What Geo-Green Alternative?

Thomas Friedman's column in today's NY Times talks about the Geo-Green Alternative to mainstream economic activity. Mr. Friedman tells us that he is a Geo-Green which means that he favors reducing our dependence on fossil fuels which will return power and control over the world to the United States.

Friedman tells us that lower costs for oil will stop nuclear development by Iran, Iraq, and other like aspirants. That's because they will have fewer dollars to pay for mischief. Then he says that America can support the old Europe by supporting their carrot diplomacy while we push our stick diplomacy. Sounds reasonable.

However the truth lies somewhere in between. Wouldn't it be a revelation for America to support a single line of diplomacy? One that punishes those governments that abuse their citizens and their corporations? Is it not more reasonable and doesn't it support our values to stop supporting despots like Fidel Castro or Aristede of Haiti? Why do left thinkers embrace the worlds most desperate secular murderers? Because social policies and programs are miserable failures.

So the left must either reform these discredited programs and their philosophy, or they must defend them to the political death. Political death appears to be the more comfortable road for progressives.

Carbon is coming! Carbon is coming!

Carbon dioxide is coming and it is heating the planet. Why do we know this? Because anti-growth extremists tell us so. What is their science? It's political science. They tell us that carbon dioxide is a "green house gas" that will raise the temperature of the world. They say that it is their scientific observations that tells them so.

So I ask what are the scientific observations? Well, there aren't any. More than a decade ago these same "scientists" told our legislators that we needed sophisticated satellites to measure the heating of the upper atmosphere so that we might get a look at the future heating of the planet. America spent several billion dollars, that's with a B, to launch these satellites. And what did they find? That the upper atmosphere is COOLING!

So the good political scientists removed upper atmosphere temperature from their global warming model. Then they told us that glaciers are melting. Some are! But more are gaining in size. How do these same political scientists deal with this fact? They ignore the growth of glaciers while they publicize the small percentage that are shrinking.

So if glaciers aren't shrinking, why is the sea level rising? It isn't! That 's another urban myth told by the political scientists and their adherents. Sea level charting in Oceana and on major coasts tells us that development near the shore has caused more erosion but the sea level is actually the same or even lower in many places.

So why do progressives embrace global warming and many other unsubstantiated concepts and theories? I can't say because I don't understand why they embrace Fidel Castro or Arafat or the North Koreans. Many still worship Saddam Hussein even after we have uncovered the mass graves of over 200,000 children besides another 400,000 adults. And the past generation of left thinkers still mourn the loss of their best friend, the Soviet Union.

So where is the case for carbon dioxide as a pollutant? I'm still waiting for that myth to be explained.

What is it about Carbon?

Carbon Dioxide is fast becoming the American version of ebola. Children and their parents shriek with fear when they hear that carbon dioxide is coming. Films are made and books are written and warning flags are raised from sea to shining sea. Carbon dioxide will warm our planet until we all suffer from heat stroke and look like Australian aboriginals. Carbon dioxide will melt the world's glaciers so that the sea level will rise by 10 feet or more. The carbon dioxide melted glaciers will change the salinity of the oceans which will end ocean currents thus stopping the planet's rotation and ending life as we know it.

I hear whispers that carbon dioxide causes cancer as well as infertility. Men are claiming impotence from carbon dioxide and women are said to have headaches more than ever in the evening. Some say that species are dropping like rocks out of the sky from carbon dioxide. And worst of all the accusations is that carbon dioxide is "Republican."

So why wouldn't any reasonable person want to outlaw carbon dioxide? Why does the Bush administration ignore the "science" that tells us how dangerous carbon dioxide is? Is there an industry based group that is trying to destroy the earth? The answers are more complicated than the questions.

All life on our planet are carbon based entities. Carbon is the basis of plant and animal life. As all organisms grow they store carbon and when they die and degrade they reliease carbon. Dah! Animals breath air and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants absorb carbon dioxide as their primary food/fertilizer and discharge oxygen. Pretty slick. In fact more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase plant growth exponentially. When I was younger I wondered if I could zip up an airtight garment bag with a couple plants and me inside to live off each other indefinitely. I breath in air and exhale carbon that the plants absorb then to discharge more air. I could go to the moon on that principle.

But then in 1989 we experienced one of our generation's greatest flip flops. Resourceful "scientists" scouring for the next enviro-scare identified or was it invented what they called global warming. No matter that the same "scientists" for decades had been warning of global cooling and the fear of an impending ice age due to what? Carbon dioxide! In fact the first Earth Day which I supported and participated in was mostly about global cooling due to that damn carbon dioxide. No wonder carbon dioxide is so frightening. It causes all of our ills.

Minimalists

What's wrong with a reduction in electricity generating and usage and a reduction in car trips? These are the Carter "malaise" questions. Why do American's want to drive and why do we squander so much electricity? Because we can! But we are willing to work hard to create these freedoms of choice and the ability to pay for them. That's apparently what some can't grasp?

Every human being in endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Not those rights and freedoms that a group of elitists here or abroad feel the rest of us need, but freedoms of choice that our creator has endowed upon us all. That's us here and there and EVERYWHERE! That's you and me and every person on earth! What is it about this basic concept that some can't grasp?

The industrialized world was attacked by 150 years of social experiments that included Karl Marx writing that communism addresses the needs of the rabble better than religion, democracy, and private enterprise. In fact, tens of millions were killed and starved so that supporting views to religion and opposing views of socialism and communism might be silenced. That was the first world wide political cleansing. And it occurred in Europe and North America too. Then in the 20th century in China and often in south America.

America's liberals and self labeled progressives buy into the same tactics. Today it's called political correctness. Silence the opinions of those who don't agree. Use the law to put them in jail or use whatever other tools you have to diminish other's voices. My best example was when I attended a public meeting for Hillary Care in 1993 or 1994. There was an articulate guy who told the crowd that he had taken the position of insurance companies and big corporate doctors and pharmaceuticals. He then said that HE had compromised more than 50% of his position and gained about 50% from the progressives in return. The Result? He said that they carried on an intelligent debate and this is the compromise.

My feeling then and today was how ignorant this guy really is. He can't argue for me or others who disagree with Hillary Care. WE must argue our opinions. What is it about democracy that elitists and self appointed progressives don't get? A Faux debate delivers a Faux result.

And so it is for the enviro-wars. A few government paid and supported extremists debate among themselves about your and my need to drive a car or to use electricity. They then tell multi-millionaire limo-liberals to use the law to stop us being energy hogs. They tell us that we need only a few light bulbs on at one time. And we can drive only when truly necessary. Sounds logical. EXCEPT! They need to drive more and fly private jets and own ten vacation homes each. They need SUVs and they need to eat endangered species and they need to kill animal life or plant life when it interferes with their NEEDS!

Now this is the foundation of the enviro-wars that has little to do with the environment and all to do with socialism and communism. The end of the Soviets was not enough. Clinton went to the Chinese Army for campaign contributions with promises that few know and none of us will ever find out. What is it about communism and socialism that so enamores the left and makes them drool all over their silk shirts?

Crichton's State of Fear

There's been little doubt that the politicization of the enviro-movement has generated billions upon billions of dollars for its adherents. As there is little doubt that political cleansing of universities and research entities today assures that this community speaks with a single voice. Many out here, me among them, believe that the environmental coalition is comprised of politically extreme factions that seek to achieve by extortion and fear what they could never by legislative fiat.

It's into this landscape that Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" adds another perspective about the enviro-movement. It is a novel and it takes poetic and plot license to make its case. But he tells his readers in the introduction that is has footnoted his claims and assertions and has researched extensively to support his protagonists' conclusions. This unusually detailed research for a novel separates it from often selectively documented "science" distributed by enviro-extremists and politically cleansed researchers.

Crichton tells his readers that the enviro-movement gained its footing at the end of the Soviet Union and the cold war. He asserts it filled the void of fear that seemed to fade once multiple nuclear warheads were said to no longer be pointed at most major cities of the world. Fear is what he believes allows elites and government types to control the masses. And he may be right.

My view is more complex. I too feel that fear is required to keep the masses from feeling independent enough to take responsibility for themselves. A good example is the fear of poverty at retirement. So the government takes almost 20% of our income for social security and Medicare/Medicaid. Yet more than 6 million government employees opt out of social security to benefit from the stock market for their retirement investments. And millions of the opt-outers will retire with as much as 7 times greater distribution than the rest of us while they then enter the workforce for a decade to be able to double dip from our social security. But they keep us believing in social security due to Fear!

And there's more. The strengthening of the enviro-movement at the end of the cold war was no coincidence. We all love conspiracies so this one gives me the chills. When you dissect the enviro-coalition, you find a preponderance of politically motivated groups. There are the socialists; the communists; the greens; the anti-corporation crowd; the anti-private property crowd; and more. These groups never paid as much as an iota of attention to the environment. In fact, socialist and communist movements have for a century forsaken the environment to gain military strength. Can you spell Chernobyl? Yet, most established enviro-organizations are today controlled and managed by mostly recreational socialists, communists, and especially atheists.

What took place was a shift of paradigm from world socialism at the point of the gun to world socialism by envirowars. What better way to disrupt an exploding global economy where as many as 4 billion persons are participating in improving their lives. In fact, the end of the cold war unshackled a slumbering US economy so that it has since almost tripled in GDP. The US expanded it's economy by over $500 billion in 2004 while France struggled to reach a $1.8 trillion GDP. Just imagine that America's economic growth was almost equal to one third of the total French productivity. No wonder they hate and fear us.

The liberal elite of America and of the old Europe joined to craft a strategy of slowing economic growth in the United States by creating an environmental crisis affectionately calling it Global Warming. And what do they attack first? Carbon Dioxide! It is the building block of life itself. And as every pot grower can tell you, it spurs plants to grow like weeds. That's why I hear growers buy CO2 cylinders to feed their plants that then explode in size. Yet while CO2 is critical to our planets very existence, the enviro-warriors decided to select it as the cause du jour for climate change. Why? Because it is created by power plants and cars. Both are tools of the economy that must be diminished.

The fact is when CO2 increases in the atmosphere, plants worldwide grow faster; they grow stronger; they resist infection and insects better; need much less fertilizer because CO2 is plant food; and most of all require as much as 50% less irrigation. Greater CO2 increases plankton growth in the oceans which starts an explosion of sea life up the food chain. This then leads to healthier forests, greater crop production, fewer insecticides and much less fertilizer use. And the animal world explodes with greatly expanded food supplies that strengthen species and assist them resisting disease.

Crichton explains the CO2 myth very well. He analogizes that the atmosphere is a football field 100 yards deep. After nitrogen, oxygen, and other gases are accounted for, carbon dioxide amounts to less than an inch of field. And the recorded increase in CO2 accounts for less than a quarter of an inch OUT OF 100 YARDS. I calculate that increase to be about 1/14,400th of the atmosphere.

So why would the enviro-crowd want to hurt our planet? I say to slow the economy. This strategy doesn't veriate much from keeping the poor, especially minorities, from participating in the economy. They did that through controlling education and welfare. We saw what happened on the west coast when state governments choked the growth of electricity supply. And how California, Oregon, and Washington, spiraled into that period's worst state recessions. This mid-nineteen-nineties small scale test worked better than anyone believed. And there will be more.

The Kyoto Protocols are the foundation for slowing world economic growth and returning order to controlling the masses. And they lay the groundwork for world wealth redistribution through pollution fees and carbon trading. This is needed to appease nations that will then not show economic growth as they try to redistribute taxes and wealth to the poor today in America.

One sidebar is that State of Fear is not anywhere to be seen or heard about on the "has been" media or in newsprint. Why? I say it's because this book just might signal the first shot of a counter attack on the enviro-warriors and their campaign to slow economic activity.

Politics and Science

When did the environmental movement gain its first traction in the United States and abroad? It's not so much when chronologically but when politically. The first Earth Day was celebrated to focus attention on continued degradation of our environment due to population growth.

Few among us knew then that a political transformation was under way in research communities world wide. A concerted effort was mobilizing to politically and religiously cleanse our educational and research institutions. And it has been breathtakingly successful. Today fewer than 5% of all university level professors, researchers, and scientists say they believe in God and even fewer say they are moderate or conservative politically.

Why is this wrong? We live in a country struggling to provide opportunity for all. And we seek to offer freedoms like education and economic opportunity to the rest of the world. We achieve these noble goals by embracing diversity. Diversity strengthens organizations and governments because spirited debate results in sound policy. Yet our elite institutions are not diverse. In fact they are today more segregated than at any time in our history.

And so it is for climate and environment. Diverse voices were silenced by political extremists using methods of extortion and terrorism that only Saddam and Osama might feel are reasonable. It might not be out of the realm of possibility that this cleansing broke racketeering laws. A politically balanced scientific community seems reasonable but it became one way politically. In fact, climate and environment are now so incestuous that some in Arkansas might feel right at home.

There is little doubt that a free and open climate and environmental community can identify real and honest challenges and can then propose reasonable solutions. So it's only reasonable to encourage diverse political and scientific perspectives that can bring some sense of trust back to their often discredited community. And it's time to drop the "God is dead" crap that seems to overshadow any reasonable research. Leave religion out of science. And that means the atheist religion too.

Unexpected Support

Global Warming is now promoted as a most critical environmental challenge for the world's peoples to improve their lot in life. The mantra is that the earth is heating up causing weather changes that are disrupting hard working peoples from receiving their earned due. It is now believed that a warmer planet is a degradation of life style and is the end of animal and plant life.

But what science supports these conclusions? None! There is no scientific support for a reasonable person to review the data and arrive at Global Warming. In fact, most of the data says the opposite. And most of the HONEST scientists tell us that they do not have enough information to decide if the earth is moving toward more warmth or toward an ice age.

So it is unusual that one of Hollywood's most celebrated authors and one of its most celebrated scientific writers has published a book called: State of Fear. I speak of Michael Crichton, the author of Jurassic Park among a dozen other ground breaking novels. He has scoured the science of Global Warming to tell us that environmentalists are using it to achieve political results they and the old Soviet Union and the old Europe were not able to achieve militarily. He tells us that this is another example of "progressives" trying to be progressive while they are thinking regressively.

It is this crowd that wants to turn the clock back. They demand that we view all by their intellectually limited view of the world and of how they can control it. They say that we must stop using the environment while they fly jets and get driven around in Limo-SUVs while they eat endangered Chilean Sea Bass.

Just imagine if Gore had been elected and this crowd were now running this country? Or worse. What if Hillary Clinton is elected president and brings back the "most corrupt" administration in America's history? We now know that political and government power infects all that aspire to it.

Eco-tsunami

The jury is in. No more talk; no more research; no more hand wringing is needed: man caused the death and destruction of the Indian Ocean tsunamis. At least so it is told by Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and The World Wildlife Fund. These protectors of all creatures large or small are convinced that there is a single thread in all of the world's disasters. They say that there is always a single fingerprint on the bodies of dead and suffering. And it's development!

The chorus of this choir sings the tune of minimalists that encourages the world's people to eat only what they need; own only a few items of clothing; one pair of shoes; a hat; maybe a bike or moped. Only the do-gooders need cars and jets and fifty pairs of shoes and ten suits and seven SUVs and five vacation homes.

So when developers and business interests come to Indonesia or Malaysia, the people must resist developing and manufacturing because it will bring the wrath of mother earth on them. If no-one had been near beach hotels or driving on roads or riding in trains, there would have been few deaths from the eco-wave. The eco-wave seeks out those who are vulnerable due to their greed. Those who seek self determination. Especially those who try to build their nations into functioning populations that serve the needs and aspirations of all.

Tsunami Politics

In a moment's time everything changed. A strong earthquake strikes Indonesia and a wave of tsunamis wreak havoc for much of southern Asia. We all have seen the destruction and are hearing stories of life and death. And we all seem to understand how fragile life really is and how fast our environment can change without as much as a simple warning.

There is much more to be learned from this event. There were three distinct international responses to the tragedy. The "old Europe" and UN adherents responded by talking. The United States responded by taking action. And Asian nations responded by accumulating funding to begin rescue missions. What is clear is that the slow-growth and small-economic-activity enviro crowd looked to each other for comfort. They are the slow the economy to save the environment warriors. They see all in terms of egalitarian existence. Let the rabble get by while the bureaucrats live the life.

On the third or fourth day after the event, the Asians joined the United States and Australia to take control of the rescue and reconstruction. Indonesia and Malaysia and other Asian nations have been kept from experiencing American energy and economic impact. But now self determination is sparking hope and opportunity for these devastated communities. Few if any of the survivors will ever be the same. They now see American entrepreneurial spirit and personally experience the power and might of our reach around the globe.

As the world's first and only conservative nation, America is now stepping forward to allow the world's people to compare and contrast slow growth political movements from fast growth and self determination. Where the UN and old Europe see this disaster as a chore, America sees it as an opporunity for real political and economic change in one of the world's more backward regions.