Japan Disaster Should Lead the U.S. Back to Coal-fired Power Plants But It Won't Because the Carbon Tax Is a Scheme Designed to Pay for World Government and Corporate Globalization

Japan Disaster Complicates Moves to Clean Energy

April 7, 2011

AP – Worldwide calls to curb nuclear power amid Japan's plant crisis could be bad news for the environment unless nations finally go all-out to tap wind, solar and other clean, renewable energy, climate change negotiators and activists say.

If countries scrap nuclear plants, which emit no greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, they may turn to the fossil fuels that experts call the main culprit behind climate change. Environmental activists counter that the tragedy may prove a defining moment, a window of opportunity to strike a decisive blow against both.

"It's a false choice to give the public an alternative between a climate change disaster or a nuclear disaster. We need renewable energy," said Tove Maria Ryding of the environmental group Greenpeace. "Now, we can either have a kick back or a leap forward."

Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate change official, said that all countries are reviewing nuclear policies in the wake of Japan's crisis.

"It remains to be seen what they decide," she said at a 173-nation conference running through Friday in Bangkok. The gathering aims to build on a climate summit held last December in Cancun, Mexico.

Figueres and others are concerned that pledges made by governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so far equal only 60 percent of what scientists say is required by 2020 to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 F) above preindustrial levels.

A swing back to fossil fuels presumably would worsen the effects of climate change, which many scientists say causes a melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, a rise in sea levels and extreme weather.

Before a tsunami ravaged Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex last month, the Paris-based International Energy Agency had estimated that nuclear plants would add 360 gigawatts of generating capacity to the global inventory by 2035.

After the accident, that projection has been cut in half, agency chief economist Fatih Birol said, citing the pressure to halt new nuclear plants and phase out older ones sooner than planned.

The gap is likely to be filled equally by renewable energy, coal and gas. The result will mean an additional 5 percent — or 500 million tons — of carbon dioxide emitted globally by 2035, Birol said in an interview.

"The doors are fast closing on the 2-degree target, and with a decrease in nuclear energy it makes it even more difficult," Birol said. "It's all bad news — cost of energy will increase, energy security and diversification decrease and carbon emission will go up."

Experts wonder whether countries really will slash nuclear power as much as their initial reactions to the Fukushima tragedy suggest, and if so, whether they will they speed toward renewables or simply burn more coal.

Ryding said she is concerned that several governments, already backtracking on earlier pledges to reduce emissions, may use Fukushima as an argument to do even less.

Birol of the IEA, which advises governments on energy policy, says some world leaders may have been "too abrupt" in moving away from nuclear energy in wake of the Japanese disaster.

"When we have all the input from Fukushima, I am sure that policy makers will take another look, especially given the big economic stakes," he says.

The scene is hardly uniform around the globe, where there are currently 507 nuclear power plants in operation or under construction and where oil, coal and gas still provide the bulk of energy in most countries.

In Japan, climate negotiators expect a greater, short-term reliance on fossil fuels to fill the nuclear power gap and are concerned the country could reduce its pledge to cut emissions by 2020 — from 25 percent down to 20 percent.

But Prime Minister Naoto Kan said alternative new energy would become "a major pillar" after the Fukushima accident.

"Taking this as a lesson, we will lead the world in clean energy such as solar and biomass, as we take a step toward resurrection," he told lawmakers last week.

China, the world's no. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases, has ambitious plans to move away from coal plants that provide 70 percent of its energy and go toward clean alternatives. It may also scale back its nuclear program in light of the Japan emergency, Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua said.

"I believe this accident will have some impact on the development of nuclear power not only in China, but also the rest of the world," he told reporters in Australia last week.

U.S. President Barack Obama has defended nuclear energy, but also strongly supports development of solar cells, clean coal and biofuel technology.

The most dramatic developments are likely to occur in Western Europe. Germany had planned to phase out nuclear power over 25 years. But the Fukushima crisis — which Chancellor Angela Merkel called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions" — has accelerated those plans.

The government almost immediately took seven of its 17 reactors offline for three months of safety checks. Most of Germany's leaders now seem determined to swiftly abolish nuclear power, possibly by 2020, and are willing to pay for intensive development of renewable energy, already a major industry in Germany.

The country currently gets 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power — about as much as the U.S. Germany's Environment Ministry says that in 10 years, renewable energy will account for 40 percent.

That kind of plan would not work for countries such as France, which relies on nuclear for 70 percent of its power and has no intention of shifting, but could provide a map for other countries, activists say.

Sven Teske, Greenpeace's renewable energy director, said Germany was able to fill its energy gap left by idled nuclear plants with wind and solar power, though it has had to import some energy from nuclear-reliant neighbors.

"Switching to renewable is a matter of years, not decades," Teske said.

The International Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body set up by the UN and winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, says a global phase-out of nuclear power plants is feasible at moderate costs and without taking away from climate change efforts.

Artur Runge-Metzger, a European Union climate change official in Bangkok, said the issue is often seen in terms of "two kinds of evils."

"On the one hand you say we can't use nuclear energy because we might have nuclear disasters, but everybody at the table is also saying if we have climate change it is also going to lead to disaster," he said. "So we have to find a way forward."

Obama Says Nuclear Power Will Be a Part of the U.S.'s Long-term Energy Plan

Mar 30, 2011

Reuters - President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed to cut U.S. oil imports by a third over 10 years, a goal that eluded his predecessors and seen as extremely ambitious by analysts skeptical it can succeed.

Obama outlined his strategy after spending days explaining the U.S.-led military action in Libya, where fighting, accompanied by unrest elsewhere in the Arab world, has helped push U.S. gasoline prices toward $4 a gallon.

In a speech that was short on details on how to curb U.S. energy demand, Obama did not pretend there were speedy measures to curb mounting fuel costs, which could threaten the country's economic recovery by weighing on American spending and confidence.

"There are no quick fixes ... We will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we finally get serious about a long-term policy for secure, affordable energy," Obama said.

As he rolled out a blueprint on energy security, Obama said the country must curb dependence on foreign oil that makes up roughly half of its daily fuel needs.

Previous presidents have made similar promises on energy imports that they failed to meet. And any new policy initiative can expect tough opposition from Republicans, who see high energy prices hurting Obama and his Democrats in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

Republicans have mocked the idea of Obama curbing oil imports a week after visiting Brazil, where he said the United states wanted to be a good customer for its oil exports.

Obama laid out four areas to help reach his target of curbing U.S. dependence on foreign oil: lifting domestic energy production, fostering the use of more natural gas in vehicles like city buses, making cars and trucks more efficient, and boosting alternative energy by encouraging biofuels.

The United States consumed almost 20 million barrels of oil a day in 2010 of which roughly half was imported.

Noting natural gas made sense after discoveries of an estimated 100-years' worth of domestic shale gas reserves, Obama urged Congress to pass legislation to encourage the use of natural gas burning vehicles.

He said his administration would help private business break ground on four next-generation biorefineries, and "look for ways to reform biofuels incentives" to save taxpayer money, without going into details.

Obama also reiterated nuclear power would be a part of the country's long-term energy plan, stressing the lessons from the nuclear disaster in Japan would be studied carefully, while making just passing reference to climate change.

Obama's election campaign goal of passing measures to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has made little headway on Capitol Hill, to the dismay of environmental activists who complain it has slipped way down his list of priorities.

HARD SELL

Analysts and experts said Obama's goal is ambitious and that truly reforming U.S. energy use would involve sweeping changes, including possible fuel taxes to encourage Americans to change their habits, which could be politically toxic.

"I'm very skeptical it will have any impact," said Edward Meir, chief analyst at MF Global in New York. "Presidents have been saying this since the days of Richard Nixon."

Polls show Americans have mixed feelings about involvement in Libya, a third Muslim country with the United States still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are clearly worried by high gas prices before the summer driving season.

The latest measures of consumer confidence have been dented by rising energy prices, which sap household spending and could derail the U.S. recovery if prices stay high enough for a long time, hurting Obama's re-election prospects.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday showed that 48 percent of American voters disapprove of Obama's job performance, and 50 percent think he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012, compared with 42 percent who approve and 41 percent who feel he does deserve to be re-elected.

Those were his lowest ratings ever, Quinnipiac said.

Some analysts reckon Obama may tap America's emergency oil stockpiles if U.S. oil prices hit $110 a barrel. Prices ranged between $104.13 and $104.81 a barrel in Wednesday's trade.

Obama singled out Canada and Mexico, the United States' two largest suppliers, as reliable sources of oil and also cited Brazil as a promising future energy partner.

The U.S. Interior Department estimates millions of acres (hectares) of U.S. energy leases are not being exploited by oil companies and the White House wants that to change.

This argument also helps the administration push back against Obama's Republican opponents, who claim he is tying the hands of the U.S. energy industry by denying leases and restricting offshore drilling in the wake of the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The American Petroleum Institute, a major oil and gas trade group, said the president's message was "just absurd".

"What we hear ... are actually disincentives. What he's talking about is more regulation, shorter lease terms and higher costs," API head Jack Gerard told Reuters.

Obama’s 9/11: A Global Carbon Tax War on You

October 17, 2008

Infowars.com - “The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. In other words, an Obama administration would impose draconian carbon emission regulations on the American people and “help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming,” according to Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2, that is to say they will work on a global carbon taxation structure.

A global carbon tax is not so much about limiting CO2 as it is a scheme designed to pay for world government and corporate globalization.

“The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and ‘carbon footprints’ from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body,” writes Patrick Briley.

Obama has worked closely on this global taxation and world government scam under the cover of environmentalism with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Al Gore, and former communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, an advocate of the so-called Earth Charter and the author of Manifesto for Earth. Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. Rockefeller and fellow globalist Maurice Strong of Canada were instrumental in the creation of the Earth Charter. As noted above, the Sierra Club will play a decisive role in Obama’s administration. The organization takes money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is closely aligned with the United Nations Environmental Program. Strong was UNEP’s first executive director.

It is a well documented fact the environmental movement receives huge disbursements from chartered institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Turner Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Alfred W. Mellon Foundation, and others, including Bill and Melinda Gates, the Heinz family and the Carnegie Corporation. It is no mistake foundation funded environmental groups are now calling for a global carbon tax structure and an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide, as this serves the plan of their masters well.

An Obama administration will kick this scheme into warp drive and hasten the implementation of a world government of the sort members of the global elite have worked toward for many years. A phony environmental crisis, with carbon emissions playing the role as chief villain, is a perfect storm for the global elite.

“We are on the verge of a global transformation,” David Rockefeller once quipped. “All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”