POLAR ICE AND EASTER SURPRISE

By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.


Summary:
On April 2, 2009, during the quiet preceding the 2009 Easter holiday, US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton transmitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Treaty Document 111-2 (2009), which calls for ultimate ratification by the US Senate of Annex VI (on Liability Arising From Environmental Emergencies) to the Antarctic Treaty’s Protocol on Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Madrid Protocol’, affirms Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty). The US became a Party to the Antarctic Treaty in 1961. It became a Party to the Madrid Protocol and its Annexes I-IV in 1998; and became a Party to Annex V of the Madrid Protocol in 2002. While the US ratified each of these instruments in 1997, they did not go into force until the requisite number of treaty ratifications had been secured. Annex VI of the Madrid Protocol, however, has not yet received the requisite number of treaty ratifications, and therefore, it is not yet in force.
In order to ratify Madrid Protocol Annex VI, the Secretary of State explained that the US Congress must first enact considerable domestic implementing legislation that would likely entail review by various House and Senate committees. “Legislation will be required for the United States to implement many of the provisions of the Annex. Draft implementing legislation has been prepared and will be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees.”
It is said that “the Antarctic Treaty and its Madrid Protocol comprise the cornerstone of [a complex of international agreements comprising] the ATS [Antarctic Treaty System]”.
“To establish a scheme for…comprehensive environmental protection…in Antarctica…the parties to the Antarctic Treaty set forth in the Protocol legally binding principles applicable to all activities in Antarctica and they prohibited all activities relating to mineral resources, except for scientific research. In addition, the Protocol prescribes detailed rules through a system of annexes on environmental Impact assessment (Annex I), conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora (Annex II), waste disposal and waste management (Annex III), prevention of marine pollution (Annex IV), and area protection and management (Annex V).”
Annex VI of the Madrid Protocol “sets forth rules and procedures relating to liability resulting from the failure of a [private or governmental] operator to take prompt and effective response action to environmental emergencies arising from its own activities in Antarctica.” It applies to “scientific research programs, tourism, and all other governmental and nongovernmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area for which advance notice is required…” In addition, “Pursuant to Annex VI…the Parties agree to require their operators to take preventative measures and establish contingency plans for preventing and responding to environmental emergencies in the Antarctic Treaty area and to take prompt and effective response action to such emergencies arising from their activities.”
It is abundantly clear that the President April 2nd submission of the Madrid Protocol Annex VI to the SFRC was partially in response to global media reports seizing upon the public observations of melting ice shelves at both the north and south poles, and partially an effort to highlight the US government’s hosting of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, that taking place in Baltimore during April 6–17. It is also arguable that President Obama’s interest in Annex VI, not to mention, Annexes I-V of the Madrid Protocol, is quite closely related to his interest in the UN Law of the Sea Convention. On April 6, 2009, the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative (‘JOCI’) released a report once again recommending US Congressional accession to the UN Law of the Sea Convention. This report followed up its earlier 2006 report, which had called for changes in U.S. legislation and regulation to “[e]nable the transition toward an ecosystem-based approach”
Indeed, two media articles, one appearing on April 7, 2009 in the Greenwire, and the other appearing on April 8, 2009 in the China Post, reference US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s opening remarks at an international conference convened for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and the Arctic Council. There, she expressly mentioned both treaties in the context of global warming and the need to protect the environments of the North and South Polar regions. Referring to the observed impact that the specter of global warming has had on the glaciers (i.e., alluding to a ‘correlation’ between the two, but not proven ‘causation’), and the presumed deleterious impact that potential new energy exploration would have on the environment of the North Pole, “she called for more international cooperation to protect the North and South poles.” With respect to the Arctic, Ms. Clinton was quoted as saying that, she and President Barack “Obama were committed to having the US Congress ratify the Law of the Sea Convention…” And, with respect to the Antarctic, Ms. Clinton made reference to “the melting of the Wilkins Ice Shelf”, and then announced that President “Obama had provided Congress with an annex to the treaty for ratification. The annex set the obligations of signatories in case of an environmental catastrophe in the South Pole region.” However, Ms. Clinton did not bother to mention how the term ‘environmental catastrophe’ does not appear as a legal term within Annex VI, or for that matter, within any of the other Annexes to the Madrid Protocol or the Protocol itself.
At the very least, it is arguable that both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama have publicly committed themselves to UNCLOS accession and to Antarctic Treaty Annex VI ratification for purely environmental reasons. This is especially curious given the lengths to which the previous administration went to avoid discussion of the UNCLOS’ forty-five plus (45+) environmental articles, protocols and regulations that have already been used as a form of lawfare to diminish US legal and economic sovereignty and to compromise US military preparedness. It is also very interesting given the strong possibility that their ambitions may be much greater. It is conceivable that the President and the Secretary of State plan to use US UNCLOS accession and Annex VI ratification as a platform to gain international political currency for the purpose of joining ongoing multilateral efforts to develop and negotiate amendments or a protocol to the UNCLOS and perhaps even an entirely new comprehensive environmental treaty regime to address global environmental hazards on the ‘high seas’ in ‘areas beyond national jurisdiction’ (‘ABNJ’).
As it currently stands, the literature surrounding the Madrid Protocol and its annexes reflects the interpretation of green groups, legal positivist academicians and EU officials. They believe that such instruments implicitly incorporate Europe’s ‘standard-of-proof diminishing’, ‘burden of proof-reversing’, ‘guilty-until-proven-innocent’, ‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’, ‘hazard-not-risk-based’, ‘economic-cost-benefit-deficient’, ‘Roman-civil-law-not-common-law’, ‘extra-WTO’ Precautionary Principle. Yet, these stakeholders do not believe that the Madrid Protocol or the current UNCLOS regime is adequate to address global environmental hazards. For example, a September 7, 2008 article appearing in e!Science News emphasized the calls of environmental group scientists and UN officials attending a UN-affiliated conference marking the International Polar Year, for “[a] new coordinated international set of rules to govern commercial and research activities in both of Earth’s polar regions”. The article makes clear these officials’ concerns that the current UNCLOS and Antarctic Treaty System regimes are unable by themselves to address the environmental hazards posed to the Arctic and Antarctic regions. In addition, a recent (2008) series of reports prepared by environmental group scientists and statements made by European Union officials at United Nations General Assembly ad hoc working group meetings (during 2006-2008) have called for an Implementation Agreement under UNCLOS to address such concerns, which would explicitly incorporate Europe’s Precautionary Principle. If this is true, then either US ratification of Madrid Protocol Annex VI and/or US UNCLOS accession would likely herald Europe’s Precautionary Principle as US law.
More Detailed Analysis:
As in most cases, the devil is in the details and the details are other than clear or transparent. For this reason, Congress must uphold its oath of office to support the US Constitution, which means providing all Americans with due process of law - in this case, critical information. In other words, it is incumbent upon the Congress to hold open public hearings in those committees possessing oversight jurisdiction to examine the text of and literature surrounding the Madrid Protocol, its Annexes I-V, and the potential legal and economic impacts of the Madrid Protocol and its Annex VI, in light of modern international environmental law. They should also carefully review whatever US implementing legislation is necessary to ensure that US law is consistent with the obligations this country will assume upon ratification. In addition, the Congress should convene open public hearings in multiple committees possessing oversight jurisdiction to investigate the environmental provisions of the UNCLOS in light of modern international environmental law, and the need for new domestic implementing legislation incident to US accession to that treaty.
Based on the academic and green group literature surrounding the Madrid Protocol, its annexes and the UNCLOS, a rather solid case can be made that the ‘devil in the details’, this time around, assumes four different forms.
1. A More Rigorous Bi-Level Environmental Impact Assessment
First, it is arguable that Madrid Protocol Article 3(2); Article 8; and Annex I, Articles 1-3_ incorporated a stricter substantive legal requirement for conducting environmental impact assessments (EIAs) than that mandated under then current US law. At least one commentator who had performed a comparative analysis of the Madrid Protocol and NEPA, had previously found that while, overall, the substantive and procedural requirements for EIAs imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) upon proposed governmental agency activities qualified as the international ‘gold standard’, certain substantive aspects of the Madrid Protocol’s EIA provisions (i.e., the broader scope and foresight of the subject matter to be addressed within the Protocol’s more rigorous bi-level EIA reporting requirement) were even more rigorous than those contained within NEPA at that time. Consequently, it was recommended that, through the US ratification process, these substantive elements of the Protocol could be adopted via US domestic implementing legislation falling under the auspices of NEPA, while NEPA’s more rigorous procedural standards could be broadened so that they also cover nongovernmental entities operating in Antarctica and elaborated upon by US agency (e.g., EPA) regulations. This commentator’s observations concerning the differences between the Protocol and NEPA was apparently shared by the US congressional sponsor of two bills intended to implement the legal obligations assumed by the US upon ratification of the Madrid Protocol.
Indeed, during the 1993 hearings surrounding proposed US implementing legislation, green groups emphasized the need to use US ratification of the Protocol to strengthen US domestic laws, including NEPA, so that they represented the highest international environmental benchmark. It is interesting to note how such groups then emphasized the need to maintain the highest standards given the importance of not only Antarctica, but also the North Pole, for future global environmental forecasting purposes. This strongly suggests that green groups ultimately had in mind for the US government to prospectively apply the stricter Protocol standards to proposed activities at the North Pole as well.
International commentators have noted how the Madrid Protocol’s EIA requirement is bi-level, consisting of a preliminary ‘first-level’ assessment (PA) and a subsequent comprehensive environmental evaluation (CEE). The EIAs should reveal all possible environmental effects of future proposed activities in Antarctica (other than seabed mining which is prohibited for a period of fifty years) to be undertaken by operators, including US government agencies (including military). “Unless it has been determined that an activity will have less than a minor or transitory impact…on the Antarctic environment or on dependent or associated ecosystems…an Initial Environmental Evaluation shall be prepared”. “If an Initial Environmental Evaluation indicates or if it is otherwise determined that a proposed activity is likely to have more than a minor or transitory impact, a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation shall be prepared.” The Congress should investigate whether strict US adherence to these provisions of the Madrid Protocol (i.e., a two-tiered environmental impact assessment), pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 2401-2413, especially subsequent to US ratification of Annex VI, could conceivably subject US Navy sonar training exercises to environmental override if it, once again, based on expediency grounds, prepares a detailed environmental assessment finding no present or future environmental harm to wildlife in lieu of submitting a full environmental impact statement. Respondents and amicus curiae filings endeavored to have the US Supreme Court apply, in the recently decided case of NRDC v Winter, at least one of three possible applications of Europe’s Precautionary Principle to ensure that the Navy’s failure to meet NEPA’s strict EIS requirement constituted prima facie evidence of irreparable environmental harm justifying a priori imposition of a preliminary injunction.
2. A Lesser Science-Based and Economic Cost-Efficient Environment & Health Safety Standard
Second, it is arguable that the Madrid Protocol incorporates a lesser science-based and economic cost-efficient environmental safety standard than that mandated under current US law, to account for situations where available information would be inadequate to prove a cause and effect relationship between human activities and environmental harm in Antarctica. The literature surrounding Madrid Protocol Article 7; Annex II; and Annex IV states that the Protocol implicitly incorporates Europe’s Precautionary Principle, which minimizes the role of risk assessment and eschews economic cost-benefit analysis.

JUST ONE ACT OF COURAGE

By Ron Ewart

Just shy of twenty years ago, on June 5, 1989, in the incident in Tiananmen Square, China, a lone and very brave, if not somewhat foolish man, stood out in front of a row of battle tanks, using his body as a symbol of protest against dictatorial authority. This nameless man managed to stop the advance of the tanks by moving in front of the first tank, every time it positioned to go around him. Later, the man jumped up on the tank and had a conversation with the driver. On-lookers managed to pull him off of the tank and he was absorbed into the watching crowd. One eyewitness to the event believes that the man was hauled away by secret police, tortured and then executed, as the man never appeared in public again and the Chinese government could not, or would not, produce him. Although many accounts purport to know what happened to him, the "tank" man's name or his final fate, has never been verified.
But what is most important in this story is not what the man did and the courage it took to do it, but how his courageous actions affected others. Because you see, courage is infectious. One man, in act of selfless bravery, with no regard for his own safety, by stopping those tanks, even briefly, started the germination of a seed of freedom in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people, held in bondage, but longing to be free, all around the world. Out of those tens of thousands another individual will stand up, and then another and then another, because you see, courage is infectious. Courage is akin to the theory of the "butterfly effect". The theory states that in a non-linear dynamic system, such as the weather, a butterfly could flap its wings in Guiana and trigger a hurricane in the North Atlantic.
Out of fear of losing ones' life or possessions, most people prefer to remain obscure, not wanting to draw attention to themselves, especially if that attention should come from agents of a tyrannical government. Tyrannical governments torture and kill people, or put them in concentration camps for extended periods. Some unjust governments, in order to maintain strong-arm control of the masses, will pass tens of thousands (or millions) of laws and then fine, penalize or incarcerate individuals or groups that won't "bend under the will of the almighty law". Who but the very courageous would put themselves at that kind of risk?
But a strange thing happens when one man (or woman) stands out amongst the rest and demonstrates exceptional bravery. He, or she, affects some of the observers in a very positive way, in which some of those observers want to emulate that bravery ..... and some do.
In a meeting where the leader will ask for volunteers for a difficult task, one hand will go up, then a pause, then another hand will go up, then all at once a bunch of hands go up, all because one man or woman, catalyzed the rest by having the courage to be the first to volunteer.

On the battle field, one man, risking everything, motivated by emotions of unbridled anger, or rage over something that happened to one of his buddies, will attack the enemy single handedly, from whence heroes are born. In many cases, that single act of courage incites others to follow him, from whence wars are won.
Today, all across America, exceptional bravery is being exhibited by more and more individuals who have had enough and have decided to "stand up". That was demonstrated in a sudden and inspirational movement to organize tea parties in hundreds of cities throughout the country ..... an idea triggered by someone named Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Exchange, on TV, who finally had enough of government nationalizing industries, bank and business bailouts, zillion dollar stimulus packages and other unconstitutional insanity coming out of Washington DC and the White House and decided to "stand up". So one act of courage started a whole bunch of single acts of courage, from thousands of citizens all over the United States. Courage was and is infectious.
America needs you. If any of you are really angry about what has happened to this great land and you are perched on the brink of "standing up", we encourage you to find the courage to do so. Because your one act of courage will incite others to emulate you and from hence our Republic will be reborn in an unquenchable and unstoppable cry for liberty.
After 100 years of moving away from freedom, we are truly at a crossroads and the fate of our cherished America could go either way. But "just one act of courage" by just one person, might very well make the difference between freedom and perpetual enslavement. If you stand up, you could be the "butterfly" that "flaps its wings" in Arizona and starts an uprising in Michigan. The seeds of freedom have already been sewn by many single acts of courage and the "butterflies" are poised to take wing. Others, less courageos and sitting on the sidelines, are waiting for you to make the first move.
Perhaps the song that we wrote on YouTube entitled "Freedom Is A Right", will help you to make up your mind to stretch your wings and take "flight", in a selfless act to "stand up" for freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFxRU5Q_oas

PEOPLE WILL DO ANYTHING TO SAVE THE WORLD, EXCEPT TAKE A COURSE IN SCIENCE!

By Howard Hayden


The following was written in response to an article by Todd Stern - Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041403444.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Todd Stern's belief is that we must be guided by both science and pragmatism in order to contain climate change. One wonders exactly what pragmatic actions he would have taken to prevent the last 650,000 years' worth of ice-age / interglacial cycles. With whom would "the State Department's top climate-change negotiator" undertake discussions to keep those climate changes from occurring?
If Mr. Stern wants to be guided by science, it would be a good idea for him to look at a few obvious proofs. First and foremost is the oft-heard claim that "the science is settled." If that's the case, then why are there climate models (plural)? If the models were indeed based on sound science, there would be precisely one climate model, and it would agree with the facts. (In fact, the models have some severe disagreements among themselves.) (Read: I have one graph showing a disagreement of a factor of 5,000 in a certain factor between models.)
Mr. Stern wants to stampede us into an abrupt termination of the combustion that brings us 85 percent of our energy, saying that "we have no choice but to make serious cuts in global warming pollution, fast." Evidently, he has bought into the "tipping-point" notion.
We have all experienced the screech that happens when a microphone gets too close to the speaker. If, instead of turning down the amplifier or moving the microphone, we left the room and locked the door, the screech would continue indefinitely. That is the nature of a tipping point.
But the earth has experienced far higher carbon dioxide levels in the past than exist now, up to about twenty times present concentration. If those levels were to lead to a tipping point, the earth would have become intolerably hot and remained that way in perpetuity. We wouldn't be here wringing our hands over 0.038 percent of the atmosphere that is our CO2 concentration.
Carbon dioxide is soluble in water, but not equally at all temperatures. As the water warms up, the less CO2 it can hold. And where does that CO2 go when the water warms up? Into the air, of course. In fact, the warm parts of the oceans emit roughly 15 times as much CO2 as all of mankind's consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas. Numerous scientific papers, including one in the 13 April issue of Science Magazine, show that climate changes have preceded changes in CO2 concentration. The notion that CO2 changes caused those climate changes is a violation of the First Principle of Causality, which says that the cause has to come before the effect.
Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" shows a correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature for the last 650,000 years. He says with authority (if not with scientific veracity) that "when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." And precisely where did that CO2 come from that was supposedly the cause of the warming? And precisely where did it go when its absence supposedly caused the descent into the next ice age? And why were the changes so closely linked to the periodically varying sun-earth interactions (called Milankovitch cycles after the Serbian mathematician)?
Yes, the CO2 concentration in the air is increasing, and yes, we are producing lots of CO2 by burning fuels. But does that mean that our combustion is actually responsible for the increase?
Consider a related question. It's cold outside and warm inside. We turn on some lights to read the newspaper. Does the heat from the lamps cause the room to warm up? No, the thermostat simply calls for less heat from the furnace. That is the nature of a self-regulated system. The oceans and the biosphere control the CO2 concentration.
Put it another way. We know from actual data that atmospheric CO2 concentration was already increasing long before human contributions could possibly have made a dent. How much CO2 would there be in the air right now if man had never learned to make a fire? Nobody knows. Therefore nobody knows whether mankind has had any influence over that quantity.
Depending on the level of zealotry, some climate alarmists have called for a reduction in CO2 emissions of up to 80 percent. Perhaps Mr. Stern ought to take a sober look at the inevitable consequences. Maybe he'll discover that it's a program of national suicide motivated by a case of hiccups.

*Howard Hayden
PO Box 7609
Pueblo West CO 81007
(fax) (719) 547-7819
corkhayden@comcast.net
The Energy Advocate
www.energyadvocate.com
Vales Lake Publishing, LLC.
www.valeslake.com
* The author is a Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, now living in Pueblo West, Colorado.
He is the author of A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC.)

URGENT!

One of our own needs your help and TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!
---------------------------------------------------
Many Americans are asking what they can do to arrest our slide into abject socialism and radical environmentalism, with the eventual goal to be under the thumb of the United Nations and the one-world-order, minus our constitution and our sovereignty. You can start by helping one proud American and his wife, who have been terrorized by a district court judge and a local prosecuting attorney for over four years in Pierce County, Washington, who were and still are, out to make an example of him for an alleged environmental code violation, a violation that was manufactured after the fact by the judge and the prosecuting attorney.
His alleged crime was hand digging to clear out a ditch on his property, in an area that was declared a wetland by the court and the prosecuting attorney, well after the landowner was done digging.
For four (4) years, at great expense and emotional stress to he and his wife, this landowner exhausted every possible legal avenue, all the way up to the State Supreme Court, where all of his motions and briefs were summarily ignored, or lost.
But the district court judge and the prosecuting attorney are still hell bent on putting him in jail for this alleged crime, for an additional 90 days, after suffering the indignity of being put in jail for 150 days by the judge for 5, trumped-up contempt of court charges during his trial, requiring a $100,000 cash bond to get out.
His brother went to bat for him and got the landowner out of jail after over 60 days on appeal, with a $20,000 cash bond and a writ of Habeas Corpus from a higher court.
As his last resort, the landowner has now asked for a pardon from the Governor of Washington State and submitted a letter requesting such pardon on April 13, 2009, under state statute.
If the governor does not act and grant the pardon, the landowner will be hauled off to jail again, like a common criminal, for doing on his land what all landowners do to maintain their property. What is so ironic is that many criminals are let out of jail because the state doesn't have the money to incarcerate them and car thief's have to steal a car seven times before they are sent to jail.
If you feel as we do that the landowner should be granted a pardon by the governor, we ask that you do the following:
Contact the governor using at: http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/
"To the Honorable Governor of the State of Washington, Christine Gregoire:
"We are in complete sympathy and agreement of Paul Hiatt's request for a pardon from you, as delineated in his hand-delivered letter dated April 13, 2009.
This man has suffered enough at the hands of an out-of-control judicial system that would punish a property owner on trumped environmental code violations, created after the fact.
What has happened to Mr. Hiatt is not prosecution, it is judicial persecution for a non-crime and is a gross injustice that should not be happening in America. A car thief has to steal a car seven times before a judge would send the thief to jail. We ask that you immediately grant Mr. Hiatt the pardon he deserves and bring this injustice to an end."
It makes no difference where you are located in America.
The more the governor hears from folks outside of Washington, as well as inside, the more the pressure will be on her to grant the pardon.
It must be an outpouring by hundreds of you to make a difference. It will only take you a few minutes.
We ask that you do not let Mr. Hiatt and his wife down.
We ask that you care enough to help another American, who is in dire need of your help and has been the subject of intense persecution by a government and a judicial system that has lost all allegiance to the supreme law of the land, our constitution.
Please act today as time is running out for Mr. Hiatt.
For all of you who do participate, please accept our sincere gratitude and I know the gratitude of Mr. Hiatt and his wife.
To read a trancript of Mr. Hiatt's letter to the governor, please email:
Ron Ewart at: r.ewart@comcast.net
If you need to more info on Paul Hiatt's case you can find it here: http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/EmbattledPropertyOwnerStoriesNew.dwt.asp.

A FARMER'S VIEW ON CARBON CREDITS

April 10, 2009
This short personal essay from “farmer Steve” in North Dakota appeared as a comment on WUWT here. I thought it was a succinct and clear message based on personal experience and values, and thus worth sharing. I’ve made some formatting changes to make it easier to read, otherwise it is exactly as he posted his comment. For background on the North Dakota carbon credit program extended to farmers and ranchers, see this. Anyone who wishes to repost this essay has my permission to do so. - Anthony
--------------------------------------------------------

Carbon Credits

I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.
Here is why.
Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.
The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions.
I asked “what is the source of this money”?
The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.
I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.
So I answered for him, asking, “won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.
I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming? he said “we are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.
I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either.
Let’s be clear.
Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here! Is this the way we want to make a living? Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon? You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage pass you will get a bill for emitting carbon, is this not correct?
It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost. You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another bureaucratic program.
Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.
No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely, however, wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility. In my view many of the proponents of man made global warming have the first and lack the second. We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power. It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney:
“Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you”

A TEACHABLE MOMENT

By Jim Beers

It is exceedingly difficult to write about government and political-related matters these days. I realized this last summer during the heat of the Presidential campaign and as a consequence discarded more attempts at writing than I ever had before. The difficulty I speak of lies in overcoming the biased mindset that we all have in order to make a point worth considering. The problem is how to present aspects of gun control or animal rights or environmental extremism without the reader immediately assuming that you are simply pro-Democrat, anti-Republican, an Obama-hater, or a "McCainiac". Once the reader assumes a "bias" he either does not read it or he dismisses it as rhetorical propaganda.
I had expected that this difficulty would diminish with the election of the new President only to discover that it is more intense than before. The dramatic changes in policies, the clear agendas of the Presidential appointees, the broken election promises, the unchallenged control of the Congress by supporters of radical "change", and the freely expressed contempt both at home and abroad by the President for the "opposition" have become a fearsome steamroller aimed at transforming America into a "no-Constitution" oligarchy somewhat on the order of the Democrat-"machine" politics that have ruled most American large cities for decades. How can one write about the environment or gun control or animal rights in the midst of such radical "change"? Who will listen as we have legislative proposals to enable unfettered union organizing or as we spend Trillions and Trillions of dollars that we do not have to "force" banks and businesses of all stripes to submit to government takeovers and management? As we cope with charges of "Socialism" and "Fascism", as accusations fly everywhere about being subsumed into a "world government", and the dangers of nuclear disarmament and diminished security in a dangerous world seem to loom large; who can listen to any argument without saying the author is either "for us" or "against us" and thus failing to grasp what has been written?
If you are someone that lives in rural America, owns pets, owns livestock, hunts, fishes, traps, wears fur, logs, farms, ranches, derives any benefit from rural America, enjoys rodeos, enjoys circuses, has a family tradition like game fowl, depends on revenue from natural resources, enjoys bird watching, enjoys camping, uses public lands, uses natural resources like mushrooms, owns a gun, trains or uses animals, eats meat, thinks "foresters" know how to "manage" forests anymore or "wildlife biologists" know how to manage "wildlife" anymore, wants to one day have commercial fisheries "restored", owns a pickup truck or SUV, wants inexpensive power, wants inexpensive fuel, wants an economically strong country, wants to preserve the government mandated in the US Constitution, agrees with the principles laid out in The Declaration of Independence: the following lesson is meant for you.
No matter what your religious beliefs or lack thereof, there is a lesson to be learned from the behavior of Catholics in the United States in recent years. I ask that you suspend not only your political inclinations but also any religious inclinations (no problem I am sure) as you read what follows.
One would assume that religious belief would be more important than many of the jobs, pastimes, and lifestyle categories mentioned above. I am using the Catholic example here because I am Catholic and therefore somewhat more familiar with this model. Reportedly the President and the Congress received about 55% of the Catholic vote in the past election. You do not have to be Catholic to know that there is perhaps no greater challenge to Catholic moral teachings than the practice of abortion and other practices that take a human life from embryos to the disabled to the aged. So what did 55% of Catholic voters get for their vote?
- Renewed US government funding for foreign abortions.
- Renewed US government funding for abortions in the US and embryonic destruction for stem cells.
- Proposed elimination of any objection by any hospitals, doctors, or health workers to perform abortions under pain of loss of any license or government support (in other words shutting down Catholic hospitals and eliminating practicing Catholics from any medical service occupation).
- Proposed national health care (like Europe) where health care can be denied because of age, physical condition, lifestyle, cost, or simply any government-designated whim (thereby making "Life" and its maintenance a governmental dispensation as opposed an "unalienable Right", "endowed by their Creator" as declared in The Declaration of Independence").
- A White House, federal agencies, and Congress stuffed with lobbyists and advocates with long histories of working for increased government discretionary control of human Life at all stages from abortion to "mercy" killing of those determined to not have a "quality of life".
- Pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians like Daschle and Sebelius to oversee the destruction of Catholic hospitals, doctors and health workers while establishing regulations that make human life conditions a government determination like Invasive Species or allowable carbon emissions. - "Catholic" political leaders like Pelosi, Biden, and Kennedy that encourage Catholics to have abortions both by their legislation and by their example even to the absurd levels of Biden and Pelosi lecturing about when Life "begins" or how poor children "cost a lot".
- A President that expresses contempt for those that "cling to religion" and does not "want my daughters punished with a baby".
I submit that if successful and if this sort of government control persists, American Catholicism will either: A.) disappear, or B.) eventually become an unrecognizable state-run religion like the "Chinese Catholic" Church or one of those "Russian" or European National Churches wherein clergy are first approved by political leaders and then instructed what to teach and what not to say. And the lesson is?
If the US government is doing this to the Catholic Church why would 55% of Catholics vote for it? If it is because "other things" are more important than an un-debatable religious belief, what chance does the gun owner or pet owner or trapper have? Many Catholics justify their vote by claiming that they support "social justice" (i.e. help for the poor by government-coerced redistribution of wealth) and "peace" (in spite of any demonstrated threat to American society). This sort of vote-justification by Catholics parallels the desire for "universal health care", "tax-the-rich", and government control of "Rights" (speech, press, secret ballot, religion, bear arms, etc.) often heard from those justifying their candidate's election and subsequent elimination of their own rights. Whether due to a lack of a viable opposition candidate or because of increasing urban voters or because of financial support by minorities, unions, etc. in return for specific favors, the fact is that many people that I listed above voted for the very politicians that will take away their guns, animals, freedoms, and rights. If a supposedly "unified" (in belief) religious group can vote (55%) for its own destruction, what hope is there for the dog owner that wants "peace" at any cost or the gun owner that wants government-sanctioned union coercion? If religious conviction has become so insignificant to each of us, how can we hope to protect things like the right to hunt or eat meat?
Catholics face very determined political opponents like women's organizations, same-sex organizations, the abortion industry, certain "scientists", and sex "education" advocates just like the rural people, animal owners, and others mentioned above face very determined opponents from gun "controllers" and urban political "machines" to PETA and the Wilderness Society. These groups are increasingly in evidence in influential federal roles from former Treasury Secretary Paulson under Bush to the gun control/animal rights/environmental extremists throughout the current federal government. They are clearly committed to doing whatever it takes to do to you what is being done to the Catholic Church already (in less than three months). What will things look like in another year and 9 months (before the next Congressional election) of such unopposed government rule? What of the next 3 years and 9 months (before the next Presidential election) under such a radical Administration in control of the federal bureaucracy? What about the precedents being established? What of the Constitution or our Rights? What is "more important" than our freedom or our Rights that government might grant us in return? The answer is, of course, nothing.
Ben Franklin foresaw this phenomenon of voting for your own destruction over 200 years ago. He made it a "Teachable Moment" when he observed, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Evidently, at this time, a majority of voters have shown themselves to deserve neither. The only question remains, will we survive the lesson?
Jim Beers 7 April 2009

INFORMATION LEADS ON CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

By Lewis Anderson

Check this link - www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html - for a 24-page article on the history of Conservation Easements.
There is some good information about why the States all had to change their laws to accommodate them, because they do violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, which is a Common Law Doctrine.
It is important to understand why those old Dead White Men ever came up with the Rule Against Perpetuities in the first place. They did not want self-absorbed do-gooders ruling the use of land from the grave.
It is becoming more evident all the time that these folks who claim that they 'love the land' so much that they don't want anybody to ever make use of it for the next 10,000 years, are very Narcissistic and mentally unstable.
Of course they want their 'good intentions' to be known by people born a thousand years from now.
I'm still doing some research to more closely tie the C.E. to the U.N. and the folks who think we have about 5 billion too many people living on the Earth. One way to starve them out is to take most of the land out of production.
The C.E. is the most effective way ever invented to stop people from being able to make use of the land.
This article is very good to use if you ever need to argue with anybody about what is wrong with the C.E. It is also very good just to get up to speed on just what they are, when they started, and why the U.N., wacko greenies, and other assorted anti-use people love them so much. They are the favorite method of putting the Wildlands Project into practice. It requires 're-wilding' over half of the U.S. This means getting land out of production and then, later, getting humans off the land.
The C.E. is just the foot in the door. It eliminates real ranchers and other sane people who may want to consider the economic ruin caused by the C.E. The C.E. 'owners' are all in favor of stopping any productive use of the land. Cities and Counties are just about to catch on to the devastation to their economic base (tax base). Lewis A. March 29, 2009

TO REMAKE (FIRST DESTROY)

By Jim Beers

Despots from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to Ivan the Terrible, Robespierre, and Tamerlane each told everyone that would listen that they were "remaking" all that they controlled. "Everything" meant every thing; from families and societies to who would live and who would die, all things were "remade" to the will of the all-powerful ruler. While lip service is given to the mythical "benevolent despot", the occurrence of such a person in human history is about as frequent as the appearance of dragons: despotic rule, as contrasted with a Constitutional Republic of free men, is, in four words, "the rule of evil". Americans cannot conceive of a despot gaining control of "everything". Our history of freedom and achievement makes us immune to such despotism, or so we have believed.
In the past 100 years a philosophy of "soft despotism" has been spread and accepted by segments of the populations of the world not under the control of all-powerful despotic governments or dictators. This "soft despotism" purports to offer authoritarian controls that are exercised not by a despot but rather by an "enlightened" leader or oligarchy that will "equalize" "everything" for the good of anyone having "less" than another. This seductive version of despotism is called various things at various times in order not to alarm those slated to give so that others might receive: its proper name is "socialism".
Despotism; whether it be instituted by the wholesale carnage of a Tamerlane or Stalin, or by peaceful government seizure through a vote by the likes of Hitler or Chavez, or gradually entrenched as socialism in existing government policies and laws as currently being accomplished in European nations and the United States; has a common thread: in order to "remake" the society, the society must first be destroyed. Such complete destruction by despots like Tamerlane, Robespierre, or Hitler, et al is a matter of historical fact. The gradual and ongoing destruction of European nations, the United States, and other "developed" nations by socialist policies is a gradual matter of controversy; as is the stunted development of "emerging" nations frozen by entrenched socialist governments from Africa to South America and Asia.
Despotism is tyranny. That means that individuals have no individual rights: they have only what the government (or ruler) grants. What the ruler grants, the ruler can take away for any reason at any time. There is no supreme Constitution outlining government authority or any specific governmental roles or responsibilities. There is no "separation of powers" (President/Congress/ Supreme Court) or "division of powers" (Local/State/Federal) under despotism. None of us "own" anything: there is no "private property", no "contracts", no protection from others favored by government under despotism. There is no protection of speech, religion or Liberty, there is only the current will of the despotic and uncontrollable government. Even human Life from conception to death is only possible at the whim of governmental power. Tyranny is "created" by first destroying its antithesis.
The antithesis of Tyranny was defined 220 years ago in the Founding Documents of the United States of America. In the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Founding Fathers told all American Colonials why they were fighting and dying to gain their Independence from Britain:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
In the introduction (Preamble) to the Constitution of the United States (that dictated the roles and authorities to be granted by "We the People" in order to "ordain and establish" a government to succeed British Rule and bring "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" to the 13 Colonies) the Founding Fathers wrote:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common (sic) defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It is ultimately the basic concepts of the Declaration of Independence and the specific enumeration of power and government found in the Constitution of the United States of America that must be destroyed in order to "remake" our society in a socialistic mold. Three simple examples of the ongoing destruction of our societies' basic building blocks and thus the destruction of our society by socialist policies in the last 40 years are worth noting.
I. The "FAMILY" has long been called the "basic building block of society". Whether you think of the following as "reasons", "symptoms", or "results from unknown causes"; The US family has been chipped away and diminished by:
1. Welfare that encouraged unwed motherhood and the disappearance of Church orphanages and extended families to be replaced by government payments and oversight.
2. Government tolerance for and revenue collection from "clubs", pornography, and no-fault divorce that both dissolve families and discourage marriage and parenting.
3. Government encouragement for both abortion that destroys the sacred concept of parent and child; and "mercy-killing" of the helpless, disabled, costly, and depressed that has the effect of detaching them from "family" and vice versa.
4. Governmental claim that teachers may subvert parental teaching and values by contradicting parents and even giving children advice, medicine, and procuring abortions without parental consent or even notification.
5. Governmental instruction and encouragement of family-destructive sex practices and sexual promiscuity in schools.
6. Government tolerance for "remaking" the legal definition of "marriage" that obviates the very existence of aunts, uncles, grandparents, family bonding, and "extended family" safety nets.
II. The "CHURCH" is truly the social glue of community life and the public expression of individual and family beliefs and values. Church life and its role in the community has been chipped away and diminished by:
1. Government authorized contradiction of Church teachings by public school teachers under the guise of "tolerance", "political correctness", and threats of legal punishment.
2. Government denial of the "right of conscience" for doctors, nurses, and Church hospitals to refuse to perform morally repugnant services such as abortion and euthanasia.
3. Government "reforms" that force Churches to hire employees opposed to their beliefs and tax changes that further discourage donations to Church charities and services.
4. Government prohibition of Church teachings (since they are "tax-exempt') such as sermon topics related to elections (while "favored" Churches host candidates that then "preach" at their services) and military Chaplains' freedom to mention subjects like abortion, euthanasia, etc. A European model of this is Norway where preaching against abortion (a "legal" act) is forbidden under pain of imprisonment: one wonders how in Norway or in the US for that matter before Roe v Wade it was not "illegal" to lobby "for" abortion?
5. Government encouragement of Moslem enclaves (like Europe) where "political correctness" permits anti- Christian and anti-Jewish activities while traditional displays of Menorahs, Christmas scenes, and mention of God at Commencements are forbidden. (This Moslem tendency towards Shariah Law, subjugation of females, and oppression of non-Moslem persons and activities intimidates and destroys Judeo-Christian traditions in the young especially and represents an expected mutually beneficial short-term alliance between socialists that likewise want to "conquer" or eliminate Judeo-Christian influence and Moslems; each of who believes that the other will eventually submit to them.)
6. Government proposals as recently in Connecticut to declare who will "own" and "control" individual Churches by establishing governmental control guidelines over individual Churches, (shades of the European monarchs our forefathers fled centuries ago).
III. "PROPERTY", the "right" to own and use the fruits of your labor is arguably the "cornerstone" of freedom. Without the protected right to own your own property, all other "rights" are jeopardized and ultimately useless. History confirms, time after time, that those that have no right to private property have no rights except as granted or denied by government. This right to own and control your own property is protected by the Constitution both by its mention in the 5th Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" and by its absence elsewhere in the Constitution that states in the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The entire concept of private property has been massively eroded in the past 40 years:
1. Government declarations that "Endangered Species" declarations supercede private property rights even though "Endangered Species" taking of private property is neither a public "use" nor is it compensated. This precedent has bred all manner of government "taking" for enhancing governmental power.
2. Government protection of and introduction of deadly predators that ultimately destroy rural private property uses and rural communities.
3. Government acquisition and control of massive portions of rural private property that then eliminates local governments that protect private property by eliminating their revenue and by extension devaluing nearby private property by closures and "no-use" declarations.
4. Government dictates about salaries, contracts, and eligible products under the guise of remedying economic stress (exactly like Hitler).
5. Government creation of "rights" for animals that destroy not only family traditions (and thereby families) like hunting, fishing, trapping, cockfighting, and dog training but also the private property rights inherent in the ownership and use of horses, gamefowl, livestock, poultry, fish, pets, and any other animal that are "owned" by "owners".
6. Government manipulation of wild animal management and control for governmental power rather than human benefit like the secrecy about national bird strike information, the prohibition against necessary lethal control of the distribution and abundance of damaging animals from cougars to blackbirds and geese, the protection of seals and whales from management while decimated fisheries are used as excuses to close more and more areas to fishing, and the cynical distortion of facts to justify energy development prohibitions and a wide range of self-defeating (to the nation) policies based on environmental propaganda.
The above examples are but a few from our recent past and the future looks even more bleak. Guns are slated for confiscation by socialists as surely as Russian communists and Nazis seized them for the same purpose. Government sex classifications and preferences to pit males against females for socialist purposes will increase as surely as Chinese sonograms are increasingly relied upon in the mandated "one-child" Chinese families. Government race classifications and preferences will persist as socialist "dividers" like the Hutu/Tutsi categorizations in Rwanda with potentially the same result. As families disappear, the arguments for government "health care" and "homes" and elimination of the unwanted and costly persons without a demonstrable "quality of life" will increase. As Churches knuckle under to the popular socialist beliefs of the moment, the arguments for listening only to a more powerful government as opposed "meaningless" Church teachings will increase. As a socialist government sets salaries and "takes over" businesses, the arguments for signing yet more sovereignty-robbing UN Conventions like the "Cap and Trade"/"Global Warming" and proposed Gun "Trafficking" Treaties will increase to further diminish any private property concept or local government power as an all-powerful socialist government takes all power unto itself.
As we consider this matter, it is best to be honest about how we got here if we are ever to "get out". It isn't just President Obama or all his socialist cronies or all those Democrat socialists in Congress. While they are all socialists on a "fast-track" unchecked by a credible opposition at this time; President Bush and President Clinton did much of the same - only at a slower pace like the elder Bush, Carter, Nixon and most of their predecessors back to the start of the last century. Candidate Mc Cain represented only a somewhat less onerous choice other than he would do most of the same things at a slower pace and some, like the "Global Warming" scam at a faster pace. Our choices have been poor and they have gotten poorer. The question before us is threefold:
1. How did those of us who advocate freedom, individual rights, tolerance, and the US Constitution get relegated to the "kooky right" of the political spectrum?
2. How did we become a minority in the nation we love so much?
3. How did so many Americans come to hate "life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and the US Constitution so much?
Perhaps the answers to these questions will reveal the path back to Restoring (not "Remaking") Freedom. Jim Beers March 29, 2009