CO2 is released not just by oceans when they warm (absorbed when they cool) or decaying plants, or people exhaling, but combusting “fossil fuels” like the coal, gas, and, in some places, oil used to create electricity. CO2 emissions generally correlate with economic prosperity–more on that, momentarily.

But there is even less to this absurdity than meets the eye. Here’s how the ClimateWire story opens:

UNITED NATIONS — Generating enough electricity to supply the 1.5 billion people on this planet who live without it does not necessarily have to add much carbon dioxide to the global mix, U.N. experts argued in their annual Human Development Index.

The report, released yesterday, takes on the nettlesome subject of how the world can help bring these billions, most of them impoverished and living in Africa, into the light. It argues that “providing basic energy services” could happen with a CO2 increase of only 0.8 percent.

The fear that adding this level of energy supply to world accounts would mean much higher carbon output is unfounded, said William Orme, of the U.N. Development Programme, during a press briefing here on the report.

“That’s false,” he said. “You can actually do all that without creating a 1 percent rise in carbon emissions.”

Think about that. According to a UN report — coincidentally timed in the run-up to talks next month on replacing the energy-rationing Kyoto Protocol — you can create electricity for just under a quarter of the world’s population without, per the UN, even a 1% increase in man’s marginal contribution to CO2! That’s called UN Math.

The first thing that jumps out to those of us trying to find a way to make this statement be true is this interpretation: “Basic energy services” is in the eye of the beholder, a beholder who has his, viewing the dramatically lesser basic needs of others. He who seeks what others have surely has a different perspective. So far, the Kyoto disaster has affirmed this.

And then there’s this interpretation, which actually is necessary in any reading of this claim. Once the lights go on, at some level, then no growth for you! You’ve got what we think you need, now shut up.

As stated, CO2 equates with economic activity, with the statistical hiccup of certain wealthy countries depending heavily on nuclear power for much of their prosperity, like France and, until very recently, Japan and Germany.

So here again we see the newly fashionable effort to redefine prosperity, writing out economic GDP in favor of a mishmash of statist ideals leaving despotic hellholes as supposedly happy little nirvanas compared to those of us who thought reducing drudgery, disease and premature death from brutish, nasty living was somehow a good thing.

As AEI’s Steve Hayward notes, one “typical example of popular wisdom is the Happy Planet Index, which ranks the ostensible ‘happiness’ of the United States at 150th out of 178 countries, chiefly on account of America’s carbon footprint.” Mmm.

Ignore for the moment the internal confusion of this ClimateWire paragraph (surely a typo, which seems to be the principal way they get things right), and catch the argument. “Still, the U.N. report says high living standards ‘need to be carbon-fueled and follow the examples of the richest countries.’ A high degree of fossil fuel consumption was not seen as improving a nation’s life expectancy or education level, for example.”

So guess what the UN has in store for them, while also working to rope us into agreeing to Kyoto-style rationing? The UN report suggests “off-grid renewable options.” Ah, yes, the old reliable — er, wait, unreliable, “intermittent” — wind and solar power. Remember, we didn’t say often or how long the lights would be on, did we?

Just behold those happy poor…er, representatives of noble cultures. So wise, educated in ways we wealthy people will never comprehend (such are the wages of carbon sin). They’ve got a light bulb now, and they can turn them on during the day when the sun shines to power it!

So, yes, UN, you can “provide electricity” to 1.5 billion people without even slightly increasing CO2 emissions.

That is, if you don’t mind turning down, and sometimes out, the lights of many others.

And possibly squirrels running on wheels in their cages. Lots of them. And pedal-power. Hey, you need to get in shape anyway.

I mean, there are many ways this could be true. Yet, under any reading, why would we place this responsibility in the hands of, or even anywhere near, a group of people who believe in energy scarcity, not abundance?

We’ve already got such a crew in charge, here, and look at the swell direction things are headed.

Global Warming

The science is settled.  Mankind is indeed killing itself, just as I knew would happen when I voted for Mondale in 1984.  Admittedly, I thought the apocalypse would result from a nuclear war back then.  I was close.  Things would indeed get really hot, but strictly from greenhouse gas emissions, not from thousands of nukes going off all at once.  According to the totally balanced summary provided by Wikipedia, carbon dioxide causes 9% – 26% of the greenhouse effect.  The way I see it, if we can wipe out just this portion of the greenhouse emissions alone, we can make a serious dent in the warming trend.

Now, follow me on this next part — every time a human being exhales, he emits carbon dioxide.

The solution is obvious — we need to mandate less exhaling.  So, five times a day, every day, at the exact same time that Muslims stop for their prayers, everyone around the world should hold their breath for a good 90 seconds or so.  If you own a corporation, you have to hold your breath twice as long.   I think even Conservatives will get on board with this because it gives lip service to that whole personal responsibility garbage they buy into.

Additionally, it appears that methane accounts for 4% – 9% of greenhouse emissions.   The solution here is so simple I’m shocked that my fellow global warming alarmists have not figured it out already.

We need less farting.

I know everyone’s primary concern is about diet, but nobody has to give up beans. The farmers shouldn’t suffer just because people need to toot less.  We can have the USDA issue “fanny corks” to every American, free of charge.  Enforcement is easy.  The TSA already has experience inspecting private areas, so Janet Napolitano can just issue a decree expanding their powers.  It will also help with job growth, because we’ll need an army of TSA employees to check fanny corks, particularly in heavily populated urban areas.

These two initiatives alone will cut greenhouse emissions by 13% – 35%, and also make the world less smelly.  But just to make sure we’re okay, if the EPA detects even the tiniest increase in ocean levels, the IRS will institute a surtax on all yachts, and distribute the money so everyone can get a free rowboat.

Religion

I got really sick of the crazy Christians trying to push their morals and values on me.  The rigidity of right-wing morality — their moral absolutism — is Fascist.  Everyone knows right and wrong depends on circumstance.  For example, war is not the answer, except when union worker rights (like collective bargaining) are challenged.  So religion must either be removed from influencing public policy, or public policy should be influenced by only one single religion that we all agree on.

Because the science is settled, Global Warming Alarmism (GWA) is the religion we can all agree on, so only it should be permitted to affect public policy.  Al Gore will be the head of the church.  Give him a cool-sounding name, like “The Goracle”.

Since he’s essentially the religion’s Father, and he always disappears like a Ghost whenever someone confronts him, he fills three roles — a kind of Holy Trinity thing that might even get Christians to come on board.  All legislation must pass through federal and state chapters of GWA for approval, since our very existence is at stake.

The Constitution does call for separation of church and state, but the Constitution is a living, breathing document (although it should be required to hold its breath five times daily, also), and the Founders never anticipated global warming.  So I think the courts will let this slide.

Abortion

Republicans insist life begins at conception.  Then answer me this: why is it that when a pregnant woman drives in the carpool lane, she gets a ticket for only having one passenger?

I have numerous other issues to bring up, but that’s enough for now.  Please send a copy of this note to President Obama so we can get these policies in place via regulatory fiat.

The phrase “dangerous carbon pollution” has become standard propaganda from environmental groups. An example is a May, 2010 press release from the World Wildlife Fund that called for “a science-based limit on dangerous carbon pollution that will send a strong signal to the private sector.” Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere. This misconception is being used to drive efforts for Cap & Trade legislation, renewable energy, and every sort of restriction on our light bulbs, vehicles, and houses—all in the misguided attempt to stop climate change.

Carbon is integral to our skin, our muscles, our bones, and throughout the body of each person. Carbon forms more than 20% of the human body by weight. We are full of this “dangerous carbon pollution” by natural metabolic processes.

It’s true that incomplete combustion emits carbon particles that can cause smoke and smog. But this particulate carbon pollution is well controlled by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and many other federal and state statutes.

According to Environmental Protection Agency data, U.S. air quality today is significantly better than it was in 1980. Since 1980, airborne concentration of carbon monoxide is down 79%, lead is down 92%, nitrogen dioxide is down 46%, ozone is down 25%, and sulfur dioxide is down 71%. Carbon particulates have been tracked for fewer years, but PM10 particulates are down 31% since 1990 and PM2.5 particulates are down 19% since 2000. Over the same period, electricity consumption from coal-fired power plants rose 72% and vehicle miles driven are up 91%. We do not need Cap & Trade, Renewable Portfolio Standards, or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), to reduce carbon particulates.

Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, Figure 78, data from EPA, 2006

The target of “dirty carbon pollution” propaganda is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in, created as our body uses sugars. But since it’s tough to call an invisible gas “dirty,” Climatists use “carbon” instead. It’s as wrong as calling water “hydrogen” or salt “chlorine.” Compounds have totally different properties than their composing elements.

Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant, it’s essential for life. As pointed out by geologist Leighton Steward, carbon dioxide is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes plants and trees to grow faster and larger, increase their root systems, and improve their resistance to drought, as documented by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Carbon dioxide is the best compound that mankind could put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.

This “carbon pollution” nonsense is driven by Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. In a debate at the Global Warming Forum at Purdue University on September 27, Dr. Susan Avery, President of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was asked “What is the strongest empirical evidence that global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions rather than natural causes?” Neither Dr. Avery nor Dr. Robert Socolow of Princeton, who also presented, could provide an answer, except the ambiguous “There is lots of evidence.” In fact, Climatism is based largely on computer model projections. There is no empirical evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. According to Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

As Joanne Nova, Australian author, points out: “Everything on your dinner table—the meat, cheese, salad, bread, and soft drink—requires carbon dioxide to be there. For those of you who believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we have a special diet: water and salt.” So the next time you drink a beer or eat a meal, beware of that “dangerous carbon pollution.”

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.

Note the date of TR’s “calling” for reform. It’s 1912.  Nationalized health care was part of the platform of the Progressive Party that year and every year thereafter. Americans are more familiar with the name Theodore himself gave to that third party bid. After being shot by a would-be assassin in Milwaukee, TR said it takes more than a single bullet to stop a Bull Moose. Instantly, the colorful sobriquet was applied to the Progressive Party.

What did Theodore himself think of his new-found allies, the Progressives? He was sincerely committed to reform. And he certainly thought he had been cheated out of the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1912. After all, he had won all the state party primaries in the limited number of states that held them. But TR also recognized that some of his Progressive supporters went over the top. For them, he coined the wonderful phrase, “the lunatic fringe.”

TR did not want to wage war against wealth, only against the abuse of wealth. He termed the plutocrats of his time “malefactors of great wealth.” In modern terms, TR was for jailing the Bernie Madoffs and freeing the Bill Gateses. TR understood that economic growth was essential to modern industry. He protected our natural resources—more than any previous president—but you could count him among those who stood for conservation. He believed America’s treasury of natural beauty could be conserved for future generations while enabling Americans of his own time to responsibly use and replenish their nation’s bounteous resources.

Today, it would be fair to say the lunatic fringe is in charge. The healthcare bill just passed in the Senate is a hodge-podge of giveaways and bribes. Why should Nebraska not pay Medicaid costs imposed by her senior senator on 49 others states? And why should Nebraska citizens be forced to pay for abortions in New York and California?

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has issued an “endangerment ruling” on carbon dioxide. What must this ultimately mean for American industry? For the American population? Every human being discharges carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by the simple act of breathing. Can it be that Everyone Pollutes the Atmosphere?

Theodore Roosevelt could rightly be called America’s first “pro-family” president. He studied the Census Bureau statistics. He was deeply concerned about rising divorce rates and lowering birth rates. He understood that healthy children raised by loving, married parents were the true source of a nation’s strength. On a train trip to the West Coast, TR welcomed crowds of farm families that swarmed to meet the president. He praised them for bumper crops of wheat, corn, oats, and barley. But mostly, he welcomed a bumper crop of healthy American children. Among the majestic redwoods of California, he refused to speak until tacky billboards were removed from the stand of ancient trees TR regarded almost as a sacred grove. When will we have another president who is not only a tree-hugger, but also a baby-kisser?

The recent economic meltdown began in the housing industry. David Goldman, a savvy Wall Streeter, has written in First Things that young families with dependent children are the drivers of the home mortgage industry. And the U.S. has no more of these today than we had in 1969. This is the source of the real economic crisis. Theodore Roosevelt would certainly understand this.

How unfortunate that President Obama takes his inspiration from TR’s greatest error. Roosevelt was wrong to run on a platform that called for socialized medicine. He was even wrong to run at all in 1912. His Bull Moose candidacy fatally split the Republican majority and allowed the election of the disastrous Woodrow Wilson as a minority president. Nonetheless, for his undoubted achievements—including a Nobel Peace Prize awarded-imagine this—for actually making peace—TR deserves his place on Mount Rushmore. Will President Obama’s lunatic fringe demand he be placed there, too?

Bill Maher in a rare hard-nosed moment, presses EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to answer a tough question about whether the EPA intends to regulate meat. After she dodges the question, Bill asks it again.

Now I could be wrong, because she was stuttering badly, but didn’t the United States EPA Administrator say that she is looking into Meat Control? She certainly advocated a restriction on food grown outside of the US.

But MEAT CONTROL? I’ve met a lot of vegetarians in my travels. I don’t really care about those who practice it themselves, although I often question their logic. I look at vegetarianism as a sort of religion, and have no problem with it being practiced in the privacy of one’s own cat-filled home. But in America we have a separation of church and state, and if you intend to force me to conform to your religious dietary restrictions, I’m going to make a little noise.

I still haven’t forgiven McDonalds for taking the beef tallow out of their french fryer. If we can have Pepsi Throwback for a limited time only, couldn’t McDonalds offer Original Recipe Fries? And while you’re at it, bring back those fried apple pies with the hot lava filling. Here’s an idea: if you want to be a vegetarian, and you are afraid you might burn yourself, stay out of McDonalds. I’m tired of having to cater to the lowest common denominator, and I don’t like their new luke warm coffee either..

Meat Control is exactly the kind of thing people warned about, when it was proposed that the EPA would be given the authority to regulate CO2. You might think I’m crazy, and conspiratorial; but back when smoking bans were popping up, some of us warned that soon smoking would be banned in bars, and that snack food would soon be regulated. The naysayers laughed at us.

Now that it is almost impossible to find a place where you can enjoy a cocktail with a smoke, trans-fats are illegal in New York, and a national soda tax has been proposed, I feel sullenly vindicated.

So I demand an answer from Ms. Jackson. Do you, or do you not, intend  to regulate meat? Millions of Hungry Carnivores need to know.