Global Warming: The New Word for Mandates and Population Control

Robert L. Hale

Right Side News
October 5, 2009

It is exceptionally difficult to deny people what they want and enjoy unless force and threats are used to scare them into cooperation and compliance.

featured stories   Global Warming: The New Word for Mandates and Population Control
enviro
If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates.

The President’s chief advisor, Rahm Emanuel, has said, “It’s a shame to waste a good crisis” — certainly this is sound advice. People are willing to give up freedoms and self-determination in times of crisis. In the absence of a crisis, those who wish to force an ideology on a population must create one. Otherwise, it is exceedingly difficult in a free society to convince the population to do what otherwise makes little sense.

We have heard so much about the dangers of global warming over the last few years that the average person believes it threatens the survival of mankind.

It makes little difference that there is considerable disagreement over whether global warming even exists. If indeed global warming exists, it is even less certain whether it is a normal phenomena or caused by man, or whether it is good or bad thing.

Nevertheless, we have been told repeatedly that certain disaster looms unless we stop global warming. The claims range from global flooding in a few short years to food and resource shortages that will mandate the imposition of worldwide Marshall Law. Al Gore recently said that if we do not act in the next several years, it will be too late.

Despite the rhetoric that bombards us, the possibility of positive impacts of a warmer world is simply not discussed. Instead we are told we must take immediate steps — even draconian ones — or life as mankind has known it will come to an irreversible end.

Bureaucrats aggressively push the imposition of policies to curb “greenhouse gases” (GHG). These emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The feared “carbon footprint” is a measure of GHG emissions. All we hear is how we must reduce the carbon footprint. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that will impose “cap and trade” rules on emitters of carbon. The biggest emitters are power plants. This bill, if implemented, will result in an increase in the average household utility bill, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, of $1,761 per year — equal to a 15-percent income-tax hike. If enacted, according to a Heritage Foundation study, it would eliminate over 3 million jobs between 2012 and 2035.

The crisis promoters point to an Oregon State University study (Oregon was the first political jurisdiction in the world to legalize assisted suicide). Professor Paul Murtaugh tells us, “Up to this point, little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice.” Murtaugh says each child born in the U.S. contributes 9,411 metric tons of carbon dioxide. He claims this is about 5.7 times the amount an average person should contribute.

Where is all this going? Maybe we should look to the United Kingdom. In March, a study produced at the behest of Prime Minister Brown warned that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a “sustainable society.” Sustainable is defined as, “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The British study suggests it must reduce its population to 30 million if it wants to feed itself sustainably. The current population stands at 60 million. Jonathon Porritt, spokesmen for the study said, “Cutting our population is one way to reduce (environmental) impacts (on developing countries).”

If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates. In the dead of night, the U.S. House passed a bill that will, in effect, be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Could power rationing or mandatory population controls be far behind?

Advertisements

Global Warming Or Global Freezing?

Global Warming Or Global Freezing?
Is The Ice Really Melting?

By F. William Engdahl
Author of Full Spectrum Dominance:
Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
9-25-9
Scare stories about melting Arctic ice make dramatic
headlines but the scientific truth is different
President Obama just made a melodramatic appeal at the United Nations for global measures to dramatically curb what he called “the climate threat,” current euphemism for what is more popularly known as Global Warming, the theory that man-made CO2 emissions from cars, coal plants and other man-made sources are causing the earth to warm to the point the polar icecaps are irreversibly melting and threatening to flood a quarter or more of the earth’s surface. There’s only one thing wrong with Mr. Obama’s dramatic scenario: it is scientifically utterly wrong. Since 2007 the polar icecaps have been growing not melting and the earth has been cooling, not warming.
If the fear of death from a fictitious Swine Flu were not enough, the scare stories on world media such as BBC or CNN, showing melting icebergs are dramatic enough to cause one sleepless nights. The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon even made a recent appeal while standing on an Arctic ice-flow, claiming that man-made CO2 emissions were causing “100 billion tons” of polar ice to melt each year, so that in 30 years the Arctic would be “ice-free”. One organization, the WWF, claimed that the Arctic ice was melting so fast that in eighty years sea-levels would rise by 1.2 meters, creating “floods affecting a quarter of the world.” Wow! That’s scary. Goodbye Hamburg, New York, Amsterdam…
The publicity stunt of Ban Ki-Moon was carefully orchestrated. It was not said that his ship could only come within 700 miles of the North Pole owing to frozen ice. Nor that he made his stunt in the summer when Arctic ice always melts before refreezing beginning September.
The reality about Arctic ice is quite different. Although some 10 million square kilometres of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this same time last year ­ which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see Cryosphere Today of the University of Illinois, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ ).
By next April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km or likely more. As British science writer Christopher Booker remarks, “even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass.”
Sunbeams from cucumbers?
The current global warming propaganda scare is being hyped by politicians and special interests such as Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial firms that stand to reap billions trading new carbon credit financial futures. They are making an all-out effort to scare the world into a deal at the December Copenhagen Global Warming summit, the successor to the Kyoto agreement on CO2 emission reduction. It’s been estimated that the Global Warming bill supported by Barack Obama and his Wall Street patrons, passed by the House of Representatives but not by the more conservative US Senate, would cost US taxpayers some $10 trillion.
In the UK, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown is fully on the global warming bandwagon, the BBC, the Royal Society are proposing wild schemes for “climate engineering,” including putting up mirrors in space to keep out the sun’s rays, or lining the highways with artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the air, to be taken away and buried in holes in the ground. Perhaps it would provide make-work for a few thousand Britons unemployed by the ravages of the recent financial collapse, but it would do nothing else than waste taxpayer money already stretched to the limits in bank bailouts. The entire farce has been compared to satirist Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver who meets a fictional character trying to extract sunbeams from cucumbers.
A major new study published in the respected Journal of Geophysical Research of the American Geophysical Union, Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, by scientists J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas of the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland in New Zealand and R.M. Carter (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml), confirms that over the past fifty years, since 1950, fully 81% of tropical climate change can be linked to the Pacific weather phenomenon known as El Nino. And the remaining 19% they linked to increased solar radiation. No man made emissions played a role.
Solar flares and not man-made CO2 emissions are
the major factor influencing world climate
El Ninos, termed by scientists El Nino Southern Oscillations or ENSOs, are believed by climatologists and astrophysicists to be related to eruptions in solar activity which occur periodically.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of Canada’s Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, says ENSO is the “strongest source of natural variability in the global climate system. During the severe ENSO event 1982/1983, when the sea surface off Peru warmed by more than 7° C, it was discovered that there are strong links to weather in other regions as, for instance, floods in California and intensified drought in Africa.”
Landscheidt adds, “El Niño and La Niña are subjected to external forcing by the sun’s varying activity to such a degree that it explains nearly all of ENSO’s irregularities and makes long-range forecasts beyond the 1-year limit possible. This is no mere theory. My forecasts of the last two El Niños turned out correct and that of the last one was made more than two years ahead of the event” (Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña, in http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm.). Even James Hansen, one of the outspoken protagonists of the Global Warming idea admits, “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change…The natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred from comparisons with general circulation models alone.”
El Ninos are linked to floods, droughts and other weather disturbances in many regions of the world. In the Atlantic Ocean, effects lag behind those in the Pacific by 12 to 18 months. They tend to occur every three to eight years. La Ninas are the associated cooling phase of the Pacific Ocean cycles.
According to the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration, in North America, El Niño creates warmer-than-average winters in the upper Midwest states and the Northeast. California and the southwestern US become significantly wetter, while the northern Gulf of Mexico states and northeast Mexico are wetter and cooler than average during the El Niño phase of the oscillation. In Asia and parts of Australia El Nino causes drier conditions, increasing bush fires.
This sounds remarkably like what the Global Warming scare chorus claims is the result of manmade CI2 emissions or as they now slyly term it, “climate change.”
Warmer 1000 years ago?
In Sweden a new study (in published by Haakan Grudd of the University of Stockholm’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology confirms that the Arctic today is not warmer than in previous historical periods centuries ago before coal power plants or automobiles. Grudd’s study concludes that “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around a.d. 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on a.d. 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data.” (H. Grudd, Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500­2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers, Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8 / December, 2008, in http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/
?p=fcd6adbe04ff4cc29b7131b5184282eb&pi=0.) Put simply, the earth was warmer one thousand years ago than today. And there were no records of SUVs or coal plants belching CO2 into the atmosphere back then.
The only problem with these serious scientific studies is that mainstream media entirely ignores them, preferring dramatic scare story scenarios such as Barack Obama presented in his UN speech or the UN’s Ban Ki-Moon in his staged Arctic ice drama.
Strangely enough, none of the Global Warming proponents that I am aware of have tried to correlate ENSO activity with global temperature changes. Should we instead be proposing to outlaw El Ninos or forbid solar eruptions? It makes as much scientific sense as banning or capping CO2 emissions. Global Warming as a new religion is one thing, but we should be clear that the high priests are the same Gods of Money who brought us Peak Oil religion a few years ago and the current trillion dollar financial meltdown known as asset securitization. The reality is that Global Warming like Peak Oil and other scares are but another attempt by powerful vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice that they remain in control of the events of this planet. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to misuse climate to argue for a new Malthusian reduction of living standards for the majority of the world while a tiny elite gains more power.

Endless oil

Russian research has shown that the Earth doesn’t need dinosaurs to produce oil

By Lawrence Solomon

Do dead dinosaurs fuel our cars? The assumption that they do, along with other dead matter thought to have formed what are known as fossil fuels, has been an article of faith for centuries. Our geologists are taught fossil fuel theory in our schools; our energy companies search for fossil fuels by divining where the dinosaurs lay down and died. Sooner or later, we will run out of liquefied dinosaurs and be forced to turn to either nuclear or renewable fuels, virtually everyone believes.

Except in Russia and Ukraine. What is to us a matter of scientific certainty is by no means accepted there. Many Russians and Ukrainians — no slouches in the hard sciences — have since the 1950s held that oil does not come exclusively, or even partly, from dinosaurs but is formed below the Earth’s 25-mile deep crust. This theory — first espoused in 1877 by Dmitri Mendeleev, who also developed the periodic table — was rejected by geologists of the day because he postulated that the Earth’s crust had deep faults, an idea then considered absurd. Mendeleev wouldn’t be vindicated by his countrymen until after the Second World War when the then-Soviet Union, shut out of the Middle East and with scant petroleum reserves of its own, embarked on a crash program to develop a petroleum industry that would allow it to fend off the military and economic challenges posed by the West.

Today, Russians laugh at our peak oil theories as they explore, and find, the bounty in the bowels of the Earth. Russia’s reserves have been climbing steadily — according to BP’s annual survey, they stood at 45 billion barrels in 2001, 69 billion barrels in 2004, and 80 billion barrels of late, making Russia an oil superpower that this year produced more oil than Saudi Arabia. Some oil auditing firms estimate Russia’s reserves at up to 200 billion barrels. Despite Russia’s success in exploration, most of those in the west who have known about the Russian-Ukrainian theories have dismissed them as beyond the Pale. This week, the Russian Pale can be found awfully close to home.

In a study published in Nature Geoscience, researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden and the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington joined colleagues at the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology in publishing evidence that hydrocarbons can be produced 40 to 95 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. At these depths — in what’s known as Earth’s Upper Mantle — high temperatures and intense pressures combine to generate hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons then migrate toward the surface of the Earth through fissures in the Earth’s crust, sometimes feeding existing pools of oil, sometimes creating entirely new ones. According to Sweden’s Royal Institute, “fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.”

The Institute’s lead author, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology, is even more brash at the implications of his findings: “With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!” he delights. Kutcherov’s technique involves dividing the world into a fine-meshed grid that maps cracks (or migration channels) under the Earth’s crust, through which the hydrocarbons can bubble up to the surface. His advice: Drill where the cracks meet. Doing this, he predicts, will dramatically reduce the likelihood of dry wells. Kutcherov expects the success rate of drillers to more than triple, from 20% to 70%, saving billions in exploration costs while opening up vast new areas of the planet — most of which has never been deemed to have promise — to exploration.

The Nature study follows Kutcherov’s previous work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that created hydrocarbons out of water, calcium carbonate and iron — products in the Earth’s mantle. By superheating his ingredients in a pressure chamber at 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions in the Earth’s mantle, Kutcherov’s alchemy converted 1.5% of his concoction into hydrocarbons — gases such as methane as well as components of heavier oils. The implication of this research, which suggests that hydrocarbons are continuously generated through natural processes? Petroleum is a sustainable resource that will last as long as Planet Earth.

Financial Post
lawrencesolomon@nextcity.com

Even Top Climate Change Negotiator Admits Cap And Tax “Out Of Control”

Former climate change negotiator for Bill Clinton and Democratic Senator Timothy Wirth admits that the cap and trade proposal is “out of control,” and makes no sense whatsoever.

Such a scornful rebuke from somebody who would normally be expected to vehemently support climate change legislation goes to show just how nightmarish the plans really are.

Read the full article here

P.S……

Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, the economists who invented the entire cap-and-trade concept say it probably won’t work in regards to climate change.

Whatever you think about global warming, carbon trading is a scam which will only create a new profit-making machine and speculative bubble for Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the rest of the boys who caused the financial crisis.

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism

Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism
by Dr. David Evans
Global Research, July 23, 2009
// //

Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the [Australian] Climate Change Minister Penny Wong why human emissions can be blamed for global warming, given that air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998. I was one of the four independent scientists Fielding chose to accompany him to visit the Minister.

The Minister’s advisor essentially told us that short term trends in air temperatures are irrelevant, and to instead focus on the rapidly rising ocean heat content:

Figure 1: Wong’s graph.

This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.

(Land thermometers cannot be trusted because, even in the USA, 89 per cent of them fail siting guidelines that they be more than 30 meters from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source, and their data is forever being “corrected”.)

Ocean temperatures were not properly measured until mid-2003, when the Argo network became operational.

Before Argo, ocean temperatures were measured with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes fired into the water by a gun from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes. Geographical coverage of the world’s oceans was poor, XBTs do not go as deep as Argo, and their data is much less accurate.

The Argo network consists of over 3,000 small, drifting oceanic robot probes, floating around all of the world’s oceans. Argo floats duck dive down to 1,000 meters or more, record temperatures, then come up and radio back the results.

Figure 2: The Argo network has floats measuring temperature in all of the oceans.

Figure 3: An Argo float descends to cruising depth, drifts for a few days, ascends while recording temperatures, then transmits data to satellites.

The Argo data shows that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004, and possibly as far back as mid-2003 when the Argo network started:

Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)

Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008: “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant”.

The ocean data that the alarmists are relying on to establish their warming trends is all pre-Argo, from XBTs. Now that we are measuring ocean temperatures properly, the warming trend has disappeared. And by coincidence, it disappeared just when we started measuring it properly!
Notice how the Minister’s graph above shows rising ocean heat content for 2004 through 2006, but the Argo data shows a cooling trend? There is a problem here.

The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don’t you think this is extraordinary?

If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don’t you suppose it would be publicised endlessly?

So what’s going on? Our best data, from satellites and Argo, says that both the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years now. In the short term, some cooling force is overpowering the warming due to human emissions.

Let’s look at the long-term trend. The medieval warm period around AD 1000 – 1300 was a little warmer than now: crops grew in Greenland, and there were many signs around the world of extra warmth during that period. That gave way to the bitter cold of the little ice age from 1400 to 1800: animals in Europe died from cold even inside barns, and the River Thames in London would freeze over every winter (it last froze over in 1804).

Global air temperatures have been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as the world recovers from the little ice age:

Figure 5: Reasonable global air temperature data only goes back to 1880. This analysis into a steady rising trend and oscillations is simply an empirical observation, by Dr Syun Akasofu. The IPCC predictions are their widely publicised 2001 predictions.

On top of that trend are oscillations that last about 30 years in each direction:

1882 – 1910 Cooling
1910 – 1944 Warming
1944 – 1975 Cooling
1975 – 2001 Warming

In 2009 we are where the green arrow points in Figure 5, with temperature levelling off and beginning to fall slightly. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of cooling until about 2030.

The long-term trend suggests that the last warming period (1975-2001) was like the previous one (1910-1944), and that once the effects of the little ice age have finally passed, the temperature will get back to where it was in the medieval warm period (which is also where it was during the Roman Optimum, and in the Holocene optimum before that).

What about human influence? Human emissions of CO2 were virtually non-existent before 1850, and were insignificant compared to current levels until after 1945.

It is worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming—it’s only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback for which there is only counter-evidence.

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

Global Research Articles by David Evans

Another nail in the coffin

The cap and trade bill will be another nail in the coffin of independent free humanity. If USA goes down, which is certainly the agenda, there will be nothing to stop the world’s decent into a global totalitarian dictatorship. This next article portends the death of the already dead housing market. Just another star in the constellation of tyranny.

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Matt Cover
original article here


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.

It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.

States may contract with private agencies to oversee the retrofitting and measuring of improved efficiency and environmental friendliness of houses and other buildings, making sure that private citizens have a variety of choices for retrofitting their homes.

“States and local government entities may administer a REEP program in a manner that authorizes public or regulated investor-owned utilities, building auditors and inspectors, contractors, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, and other entities to perform audits and retrofit services,” reads the bill.

It further says, “A State or local administrator of a REEP program shall seek to ensure that sufficient qualified entities are available to support retrofit activities so that building owners have a competitive choice among qualified auditors, raters, contractors, and providers of services related to retrofits.”

In fact, individual homeowners are even allowed to retrofit buildings themselves. The bill gives specific protection to individual owners’ rights to choose who inspects and retrofits their property.

“Nothing in this section is intended to deny the right of a building owner to choose the specific providers of retrofit services to engage for a retrofit project in that owner’s building.”

Even though Congress says the states are responsible for carrying out the retrofits, the EPA and the Department of Energy will establish the guidelines and rules for doing so.

“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish goals, guidelines, practices, and standards for accomplishing the purpose stated in subsection (c) [the retrofits],” the bill says.

The program would involve a system of certified auditors, inspectors, and raters who inspect homes and businesses using devices such as infrared cameras (which measure how much heat a building is giving off) to measure their energy efficiency.

The results of these energy audits would then be used to determine what retrofits need to be performed. The audits would examine things like water usage, infrared photography, and pressurized testing to determine the efficiency of door and window seals, and indoor air quality.

Those retrofits would be performed by licensed retrofit contractors using government-approved methods and resources including roofing materials that reflect solar energy.

“[B]uilding retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air-conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance,” the legislation states.

After the retrofitting is complete, the government – state, local, or federal – will come back and re-inspect the house to determine how much energy has been saved and whether the retrofit is up to federal government standards.

“Determination of energy savings in a performance-based building retrofit program through — (A) for residential buildings, comparison of before and after retrofit scores,” the proposal states.

To help pay for the cost of these retrofits, states and localities may provide loans, utility rate rebates, tax rebates, or implement retrofit programs on their own. In fact, the government will even pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a retrofit through financial awards to individual home and building owners.

Ron Paul trashes the cap and trade bill