20 less populated states are represented by 40 senators. This disproportionate representation allows long time incumbents to do what ever they want. Either proposing measures like this or blocking needed legislation.

Back when there were 13 colonies that became states, the two senator system might have made sense. Now that there are more than 300 million people with 1/3 in the 5 most populated states, it does not. This is why the Constitution was allowed to be amended, to keep pace with changing times.

Political Agenda Distorting EPA Science

Last year, Ag Chairman, Congressman Collin Peterson openly stated that the EPA is in bed with the oil industry. Look at the long list of carcinogens and neurotoxins in gasoline, including the killer benzene, plus Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot. These are actual causal factors that the EPA fails to regulate. Then ask yourself why the EPA has made symptom - CO2 - their priority. And why the EPA allowed oil refineries in Texas and other states to repeatedly violate emissions rules for decades. And why the EPA has over-rated the carbon footprint of gasoline, and used this to create a false comparison vs biofuels, by using an outdated petroleum baseline - Ignoring the shift to energy and pollution intensive crude oils, such as miles-deep offshore oil wells, and Canadian Tar Sands that are deforesting millions of acres. Why the EPA lowballs the impact of burning dirty bunker fuel, to ship imported oil and ethanol thousands of miles to the United States. Why the EPA low-balls the impact of burning huge quantities of military jet fuel, diesel fuel, and more bunker fuel to protect the US foreign oil supply chain. Why the EPA embraced international indirect land use change theory, which can’t be scientifically proven – using it to manipulate and restrict American ethanol. Why the EPA allowed a fraudulent peer review process, whereby the author of the controversial theory and his assistants and colleagues, all biofuel critics and political activists with conflicts of interest, rubber stamped their own work. Why the EPA excluded from the peer review process, more experienced land use experts in the Dept of Agriculture. Why the EPA, two months after their preliminary rule, reduced indirect land use change impact for Brazilian ethanol a whopping 93% for their final rule…While at the same time, a scholarly German study declared that ALL direct and indirect land use change in Brazil, and ALL Brazilian deforestation, was caused by expanding Brazilian industries - Not American ethanol. This is the exact opposite of what the EPA falsely claims in their RFS-2 rules…

Using these tactics and a false tailpipe comparison between the newly mined carbon that gasoline is spewing into the air vs recycled CO2 released by ethanol - EPA under-rated conventional ethanol at only 21% cleaner than gasoline. This is way off. Two recent studies: one funded by the USDA and North Central Bioeconomy Consortium gave conventional ethanol a rating of 48-59% cleaner than gasoline, and the other study at Yale matched that at 59% cleaner. Why the big discrepancy? Because EPA is still falsely claiming that American ethanol is displacing land in foreign countries, when it’s Not. EPA has abused its power and overstepped its authority.

Over the objections of 111 scientists, lead by three prominent experts in the field, C-ARB prematurely embraced defective and corrupt EPA science. This included the unproven indirect land use change theory, without an independent peer review, which C-ARB illegally rammed into their rules. This was designed to keep out-of-state ethanol out of California, for the benefit of the state’s own petroleum industry, in violation of Federal interstate commerce law. See: “California’s Love Affair with Oil”, by Joanna Schroeder (Domestic Fuel).

Using EPA’s false analysis of the land use theory, C-ARB also declared that California would import Brazilian ethanol instead of domestic American ethanol. That will export American jobs to Brazil, undermine domestic economic stimulus, tax revenue and farm subsidy offsets generated by domestic ethanol, and shift one dependency on imported oil to another dependency on imported ethanol. This also plays into the hands of the privately owned central bank, which collects perpetual floating interest on debt instruments, added to the National Debt, used to pay for imported fuel.

EPA and C-ARB have woven a web of deception based on a hidden pseudo-environmental political agenda that favors the industries of their choice. And at their whim, they can selectively enforce or not enforce their rules, while maintaining the superficial image of a government agency. For the well-informed Representative Collin Petersen, this issue is more about the over-regulation of agriculture and biofuels, using falsified science. For others, it’s about protecting the oil industry. Strange bedfellows fighting a turf war over market share.

Obviously ethanol is much cleaner than gasoline, but when you factor in that it takes the energy of a gallon
of gas to make 1.3 gals of ethanol, and then ethanol has only about 80-85% power of gasoline, how much if any cleaner is it?

Correction: I meant "Develop foresight, US Congress..." since both the US Senate and the US House are now equally guilty of crimes against the environment!

Meanwhile, USA will increase import of the dirtiest crude extracted from Alberta's tar sands from 2.5 to 4.5 million barrels/day by 2020-2025 or as soon as new plants and pipelines become operational (without oil wars). That will be enough to replace about all imports form middle East. Secondly, all investments and profits stay in the family with the exception of 2% for royalties.

Last year the EPA censored their own 25 year senior analyst, Dr. Allen Carlin, because he found evidence that average temperatures were actually going down, and that the EPA was blindly using UN and IPCC foreign science, without verifying it themselves. Since then, IPCC has been caught manipulating information and has been discredited. Yet the EPA went full speed ahead with the UN agenda to label CO2 a pollutant, when it is not.

Logic will tell you that a 1 or 2 degree rise in average global temperature, even if it was happening, is not enough to cause glaciers and masses of ice and snow to melt. Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot has been identified as the cause – Not CO2. So you won’t save glaciers and ice caps by regulating CO2. Same thing for Ocean Acidification. You won’t save the oceans by regulating CO2, because acid rain and precipitating Black Carbon Soot is a much bigger factor. Yet the political agenda of the UN and the IPCC is to finger CO2, in order to lay the groundwork for a global carbon tax and a cap and trade scheme. Both of these are being rejected in the United States.

However, Americans overwhelmingly support the evolution of Green Technology, alternative energy, and clean high mileage vehicles. And there is a strong movement to bring this about. Tax credits, government incentives, and loan guarantees are already working. Wind, Solar, Biofuels and other alternatives are experiencing rapid growth and good public support, without excessive layers of government bureaucracy and too much control. We don’t need cap and trade, EPA over-regulation, or carbon taxes to create jobs in cleantech industries. These would only increase the cost of living and have a negative impact on the already troubled economy.

It was a big mistake for the EPA to allow C-ARB to make-up its own rules. That is divisive. This has already caused California to violate Federal Law and discriminate against our domestic ethanol industry, by falsely regulating CO2 using the same manipulated EPA science.

Do we have an environmental problem? Yes. But it’s not CO2. It’s the “real pollutants.

This is a resolution demonstrating that politicized "science" - especially in support of the utterly failed global warming fable - will not pass muster.

Lisa Jackson - EPA's clueless leader, makes an abject fool of herself by insisting that man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. This resolution will strip EPA of it's desire to demonize carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring trace gas and plant fertilizer.

Human activity contributes 2-3 percent of the total .0388ppm CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. This does not affect climate measurably.

Roger is correct about needing green industries to balance budget. The tragedy is the green movement DID NOT LISTEN when repeatedly warned that AGW was a failed campaign. This arrogance and refusal to realign the campaign to the far more acceptable energy independence approach - has collapsed the entire green movement. AND the conservation movement. AND the global poverty initiatives. AND the energy independence campaign.

Basically, AGW arrogance, pride and self-righteous cultism have destroyed social and environmental progress for the next century. Thanks enlightened people!

"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
British Institute of Physics - to Parliament 2/27/2010

"politicized science?"

Oh heck, that's old news; http://environment.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=environment&cdn=newsissues&tm=39&gps=797_572_1676_830&f=20&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/white-house-cen/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jun/09/science.environment

I believe that Dr. Allen Carlin, a 25 year senior analyst at the EPA had a credible report, but it contradicted the political agenda of the EPA. Carlin exposed the EPA for failing to perform their own science, and fast-tracking unverified foreign science instead. That’s why he was smeared. Perhaps the NYT is a tool of global warming propaganda. The EPA did not verify IPCC science. They automatically used it as the foundation of their rulemaking. Perhaps EPA is being orchestrated by New York and London, rather than Washington DC.

Black Carbon Soot (BCS) does Not have a cooling effect. That’s an obsolete concept. Aerosols are known to have reflective characteristics. However, BCS is not your typical aerosol. Black absorbs solar-thermal heat. Everyone should know that. Also, new analysis shows that Sulfurous Black Carbon Soot, while suspended in the air, combines with other chemicals, and multiplies heat absorption 1.6 times. BCS absorbs heat while it’s suspended. See: “Sulfate Lens Enhances Climate Warming Properties of Atmospheric Soot” (GreenCarCongress):

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/06/sulfate-lens-20090630.html#more

“Many people think sulfate aerosols are a good thing because they are highly reflective and cool our planet. However we are seeing that sulfate is commonly mixed with soot in the same particles, which means in some regions sulfate could lead to more warming as opposed to more cooling as one would expect for a pure sulfate aerosol.” (Kimberly Prather, professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego)

I think we’re going to find that suspended Black Carbon Soot (BCS) has a much bigger impact on the warming effect, bigger than CO2. The problem is, BCS does not fit the political agenda, because it can be controlled locally. That sinks the global carbon tax and the universal cap and trade scheme. It also limits control to a much smaller fraction of industries, rather than regulating CO2 universally, to control all industries and every single entity on Earth.

BCS also migrates hundreds or thousands of miles and settles-out. Wherever that happens a second effect takes place, the melting of ice and snow. BCS in water run-off generates a third effect, acidification, which migrates through the watershed into the oceans.

Excellent comment Mannstein.

"The World Health Organisation recently published some data showing that each overweight person causes an additional one tonne of CO2 to be emitted every year.," he said. "With one billion people judged to be overweight around the world – of whom at least 300 million are obese – that's an additional one billion tonnes."

As much of this weight resides in the west, it is likely causing axial wobble to the Earth's rotation, which results in further solar induced climate irregularity. "Fat is a feminist issue."

Junk food related obesity (and many other related deseases) is a worldwide growing problem but may or may not be major contributors to global warming.

However, the desastrous multiple effects on our health, productivity and health care cost could bankrupt many countries if the trend is allowed to continue uncheked.