The following activities contribute to the Greenhouse Effect.

• Burning natural gas, coal and oil. Driving cars and burning fossil fuels contribute to the warming of the Earth.
• Some farming practices and land-use changes. One of the primary meat sources in the US, the beef industry is one of the largest methane-producers.
• Many factories produce long-lasting industrial gases. Some gases will still be in the atmosphere long after we’re dead.
• Deforestation. “Trees use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen in its place, which helps to create the optimal balance of gases in the atmosphere. As more forests are logged for timber or cut down to make way for farming, however, there are fewer trees to perform this critical function.”
• Population growth. The more people there are. the more cars we need, the more food we must produce, the more industries we must have.

In conclusion, West says, “Ultimately, more greenhouse gases means more infrared radiation trapped and held, which gradually increases the temperature of the Earth’s surface and the air in the lower atmosphere.”

PARIS (CP) — Arctic ice coverage has receded to record lows, the European Space Agency said, raising the prospect of greater maritime traffic through the long-sought waterway known as the Northwest Passage.

Satellite images this week showed Arctic ice cover fell to the lowest level since scientists started collecting such information in 1978, according to a statement on the agency’s website Saturday.

Many experts believe global warming is to blame for melting the passage. The waters are exposing unexplored resources, and vessels could trim thousands of kilometres from Europe to Asia compared with the current routes through the Panama Canal.

According to one estimate, the Northwest Passage is 7,000 kilometres shorter than the 23,000-kilometre Panama Canal route. It is also shorter than the 21,000-kilometre Suez Canal route to Asia.

Ice has retreated to about three million square kilometres, Leif Pedersen of the Danish National Space Centre, said in the statement. ESA said the previous low was four million square kilometres back in 2005.

“There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100,000 square kilometres per year on average, so a drop of one million square kilometres in just one year is extreme,” he said.

Ice levels in the Arctic ebb and flow with the seasons, allowing for intermittent traffic between Europe and Asia across northern Canada – a route explorers and traders have long dreamt could open fully.

Environmentalists fear increased maritime traffic and efforts to tap natural resources in the area could one day lead to oil spills and harm regional wildlife.

Pedersen said the extreme retreat this year suggested the passage could fully open sooner than expected – but ESA did not say when that might be. Efforts to contact ESA officials in Paris and Noordwik, Netherlands, were unsuccessful.

Until now, the passage has been expected to remain closed even during reduced ice cover by multiyear ice pack – sea ice that remains through one or more summers, ESA said.

With ice levels shrinking, some countries have jockeyed for claims over the passage under the North Pole, which is also a potential oil-producing region.

The race heated up last month when Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole in August, and Canada announced plans to build a new army training centre and a deep-water port in the North.

Denmark, Norway and the United States also have claims in the vast region.

Under international law, the five countries control an economic zone within 320 kilometres of their continental shelf. But the definition of the limits of that shelf are in dispute.

Researcher Claes Ragner of Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Institute, which works with environmental and political issues over the Arctic, said that, for the time being, the new opening has only symbolic meaning for the future of sea transport.

“Routes between Scandinavia and Japan could be almost halved, and a stable and reliable route would mean a lot to certain regions,” he said by telephone.

But even if the passage is opening up and polar ice continues to melt, it will take years for such routes to be practicable, according to Ragner.

“It won’t be ice-free all year around and it won’t be a stable route all year,” he said. “The greatest wish for sea transportation is streamlined and stable routes.”

“Shorter transport routes means less pollution if you can ship products from A to B on the shortest route, but the fact that the polar ice is melting away is not good for the world in that we’re losing the Arctic and the animal life there,” Ragner added.

Arctic sea ice naturally extends its surface coverage each winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and recedes each summer, ESA said, but the overall loss has increased since satellite records were begun in 1978.

The opening observed this week was not the most direct waterway, ESA said. That would be through northern Canada along the coast of Siberia, which remains partially blocked.

August 2007
S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus, Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.

IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.

Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.

What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “fingerprints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.

For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.

Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.

Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).

Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.

A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.

Policy Consequences

If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:

> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.

> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.

None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.

Science vs. Hysteria

You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?

To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. “Emission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.

To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.

* * *

The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Here are ways to save energy by lowering your community peak energy demand (sorry, sending your kids to bed at 5pm doesn’t count). These money-saving ideas can help you lower your energy bill by reducing energy consumption in your house or apartment.

You can also help to reduce the demand of electricity at peak electrical demand times – 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. These energy saving tips below may help cut down on the amount of energy you use and trim your household energy costs, while lowering peak demand on your electricity utility company.

Lower Your Community Peak Energy Demand
* Use major appliances after 7 p.m.

Here are ways to save energy on cooling your home – fans & air conditioning (sorry, a cold beer at your local pub doesn’t count). These money-saving ideas can help you lower your energy bill by reducing energy consumption in your house or apartment.

You can also help to reduce the demand of electricity at peak electrical demand times – 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. These energy saving tips below may help cut down on the amount of energy you use and trim your household energy costs, while lowering peak demand on your electricity utility company.

Cooling Your Home – Fans & Air Conditioning
* Set your thermostat at 78 degrees F when you’re home and 85 degrees F when you’re away. The best energy savings temperature for your air conditioner’s thermostat is 78°F or higher. A setting of 78°F instead of 72°F can save up to 12% of your cooling costs.
* Add Insulation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy 80 percent of older homes are under insulated. You can save hundreds of dollars a year on your energy bills and the payback period can be in as little as two years. The best place to start is by sealing large gaps around chimneys, furnace flues, plumbing pipes, ductwork, light fixtures, and soffits in your attic to save energy. Don’t forget to examine that mother-in-law for leaky windpipes as well. You can also place insulation between attic-floor joists and on the hatch or door, or add more if it’s already there. Next, seal air leaks in the basement and insulate ceilings in unheated basements and around the walls in heated basements or unvented crawl spaces.
* Use ceiling fans to help circulate air throughout the house.
* Use portable fans to cool your home.
* Turn off fans when not at home.
* If you use a window air conditioner, set it on low for the most savings.
* Keep all windows and doors closed when using the air conditioner.
* Close blinds and drapes to keep cool air inside, especially to the side of your home facing the sun.
* When purchasing a window air conditioner or any other new appliance, look for models with the ENERGY STAR
® label–they are more energy efficient and will help keep costs down
* Keep cool air inside. Check weatherstripping around doors and caulking around windows. Properly sealed doors and windows help prevent warm or cold outside air from entering the home. Weather-stripping and caulking your doors and windows can save as much as 6% of your cooling costs.
* Don’t let the cool air escape. Keep doors and windows closed on hot nights.
* Proper insulation will keep your home cool in the summer. “R” stands for resistance to heat flow. The higher the “R value,” the greater the insulating power.
* Don’t block cooling vents. Check to see that cooling vents are unobstructed so your system doesn’t over-work itself getting air conditioning into your home. An obstructed vent, inside or outside your home, wastes both energy and money. Move furniture away from vents and window air conditioners.
* Replace air filers. Check filters at least twice during the heating season and either vacuum or replace them.
* Use fans when you can. By using fans instead of central air-conditioning, you can save 80 to 90% on cooling costs. In fact, if every residence with air conditioning in a major city used fans for just three hours on one warm summer day, the energy saved could power over 3,000 homes for a full month.
* Landscaping. Keep bushes away from central air conditioner.
* Window treatments. Consider installing reflective films or solar shade screens on windows with the greatest exposure to the summer sun.
* Awnings: Shade your house awnings and overhangs to provide shade around the windows and the outside of your home.
* Landscaping. A shaded house is easier to cool than one in direct sunlight, so plant trees to help keep your home cool.
* Proper air conditioner maintenance. Proper maintenance helps your air conditioner run more efficiently. In addition to regular do-it-yourself maintenance, it’s a good idea to have your entire system checked yearly by a qualified air-conditioning contractor.
Buying a new air conditioner. Important factors to consider when shopping for a new air conditioner are: size of area to be cooled, climate, your home’s construction, sun exposure, wiring, insulation and the number and location of windows. Once you have this information, determine which unit will cool your home for the lowest cost.

Here are ways to save energy on your Evaporative Coolers (sorry, moving to a cooler city doesn’t count). These money-saving ideas can help you lower your energy bill by reducing energy consumption in your house or apartment.

You can also help to reduce the demand of electricity at peak electrical demand times – 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. These energy saving tips below may help cut down on the amount of energy you use and trim your household energy costs, while lowering peak demand on your electricity utility company.

Evaporative Coolers
* Check cooler pads monthly.
* Clean the water pan to prevent clogging.

Here are ways to save energy on your stove, electric range & microwave cooking (sorry, eating-out more often doesn’t count). These money-saving ideas can help you lower your energy bill by reducing energy consumption in your house or apartment.

You can also help to reduce the demand of electricity at peak electrical demand times – 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. These energy saving tips below may help cut down on the amount of energy you use and trim your household energy costs, while lowering peak demand on your electricity utility company.

Stove, Electric Range & Microwave Cooking
* Use microwaves and toaster ovens when cooking instead of your oven and gas range.
* If you do use your stove, defrost food first and cover pots to shorten cooking time.
* Keep your oven & range clean. An oven or range that’s free of grease and baked-on residue uses energy more efficiently.
* Don’t pre-heat (sorry Martha Stewart) if you don’t have to. If you’re baking breads and cakes, pre-heating your oven may be necessary. But for most foods, like casseroles and broiled items, pre-heating simply isn’t necessary.

Here are ways to save energy with your refrigerators & freezers (sorry, using your neighbor’s frig doesn’t count). These money-saving ideas can help you lower your energy bill by reducing energy consumption in your house or apartment.

You can also help to reduce the demand of electricity at peak electrical demand times – 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. These energy saving tips below may help cut down on the amount of energy you use and trim your household energy costs, while lowering peak demand on your electricity utility company.

Refrigerators & Freezers
* Keep your frig door closed (also helps with dieting). A refrigerator works more efficiently when you open its door as little as possible. So make your decisions before opening the door and get everything you need quickly and at one time.
* Organize shelves for easy access to foods you use the most (beer, cold pizza, etc.).
* Typically your refrigerator/freezer is one of the largest energy users (besides your mother-in-law) in your home, using about 20% of your household’s annual energy costs. If everyone in the U.S. used high-efficiency refrigerators, the electricity saved would eliminate the need for about 10 large power plants (and maybe a few mother-in-laws).
* Keep your frig in good shape. Like your body, a refrigerator works best when it’s kept in good condition. Check the door seals (schedule a visit with your proctologist now). If they’re cracked or you feel cold air leaking out, they should be replaced.
* Positioning your refrigerator. Keep it in a well-ventilated, dry and cool space. Refrigerators and freezers near ovens, stoves, water heaters, clothes dryers or other crowded or warm places have to work harder. No, positioning the frig near the couch does not count.
* Unplug the extra frig. If you have an extra refrigerator or freezer and don’t keep it full, you could save up to 15% by unplugging it.
* Check your thermostat controls. To work most efficiently, your refrigerator should be set between 38°F and 40°F. The freezer temperature should be set at 0°F.
* Defrost your refrigerator on a regular basis, you might be surprised to find that piece of frozen wedding cake or that 4″ trout you snared a decade ago. If you have a manual defrost freezer, don’t forget to defrost regularly. More than 1/4 inch of frost makes your freezer work harder to keep your food frozen.
* Keep refrigerator condenser coils clean. Coils, found on the back or bottom front of your refrigerator, should be checked and cleaned at least twice a year. Yep, vacuum them.
* Keep the hot foods out of your refrigerator. Before you store leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer, allow them to cool slightly. That way, your refrigerator or freezer won’t have to work to cool them off.
* Keep your refrigerators full in order to operate most efficiently when they are full, but not overloaded. While it’s true that frozen foods help to keep the air cool, over-packing food in either compartment can prevent cold air from circulating properly. Refer to your owner’s manual for the correct capacity.

The Sierra Club suggests that you tell your member of Congress about the Waxman Safe Climate Act

Information from the congressman’s site is listed below.

Summary of the Bill
The Safe Climate Act of 2007 (H.R. 1590) sets targets and requires the actions that will be necessary to avoid dangerous, irreversible warming of our planet.

Science tells us that we face a grave risk of irreversible and devastating global warming if global temperatures increase by more than 3.6°F.

The bill sets greenhouse gas emissions targets that aim to keep temperatures below the danger point. The level of emissions is frozen in 2010 and then gradually reduced each year through 2050.

The bill achieves these targets through a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.

Targets
The Safe Climate Act freezes U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, at the 2009 levels. Beginning in 2011, it cuts emissions by roughly 2% per year, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. After 2020, it cuts emissions by roughly 5% per year. By 2050, emissions will be 80% lower than in 1990. These goals are comparable to emissions reduction goals adopted by many states and called for by leading American companies, small businesses, religious organizations, environmental advocates, and others.

Chart: Projected Global Warming Emissions Under Business-as-Usual vs. Emissions Targets of the Safe Climate Act.

Actions
The Safe Climate Act is implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

The Safe Climate Act directs EPA to issue regulations sufficient to achieve the emissions targets through the combination of a cap-and-trade program and other measures.

The bill directs EPA to set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the largest polluters and allow the polluters to meet the cap by buying and selling emissions allowances.

Allowances are distributed according to a plan developed by the President, with an opportunity for Congress to ratify or modify the plan.

Proceeds from auctioning allowances are deposited in the “Climate Reinvestment Fund.”

Revenues in the fund are dedicated to maximizing the public benefit and promoting economic growth, including supporting technology research and development, compensating consumers for any energy cost increases, providing transition assistance for affected workers and regions, and protecting against harm from climate change, such as safeguarding water supplies, protecting against hurricanes, and mitigating harm to fish and wildlife habitat.

The bill directs EPA to set standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles that are at least as stringent as the current California standards. EPA must tighten these standards in 2014 and periodically thereafter.

The bill directs the Department of Energy to establish national standards requiring an increasing proportion of electricity to be generated from renewable energy sources, reaching 20% of retail electricity sold in 2020.

The bill directs the Department of Energy to establish national standards requiring utilities to obtain, each year, 1% of their energy supplies through energy efficiency improvements at customer facilities. These savings would accumulate each year through 2020.

National Academies Review
The bill directs the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council to review, every five years, our progress toward avoiding dangerous climate change. If the National Academies find that dangerous global warming is likely, they must identify the reductions needed and recommend additional national and international actions to achieve the reductions.

The Sierra Club offers an online form, Here is the content from that form

Please Co-sponsor the Waxman Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590)

Dear [Decision Maker],

We have the opportunity to solve one of the greatest challenges facing our country the threat of global warming. As the world’s largest global warming polluter, the United States not only has an opportunity, it also has a responsibility to act. Putting smart energy solutions to work to solve global warming will not only avert this crisis – it will also create new economic opportunities and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The Waxman (D-CA) Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590) would reduce global warming emissions 2 percent per year, reaching an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. I urge you to sponsor this important legislation.

The science is clear. We must act now to reduce the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming. By investing in clean, renewable energy sources, fuel-efficient transportation, and energy efficient technology, we can reduce our emissions 2 percent per year through 2050 as called for by leading scientists. States and local governments are already moving forward. It is time for Congress to act.