The Democrats have called a vote on their Tax on Trade Bill this Friday. It is officially titled Cap and Trade Bill, but it is really a tax on trade bill. It is a massive tax increase on anyone who uses energy in the United States. Since that includes everyone, it is a massive tax increase on the American public. The problem is that most people are not aware that the bill even exists. Of those that are aware that the bill exists only a few really know what the bill would do to us in the form of taxes.

The bill is being sold as a bill to control greenhouse gases. Since greenhouse gases cause global warming, a hoax by the way, controlling greenhouse gases will control global warming. If the bill is made law the change in temperature 50 years from today would amount to less than one degree Fahrenheit. In the process the massive taxes would cripple or destroy the entire economy of the United States. It would make it impossible to use energy in any meaningful way. Commuting would be a thing of the past. Using energy to heat and cool homes would come to a screeching halt. Most people could not afford the taxes. Layoffs would create millions of newly poor Americans. Even the “rich” would not be immune from these higher taxes. They would lose their ability to earn money and suffer economic losses. The United States would become a third world country with an economy below that of 90% of the world economies. We would find out what it means to be poor. Right now our poor are considered rich in many countries.

The increase in taxes on energy is staggering. The amounts range from 54-90%. That amount of increase would cause huge problems for most Americans. The estimated amount of increase for the average family is estimated to be $1500 by the Congressional Budget Office. By independent organizations, I have seen numbers that put the increase for the average family of up to $3500. I don’t know about your family, but my family could not afford to pay out an additional $1500-3500 per year just to pay taxes. That would drive us from the middle class to the poor class in no time flat.

Outside of Congress, the EPA is trying to do much the same thing. The attorney that won the case allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide is now working at the EPA to establish new regulations regulating carbon dioxide. The regulations would basically make the EPA a legislature and executive office at the same time. They would establish laws for you to live under and then enforce those laws. Right now, those powers are split between the legislative and executive portions of government for a reason. That reason is to avoid abuse of the system. EPA is proposing to go around the Constitution and do both functions. This has to stop. The EPA has one type of function and they should stick to that function. They should not be a legislative branch of government. That is reserved for Congress, not the EPA. They also are not an enforcement arm of laws that they make themselves. This abuse needs to be stopped. We do not even know how Congress wants the issue treated and EPA is going to make everyone dance to their tune. That is not right.

Everyone is jumping the gun. First of all, carbon dioxide has little effect on the temperature of the earth. It is a greenhouse gas. It does help the temperature rise to a certain point. After that point, it has no effect at all. For the first third of one percent it has an effect on temperature, however minor. After that level is reached, the increase in carbon dioxide has no effect at all. That has been proven by the increase in carbon dioxide levels since 1970. The carbon dioxide level has increased steadily since 1970 and the temperature went up until 1998. After 1998, the temperature has gone down. If carbon dioxide was as big a player as global warmers believe, the temperature would have continued to rise. It has not risen, but fallen, which disproves their theory.

Global warming is all a hoax anyway. There is no truth to the theories that are proposed for global warming or the new global climate change idea. The climate always changes. It is always going up or down and the actor in whether it goes up or down is the sun, not carbon dioxide. The second biggest player is water vapor. Carbon dioxide comes in on the less around number 10 or 11. If we were serious, we would try and do something about the top ones on the list, not number 10 or 11. Go tell your friendly global warmer to take a flying leap and then tell the Democrat Congressman to vote against the Cap and Trade tax bill. If enough of us do that, we can defeat this monstrosity. That will save our economy to live another day.

On the way to work today, Dennis Prager was talking about 6 solar towers at the Long Beach Airport. The six towers have three panels each. These towers will produce enough power to run 120 laptop computers. According to Dennis, the towers are exceedingly ugly. For the blemish on the scenery, it seems a poor investment. You have those six towers that look terrible and only produce enough power to support up to 120 laptops. That is only 20 laptops each. That seems hardly worth it.

That is the problem with the left. They always seem to know what is best for you. The best for you always makes it worse for you and better some place you will never be. Dennis’ example was that in order to achieve energy independence, we have to put up with these ugly towers. Yet, the northeast corner of Alaska, where no human will ever visit, is left pristine. The justification is that it is better for the environment that it be left pristine. The problem with that argument is the caribou, the primary animal in that environment, loves the Alaska pipeline. The caribou population exploded after the Alaska pipeline was installed. The reason is the pipeline provides warmth and shelter. Both are in extremely short supply in that part of Alaska. The warmth and shelter allow the caribou to survive and thrive. We can assume the same would be true in the Arctic National Wildlife area that the drilling would take place. But, the left knows more than the caribou or us.

The towers also say that they will save carbon dioxide. We need carbon dioxide in the air. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is like calling oxygen a pollutant. Plants require carbon dioxide to live. They make oxygen and sugar from carbon dioxide. If we start removing all the carbon dioxide out of the air under the guise that it will lower the temperature, the plants will all die and so will we. We now have carbon dioxide levels that are near starvation levels for plants. They can handle much more oxygen. Their systems can handle up to 6% carbon dioxide in the air. It has been that in the past. Carbon dioxide has little to nothing to do with the temperature of the earth, anyway.

Wind farms are another darling of the left. It takes many square miles of land to equal one nuclear power plant. Then, if the wind does not blow the wind power plant is worthless. The nuclear power would put out electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When I have driven through the wind farms in California, many windmills are not working. That is because it is expensive to maintain windmills in working order to get maximum results. Nuclear power is also not cheap, but it is reliable. Nuclear power plants are also clean and almost pollution free. Wind farms tend to kill a lot of birds with the turning blades. They are developing expensive systems that can prevent birds from hitting the blades, but that is an additional expense. Also, liberals do not want wind farms anywhere near where THEY happen to be. Liberals do not mind putting it in your backyard, just not in theirs.

Another source of power that is relatively cheap and is extremely clean is hydro power. The liberals absolutely hate hydro power. You would think that they would love hydro power because it does not cause pollution. They hate it because the river has been stopped and that is not natural. They want most if not all dams removed so that rivers can run free and unimpeded. The fact that most of our food is produced because of water that is stored behind these dams does not seem to matter to them. When it comes to choosing between farmers and fish, the fish always win if a liberal is in charge. The farmers can starve and liberals do not care. If the fish has any problem, the liberals have big problems with that. When we start running out of food because of liberals giving all our water to the fishes and other wildlife or removing our dams, maybe they will rethink their values. I doubt it.

When I worked for the Soil Conservation Service/Natural Resources Conservation Service, I came into contact with quite a few environmentalists. Most of them had a couple of things in common: First, they knew absolutely nothing about how the environment works, but thought they knew everything; second, anything that benefitted wildlife was good, anything that benefitted the farmer/rancher was bad. Even when you would show them that both sides would benefit by doing a recommended procedure, they would balk if it meant that even one cow was allowed on the ground. That was just madness. They would settle for less wildlife habitat, if they could remove the cow from the land. It was crazy how single minded they were. As a result, I came away with a very negative opinion of the environmental movement. That is because I am a trained Environmental Scientist.

We now have these single-minded environmentalists in charge of our government agencies. What will happen to those agencies over the next four years as policies get put in place that are unscientific and unsound remains to be seen. I expect to see the environment of the United States be worse off in four years than it is today because of all the new environmental policies. The EPA already has stepped in it by calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. Any freshman biology student knows that was a stupid idea.

I worked for twenty years for the Federal Government in the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. I started as a Range Conservationist and worked most of the time as a Soil Conservationist. My primary concern was soil and water erosion. I developed crop rotations, irrigation systems, tree planting plans, terrace systems and grazing systems to name a few. I say this to show that I do know something about the environment.

When I wrote grazing plans, I had to know the climate that the grazing system was in. I had to know the animals that would use the system, both wild and domestic. I also had to know the plants that were on the land and those that would be used by each animal during their yearly grazing.

What difference does this make? When I talk about global warming or global climate change, I do know what I am talking about. I have had to study the different climates in North Dakota, Colorado and Arizona. When I hear many of the global warming crowd talk about climates, I know that they do not know anything about what they are talking about. They do not understand the first thing of climates and how they change over time.

We have only been measuring rainfall and temperature with instruments for just over 100 years here in the western part of the US. In climate terms, that is about one second or less. You cannot make accurate estimates on what a climate is doing by taking short term measurements. You may hit the mark and be spot on or you can be wildly inaccurate. It would be like predicting the outcome of a baseball game based on one pitch. If you got the right pitch, you would be correct. But, more than likely you would not get the right pitch and be wildly inaccurate. To say that our climate is warming or cooling based on the last 10 years is inaccurate. To base it on the last 100 years would be better, but in climate terms you still have missed the mark. Climate changes over thousands of years, not hundreds of years.

There is an ice age every 10-12 thousand years on average. That is based on past data. Since the last ice age was approximately 12,000 years ago, we should be heading into a new ice age very soon. If we do go into a new ice age, there is nothing that we can do about it as humans. We do not have enough knowledge to change the climate if the climate wants to change.

When I saw Al Gore make a fool of himself in that movie of his, I laughed. I could not believe that he could convince anyone that what he said was true. If you looked at the charts he had, it disproved what he was trying to say. He was trying to say that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to go up. When you look at the chart you see that the carbon dioxide levels do not go up until 800 years after the temperature goes up. Also, we have been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a record pace for the past decade. In the last decade the temperature has gone down or stayed the same every year. Not one year showed an increase in temperature. If Al Gore was correct, the temperature of the earth should go up each and every year because of the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere.

What Al Gore and the global warming crowd do not take into account is the fact that plants use carbon dioxide to produce oxygen. The more carbon dioxide that is available for the plants to use to make oxygen, the more they use. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has not changed very much for over 20 years. This is even with us putting record amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. That is why the EPA making carbon dioxide a pollutant is so stupid.

If the global warming crowd was sincere, they would love nuclear power. They hate nuclear power. If they were sincere, they would go after water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 95% or more of the greenhouse effect. The problem with water vapor is that it is not something that people produce. Therefore they can not blame humans for its production. The global warming crowd is not interested in saving the planet. They want to control your life. The sooner people realize that global warming is not about the planet but about your life, the sooner the global warming crowd will be out on their ear.

The EPA is at it again. They just sent to the President a report that lists carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Yes, Virginia, it is the same carbon dioxide that you breathe out. And it is the same carbon dioxide that plants need to live.

Why is carbon dioxide a pollutant? It is a pollutant because the environmentalists claim it is a pollutant. There is no scientific evidence that shows that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no scientific evidence that shows that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. In fact, there is no valid scientific evidence that shows that global warming is even occurring, let alone that it may be caused by man. By valid, I mean that scientists have done studies that show that over a 100+ year study that carbon dioxide can be shown to influence temperature. The only studies I have seen take 3-5 years and claim that proves global warming occurs. Some even take as long as 10 years to “prove” global warming. The problem with that is that global warming would have to be proven over a longer period of time. Temperatures are always going up or down. To take a short term study like one less than 100 years would only pick up a short term trend, not the long term trend that would “prove” a climate theory. Even a study that only focused on 100 years might not be long enough to really know the true story. Climate changes over hundreds or even thousands of years. To conclude something taking less time than that would be folly at best.

Carbon dioxide makes up a very small percentage of the earth’s atmosphere. The current percentage is 0.363% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. Plants can use carbon dioxide up to 6%. Carbon dioxide levels used to be much higher during the time when animals were much larger. To say that our low carbon dioxide level is a danger is showing your ignorance. Plants can use carbon dioxide levels much higher than we have today. Plants would also be much more efficient at using carbon dioxide levels that were higher than we have today, thereby reducing much of the gain.

It is estimated that 95% or more of the greenhouse effect that everyone talks about is caused by water vapor or clouds. The reason that environmentalists do not use water vapor as a pollutant is that people do not generally produce water vapor. If they started talking about water vapor as a pollutant, they would be laughed out of town. By talking about carbon dioxide, they can fool a lot of people. By talking about carbon dioxide they are talking about something that sounds scientific. People also do not think that they are producing carbon dioxide as they breathe. They are just looking at the smokestacks that the environmentalists point to. Then, Al Gore pulls out his charts and confuses everyone that knows nothing about science by claiming that the carbon dioxide levels influence temperature. Anyone who knows science knows that Al Gore does not know anything about what he is talking about. If Al Gore tried to debate a scientist about the issue, he would be shown to be the fool that he is.

So, why are environmentalists labeling carbon dioxide as a pollutant? There is no scientific evidence to support their position. There is no scientific evidence to even indicate that their position might have any validity. The reason is that people produce carbon dioxide. Since people produce carbon dioxide it can be regulated and taxed. Since it can be regulated and taxed, it can be used to control people. Since it can be used to control people, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

The goal of the “environmental” movement is not to help the environment. If every thing the environmentalists asked for was implemented in the way they wanted and the amount they wanted, the environment would not be impacted at all. To show how insincere the environmental movement is, look at the Governor of Maryland. The Governor is a strong supporter of the “Green” movement. The Governor outlawed any windmills on Maryland state land. Also, if environmentalists were concerned with carbon dioxide pollution they would support energy production that would not produce any carbon dioxide. They strongly work against nuclear power. Nuclear power can produce all the power the nation needs and is the most “green” power source we have. The problem with nuclear power is that it would actually produce all the power that the nation needed, thereby thwarting the environmental movement.

The environmental movement is based on falsehoods. They say they are for the environment and talk like they are concerned about cleaning up our environment. The real agenda is to control and destroy the American economy by restricting energy production. The environmental movement was taken over after the fall of communism by former communists. Now, I am not calling your local neighborhood environmentalist a communist. I am talking about the leaders of the environmental movement. Even the original founders of the “green” movement have left the movement because it is no longer about the environment. It has become about controlling the lives of people through government control. That is the essence of communism.