Update: See in the IBD editoral, how EPA Rules Will Trump Your Rights here.

Henry Payne, The Michigan View.com

From creches in the public square to Christian greetings in the workplace, Americans go to great lengths this religious season to separate Christmas and state. Not so the Obama administration and its campaign to fuse Green doctrine and state.

In an extraordinary speech before The National Council of Churches in New Orleans this November, Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson - a committed Green and Christian - urged that the U.S. government and religious leaders unite in their “moral obligation” to heal the planet and “build on the religious and moral reasons for being good stewards of our environment.”

“The question now is, ‘What we can do?’” the High Priestess of Green concluded, adding that the effort was blessed by the White House’s Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership program.

On the Thursday before Christmas, she answered her own question, dictating a controversial cap on industrial emissions that will have profound negative consequences if enacted on jobs and economic growth in Michigan and the Midwest.

The EPA’s creche is in the public square, Mother Earth is in the manger, and Washington’s wise men are bringing gifts of taxpayer money.

“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce greenhouse gas pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans and contributes to climate change,” said Jackson on Dec. 23 in imposing global warming regulations on power plants and refineries.

A month ago, she began her address to The National Council of Churches (NCC), Jackson with a question: “Where do EPA and the NCC overlap? And why is it so important that we focus on those overlaps and do even more work together in the years ahead?”

Embracing what she called “religious environmentalists,” she said that “‘dominion’ over ‘all the earth’ implied not ownership of God’s creation, but a fundamental responsibility for stewardship. Today many people of faith take inspiration from the scripture. For example, the praise of God’s creation in the Psalms. In the same way, environmentalists write and speak with deep reverence and celebration of the natural world.”

She praised green icon Rachel Carson and environmental design guru William McDonough for expressing beliefs that “would ring true in any sanctuary.” She also embraced the radical environmental justice movement which believes that locating “polluting” industrial facilities in urban areas like Detroit is discriminatory. In the ‘90s, Detroit’s leaders rose up to prevent Jackson’s predecessor, Carol Browner, from “green-lining” Michigan inner cities for fear that they were violating minorities’ civil rights.

“It has become clearer and clearer over the years that environmental threats limit the economic possibilities of struggling communities,” she said. “The NCC has done extraordinary work over the years . . . expanding into issues of environmental justice.”

But Jackson’s primary message was to unify church and state behind global warming regulation. “For the first time in human history we have reached a point where our everyday activities - our travel, our commerce, our agriculture - are affecting the fate of the planet,” she cried from the pulpit. “For people of faith. . . it moves the work on climate change and protecting our planet beyond the environmental or economic imperatives, and shows us that it is a moral obligation.”

“As EPA and the NCC hit these milestones and celebrate the past, it is also essential that we consider the future,” she preached. “We will continue to seek the input of faith communities in the decisions we make. And we also plan to align our efforts with the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership through the White House.”

Declaring her morality a priority despite the public’s rejection of global warming legislation at the ballot box this November, Jackson dictated her terms to U.S industry Thursday. “These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home,” Jackson continued, making clear that she sees her job as remaking the American economy - not just policing emission standards.

Never mind that Europe is stymied by deep freeze, increased numbers of Detroit homeless are freezing on the streets, the U.S. south is frozen in record low temps, or that top scientists warn that the damage of global warming regulation far exceeds any intended benefit. The Green religion is undeterred.

How ironic that Jackson’s religious “War on Industry” comes in the very holiday season in which the “War on Christmas” denies religious displays on public property.

Henry Payne is editor of The Michigan View.com>

By Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on Treehugger

Image credit: Liz (perspicatious.org), used under Creative Commons license.

The British government has already faced court action over fuel poverty and the number of poor and elderly dying for lack of warm home. With much of the public debate around green housing now focusing on whether or not new homes will be zero carbon, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the issue was fixed. But it is not. In fact, more Brits die per capita each year from the cold than Siberians and, if George Monbiot is to be believed, it’s the government and the utility companies that are to blame.

In a piece entitled “The cold claims lives while energy companies get rich”, Monbiot does not pull his punches regarding who sis responsible for the increasing number of households who find themselves in fuel poverty. (Fuel poverty is officially defined as the point where you have to spend over 10% of your income on keeping your home at a reasonable temperature.)

According to Monbiot, the problem is not just a lack of government attention to the issue - in fact over 25bn pounds (US$40bn) has been thrown at the issue since 2000. It’s just that the spending is largely unfocused and unfair. From the winter fuel payment, which is essentially a seasonal boost to pensions that can be spent as the recipient chooses, to a poorly administered program to insulate and weatherize low-income homes, there seems to be little coordination and planning to really bring the numbers of fuel poor down. This problem is only exacerbated by a lack of regulation of the energy markets -each time global energy prices rise our bills get higher, each time they fall, the bills stay the same.

To really make a dent in the figures, argues Monbiot, it’s time to make social justice an integral part of the environmental agenda. And while the climate skeptic crowd may jump up and down at the final glaring evidence that all greens are socialist here, it’s worth noting that Monbiot is also taking a well-aimed stab at one of their much-talked about ‘socialist conspiracies’ here, namely emissions trading:

“The price rises are exacerbated by policies that penalise the poor. People who use pre-payment meters to buy gas and electricity (often the poorest) are stung for an extra 120 pounds a year. Those who consume the most energy (generally the rich) are subsidised by everyone else: they pay a lower tariff beyond a certain level of use. It ought to be the other way round: the first units you consume should be the cheapest. Before the election both the Tories and the Lib Dems demanded an inquiry into competition in the energy market. They’re not demanding it any more.

There should be a perfect synergy between climate change and social justice policies. As the Commons energy and climate change committee points out, “improving the energy efficiency of homes is the most effective way of tackling fuel poverty”. But the government’s green policies are unfair and regressive: everyone pays at an equal rate for reducing energy emissions, yet those who need the most help to green their homes and reduce their costs don’t get it. Policies such as the European emissions trading system, the carbon emissions reduction target and the feed-in tariff are, according to the government’s climate change committee, likely to throw another 1.7 million people into fuel poverty by 2022. This is an outrage.”

Monbiot has never hidden his leftist leanings - which is probably what makes him such a controversial figure this side of the Atlantic - but say what you like about the man, he’s willing to lay into some sacred cows of the green movement too. (He has previously branded solar feed-in tariffs as a fuel subsidy for the wealthy.) On this issue in particular, it seems hard to disagree with the diagnosis. Unless environmentalists take into account the needs of the poor, and ensure that the burden of environmental policies falls on those who pollute the most, then we will have failed.

People dying of cold in a wealthy, industrialized nation simply because they can’t afford to heat their homes is ridiculous. If we can bail out banks, we can sure as heck insulate some homes. At the very least, we can make sure that green policies do not exacerbate an already dire situation. The poor pollute the least - why should they pay for the excesses of others?

Read more and see additional links here. Britain will not be alone in registering one of its coldest Decembers since the Little Ice Age. Much of northern Europe and the southeastern US will also rank for December cold and snow.

----------------

Berlin sees most snow in December since 1900

BERLIN, Dec. 28 (Xinhua)—German capital Berlin has experienced more snow this month than any other December of past 110 years, as more bitter cold is expected in the country’s east, the German Weather Service (DWD) said Tuesday.

Berlin and the surrounding state of Brandenburg have never seen such a thick snow in December for more than a century, as some places received 40 centimeters of snow since Dec. 1, the weather agency said.

Snow embraced the capital city, which has a population of 3.4 million people, on this year’s Christmas, while the last white Christmas that Berliners remembered was in 2001, with only 10 centimeters of snow on the ground.

Heavy snowfalls will continue in parts of Germany in the coming days. The DWD said temperatures would plummet to minus 20 degrees Celsius in the east this week, or even colder. Fresh snowfalls may set new depth records in some places. However, temperatures in the west are more modest, from minus two to two degrees on Wednesday.

Local police warned that people, especially the homeless, would freeze to death on such freezing cold nights in the country’s east, since a frozen 16-year-old girl in Lower Saxony was found dead in the open air on Saturday night.

Due to the large-scale snowfall, rail transports and flights may encounter delays or cancellations, and long traffic jams are expected on roads.

Read more here. H/Y Marc Morano

By Dr. Gordon Fulks

From near record high to near record low temperatures this November in the Pacific Northwest, from relatively warm ocean conditions and ‘dead zones’ to relatively cold ocean conditions and fabulous salmon runs off our Pacific Coast, from an unusually cold winter to an unusually hot summer in Russia, from near record low Arctic sea ice to near record high Antarctic sea ice, our climate displays wide variability. But an army of psychologists, journalists, and even scientists make sure that the warm swings they deem alarming get the greatest attention. These propagandists know that the selling of Global Warming is all about perception not reality.

If the data will not support their storyline for another UN climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, an army of data manipulators stand ready. They rework averages to show continued warming during the last decade when honest assessments show flat or slightly declining temperatures. Some can be relied upon to say that 2010 was the warmest year “ever,” when honest scientists say that the El Nino this year was very similar to 1998. Also, the recent warm period was not as warm as the previous Medieval Warm Period, something Alarmists deny ever existed.

The simple truth is that there is nothing unusual going on today, let alone anything related to human carbon dioxide emissions. Climate variations are expected on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Climate variations are expected with a Sun that varies slightly in total solar irradiance, varies more in x-ray and ultraviolet output, and varies substantially in magnetic irregularities which modulate galactic cosmic rays. Climate variations are also expected in a solar system with large planets like Jupiter that alter the earth’s orbit and produce the huge climate variations called Ice Ages.

But how is someone who never studied science going to figure out who is telling the truth?

Science is not what I say, just because I have a good education and long experience. It is all about honesty, logic, and evidence. The simplest solution is to look out the window. The British Met Office used its new $50 million super computer to predict a mild winter in Britain, 3.4 F warmer than last year. So far, the reality is record breaking cold, heavy snow, and paralyzing ice!

But what if the New York Times (NYT), President Obama, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC), Yale University, and the Oregonian all say to be worried, very worried?

Perhaps you should question their expertise. Thomas Freidman of the NYT frequently calls for action on climate change, but has no expertise and relies on a notorious propagandist. President Obama relies on scientists whom he funds to give him the answers he wants. The NAS is run to support government programs by an electrical engineer. He discovered that Global Warming is far more lucrative than electrical engineering. The UNIPCC is run by a railroad engineer who writes romance novels. Yale University promoters are really psychologists who want you to believe that they are climate experts when their real expertise is propaganda. The Oregonian relies on all the above. The interlocking relationships are highly incestuous, with vast conflicts of interest and/or little scientific expertise.

Among scientists, belief in Global Warming comes down to cold cash. Those who benefit most from government largesse (about $100 billion to date) are typically true believers, while independent scientists easily spot the scam. This creates a split based on age and experience. Young scientists like Juliane Fry of Reed College, who professed her belief in an Oregonian Op-Ed, are eager for fame, funding, and tenure, all of which are more likely if they support Global Warming. Older scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the greatest meteorologist alive today, oppose climate hysteria. They built their fame on an approach now considered quaint: the Scientific Method.

Among Global Warming advocates there is occasional candor about their real goals. Christiana Figueres, the new executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said of the UN climate efforts: “This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen.”
Global Warming is about politics not legitimate science. Ms. Figueres calls herself a “global climate change analyst.” Her formal education in climate science consists of Al Gore’s training program to promote “An Inconvenient Truth.” That should worry everyone! PDF

Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. lives in Corbett and can be reached here. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.