February 28, 2013
President Obama is pushing for climate change policies to the extent that he will consider signing an executive order to make sure his proposed changes are implemented.
Obama stated in his State of the Union address that: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
Last year the World Bank published a study claiming there must be a call for “stepping up efforts” to meet the global carbon reduction levels to avert catastrophic consequences that would cause of the planet’s temperature to rise an estimated 4 degrees Celsius before the end of the century.
Alarmists like Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, decry lowering CO2 emissions must be reduced before the temperature threshold is crossed and “widespread crop failures and malnutrition and dislocate large numbers of people from land inundated by rising seas.”
Kim is trying to coerce sovereign nations to adopt UN mandates on carbon emissions by urging world leaders to become aggressive with eco-friendly planning in developing countries to offset their impact on the environment.
The threat of rising sea levels, a common tactic of eco-fascist, promises to limit the amount of fresh water access, cause drought and unbearable heat in areas not normally exposed to such extremes; as well as promotes disease while simultaneously reducing the amount of food accessible to the world’s population.
Rachel Kyte, vice president of sustainable development for the World Bank warns: “The kind of sea level rise we are talking about is going to make the process of urban planning and services to the poor absolutely fundamental. The race to heat resistant and drought resistant strains [of staple food crops] becomes fundamental.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is gearing up to impose new carbon emission regulations across America with the support of certain members of Congress for taxation of hydrocarbon us and CO2 emissions. This correlates with the UNCCC global treaty to mandate international restrictions that sovereign nations will have to adhere to.
In concert, the global carbon emissions levels are allegedly rising exponentially. This assertion is coming for the Global Carbon Project (GCP).
The GCP believes that as the world becomes “carbon neutral”, the impact of CO2 emissions will offset the damage caused and balance out in the end.
According to their report entitled “Carbon Reductions and Offsets” governments, corporations and individuals can “participate in this voluntary market” and adhere to their recommendations for legally binding policies.
Profit driven business with regard to climate change demands” reductions [that are] outpacing the wider introduction of low-carbon technologies in transport, energy production and manufacturing.” Carbon offsets can provide this by being purchased ahead of projected measures to discover future innovations for eliminating carbon emissions.
The GCP recommends:
• Purchase carbon credits to offset transportation, heating & cooling
• Develop culture of responsibility for carbon emissions
• Imbue the philosophy of being “carbon neutral”
• Set limits on corporate ops under guidelines of CO2 emissions
• Reduce all humans carbon footprints
• Purchasing 100% renewable energy
• Invest in carbon credits
• Reforestation and allocate separate land for those projects
• Become a global “zero net carbon emissions” society
Al Gore’s carbon tax scheme is called the Generation Investment Management (GIM), which sells carbon credits after assessing a corporation’s value based on summations of long-term performance as determined by GIM, says that “integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense.” There is an expectation that within the next 25 years “sustainable development will be a primary driver of industrial and economic change.”
Gore affirms that investing with GIM will maximize corporation’s “financial return by strategically managing their performance in this new economic, social, environmental and ethical context.”
The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) presented a report entitled “Extreme Weather Report 2012” at the 2012 UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) that supported the philosophy that there is no empirical data definitively showing that man-made climate change affecting weather patterns negatively – to the point that extreme weather should be counted as a new normal.
However, the CFACT recognize that fear-mongering by the climate change believers have incorrectly assessed the reality of global warming which is just a global scheme to impose carbon taxes on sovereign nations which would fund the UN’s use of man-made climate change as an excuse to assume global governance.
The eco-fascists at the UNCCC did not want to hear opposing and scientifically factual reports that proved their hoax.
A study released by Norwegian researchers state that predictions made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were blown out of proportion; and that the assertions made previously were completely wrong. Climate change has turned out to not be as terrible as the alarmists claimed it would be.
Terje Berntsen, co-author of the study explained: “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity is an assumption of how fast CO2 emissions will rise into the atmosphere, in what exact concentrations and how those gases will affect the temperature of the planet. This is anything but an exact science; but rather and educated guess.
Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics at Potsdam University conducted a study in 2011 which showed that CO2 is having less of an effect on climate than the IPCC asserts to be true and that their “claim that they are 90 percent sure that humans have ‘contributed to’ the observed warming” cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. Rahmstorf explains: “It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals.”