The U.S. government has determined that poor/minority women are the biggest victims of global warming because they have lower incomes, less access to credit and decision-making authority and limited control over resources.
This increases their “vulnerability to many climate impacts,” according to a State Department assessment posted on a web site dedicated to releasing all sorts of interesting government documents. In this case the information is outlined in a Gender and Climate Change Fact Sheet complied by USAID, the government agency that provides economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide.
The fact sheet mostly focuses on women in developing countries such as Africa, Bangladesh, Mexico, Peru and Ecuador. “Development experts,” presumably working for the U.S. government agency found, for instance, that in Africa men have greater access to radios. This puts women at a disadvantage because they’re more likely to hear forecasts and early warnings when delivered through extension workers. This is deep stuff.
Here is another example of how global warming hurts poor women more than any other demographic; in many societies women have the primary responsibility for collecting water and firewood and climate change exacerbates resource scarcity, forcing women and girls to travel farther to collect the supplies. This increases threats to their safety and negatively impacts other areas such as farming productivity and child care.
Uncle Sam’s gender disparity assessment also found this; because women are already vulnerable to “under nutrition” and have less access to medical services, they will suffer more because “changing temperatures alter vectors for diseases like malaria, higher sea-surface temperatures are correlated with cholera epidemics and more frequent droughts and floods will worsen sanitation and hygiene.”
Among the recommendations to help remedy this crisis is to “involve women in vulnerability assessments” and “incorporate gender considerations into national climate change strategies and regulations.” The government fact sheet doesn’t elaborate on what exactly this means or, more importantly, how much this will cost U.S. taxpayers.
This is simply the latest of many government alerts on the ills of global warming since Barack Obama became president. In the last few years the administration has released alarming reports saying that global warming could lead to a worldwide increase in mental illness, cancer and even sexual dysfunction and that it will make food “dangerous.” This, of course, will add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide.
Just a few months ago the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation revealed that global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade. Under this theory, the crisis is way more severe than what it appears because the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in climate change when there really isn’t.
The ousted Obama “Green Czar” who describes himself as a “rowdy black nationalist” turned communist has found a job as the official spokesperson and leader of the national movement to end economic segregation and social injustice in the United States.
Widely known as Occupy Wall Street, the movement has gained momentum with mass, often violent protests that have paralyzed cities across the nation. In New York more than 150 people were arrested and several police officers suffered injuries. In Oakland California police were forced to use riot gear and tear gas to disperse the huge, violent crowds and in Las Vegas nearly two dozen protesters were arrested.
Among the movement’s goals is to get major banks to stop preying on the poor and people of color, according to the organizer of a Massachusetts rally promoted as Take Back Boston. Protesters also demand that politicians stop giving tax breaks to the rich while slashing vital services families depend on. In short, they want to “rebuild” the American dream to make it more inclusive.
Leading the campaign is President Obama’s good friend, civil rights lawyer Van Jones, the highly-touted “Green Czar” who was booted amid controversy over his radical history. A Yale Law School grad, Jones became a communist after the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and says he loathes capitalism because it exploits nonwhite minorities worldwide. Jones is a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist who became a revolutionary after meeting “young radical people of color” in jail and views police officers as the arch enemies of black people.
Jones’s proudest moments include publicly supporting convicted cop killer Mumia abu-Jamal, signing a petition suggesting the U.S. government had a hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks, accusing “white polluters” of “environmental racism” for steering poison into poor black communities and referring to Republicans in vulgar terms unbecoming of a presidential advisor.
How appropriate that he’s the self-appointed Occupy Wall Street principal and founder of a new community group (Rebuild the Dream) that’s capitalizing on the protests with its special brand, the “American Dream Movement.” The group’s website describes it as an unstoppable coalition of progressive organized workers, students, civil rights fighters, women’s rights champions, immigrant rights defenders and community activists, among others.
“We are rallying Americans to stand up for our founding values, and make America, once again, a land where it is safe for everyday people to dream,” according to the group’s mission statement. “By standing up for dignity, equal opportunity and fair play, we are reclaiming what is best in our nations’ moral fabric, and creating a country truly grounded in liberty and justice for all.”
Jones is booking every media interview he can get to promote his new group, which is closely affiliated with other leftist nonprofits like Common Cause, Hip Hop Caucus, Move On and Code Pink as well as the influential Service Employees International Union (SEIU). During a segment on a major cable news show this week, he assured that his movement would dwarf the 2010 “earthquake” created by the Tea Party’s appearance on the political scene.
“You haven’t seen anything yet,” Jones confidently said on national television, further warning: “Wait until the 99 percent movement moves over into politics.” The protests will evolve from anger to answers, from pointing out the problem to pointing out the solution, Jones explained. The movement is also in the process of recruiting 2,000 candidates to run for office under the 99 percent banner, he said.
In the U.S. government’s global warming project du jour, American taxpayers will finance a new research program to determine which populations will be more “susceptible” and “vulnerable” to diseases exacerbated by climate change.One can only imagine what the brilliant scientists at the famously liberal academic institutions responsible for the research will come up with. In fact, the studies have yet to be done and already the Obama Administration is predicting the results; people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those living in urban areas may be at elevated risk.To be fair, children, pregnant women and the elderly are also predicted to be at risk in the government’sannouncement of the new program this month. To get to the bottom of the mystery, experts will research the risk factors that make people more vulnerable to heart exposure, changing weather patterns, changes in environmental exposures such as air pollution and toxic chemicals. The negative effects of climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts will also be studied.This explanation is straight from the National Institutes’ of Health, the country’s publicly-funded medical research agency and a leader in all things global warming. Besides identifying those most vulnerable to ailments caused by climate change, the new initiative will help better understand the direct and indirect human health risks in the United States and globally. The findings will help policy makers in creating health interventions to prevent harm to the most “vulnerable people,” says the NIH official in charge.This particular program is part of a broader NIH effort to fully understand the health impacts of climate change through the “interdisciplinary” and “inter-institutional collaboration” of experts from many research disciplines. Among them are environmental health scientists as well as climatology, modeling risk assessment, public health, communications and education experts.Let’s look at a few examples of what U.S. tax dollars are funding as part of this initiative; the impact of current and projected climate variables on the incidence of gastrointestinal disease in Ecuador. The results will help determine the importance of social factors and infrastructure availability in preventing gastrointestinal disease globally, according to the NIH.Here is another good one; a study to quantify the effects of biological, environmental and socioeconomic factors that make people more vulnerable to extreme heat. There is also a project to develop models to identify vulnerable geographical locations with increased health impacts due to heat waves and air pollution exposures.The Obama Administration has been quite active in its campaign to enlighten Americans about the ills of global warming. Earlier this year a group of esteemed scientists from several public universities warned that climate change will make food “dangerous” and add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide.Before that separate government evaluations revealed that global warming causes mental illness and cancerand that it creates national security threats by spreading disease among people and animals. Authored by government scientists from various agencies, the mental illness/cancer report claims global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century” The separate national security assessment, made by intelligence and health officials, says climate change will destabilize developing nations as well as the U.S. economy and military.
Most Americans may not know that the government agency responsible for providing national security data to the nation’s senior policymakers, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), operates a special center dedicated to global warming.That’s because the CIA doesn’t want anyone to know what goes on in its two-year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security. So the exclusive unit, led by “senior specialists,” operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests, despite President Obama’s promise to run a transparent government.When the center was launched in 2009, the CIA said it would not address the science of climate change but rather the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts and heightened competition for natural resources. The new division was touted as an important tool that would bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic; the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic and social stability overseas.Reasonably, some U.S. taxpayers want to know what exactly the center has been doing with their money. After all, Obama has repeatedly assured the country that he will run the most transparent administration in history. So why not reveal some of the CIA’s findings on the impacts of global warming? After all, the administration has dedicated huge amounts of money to combat the ills of global warming so why not make public some of the “intelligence” that could justify the investment?Because everything the CIA’s climate center does is a national security secret, according to a report published this month by a group of scientists dedicated to exposing government secrecy. The group cites a categorical denial by the CIA to a benign Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a copy of any study or report concerning the impacts of global warming. The request was made by an intelligence historian affiliated with the National Security Archive.If he was blown off, the average American would most certainly get the shaft from the CIA for its “classified” global warming records. The group that exposed this story points out that the CIA’s response indicates a fundamental lack of discernment that calls into question the integrity of the Center on Climate Change, if not the agency as a whole. It further asks; if the CIA really thinks that every document produced by the center constitutes a potential threat to national security, who can expect the center to say anything intelligent or useful about climate change?Interestingly, when the CIA global warming center opened the agency said it would coordinate with intelligence community partners on the review and declassification of imagery and other data that could be of use to scientists in their own climate-related research.
Global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade, according to the latest U.S. government finding.According to this logic, made public this week by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the crisis is way more severe than what it appears. That’s because the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in global warming when there really isn’t. When this ocean-stored heat will show its evil face will probably be the subject of the next government-funded study.In the meantime, let’s check out how the nation’s brilliant, taxpayer-funded scientists made this important discovery about climate change; they used computer simulations! (The NSF refers to it as a “powerful software tool.”) That’s how they found the “missing heat” stored in ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet, which in turn, masks global warming for years at a time. In other words, they claim that earth’s deep oceans may absorb enough heat to “flatten the rate of global warming.””The research shows that the natural variability of the climate system can produce periods of a decade or more in which Earth’s temperature does not rise, despite an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations,” according to the NSF’s director of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences. He says the scientists make a “compelling case” that the excess energy entering the climate system due to greenhouse gas increases may not be immediately realized.Previous government reports have made similarly wacky assertions about the ills of global warming, even as esteemed scientists—including Nobel laureates—dispute the findings. Among them: That climate change will threaten national security, make food “dangerous,” add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide, cause mental illness and cancer.How exactly? The nation’s security will be threatened by the spread of disease among people and animals. Heat, humidity and rainfall caused by climate change will allow mosquitoes, ticks and other parasites and carriers of tropical and subtropical disease to spread to areas where they didn’t previously exist. The outbreaks can destabilize foreign countries and developing nations as well as the U.S. economy not to mention the military.Food will be scarce and dangerous because global warming will provoke increased levels of food contamination from chemicals and “fungal pathogens” as well as diseases like cholera and shellfish poisoning. Prices will increase and civil unrest will ensue. “Higher ambient temperatures” caused by global warming will increase cancer rates and catastrophic natural disasters as the world warms will create stress and anxiety that lead to mental illness, according to scientists from several agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science.
In its latest effort to save the planet from global warming, the U.S. government is on the verge of regulating ice makers commonly found in many refrigerators because they increase energy consumption by a good 12 to 20%.This could be detrimental to the environment since there are more than 100 million refrigerators across the nation and they devour a substantial chunk of the electricity used by all households. Energy consumed by refrigerators as a whole has long been documented but not what the ice makers inside their freezers use individually.Americans can finally sleep soundly through the night because government scientists have completed the ice maker study and the findings have been beautifully laid out in a 79-page report titled Energy Consumption of Automatic Ice Makers Installed in Domestic Refrigerators. The information is being used to make a case for regulating the popular little machines that are contributing to the planet’s destruction.In a nutshell, the culprit is the tiny motor inside the freezing system that’s used to release ice from the mold and into a tray. Because the motor is specially built to function in a cold setting, it requires an internal heater to keep it from freezing up. Here’s where it gets serious; heating elements require a lot of power and that’s where the extra energy consumption kicks in.The study was conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal agency with a billion-dollar annual budget that claims to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and quality of life. That description is straight out of the agency’swebsite for those who care to sort through it.The bottom line is that the NIST’s research is often used by regulatory agencies as ammo to control private enterprise. In this case the Department of Energy, which incidentally financed the ice maker investigation, will set new standards for refrigerators that come equipped with the devices. The DOE will add 84 kilowatt hours to the efficiency rating of every fridge that comes with an ice maker. That means consumers will pay more money.The Obama Administration has been quite active in its campaign to enlighten Americans about the ills of global warming. A few months ago a group of esteemed scientists from several public universities warned that climate change will make food “dangerous” and add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide.Before that separate government evaluations revealed that global warming causes mental illness and cancer and that it creates national security threats by spreading disease among people and animals. Authored by government scientists from various agencies, the mental illness/cancer report claims global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century” The separate national security assessment, made by intelligence and health officials, says climate change will destabilize developing nations as well as the U.S. economy and military.
All federal agencies and private companies that deal with the U.S. government must identify their vulnerabilities to the impacts of global warming and develop a climate change adaptation plan, as per an executive order quietly signed by President Obama.The order was actually penned in the fall of 2009 but the president’s Climate Change Adaptation Task Force had to properly investigate the matter and come up with recommendations. Now that the task force has developed a detailed plan on climate proofing the government, yet another Obama advisory committee, the Council on Environmental Quality, has issued instructions on implementation.Under the plan, every government agency must integrate climate change adaptationinto their planning, operations, policies and programs. That means they must appoint a “climate change adaptation specialist,” participate in climate adaptation workshops and educate every employee throughout the year. All agencies must identify and analyze “climate vulnerabilities” by spring of 2012 and execute an adaptation plan by the fall of 2012.The training will also be required at all private businesses that contract with the government, including those that provide any sort of maintenance or logistics. In all, tens of thousands of public employees will be required to participate in Obama’s “green” plan, which will also require federal agencies to create greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste and support sustainable communities. No word on what all this will costs U.S.taxpayers.The president asserts that setting these sorts of “sustainability goals” for federal agencies demonstrates his commitment to lead by example. It will ultimately have a huge impact on the nation as a whole. After all, Obama points out, the federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. Americans are sure to follow its lead, according to the commander-in-chief.
With a national debt that tops $14 trillion and a colossal budget deficit, the U.S.government is dishing out $60 million to study the effects of climate change on crops and forests.The multi million-dollar studies will focus on the impact that global warming will have in three key areas that government officials claim could lead to food shortages; southern pine forests, wheat in the northwest and Midwestern corn. Because climatologists predict global warming will transform cool, wet areas into dry and hot ones there needs to be a variety of crops that can adapt to the changes, according to the federal official who’s handing out the cash for the projects.Otherwise, he assures that there will be shortages in certain kinds of foods. To avoid that potential crisis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is giving three public universities—in Florida, Iowa and Idaho—$20 million each to help ensure that farmers and foresters can keep producing food and timber by minimizing the toll of a changing environment. The USDA is calling it a “major scientific investment in studying the effects of climate change on agriculture and forest production.”A professor of tree physiology at the University of Florida will head the forestry study, which will focus on southern pine and establish a network to monitor the effects of climate on “forest carbon sequestration.” A sociologist at Iowa State University will lead the corn project which will evaluate the impacts of various crop management practices under different “climate models” and an entomologist at the University of Idaho will monitor how wheat grows amid changes in soil carbon and nitrogen levels.Just last month a group of esteemed scientists from several public universities warned that climate change will make food “dangerous” and consequently lead to the malnourishment of millions worldwide. That’s because global warming will provoke increased levels of food contamination from chemicals and “fungal pathogens” as well as diseases like cholera and shellfish poisoning. Some foods will become scarce, prices will increase and civil unrest will ensue, according to the scientists who presented their case at a Washington D.C. gathering.Previous government evaluations on the ills of global warming have determined that it will cause mental illness and cancer as well as national security threats by spreading disease among people and animals. Check out the government’smental/illness cancer report and read about the national security threats.