How To Save The Planet - One Click At A Time

Stockholm International Water Institute - SIWI articles from Stockholm Water Front

Kenzilla — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:37:00 +0000

Resources
»Water Front Articles

Water Front Articles

Cutting-edge articles excerpted from SIWI’s flagship magazine, Stockholm Water Front.

A Little Light Relief? (December 2007)
Urban Sanitation: Politics in a Dirty World (December 2007)
Holistic Hygiene for Human Health (December 2007)
Taking from the Top: Looking Upstream in India (December 2007)
2007 SIWI Year in Review: Looking Back, Striding Forward (December 2007)
From Field to Fork - Wastage of Water in the Food Chain (October 2007)
Outputs from the World Water Week (October 2007)
Get Ready: Adopting to Water and Climate Change (October 2007)
Bioenergy: Changing the Water Playing Field (October 2007)
Global Warming: Water the Main Mediator (June 2007)
Meet the Stockholm Water Prize Laureate (June 2007)
From Pure Aid to Demanded Support (June 2007)
Water for Food, Water for Life - Influencing What Happens Next (June 2007)
What Implications Does Economic Progress Have for Water? (May 2007)
Global Warming: What Can We Expect? (May 2007)
Micro-credit – a Nobel Peace Prize Winning Initiative (May 2007)
Improving Water Quality Gives American the 2007 Stockholm Water Prize (May 2007)

Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis (December 2006)
Is a Free Media Essential for Development? (December 2006)
The Right (?) of ACCESS (?) to Water Supply and Sanitation (?) (December 2006)
Wholly Water: Time to Act (October 2006)
Awards Abound at the Water Week (October 2006)
Feature Article: Water is the Entry Point to Better Ecosystem Managment (October 2006)
Feature Article: Dealing with Flood Risk (October 2006)
International Training Programmes Build Capacity (October 2006)
In Focus: World Water Week (June 2006)
Interview with Asit K. Biswas: A Secure Water Future is Our Biggest Challenge (June 2006)
Developing Water Governance Capacities (June 2006)
Breaking Corruption's Grip on the Water Sector (June 2006)
Sydney Water Corporation Wins 2006 Stockholm Industry Water Award (June 2006)
Exciting World Water Week is Set (May 2006)
2006 Stockholm Water Prize Laureate: Asit K. Biswas (May 2006)
Special Report: World Water Forum (May 2006)
Green Water Breaking New Ground (May 2006)
Benefit Sharing in International River Basins (May 2006)

Protecting Water Quality: The Cost of Non-Action (December 2005)
Clashing Views on the Ecosystem Approach and Governance (December 2005)
The Benefits of Rainwater Harvesting (December 2005)
Local Actions for a Global Challenge: The 4th World Water Forum (December 2005)
Productive World Water Week Advances Global Water Agenda (September 2005)
In Focus: Infrastructure, Corruption, Sanitation and Climate and Water-related risks (September 2005)
Energising Development: Rusumu Falls Hydroelectric Project (September 2005)
World Water Week Preview (April 2005)
India's Centre for Science and Environment wins 2005 Stockholm Water Prize (April 2005)
Tsunami Special Report (April 2005)

Triple Green Revolution Needed (December 2004)
Business Needs Security to Invest in Water (December 2004)
A Critical View on Integrated Water Resources Management (December 2004)
2005 Critical Year for International Development (December 2004)
Poverty, Misery, Affluence and Obligations: 2004 World Water Week Seeks Solutions (September 2004)
Inter-linkages Characterise Future Urban Water, Food Security Needs (September 2004)
The Water Challenges of Megacities (June 2004)
Water Management in the Enlarged European Union (June 2004)
SIWI and IWMI Press for Change in Global Food Production and Consumption Patterns (June 2004)
Ecologists Receive 2004 Stockholm Water Prize (April 2004)
Investing in the Future: Water and Targets in the UN MDGs (April 2004)
Water in the Human Body (April 2004)

Water and the Millennium Development Goals: Meeting the Needs of People (December 2003)
Towards Familiarity With Uncertainties (December 2003)
2003 Stockholm Water Symposium Conclusions (September 2003)
Humans and Ecosystems Share the Same Water (September 2003)
Expert Views on Virtual Water (June 2003)
Yellow River Shows Signs of Life (June 2003)
SWP Laureate Climbs High on Innovative Technology (June 2003)
The World Water Forum in Kyoto - Just Another Conference? (April 2003)
Aral Sea Heads for a Brighter Future (April 2003)

Challenges in Bridging Science and Policy Making - From Stockholm to Johannesburg (April 2002)
Ecology Meets Hydrology (April 2002)
EU Water Initiative: State of Play After WSSD (December 2002)
History of Hydrosolidarity (December 2002)
Orchestrating for Compatibility of Different Water Uses (December 2002)
Water Judged Crucial During World Summit Negotiations (December 2002)
Water Supply and Sanitation in Sweden: A Public Trust (December 2002)
Why Balance Water Use? (June 2002)
Women Take the Initiative to Bridge Divides in Sri Lanka (September 2002)

Feeding 8 Billion People: Time to Get Out of Past Misconceptions (April 2001)
Challenges for Water Sharing in a River Basin (July 2001)
Small-scale Industry Drives India's Economy but Pollutes Heavily. What Can be Done? (October 2001)
Turning the Page for Hydrosolidarity in Spain (December 2001)
Water from Water: Closing the Cycle (April 2001)
Social Resource Scarcity as a Bottle-Neck in Adaptation to Water Scarcity (February 2000)
Sustaining Urban Water Supplies: A Case Study from São Paulo, Brazil (April 2000)

Carbon Calculator: How Much Carbon Are You Using When You Travel?

In Net We Trust — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:33:00 +0000

Carbon Calculator: How Much Carbon Are You Using When You Travel?

Offset your emissions now.

Each time you fly or drive, you contribute to global warming by releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We have joined forces with Climate Care to help you calculate your share of emissions from flights.

Paying to offset your emissions costs less than you might think and the money is used to fund projects which absorb, reduce or avoid an equivalent amount of greenhouse gasses elsewhere. Find out about Climate Care's energy-saving projects here.

While we recognise the need to reduce unnecessary air and car travel first and foremost, we acknowledge that some journeys are unavoidable and personal travel can also be highly desirable. Carbon-offsetting provides a positive step to help you reduce your impact on the climate.

Carbon Calculator

from

Number of passengers

Return One-way only

Find out more about ClimateCare and this carbon calculator

California Water Crisis: Water Shortage Looms

In Net We Trust — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:42:00 +0000

Obviously, whenever has a position on an issue there is another side. This is the position of the Association of California Water Agencies | www.acwa.com

CALIFORNIA'S WATER: A CRISIS WE CAN'T IGNORE
September 2007 Association of California Water Agencies | www.acwa.com
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is the Association of California Water Agencies' new public education program?

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), a coalition of 450 public water agencies, has launched a statewide public education program, entitled "California's Water: A Crisis We Can't Ignore," to raise awareness among Californians of current and future water problems.

Californians rely on water to sustain our vibrant economy, keep our families healthy and maintain our quality of life. They need to be aware of pressing issues confronting our water system, including a deepening crisis in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) and a recent court-ordered massive reduction in our statewide water supply.

Further information on the program can be obtained at www.calwatercrisis.org.

What crisis is California's water system facing?

Many experts agree the state is facing some of the most significant water challenges seen in the last half-century. California's aging water supply and delivery system is facing multiple dire threats. Any one of these factors would be enough to jeopardize the state's water supply. But now, they have combined to place California's water supply and infrastructure, as well as critical environmental resources, in a state of crisis. Among the problems facing our state: · The Delta, a key natural estuary and the pathway through which more than 25 million Californians and 2.5 million acres of productive farmland receive their water, is in an ecological crisis that threatens people as well as the environment. · California's water supply has been drastically reduced, impacting people, businesses and farms in Northern, Central and Southern California. In late August, a federal court cut water supplies from the state's two largest water delivery systems by up to one-third to protect an endangered fish potentially the largest court-ordered water supply reduction in California history. · California's population is growing rapidly, but our statewide water storage and delivery system has not been significantly improved in 30 years. · Our statewide water reserves are extremely low and would not be able to meet public demand during a major disruption to the state's water delivery system.

Aging Delta levees are at risk of a natural disaster that could cripple water deliveries for an extended period of time. · California is facing severe drought conditions, with 2007 ranking as a record dry-year in some regions. If the current drought continues, mandatory water rationing may be imposed in many areas. · Significantly reduced supplies and growing water uncertainties already are causing some California farmers to fallow prime agricultural lands, hurting one of our state's most important industries. · Climate change is reducing our mountain snow pack a critical source of natural water storage and may usher in longer droughts and more severe floods. · While we have made great strides in water conservation and efficiency programs, the collective impacts of drought, climate change, increased population demands, court-ordered supply reductions and/or potential natural disasters mean that conservation alone will not solve this crisis...it's just simply not enough.

What does the recent federal court ruling mean for California's water supply?

In an unprecedented move, U.S. District Court Judge Wanger ordered, on August 31, 2007, a massive reduction in water supplies from the state's two largest water delivery systems, the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP), to protect an endangered fish species, the Delta smelt, while updated federal permits are obtained. While state and local water agencies are still analyzing the court ruling, an initial review by the California Department of Water Resources projects the reduction could be up to one-third (1/3) of the combined SWP/CVP water supplies, or two million acre-feet of water one acre-foot is enough water for a family of five for a year. This is potentially the single largest court-ordered reduction in statewide water supply in California's history.

This significant reduction in water supply will be experienced in the Bay Area, Central and Southern California. What about consumers of water people, farms and businesses? How will the court ruling affect them?

The most immediate impact of the recent court ruling will be in the agricultural community as farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, Inland Empire and San Diego regions are forced to abandon crop planting this coming winter and spring. Urban water users will need to dramatically increase their conservation efforts during this critical time period some local water agencies are calling for "unprecedented" levels of conservation, akin to those implemented during extensive drought. In some regions, consumers may be asked for more stringent water restrictions, including rationing, and may experience increased costs. Local public water agencies will be assessing direct impacts of the court ruling to their regions and customers, including potential impacts on local economic growth.

What are state leaders saying about this crisis?

On the heels of the federal court ruling, state leaders weighed in with commentary about the mounting problems. "Today's federal court ruling to drastically cut Delta water exports is further proof that our water system is broken, unreliable and in crisis. Judge Oliver Wanger's decision is a devastating blow to our water supply system and economy," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In addition, demonstrating the increasing urgency of the problem, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein recently hosted a bi-partisan water summit to call attention to the broken Delta system, joining a long list of water, conservation, agriculture, business, public health, public safety, government/local planning leaders and elected officials who have collectively voiced their concerns about California's existing water system. "I have just one statistic, one only, and that is 25 million people depend on Delta water for the drinking water of the state. And the probability of a big earthquake over 6.7 is 75% in the next 30 years. And if that were to happen, there are all indications that the Delta would collapse, the water would be gone, there would be no water for drinking, there would be no water for agriculture, there would be no water for fish, marsh, ecosystems," said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Delta Summit, August 21, 2007

What does this crisis mean to me?

California cannot prosper without a safe and reliable supply of water. On the farm, in the workplace and around the home the availability of clean and affordable water is the critical ingredient in sustaining the state's thriving economy and world-renowned quality of life.

If our water supply and infrastructure systems fail, the impacts would be felt in homes and businesses across the state. Such a failure could trigger widespread water shortages and mandatory rationing, with serious impacts on our quality of life, environment, agricultural production and general economy.

Can't we just implement more conservation?

While we have made great strides in water conservation and efficiency programs, they are simply not enough. We cannot conserve our way out of this crisis. Yes, more conservation is needed and is an extremely valuable tool in the overall water management tool box. However, the collective impacts of court-ordered water supply reductions, drought, climate change, increased population demands and/or potential natural disasters mean that conservation alone will not solve this crisis. The public needs to understand this important distinction.

Why is your organization launching this program now?

Despite the seemingly high degree of interest among policy makers and intense news coverage, the public at large seems unaware of critical water problems facing California today and their potential impact on our economy, environment and quality of life.

When the state's water supply is threatened, as it is by this immediate crisis, we are obligated to inform and educate the public about those threats. As the public agencies responsible for delivering water on a daily basis, we have an obligation to inform our customers of issues that could affect their water supplies.

How do you intend to reach the public?

ACWA's statewide education program will reach the public directly through television, radio and print advertising, as well as the Internet and community outreach.

Where can I see/hear the program's television & radio ads?

Our ads will be aired on local and cable television channels and radio stations in media markets throughout the state, and may also be viewed at our Web site, www.calwatercrisis.org.

In addition to paid advertising, our program will be developing and distributing an informational, five-minute DVD/video for public dissemination.

Is this program designed to advocate or lobby for any new policies on water?

No, this is strictly a public education program to inform California residents of the severe crisis facing our water system and the impacts it will have on all aspects of our lives, from the farm to the workplace to the kitchen faucet.

How long will this program run? Who is funding the program?

The multi-million dollar education program, funded by voluntary contributions from public water agencies throughout the state, is currently scheduled to run through the end of 2007.

Are there program materials available for my organization?

Yes, your organization may download educational materials from www.calwatercrisis.org, or contact us to receive information by mail. Partnering with statewide, regional and community-based organizations is a critical element of our outreach program. If you represent an organization or business that would like to help us spread this information, please let us know and we can provide bulk supplies of our materials for your membership or key events. You can also post our advertisements and DVD/video to your organization's Web sites.

What is ACWA?

ACWA is the largest coalition of public water agencies in the country. The statewide organization, based in Sacramento, is composed of 450 public agencies that collectively supply 90% of the water delivered to cities, farms and businesses throughout the state. ACWA has been a leader in California water issues since 1910. Its primary mission is to assist its members in promoting the development, management and beneficial use of water in an environmentally balanced manner.

Has ACWA spearheaded other similar education efforts?

Yes, ACWA has consistently worked to educate policy makers, opinion leaders and the news media about water issues through a variety of means.

Most recently, ACWA has brought general water information to the public through a multipart series for public television called "California's Water." Underwritten by ACWA and produced by Huell Howser, the series has been airing on public television stations since April 2006, covering various aspects of California's water system.

Now, ACWA is building on its previous efforts by directly reaching the public through television, radio and print advertising through this statewide education program.

Are local water agencies running their own public education efforts?

Yes, local water agencies are running a variety of programs on the significance of this crisis, conservation efforts and other issues that affect their local and regional service areas.

You may get more information on the program by visiting http://www.calwatercrisis.org

Association of California Water Agencies | www.acwa.com

Paper or Plastic? Plastic or Paper? Which is Greener?

Kenzilla — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:31:00 +0000

EarthTalk, a division of The Environmental Magazine, responds to the question, "paper or plastic?"

The best conclusion seems to bring your own grocery bags to checkout :)

Dear EarthTalk: OK, once and for all, which is more environmentally friendly: paper or plastic at the grocery checkout? And didn’t I just hear that San Francisco has banned plastic bags?

-- Brian, Santa Clara, CA

Yes the city of San Francisco did just recently ban plastic bags. Large supermarkets and pharmacies there must eliminate plastic shopping bags by early 2008 in favor of bags made from either paper or compostable and biodegradable cornstarch. The city’s Board of Supervisors cited the fact that plastic bags are a challenge to recycle and as a result occupy much-needed landfill space, while causing litter problems by easily blowing into trees and waterways, where they can kill birds and marine life.

But just because San Francisco has outlawed plastic bags doesn’t mean that all indications point to paper bags being more green-friendly than plastic. A landmark 1990 study by the research firm Franklin Associates—which factored in every step of the manufacturing, distribution and disposal stages of a grocery bag’s usable life—actually gave the nod to plastic bags.

Franklin’s employed two critical measures in reaching their conclusion. The first was the total energy consumed by a grocery bag. This included both the energy needed to manufacture it, called process energy, and the energy embodied within the physical materials used, called feedstock energy. The second measure used was the amount of pollutants and waste produced.

The Franklin report concluded that two plastic bags consume 13 percent less total energy than one paper bag. Additionally, the report found that two plastic bags produce a quarter of the solid waste, a fifteenth as much waterborne waste and half the atmospheric waste as one paper bag.

Of course, many environmentalists still side with paper as a better choice than plastic at the checkout, mostly for the reasons cited by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. Plastic is not biodegradable, it litters our waterways and coastal areas, and has been shown to choke the life out of unsuspecting wildlife. A recent survey by the United Nations found that plastic in the world’s oceans is killing more than a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles each and every year. According to the California Coastal Commission, plastic bags are one of the 12 most commonly found items in coastal cleanups. Paper bags do not cause such after-the-fact problems, and are inherently easier to recycle.

But to the non-profit Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment, “paper versus plastic?” is not the question we should be asking ourselves, since the answer is really “neither.” After all, energy and waste issues aside, the manufacture of paper bags brings down some 14 million trees yearly to meet U.S. demand alone, while at the same time plastic bags use up some 12 million barrels of oil each year.

The group urges consumers to “just say no” to both options and instead bring their own re-usable canvas bags, backpacks, crates or boxes to haul away the groceries. Some supermarkets, such as the Albertson’s and Wild Oats chains, even offer a small discount (around five cents) to those who do so. Another benefit of bringing your own, of course, is setting a good example so that other shoppers might do the same.

CONTACTS: Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EARTHTALK, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit your question at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk.html;

Paper bags

— Paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.
— 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 pounds, 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 pounds. The latter takes up a lot more landfill space.
— It takes 91 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.

Sources: reusablebags.com, NRDC and International Coastal Cleanup 2005 Report from the Ocean Conservancy

Plastic bags

— Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide.
— Plastics do NOT biodegrade. Rather, they photodegrade, a process in which sunlight breaks down plastic into smaller and smaller pieces.
— It can take up to 1,000 years for a high-density polyethylene plastic bag to break down in the environment.
— Plastic bags are on the top 10 list of most common trash items along the American coastline (both on land and in the water).

Northwest Passage Opening: Is Global Warming Causing Artic Ice To Melt

Kenzilla — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:11:00 +0000

Arctic ice retreats to new low, possibly opening Northwest Passage

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.

Water Conservation: How To Conserve And Save On Outdoor Water Usage

Kenzilla — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:55:00 +0000

Landscape with native plants or plants from similar climates, cluster thirsty plants, and use soaker hoses, microsprinklers, and timers to reduce water consumption.

Water your yard only before 8 a.m. to reduce evaporation and interference from wind. Save 25 gallons per day

Install a smart sprinkler controller. Save 40 gallons per day

Use a broom instead of a hose to clean driveways and sidewalks. Save 150 gallons each time.

Check your sprinkler system for leaks, overspray and broken sprinkler heads. Save 500 gallons a month.

Water Conservation: How To Conserve And Save On Indoor Water Usage

Kenzilla — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:46:00 +0000

Here is how to save on indoor water usage and how you can lower your water consumption.

Fix leaky faucets. Check your faucets periodically for drips -- a single leaking faucet can waste thousands of gallons of water a year. Save 20 gallons per day.

Turn off the water when you brush your teeth or shave. Don't leave the tap running when you don't need it. Save 3 gallons per day

Shorten your showers by one or two minutes. Taking showers rather than baths is the simplest way to conserve water and energy: A 3-minute shower uses one fourth the water of a bath. A low-flow showerhead can achieve even greater savings. Older showerheads spray out 5 gallons or more every minute. Newer models can cut that usage to 2.5 gallons per minute or less, which can save even a two-person household more than 10,000 gallons a year. A showerhead with an on-off lever lets you turn the water off temporarily without changing the temperature setting. You don't need the water running while you soap yourself up or wash your hair. Installing a new showerhead is a simple do-it-yourself job. Save 5 gallons per day

Low-flow toilets, which are now required in all new construction, use 1.6 gallons per flush versus 3.5 gallons for older models. By placing a plastic soda bottle full of water in the tank of an older toilet you can cut the amount of water per flush without the trouble and expense of replacing the toilet. Some advocate the "yellow mellow - brown down" method where urine is not flushed. Hmm, you make your own call for the water conservation option.

When you handwash dishes, rinse in a basin of clear water, not under a running tap.

Wash only full loads of laundry. Save 15 and 50 gallons per load

Talk to your family and friends about saving water.

If everyone does a little to conserve water, we all benefit a lot.

Stop Phone Pollution: Use The Do Not Call Registry

Kenzilla — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:22:00 +0000

What You Should Know About The National Do Not Call Registry

The National Do Not Call Registry gives you a choice about whether to receive telemarketing calls at home. Most telemarketers should not call your number once it has been on the registry for 31 days. If they do, you can file a complaint at this Website. You can register your home or mobile phone for free. Your registration will be effective for five years.

The National Do Not Call Registry has 148 million numbers. Nearly half (or 63 million) of the numbers were registered in 2003, the program's first year, which means they'll start to fall off the list as early as next summer.

Sign up with National Do Not Call Registry to remove your telephone from telemarketing calls.

The five-year limit was set in place to purge the list of Americans who invariably move or change numbers. But for telemarketers, a lack of awareness about the expiration date signals new opportunity. "Will we attempt to touch people no longer on the list? Of course." says Tim Searcy, CEO of the American Teleservices Association. The "mass expiration," he argues, will also let customers decide whether they want to opt out. "New offers might be compelling after five years," he says. Most households probably don't see things that way. "I bet 99.9 percent of people who swear off calls never want to get them again," says Baicker from Pennsylvania.

That's one reason businesses have been targeting your mailbox and inbox instead of your land line. From 2001 to 2006, direct-mail spending increased from $24 billion to $32 billion, according to the Direct Marketing Association, while profits rose from $363 billion to $517 billion. Similar jumps occurred with catalogs and Internet marketing; meanwhile, telemarketing spending has remained flat at $46 billion. Earnings in that time have only slightly increased, from $382 billion to $393 billion. "Our members have shifted how they reach people," says Jerry Cerasale, the association's senior vice president. "But people will likely get calls."

Q&A: The National Do Not Call Registry
Tell Me More About the National Do Not Call Registry
Why would I register my phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry?
The National Do Not Call Registry gives you an opportunity to limit the telemarketing calls you receive. Once you register your phone number, telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to 31 days from the date you register to stop calling you.

Who manages the National Do Not Call Registry?
The National Do Not Call Registry is managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency. It is enforced by the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and state law enforcement officials.

Why was the National Do Not Call Registry created?
The registry was created to offer consumers a choice regarding telemarketing calls. The FTC’s decision to create the National Do Not Call Registry was the culmination of a comprehensive, three-year review of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), as well as the Commission’s extensive experience enforcing the TSR over seven years. The FTC held numerous workshops, meetings, and briefings to solicit feedback from interested parties and considered over 64,000 public comments, most of which favored creating the registry. You can review the entire record of the Rule review at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/tsr/tsrrulemaking/index.htm.

How Does Registration Work?
How soon after I register will I notice a reduction in calls?
Telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to 31 days from the date you register to stop calling you.

When I register my phone number, how long until it shows up on the National Do Not Call Registry?
After you register, your phone number will show up on the registry by the next day. Telemarketers have up to 31 days to get your phone number and remove it from their call lists.

What if I change my mind? Can I take my number off the National Do Not Call Registry?
You can delete your phone number only by calling toll-free 1-888-382-1222 from the telephone number you want to delete. After you contact the registry to delete it, it will be removed from the National Do Not Call Registry by the next day. But telemarketers have up to 31 days to access information about your deletion and add your number back to their call lists, if they choose to.

If I registered by phone, will I receive a confirmation?
No, but you can verify that your number is on the registry online at www.donotcall.gov or by calling the registry’s toll-free number (1-888-382-1222) and following the prompts for verifying that your number is on the registry.

I received a phone call from someone offering to put my name on the National Do Not Call Registry. Should I let them?
No. The FTC does not allow private companies or other such third parties to register consumers for the National Do Not Call Registry. Websites or phone solicitations that claim they can or will register a consumer’s name or phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry — especially those that charge a fee — are almost certainly a scam. Consumers may register directly, or through some state governments, but never through private companies. For consumers, the National Do Not Call Registry is a free service of the federal government.

What About the Privacy of My Information?

If I choose to register my phone number, how will my information be used and disclosed?
We collect your phone number and store it in the National Do Not Call Registry so that telemarketers and sellers covered by the FTC’s rules can remove your phone number from their call lists. Telemarketers are required to search the registry every 31 days and delete from their call lists phone numbers that are in the registry. Phone numbers in the registry also may be shared with law enforcement to assure compliance with federal and state law.

If you contact us via the Internet, we also collect your email address to confirm your registration request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers.

For more information about the privacy of your information, please see our privacy policy at www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm

What Phone Numbers Can I Register?
Can I register my cell phone on the National Do Not Call Registry?
Yes, you may place your personal cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. The registry has accepted cell phone numbers since it opened for registrations in June 2003. There is no deadline to register a home or cell phone number on the Registry.

You may have received an email telling you that your cell phone is about to be assaulted by telemarketing calls as a result of a new cell phone number database; however, that is not the case. FCC regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers don’t call consumers on their cell phones without their consent.

Can I register all my family and friends?
You should register only your own telephone numbers.

I have more than three personal telephone numbers. How can I register all of those numbers?
You may register up to three telephone numbers at one time on the National Do Not Call Registry website. You will receive a separate confirmation email for each number you wish to register online. You must open each email and click on the link in each one to complete the registration process. If you have more than three personal telephone numbers, you will have to go through the registration process more than once to register all of your numbers. There is a limit on the number of phone numbers you can register in this manner.

You can register only one phone number each time you call the National Do Not Call Registry, and you must call from the phone number you wish to register.

What happens if I register more than one number at a time online?
You will get an email for each number you register online. You need to open each email and click on the link in each email within 72 hours to register those numbers.

Can I register my business phone number or a fax number?
The National Do Not Call Registry is only for personal phone numbers. Business-to-business calls and faxes are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry.

When Does My Registration Expire?

How long does my phone number stay registered?
Your phone number will remain on the registry for five years from the date you register (unless you choose to take it off the registry or your phone number is disconnected). If you register online, you may want to print the Web page for your records when your registration is accepted.

How can I find out when my registration expires?
You can click on the Verify a Registration button any time to check your expiration date. Your registration will expire five years from your registration date. You may want to print the Web page with your registration date for your records.

What If I Move or My Phone Is Disconnected?

I moved and got a new phone number. Do I need to register the new number?
Yes.

Do I need to take my old phone number off the list when I get a new number?
No. You can if you would like to, but the system will automatically remove most numbers that are disconnected and reassigned.

What happens if my phone number is disconnected and then reconnected?
If your number is disconnected and then reconnected, you may need to re-register. In addition, there are actions that you or your telephone company might take that could cause your registered phone number to become unregistered — even if your service has not been interrupted (such as changing calling plans or other services, or changing the billing name on the account.) To verify that your number is in the Registry, go to www.donotcall.gov or call 1-888-382-1222 (TTY 1-866-290-4236). Each time you re-register, telemarketers will have 31 days to take your number off their call lists.

What If My Area Code “Splits”?/p>

If my area code changes, do I need to re-register?
If the phone companies change the three-digit area code for your home or mobile phone number, you do not have to re-register it with the National Do Not Call Registry. The number with the new area code will be registered for you during the 90-day period when both the old and new area codes work. This is known as the Permissive Dialing Period.

Do I need to delete registration of my number with the old area code?
No. You do not need to delete the registration of your phone number with the old area code. An automated process will remove it after 90-day Permissive Dialing Period.

Registration and My Email Address

Why do you need my email address?
When you use the registry’s website to put a phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry, we collect your email address to confirm your request. We will send you an email and you will need to click on the link in the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration. We also collect your email address when you request to verify your registration online so that we can email you a response to your verification request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers.

Can I register online if I do not have an active email address?
No. The online registration process requires an active email address. If you register online, we will send you an email message with a link in it. You need to click on the link in the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration. If you do not have an email address, you can register by phone
(1-888-382-1222).

Can I reply to the email I got when I was registering?
No. The email address is a one-way mail service. It cannot accept incoming emails. You must click on the link within the email within 72 hours to finalize your registration.

What if my email address changes after I register? Will I still be able to verify my registration on the national registry?
Yes, you will be able to use your new email address to verify your phone number online.

I’m Having Problems With Registration

I called to register my phone number, but the message said my phone number could not be verified. Why not?
When you call to register a phone number, you are asked to enter the number you are calling from. The system tries to match the number you enter to “Automatic Number Identification” or ANI, which is like Caller ID for the telephone network. A small percentage of U.S. phones do not have ANI. If your phone doesn’t, the system will have trouble locating your phone number. You can register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry website at www.donotcall.gov.

I called to register my phone number, but the message said that the phone number I was calling from did not match the phone number I entered. What happened?
To register, you must call from the phone you want to register. For example, you cannot register your home phone number by calling from work.

Also, people in certain communities — such as senior living centers or university residences — have phone numbers that are hidden by a PBX (private branch exchange) telephone system and cannot be matched by the National Do Not Call system. If you live in such a community, you can register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry website at www.donotcall.gov.

I received an email from Register@donotcall.gov, but I don’t get a “Registration Complete” message when I try to click on the link. What should I do?
You may not be able to click on the link in your email from Register@donotcall.gov, or it may take you to a page that says “Registration Incomplete.” You can complete your registration by using the “cut” and “paste” functions to insert the link in the email into the “address” line on your Web browser. You must cut and paste the entire link. It is very long — possibly more than one line of text. You cannot re-type the link.

Will All Telemarketing Calls Stop If I Register?

If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls?
No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those to whom you’ve provided express agreement in writing to receive their calls.

Are calls from political organizations or calls soliciting for charities covered?
Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of “telemarketing.” Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry. However, if a third-party telemarketer is calling on behalf of a charity, a consumer may ask not to receive any more calls from, or on behalf of, that specific charity. If a third-party telemarketer calls again on behalf of that charity, the telemarketer may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.

What about telephone surveys?
If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered — that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry.

My number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. After I bought something from a company, a telemarketer representing that organization called me. Is this a violation?
No. By purchasing something from the company, you established a business relationship with the company. As a result, even if you put your number on the National Do Not Call Registry, that company may call you for up to 18 months after your last purchase or delivery from it, or your last payment to it, unless you ask the company not to call again. In that case, the company must honor your request not to call. If they subsequently call you again, they may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.

An established business relationship with a company also will be created if you make an inquiry to the company, or submit an application to it. This kind of established business relationship exists for three months after the inquiry or application. During this time, the company can call you.

If you make a specific request to that company not to call you, however, then the company may not call you, even if you have an established business relationship with that company.

Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?
Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.

Other Ways To Limit Telemarketing Calls

I’m happy to have the choice to limit telemarketing contacts, but there are some telemarketing calls I don’t mind receiving. Is there a way to allow only certain companies to call?
Yes. If you give a company your written permission to call you, they may do so even if you have placed your number on the National Do Not Call Registry.

If I don’t want to put my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, can I still stop telemarketers from calling?
Yes. Even if you do not register with the National Do Not Call Registry, you can still prohibit individual telemarketers from calling by asking them to put you on their company’s do not call list.

What is the relationship between the state do not call lists and the National Do Not Call Registry in terms of coverage?
The National Do Not Call Registry requirements are at least as stringent as most state laws. Most unwanted telemarketing calls will be covered by the National Do Not Call Registry. States also can continue to enforce their laws, which will not be limited by the FTC. However, the FCC’s requirements impact some state laws. For information on the FCC’s rule, visit www.fcc.gov.

Filing a Do Not Call Complaint
When can I file a do not call complaint?
If your number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days and you receive a call from a telemarketer that you believe is covered by the National Do Not Call Registry, you can file a complaint at the registry’s website at www.donotcall.gov or by calling the registry’s toll-free number at 1-888-382-1222 (for TTY, call 1-866-290-4236). To file a complaint, you must know either the name or telephone number of the company that called you, and the date the company called you.

How do I file a do not call complaint? What do I need to file a complaint?
You can file your complaint on the registry’s website, www.donotcall.gov, using the File a Complaint page. You must know either the name or the phone number of the company that called you. You also must provide the date that the company called you and your registered phone number. You may provide your name and address, but it’s not required for you to submit a complaint. You also may call the registry’s toll-free number at (1-888-382-1222) to file a complaint (for TTY, call 1-866-290-4236).

What happens to my complaint?
Do not call complaints will be entered into the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel system, a secure, online database available to more than 1,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies. While the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems, your complaint will help us investigate the company and could lead to law enforcement action.

What if I get a telemarketing call, but can’t get the telemarketer’s name or phone number?
For law enforcement officials to take action on your complaint, they need either the telemarketer’s name or phone number, as well as the date of the call. If you want to report a do not call violation, please get that information.

Where can I get more information?
If you have questions or complaints regarding the Do Not Call Registry, please contact the FTC by email at dncconsumerinquiry2@ftc.gov, or by mail at:

National Do Not Call Registry
Attn: DNC Program Manager
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20580

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

Kenzilla — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:40:00 +0000

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

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.