Happy Earth Day!

Let's say the Radical Green Agenda is right about Global Warming... It won't be all bad:

Obama's Foolish Rail Plan

The New York Times reports on President Obama's new plan to build a "high speed" rail system across the U.S. During his speech outlining the proposal, he said:

“What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century, a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.”

Too bad President Obama's plan will do practically none of those things.

Over at The Corner, Richard Nadler outlines 5 reasons President Obama's plan is a misguided one. Of interest to GreenWatch Readers:

3) If you (unlike this author) believe that greenhouses gases are a problem, you DON’T WANT a shared passenger/freight system. One of the reasons why Europe is doing such a wretched job of complying with Kyoto is that it does only 10% of its freight by rail, as opposed to 51% in the U.S. Europe moves more people by rail, and more freight (i.e., heavier stuff) on trucks. Our intermodal system of truck-to-rail container transfer helps account for the fact that freight emissions of greenhouse gases are 155 grams per ton mile in the U.S. compared to 193 grams per ton mile in Europe.

David Freddoso elaborates on NRO.

The Oregonian points out the flaws in Obama's plan from the other end of the political spectrum.

In the end, the trains he's proposing are not modern upgrades, but retreads of past train systems that have already failed. Which is funny, because some might argue that "retreads that have already failed" are the exact words they'd use to describe his entire economic plan.

Featured Story Continued

Watch the trailers for both films below:

This Week's Headlines

The GOP & Climate Skepticism

Ford Fears Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme Will Drive Jobs Out of the Country

Obama Flunks Global Warming 101 on Fargo Floods

China Considers Setting Targets for Carbon Emissions

Will Global Warming Make Future Generations Worse Off? (No!)

1970's Lifestyle 'Protects' Planet

Third World Stove Soot is Target in Climate Fight (How dare those poor people cook their food!)

Global Warming Heretics Increase in Numbers

Most Egregious Claim of the Week

Stephen Chu, Energy Secretary of the United States.

"I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent -- I remember this number -- one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will -- some of them will disappear."

But he didn't stop there:

"Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is -- this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous."

We announce the winner of the Most Egregious Claim of the Week on this blog every week. To see the other nominees, sign up for our weekly newsletter here.

GreenWatch Newsletter 23 (April 13, 2009)

Featured Story:

The Washington Times brings word of disastrous new provision in the House climate bill that would allow anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part" due to government inaction to combat greenhouse gas emissions to sue the federal government.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by two Democrats; Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Though the payouts for such lawsuits are minimal, capped at a total of 1.5 million dollars per year, what it could do is force the government to take action against climate change at the order of a judge, allowing activist judges to decide a crucial portion of economic policy for the entire country.

Of course, there's a part of me that sees a story like this and says, "alright, bring on the lawsuits. Let's see those claims of settled science exposed as the frauds they are in a court of law."

Perhaps Waxman and Markey are seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the entire global warming movement and this is their last, desperate ploy to get something done. Americans still aren't drinking the kool-aid, funds for climate projects are being cut, and former pro-anthropomorphic global warming propagandists are starting to realize that The Deniers may well have a point.

I propose a second bill: Allow citizens like you and me to sue the federal government and private businesses for the mental anguish of having to deal with this incessant campaign to convince us the world is going to end because of the success of industry - a campaign that was built on lies and that, fortunately, seems to be on the verge of failing.

More Headlines:

George Will and the Sea-Ice Controversy: Was He More Correct That Thought?

Fewer Showers to Help Global Warming

Study: Biofuel Threatens Water Supplies

Obama's Economic Mirage

UCLA saves the world by not eating beef on Thursdays

For Alaska's Inupiat, Climate Change and Culture Shock

The Reader's Corner:

Send your questions, comments and story leads to GreenWatchAmerica@gmail.com with the subject line "The Reader's Corner".

Donald B Parsons: "Whenever I read the articles saying the sky is falling and blaming mainly CO2 emissions I would chuckle a little. I always respond with the same rhetoric that this article does and that is that for at 30 years (since science class) that we emit CO2 and breath O2 and our symbiotic partners (all flora) take in CO2 and emit O2. I know from reading botany books as well as horticulture books and being a hands in the dirt farmer who has had a small garden for our own food source knows that 283 ppms are minimal even up to 380 ppms are small, most plants especially large ones like tomato plants and trees can accept 1200-1500 ppms. I fear the extreme Global Warmers are going to plunge Mother Earth into a tall spin by going TOO far in the WRONG direction. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK and continue refuting all the LIES and over exaggerations by the Al Gores of the world."

Felix Stinson, Winston Salem, NC: "Thank you for your work. This manmade climate change agenda of socialists all over the world is the biggest threat to this country besides terrorism. It will break our economy and our freedom. It is also the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on this ol' world....the propaganda is almost overwhelming and has influenced our kids and many gullible folks our there.....keep hammering away....I hope you all are not just preaching to choir."

[PG]: Don't worry, Felix. We're going to keep hammering away as long as it takes. And we're continuing to explore new ways to get the word out. Along those lines, we've got some exciting plans in store for GreenWatch. Keep an eye out for announcements in the next newsletter.

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

"It may be wrong to suggest impending doom, but if doom isn't impending, it's out there somewhere...If running out of oil doesn't scare you, maybe an iceberg the size of Connecticut floating away from Antarctica and hitting the United States will get your attention."

-Andy Rooney

GreenWatch Newsletter 22 (April 6, 2009)

Featured Story:

It's one of the first things I remember learning in second grade science class: People breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, plants "breathe" in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. It seems that some scientists and journalists missed that day of class:

The phenomenon has been discovered in a variety of flora, ranging from tropical rainforests to British sugar beet crops.

It means they are soaking up at least some of the billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans that would otherwise be accelerating the rate of climate change.

Plants survive by extracting CO2 from the air and using sunlight to convert it into proteins and sugars.

Since 1750 the concentration in the air has risen from of CO2 278 parts per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm, making it easier for plants to acquire the CO2 needed for rapid growth.

Plants are getting bigger and stronger, taking in more CO2 and, I presume, sending out more O2. Could it be that a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than spelling out doom for every living thing on the planet, is...a good thing? Could it be that increased CO2 will mean stronger plants, and thusly more and better crops? Could it be that efforts to stem the tide of the increase in CO2 will lead to decreases in food production and food shortages across the globe?

Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers, wrote about this very phenomenon last June in the Financial Post, in a column called "In Praise of CO2."

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.

Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.

Everywhere you look, there's another hole in the theory of Global Warming. Even a second grader could tell you that.

Additionally, a few weeks ago in this space we told you about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). The goal of this act was to protect small children from ingesting lead. Andrew in New York brings my attention to the sobering reality; the consequences have been disastrous for business, families, and, as it turns out, could be putting children in harm's way:

Thousands of children 12 and younger ride motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles, which is why a lot of effort and time has gone into designing vehicles made for smaller folks. On Friday, The Wall Street Journal noted a study by the Motorcycle Industry Council that concluded "90% of the youth fatalities and injuries on motorcycles occur when kids ride adult vehicles.

On Thursday of last week, the Senate of the United States voted 58 to 39 to reject an amendment to the budget bill designed to keep kids on bikes designed for them and thus off adult vehicles. The reason the amendment was offered by South Carolina's Jim DeMint is because the 2008 "Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act" mandates that products containing even trace amounts of lead --trace amounts highly unlikely to ever come in contact with a child's digestion system-- were banned from sale to children 12 and under.

The law took effect in February an instantly made it illegal to sell the kid-sized vehicles because of nearly undetectabl amounts of lead in tire valves, brakes, batteries etc. Replacement parts for vehicles for kids are similarly interdicted.

Ed Morrissey states the obvious:

I find it ridiculous to point this out to Congress, but children do not eat ATVs. The lead content of its components will not end up in small stomachs. Children do not ride ATVs without being clothed, so skin contact is minimal and transitory. What's next -- banning cars because children might ride in them?

No, they'll be banned because of the emissions, silly!

More Headlines:

Earth Population Exceeds Limits

Sun Has Fewest Sunspots Since 1913

Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism

China, India Reject Climate Agreement That Obstructs Economic Growth

Vanity Fair Abandons Green Issue

The Great Antarctic Ice Scare: The Facts

Most Egregious Claim of the Week:

Will Global Warming Doom Maple Syrup? The mere thought keeps me up late at night, fearing for the fate of my french toast. This article in The Daily Green seems to claim that it will:

All farming depends on the weather, but few foods are more dependent on a specific climate than maple syrup. After all, for the sugar maple's sap to run at all requires cooperative weather - freezing nights followed by warmer days.

But with the buildup of invisible greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, those temperature swings don't happen as reliably. At risk is an American tradition that stretches back even before Europeans discovered the "New World."

"Weather controls it all," says Marty Fitzgerald, a fifth-generation sugarmaker in upstate New York.

But this claim, just like every dubious dire prediction from the Green Agenda, has no basis in reality.

From the Wausau Daily Herald, April 6, 2009: Maple Syrup Producers Optimistic

From WIVB.com, March 20, 2009: "New York Maple Producers had a bumper crop in 2008..."

From the Lindsay Post in Ontario, CA, April 2, 2009: So Far, So Good for Maple Syrup Producers

Eventually, the Green Agenda will have to feel at least a little twinge of guilt from egregious claim after egregious claim...right?