Rand Paul: Environmental Extremists Run Government

by Sam Rolley
Personal Liberty
November 14, 2011

Republican Senator Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that President Barack Obama’s Administration has allowed environmental extremists to take over political decisions and kill jobs.

The Senator’s statements were made in regard to legislation he has proposed to roll back an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that penalizes States for allowing air pollution to drift into bordering States, according to The Hill.

Paul also questioned the American Lung Association’s suggestion that pollution is behind a rise in asthma and said the $5 million in funding it takes from the EPA each year might be influencing the results of its studies.

The Senator also said that the push for electric cars did not make much sense from an environmental standpoint because 50 percent of electricity in the U.S. is coal-produced.

“[I] am afraid what has happened is we have opened up the White House and this administration to environmental extremists, the kind of people who say, ‘Well the polar bears are drowning,’” he said.

Paul said that this is not the kind of extremism that he wants to see driving policy in the United States.

Growing fake meat in labs to cut ’emissions’

Ethan Huff
NaturalNews.com
July 04, 2011

Instead of focusing on ending the horrendous factory farming practices that inhumanely confine cattle to tight living spaces, and subject them to an unnatural diet of genetically-modified (GM) corn and soybeans, scientists from Oxford University have decided instead to concentrate their efforts on culturing and growing artificial meat in petri dishes.

A recent report in the UK’s Guardian explains that researchers there hope to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by producing fake meat in a lab, a prospect they suggest might encourage vegetarians and others concerned about abusive animal conditions to once again eat meat, as well as feed the world’s hungry.

“The environmental impacts of cultured meat could be substantially lower than those of meat produced in the conventional way,” said Hanna Tuomisto, lead author of the study from Oxford. She and her team claim that growing fake meat in the lab can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 96 percent, and require up to 45 percent less energy to produce meat than conventional methods do.

This may sound like a beneficial prospect, assuming anyone in their right mind would actually be willing to eat the stuff. But is growing meat in a lab really necessary when simply returning to traditional animal raising methods would do the trick? Tuomisto is correct in her assumption that conventional animal raising methods have a terrible environmental impact. But growing fake meat in a dish is hardly the logical next step in correcting the problem.

Last year, an article in TIME explained how converting conventional cattle-raising operations to natural, grass-fed operations is helping to not only decrease negative environmental impact, but also to improve environmental conditions by bolstering soil quality and restoring the integrity of grass and pasture lands (http://www.naturalnews.com/028182_g…).

Encouraging more small-scale, pasture-based farms will not only help to make individuals more self-sufficient, they will also reverse the negative environmental impact created by factory-scale farms that are polluting the environment, spawning deadly “superbugs,” and ultimately making people and animals sick. In other words, if more farmers switch from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to open pastures, there will be no need to grow imitation meat in a lab.

Cap and Trade: Polluting is allowed so long you pay the banksters

Kerry and Lieberman want the industry to pay bankers a fee for emitting.  In other words, they want to legalize unlimited pollution.  The results will be an end to industry at the local and regional levels, with massive, worse than ever before emission for anyone who can pay the new tax (Transnational Corporations).  The bill presented in May will also regulate how much energy citizens can use. It will also pursue the same failed green policies Spain is now abandoning.

CNSNews

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said they are not worried that their cap-and-trade plan might harm

The Cap-and-Trade scheme is part of the largest transfer of money and resources from the poor and the middle class to the corporate Lords.

fellow Democrats going into the November elections, at a time when voters are more concerned about bread and butter issues such as the economy and the 9.7 percent unemployment rate.

The bill, the American Power Act,  was unveiled in May and would establish a nationwide cap-and-trade system that would regulate the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. In exchange, the bill would also extend various tax subsidies and credits in an attempt to make renewable energy sources relatively affordable.

Cap and trade basically means that a ceiling, a cap, would be placed on certain carbon-emitting manufacturers who would be allowed to exceed that cap if they purchase carbon credits (trade), the proceeds of which would be invested in alternative energy after the government collected a portion of those proceeds. (Some analysts describe the plan as “cap and tax.”)

CNSNews.com on Tuesday asked Sens. Kerry and Lieberman whether they were concerned that pushing such a low-priority issue so close to an election would reinforce the perception that Congress and its Democratic leaders were out of touch with the American people. (Lieberman, though an Independent, is a former Democrat who now caucuses with the Democrats in Congress.)

Lieberman acknowledged that the public is concerned with fiscal issues: “Deficit, debt is on the minds of the voters,” he said. “The American Power Act has been constructed to be deficit-neutral [and] we’re going to get the CBO analysis later this month or early next month.”

Kerry went on at length, saying that  Americans support many of the provisions in his bill: “When you put the worst arguments characterizing our legislation against the best arguments for energy independence — for jobs, for health, and cleaning up the environment — overwhelmingly Americans land on the side of a comprehensive bill,” said Kerry.

Kerry said that the debate going forward will not be about convincing the public of the veracity of global warming claims, but about trying to redefine cap and trade legislation as something that will benefit the struggling economy.

“Nothing that we do with respect to this bill rides on persuading people ultimately about climate [change],” Kerry said.

“Do Americans want to say no to anywhere from 250,000 to 540,000 jobs a year for the next 10-20 years? I don’t think so,” said Kerry.  “Do Americans want to let China take the lead in solar and wind technologies that we invented? I don’t think so. This is about getting America into the marketplace. This is a $6 trillion market with 6 billion potential users.”

Kerry and Lieberman, in an apparent nod to voters’ fiscal concerns, may have a steep hill to climb in convincing the public that their economic plan will lead to a better economy.

Polls show that Americans are not particularly taken with the issue of global warming, the driving force behind the Kerry-Lieberman effort. A March 2010 Gallup survey, for example, found that 48 percent of Americans thought that global warming claims were exaggerated.

That same survey found that 67 percent of Americans thought that global warming would not pose a serious threat to their well-being in the future.

Polls also have shown that global warming does not rank high on Americans’ list of concerns. An April 2010 Gallup survey found that Americans ranked environmental issues and global warming last when asked which issues they thought were the most important in determining how they will vote in November 2010.

Only 46 percent of Americans said that global warming was either “extremely” or “very” important to their voting decisions. By contrast, 93 percent said the economy was either very or extremely important to their voting choices. In fact, the economy was the only issue of the seven polled that a majority of voters, 53 percent, called extremely important to their voting decision.

Global warming was ranked as extremely important by only 22 percent of respondents.

The same March 2010 Gallup survey that showed skepticism of global warming also found that only 30 percent of the public thought that energy and climate legislation would either probably or definitely help the economy. Among those, only six percent thought federal legislation would definitely help.

Conversely, 48 percent thought that federal climate and energy legislation would either definitely or probably hurt the economy. The percentage of Americans who thought that federal energy legislation would either probably or definitely hurt the economy actually rose from one year ago, the survey found, while the number of people who thought the legislation might be beneficial declined.

Eugenicist Bill Gates Attending 2010 Bilderberg

Infowars.com

William Gates wants to sterilize people as a measure for population reduction.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates will join fellow elitists for the first time at the 2010 Bilderberg conference currently taking place in Sitges Spain, after he apparently attempted to pull a bait and switch by pretending to attend another event before being forced to admit to journalists that he will give a speech at the globalist confab.

Gates let slip that he would make his debut at Bilderberg after being asked by journalists from 20 Minutos, a free Spanish newspaper which is published daily in numerous Spanish cities as well as others around the world.

According to the report, Gates told reporters, “I’m one of those who will be present,” adding that he will take part in a debate with fellow globalists on the subjects of “energy and the needs of the poorest,” as well as climate change, renewable energy and the economic crisis.

Indicating that he will also give a speech to the Bilderberg elitists, Gates said, “I hope not to bore.”

It appears as though Gates initially tried to throw reporters off the scent by claiming he was in Barcelona to attend a Global Health Institute conference which was then mysteriously “cancelled”.

The translation of the Spanish report can be read here.

Gates’ presence at the elite confab was also confirmed by the German news agency DPA.

The Spanish report also confirms that Spain’s Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero will attend the conference this afternoon, where he will be joined by Queen Beatrix of Holland, ECB Chairman Jean Claude Trichet as well as former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld has sporadically attended Bilderberg meetings in the past but he is not a regular visitor to the annual gatherings. For Gates, this is his first time at the conference although his wife Melinda is a regular attendee.

Both Gates and Rumsfeld’s presence at this year’s event indicates that some very important developments are set to unfold over the course of the next 12 months, particularly with regard to Iran as well as the global warming agenda, which has been on the ropes since the Climategate scandal and the failed Copenhagen summit in December.

Gates’ Bilderberg presentation will also likely include information about his eugenicist projects to lower global population figures.

During a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, Gates told the audience that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions to almost zero.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

Gates’ eugenicist zeal is shared by his fellow Bilderberg elitists, many of whom have advocated draconian policies of population control in their own public speeches and writings. Indeed, the Rockefeller family funded eugenics research in Germany through the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin and Munich. The Rockefeller Foundation praised Hitler’s sterilization program in Nazi Germany. David Rockefeller attended the first Bilderberg meeting in 1954 and is now the head of Bilderberg’s “steering committee”.

A joint World Health Organization-Rockefeller inoculation program against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines in the early 1990’s was in fact a covert trial on using vaccines to medically abort women’s babies.

“Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG,” writes historian F. William Engdahl in his article, Bill Gates And Neo-Eugenics: Vaccines To Reduce Population. “That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.”

Gates recently announced that he would be funding a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man’s scrotum to render him infertile for six months. “The foundation has funded a new “sweat-triggered vaccine delivery” program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is described as a way to “…develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines,” writes health researcher Mike Adams.

Gates is likely to be asked by other Bilderbergers how to get the global warming carbon tax agenda back on track after a drastic plummet in the credibility of climate change alarmists since the Climategate scandal broke.

Part of Bilderberg’s agenda to usher in a “post-industrial revolution” revolves around mandating western countries to adopt disastrous “green economy” initiatives, which as Spain has painfully experienced at first hand, cost over 2.2 jobs for every “green” job created.

The carbon tax agenda is also about enforcing a consumption tax which will drastically reduce living standards and leave people more concerned about feeding their families with little time to worry about Bilderberg’s undemocratic scheming, something the Bilderberg hierarchy are keen to oversee in an effort to squash the growing global awareness of Bilderberg and the new world order, because they view “people with income” as “a threat” to their plans for world government.

Watch Bill Gates’ comments on using vaccines to lower global population in the clip below.

European Commission opens the Coffin of Global Warming

Financial Times

The European Commission reopened an acrimonious argument on climate change policy on Wednesday, with the presentation of adiscussion document on toughening its targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

Some member states, including the UK, are calling for the European Union to cut its emissions by 30 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2020, a substantial strengthening of the 20 per cent already pledged.

But nations such as Poland and Italy are adamant that the higher level of cuts represents too heavy a burden on their industries.

In the document, the Commission noted that the effects of the recession, which pushed down emissions across the bloc, had made it much easier and cheaper to cut emissions.

The cost of meeting the 20 per cent target has dropped from €70bn to €48bn per year since 2008, according to the report. Moving to a 30 per cent target would cost an extra €33bn per year by 2020.

Weighed against this would also be benefits, such as lower health costs from air pollution.

Some member states say moving to 30 per cent would stimulate the growth of low-carbon technologies, and would make it easier for Europe to meet the 2050 target of cutting emissions by 80 per cent.

Chris Huhne, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, said: “Global climate change is the biggest challenge the world faces and securing an ambitious deal is a priority for this government. That’s why we will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership by supporting an increase in the EU emissions reduction target to 30 per cent by 2020.”

But the last time the possibility of 30 per cent cuts was discussed, there was such opposition to it that a compromise was established of cutting emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 but offering to move to higher cuts if other nations also agreed to substantial reductions. This was intended to encourage other countries to up their offers of taking action on greenhouse gases.

That did not happen at the Copenhagen climate summit last December, when the Commission was forced to admit that no other country was calling on the EU to move to the higher target. Critics of the higher target say agreeing unilaterally to the increase in cuts only leaves Europe without leverage in the international negotiations.

Wednesday’s announcement was timed to come just before the restart on May 31 of the stalled United Nations talks on a new treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol.

However, the document does not represent a firm plan by the Commission to push for member states to adopt the 30 per cent target. Instead, it has been carefully positioned as a way of providing information on the costs and benefits of toughening the target.

Connie Hedegaard, commissioner for climate change, is well aware that any proposal to increase the target will face vocal opposition from some member states, and from many sections of business.