Fossil Fuels Are Winning - The Global Climate Is Losing

 The words above are from Axis.com.

Most Want Renewable Energy (And To Keep Fossil Fuels)

The charts above are from a survey by the Pew Research Center -- done between May 30th and June 4th of a nationwide sample of 10,329 adults, with a 1.5 point margin of error. 

Record Fossil Fuel Burning In 2017 (Producing Record CO2)

The chart above shows the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere since 1959. When the Paris Accords were signed, it was hoped that this increase would stop. It has not. A record amount of fossil fuels are being burned this year, producing a record amount of carbon dioxide.

The following is just part of an article at Alternet, written by Damian Carrington (for The Guardian):

The burning of fossil fuels around the world is set to hit a record high in 2017, climate scientists have warned, following three years of flat growth that raised hopes that a peak in global emissions had been reached.

The expected jump in the carbon emissions that drive global warming is a “giant leap backwards for humankind”, according to some scientists. . . .

Global emissions need to reach their peak by 2020 and then start falling quickly in order to have a realistic chance of keeping global warming below the 2C danger limit, according to leading scientists. Whether the anticipated increase in CO2 emissions in 2017 is just a blip that is followed by a falling trend, or is the start of a worrying upward trend, remains to be seen.

Much will depend on the fast implementation of the global climate deal sealed in Paris in 2015 and this is the focus of the U.N. summit of the world’s countries in Bonn, Germany this week. The nations must make significant progress in turning the aspirations of the Paris deal into reality, as the action pledged to date would see at least 3C of warming and increasing extreme weather impacts around the world.

The 12th annual Global Carbon Budget report published on Monday is produced by 76 of the world’s leading emissions experts from 57 research institutions and estimates that global carbon emissions from fossil fuels will have risen by 2% by the end of 2017, a significant rise.

“Global CO2 emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing,” said Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the UK’s University of East Anglia and who led the new research. “The urgency for reducing emissions means they should really be already decreasing now.”

“There was a big push to sign the Paris agreement on climate change but there is a feeling that not very much has happened since, a bit of slackening,” she said. “What happens after 2017 is very open and depends on how much effort countries are going to make. It is time to take really seriously the implementation of the Paris agreement.” She said the hurricanes and floods seen in 2017 were “a window into the future”.

The new analysis is based on the available energy use data for 2017 and projections for the latter part of the year. It estimates that 37bn tonnes of CO2 will be emitted from burning fossil fuels, the highest total ever.

Trump's On Track To Be Worst Environmental President Ever

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has virtually declared war on this country's environment (and on the fight to curb global climate change). He put a man in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that doesn't believe in environmental regulations (and who has sued that agency at least 11 times to have regulations curbing fossil fuel pollution removed). Then he put the head of one of the world's largest oil companies (Exxon) in place as Secretary of State -- assuring that this countries global policies will benefit fossil fuel production.

That wasn't bad enough. He then started issuing executive orders. The first ones nullified a regulation that kept surface mining operations from polluting our rivers and streams, and set aside a rule that would have resulted in fossil fuel producers paying more in royalties to the federal government.

Now he has issued a far more sweeping order. The new order lifts a moratorium on coal leasing, and removes the requirement that federal officials consider the impact on climate change when making decisions. This will increase production and use of coal (the dirtiest of the fossil fuels), and allow all fossil fuels producers to increase production without regard to what that does to the environment or to global climate change.

Trump seems determined to trash the environment for the benefit of his buddies who produce fossil fuels. And his actions send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States has no intention of honoring its agreement to curb actions that increase global climate change.

As the charts below show, the United States is the largest user of energy produced by oil and gas, and is second only to China in energy use from coal. But while China is trying to curb its use of coal, Trump is taking this country in the opposite direction.

One has to ask, why should the rest of the world meet their obligations to curb global climate change? And even if they did meet their obligations, would it matter (since the U.S. is by far the largest user of fossil fuels energy)?

The Trump administration is proving to be a real boon for the oil, gas, and coal industries (and other polluters) -- but it is a real disaster for human being (and the planet they live on).

Most Americans Prefer Alternative Energy Development

The recent budget bill that passed and was signed into law cut money for the development of alternative energy sources. It wasn't as big a cut as the House had wanted last summer, but it shows where the Republican Congress would like to move on energy. The oil, coal, and gas companies funneled a ton of money toward Republican candidates in the last election, and they want those Republicans to now strangle the development of alternative energy sources so they can squeeze money money out of consumers -- and the Republicans are ready to give them what they want.

This energy policy makes no sense. These fossil fuels are not unending, and will be tapped out soon (except for coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel of all). And there is no doubt that the current fairly low prices will not last. Oil and gas prices always go up and down according to the season and supply -- and as the supply dwindles (as it surely will) the prices will climb to record levels. And this doesn't even consider the harmful effects our dependence on fossil fuels is having on our environment.

This is not what the public wants, and if the Republicans continue down the fossil fuel road, without developing alternative and renewable energy sources, they are going to find themselves at odds with public opinion on yet another issue.

Note in the charts above that 60% of Americans think it is more important to develop alternative energy sources than to continue to depend on fossil fuels. And that includes almost every demographic group. Only two groups seniors and Republicans don't show a significant majority preferring the development of alternative energies -- and the seniors prefer alternative energies by a 7 point margin. Only the Republicans have a majority preferring fossil fuels.

These charts were made from information in a new Pew Research Center survey. That survey was done between December 3rd and 7th of a random national sample of 1,507 adults, and has a margin of error of 2.9 points.

And the public doesn't consider nuclear energy to be one of those acceptable alternative energy sources. About 53% oppose increasing the use of nuclear energy, while only 41% supports it.

Green Party Says Nuclear Energy Is NOT The Solution To Fossil Fuel Pollution

I think most people know now that global climate change (commonly called global warming) is really happening, and that the primary cause of it is the human overuse of fossil fuels (which produces pollution from greenhouse gases like CO2). Some, thanks to their own greed, will deny it. They want to continue making money from polluting the environment, and put the onus for doing something about that pollution on the next generation.

Unfortunately, we are running out of time, and need to do something now (before we reach the environmental tipping point, at which it will be too late for any action to be effective). The question is what to do. The most obvious solution, and one that would stop the energy pollution, is to use clean and renewable energy sources -- like solar, wind, wave, etc. But there is a growing movement, especially from the energy companies, that going back to nuclear power would be an option.

The Green Party disagrees with that -- and so do I. They say it would be tantamount to replacing one kind of environmental poisoning with a different kind of poisoning -- sort of like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. Here is how Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Harvey Wasserman (pictured) put it in an article for Truthdig:

The 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster has brought critical new evidence that petro-pollution is destroying our global ecosystem.

The third anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown in Japan confirms that radioactive reactor fallout is doing the same.

How the two mega-poisons interact remains largely unstudied, but the answers can’t be good. And it’s clearer than ever that we won’t survive without ridding our planet of both. 

To oppose atomic power with fossil fuels is to treat cancer by burning down the house.

To oppose petro-pollution with nukes is to stoke that fire with radiation. 

In September, the first round of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report confirmed yet again that global warming is accelerating and that human activity is the cause.

On March 31, it reported on additional ecological impacts ranging from compromised food systems to harm done a wide range of critical living networks. 

The core problem is “global weirding,” an escalating, unpredictable ecological instability. “A breakdown of food systems,” the loss of low-lying cities, ocean acidification, the death of coral reefs, the decline of critical land-based flora and fauna, and the decimation of critical ecosystems are all part of an increasingly poisonous package. The idea that somehow more CO2 will yield more crops is counteracted by the toll taken by temperature spikes and the loss of certain insects, combined with the increased predations of others—and much more we simply do not understand.

There are always dissenters. But at Prince William Sound in Alaska we see the consensus on warming joined by yet another global terror: petro-poisoning.

A quarter-century after the 1979 Valdez disaster, Exxon and its allies are sticking with their “see no evil, pay no damages” denials. 

But the hard evidence shows a wide range of local sea life has failed to return. Residual oil is still globbed along the shoreline. 

And, in what NPR has called a “Eureka moment,” scientists have confirmed that the “long-lasting components of oil thought to be benign turned out to cause chronic damage to fish hearts when fish were exposed to tiny concentrations of the compounds as embryos.”

The impact is confirmed by parallel heart problems reported by Bloomberg to tuna harmed in the Gulf of Mexico’s far more recent 2010 BP disaster.

If the petro-toxics from these spills can do such damage to larger fish, what are they also doing to all others that occupy this ecosystem? If trace poisons spewed 25 years ago are still ripping through the embryo of Alaskan fish, what must they also be doing to the starfish, the krill, the phytoplankton, the algae and so many other microorganisms?

It’s long been known that the particulate matter from burning coal over the centuries has killed countless humans.

But what, in turn, is all that doing to the global ecosystem and all its even more vulnerable creatures, warmed or otherwise?

Since the Valdez’s 25th anniversary last month, two more major spills have poisoned the waters off Galveston, Texas, and Michigan. As Greg Palast has reported at Truthdig, our single certainty is that in a world dominated by no-fault corporations, the fossil industry will pour ever-more lethal poisons into our air and water, land and crops, and all else on which we depend.

The same is true of atomic energy. A new scientific report about Chernobyl warns that in at least some of the forests saturated with radiation leaked from that nuclear plant, the natural cycle of decay has all but ceased. 

Like cancer cells that refuse to die, the fallen vegetation won’t go away. “Decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination,” Rachel Nuwer writes on Smithsonian.com. “These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil.”

Sooner or later, that massive pile of inert detritus will catch fire. Gargantuan quantities of accumulated fallout will pour into the atmosphere. Those clouds will circle the globe. They’ll merge with all those other isotopes blown into the sky from Chernobyl for the past 28 years, and from all the other reactors and A-bomb tests dating back to New Mexico, 1945. 

Meanwhile, Fukushima continues to pour 300 tons or more of radioactive effluent into the Pacific every day. The first of its cesium isotopes have been found off Alaska and will come to California this summer. 

But the harm precedes the actual arrival. All 15 tuna taken in one recent study off the California coast tested positive for Fukushima contamination.

The eerie disintegration of starfish along the West Coast may have been caused by petro-pollution rather than Fukushima’s radiation. But each is clearly capable of doing the job alone. 

Reports of a “dead zone” in the Pacific and of an epic disappearance of other marine life should be terrifying enough to make us act on both. 

Burning coal and fracking gas release significant quantities of deadly radiation, as well as other pollutants and the matter at the root of climate change. Nuclear power heats our oceans and atmosphere, while spewing out still more eco-lethal doses of atomic emitters.

This is where tragedy and farce merge and mutate. 

Our choice is not between nuclear power and fossil fuels. Either is sufficient to kill us outright or strand us alone on a dead planet.

Those who would work for human survival should long ago have embraced the truth that all living beings are interdependent, and so are the dirty corporate technologies that kill them. 

We can no more survive on a planet burned and poisoned by fossil fuels than we can on one mutated and heated by atomic energy. 

Time is short and the two movements must make their peace. 

We have the means. Now we need the will.

The Green Party Warns Of A "Nuclear Omnicide"

Anyone capable of facing the truth knows we are destroying our environment with the massive burning of fossil fuels, and we are currently in the process of leaving a planet to our children and grandchildren that is not as good as the one we inherited. While we should be ashamed of this, we should also do something about it. Unfortunately, one of the solutions suggested is to return to energy produced by nuclear power. But before we do that, we need to remember Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. And we all need to read and think on this article by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Harvey Wasserman (originally posted over at Truthdig). He says:

In the 35 years since the March 28, 1979, explosion and meltdown at Three Mile Island, fierce debate has raged over whether humans were killed there. In 1986 and 2011, Chernobyl and Fukushima joined the argument. Whenever these disasters happen, there are those who claim that the workers, residents and military personnel exposed to radiation will be just fine.

Of course we know better. We humans won’t jump into a pot of boiling water. We’re not happy when members of our species start dying around us. But frightening new scientific findings have forced us to look at a larger reality: the bottom-up damage that radioactive fallout may do to the entire global ecosystem. 

When it comes to our broader support systems, the corporate energy industry counts on us to tolerate the irradiation of our fellow creatures, those on whom we depend, and for us to sleep through the point of no return.

Case in point is a new Smithsonian report on Chernobyl, one of the most terrifying documents of the atomic age.

Written by Rachel Nuwer, “Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly” cites recent field studies in which the normal cycle of dead vegetation rotting into the soil has been disrupted by the exploded reactor’s radioactive fallout.

“Decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination,” Nuwer writes. “These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil.”

Put simply: The microorganisms that form the active core of our ecological bio-cycle have apparently been zapped, leaving tree trunks, leaves, ferns and other vegetation to sit eerily on the ground whole, essentially in a mummified state.

Reports also indicate a significant shrinkage of the brains of birds in the region and negative impacts on the insect and wildlife populations.

Similar findings surrounded the accident at Three Mile Island. Within a year, a three-reporter team from the Baltimore News-American cataloged massive radiation impacts on both wild and farm animals in the area. The reporters and the Pennsylvania Department of Health confirmed widespread damage to birds, bees and large kept animals such as horses, whose reproductive rate collapsed in the year after the accident.

Other reports also documented deformed vegetation and domestic animals being born with major mutations, including a dog born with no eyes and cats with no sense of balance.

To this day, Three Mile Island’s owners claim no humans were killed by radiation there, an assertion hotly disputed by local downwinders.

Indeed, Dr. Alice Stewart established in 1956 that a single X-ray to a pregnant woman doubles the chance that her offspring will get leukemia. During the accident at Three Mile Island, the owners crowed that the meltdown’s radiation was equivalent “only” to a single X-ray administered to all area residents.

Meanwhile, if the airborne fallout from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could do that kind of damage to both infants and the nonhuman population on land, how is Fukushima’s continuous gusher of radioactive water affecting the life support systems of our oceans?

In fact, samplings of 15 tuna caught off the coast of California indicate all were contaminated with fallout from Fukushima.

Instant as always, the industry deems such levels harmless. The obligatory comparisons to living in Denver, flying cross country and eating bananas automatically follow.

But what’s that radiation doing to the tuna themselves? And to the krill, the phytoplankton, the algae, amoeba and all the other microorganisms on which the ocean ecology depends?

Cesium and its Fukushima siblings are already measurable in Alaska and northwestern Canada. They’ll hit California this summer. The corporate media will mock those parents who are certain to show up at the beaches with radiation detectors. Concerns about the effect on children will be jovially dismissed. The doses will be deemed, as always, “too small to have any impact on humans.”

But reports of a “dead zone” thousands of miles into the Pacific do persist, along with disappearances of salmon, sardines, anchovies and other ocean fauna.

Of course, atomic reactors are not the only source of radioactive fallout. Atmospheric bomb testing from 1945 to 1963 raised background radiation levels throughout the ecosphere. Those isotopes are still with us.

Burning coal spews still more radiation into our air, along with mercury and other lethal pollutants. Fracking for gas draws toxins up from the earth’s crust.

Industry apologists say reactors can moderate the climate chaos caused by burning those fossil fuels. But fighting global weirding with atomic power is like trying to cure a fever with a lethal dose of X-ray.

On a warmed, poisoned planet, the synergistic impact of each new radioactive hit is multiplied. All doses are overdoses.

In 1982, Adm. Hyman Rickover, founder of the nuclear navy, put it this way:

Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life—fish or anything.

Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet ... reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin, and it started in the seas. ...

Now, when we are back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible. ...

But every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it’s far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.

We know from Dr. Alice Stewart the dangers of even a single X-ray to a pregnant human. And from Dr. John Gofman, former chief medical officer of the Atomic Energy Commission, that nuclear power is an instrument of “premeditated mass murder.”

At Three Mile Island, the mutated vegetation, animal and human infant deaths still remain a part of the immutable record.

Chernobyl still lacks a permanent sarcophagus, leaving the surrounding area vulnerable to continued radiation leakage. Fukushima daily dumps more than 300 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific. The stacks and spigots are still gushing at more than 400 reactors across the globe. The next disaster is already in progress.

The good news is that the same green energy technologies that can bury nuclear power can take the fossil burners down with them. They create jobs, profits, ecological harmony and peace. They’re on a steep trajectory toward epic success.

As the reactor industry’s lethal isotopes gut our ecosystems, from bottom to top, our tolerance for these “safe doses” falls to zero. We may not fall over dead from them immediately, but the larger biospheric clock is ticking. We need to act.

Public's Views On Energy More Reasonable Than Leaders

Right-wingers, like the "Witch of Wasilla", have tried to convince Americans that the way out of our energy problems was to just increase production of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) -- and their mantra was "drill, baby, drill". And after the 2010 elections they were able to seek that to many people. Note on the chart above that in 2011 those wanting more production nearly caught up (closed to within 7 points) with those who say more conservation is the best answer.

But that was short-lived. The current gap favors conservation by 23 points, which is more like opinions since 2000. People know that we are not going to drill our way out of our energy problems. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels, especially oil, and we are at or near the point where production will begin to fall no matter how much drilling is done. The only reasonable answer is more conservation, coupled with alternate and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.).

The chart above was made from information in a series of Gallup Polls -- with the last being between March 6th and 9th of a random nationwide sample of 1,048 adults (with a 4 point margin of error). Here are some other results from that poll, showing what the general public supports and opposes. It shows that most Americans are a lot smarter than the teabaggers when it comes to energy.

Government should spend more money developing solar & wind power.
Support...............67%
Oppose...............32%

Government should spend more money developing alternate fuels for automobiles.
Support...............66%
Oppose...............33%

Higher emissions and pollution standards should be set for businesses and industry.
Support...............65%
Oppose...............35%

Federal Environmental regulations should be more strongly enforced.
Support...............64%
Oppose...............34%

Mandatory controls should be placed on emissions of CO2 & other greenhouse gases.
Support...............63%
Oppose...............35%

Set higher emissions standards for automobiles.
Support...............62%
Oppose...............35%

Set stricter standards for extracting natural gas, including fracking.
Support...............58%
Oppose...............37%

Expand the use of nuclear energy.
Support...............47%
Oppose...............51%

Americans Are Still Unwilling To Accept Global Climate Change Is Caused By Human Activity

The chart above might give those of us some hope that the seriousness of global climate change (commonly called "global warming") is finally beginning to sink in to the American public. It shows that 63% of the public believes the effect is real, and believes it is a serious problem. But believing it is a problem, and being willing to do something about it (or believing something can be done about it) are two different things -- and that is the problem with the American public.

It turns out that the public still has not accepted the fact that global climate change is caused by human activity (specifically the overuse of fossil fuels that cause a build-up of CO2 -- a greenhouse gas). As you can see from the chart below, while more people now believe it is due to human activity rather than to a naturally-occurring planetary trend, those accepting it is due to human activity still do not make up a majority of the public (with the high point being 48% in July of 2012). Currently it rests at 44%.

That's not good enough. Until a significant majority of Americans admit global climate change is caused by human activity, the government will not do anything about it. There is too much pressure from the polluting corporations for Congress to act without significant pressure from the general public.

It's starting to look like greed is going to win out over common sense -- and that we are going to be the first generation to leave those who come after us with a worse world than the one we inherited.

These charts were made from information contained in Rasmussen Polls -- the latest one being conducted on February 18th and 19th of 1,000 nationwide likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.

U.S. Falling Behind In Solar Energy

At the turn of the century it looked like the United States was going to be a leader in solar energy (the ultimate in clean and renewable energy production). In 2001, this country produced 27% (more than a quarter) of all the world's solar panels. But with not enough money going into solar energy research and some companies going out of business, production in the United States has dropped to only about 5%. Now other nations have taken the lead. Production in Taiwan has risen from 1% to 15%, and production in China has jumped from 1% to 47%.

The United States seems determined to ride the fossil fuel production until the end -- even though we know it will run out (and in the case of oil, they may be soon) and pollutes the environment. Americans have always been afraid of any kind of change. It took many years of hard fighting to get started on women's rights, racial civil rights, and homosexual rights -- and those battles still have not been completed. It looks like the same must happen with energy production. Americans will have to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming, and begging for their fossil fuel fix.

Americans like to think of themselves as a forward-thinking country, but the truth is that most Americans aren't forward-thinking at all. They cling to the past with a ferocious tenacity -- even after it becomes obvious that the old ways are hurting the country and its citizens. We need to wake up and realize that the "good old days" were just a myth. The best days lay ahead of us -- after we dump fossil fuels, and embrace the many clean and renewable types of energy (including solar).

Energy Use In The United States

In 2010, the United States used about 97.7 quadrillion Btu of energy -- an increase of 2.7 quadrillion Btu over the previous year. And there is no doubt the energy use in this country is still growing. The U.S. has always used more than its share of energy. The entire world used about 500 quadrillion Btu of energy in 2010 (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration). That means that this country used about 19.54% of the world's energy (or about 1 out of every 5 Btu), even though it only has 4.5% of the world's population.

That is a problem. It is going to be very hard to continue hogging this much of the world's energy, with the rest of the world's countries modernizing (and requiring more energy themselves each year). But it is not the only problem. The other problem rests in where we get that energy we use. Renewable energy sources make up about 8.2% of usage, and nuclear energy makes up about 8.6%. That means the fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) still provide 83.2% of all the energy used in the United States.

Some people seem to think that the supply of oil is endless, and all we have to do is increase drilling and that will solve all our problems. That is both a short-sighted and ridiculous view. Most energy experts realize that the point of "peak oil" is fast approaching (if we have not already reached it). "Peak oil" is the point at which production starts to drop, no matter how much drilling is done. Like it or not, all of the fossil fuels exist in a finite quantity -- which means they will all run out eventually.

The most plentiful of the fossil fuels, especially in this country, is coal. It has been said that we have hundreds of years of coal. But coal will also run out eventually -- and coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. We hear about "clean coal" these days, but that is just propaganda put out by the coal producers. There is no such thing as clean coal -- and probably never will be. Increasing (or even just maintaining) the usage of coal energy will do nothing except hasten global climate change (an impending disaster regardless of what Republican politicians say).

The hard truth is that the United States needs to change its energy ways -- and it needs to do it pretty fast. We need to cut our use of fossil fuels drastically (all of them), increase the percentage of renewable energy used, and vastly increase the efficiency with which we use available energy. This can be done, but it will require some political will, and it will require Americans to change.

We must invest more money in renewable energy, and do it now. And we must increase the efficiency of our transportation and homes. There must be more public transportation. And vehicles must be made much more efficient. One of the biggest wasters of energy in the U.S. is in the kind of homes we build. They are incredibly inefficient and waste large amounts of energy. The technology already exists to make more efficient homes. We are just not using it, and that must change.

Americans have a decision to make. Are we more interested in a few more years of comfort and resistance to change, or are we going to pass on a better world to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren? There's not a lot of time. What will we choose?

Are You Ready To Admit Global Warming Is Real Yet ?

There's no doubt that this has been an extremely hot year here in the United States. In fact, the first quarter of 2012 was the hottest first quarter ever recorded in this country. And it hasn't let up since then, but just gotten worse. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there have been 40,000 heat records in the U.S. already broken this year. Who knows how many more will be broken before cooler weather finally arrives?

I know there are many right-wingers (and their corporate masters) who would like for Americans to think this is just an unusual year, and things will soon return to normal. But to believe that, you have to ignore the fact that 9 out of the past ten years have been the hottest years ever recorded in the United States. And that's not the only change being noted by many. Anyone who has paid attention knows that severe weather and storms have gotten more severe. And more than half of the country is either currently in drought, or is getting very close to that.

Why is this happening? The answer is obvious -- whether the people want to admit it or not. We are (as the graph above shows) burning more and more fossil fuels and dumping more carbon emissions into the atmosphere with each passing year. The nation is addicted to fossil fuels, and seems to have no desire to wean themselves off of them -- and too many politicians (of both parties) have been bought by the oil, gas, coal, and energy industries, who don't want to have to spend any of their record-breaking profits to clean up their act.

To keep those profits flowing, the fossil fuel industries have convinced many Americans that a clean-up effort for the atmosphere will raise taxes and cost jobs. It's not true, but even if it was, that would be preferable to destroying the only planet we have. They also say we cannot do it alone. That ignores the fact that many other nations were ready to act a few years ago, until this country refused to cooperate. The fact is that the U.S. burns so much fossil fuels that we must be the leader in changing. If we act, the world will follow -- and the few nations that don't will soon be shamed into doing so. But nothing will happen until the U.S. takes the lead and acts.

And this is not a problem that can be ignored for much longer. As many climate scientists have warned, we are close to the tipping point -- where any action we take will not stave off the impending disaster. It is also not something that can be quickly corrected. Here's what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says:

“About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.”

Global climate change (commonly called "global warming") is real, and it is primarily caused by human being dumping hundreds of billions of carbon emissions into the air. We still have a little time to stop the worst effects and reverse the damage already suffered, but not much time. It's time to act -- if not for ourselves, then surely for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Do we really want to be know as the generation that refused to save the world while there was still a chance?

Mileage Tax Is A Terrible Idea

Currently this country has far too many miles of overcrowded and deteriorating roadways, and crumbling bridges that are reaching the danger point. This is because for the years they were in power, the Republicans were more interested in giving tax breaks to their rich buddies and promoting the use of fossil fuels.

This has left America in trouble. We now must not only rebuild our poorly kept infrastructure, but we also need to reduce our dependence on and use of fossil fuels. These carbon-based fuels are not only destroying our climate, but they leave us far too dependent on oil imported from foreign countries (many of whom are not our friends).

To undertake the massive rebuilding of our infrastructure, huge amounts of new money are now needed. At its current level, the federal gas tax cannot supply the money in the amounts that are needed. That is why some in Congress have come up with a new idea for taxing Americans. They want to tax U.S. drivers for each mile they drive. This is a terrible idea.

How are they going to do this? Are they going to use GPS devices to monitor where and how much each American drives? If so, this is a clear invasion of privacy. Frankly, it is not the government's business to know where, when or how much any American drives. Using such an electronic device to monitor Americans just smacks a little too much of Big Brother.

Senator Boxer (D-California), a proponent of the mileage tax, doesn't want to use the technology to monitor Americans. Instead, she said we should use the "honor system" and let each American report his own mileage. This is just as bad. Then you would have honest people paying the tax and dishonest people being rewarded by not having to pay.

And there are plenty of cheaters who wouldn't pay their part. Just look at the income tax and note how many people try to cheat on their taxes. Are we going to have to have mileage tax inspectors to keep people honest? Do we really want that?

But collecting the tax without invading a citizen's privacy is just one of the things wrong with this mileage tax. It would also encourage the use of carbon-based fuels at a time when we really need to discourage their use. With a mileage tax, the person who drives a small energy-efficient car will pay the same as someone who drives a huge gas-guzzling SUV, if they drive the same amount of miles.

Americans have always loved their large and powerful gas-guzzlers. They are not going to have any incentive to give them up, if the small cars must pay the same tax for mileage driven. There is a better way to finance our infrastructure -- the existing gas tax.

It makes a lot more sense to simply raise the gas tax to raise the needed money. That will raise the cost of gasoline -- perhaps significantly. But that is actually a good thing. The more gasoline costs, the more Americans will have an incentive to drive less miles and drive those miles in more energy-efficient vehicles.

This will give us a double-barreled bonus. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it will also help to slow the impending global climactic change caused by the use of carbon-based fuels. Doesn't that make more sense?

The mileage tax is a terrible idea, and we need to nip it in the bud before it gains momentum.