Showing posts with label REBRANDING GLOBAL WARMING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REBRANDING GLOBAL WARMING. Show all posts

Thursday, January 12, 2012

A21 are changing name to Millennium Development Goals: GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

Wow! Awesome article that tells us everything we need to know about their master plan.  It's more than a name change; this article describes their blueprint to achieve world domination. Everything they're doing (NDAA included) appears to me to fit their blueprint.

go to http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom208.htm ....you will see that the evildoers at the A21 (Agenda 21) are changing their name to Millennium Development Goals.  Just be on the lookout for the new terms.  Remember:  these people are changelings... and evil to the very core.

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

by Tom DeWeese  -  January 11, 2012  -  NewsWithViews.com  - h/t to AJ

He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works.

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.

Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.

Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.

Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.

Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court

Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.

© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:

1- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama's Agenda 21

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Obama Auto Plan Links Auto Emissions and Mileage Standards


President Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 -- all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle.

WASHINGTON -- With two of Detroit's Big Three automakers no longer able to resist, the Obama White House will announce sped-up fuel economy standards that will require all auto-makers, including Detroit's foreign competitors, to increase fleet fuel efficiency by 5 percent per year starting in 2012.

The new rules will require a fleet fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by model year 2016, a big jump from the 2009 model year requirement of 25 mpg. A senior administration official said the changes (when compared to current pollution and vehicle use totals) will have the effect of removing 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air, taking 177 million cars off the road, and shutting down 194 coal-fired power plants.

A senior administration official called the standards "tough and historic" and predicted it will be achieved with only minor modifications to vehicle and engine design.

"You will see some changes," the official said, adding that "off-the-shelf" technology will allow most automakers to retro-fit their cars, light truck and SUVS "without dramatically changing them."

For 2016 -- the final year new the rules will apply -- the fleet fuel efficiency standard for all domestically sold passenger cars will be 39 mpg. It will be 30 mpg for all domestically sold light trucks and sport utility vehicles. The average of these two equals a passenger car and light truck fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 mpg. The current requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg or trucks. The tighter standards will first affect the 2011 model year for cars and trucks.

An official said consumers will still have a wide-range of options on vehicle design and horsepower because "every single category of vehicle has to become more efficient." The uniformity of change, the official said, "will preserve" options for the vehicle-buying public.

The administration will also impose the first-ever tailpipe emission standard for every class of vehicle -- a move that will bring regulations of fuel efficiency and pollution under one set of rules. The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time ever, jointly monitor and enforce fuel efficiency and tailpipe emission standards.

The standards are expected to increase the cost of a vehicle, on average, by $1,300 by 2016. A senior administration official predicted that cost would largely be offset by savings in gasoline expenses over the life of the vehicle. To calculate that savings, the administration predicts gasoline will cost $3.50 per gallon in 2016.

Detroit's Big Three had long-resisted the kind of economy standards they will embrace at the White House on Tuesday. But with the government having poured billions into GM and Chrysler and with Chrysler in the throes of a government-supervised bankruptcy and GM facing the possibility of a similar fate by month's end, industry leverage appears to be minimal. Ford will also embrace the new rules, even though it has not received any federal bailout funds.

"We are pleased that President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will be good for the environment and the economy," Ford said in a statement.

The domestic automakers do not leave empty-handed, though. They won from the government a commitment to a single set of fuel and pollution standards until the 2016 model year. Detroit was far behind its foreign competitors on fuel efficiency and faced the frightening prospect of manufacturing cars to meet two sets of standards -- California's and the federal government's.

The new rules will incorporate California's tougher standards but eliminate any market uncertainty -- a move one industry source compared to allowing Detroit's big three to walk into the future carrying one anvil instead of two.

Obama will announce the moves Tuesday at a huge White House ceremony designed to underscore cooperation among automakers, environmentalists and the two governors whose states have most closely watched the fate of U.S. auto-making -- Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.

California approved tougher fuel efficiency standards and was eyeing a June 30 ruling from the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce them. California ordered a fleet average of 35.5 mpg by 2016. The old federal standard sought that efficiency by 2020.

The new federal standards will match California's -- but do so in a way that protects Detroit from having to produce one fleet of cars to meet the tougher California standard (embraced by 13 other states) while simultaneously producing another fleet that met the more lax federal standards.

"It's going to be tough to meet these new standards," said one domestic auto source, "but there is industry buy-in behind having one national standard."

The White House ceremony, FOX News has learned, will attract the following auto heavyweights:

Frederick "Fritz" Henderson, CEO of General Motors

Robert Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler

Allan Mulally, president and CEO of Ford

Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers.

Representatives from Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Mercedes and BMW are also expected to attend.

The White House said some of the nation's top environmental groups will also appear to endorse the policy changes.

By Major Garrett - FOXNews.com

Green Hell

Steven Milloy, author of Green Hell says that more people will die every year from Obama’s new car plan than the total casualties we’ve had in the Iraq War

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles and Resources:

  • The Con Is On… Gore Tells Congress Climate Most Important Issue Ever 
  • Green Hell: Obama's Environmental Plans Will Lead To 'Energy Chaos,' Author Says
  • Green Hell – A Must Read!
  • Wednesday, May 13, 2009

    An Environmentalist's Thesaurus

    'Global warming' is so passé.  This would be hysterical… if it wasn’t so scary and devious!

    Some experts think the environmentalist movement has an image problem. According to them, greens are losing the battle against primeval despoilers of Nature's awesome bounty because they continue to use antiquated, in-your-face terms like "global warming," "cap and trade," and yes even "the environment." So says a new report by ecoAmerica, a cutting-edge, Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in environmental marketing and messaging, as reported in the New York Times (henceforth known as the Green Lady).

    According to ecoAmerica, which has conducted rigorous, focus-group research in this area, environmentalists are taking it on the chin because politically charged terms like "global warming" conjure up images of hirsute, confrontational '60s types. "When you say 'global warming,'" Robert M. Perkowitz, ecoAmerica's president and founder, told the Times, "a certain group of Americans think that's a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues."  How about… the fact that it is just a wrong assumption?

    Sadly, Mr. Perkowitz never explained how this "certain group" manages to draw a connection between global warming and gay marriage. And it must be said, I'd love to see his raw data on the subject.

    In any event, to right the listing ship of sustainable biodiversity, ecoAmerica recommends that environmentalists mothball the textured scientific lingo and get right down to the nitty-gritty. That means ditching excessively technical terms like "carbon dioxide" and substituting catchy phrases like "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."

    EcoAmerica also recommends jettisoning the cumbersome term "the environment" and replacing it with the infinitely more felicitous "the air we breathe, the water our children drink." The organization probably got paid tons of money for this high-level research, so its advice should not go unheeded…?

    Clearly, ecoAmerica is on to something with this bold initiative. But perhaps the subtle neologisms it's proposed don't go far enough. No one pays any attention to bloodless expressions like "depletion of the ozone layer" anymore. Moreover, "depletion" is a stupid word, since what it's supposed to decry is "catastrophic destruction" of the ozone layer, not its mere shrinkage.

    What is needed here is more graphic language that the man on the street can understand. Thus, instead of saying something like "If mankind continues to deplete the ozone layer, we will cause irreparable damage to the environment," activists should say: "If we keep using the dirty fuels of the past to mess up that awesome thing in the sky that prevents our butts from like totally frying at the beach, then we might as well just spew filth into the air we breathe and the water our children drink and all curl up and die right now. Am I right, or what?"

    Anyone can see how more colorful, less partisan, less politically rancorous language would enable environmentalists to seize the higher ground. Now it no longer sounds like some prissy elitist's butt that's going to fry. It could be somebody in a trailer park. Maybe even Dick Cheney.

    There are many other environmentalist catchphrases that could use fine-tuning. "No carbon footprint" is a term so trendy, so precious, that it cannot help but reinforce the image of environmentalists as condescending do-gooders. Surely something less deviously euphemistic would work better.

    Instead of hanging a sign in the window reading, "As of midnight Tuesday, this dining establishment will no longer leave a carbon footprint," restaurant owners could hang a placard reading: "Starting Tuesday, we will no longer allow disgusting fumes to belch all over the food your kids are eating and stinking up the air you breathe. We already warned the cook."

    Similarly, instead of talking about "the melting of the polar ice cap," a phrase too apocalyptically antediluvian to scare anyone anymore, environmentalists should start referring to "dead polar bears in your driveway." "Degradation of habitat" could be replaced by a more evocative phrase like "torching Bambi's crib."

    The one term environmentalists should probably deep-six, though, is "biological diversity." The ding-dongs who confuse "global warming" with gay marriage might think that biological diversity refers to features of the environment that only ethnic minorities care about. At this rate, we'll never get the planet back in working order.

    By:  Mr. Queenan, a satirist and writer, is the author of numerous books. His memoir, "Closing Time," has just been published by Viking.

    Source: online.wsj.com

    As funny as this is… the process of rebranding the Green Movement by “the powers that be” and the companies like G.E. that will benefit from Cap-and-Trade and new Green Energy Project contracts” has begun…

    The bottom-line here is that Global Warming is a farce.  The Earth has actually been (overall) cooling the past 10-years, but no matter how many scientists present their studies to Congress and the White House and no matter how much the American Public is against the new “Green” program because it will cost the American taypayer more money… a lot more money as well as 'lose jobs' not increase them at a time that America just can’t afford it... the powers that be trudge on!  Cap-and-Trade is a huge tax. And 'two' jobs are actually lost in the United States for every 'one' Green job created.  As for Al Gore, is he evil?  No… just being used and a bit clueless!!  After all, he wants to be remembered for something and thinks he invented the Internet… and that should say it all.

    Should we all care about the environment… absolutely!  Are there many issues that we should all get behind… stopping deforestation, cleaner disposal and recycling of our waste, loss of plant and animal species at an unimaginable rate, cleaner water, cleaner air… and the list goes on?  Should we encourage the world to stop procreating irresponsibly?… absolutely!  And should the world slowly and responsibly shift toward cleaner and renewable energy sources, with a little help from the government?... absolutely!  We should have started doing all this 40-years-ago when the flower children and hippies were protesting about it! Just like we should have planned ahead and stopped borrowing from social security and Medicare and planned for the Baby-Boomer Retirement at least 20-year-ago.  I have books in my bookcase from 20 and even 40 years ago predicting and discussing all the above.  But if you are buying into the present Green movement (rebranding of Global Warming) and Cap-and-Trade… you are being had!

    Before it is too late… educate yourself, and that does not mean watch the daily regular media news, especially NBC, whose parent company is General Electric (GE) and is in the bag for the Obama White House and that has and stands to make billions. They already have received $139 Billion from the FDIC in bailout money.  HMMM… are they a bank?

      Green Hell – A Must Read!


    What Can I Do?

    • Educate Yourself (Starting Now) – You are living during a time that will change the America we know forever.  You owe it to yourself and future generations to pay attention
    • Watch, listen and read a full spectrum of news and informational TV programs, Internet websites, newspapers, magazines and books
    • Contact Your Representatives (ASAP) and let them know you are against Cap-and-Trade and that you think Global Warming is a farce
    • Get Involved – Be Creative; Organize a Green Tea Party/Anti-Cap and Trade Tea Party; Tell Just One More Person…
    • Stop Believing That The Government Will Look Out For You... For Us..., So Functioning as 'The Silent Majority' Is Okay!
    • Cast an ‘Educated Vote’ Not An Emotional Vote in 2010 and 2012

      Green Hell – A Must Read!

      New Energy Taxes Will Hobble Economy

      Congress will soon consider massive new taxes and fees – which could easily exceed $400 billion – on America’s oil and natural gas industry, yet this level could produce devastating effects on our economy, all when America can least afford it.

      These unprecedented taxes and fees would reduce investment in new energy supplies at a time when nearly two-thirds of Americans support developing our domestic oil and natural gas resources. That would mean less energy, and it would cost thousands of American jobs, actually reduce local, state and federal revenue, and further erode our energy security.

      Learn more and tell Congress to oppose these proposals to impose $400 billion in tax hikes on America’s oil and natural gas companies. By using SocialCapital, you can voice your opinions to public officials and members of Congress about key energy issues via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more.

      Take Action Button

      Green Hell - A Must Read

      Tuesday, May 5, 2009

      Obama's Green-house of Cards



      Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

      On Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 214 points on better than expected housing reports.

      Phew! Looks like we are starting to turn things around.

      But here's the one thing: We are rebuilding our economy as another house of cards on a new pile of sand.

      China is now the real Bank of America, but unfortunately the only thing worse than China buying our debt, is China notbuying our debt. And that's what is happening. China has drastically cut their purchase of our bonds, which is a lot like your bank cutting up your credit card.

      Yet instead of us sitting back and saying, '"Maybe this is a sign that I should start managing my finances a little better," we lie to ourselves that we just go out and find another card.

      Our government has sold us the lie that spending is the same as investing and they're leading by example. A hundred billion here, 500 billion there — what's the difference? The average American now has five credit cards and the average American household has over $10,000 in credit card debt.

      Even the media plays along. A recent Forbes.com article titled "10 Things to Buy Before the Economy Improves" talks about buying a house, a car, toys, diamonds, furniture, televisions and women's clothing all while prices are allegedly so low.

      Yet whenever I ask the experts — economists, professors, even politicians — how we pay for all of this, I'm met with either silence or an expression that roughly translates into: "Oh silly Glenn, don't you worry, there are very smart people figuring all of that out right now."

      In other words: No one has an answer. And if you think you have the answer send me an e-mail and I will give you national TV time to explain it. But man, it better make sense!

      I know that people seem to think conservatives want government spending to be zero, but that's a lie. I believe in investing in America, but it has to be in projects that can reshape us back into world leaders. You want to spend a trillion on a Manhattan Project to develop a new clean, cheap source of energy? So long as that money stays here in America — sign me up.

      Rupert Murdoch, the head of the company that owns FOX News Channel, recently said that we are in a time when, "nations will be redefined." I completely agree, but instead of redefining ourselves the way we did after World War II, we're running right back to the pile of sand.

      The Obama administration says we are going to rebuild our economy on "green" jobs and it's not just talk. The stimulus bill has more than $20 billion for investment in a "cleaner, greener economy" and another $500 million for "green" job training. And the Obama administration is predicting it will create or save 5 million green jobs in 10 years.

      Sounds terrific, until you start to look at those pesky things called "facts."

      Durango, Colorado has bought all of their electricity for their government buildings from wind farms for the past two years. Problem is that it costs so much they'd have to lay someone off to stay "green." They've now gone back to coal.

      Instead of blindly pouring cement into this new pile of sand, maybe we should take notice of what's happened to other countries that have tried the things we're suddenly so excited about:

      "Cap and trade"? A failure in Europe.

      The Kyoto Treaty? A failure almost everywhere around the world.

      And "green jobs"? Well, for how that's worked out in real life, just look to Spain.


      Related Articles:




      Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows



      President Barack Obama exits Air Force One. (AP Photo)
      (CNSNews.com) - Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.   
       
      President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry. 

      But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain: 

      "Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
       
      Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.
       
      “Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”
       
      “Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”
       
      Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.
       
      According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.
       
      “No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”
       
      But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.
       
      “The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."
       
      Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group,  told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.
       
      “There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said.  “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”
       
      Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.
       
      “That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”

      Josiah Ryan
      CNSNews
      April 13, 2009