More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on the SCAM known as climate change

In an unprecedented bid to launch a global cap and trade scheme and a massive global tax for just living and breathing..."56 newspapers worldwide will run the same front-page editorial promoting the climate-change myth and supporting the globalist agenda at the Copenhagen climate-change conference this week. Here we see the collectivist mainstream media, not as a reporter of events, but as a major participant." ~ G Edward Griffin

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change

Opinion piece to be published in 56 papers across 45 countries – including the Guardian, Le Monde and two Chinese papers

In pictures: Climate change front pages
The papers that will carry the Copehagen editorial
Ian Katz: How the editorial project came about
Jon Vidal: A perfect storm

Chris Tryhorn

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 December 2009 18.48 GMT

The Guardian has teamed up with more than 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow.

This unprecedented project is the result of weeks of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the diplomatic wrangling likely to dominate the next 14 days in Copenhagen.

Fifty-six papers in 45 countries published in 20 different languages have joined the initiative, and will feature the leader in some form on their front pages.

Among the titles taking part are two Chinese papers – the Economic Observer and the Southern Metropolitan – and India's second largest English-language paper, The Hindu.

Some of the world's best known papers, such as Le Monde, El Pais, Russia's Novaya Gazeta and the Toronto Star, are also on board.

The leader was the work of team of Guardian writers and editors and went through three drafts to arrive at a text that satisfied all the editors involved.

Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said: "Newspapers have never done anything like this before but they have never had to cover a story like this before. No individual newspaper editorial could hope to influence the outcome of Copenhagen but I hope the combined voice of 56 major papers speaking in 20 languages will remind the politicians and negotiators gathering there what is at stake – and persuade them to rise above the rivalries and inflexibility that have stood in the way of a deal."

The Guardian deputy editor Ian Katz, who co-ordinated the project, said: "The fact that papers from Moscow to Miami, with such different national and political perspectives, could agree on an editorial should offer some hope that our leaders might be able to do the same. We are bombarded with so much news and comment about climate change that many people are understandably tempted to go back to bed and pull the duvet over their heads – hopefully this improbable alliance will capture people's attention, and perhaps their imagination too."

The leader says that overcoming climate change "will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature'".

"It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can, too."

Dubai's Gulf News, the Arabic language paper An Nahar of Lebanon and the Israeli paper Maariv are among the 16 Asian papers involved.

There are also 11 African papers participating, and nine from north, south and central America combined.

The sole English-language US paper represented is the Miami Herald. "This initiative offered the Miami Herald's editorial board a terrific opportunity to join other papers across the globe on an issue that is of paramount importance to Florida and to our nation," said the Herald's editorial page editor, Myriam Marquez.

The 20 European papers taking part include the Irish Times, Liberation, Suddeutsche Zeitung, La Repubblica and Turkish title Hurriyet.

And delegates in Copenhagen will find that two Danish papers, Dagbladet Information and Danish Politiken, are featuring the leader too.

Some papers, such as Japan's Asahi Shimbun, were not able to carry a shared leader as that would breach their editorial protocols but are carrying a news report about the initiative.

Two Australian papers, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, pulled out at a late stage after the election of climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition Liberal party recast the country's debate on green issues.

Peter Cole, head of the journalism department at the University of Sheffield, praised the unprecedented collaboration between newspapers.

"This is a tremendous initiative and a good counter to the idea that nobody notices that the world is falling apart," he said. "If editors from nearly 50 countries all over the world, including all the major countries that contribute so much to global warming, can all agree, then surely the politicians in Copenhagen would be foolish to ignore it."

"Only one year ago, during the COP 14 summit in Poznan, governments promised us that they would deliver a breakthrough," said Konrad Niklewicz of Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza.

"Yet as the Copenhagen summit approached, their courage and leadership started to disappear. Politicians started to behave as we had plenty of time and no disaster looming. Yet the opposite is the case.

"Science tells us we have no more time, it is now or never. We can't let governments get away with yet another fudge and unfulfilled promises. Speaking with one voice, we will be heard."

N Ram, editor-in-chief and publisher of India's Hindu, added: "This is a splendid initiative, and with some luck and a lot of hard work it should turn out to be a significant media intervention, an example of how we can perform our social responsibility function. The Hindu feels happy and privileged to be part of this initiative and prospective intervention, and we are of course front-paging the global editorial with the impressive logo (the American absences notwithstanding)."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/06/50-papers-leader-climate-change

SENATE PUSHING CLIMATE BILL THROUGH PANEL; DITCH "CAP & TRADE" NAME

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
November 8, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

In spite of the growing opposition by the American people, US Senate Democrats rammed an unprecedented climate bill (S. 1733) through a Senate committee on Thursday.

California Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the powerfulSenate Environment and Public Works Committee, had postponed the bill's vote for several days due to her need to address Republican members' protests. The major disagreement is the cost of the bill and its impact on the US economy.

However, Senator Boxer decided to take advantage of the Fort Hood incident and the continuing health care debate to quietly pass the bill, according to one Washington insider. It also helped her to have the name of the bill changed from "Cap-and-Trade," since that term has caused widespread criticism by a majority of Americans.

"Senator Boxer used the tragic {shootings at Fort Hood] to cloak the partisan passage of a bill certain to hurt a majority of American citizens," said political strategist Mike Baker.

"Boxer wields a lot of power in the Senate and she's known as an abrasive, hard-nosed infighter," he added.

The bill passed through Boxer's committee with an 11-1 vote. The Democrats voted without any of the seven Republican Senators attending the session. The GOP Senators were angry over many aspects of the bill including a provision that would set mandatory limits on heat-trapping gases. Also the bill will increase gasoline prices.

Boxer said during a press conference that the Republican demand for more analysis was "duplicative and waste of taxpayer dollars."

Boxer introduced the bill along with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry last September. Only one of the Democrat Senators voted against the legislation. Senator Max Baucus of Montana voted against the bill claiming that he has serious concerns about the bill. He gave as an example the bill's call for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.

In order to get the legislation out of committee and onto the Senate floor without the Republicans present will prevent the Democrats from tinkering or fine tuning the bill's provisions.

The Senate's Kerry-Boxer climate bill is similar to the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last June.

While the Senate bill stipulates CO2 emissions reduction of 20 by 2020, The House of Representatives' bill mandates for a 17 percent reduction.. 

The Senate bill has a price cap (hence the term "cap-and-trade") containing a provision to increase efforts to prevent the price for carbon permits dropping below $11/ton or soaring above $28/ton. Business organization and economists warns that this will limit price volatility, which can make it trickier for companies to make investment decisions. Republicans in the House opposed the arbitrary method in which some industries would get free pollution allowances under the cap-and-trade system.

"This entire legislative disaster will increase the cost for electricity, gasoline, coal, oil, etc.," warns Baker.

"It is also a perfect example of a big-government power grab on top of the planned government takeover of health care, water, farms, and financial institutions. These politicians claim they do what they do on behalf of the American people, but it's the American people who will suffer," said Baker.

An Environmental Protection Agency study released by Senator Boxer claims that while there are differences between the Senate and House bills, they are so small that the economic costs "would be similar" in the case of either bill. It said the cost would add between $80 to $111 a year to households energy bills as a result of higher prices.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the household cost of the bill would be $175 a year per household. 

However, some industry-cited studies have put the cost much higher, some claiming possible added costs of as much as $3,000 per year per household.

President Barack Obama and administration officials are on the record as backing the Senate bill especially its provision to to slash greenhouse gas emissions and boost investment in renewable energy.

Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, stated in his testimony before Senator Boxer's committee that a cap on carbon emissions will help drive investment decisions toward clean energy technologies. 

"A cap on carbon will give the energy industry the long-term direction and the certainty it needs to make appropriate technology and capital investment decisions," Chu said in a press statement.

But opponents of this legislation have deep reservations about both the Senate and House bills. They have said -- and continue to say -- that caps on emissions will amount to a tax on struggling industries and the costs to corporations will be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Selected Earlier Stories

1 - Sarah Foster: Climate Bill Spells 'Skyrocketing' Energy Rates, Unemployment, Less Freedom. July 14, 2009
2 - Marc Morano: Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim. July 11, 2009 
3 - Devvy Kidd: Cap-and-Trade Rape Passed ? What Must be Done Next. June 29, 2009
4 - William Hunt: Control and Loss of Freedom ? Ultimate Goal of the Global Warming Lobby. June 1, 2009 
5 - Tom DeWeese: What If There is No Man-Made Global Warming? Mar. 2, 2009 
6 - Devvy Kidd: Solution to Global Warming and Disappearing Polar Bears. June 5, 2008 
7 - Michael Coffman: Scientists Disclaim Role of CO2 in Global Warming. Mar. 8, 2008
8 - Michael Coffman: Global Warming or Global Governance?Aug. 13, 2007 
9 - William Hunt: What Environmentalists Don't Want You to Know. Mar. 14, 2007
10 - William Hunt: The Nonsense of Global Warming. Jan. 22, 2007

More Reading / Resources

1 - Sen. John Kerry: S. 1733: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009
2 - Rep. Henry Waxman: H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
3 - Heritage Foundation: Cap-and-Trade/Global Warming Bill Page
4 - Marc Morano’s website: ClimateDepot.com.

© 2009 NWV - All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news170.htm

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire”

CO2 tax agenda front man lining his pockets on the back of global warming fearmongering

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote.

Gore’s defense against claims that he is peddling fearmongering about global warming to get filthy rich, and one dutifully supported by the NY Times’ whitewash report, is that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

However, Gore’s insistence that he is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, doesn’t seem to extend to his own private life in the context of energy conservation and CO2 emissions. While lecturing the world about reducing CO2 emissions and saving energy, Gore’s own mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average American home.

In February 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. These figures were not disputed by Gore.

“If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care,” said the Center’s 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. “But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”

The clips below, taken from Alex Jones’ new documentary Fall Of The Republic, expose how Al Gore serves as the front man for the global carbon tax cap and trade scheme, which is designed to bankrupt the United States and drastically lower the living standards of the American people, while introducing nightmare levels of regulation and bureaucracy into their everyday lives. Get the full DVD here.

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Excellent website!! The Green Agenda

Excellent website!! 

Please, please, please take the time to read through it, and spread it around. Have your children read it, because this person is like me, a lover of the environment, but has done their research as I have and fully understands how this highly charged emotional platform is being used for a much deeper and sinister global agenda.

http://green-agenda.com/

We should all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. But most of us realise that humans in general are not being good stewards. We are wasteful with our natural resources and have reduced biodiversity. Therefore, when we read about groups and organisations calling for a 'green revolution' and a new relationship between humanity and nature it is easy to agree with their ideas. 

However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:

(references and sources for the quotes below can be found here)

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, 
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

http://www.green-agenda.com/

CAP AND TRADE TAX BILL: Scalise: 'We're Setting Up A Global Warming Gestapo!'

Section 201 of this cap and trade energy tax creates a national building code, something that we don't have in place today. If you look across the country right now, 30 states have their own state building codes. A number of states actually go even to the local level where they have codes that are based on different cities or different parishes or counties. 

Just to use Louisiana, for an example, right after Hurricane Katrina, we -- our legislature passed a statewide building code. We didn't have one before. We created a statewide building code, and we took into account in our code the various segmented differences between regions of our state. In fact, the code is different in South Louisiana where our main threats are hurricanes and flooding, much different than they are in the northern part of the state of Louisiana, where tornados are a bigger threat. 

And so if you look at the fact that thirty states have these types of statewide codes, this bill in section 201 creates a federal code that would trump, throw out all of those state building codes that have been worked on for years in many cases. We worked on ours for months, just for our state's code. Here, with really no debate, we're creating a federal code that trumps all of the states' codes and in some cases would actually lower the standards that states have for building.

And if you go back to why we have building codes and why states have done this, the purpose typically is to protect safety and health. Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it's literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I'm in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage -- which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina -- under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can't use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don't want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

And then what does that mean? Let's go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We're actually creating a global warming police. To page 235: "The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required." So number one, they can come in, the federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you're out of compliance with this new federal code, "The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section." And then further to page 236: "Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation." We're setting up a global warming gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, "unlawful occupancy." Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FX1fojAJM

Feds Prepare To Tax Toilet Paper In Name Of Climate Change

The government wants to shake us down for our visits to the lavatory

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The vampiric and gluttonous feeding frenzy currently being enjoyed by the federal government under the pretext of climate change is set to be expanded with a range of new taxes on products disposed of via waste water, including cosmetics, toothpaste and toilet paper.

The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, introduced last week by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), will be “financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in wastewater, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry,” according to Blumenauer’s fact sheet.

Though the taxes are “designed to be collected at the manufacturer level,” only the most naive would doubt that multinational corporations would just pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as is routine.

Items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil will be subject to a 3% excise tax, while water beverages will be hit with a 4% tax, “because these products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to the bill.

The legislation also cites “climate change mitigation” as a justification for imposing the taxes. The Feds’ new feeding frenzy will rake in around $10 billion dollars a year.

The bill even defines “toilet tissue” in section 4172. “The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff,” writes Chris Horner. “The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseam — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems nationwide.”

The necessity of cleaning up a water supply poisoned with the toxic soup of human disposals seems like a reasonable proposal, especially in light of evidence that antiandrogens in our rivers and lakes are contributing to global sperm reduction and essentially chemically sterilizing men, and yet when the filters are ready to be installed at water treatment facilities that would remove this junk, the government steps in and blocks them under the justification that they contribute to CO2 emissions.

The fact that the global warming feeding frenzy has now reached a level of insanity to the point where the federal government is essentially preparing to tax us to defecate and urinate shows how far down the line we really are. What’s next? A tax on breathing? After all, we humans exhale that evil life-giving poisonous gas carbon dioxide. The New York Times actually introduced the idea of the government imposing a tax on breathing in a March 2007 editorial.

As we are lectured about the necessity of why we must have every aspect of our lives regulated and taxed in order to save the earth, we learn that the government’s last efforts to do so, during the ozone layer scare of the 80’s and 90’s, actually harmed the environment.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), introduced in the 90’s to replace ozone-depleting gases in deodorants, fridges and air conditioners, actually “act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.” So while the government was brow-beating us about the evils of emitting CO2 because it apparently caused global warming, they were actually mandating that we use a gas which contributed to global warming to an substantially greater degree.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-prepare-to-tax-toilet-paper-in-name-of-climate-change.html

U.N. Environment Head Wants Global Warming Tax

“Green New Deal” proposed as latest elitist scam to exploit financial crisis, create building blocks for world government

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009

You won’t find them calling it by that name, but the “New Green Deal” being proposed by the Obama administration, as well as U.N. environment agency head Achim Steiner, is nothing more than a global warming tax designed to further castrate U.S. sovereignty and geld Americans to accept increasingly centralized global regulations.

“Investments of $750 billion could create a “Green New Deal” to revive the world economy and protect the environment, perhaps aided by a tax on oil, the head of the U.N. environment agency said on Thursday,” reports Reuters.

Steiner’s warning that “the opportunity must not be lost,” to introduce such measures echoes the mantra of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others of the need to exploit the financial crisis to put in place the building blocks of world government.

Steiner said the U.N. would need funds to “fight global warming” and that one means of acquiring them would be by “taxing oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”

Accepting the premise that such a tax would inevitably be passed on to consumers, Steiner claimed, “It would be almost, if not totally, unnoticed by the consumer,” he said, especially since oil prices have fallen from more than $140 a barrel at mid-2008 peaks to about $40.”

And what about when oil is back up to $140 and beyond once the inevitable whirlwind of hyperinflation kicks in due to the Federal Reserve’s latest announcement to flood the financial system with a further $1 trillion dollars? Naturally, such a tax would be minimal at first, but once the U.N. has got its foot in the door and is directly taxing U.S. citizens at the gas pump, God only knows where we could end up.

Overarching this entire fraud is the fact that, as we have exhaustively documented for years, the notion of man-made global warming is a contrived scam promulgated by the very people who stand to benefit to the tune of trillions if a climate change tax was introduced. Since the earth’s climate has never stopped changing throughout eons of pre-human history, rest assured that a healthy supply of doomsday scenarios will always be on hand with which to fleece us, whether we’re baking in a cauldron or shivering under the onset of a new ice age.

Exactly how much do they eventually want to squeeze out of the already battered and bruised taxpayer?

The IPCC’s own figures state that it would cost about $100 trillion to avert 1 degree Celsius of global warming through reducing CO2 emissions, even if you believe that man-made climate change is a reality.

$100 trillion dollars - that’s around $333,000 thousand dollars for every living American. Even if you apply it to every living person on the planet, it’s still around $16,000 thousand dollars each. Doesn’t sound like that would be an “unnoticed” amount does it? I would certainly notice if $16,000 left my bank account as an indulgence tax payment for my “sin” of contributing to global warming.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-environment-head-wants-global-warming-tax.html

Research related articles:

1. Environment Minister calls global warming fears ‘hysterical psuedo-religion’…
2. Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
3. Desperate Double Speak: Global Cooling Is Part Of Global Warming
4. Global warming the new religion
5. Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science “Mistaken”
6. Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con
7. UN says eat less meat to curb global warming
8. Disney’s New Hannah Montana Album Features ‘Global Warming Anthem’
9. UK Politician Urges Video Game Manufacturers to Include Global Warming Message
10. Astronomer devises giant sun shield to reverse global warming
11. Global Warming Advocates Cite Elite Cover Up Conspiracy
12. What Global Warming?