Hello Friends, I have shifted my writing portal from here to http://rationallibertariancorner.com/ you may check for my New articles at my website.

Global warming or climate change is a worldwide disquiet that needs to be addressed in a proper way. Scientific studies have regularly provided enough evidences regarding the regarding the human activities that harms the natural balance of our planet by producing large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), most notably Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) by burning fuels. Now when it is established that global warming is a real concern, why is it that the world’s leading power, the United States is not able to legislate enough stern laws to check the pollution, emission of greenhouse gases, human activities that are causing global warming and to provide better greener ways to lead the world. The United States is the biggest contributor of green house gases, specifically the Carbon Di Oxide emission from coal based power plants, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of U.S reports that the United States’ Greenhouse Gas emission grew by 12% between 1990 and 2001. The global warming has already raised the average global sea level by four to eight inches during the last 100 years. Scientists believe that the increasing levels of GHGs may cause acute climatic and health impacts on humanity. Despite of all these known facts, the government of United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and refused to sign the agreement that required United States to reduce its GHGs emission rate to 5% to 8% below their average level of 1990 by 2008 to 2012. On the other hand, Bush supported the idea of voluntary research and efforts at enhancing energy efficiency. In 2002 at Climate Action Report to the United Nations, Bush administration accepted the risks from global warming and informed that the GHGs emission of United States will increase by almost 43 per cent between 2002 and 2020 if the US government does not take stern actions to reduce GHGs emission¹ In July 2004, Bush administration again accepted in their report to Congress on U.S. Climate Change Science Program that that the most probable explanation for global warming since 1950 is the increasing levels of carbon dioxide from human activities. However, Bush administration maintained their position to not to opt for any compulsory policies to reduce the emission of GHGs until more conclusive evidences about global warming are not produced. Global warming is affecting everybody on the earth and it is the cause of serious damages to all. Yet, no country initiates to take stern steps to reduce their reduction of GHGs. In his journal regarding Global Warming and its affect, Bradford Mank raises the question “Is Injury to All Injury to None?”² The idea is simple, since global warming is definitely hurting everybody, yet, the prevention requires immediate actions that may prove to be commercially unviable, hence the governments throughout the world and specially the US government hesitate to bring about any concrete change in their policies to reduce emission of GHGs. Maybe, the injury to all is nobody’s concern.
On January 20th, 2009, when Barack Obama took charge as the 44th president of US, everybody hoped for better involvement of United States government and Congress in the bid to reduce the emission of GHGs worldwide³
Yet, apart from some policy changes, the new administration of US also failed to take any concrete and defining step to face the dangers of global warming and to resolve to reduce the emission of GHGs significantly.

Federal/National Climate Policy

The Copenhagen Climate Summit failed⁴ to impress anybody and despite all the hopes attached with Obama, no significant change was visible. Obviously, Obama administration had a great deal of immediate problems to tackle with including the recession period of 2009, the huge stimulus and highly increasing national debt along with the socialistic burdensome programs like healthcare reforms. However, a change was visible in the attitude of administration and on January 26, 2009, the House of Representatives of US Energy Independence and Climate Legislation, the Congress also passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, both the legislations were meant to encourage renewable energy usage and increase energy efficiency. The Cash for Clunker program suggested the US administration’s initiative towards the greener options, the Cap Carbon Trade plan showed positive approach towards greener US, and US government also started trying to encourage innovators and entrepreneurs to create greener jobs.⁵ . The Clean Energy Job and American Power Act provided many programs that will raise funds from government to invest in the inventions and development of greener options for electricity requirements and will provide huge opportunity of green jobs.⁶ Yet, on bigger plan, there is no strict path towards achieving and implementing some policies that would lead US to reduce the emission of GHGs to about 5% to 8% below the level of 1990′s.
Not only that, all these positive steps towards clean air, green surroundings, clear atmosphere and cooler globe faced opposition within the senate in the form of The Dirty Air Act. The Dirty Air Act attacks the Clean Air Act directly. Many big oil companies and some senators along with their lobbyists claimed that Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) statement about the dangers of carbon pollution does not show any major threat to public health or welfare. If the Dirty Air Act passes, the US consumption of foreign and domestic oil will increase further and that will undo all the positive steps taken towards greener USA.⁷

Business Partnerships

One of the main reason behind the inability of the Congress of US is the powerful US corporate that funds in electoral campaigns. The business partnerships of US provide a space of such political forum where the motives of big enterprises cannot be ignored. Obviously, the big conglomerate like BP America, DuPont, and General Electric etc cannot afford to let Congress restrict their source of profits. Furthermore, no government would like to hurt the economy of the nation by almost destroying the leading industries of the country. The big oil companies deny accepting Clean Air Act, or any other proposal to reduce the carbon consumption.
William R. Cline in his book The Economics of Global Warming explained the expected economic damages that may be caused by global warming. He suggested that if the damages caused by global warming are smaller than the costs of reduction of emissions from fossil fuels, deforestation and other sources, than the attempt to discourage usage of carbon or fossil fuels is irrational.⁸
Self-interest is the main motive of any person that drives him to take rational decisions and implement them properly. Thus, if it is shown that the economic losses due to global warming are much more than the losses one will face by reducing carbon consumption, than naturally, the person will opt to reduce carbon consumption because that will be lesser loss for him or her and it will be healthier option too. Thus, it is easier for individuals to opt for greener options while it is difficult for the government or Congress to resolve and adopt policies to control carbon footprints. The reason being, as a collective, Congress or US government cannot think for individual losses, they will only think for the better profits of maintaining relations with big conglomerates, big oil companies and industries like GE, DuPont etc. The evil nexus of government and corporate will never let the greener options establish themselves in the market because the government will keep stimulating the conglomerates. Yet, an individual by himself can opt for greener, hybrid cars, which will consumer lesser fuel, the individual as a consumer may rift the market towards the greener options available in the market. The key to the trouble of global warming is consumerism. Consumerism is the principle of Free Market, which states, “free choice of consumer should rule the market, or, the consumer decides the economic structure of the society”.⁹
As it is clear that the public realizes the dangers of global warming much better than the Congress or US government, the citizens should opt for the free market principle rather than waiting for government to take proper actions. If the consumers prefers and demand green alternatives, clearer energy resources, fuel efficient cars, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy resources and other appliances to reduce their individual carbon fingerprints, than the producer, manufacturers and providers will be forced to provide environmental friendly alternatives for the society. Consumerism is the boon for human development (Reason for Liberty, 2010), and hence, if the individuals, the consumers consider that global warming is greater loss and hence they should opt for greener options, than the entrepreneurs, innovators and manufacturers will themselves be heralded towards providing greener options because that will be the more profitable execution for them. Once the big conglomerate start producing greener alternatives, the government will also feel no objection to provide greener policies, also, when consumers themselves will demand green market, green goods, green services and lesser carbon fingerprints, then the role of government will be minimal in case of improving the conditions of global temperatures.

Performance of States on global warming platform

Stephen Lacey reports that some of the states are moving faster towards green renewable energy options than the federal government or Congress. California, New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Ohio are not only proving to be great market for renewable energy resources like solar energy and wind energy, the state governments are also promoting the renewable energy options to far extent. Recently, Texas got rid of its eight coal power plants.¹⁰ Texas not only opted for nuclear alternative, but the Texas government approved plans to supply 35 per cent of power needs through renewable energy resources.
Stephen Lacey further reveal that the interference of state government in market through the SREC program is benefitting few large companies at the expense of many small companies.¹¹ The picture clarifies the reason why the state governments are running faster towards greener US with lesser carbon footprints. The federal government deals with higher degree of market interference and hence, the Congress remains in effect of big business to create corrupt nexus that cannot decide for better greener options. State governments on the other hand have lesser power to interfere with the market, hence they are a little faster, yet, if somehow the government is decentralized and restricted from interfering the market, that is, if the market is left free, then the market will force the entrepreneurs, manufacturers, producers and business conglomerates to provide better, greener options to reduce the GHGs emission and ease the acute global warming conditions, the reason being, consumers demand “green” solutions to the global warming crisis. The demand of green alternatives by consumers will prompt the free market to create green jobs and will incentivize the entrepreneurs and energy industries to innovate better energy efficient renewable energy resources extraction.

Conclusion: The Actual Way to Improve Climate

It is quite clear that the US congress and federal government is lacking will and strong leadership to bring about any significant change in the policies to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases emission. The nexus between politicians, big business conglomerates and oil companies seems to be evil enough to thwart any possible change in the attitude of Congress towards the acute need of reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emission. It is evident that if nothing would be done to prevent or slow down global warming, there can be disastrous consequences on whole world. US federal government and Congress find it self unable to deal with the situation because the Congress cannot afford the economic turmoil if it breaks relations with the big business conglomerates and oil companies. Instead of taking firm and stern actions to compel the big industries to reduce their carbon footprints, Congress tries to cajole them to agree with a cap on carbon. Pete DuPont stated clearly that “global warming looks like neither the alarmists’ serious threat, nor an immediate crisis that requires governmental control of America’s economy to reduce it”, He suggested that Congress should consider the costs before passing policies on Global Warming.¹² In such a scenario, it is difficult to believe that the big conglomerates like BP America, DuPont, and General Electric etc will accept the necessity of time so easily. Yet, there is a hope to save the earth against the ill-human activities. The individual citizens of U.S and whole round the world can force the conglomerates, politicians and governments too by denying their interference and monopoly in market and by demanding better, greener and feasible energy options.
Once the consumers themselves decide to reduce their own carbon footprints, the big companies will be forced to follow the suit. Congress, federal government and state government meanwhile should stop interfering with the market and let the new players, competitors, entrepreneurs and innovators provide better and efficient energy solutions so that the big conglomerate of US may also feel compelled to work towards a greener future. The key for a better, greener and safer world against the glooming danger of global warming is in the hands of consumer and in the policies of free market. The nexus between government, politicians and big business need to relieve the market to create greener world.

1. Climate Action Report, 2002, Ratification of Kyoto Aside: How International Law and Market Uncertainty Obviate the Current U.S. Approach to Climate Change Emissions [↩]
2. Bradford Mank, 2005, Standing and Global Warming; Environmental Law, Vol. 35 [↩]
3. Oliver A. Houck, 2009, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility [↩]
4. BBC News, 2009, Why Did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? BBC News, 22nd December, 2009 [↩]
5. Legislation, Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee of US, 2010 [↩]
6. Clean Energy Job and American Power Act, 2009 [↩]
7. Dirty Air Act round up, 2010 [↩]
8. William R. Cline, 1992, The Economics of Global Warming, Institute for International Economics Washington DC [↩]
9. Reason for Liberty, 2010, Consumerism is a Boon for Human Development, Reason for Liberty, April 19th,2010 [↩]
10. Stephen Lacey, 2008, U.S State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? New Hampshire, United States [↩]
11. Stephen Lacey, 2008, U.S State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? New Hampshire, United States [↩]
12. Pete DuPont, 2009, Time for Inaction on Global Warming, Congress should consider the costs before passing “cap and trade” The Wall Street Journal [↩]

Energy is no different from a river, it flows or it is stored. We obtain all the required energy from the stored energy resources, otherwise we construct dams to capture the flowing energy and hence make it usable.
The fake term “renewable energy” often used and advertised by environmentalist is nothing but the stored energy of the sun.
In reality, there is nothing like “renewable energy”, every energy resource including the sun is limited.
Environmentalists often shout against the use of Fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels are also nothing but stored solar energy. The capturing of solar energy in form of fossil takes millions of years and fossil fuels are highly concentrated source of energy, almost 10 times more concentrated than wood. The wind energy or raw solar energy the flow of energy is too weak to be used. Solar energy is 10 to 50 times less concentrated than fossil fuel. There is no technology to concentrate solar or wind energy and hence, to harvest any significant amount of energy directly from flowing solar or wind energy, the only way is to use more and more land, but land space is limited and that limits the use of both solar and wind energy.
According to T. Boone Pickens’s famous wind energy drive,¹ a single wind energy power station would require some 12,000 square miles of land area. That is too much when compared with the land space required for a Nuclear power plant.
Another natural store of energy is coal that is extremely abundant in nature. We may never run out of coal no matter how much we use it. Coal is a concentrated store of energy, much concentrated than wood.
Octane molecules of gasoline are further dense source of energy; they are densest form of all resources of carbon energy. Carbon energy itself is nothing but a natural dam of solar energy that is carbon energy is solar energy.
Yet, environmentalists want to reduce world’s carbon footprints; hence, they want to ban usage of carbon energy resources. On the contrary, they support the use of solar energy, wind energy in crude, and dilute form.
Nuclear energy is very different from any of the above discussed energy resources.
Nuclear energy is not a form of solar energy; the Sun is not the source of nuclear energy. People in general know less about nuclear energy.
A pinch of uranium contains more energy than 100 full trucks of coal. Despite the governments throughout the world providing support to solar and wind energy power plants by means of government subsidies (regulators forces utility companies to but renewable energy), the solar and wind energy plants produces only about 0.9% of the total electricity we consume.
The most effective solar panels (used on the space stations) are expensive and their conversion efficiency is only about 20%, which is too less. We cannot support the idea of using those much expensive solar panels with such less efficiency rate to be adopted on earth. Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate a meager 300 megawatt of energy, we can not rely on them, also, the reflectors must be kept exceptionally clean and maintained to the hilt, and otherwise they will not work. At the stage of current technological knowledge, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, sea or wave energy can fulfil even half of our demand for energy.
Environmentalists are against carbon energy resources, one may think they are right, but they are against nuclear energy resource too and they support only the crude form of solar, wind and water energy. Obviously, they want to push us back to the dark ages² .
The wind, solar and wave energy can be made more efficient with improving science and technology, not by forcing all of us to go without electricity.
The environmentalists call for massive subsidization for wind and solar energy, while they want to abort usage of carbon energy by applying carbon taxes.
Subsidies for wind and solar energy along with ethanol, recycling and many other similar issues clarifies that they are not efficient, because if they are efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? They need to be subsidized because they are not efficient.
Energy resources for which the environmentalist cries for are those, which benefit no one. The only reason environmentalist want them to be subsidized is the fact that they cannot compete in the market. No one will opt for wind or solar energy in a free market because it is inefficient very less, causes loss. In order to force people to opt for solar and wind energy, environmentalists suggest carbon taxes.
All this clarifies solar and wind energy is not good enough yet.
When the technology will improve and with that improve the efficiency of solar and wind energy, the free market will adopt them freely.
Wind will still fail to be any major source of energy because of the difficulty of transmitting the wind energy power. Wind is also unpredictable and hence the production of energy will also remain unpredictable.
Energy through nuclear fission is the proper alternative to any form solar energy that may solve out all the genuine environmental concerns, and they will ensure that we keep progressing in the future rather than being pushed backward to dark ages.
Uranium produces enormous amount of energy in a very little place that wind and solar energy together can not come close to.
Those who oppose nuclear energy are simply against any realistic way towards sustaining and improvement of technological advancement and our life in turn.
Uranium is abundant, clean and safe to use, furthermore, the residual of the nuclear reactors, that is, the “nuclear waste” can also be re-used after enriching plutonium.
The environmental geeks show their concern about the safety of nuclear reactors.
One of such nuclear accident happened at Chernobyl,³ every green geek puts up that case, what they do not tell us is the fact that, that mishap happened just because that US government run reactor was highly unsafe.
The greatest scientific feat of 20th century was the discovery of neutron and the knowledge about the highly concentrated nuclear energy. We discovered that the energy concentrated in nucleus of atom is 2 million times as more as the energy concentrated in the shell of atom.
The energy in the shell of atom is known as the chemical energy. Everything from wood to coal, from crude oil to gasoline is the play of chemical energy. Using chemical energy thus does not necessarily decreases the carbon footprints. The only way to successfully decrease our carbon footprints without pushing us backward to dark ages is the Nuclear energy.
The danger of nuclear waste is false because in reality, there remains nothing like “nuclear waste”; the waste of nuclear reactor can be used for further production of energy without hurting the environment by any means.
That so-called nuclear waste is also being used as the medical isotopes. About 40% of advanced medicines now are Nuclear medicine.
Conclusion: Nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest and most effective and efficient way we have, to not only to fulfil our current requirements but to meet all futuristic demands without leaving any carbon footprints.
Anyone who opposes Nuclear energy is whole out wrong and is against human progress and prosperity.

1. T Boon Pickens, Pickens plan [↩]
2. The Catastrophic Lovers want to return to Dark Ages, Reason for Liberty [↩]
3. The Chernobyl Disaster, wikipedia [↩]

It is very common to hear some environmentalist on any main stream media freaking out about the global warming and rehashing the swan song of environmentalists concerning assumed disasters that await the world if it carry on with its evil ways of fossil fuel consumption: the disappearance of islands beneath the sea, the flooding of coastal cities, more severe droughts and hurricanes, famines, disease, the displacement of tens of millions of people from their traditional homelands and the disappearance of glaciers.
However now the climate is surely changing and in this new climate, those environmentalists surprisingly are accepting their faults, yet they are not ready to take the responsibility.
Recently, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a panel of 2500 of the best climate scientists in the world, accepted that they made a huge goof-up regarding their blow-horns about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.¹
The IPCC, which is a noble winning organization of environmentalist alarmed about the catastrophic threat of melting of Himalayan glacier by 2035, that is, within 20 years, IPCC expected the disastrous end of the Himalayan range. Now when there are no signs of any such apocalyptic change in any new future, they have accepted that it was mistake. The mistake was a result of extreme irresponsibility and carelessness of these climate scientists of the noble winning IPCC organization. First of all, they never studied the Himalayan glaciers with any objectivity and the report they issued was borrowed from a 1996 Russian study, obviously, the study was not at all authentic. Not only that, the Russian study by V M Kotlyakov also predicted a date of 2350 for an expected decrease in Himalayan glacier. The IPCC scientists and climate reporters not only copied a non-authentic study, they also goofed up with the predicted date and made it to 2035. It might be a small typographical error that advanced the apocalyptic deadline by 300 years.
Similarly, the same reputed UN’s union of environmentalists also issued a report regarding the disappearance of Amazon forests based on another baseless report by some advocacy group WWF.² The author of that report on Amazon was also not written by any specialist on Amazon forests, but by a freelance journalist with no authenticity. IPCC never considered the importance to check the validity of such apocalyptical threat before lamenting it as a possible danger to force their socialistic dream of stern governmental actions throughout the world.
Now it is well known through out the world that all these environmentalists keep lying about the shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, rising sea levels and depleting rainforests. Yet nobody in the IPCC, not even the chairman Mr. R.K Pachauri is ready to take the responsibility of such so-called mistakes. Were they intentional?

Changing views of Climatologists

Some of the climate scientists have started trying to search out some feasible excuses to suggest why not all their predicted warnings about the apocalyptic changes in environment are proving to be true. Such a recent study suggests that the Earth did not warm up noticeably over the period of last decade even though the greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically because of a new stratospheric phenomenon 10 miles above our heads. The study suggests that somehow, the water vapour in the stratosphere has been decreased. As the water in atmosphere traps heat, lesser water in stratosphere means lesser heat. That is, although greenhouse gases are continually increasing, the atmosphere has changed itself in such a way that there is no global warming and in fact there is lesser heat. The atmosphere thus, has acted for the benefit of humanity.³
Although it is just an excuse, it suggests that now instead of keep issuing the threats of apocalypse every second day, environmentalists and climate scientists need to stress over searching for better excuses to hide out their deceits.

The Growing Glaciers

Despite all hullabaloo of global warming, the glaciers are growing all around the world. How is that possible that IPCC issues an unauthentic report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, while the scientists from other group make a documentary about how the Himalayan glaciers are ever increasing since the last three decades?
Here is a list of 12 glaciers that have not heard the news about Global warming. They are growing and growing fast.⁴
It is a fact that the fake calls of apocalyptic dangers of global warming are not going to pay the socialist set of environmentalists any success. Yet, it would also be wrong to say that climate is not changing, climate is always changing and so do the human beings and other life forms. We evolve with time we change.
Professor Ian Plimer (University of Adelaide) in his book “Heaven an Earth” explains why CO2 cannot be a cause of global warming; here is a transcript of his scientifically recognized book Heaven and Earth.⁵
Despite the 21st century decrease in global temperature, we are perpetually warned of dangerous global warming. Every evening one can see a disturbing documentary over some news channel showing some absurd claims (just like that of IPCC claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers etc.) all these environmentalists and green activists obviously want us to believe that if we try to live a happy, healthy prosperous life, we will be no better than the devil ready to cause havoc on earth. Obviously, they want the governments to control us and force us to sacrifice ourselves, our progress for the greater cause of saving the environment from the alleged threat of global warming.

Alternative solutions for alleged global warming

In the book Super Freakonomics⁶ the author argues that even if CO2 is causing global warming and if global warming is a real threat, then also it is not necessary that governments all around the world need to enforce draconian laws and cuts in carbon dioxide emission that would cost many trillions of dollars and will force the poor to be poorer. Rather some better geo-engineering solutions can be adopted to keep the earth cool despite the increased concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Just like the present water vapor in the stratosphere can actually cause the globe to cool down irrespective of increased concentration of carbon dioxide, engineers can pump sulphur dioxide in stratosphere by a suspended hose using helium balloons. There can be numerous ways to actually control any global warming if it is occurring at any dangerous rate, but the fact is, since the 21st century, the earth is cooling off.
The environmentalists knows that it would be hard for them to contend at the issue of global warming because the evidences are totally against them and hence they are playing the new trick. Now days, the catastrophe lovers does not shout for Global Warming, rather they call for Climate Change. Climate change is a reality, climate keep changing since ever and forever. Mainstream economists, along with scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisers for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions such as Cap and Trade policy etc.
Conclusion: Global warming is gradually proving out to be another fake call of the socialists just to dishearten the freedom loving individuals and to force common public to suffer under governmental duress and keep thinking that freedom is sinful and progress is evil. We need to save ourselves from such unholy misguiding tirade of socialist environmentalists, economists and media persons who are trying to baffle public to enforce governmental control over their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Update: A good article against Global warming fraud in “Open” : http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

Indian Environment Minister Jairam ramesh says:: There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,” Ramesh told a news channel here.
Stressing that the IPCC’s weakness was that it didn’t do original research and derives assessments from published literature, the minister announced a climate change panel for India. Economic Times

1. Times of India IPCC retracts 2035 alarm on Himalayan glacier melt [↩]
2. The Telegraph After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate [↩]
3. NPR News ,Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming [↩]
4. 12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming, Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing. [↩]
5. Professor Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne [↩]
6. SuperFreakonomics,Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance [↩]

While whole world is blindly running for the goal of being green, the latest annual survey of National Geographic Society has announced India as the winner. The Greendex of Indians is 59.5 and India is at the top. The Greendex indicates the consumer behavior of a certain region or country and compares the sustainable power consuming behavior of the consumers.¹
For some environment crazy folks, this might prove to be an encouragement and they might feel great about the fact that Indians have been declared as the forerunners of the campaign Green Earth, yet, the question that is to be asked is, what keeps India at the topmost position of that green index? How come one of the most populous country is the least power consuming too?
Some will believe that Indians are naturally environment friendly and they care for earth, some may say that Indians are well-mannered about their consuming habits, yet the reality is different. The topmost position of India on that Greendex also indicates the poverty ridden situation of Indian power sector and the consumers’ plight.
Despite an ambitious rural electrification program, some 400 million Indians still have no access to electricity. While 80 percent of Indian villages have at least an electricity line, just 44 percent of rural households have access to electricity. According to a sample of 97,882 households in 2002, electricity was the main source of lighting for 53% of rural households.²
Now the reality comes out to be clearer, Indian consumers are not consuming lesser power by will or because of their habits, rather they have no electricity to use, their nights are as dark as they were before Edison invented the first electric bulb. They cannot use fans, coolers or heaters, they cannot imagine of an air conditioned bedroom for their kids.
The situations are no better in urban India. Even the most busy and important metropolitans of India constantly suffers 3-4 hours blackout everyday.
All Cities in Maharashtra like Pune, Pimpri Chinchwad, Navi Mumbai,
Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, UlhasNagar, Nashik..the list is endless have 20 hours per day electric supply. Pune is the 7th largest city in India and Navi Mumbai and Thane are also very large cities too. Most of villages in Maharastra face power cuts for 16 hours a day. In some states like UP, Haryana and Bihar even cities are no better than villages and suffers heavy power cuts for 6-8 hours every day. Almost all Indian cities suffer a minimum of 2 hour power cut. Even Delhi and Mumbai suffer power cuts, can we expect a power cut of 4 hours in Las Vegas or New York?
Obviously when there is no electricity, how can anyone consume electricity?
That is obviously one of the reason of why India lacks domestic consumption of electronic appliances too.
The result is the higher position of India on that Greendex.³
Electricity is not the only issue. Indians are the most frequent consumers of self-grown food, with 35% eating what they grow several times a week or daily. No wonder there is lack of awareness of nutrition content and that is the reason why India faces maximum cases of malnutrition, Indian mothers faces maximum cases of miscarriage and infanticides.
Indian consumers obviously are least likely to own a car or any private transporting system, rather they uses public transportation system. One can check the troubles of local trains and blueline buses. Would not any Indian prefer to have his own car if he could? With the advent of Nano and other smaller and cheaper cars, things will change fast. So yes, Indians are most likely to use a scooter or motorcycle or at the most, a compact car and hence the mileage of Indian consumers is pretty lower than the average of consumers of other countries.
All this proves that the Indian Green-ness is driven out of compulsion rather than conviction. India is green because Indians do not have access to electricity, Indians cannot afford to have personal vehicles although they want to, and the luxurious cars are still beyond the reach of common Indians. Indians are greener because they are addicted to malnutrition.
Now the question is, should Indians try to remain green, or will Indians like to remain green? Should not all Indians have access to electricity, nutritious food better health-care system? Should not a middle class or lower middle class Indian have the potential to buy a car or a motorcycle?
Green is synonymous of poor. Yet crazy environmentalists keep shouting for Go Green and for their crazy ideas of global warming catastrophic fear mongering⁴ they tend to implicate poverty and malnutrition on masses.
Basically, the major carbon dioxide emitter is the power sector of any country. In India, 63.3% of electricity is produced by coal or oil or gas based thermal power plants. Merely 7% of power is produced by renewable source of energy, and that cannot be increased anyhow because of geographic positions and inconsistency of solar power or wind mills, the options left are either hydro power or nuclear power. Hydro power is obviously dangerous as they pertain to increase tectonic tensions and cause massive earthquakes as one was seen by China⁵ recently. Hence, the remaining is nuclear power, and that too is not so proper, as nuclear wastes are much more hazardous than any waste the thermal power plants can produce.
Nobody want to remain poor, nobody really want to remain without electricity too, they do want to own a TV, a computer, a fan, an air cooler and other simple electric and electronic appliances and they do have a right to have one if they can earn and afford. Thus, even though India is at the top of Green Ladder at present, it is not going to last long.
Should we worry for it? Or ask, should we keep Indians to remain poor always with no access to electricity, and a better life, or should we just forget about the crazy idea of “Go Green” and global warming?⁶
Climate is meant to be changed, evolution and technology makes it possible for us to bear any sort of change.

1. Indians are world’s greenest, Times of India [↩]
2. Indian Power Sector, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Indians are world’s greenest, Times of India [↩]
4. Global Warming is cooling down to ice Age, Reason for Liberty [↩]
5. China, Communism, Corruption and Earthquakes, Reason for Liberty [↩]
6. The Catastrophe lovers want to return to Dark age, Reason for Liberty [↩]

Globalization not only has raised a stage of cultural sharing and expansions, it has provided a wider scope in every aspect of common life whole round the world.
National politics is also not unscathed of the global effects. Out national politics and economics, so much depends on the various global international groups, organizations, planning commissions, treaties and protocols.
One of the most important of them is the Kyoto Protocol and Environmentalism is the new political mantra at the helm.
Almost every other country is now whirling around to cut the carbon emission rates.
Now when there are enough evidences that global warming is nothing but a fake idea, the environmentalist politicians have a new way to rush upon their emotional tactics based on the call to “save mother earth”.
US president Obama has promised to invigorate the green energy industry as the new engine for the economic growth. The current economic crisis is providing enough chances to raise his sticks and implement his plans to create the new bubble of green economy providing millions of new jobs and to achieve that, he is going to implement some governmental “incentives” to promote green energy.
These incentives include carbon taxes and huge subsidies for innovation and development of “renewable” non-carbon energy resources.
India is also not very far behind, and as India is a signatory member of Kyoto protocol, Indian government promised it would introduce new norms that would involve tax concessions, incentive schemes including legislative framework to motivate Indian Inc. to effectively undertake carbon emissions reduction program.¹
India is already facing an electricity crisis and we really do not produce enough electricity to provide electricity in every household. A big portion of rural India still remains in dark at nights. Yet our politicians can promise to reduce carbon emission within a scheduled period.
Obviously, politicians never promise to fulfill their commitments.
On reality grounds, the “green energy” drive is fake and failure because, the environmentalists not only oppose the coal thermal electric plants, they also oppose nuclear plants too, and what they support for is the “renewable energy resources” like wind, solar and sea energy and that makes it a conundrum.
The governments, by providing huge subsidies to the innovation in green energy market can make it some heavy deal, but it will not be helping anyone.
The renewable energy resources cannot fulfil our requirements of energy not because we lack technology, but because it is not viable nor it is economic.
Around 76% of Indian energy comes through coal thermal plants, 21 % by hydroelectric plants and 3 % by nuclear plants. With the new nuclear energy deal, India will try to look for options to increase the percentage of nuclear energy.²
The “renewable” resources play almost no role. We cannot rely on wind mills because of intermittent nature of winds; also, wind mills require huge grounds. We cannot rely on solar cells, because of extremely low efficiencies of solar cells; also, it is not economically viable idea. The latest and most efficient solar cells use Lead selenide (PbSe) in their making. Just like PbSe, almost all heavy metal salts necessary for a solar cell are toxic in nature and can cause much greater harms to environment than what CO2 can cause. That is, the renewable resources can harm nature much more. In addition, heavy metals are rare, hence expensive, and thus not economically viable.
No matter how huge subsidies government provide, we cannot afford it.
Furthermore, such endeavours have already proven their failure.³
Many European countries are again returning towards coal thermal plants because their earlier initiatives to bring upon carbon taxes, investment, and subsidies in green energy are making electricity too much costly and hence common people are suffering, also, no plans are working to decrease any carbon emission.⁴
The conundrum of energy is because, fossil fuels are finite, we cannot remain dependent on them forever, renewable energy resources are not sufficient to fulfill our requirements, and nuclear energy is also not a very viable option.
Although fossil fuels may end earlier, yet the charcoal and coal tar beds will keep providing enough fuel and hence power to the world for longer periods.
The example of European failure clearly explains why taxes never work. Because of increased carbon taxes, the price of coal increased sharply and that was what government wanted to fight against global warming. Yet the result of all this is the huge increase in power rates needed for everyday usage.
India is already facing huge inflation rates. The rich can buy costly power and electricity too, the green energy steps will stress more burdens over the poor and no carbon tax can actually reduce that burden.
Carbon tax is also not a good economic move and it will increase poverty. We know that to reduce and ultimately remove poverty, production is the only way. By slapping carbon taxes on production houses, government will reduce the production and that will increase poverty.
The overall situation is government can provide no viable solution for electricity crisis and the environmental cause simultaneously. Government interference in market in support of environmentalism will not only make people poor, it will hurt the environment more. We cannot opt for hydroelectric plants because of the other side damages hydroelectric plants can cause (Earthquakes). With the limitations of wind and sea energy, and the economic failure of solar cells, we can not rely on them; furthermore, the making of solar cells can prove to be bigger danger to environment and human life. Not only Lead Selenide but polysilicons also left a huge toxic residual, which harms human life and nature much more than coal and we cannot rely on nuclear energy production too. Even in US nuclear power plants provide only 17% required energy and government are in opposition to nuclear plants because of the dangers of nuclear waste and the consequences. There is no safe way to dump nuclear wastes.
Overall, coal is the best option for our energy requirements and as we know that coal will keep serving us for many centuries more, we have enough time to innovate, invent and discover new ways, yet for that too, government interference is not viable.
In fact, the more we provide freedom to market, the more close we reach towards the solution for the energy conundrum.⁵
The current electricity losses in India during transmission and distribution are around 45%. It is huge and if we privatize the production, transmission and distribution of energy, the private owners will reduce this huge loss because of their profit incentives and that not only will bring electricity within reach or poor, it will make many dark villages bright.
The privatization of electric distribution is already an ongoing process and it is helping in reducing the wastage, yet we need a free market in electricity sector as that would induce the private investment in the innovation and development of energy production techniques and that will include nuclear techniques too.
Furthermore, if government stop interfering in oil, coal market, and stop providing subsidies, the common users will also get incentives to reduce wastage and over usage.
Thus, the real green initiative will be the reduction of government interference in market and provision of property rights as that will reduce any chances of exploitation of common man through government supported corporatism. We need to understand the difference between corporatism or crony capitalism and free market laissez-faire capitalism, and we need to adopt the later one.
The current slapping of carbon taxes on Industries and dumping of collected tax in non-viable energy resources is not going to help either environment or the economy.
Basically, the US government and other governments also, aim to slap carbon taxes just to decrease the fiscal deficits, as government know that industries cannot work without carbon. Such moves are never taken for helping environmental cause; they are rather more Keynesian economic steps to increase taxes, which ultimately hurt the economy as production reduces.
The promises of huge governmental investments and subsidies in green energy are also nothing but similar Keynesian steps to increase government spending.
Yet, it is highly improbable to help any economy with such spending in non-productive activities; they will cause further economic downturn.
Taxation and subsidies never brings any good.

1. Indian government to Introduce new Carbon emission norms, Commodityonline news [↩]
2. Electricity in India, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Failure of European Green Initiatives, Reuters news [↩]
4. Failure of European Green Initiatives, Reuters news [↩]
5. Electricity in India, Wikipedia [↩]

Gaia, the Greek supreme goddess of Earth, the inspiration of all environmentalists is the force, which moves millions of us, humans towards the green revolution, the revolution to protect the environment at the expense of Human Life and progress.
It is not very difficult to understand that environmentalism is a product of a failed hypothesis of socialism. To rule over human masses, often the wicked uses the weapon of guilt and sacrifice.
Gaia hypothesis¹ considers the Earth as a single organism, a single living body. We all species, rivers, sea, oceans, mountains, air everything on earth and atmosphere, being the part of the single living body, which is earth. It is very simple observation to be made. Yet it ignored the basic fact that only the Individual thinks, only the Individual act, and he act for his life, for his progress.
Socialism, which imagined all national as one under the rule of a welfare state with socialist planners as the ruling head, where the Individual aspirations of a human and his freedom to live and act for his own sake and development was supposed to be a sacrificial entity which must be sacrificed for the sake of common good of that single body which humanity, or a society represents.
Because of its unrealistic and irrational base of thought, socialism ended as a killer of millions. Nazism and all of its murders aside, Marxian “scientific” socialism was responsible for more than eighty million murders in the twentieth century: thirty million in the former Soviet Union, fifty million in Communist China, and untold millions more in the remote countries including India, where the virus of Naxalism and Maoism is still killing people. Environmentalism is the residual of same culture of repression, oppression and exploitation of Individual liberty and his will for his progress.
Every parent wants his children to lead a life better than what they experienced themselves. This simple natural instinct of human makes it possible for every parent to work, innovate and create wealth, pleasure, and comfort for their children. Towards the better way of life, is the motto of civilization, which lead human to innovate agriculture, housing, wheels, and the list goes on towards the latest technologies.
Everything we do to maintain our lives has an impact on nature. Every assessment we create to advance our well-being; every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone, mobile laptop we manufacture, is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from changing nature for our own benefit. It is all selfish; we lead towards progress, sustenance, good living by the virtue of selfishness.
Is it wrong? Changing environment for our own development, comforts and progress, how can it be wrong, and if it is wrong, then why do we want more and better roads, better flyovers, infrastructure, more cars and computers, new factories, industries, hospitals, health-care centres? We keep on changing the world, the environment. It is impossible to live without changing the environment for our selfish purpose.
Yet, the socialist turned environmentalists want you to be guilty, guilty of being better than other animals and species. How can one suggest that all species on earth are equal? Can one suggest the same to the Lion, and stop him from killing and eating a deer? Can we stop a horse from eating the grass? How can we suppose man to give up his aspirations to be better to make better comfortable world by changing the environment, by progressing, innovating, capitalizing on the raw material.
If it is a matter of guilt for Man that he changed the nature, the environment, than this guilt will always remain because change is the rule of nature. Every time we take a breath, we convert oxygen to carbon-di-oxide, causing the green house effect. Should we stop breathing? As a matter of truth, no philosophy or political movement based on sense of guilt, self-pity and sacrifice can be honest and workable. How can we be guilty to have a laptop, electricity in our homes, excellently architecture houses, better roads, proper communication process, mobiles, Iphones?
If we project a satellite in outer orbits of earth atmosphere, the environmentalists will call it pollution of atmosphere, a thing of guilt, can we give that up?
If we spray DDT to save ourselves from malaria, it causes pollution, but it saves us. Can we deny that, should we feel guilty of killing mosquitoes?
Environmentalist McKibben in his book “The End of Nature”² says

“Human beings — any one of us, and our species as a whole — are not all-important, not at the center of the world. One of his supporters says “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them.”

Obviously, they have less value or almost no value for the human life, his freedom and sanctity. We change bulbs to fluorescent lights, did we considered the harmful effects of mercury on human? Yet, human life is secondary and sacrificial, first is environment, as if changing all bulbs to fluorescent tubes will conserve the environment. In fact, it also changes the environment. So we must feel guilty of using electricity too.
Recently, governments are stressing more on nuclear electricity plants; in order to banish coal based thermal electric plants. Obviously, it is for preventing the global warming, which is nonexistent because since 1998, earth is cooling fast. The question is, who will manage the nuclear wastes and how? Is CO2 more dangerous or nuclear wastes?
No individual want to give up his search for better life, more comfort and happiness. Thus, it is necessary for the socialist environmentalists to use the “guilt factor” as a tool to induce a forcible sacrifice on citizens. To rule over citizen, they need power, the political power of big government, where the government politicians and officials will “think” what is better for the individuals, as the individuals are all selfish and will hurt the earth, and those government officials and politicians are the great selfless social servants which need to rule over individuals and treat them as slaves to order ban and censor their lives. For all that big fraud of making human society slaves of some ruling sectors, they need big governments, higher organized socialistic set up of state. As Ludwig Von Mises put it up

“The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.”

Yet, it is up to us to think rationally and better. What is the right way of life, forward progress or backward chaos, the return to Dark Age?
Should we look forward to search the corners of solar system outside the earth to expand our reach in order to gain better and more resources for the human individual development, or should we look back to give up all our progress and start going back renouncing human progress and loving the animalistic life?
Every poor want to earn better facility, electricity in his remote village and house, drinkable safe water, television, mobiles, Iphones, computers, fans air conditioners, everything, which the rich and urban life enjoys. To let the poor enjoy the richness of life is to let the human exploit the nature further and change the environment to extract more raw material and synthesize. We should understand that reduction of poverty is possible by only one means, by producing more. Equality of rich and poor by looting richness from the rich is not the aim, aim is to let the poor become rich and enjoy the best essence of life and keep innovating developing it, obviously by exploiting the nature.

“The difference between animals and human is that the animals change themselves for the environment, but the human change the environment for themselves”. Ayn Rand.

Update: A news worth mentioning, 93 year old man freezes to death after city limits electricity.

1. Gaia Hypothesis, Wikipedia Link [↩]
2. Environmentalist McKibben, “The End of Nature” [↩]

In December 2008, at the U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said fabricated global warming is a media generated myth without basis. The Chairman of the International Geological Congress, climatologist Dr. David Gee said,

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”¹

Ohh yes, despite all Global Warming cries, World is cooling down.
We discussed about the myths of Global Warming earlier here.
In the late 90′s there were speculations that Carbon Emission is causing Global Warming. There were enough speculations to support it
1> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it’s a proven fact.
2> Global warming is being observed since decades and atmospheric carbon concentration is also rising.
3> There is no other plausible reason for global warming.
Thus this jigsaw puzzle speculated that human are responsible² they should be guilty, sad, worried and they should now sacrifice.

Since carbon emission is causing global warming, hence coal mines should be closed, petroleum usage should be dropped, business and production should be kept at a halt. People should wither in cold, dark and hunger, but it is a sacrifice, sacrifice for a greater cause, and cause is to save the earth against global warming.
How anti-human, anti-poor governments can become to save earth? Also, governments have a dream to eliminate poverty too, how? By killing poor, and destroying away means of production?
Kyoto protocol was proposed in 1997 and Indian government jumped signing on it, why? Was it because India is first and foremost while worrying for the globe, its warming and protection? Ohh yes, India and Indians are meant to sacrifice.
Or was it because government wanted to put up a limit against the common citizen to grow by his endeavors, innovation and enterprising abilities? Kyoto protocol “assumed” that carbon emission causes global warming, hence the nations should restrict the carbon emission. Thus, government had a reason to license and control industries, business and production. Yet, it was all wrong.

1>In 2003, scientific data started showing that carbon emission has nothing to do with global warming. From 1940 to 1975, the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased.
2>In 2004, the temporal resolution of ice core data showed that in past warming events of History, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. That is, global warming had nothing to do with carbon emission rates. If carbon emission has nothing to do with global warming, are hot girls causing global warming?
In this new decade at the end of 2008, again new scientific data are out showing there is No Global Warming.
3>Earth saw its height of temperature in 1998, since then the temperature is falling, in 2007, the temperature dropped extremely and in 2008, it reached the 1980 levels.

So global temperatures are decreasing fast, while CO2 is increasing fast, how can it be true? CO2 must warm the globe, but that is not happening.
The temporal resolution data at Vostok Russia shows that Holocene period of warmth is over, and now we are entering in Ice Age. Ohh Al Gore where are you.

Obama is hell-bent to introduce carbon emission tax in America. No doubt, Indian government and other world’s government will follow the suit. They will waste millions of rupees and dollars of tax payer’s money in ‘innovating’ new ways to produce power.
So why government ignores the real fact and why government try to make the myth of ‘global warming’ a reality when the scientific data shows the globe is cooling.
Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and technology, Dr. Kunihiko says,

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”³

Is it so difficult to guess the answer?
We discussed the solution of poverty here properly, to reduce poverty; we need to increase production, production in all spheres. Yet how it will be possible if governments are hell-bent to control industries, factories and enterprises by fixing carbon emissions, taxing on it? The answer lies in the madness of egalitarians, socialists and communists. They know that by collective measures and governmental control, they cannot reduce poverty, because they are against progress, against production. Since they cannot increase the production ability of poor, they want to decrease the production ability of rich and able, and their idea is to distribute it in poor.
The same old Robin Hood the looter idea, loot rich, feed poor. I wonder why couldn’t Robin Hood started producing wealth and richness and then voluntarily spread it in poor, lazy beggars. Government is just like Robin Hood. Government cannot produce wealth, politicians cannot create employment, it cannot innovate, and it cannot feed poor for always. It cannot make them work too.
Yet, do the government cares for poor?
It is the dilemma of central politics and government controlled economy, it is counterintuitive, discriminatory on wrong grounds, anti-productive, and unjust.
All environmental laws and carbon emission taxes will restrict rich capitalists from making more money. Will it affect them? No, they are already rich. So whom will it affect? It will affect the poor, who needs job and work, who need to increase his productivity so that he may feed his wife and children well, he may save some money to make his children learn. He needs capitalists to install new industries, factories and mills and increase production.
Similarly, Minimum wages laws, whom do they help?
Minimum wages law forces people to discriminate on religion and caste and hence divides the society on irrational premises. If an employer need to employ two workers, and government has fixed the minimum wages limits. Then he has no incentive to choose that worker who gets ready to work for lesser salary and in that case, the employer has no incentive to employ a person of other caste or race or religion. Why won’t he employ the person of his own caste, race and religion?
In absence of minimum wage law though, the employer will have to choose that worker who is ready to work at lower salary irrespective of his religion, caste or race.

Similarly, laws against “child labor” benefit the relatively well off at the expense of the needy. A person from middle class or lower middle class may not like his children to work. Yet, how will a poor child survive if his parents are not able to feed him? He needs to work, may be he need to feed his ill-mother.
The world is not perfect, and the more government tries to make it perfect, the more it becomes worse. The best way for government to help poor is let them increase their productivity, and that is possible only if government keeps away from economic sector completely.

Disclaimer: I agree with the Idea that we should not pollute the environment. I don’t think there is anyone out there that wants dirty air or water. The problem I have is that we as Indians are asked to NOT to try to better our life style, we are suggested to sacrifice our right to get better water, better air, and all this on pure lies. It makes no sense that government in order to reduce carbon emission start subsidizing ethanol/oil rich crops and promote GM crops. I know their intentions may not be wrong, but their policies, are simply wrong and anti-poor, anti-progress and anti-human. It makes no sense that India slows down its industrial progress just for the sake of maintaining carbon emission rates, because some skeptic scientists believe that CO2 is causing warming, while the facts says, Globe is cooling up fast.

1. (source), www.mlive.com [↩]
2. Jigaw Puzzle,Techshout [↩]
3. (source), www.mlive.com [↩]