Your Questions About Green Living

How do you like my budget?

So I was just playing this game online called Budget Hero and I think my resulting budget was pretty solid. Here it is:

Taxes:
Repeal Bush tax cuts, tax the rich. Cap and limit greenhouse gases. Reform and hike corporate taxes. Add 50 cents to the gas tax. Increase SS taxes for the wealthy. Raise tobacco taxes. No more tax breaks for extractive industries, including big oil. Tax toxic industries. Keep Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends for less wealthy.

Social Security:
Cut benefits across the board. Cut SS for the wealthy.

Health Care:
Tax high premium health insurance. Cut rates for private health plans in Medicare. Institute a public option. Freeze Medicare payments. Increase Medicare costs for the wealthy. Simplify and raise Medicare fees.

Defense and Diplomacy:
Bring troops home soon. Cut military spending by ten percent. Cut foreign aid in half. Redeploy troops in Iraq to Afghanistan.

Education:
End No Child Left Behind. More funding for arts in schools.

Science and Nature:
Fund research on clean energy. Ground NASA. Cut the EPA’s budget in half. Double funds for alternative energy.

Housing and living:
Cut federal housing assistance. Increase food stamp benefits.

Miscellaneous:
Cut discretionary spending. Cut “pork barrel spending” in half. Expand unemployment benefits. Cut FDA funding in half. Reduce aid for federal highways. Fund high speed rail.

In total, my budget would cut the national debt to just 16.9% of our GDP by 2019, as opposed to the 70.3% it is now. It would also delay the budget bust to 2070+, as well as minorly shrinking the size of government. Well? What do you guys think? Sound off.

Some wonder: Could more women executive leadership at BP have prevented the oil spill? Why or why not?

BP’s highest ranking woman executive, Vivienne Cox, resigned from her post as head of the company’s Alternative Energy department the day before the department was shut down last year. Critics like Rep. Luis Gutierrez claim that BP consistently ignored safety and environmental regulations, and several studies suggest women could have done better:

Women demonstrate a higher concern about the environment and demonstrate more pro-environmental behaviors (Dietz, et al., 2003)

Responsible environmental practices are more important for women than for men when considering a potential employer. (Aspen Institute, 2008).

Some wonder: Could more women executive leadership at BP have prevented the oil spill? Why or why not?

Could you correct this curriculum vitae please?

Curriculum Vitae

Gian Cus
Birth in Trieste, 26th of may 1962
Resident in: Italy Prospect, 1 Yerevan – Armenia (member of AIRE)
Drivers license: type D
Mobile Italy: e-mail:
Course of study
2006 Doctorate Degree in Mechanical Engineering at the Belford University
1981 Technique degree for the heat gained at the ‘Istituto Tecnico Industriale Statale A. Volta” of Trieste
Training courses
Heating plants conductor in the second degree to a potential greater more than 230 kW. – Regional Training Institute ENAIP of Trieste – over 100 hours
Maintenance of condensing boilers of various potential – at the factory boiler Remeha in Holland – course of 32 hours
Solar panels for hot water and heating – at the headquarters of “Paradigma” of Modena Italy – course of 12 hours

Professional experiences

1998-2006 Owner of a company for the construction and design of thermo hydraulic, air conditioning, gas and electric plants, construction of thermal and cooling power stations. I have gained experience of heat conduction of large installations buildings, design construction of heating and electrical equipment housing, industrial and commercial buildings, I have specialized in high-technology and alternative energy sources. My responsibilities were to coordinate the implementation of the various stages of construction, from the design stage, then to manage relationships with customers and suppliers and direct the workforce needed to finish the work.
2007 – 05/2011 Employed at the company Renco spa as a construction engineer for electro mechanical and HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning plants) equipment, construction of thermal and cooling power stations, as well as like a site manager in some sites and technical supervisor in a field camp in Karabatan (Kazakhstan). My responsibilities were enforcing, coordinating the various teams of local workers, the directives of the project manager overseeing the work in the site for the electro-mechanical parts and, sometime the civil works, and eventually proposing the necessary modify to the details of the job, moving in various foreign countries as required. I am also responsible for the maintenance of all electric and mechanical systems of these plants. In these last years I have cooperated to built:
I worked like an electro mechanical and HVAC construction engineer in the extension of the River Palace Hotel in Atyrau, Kazakhstan.
I supervised the electro-mechanical works at the Training Center of ‘AGIP’ in Atyrau.
At the field extraction Karabatan I planned and follow, in compliance with the safety guidelines in the field, some technical jobs.
Site manager for civil works, electro-mechanical and HVAC construction for the American Company Synopsys in Yerevan, Armenia.
Site manager for the construction of two branches of HSBC Bank, in Yerevan, for both the civil works, electro-mechanics and HVAC plants.
Technical manager for the electro-mechanical, water, gas and HVAC construction of the Yerevan Palace, a building of 8 floors of offices.
Technical manager for the electro-mechanical and HVAC construction for the processing center of the HSBC Bank in Yerevan.
I was transferred to Zanzibar in Tanzania as a technical manager for the electro-mechanical and HVAC construction of one of the largest conference center on East Africa.
I returned to Yerevan for the completion an commissioning of the Yerevan Plaza building and for the commissioning of the electro mechanical plants in the Computing Center for the HSBC Bank.
I moved to Yuzhno Sakhalin, in Russia, like site manager and technical director for the electro-mechanical, water, gas and HVAC construction of the Mira Hotel.
I were temporarily transferred to Yerevan for overseeing the electro-mechanical and HVAC construction of a branch of Ameria Bank.
I went back to work in Yuzhno Sakhalin to finish the electro mechanical construction in the Mira Hotel.
Returned to Yerevan to overseeing the partial renovation of two hotels, both with regard to the electro-mechanical systems and the civil works.
Site manager for the construction of the another branch of Ameria Bank for both civil, electro-mechanical and HVAC works.
Technical manager, with other colleagues, for the construction of the electro mechanical plants in the residential and commercial complex “Piazza Grande” in Yerevan.
Technical manager for the construction for the electro mechanical plants for the cableway Halizor-Tatev in Armenia.
Technical manager for the electro-mechanical construction of the Pan Armenia Bank.
Languages
English: fluent spoken and written
Russian: good knowledge spoken and written
Italian: mother tongue

Why should we spend trillions of dollars and lose jobs over AGW, when there’s no proof we can alter it?

Why should we spend trillions of dollars and lose an untold number of jobs over AGW, when there’s no proof that the proposed solutions will do anything to halt it or even mitigate it?

http://online.wsj.com/
The Climate Science Isn’t Settled
“…articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.”
“Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology”

At this point, AGW is like cold fusion. There is no evidence to support AGW, and even if the proposals to address it would have desirable effects (reduce pollution, develop alternative energy sources), NOBODY has even attempted to quantify those desirable effects to show that it would be worth spending that much money and cost so many jobs for it, just because it MIGHT help with a climate change that MIGH be happening (or that might be reversing, according to the latest data).
Crickets chirping!

Don’t answer all at once, AGW defenders.

Who still believes Global Warming is caused by man?

Global warming ethics, pork and profits

By Paul Driessen
web posted February 12, 2007

The ink has barely dried on its new code of conduct, and already Congress is redefining ethics and pork to fit a global warming agenda. As Will Rogers observed, “with Congress, every time they make a joke, it’s a law. And every time they make a law, it’s a joke.”

However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing matter. That’s why we need to recognize that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed “climate protection” laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to blame. It’s why we must acknowledge that money to be made, and power to be gained, from climate alarmism and symbolism is a major reason so many are getting on the climate “consensus” bandwagon.

In accusing ExxonMobil of giving “more than $19 million since the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust “denial,” Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change alone over the same period. It’s a pittance compared to what US environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scare stories.

It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 that the US, EU and UN spent since 1993 (some $80 billion all together) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact that the Exxon grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic development and many other efforts.

Aside from honest, if unfounded, fears of climate disasters, why might others support climate alarmism?

Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: “Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says.” Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and quotes.

Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, magically transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows.

Corporate actions that cause even one death are dealt with severely; but praise is heaped on federal mileage standards that cause hundreds of deaths, as cars are downsized and plasticized to save fuel and reduce emissions. High energy prices are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to market forces – but praised if imposed by government “to prevent climate change.” Drilling in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to create jobs, tax revenues and enhanced security; but subsidizing wind power to generate 2% of our electricity is lauded, even if giant turbines despoil millions of acres and kill millions of birds.

Alarmist rhetoric has also redefined corporate social responsibility, created the Climate Action Partnership and launched the emerging Enviro-Industrial Complex.

Environmental activists have turned climate fears into successful fund-raising tools – and a brilliant strategy for achieving their dream of controlling global resource use, technological change and economic development, through laws, treaties, regulations and pressure campaigns. Recent developments promise to supercharge these efforts.

Environmental Defense is collaborating with Morgan Stanley, to promote emission trading systems and other climate change initiatives – giving ED direct monetary and policy stakes in the banking, investment and political arenas, and in any carbon allowance or cap-and-trade programs Congress might enact. Other environmental groups, companies and Wall Street firms will no doubt follow their lead.

ED designed and led the disingenuous campaign that persuaded many healthcare agencies to ban DDT, resulting in millions of deaths from malaria. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, ED and other groups still post deceitful claims about DDT on their websites, further delaying progress against this killer disease. By blaming climate change for malaria, they deflect criticism for their vile actions.

Climate catastrophe claims enable activists to gain official advisory status with companies and governments on environmental issues. They also make it “ethical” for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups to oppose power generation in Third World countries, where few have access to electricity – and thereby keep communities perpetually impoverished.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles gets lionized for appropriating 62 first class jetliner seats for his entourage of 20, on a trans-Atlantic trip to receive an environmental prize and lecture Americans on saving the Earth – because at least he didn’t use his private jet.

Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics.

Some worry that this could become a license to further redefine corporate ethics, present self-interest as planet-saving altruism, and profit from questionable arrangements with environmental groups and Congress. Certainly, cap-and-trade rules will create valuable property rights and reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, often by replacing old, inefficient, high-polluting plants that they want to retire anyway.

DuPont and BP will get money for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate protection equipment, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. Environmental activists will be able to influence corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in still more cash. Insurance companies can blame global warming for rate increases and coverage denials.

Lobbying and deal-brokering will enter a new era. As Thenardier the innkeeper observed in Les Miserables, “When it comes to fixing prices, there are lots of tricks he knows. Jees, it’s just amazing how it grows.” Indeed, the opportunities to “game the system” will be limited only by one’s “eco-magination.”

To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are creating a Frankenstein climate monster on steroids. Were it real, we’d need to dismantle our economy and living standards to slay the beast. How else could we eliminate 80–90% of US and EU fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has always been anything but stable?

Think lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British environment minister’s latest prescription: World War II rationing, no meat or cheese, restrictions on air travel, no veggies that aren’t grown locally. France wants a new government agency that would single out, police and penalize countries that “abuse the Earth.” Others want to put little solar panels on African huts, while kleptocratic dictators get millions of dollars for trading away their people’s right to generate electricity and emit CO2.

We should improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and develop new energy technologies. But when we demand immediate action to prevent exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad through programs that don’t work, create enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on countless families. That is shortsighted and immoral.