By Viv Forbes, The Carbon Sense Coalition

The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the big farming lobby groups, government departments, politicians and Ministers representing agriculture of ignoring science and abandoning farmers to unjustified carbon taxation.
The chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, claimed that there was no justification whatsoever for including emissions from farm animals in any carbon emissions tax scheme. “Every intelligent farmer can understand the carbon food cycle whereby every bit of carbon dioxide released by farm animals or plants into the atmosphere has previously been removed from the same atmosphere.”

“This simple process is surely not beyond the understanding of all the lobbyists, bureaucrats, researchers and media living off farmers?” “In the farm sector carbon balance, apart from any fossil fuel used, it is a zero sum game, and all farm animals have ZERO NET CARBON EMISSIONS.” “Grazing animals have not yet learned to live on coal or diesel fuel, and they cannot create carbon out of rocks, soil or water. Therefore they must extract it, via grasses and grains, from that marvellous gas of life in our atmosphere, carbon dioxide. All foods and organic matter represent carbon that has been sequestered by life processes into living matter. The carbon is simply recycled at ZERO COST.”

“Farm plants and animals are every bit as green as forests. Both farms and forests extract carbon from the air and store it in organic life forms until that organic matter is burnt or decays in the open air, thus returning their borrowed carbon to the atmospheric storehouse.” “Why then do those who grow forests attract a carbon credit and but those who grow cattle and sheep cop a carbon tax?”

“Australia and New Zealand lead the world in harvesting solar energy and carbon dioxide to produce an abundance of clean green food. Why then are both the New Zealand and the Australian governments proposing to force farm animals into their emissions trading quagmire? And why are they subsidising the conversion of farmland producing food into forests producing nothing but carbon credits or crops producing ethanol motor fuel? What are future generations going to eat?” Forbes claimed that farmers need to start agitating now or they risk being the only bunnies still paying carbon taxes.

“Motorists who vote and use petrol will escape the carbon tax by sleight of hand - petrol excise will in future be called “carbon tax”. Exporters will get an exemption to enable them to compete with more sensible regimes with no carbon taxes. Other protected species like working families in marginal electorates will get subsidies to cover carbon taxes on electricity bills. Truckies will blockade the roads if politicians add carbon tax to diesel prices. That leaves farmers as the only big group with so few votes and such incompetent leadership that they will pay the carbon tax.” “Farmers have been abandoned by Ag Force, the Meat and Livestock Authority, CSIRO, the National Party, our “working families” Government and most of the similar organisations in New Zealand. It is not clear whether this is because of a lack of scientific logic or cowardice in the face of electoral hysteria on global warming.” “But the politicians representing the treasured “working families” in the battling suburbs had better start taking notice of rising food prices or a more soundly based hysteria about the growing shortage of food will sweep emissions trading nonsense from the political landscape.”

By Rex Murphy , Globe and Mail

Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force. I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists. Real scientists, actually, have learned it. A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it’s a lesson passed by.

In the dawn of the Enlightenment, it was scientists who were hauled before tribunals and inquisitions. Galileo is the arch example, the pioneer empiricist who rejected the ancient Earth-centric model of the (then known) universe, and for his pains earned the attention and wrath of the distinctly unscientific Inquisition.

I am drawn to these thoughts, and to the long-decayed example of the Inquisition, by a most curious outburst this week by James Hansen, the principal voice of NASA on the subject of global warming, a man who played - as it were - John the Baptist to Al Gore’s messianic teachings on the subject. Dr. Hansen is largely credited with “sounding the alarm” on man-made global warming, and he has been a persistent, high-profile and very aggressive proponent of the cause for over two decades now. Dr. Hansen doesn’t take kindly to those who dispute his apocalyptic scenarios. I choose the term, apocalyptic, deliberately. According to Dr. Hansen, mankind may have reached the tipping point with global warming. Should that be the case, wide-scale calamity and catastrophe are inevitable. And should we not have reached the point of absolute crisis, should there be a minuscule interval for the human species to act and avert the very worst, according to Dr. Hansen, what yet remains to be faced is still horrible enough indeed.

Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen’s vision of imminent ecological Armageddon. Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time. They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mix of man-made and other likely sources of climate dynamics; they question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation; and they question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global warming itself.

They seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted upon as necessary in response to the scientific determinations of man-made global warming. There is lots of room for different, honest opinion on questions so large and complex, questions at the terribly complicated intersection of science, politics and economics. But, to Dr. Hansen’s agitated mind, those who raise such questions, who inject skepticism into the global warming debate, are “deniers.” Read more here.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented today on the introduction of the Senate Republicans’ “Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008.”

“The Senate Republicans have proposed a common sense energy plan to bring real relief to the American people,” Senator Inhofe said. “With recent polls showing overwhelming support for offshore drilling, I am hopeful that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in this effort. Unfortunately, Democrats and environmental activists have pursued a strategy to shift the focus from the real issue of increasing domestic supply to issues that won’t bring down the price of gas - nationalizing refineries, suing OPEC, price gouging, global warming and windfall profits taxes. The ‘Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008’ will help restore sanity to our national energy policy.”

Background:  A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that 67% of Americans support offshore drilling, while only 18% oppose. Democrats are blocking development of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), of which 85 percent is currently off limits.  The Department of the Interior estimates that the OCS contains 19 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil.  That equals 35 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. According to the government’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, the U.S. imported over 543 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia in 2007. Using these 2007 figures, the potential of OCS American-based resources equals 35 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. Democrats are blocking development of oil shales. Although commercial scale development is more than a decade away, Rand Corporation estimates up to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil exist in the oil shales. Once again, using EIA data, that equals more than 2000 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.  Despite its enormous potential, Democrats put a moratorium on the final regulations for development of this domestic resource.

Highlights of the Senate Republicans “GAS PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2008”.  The legislation is a result of efforts by Senate Republicans to intensify the legislative debate and provide a vehicle for bipartisan action addressing high gas prices. Summary of Provisions: 

TITLE I: DEEP SEA EXPLORATION (OCS) 14 Billion Barrels On Atlantic and Pacific OCS - More Than All US Imports From Persian Gulf Countries Over The Last 15 Years
• Allows State Option Nationwide (except Gulf of Mexico)
• Governor petitions to allow exploration, with concurrence of state legislature
• Exploration must be at least 50 miles from coast
• 50% of revenues to Federal Treasury, 37.5% to States, 12.5% to Land & Water Conservation Fund

TITLE II: WESTERN STATE OIL SHALE EXPLORATION More Than 3 Times The Oil Reserves Of Saudi Arabia
• 800 billion - 2 trillion potentially recoverable barrels in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming
• Democrat Congress put moratorium on final regulations for development of this resource
• Republican proposal would repeal the moratorium and allow exploration to move forward

TITLE III: PLUG-IN ELECTRIC CARS AND TRUCKS
• Increased R&D for advanced batteries
• Direct Loans for advanced battery manufacturing facilities
• Sense of Senate that the Federal Government should increase its purchases of these vehicles

TITLE IV: STRENGTHENING U.S. FUTURES MARKETS
• Authorizes increased funding/staff for Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
• Directs the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets to study the international regulation of commodities markets
• Codifies CFTC action on position limits and transparency for foreign boards of trade
• Requires the CFTC to gather information on index traders and swap dealers