is to lessen the emission of this CO2 greenhouse gas.
This is something that is grossly misunderstood. The odd thing is that it is being driven by those Countries in the World that are in the main well educated and able to understand what it really means.
However, do we really understand what it means? We are bombarded by thirty second media bites, and Henny Penny characters telling us that the sky is falling. (And, at a rapid rate) We are told that we need to do something and to start now. Part of the inference is that these gases pour out the exhaust pipes of SUV’s so that aims it squarely at the US because that is where all those cars actually are. This information is then rammed home, and rammed home and rammed home, so we all know that those of us in the Western World are completely to blame and the pointing finger of accusation points squarely at the US.
So then, why is it that emissions from cars only account for 8% of the total CO2 emissions.
That’s odd.

Surely that can’t be right.

Yes, it is correct. Emissions from automobiles only account fro 8% of those emissions.

Then, just where do all those gases come from?
Industry are large emitters, as are mining companies digging everything out of the ground, (and not just coal) there’s the farming industry as well, the transport industry that brings all those goods to us, passenger aircraft, trains, boats, and there are private citizens also in the mix as emitters just by living our lives as consumers of products that have a carbon footprint. Everything has a carbon footprint. But the most emotive thing is the automobile, because that then aims it squarely at affluent societies that can actually afford cars.

THE PROPOSED SOLUTION.

That erstwhile and most even handed and fair body, The United Nations, that all encompassing organisation seeking to do good for the sake of the Countries that inhabit the Planet, decided in its infinite wisdom to solve this problem for us all, for the good of the Planet. So they got together, and surprise surprise, formed a committee. That committee then laid down the solution. They formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They held more meetings and in 1997 laid down the solution. The Countries of the Planet were to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to a level 6 to 8% lower than what was emitted in 1990, later set down at around 5% lower. This was agreed to in 1997.
One hundred and eighty one Countries agreed to the Protocol and what the UN required of them was to sign as agreeing to the principal of the Protocol and then a more important signature, that of actually ratifying the Protocol, which meant that the Countries ratifying it agreed to work towards those targets.
The Protocol was to stay in effect until a new Instrument was raised in 2012.

Now comes a quirky little thing. The UN, which as we all know is a fair and even handed body decided that some Countries were richer than others, so they should carry the brunt of the load. So, what that fair and even handed body did was to say that more than half of those 181 Countries were exempted from trying to achieve the targets because they were classed as ‘developing countries’, and the impost of actually cutting back was going to prove difficult for those ‘poorer’ Nations, just something they could not afford and  because of that, should not then be asked to shoulder that burden.

What this effectively did was to place the load upon those more affluent Countries, and yes, you guessed it, the most affluent Country of all was designated the one to carry the largest load, the USA.
The UN, in its infinite wisdom decided that the US should actively decrease emissions IN ITS OWN COUNTRY, implement replacement methods for anything adversely affected IN ITS OWN COUNTRY, pay a huge carbon tax IN ITS OWN COUNTRY, because they have been shown to be the largest emitters, so therefore they should pay for that so called privilege, because, after all, they can afford it.

Then, on top of that, the US should also pay the bulk of the costs involved with reducing emissions for those developing Countries so that they too can also find replacement methods to lessen the emission of CO2.
I mean, after all that’s only fair, isn’t it.
The US wasn’t all that keen on this having to actually support the rest of the World, so the Clinton Government signed the Protocol as agreeing with the intent, but did not sign as ratifying the Protocol. What the Clinton Administration said was that they would not agree until binding targets were agreed to by all Countries, as this just gave those developing countries open slather to keep doing what they already were doing. The Clinton Administration did not refer the Protocol to the Senate for ratification. The next Administration, that of President George W Bush also did not submit the Protocol to the Senate for ratification, proving that there actually was bipartisan support for that original decision by the Clinton Administration. So, as much as Al Gore trumpets that we need to do something and to do it now, he was part of that Administration who did not ratify the Protocol, and rightfully so too.

So that is the reason that the US is the only Country on Earth not to have ratified the Kyoto protocol, because it placed an unfair imposition upon the US and not upon the rest of those Countries as well. Australia was another of those Countries to hold out, and the Protocol was not ratified until December of 2007 after the Government changed and a new Prime Minister was elected with the populist view that signing was a good thing, and the fact that it was an election promise, the people believing the misinformation they were being spoon fed by a media with no real understanding of the Science, the Technology behind it, the engineering, and most importantly, no understanding of the implications of just what the Protocol’s real intent meant.

THE IMPLICATIONS.

So, other than our SUV’s (remember, those automobiles only account for 8% of CO2 emissions) surely we, as general members of the public can’t be affected all that much. I mean. Industry is big business. They are the big emitters aren’t they. Then there’s mining Companies, and the farming sector. That’s where the big emissions are surely.
So then, how can it possibly have any effect on us, the average guy in the street?

Here’s how.
The largest sector producing greenhouse gases is the electrical power generation sector, and that’s where it has an effect on all of us, every single citizen of the US, because every household, every place of work, every shop, every street, everywhere, there is electrical power.
This is where the Kyoto protocol is aimed at the person in the street.

Now it starts to come home. That accusing finger isn’t aimed at us for being profligate wasteful emitters of greenhouse gases to deliberately destroy the environment driving around with no care in our Hummers belching CO2 with no care for the consequences.

No, this emission of CO2 is a by product of the way we live our lives. We have ready access to a constant, reliable, and consistent source of electricity for 24 hours of every day of our lives, something that we rightfully take for granted as a staple of life. It’s always there, and has been for generations now, something we treat similarly to air and water, and without that electricity, then life would descend into outright chaos.

The generation of this electric power is the source of the largest amount of CO2 emissions. The US produces one quarter of all the World’s electricity, and THAT ALONE is why the US is the largest emitter of Greenhouse gases on the Planet. It has virtually nothing to do with the cars we drive. Of that one quarter of the World’s electrical power, just under 50% is produced from coal fired power plants, and the burning of coal is what gives off the CO2.

Coal fired power plants. Coal is burned to heat water to make steam, which then drives a turbine which then drives a generator which produces that electricity.

In the next post, I’ll look at this and explain how the US is developing replacements for those coal fired power plants, but the thing I want you to keep at the forefront of your minds is this.

Of those 181 Countries subject to the Kyoto Protocol only one has refused to ratify it.

The US.

One country is leading the World in finding replacement methods to produce electrical power.

The US.

Other Countries that have signed AND ratified the Kyoto Protocol are blithely continuing to use coal fired power plants, and some have actually increased power production from coal fired sources while in the US, production from coal fired plants is decreasing.

Exclusive: William J. Federer’s

American Minute

The Declaration of Independence was approved JULY 4, 1776.

John Hancock signed first, saying “the price on my head has just doubled.”

Benjamin Franklin said “We must hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately.”

Of the 56 signers: 17 lost their fortunes, 12 had their homes destroyed, 5 became prisoners of war, 1 had two sons imprisoned on the British starving ship Jersey, 1 had a son killed in battle, 1 had his wife die from harsh prison treatment and 9 signers died during the War.

When Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

John Adams said: “I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

John Adams continued: “I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration…Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory…  Posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction, even though we [may regret] it, which I trust in God we shall not.”

Read more articles from Family Security Matters

By Mark Alexander

“Give me liberty…”

THE FOUNDATION

“The Declaration of Independence… [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man.” -Thomas Jefferson

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2008

The Necessary Holiday

If our nation’s Founders could visit us on this, our 232nd Independence Day, what would they make of us? What would they declare of us?

A hint can be discerned in a letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776, as the Declaration of Independence had just been approved. “It ought to be commemorated,” said the man who would become our second president, “as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Day’s Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

Americans have maintained the “Pomp and Parade” for more than two centuries now, and the “Bonfires and Illuminations” are commonplace, but how often do we recognize Independence Day as “the Day of Deliverance?” How often do we honor it with “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty”? How often do we contemplate the cost of our freedom, “the Toil and Blood and Treasure?”

Our Founders believed that independence was more than a choice; they viewed our break from royal rule as necessary.

Consider the first statement of the Declaration: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The signatories were emphatic that separation from the crown was not only an objective, but an obligation: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” In conclusion, the Founders wrote, “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation…”

Their cause, of course, was not anti-government. Rather they objected to the misgovernment of the king, saying, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Furthermore, the Americans had been patient, petitioning their British rulers for redress for over a decade. Armed hostilities had commenced on April 19, 1775, at the battles of Lexington and Concord, and the colonists faced the full power of the British Empire in their quest for American independence.

One year before taking that step for nationhood, on July 5, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, beseeching the British king for a peaceful resolution of the American colonies’ grievances. A day later, that same Congress resolved the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms.”

King George III refused to read the peace petition and assembled his armies. On July 2, 1776, Richard Henry Lee’s proposal for a formal declaration of separation passed, and the document was ordered printed on July 4.

The war-weary among us today might ask, was independence really necessary?

To pose the question at the outset of the Revolutionary War was to answer it. Representatives of the colonial Americans realized that, in voicing this query, they already possessed proof that they, not the King of England, were legitimate instruments of self-government for their countrymen. How could circumstances be otherwise when the king offered no remedy for his subjects’ complaints, no guarantee their rights would be respected, and no means for them to govern themselves in their new lands?

The founders knew, however, that power could not be its own justification. They recognized that only an appeal to overarching laws, binding the king as much as his subjects, was legitimate. And abuse of authority demonstrated disqualification of any governor, whether a monarch or a purported representative.

We would do well to apply this insight to the political debates of today.

Indeed, two competing philosophies of government at odds during the American Revolution have reappeared, with the anti-republican form seen in those politicians who would seek to gain favor by manipulating language and misrepresenting their positions. Royalists, on the other hand, believed that the king was divinely ordained to rule over the people and was therefore above the law. This view is manifest currently in government officials-especially our elected officers-who believe they may properly command the citizenry to whatever they please, to whichever they purport to be for the good of the people.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Yet the prevailing philosophy of government proposes exactly this-that directions from Washington as to how we must conduct ourselves, in matters large and small, will lead inexorably to scarcity and will inevitably erode our freedom.

Our system of government today is not so different from the monarchy we escaped, except that a swarm of bureaucrats have taken up the throne.

A necessity thus presents itself to us as well: We must reconnect with the timeless principles that inspired our Founding Fathers; those same principles that long ago gave birth to a good, great and God-blessed nation.

“[W]hat do we mean by the American Revolution?” reflected John Adams. “Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”

Let us celebrate this Independence Day 2008 in a manner that Adams himself might recognize-with “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty,” and with a rededication to the principles of our necessary American Revolution. And as always, in the words of George Washington, “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

(We invite you to visit our Historic Documents section. Please promote our Founder’s legacy by displaying our nation’s Founding Documents in your place of work and home.)

Publisher’s note: In observance of Independence Day on Friday, your Patriot editors and staff take leave from the rigors of news and policy analysis and the demands of our editorial deadlines. We will not publish our regular Digest on Friday, but will return with Monday’s Brief. (As always, permission to forward or reprint is granted.)

Patriots, a final call for help!

Please join us on the frontlines of the ideological war now raging. Help us defend our nation’s proud heritage of liberty! As of this writing, we still must raise $56,280 for our 2008 Patriot Annual Fund summer campaign. Please, if you have the ability, take a moment to support The Patriot online today by making a contribution-however large or small. (If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our Donor Support Form).

Veritas vos Liberabit-Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families-especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post The Patriot Post.US

[Emphasis mine. ---ed]

Exclusive: William J. Federer’s

American Minute

Washington, D.C., was in a panic as 70,000 Confederate troops were just sixty miles away near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

The furious battle had lasted three days. As General Lee found his ammunition running low, he ordered General Pickett to make a direct attack.

After an hour of murderous fire and bloody hand-to-hand combat, the Confederates were pushed back and the Battle of Gettysburg ended JULY 3, 1863, with over 50,000 casualties.

President Abraham Lincoln confided to a general wounded in the battle: “When everyone seemed panic-stricken…I went to my room…and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed.”

Days later, July 15, 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving, Praise and Prayer: “It is meet and right to recognize and confess the presence of the Almighty Father and the power of His hand equally in these triumphs and in these sorrows…

I invite the people of the United States to…render the homage due to the Divine Majesty for the wonderful things He has done in the nation’s behalf and invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit to subdue the anger which has produced and so long sustained a needless and cruel rebellion.”

Read more articles from Family Security Matters

STING IN THE TAIL (Part 2)

The Climate Change supporters are always apt to quote statistics at you to support their argument, and when taken in isolation, those statistics seem to be quite compelling indeed. However, what is needed is context, and dare I say it, perspective.
They will quote things like per capita head, which would have to be the most spurious argument of them all. It’s one that is used here in Australia, and those people say that per capita head, we here in Australia are the largest emitters of CO2 on the Planet, and that you in the US are the second largest emitters. The implication in that is that we have the subliminal intent to deliberately harm the environment. In actuality, it is because we have ready access to what we consider a staple of life, electricity. That per capita head argument is also spurious when in the same breath for Australia, we are the lowest emitter on the Planet over the area of our Country, and here you need to realise that Australia is the same size in area as mainland USA, even though the population of that same sized area of the US is 15 times larger than for Australia. In Australia we produce a total of 52,000 MW of electricity, while in the US you produce a maximum of just over a million MW which is 20 times that for Australia, so does that make the US bigger per capita users than Australia, by area, by population or by power generation.

See the point.

Numbers can be used to mean whatever you want them to mean.
Australia may be the largest per capita head emitter on the Planet, but in total Australia’s emissions amount to just 1.5% of the total Planetary emissions, and if we were the average emitters that percentage would only shrink to 1.3%, so the per capita argument is spurious, not only for Australia, but for the US as well.
Some time during the last month, China became the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the Planet, surpassing the US. Yet Australia and the US still emit six times as much on a per capita basis.
Does the environment recognise per capita levels or actual levels.

I know that this is going to sound like a China bashing exercise, and this is most definitely not intended to be that. However, I do want to include China, and to a lesser extent India so that context and perspective can be brought into the argument.

Why I wanted to include China relates right back to the title of the Series, that being the Kyoto Protocol.
China, India, and a large swathe of other Countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but the United Nations under that sub group, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) says that even though the Protocol relates to 181 Countries who have signed it, and then gone on to ratify it, more than 80 of them are not subject in any way to commitment, other than to report their emissions. China and India are the two largest in that basket of exempted ‘Developing Countries’ and therein lies the sting in the tail.

The US is the one Country holding out on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol which was what started this whole series and what I mentioned way back in Part 1. Before you think of this as a political thing, and start blaming it on President Bush, and how this is basically a thing that the Republicans oppose because Al Gore as a Democrat has publically campaigned for, then what I want you do is to keep the following in mind.

In July of 1997, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote a Resolution stating that the Senate of the United States should not sign any protocol that didn’t include binding targets and timetables for developing AS WELL AS industrialized nations or if signing that protocol would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. The Protocol requires two separate actions, each requiring a signature, one to agree with the intent and the second, and most important, that of signing the Protocol as ratifying it, this second signature binding the signing Country to agree to the requirements, and then to implement them. In November of 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed that first part of the protocol. (He just signed it, as agreeing in principle to what the intent was, and this is entirely different to actually ratifying it, which is what he, Vice President Al Gore did not sign.) Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The main word here and part of the highlighted text is that for developing countries. Also of major import when correlating this with Al Gore’s opus, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, is the fact that when given the opportunity to sign as ratifying the Protocol and then to go on and implement it, he did not sign, obviously because that was at the direction of the Government and the President, but it surely puts into question his later activities with regard to his book, his lectures, and his movie which have earned him such stunningly impressive accolades. Some might actually think of that as being a little hypocritical, when context is shown when comparing those two actions.

So, even though the vast majority of the Countries of the World have ratified it, don’t think of it as an accusing finger pointed at you as the US, and here is why.

THE STING IN THE TAIL.

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon and will stay in place until the next main agreement will be put in place in the form of a new resolution, and this will be in 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires.  As part of discussions, the UNFCCC travel the World at regular intervals to hold their Conference of Parties (COP) Since the UNFCCC was set up, there have been 13 of these COP meetings, around once every year. The most recent one was held in Bali in Indionesia in December of 2007. It was at this Bali meeting that the new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in tow with his Minister for the Environment Peter Garrett, (yes that same guy, the lead singer of that famed Australian rock band Midnight Oil, now established in a career in politics) signed off on Kyoto, with a flourish and huge publicity, ratifying the Protocol on behalf of Australia, which was a promise he made in the lead up to the recent election as part of his platform of promises. Australia had resisted doing this previously for the same reasons as the US did not sign. UNFCCC will meet in December of this year 2008 at Poznan in Poland, and then in December 2009 in Copenhagen Denmark, to discuss, in their words, an ambitious global climate agreement for the period after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires.

In the last post I put out the faint hope that every single body and organisation in the US started to pull together. Everybody came on side, even the altruistic coal mining Companies, who decided out of the goodness of their hearts to take that 43 Billion Dollar hit. So, and let’s do this immediately shall we. Let’s comply wholly with the Kyoto protocol and cut back on CO2 emissions to a level 5% less than 1990, keeping in mind that even this burns less coal than was actually burned during 1990, and in fact is almost back to 1980 levels. To achieve that we need to cut back on one third of all coal fired power production. What this equates to is around 50 large 2000MW coal fired power plants taken out of commission. I’ve been conservative here because it really should include one third of those smaller coal fired plants as well, but I always like to look at things a little conservatively.
Remember, what we are doing is just conjecture, taking 50 huge plants out and taking them out immediately without replacing them. I will leave aside the resultant absolute chaos that will ensue as more than one seventh of the whole US goes without electricity, across every sector, Industrial, Commercial and Residential. All I’m doing is the hypothetical exercise.

China are not subject to the Protocol other than to report their emissions, so they can just do whatever they want. Remember I mentioned that sometimes during the last month China became the highest (actual) emitter on the Planet. This is based upon the fact that they are bringing their people not into the 21st Century, but the 20th Century, and trying to bring electrical power to a greater percentage of their people, considering only a small fraction of them already have access to constant reliable electricity. They are currently bringing on line one large 2000MW coal fired power plant each and every week, and will be doing so for at least the next 8 to 10 years.

So, back to the hypothetical. The US are forced by the Kyoto Protocol to shut down 50 of their coal fired plants. China alone will have replaced those 50 plants within one year, and by the time the next round of the UNFCCC meets in 2012 to adopt the new Protocol, China will have brought on line 200 more of these power plants, and that’s just the coal fired power plants. So anything that we do in those First World Countries will not only be totally cancelled out just by China alone, it will be thoroughly smashed. If you were to take India, and those other ‘developing countries’ in