#28 – What You HAVEN’T Heard from Environmentalists (2) -" Hot Air: We Need to Reduce Emissions in Congress"

By Chuck Colson,: July 06, 2009

[Dear friend, if what I post here or any of my other posting has been helpful, I would DEEPLY APPRECIATE you indicating some kind of comment. This is my 28th posting and I have received only 3 comments. It would encourage me deeply to know you have found what I have been posting informative, encouraging, challenging, OR NOT. Your specific comments would encourage me greatly. Anything comment you can make is MOST welcome. THANK YOU!]

[While at the summit for great eight industrialized countries of the world this past week, the President signed a document that supposedly will reduce carbon emissions in those countries in the decades ahead. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, the 3 biggest polluters in the world who were also there – China, India, and Brazil- again refused to commit to those same standards. The following is what happened in the Congress on this issue while the media was busy saturating us with all the details of Michael Jackson ad nausea

Speaking of which, I do want to say one last thing about MICHAEL JACKSON that I am quite sure you might not have heard (though it's hard to imagine you haven't read or heard something yet about him in the past 2 weeks since he died). Michael was a life long Jehovah Witness when he died, as have been the members of his family, as best as I can tell. He asked that his children be taught the teachings of Jehovah Witness shortly before he died. I won't go into it here, but the Jehovah Witnesses are a dangerous cult and have been said to be responsible for more deaths and harm than any other cult in our nation's history. (Many members of my family were messed up by them.) The bottom line is, no matter how good a person he was, Michael Jackson was not a Christian if he died a Jehovah Witness. Though he may have done much for charities and was even said by someone to have done "God's work," he will not be in heaven. We can do nothing for Michael now but WE MUST BE FAITHFUL IN PRAYING FOR HIS FAMILY AND ESPECIALLY HIS CHILDREN, THAT THEY WILL EACH MEET SOMEONE IN THEIR CIRCLE OF INFLUENCE WHO WILL SHARE WITH THEM THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AND HELP THEM TO TURN FROM THE LIES THEY HAVE COME TO BELIEVE AND TO PLACE THEIR TRUST IN HIM. And while we are at it, may we be sure to also pray the same for EVERY celebrity EVERY time we hear their name. For only God knows the difference our prayer will play in that person coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you. - Stan]

Question: “Who do you call when you need an expensive solution for a problem that may not exist? Congress, of course.”

“In the last week of June, the House of Representatives passed a bill intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.The bill is a long way from becoming law. Senate Democratic leaders haven’t even introduced their own version of the legislation, and when they do a filibuster is all but certain. But the politics of what used to be called “global warming,” and now is tellingly labeled “climate change,” isn’t limited to Capitol Hill.”

“As a recent article in the Wall Street Journal tells us, at the same time that the House was debating its bill, other countries were having second thoughts about their already enacted measures. The Polish Academy of Sciences, for one, has publicly challenged the science behind man-made global warming. And only 11 percent of Czech citizens believe that human activity contributes to the measured rise in temperatures. Even New Zeland, rightly regarded as an ecological wonderland, suspended its emissions-reduction program. Then there’s Australia. Earlier this year, the government submitted its proposal to limit CO2 emissions. Given the potential costs and the prospect of, as some Australian commentators put it, “carbon cops” knocking on people’s doors, Australian senator Steve Fielding asked the obvious question: Is this necessary? Fielding, an engineer, was concerned that the government had accepted ‘one scientific explanation for climate change at face value.’ So he examined the science himself, including asking the Obama administration to address his concerns about the science.While the administration didn’t respond to his request, what Fielding learned persuaded him NOT to support the proposal. He wasn't willing to risk job losses for 'unconvincing green science.' And he’s not alone. As the Journal put it, ‘The number of [global warming] sceptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.’

“Even if the ‘green science’ were more convincing, there are good reasons to be skeptical about the approach being debated in Congress. Columnist David Brooks spoke for many when he called the bill “a morass of corporate giveaways.” No one knows what effect it will have on CO2 emissions. A similar European effort was followed by a rise in emissions. Then there’s the elephant in the room: China. China is building two coal-fired power plants every week. It’s estimated that, within 20 years, China’s CO2 emissions will be equal to the entire world’s today. Other developing countries are following China’s lead. Even the European Union is increasing its use of coal. As any one of these alone would overwhelm American reductions, together they make the House vote seem almost perverse. A massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to favored industries in furtherance of a policy that won’t work in response to a “crisis” whose scientific basis is far from proven. What am I missing here?Would-be technocrats whose goal is to manage and shape our society are working hand in hand with those who would profit from their efforts. They insist that the global warming debate is “over” and compare those who disagree, or even ask questions, to Holocaust deniers.”“Outrageous? Sure. Surprising? Not really. It’s what you do when your argument is unconvincing.”

For Further Reading and Information
Steve Fielding, “I Kept an Open Mind on the Road to Washington,” The Australian, 8 June 2009.Kimberley Strassel, “The Climate Change Climate Change,” Wall Street Journal, 26 June 2009.David Brooks, “Vince Lombardi Politics,” New York Times, 30 June 2009.