Blaming Cows For Global Warming Not Accurate

A new beef with role of cows in global warming

November 20, 2010
Alex Horkay
TheStar.com
Statistics have been giving us a bum steer when they state how much cattle methane emissions contribute to global warming, a new study shows.


That's because mathematical equations used to predict cows' methane emissions are inaccurate and don't take into account factors such as dietary changes, said Jennifer Ellis, lead author of the study and a PhD student at the University of Guelph.


When cattle burp up their cud, they discharge methane with it, due to microbial fermentation occurring in their complex stomachs.


“Diet can change CH4 (methane) emissions quite a lot. For example, between two and 12 per cent of the energy a cow consumes will be lost as CH4,” she said.

When an equation calculates the quantity of methane emissions on one farm, it can't be used to accurately determine how much greenhouse gas is created worldwide because there is so much difference in cattle diet around the world and from farm to farm.    Read More

While most of the anti-ag groups are quick to try blaming cows for global warming, common sense scientists have shown that it’s not that simple.  There are so many factors that determine the amount of methane produced by a cow so it’s nearly impossible to determine any impact based on current models.  It’s unfortunate that these anti-ag groups have to try tricking people with false information to gain support and turn them against farming and ranching families.

Reporting the Hype, Not the Facts

Chefs now offering low-carbon diets to help save the planet
In the effort to save the planet from carbon emissions, chefs are saying eat less feedlot beef. That's because feedlot beef is by far the biggest creator of carbon gases. Fed on corn instead of the grass it was meant to eat, cows simply belch and pass wind a lot, creating much of the CO2 that's harming the earth. Bon Appétit Management Co. and other corporate food-service operators are turning to lower-carbon foods like chicken in an effort to change eating habits while reducing their carbon footprints.
By Paula Bock

SO YOU THINK trading in your gas guzzler for a hybrid will save the planet?

Try cutting back on cheeseburgers! And mangos! And fish flown in "fresh" from the southern hemisphere!

Old millennium: Low-carb diets. The new cool: Low-carbon diets. As in eat green. As in healthy for the environment. As in reduce global warming by minding what you swallow.

Just ask the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A few years ago, it released a study showing that livestock cause more harm to the environment than all global transportation systems combined. Numero Uno emission emitter? Beef.

If Americans reduced meat consumption by just 20 percent, a University of Chicago study found, it'd be like all of us switching from a standard sedan to an ultraefficient Prius. A Japanese study estimated that raising 2.2 pounds of beef creates the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as driving an average European car for 155 miles or burning a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Producing a pound of feedlot beef creates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2. By comparison, a pound of pork creates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; chicken, the equivalent of 1.1 pounds.
Why do cattle have such a huge carbon hoof print? Surprisingly, it's not so much because of transport from feedlot to fast-food joint or land cleared for grazing or even the chemical fertilizers used to grow the feed, though all that also adds up.

It's largely because cornfed cattle pass a lot of gas. Read More


Here’s another example of activism as compared to journalism. If this reporter had done some actual research as opposed to regurgitating common misconceptions, they would have learned there’s a different story to be told. For example, the writer seems to think that cattle will only produce methane if they are being fed a grain based diet. Methane is a byproduct of rumination, not the diet. There is also evidence that suggests grain fed beef actually produce less emissions over their lifetime compared to other production methods. Along with that, even though rumination produces methane, that is the process that allows us to convert indigestible forages into human consumable protein. It allows us to utilize the vast majority of land on this planet that doesn’t allow for farming. The University of Chicago study that is cited is the same one that Michael Pollan used to cite as well until the authors of that study clarified that that wasn’t true. It’s another example of the sad state of journalism today.

Modern Ag Feeding The World, Benefitting The Environment

High-yield agriculture slows pace of global warming, say FSE researchers
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service

Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.

The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.

The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.

"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More

This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.

EPA Disapproval Vote Tomorrow

Rockefeller Backs Murkowski's EPA Resolution in Senate
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of ClimateWire
Published: June 9, 2010

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) will vote for a resolution to hamstring U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, he said yesterday.

"I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said in a statement.

The Senate will vote tomorrow on a disapproval resolution (S.J.Res. 26 (pdf)) from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would essentially veto EPA's "endangerment" finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding is the basis for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, which are set to take effect next year.

Asked yesterday whether she thought she could muster the votes needed for passage, Murkowski said, "It really is dependent on many of our colleagues on the other side, who have said they agree that the EPA moving forward is the worst option. So now they've got an opportunity to really back that statement by supporting this resolution of disapproval."

Read More

This vote is still on schedule for tomorrow. Please contact your Senators and urge their support for this resolution. The endangerment finding by the unelected officials at the EPA will drive up the cost of everything from food to energy with no foreseeable benefits. In order to get this done though everyone need to let their opinion be heard. Take a couple minutes right now to do it.

Senate Cap & Tax Bill Introduced

Farm Groups Wary of New Climate Change Bill
05/12/2010
by Gary Truitt
Hoosier Ag Today

Senators John Kerry (D, Massachusetts) and Joe Lieberman (I, Connecticut) unveiled climate-change legislation on Wednesday, although the bill‘s chances of success are uncertain. The bill would focus on addressing the largest carbon-emitting sectors of the economy: heavy industry, power plants, and transportation infrastructure. It would target a 17% reduction in U.S. carbon pollution by 2020 and over 80% by 2050. It would contain a cap-and-trade system that would levy a tax against the largest emitters. Initially, the rate would be set at $12 a ton, increasing at 3% above inflation annually thereafter. An initial ceiling of $25 per ton would also be included.

The new legislation got a stamp of approval from the National Farmers Union, who supported the House version of cap-and- trade, “NFU has long supported legislation that provides an opportunity for agriculture to play a positive role in addressing our climate and energy needs. The discussion draft announced today continues along that path,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. The National Corn Growers Association took a more cautious approach. “The National Corn Growers Association is reviewing the discussion draft of the American Power Act released today by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. We have provided input to the Senate over the past several months on provisions pertaining to the agriculture industry, and we will continue to offer feedback after we have a chance to review the text of this important piece of legislation,” said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen.

Tamara Thies, Chief Environmental Council for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, says agriculture needs to beware of all efforts to regulate climate change, “All this regulation and expense is based on an alarmist environmental agenda and not on sound science.” She says, regardless of the specifics of the legislation, the science behind climate change is flawed, “The American people deserve better than decisions from this administration that are not based on science or truth, but rather are based on a radical, anti-business, anti-agriculture, alarmist agenda that lacks a credible scientific foundation.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation also expressed concerns about efforts to regulate climate change. AFBF President Bob Stallman released a statement that said, “As with other climate change bills, we have concerns about the economic impact on farmers and ranchers because of potentially higher fertilizer and energy costs. We do not want to see farmers driven out of business due to additional regulation and the potential for higher input costs. Agriculture also could be forced to shrink due to land moving out of production into trees to sequester carbon. We also believe it is imperative that any energy legislation must assure a greater supply of nuclear energy, renewable fuels, and natural gas for American consumers. Further, we note the absence of renewable electricity standards in the bill and will work toward their inclusion in the future.”

The Obama administration wants action on climate change, but other issues like immigration plus election year politics make many lawmakers uneasy about tacking such a controversial issue. In a prepared statement the President said, “This legislation will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create American jobs building the solar panels, wind blades, and the car batteries of the future. It will strengthen our national security by beginning to break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.”

With most Republicans and many Democrats opposing climate change legislation, the White House may turn to the EPA to implement a cap-and-trade system. Thies says that would not be good for agriculture, “That would give the EPA authority to tell farmers they would have to get expensive permits in order to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.” She added many producers would be forced to shut down food production. Link

Everyone is still sifting through the legislation trying to determine what it will do, but one thing is for certain, it will increase the cost of energy every year. Over half of the electricity used in this country comes from coal. The cost of that will increase every year until they are forced out of business and the millions of miners and other workers in that industry will be out of job. Along with that, it will make electricity less affordable for working families in this country. Unless you use a sail to propel your vehicle, the cost of driving will go up as well, even if you have an electric car. I don’t disagree that we need to be finding newer sources of energy but it is reckless to get rid of our most reliable and affordable sources when we have nothing to replace them with.

Senate Prepares to Debate Cap & Tax

Cap and trade bill hurts Midwestern farmers
By U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, Special to The Kansas City Star

The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed through the House of Representatives with minimal consideration of its effects on agriculture.

In written and spoken testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, it appears cap and trade will increase food prices, decrease the amount of U.S. acreage under cultivation, decrease agricultural exports, decrease farm employment, transfer significant wealth from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted worldwide.

Agricultural production relies heavily on carbon-based products, like fuel and fertilizer. For example, they account for 61 percent of sorghum and 49 percent of rice producers’ operating costs. Under cap and trade, the price of these inputs will increase significantly.

By capping and taxing carbon emissions, cap and trade is effectively a tax on energy, an $894 billion energy tax according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The left-of-center Brookings Institution estimates that petroleum prices will increase by 25% under Waxman-Markey.

This transfer of wealth overseas will be further exacerbated as cap and trade induces U.S. food production to move overseas. Read More

The Senate is planning to unveil their version of the cap and tax system that will affect all forms of carbon based resources. Everything that we currently depend on in our daily lives will increase in cost if the Senate version is anything like the House version. And what will we gain from this near trillion dollar tax? Chances are not much. Is the climate changing? Absolutely. The climate is always changing. When it stops changing is when we should really be worried because it would be the first time in the history of the planet. The reality is that there is plenty of disagreement on this issue and it’s ridiculous to throw that much money into a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.

Grazing Cattle Reduce GHG Emissions From Land

Cows Found To Actually Reduce Nitrous Oxide
Posted on: Thursday, 8 April 2010, 15:20 CDT
RedOrbit.com

A new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually helps reduce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Environmentalists have been urging people for years to stop eating meat because of the methane produced by cattle.

According to the Telegrpah, the researchers said this does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland in certain circumstances.

Klaus Butterbach-Bahl of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China.

Butterbach-Bahl discovered that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because microbes in the soil release nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas. Once the grass is long, snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water. However, when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.

He said the study turns assumptions about grazing goats and cattle around. Read More

Grass and the environment where it grows have a symbiotic relationship with the animals that consume it. That’s why the healthiest grasslands are those that are being grazed properly. Common sense, which is in short supply, would dictate that grazing has to be beneficial to everything involved or else it wouldn’t have survived this long. We continue to hear calls for grazing on public lands to be stopped. But people forget that the grass doesn’t care if a deer or a cow eats it, it just needs to be eaten for the everything to be healthy.

UN Report Debunked Again

Eat Less Meat, Reduce Global Warming -- or Not
FOXNews.com

Reducing consumption of meat and dairy products might not have a major impact in combating global warming despite claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases.

Save the planet, eat less meat ... right? That's what the U.N. said, anyway, but one scientist has a grade A beef with that claim.

The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- propagated by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.

In a presentation before the 239th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said the misleading claims emanate from a 2006 U.N. report, which said that livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."

According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.

In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals' digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving, and not all other transport-lifecycle related factors.

"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said. Read More

Since the UN report came out, we have been telling anyone who would listen that the claims of livestock destroying the planet weren’t accurate. Finally, as more of the claims about global warming continue to be debunked, so do the claims about the role of livestock. Livestock aren’t destroying the planet, they are feeding the planet. They are turning raw, human-indigestible products and turning them into an incredibly nutrient-dense consumable protein source. That’s the real story that needs to be told and celebrated. Every time I think about this incredible process it makes me proud to be part of it.

Virginia AG Takes On The EPA

Feb 16, 2010 8:41 pm US/Eastern
Top Va. Attorney Challenges EPA On Greenhouse Gas

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) ― Virginia's attorney general is challenging the federal government's conclusion that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people.

Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II said Tuesday he has asked the Environmental Protection to delay final consideration of that finding so "newly available information" can be reviewed.

Cuccinelli did not elaborate on that new information and did not immediately respond to an interview request from The Associated Press. He scheduled a news conference for Wednesday.

Cuccinelli also said he would seek a legal challenge of the EPA's finding, which would regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Virginia's actions are aimed at a December EPA "endangerment" finding about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for future rules restricting such emissions.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Bob McDonnell said Cuccinelli "is acting in the best interests of the citizens of Virginia."

"The current federal position could have a negative impact on job creation and economic development in the commonwealth and should be reconsidered," the spokeswoman, Stacey Johnson, wrote in an e-mail to the AP.

The Sierra Club criticized the challenge, calling it a waste of taxpayers' money.

"Cuccinelli is embarrassing the citizens of Virginia at the taxpayers' expense," said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the environmental group.

Virginia joined Texas in challenging the EPA, saying the agency's finding was based on flawed science.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that the EPA could regulate if found to endanger public health. The Bush administration never acted on the court order. Link

Some of the recent hearings in Washington DC concerning climate change and cap and trade legislation have had to be rescheduled due to the blizzards that they have been experiencing. It’s been comical watching the people who believe in the global warming religion try to convince others that the record snowfall this year is actually a sign of global warming. The truth of the matter is that snowfall this time of year is a sign of winter.

Feedlot Beef Greener

AUSTRALIA: Feedlot beef could be “greener” than grass-fed
Posted: February 9th, 2010 - 7:05am
Source: Meatingplace

Beef produced in feedlots has a smaller carbon footprint than meat raised exclusively on pastures, according to a University of New South Wales study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

The study's life cycle analysis found that feedlot beef production generated slightly less greenhouse gas per kilogram of meat than grass-fed beef. Results from one supply chain studied showed feedlot production had a carbon footprint of 9.9kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilo of "hot standard carcass weight" (HSCW). Grass-finished beef produced 12kg CO2e per kg/HSCW.

The study, commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia, looked at three operations: a beef producer, a sheepmeat producer and an organic beef producer.

Feedlot beef production, in which cattle are finished by being fed a diet of grain for the few months preceding slaughter, is often criticized for the resources and energy it consumes.

However, study co-author Matthias Schulz said in a news release the feedlot was found to produce meat more efficiently, effectively offsetting the greenhouse impact of the additional transport and feed production needed.

"Grain-finished cattle have a more efficient weight gain which completely offsets their higher individual carbon footprint," he said. "The other main reason for the better greenhouse performance of grain-fed beef is the superior digestibility of the feed and the associated reduction in methane emissions, and these digestion-related methane emissions are the main source of greenhouse gas from the livestock industry."

The study also compared data from Australian beef and sheep meat operations to studies conducted in Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States, Africa and Japan, and found Australian operations compared favorably. Read More

The UN Report called Livestock’s Long Shadow basically agreed with these findings. It concluded that American animal agriculture is a model for the rest of the world and helps mitigate climate change. This is the same report that anti-agriculture groups like to try using against us, apparently without reading it. The great news for consumers is this, there are plenty of choices for you to pick from. Whether you want a niche or conventionally produced product, it’s available.

Eat Globally For Efficiency

The 100-mile myth
Kevin Libin, National Post

At the annual convention of the North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association in Calgary a couple of years ago, organizers offered a seminar entitled "The New Classic: Creating an upscale urban farmers' market with down-home country Chutzpah." For years, local farmers' markets weren't anything you'd hazard to call "upscale," but the rise of the local food movement and the best-selling environmental-soul books, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle and The 100-Mile Diet, has made buying locally grown, rather than well-travelled food, as trendy these days among the eco-yuppie crowd as hybrid Lexuses and Baby Planet strollers. "Farmers have been involved with selling local product for decades. What's happening now is that the consumer side is catching on," says Charlie Touchette, executive director of the marketing association.

In part, farmer vendors charge more because they've been suddenly blessed with customers willing to pay more. But locally grown food, in many cases, is also more costly to produce, because Canadian labour and, often, land is worth more than in Brazil or China. Above all, though, local growing conditions for most foods are less productive than elsewhere. Every climate, obviously, has its strengths and weaknesses, and frequently, locally grown food is less efficiently produced than the imported stuff. Accounting for "food miles" -- the key measure used by locavores (local produce eaters) -- tells you how far food travels. It doesn't tell you how much energy -- and greenhouse gas emissions -- went into growing it. When you add that in, and if your aim is to conserve fossil fuels and emissions, the best way is actually to skip the farmers' market and eat global.

"If you are concerned about the carbon footprint of your diet, focusing on transportation is kind of like worrying about the air pressure in your tires of your car rather than whether you have a fuel-efficient car or not," says James McWilliams, an environmental and agricultural historian at Texas State University, author of Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly, and a former part-time locavore. "What matters so much more than how far it travels from farm to fork is what kind of methods were used to produce it."

"What I really do see ... is that buying local is a political act. It's a gesture that, in essence, thumbs its nose at globalization," he says. If left-wing posturing and green-posing is your priority, then stick with your 100-mile diet. Leave it to average consumers, buying the globally sourced groceries at their local, corporate, big-box retailer, to do genuine good for the planet.

Read More

This article focuses on the fact that efficiency in production is the key in determining a food’s impact on the environment. And no where in the world is modern agriculture more efficient than here in the United States. We are producing more food with fewer inputs than at any other time in the history of this planet. I think buying local is a great way to support local farmers and ranchers, and I hope that people continue to do so. However, if people think buying everything local is going to save the planet from some impending doom, they are sorely mistaken.

Don't Blame Cows

Don’t Blame Cows for Climate Change
December 7, 2009
UC Davis

Despite oft-repeated claims by sources ranging from the United Nations to music star Paul McCartney, it is simply not true that consuming less meat and dairy products will help stop climate change, says a University of California authority on farming and greenhouse gases.

UC Davis Associate Professor and Air Quality Specialist Frank Mitloehner says that McCartney and the chair of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignored science last week when they launched a European campaign called "Less Meat = Less Heat." The launch came on the eve of a major international climate summit, which runs today through Dec. 18 in Copenhagen.

McCartney and others, such as the promoters of "meatless Mondays," seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry, says Mitloehner.

"Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," Mitloehner said. "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries." Read More

Continued research on the impact of livestock production on our climate shows us once again that removing meat from your diet won’t have any affect. It’s just been another attempt to scare people away from eating a balanced diet. Since they don’t have any facts to back up their claim, anti-meat advocates have plotted a purely emotional campaign to make people feel guilty about what they eat. More than ever, we need to be basing our decisions about things like this on facts, not fear.

Climate Bill Getting Pushed Back

NOVEMBER 11, 2009, 10:35 A.M. ET
Climate Bill Likely on the Shelf For Rest of the Year
By IAN TALLEY
Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won't be voted on until at least next year.

Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.

"It's common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year," Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch.

Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said he planned to hold a number of hearings on climate legislation and eventually mark up a bill in his panel. "But I don't know that I can get a bill put together by this year, as important as climate-change legislation is," he said.

Mr. Baucus was the lone dissenting Democratic vote on the Environment Panel last week because he wanted weaker emission-reduction targets and stronger provisions to protect energy-intensive industries and encourage clean-coal technologies. Read More

With the absolute havoc that climate change legislation could bring about our country, it’s a little refreshing to see that some of our elected officials realize that this isn’t something that should be fast-tracked through Congress. It won’t do us any good to pass a bill that maybe cuts some emissions but causes many other problems. Food and energy are two big keys to our nation’s security. We have to make sure they are protected.

Is The Planet Actually Cooling??

The global warming consensus cools
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009

"What happened to global warming?" read the headline - on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and imminent as alarmists suggest.

Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."

At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.
Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.

EPA analyst Alan Carlin - an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics - referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the past 10 years. At first the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.

Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray. Read More

Any conversation about climate change that our elected officials are having should first focus on if the climate is really changing due to human activity and if it is, will this legislation reverse it. Before we spend trillions of dollars we should find out what our return on this investment will be.

120 Ag Groups Oppose Waxman-Markey

120 Agriculture Groups Oppose Waxman-Markey
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment & Climate News > November 2009
Publication date: 11/01/2009

A large coalition of agricultural groups has come forward to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill restricting carbon dioxide emissions.

In a July 14 opening statement at Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) noted he had received “letters sent by 120 agricultural groups opposing the Waxman-Markey bill.”

Among the groups are the American Farm Bureau, Pork Producers Council, USA Rice Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Meat Institute, National Association of Wheat Growers, and North American Millers Association.

Long-Term Costs Much Higher

Tracy Taylor Grondine, director of media relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, strongly disagrees with Waxman-Markey supporters who cite a Congressional Budget Office report asserting the bill would cost the average U.S. household merely $175 per year in the year 2020.

“Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill,” Grondine explained. “In 2020, carbon reductions will only be starting and the industry will be receiving significant carbon credit giveaways. But by 2050, the 17 percent cut in agriculture emissions from 2005 levels is estimated to rise to 82 percent, and there will be no more credit giveaways. So, by 2050 that 5 percent hit will grow to something more like a 15 percent reduction in farm income.” Read More

Even though there are some that insist that climate change legislation will not affect our ability to grow food, the numbers just aren’t there to support it. Because of that, there are over 120 different agriculture groups that are opposing this bill. It’s hard to get that many groups to agree that the sky is blue, so it should be obvious to everyone that this is a bad bill for agriculture and a bad bill for the United States.

Senate Version of Climate Change Bill

Senate climate-change bill would cut greenhouse emissions 20% by 2020



The measure seeks stricter limits than those approved by the House. But it puts many details off for later -- an indication that top Democrats are willing to negotiate to ensure a bill will pass.



By Jim Tankersley

September 30, 2009

Reporting from Washington



The Senate's environment committee will take up an energy and climate-change bill today that calls for a 20% cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to a draft copy of the bill.



The measure, co-sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), will serve as the starting point for what promises to be a long and complicated series of negotiations. The Senate may not produce a final bill until next year.



A House measure passed this summer calls for a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases.



Both the Senate proposal and House bill seek to curb global warming by limiting the amount of heat-trapping gases poured into the air by power plants, factories and others, which would be required to obtain permits for their emissions.



Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma told Boxer in a letter Tuesday that until the details are set, "farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food, and gasoline prices." Read More



We are finally getting to see the Senate version of the climate change legislation that passed the House this summer. It calls for an even more greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. All of the core materials that drive our country and make it so prosperous will be affected by legislation. From the wood it takes to build a house or business, to the steel we use to build machinery, to the food we put in our stomachs, everything will become more expensive. Energy costs will be especially elevated by this bill. For many families, it will make it quite difficult to eat and heat their house at the same time. And all of this to accomplish what? Supposedly it’s meant to solve a problem that we don’t know for sure even exists.

EPA May Bypass Congress

EPA could create U.S. CO2 cap-and-trade: Sierra
Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:45pm EDT
By Peter Henderson

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would step in and regulate carbon dioxide emissions by creating a cap-and-trade system or take other measures if Congress fails, but is likely to wait for 2010 elections, the head of the Sierra Club said on Tuesday.

The possibility of an end-run around Congress makes the prospect of U.S. carbon emission regulation likely despite current legislative debate, although President Barack Obama would prefer Congress lead the way, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.

"I would guess that between now and the (2010) midterms, you will see two things happen. One, EPA will begin actively regulating all of the other kinds of problems with coal fired power plants," Pope said, naming mercury emissions, particulate matter and mountaintop removal mining as examples.

"They will begin to create a context in which all the clunkers (coal plants) are going to get retired anyway. And they will lay the ground work for establishing carbon emissions standards for all large sources of carbon dioxide," he said. Read More

There is a very simple solution to all of the problems surrounding climate change legislation and that is for Congress to pass a one sentence bill that states carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. That would make this whole thing disappear and it would be in line with the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even the original writers of that legislation said that they never intended for carbon dioxide to be regulated. Regardless of all that, it appears that the EPA will try to go around Congress and decide for themselves how to do this if the current legislation doesn’t go anywhere in the Senate. It’s obvious that people do not want cap and trade because if they did the free market system would already be meeting that demand.