The Ethanol Debacle

By Alan Caruba

January 22, 2007 - San Francisco, CA - - Hating so-called "fossil fuels", coal, oil, and natural gas, with a passion, the environmentalists have perpetrated every deception possible and, among them, is the notion that Americans can avoid destroying the Earth if they just fill up the tanks of their automobiles with ethanol.

As I have pointed out in the past, the world is not running out of oil and, here in the United States, we have enough reserves of coal to provide electricity and other needs for centuries to come. So who has the new Democrat majority in Congress declared persona non grata? The oil industry. Their proposed "answer" to our transportation energy needs is ethanol.

Instead of pandering to the environmentalist's obsession over fossil fuels, Congress should be making areas in and around the United States more accessible to exploration and extraction of known oil and natural gas supplies. That is the true definition of "energy independence."

This has not occurred because most of America's onshore energy is in the West and Alaska where more than half the land is under federal control. We are talking about estimates, according to the U.S. Interior Department, of 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 21 billion barrels of oil, representing 76 percent of onshore federal oil and gas resources.

That's enough natural gas to supply all of America's households for the next 39 years. In terms of oil, it is comparable to more than 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia. Currently, Congress permits access to just three percent of onshore federal oil and 13 percent of onshore federal gas under standard lease terms.

While the Democrats in Congress proceed toward anointing ethanol as the "answer" to our transportation energy needs, 5l percent of the oil and 27 percent of the natural gas known reserves are completely off-limits to use.

On January 10, the Senate Agriculture Committee convened to discuss two proposed bills, the "American Fuels Act" and the "BioFuels Security Act." They are aimed at creating artificial markets for ethanol and biodiesel. Their advocates will tout them as providing "energy independence." What they won't tell you is that they will wreak havoc on the economy, needlessly raising the cost of food.

One of the great ironies of the ethanol bandwagon is that a leading environmentalist, Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, understands better than most how bad an idea it is. Brown recently called for a moratorium on the building of ethanol plants in the United States "so we can catch our breath and determine how much we want to harvest our corn for ethanol."

Brown finds himself sharing the same pew as Tom Tanton, vice president of the Institute for Energy Research and host of There are many reasons why ethanol is not the answer to our need for gasoline to fuel our automobiles. Here are just a few:

Ethanol provides about 34 percent less energy output than gasoline. Thus the miles traveled per gallon on ethanol are greatly reduced.

Ethanol increases the price per gallon by 20 to 80 cents and, at the same time, requires more stops to refuel.

Ethanol is so corrosive it must be transported by truck or rail because it will damage pipelines. The January 29 issue of Business Week reports, "Auto fuel that contains more than 10% ethanol is too corrosive to use in existing gas station pumps." Imagine what it does to the engine of your automobile?

Ethanol, when transportation, refining, and farming costs are factored into its production for fuel, provides negligible energy gains.

Ethanol receives a fifty-one cent-per-gallon tax credit and mandates for its use have driven the price of corn to 10-year-highs. This increases the cost to feedlot owners who feed corn to cattle and pigs, forcing the cost of these food stocks to rise.

Ethanol production has doubled from 2001 to 2005 and could double again by the 2008 harvest season, providing fifteen billion gallons or approximately six percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. Let me repeat that, six percent! And all the time this is occurring, the price of everything else that involves corn production goes up with no appreciable increase in energy value.

Finally, as Brown points out, since U.S. corn accounts for one-fourth of all grain exports, a rise in the price "could create food riots in low-income areas around the world."

There is, based solely on these facts, no good reason to build a single new plant for the production of ethanol, nor for any further Congressional mandates to force every driver to fill their tank with a mixture of ethanol and gasoline.

It is an energy debacle of enormous proportions and it exists because global warming doomsayers in Congress have imposed the worst possible "answer" on everyone and are likely to compound that mistake knowing that most Americans haven't a clue about the true facts.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, His book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", is published by Merril Press. Alan Caruba, January 2007

The Zen of Suicide Bombing

By Alan Caruba

December 11, 2006 - San Francisco, CA - - As you might imagine, suicide bombers are very angry people. To those of us in the West, the idea of killing oneself for the purpose of killing others and doing so for the goal of driving them from one's country, is utterly foreign to our moral and ethical values. It is, however, a very effective weapon of the weak. It works.

The succession of suicide bombings in Iraq influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. election to the point where a majority of Americans have signaled the government that it is time, in their opinion, to leave Iraq. Prior to the 2003 "coalition" invasion, Iraq had never had a suicide terrorist attack in its history.

Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, is the author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." He recently had an analysis published by the Cato Institute called "What We've Learned Since 9/11." Policy wonks like myself read the Cato Analysis papers to get behind and beyond the daily headlines.

Pape understands the suicide bomber like few others so let me share some of his insights. "Suicide is an especially convincing signal of future intent because it suggests that the attackers could not have been deterred, and future attackers will not be, by a threat of costly retaliation."

Put aside, for the moment, the dramatic 9/11 attacks. We know that the U.S. elected to inflict a costly retaliation on the Taliban in Afghanistan. They have returned and are once again waging a guerrilla war there. Just as they originally wanted the Russians out, now it is the Americans.

We did not, however, invade Iraq as the result of 9/11 although it was sold on the basis of a potential future attack on the U.S. homeland or its allies in the region. We attacked Iraq for the strategic reason that it would (1) depose a troublemaking dictator, (2) lure terrorists to a place where they could be killed, and (3) provide the U.S. with a military platform in the most important, strategic location in the Middle East.

Vital to understanding the action taken, there was clearly a perceived need to protect the West's access to Iraq's oil reserves as well as others in the region such as that of the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates, all of them Sunnis, and all of whom feared the Saddam Hussein regime and now fear Iran's.

A relative handful of suicide bombers have successfully forced the U.S. to reevaluate its strategic goals, nor is it surprising that most attacks occur in Baghdad where they receive maximum media coverage; a media that is largely opposed to our objectives there.

Since the 1980s, the West has pulled back from military engagements, ranging from Lebanon, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia where our troops were garrisoned, and other places in the Middle East. Nations such as Spain and Great Britain whose troops were allied with the U.S. also experienced terrorist bombings.

"The data showed that all suicide terrorists campaigns have in common a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists value."

Like 9/11, it is not the dregs of Islamic society committing these acts. As often as not, the bombers are educated members of the middle class. They are primarily motivated by a "deep anger over Western combat forces in the Persian Gulf region and other predominantly Muslim lands."

The vast bulk of the suicide terrorists have been Saudis and this is understandable if one considers that it is the locus of Wahhabism, the most fundamentalist of Islamic sects.

"If al Qaeda no longer drew recruits from the Muslim countries where there is an American combat presence, the remaining transnational network would pose a far smaller threat and might well simply collapse."

This requires one to ask the question of the value of keeping American and coalition troops in the region. Pape concludes that, "The longer this suicide terrorist campaign continues, the greater the risk of new attacks in the United States."

The coup de gras he delivers is the view that, "Spreading democracy in the Middle East is not likely to be a panacea as long as foreign combat troops remain in the region. If not for the world's obvious interest in Persian Gulf oil, the obvious solution might well be to simply to abandon the region altogether. Complete disengagement from the Middle East, however, is not possible."

Welcome to that spot between a rock and a hard place. Benjamin Franklin famously once said that, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

We need to find that delicate balance between the protection of our interest in the flow of oil from the region and the forces competing for hegemony there. Nobody said it was going to be easy, but the failure to project our power will only create a vacuum that would swiftly be filled by Islamic extremists.

Middle Eastern nations have spawned a new, very long war between each other and, so long as we play soldier in their sandbox, one directed against the West as well. If we leave, does anyone believe it will get better?

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, His new book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", has just been published by Merril Press. Alan Caruba, December 2006

A Muslim Manifesto for America?

By Alan Caruba

October 30, 2006 - San Francisco, CA - - It's always hard to pinpoint when a historic shift takes place. It is rarely as easy as Martin Luther's posting of his 95 thesis that launched the Reformation and loosed the grip of the Catholic Church on the governance of Europe or when Henry VIII pushed Rome out of England to create the Anglican Church.

When, however, did the tiny Muslim community in America, estimated to be between two and three million - by contrast there are some six million Jews in America - begin to assert its takeover? I am going to mark it from October 19, 2006 when the Star-Ledger, New Jersey's largest circulation daily, ran an article, "She's got it covered: Designer seeks to dress the style-conscious Muslim woman" in its feature news section.

"Many Muslim women wear hijab as an expression of the Islamic tradition of modesty," noted the article about a 27-year old American Muslim fashion designer. Born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father, she had converted to Islam as a student at New York University after she married her husband, a Muslim.

When the media begin to find ways to offer up a positive image of Islam, you know they have probably decided that the game is over and we in the West have lost. The American media is expert at showing the white flag of surrender. They have been trumpeting the end of the world for decades now.

Wrong about the Soviet Union right up to the day it imploded. Wrong about the predictions that the Earth could not sustain six billion people. Wrong about the availability of mineral and energy resources. Wrong about global warming. Wrong about cutting taxes. Wrong about the current excellent state of the U.S. economy.

And now the surrender-addicts are ready, like our European cousins, to concede that Western civilization should just roll over and give up in the face of the worldwide Islamic jihad.

Europeans stopped attending Europe's churches and stopped having enough babies to replace themselves in favor of creating totally unsustainable welfare states. Instead, they imported millions Muslims to do the work they became too old or too lazy to do themselves.

The United States, too, has created a cradle-to-grave socialist system that is going broke at an alarming rate even while the economy is thriving. The Bush administration is conspiring with Canada and Mexico to erase our national borders in order to create a North American Union that will throw our national sovereignty down the rat-hole of a vast bureaucracy that will not have to be responsive to those awful American voters.

As Mark Steyn says in his brilliant new book, America Alone, "We are living through a rare moment: the self-extinction of the civilization which, for good or ill, shaped the age we live in."

The British, part of the European Union, should have paid heed in 1990 when "The Muslim Manifesto: A Strategy for Survival" was promulgated to create the Council of British Muslims to act as "a Muslim parliament" in a nation that gave us the Magna Carta, detailing the rules of property rights and individual freedoms. These days, the nations with the least amount of freedom are predominately Muslim.

Britain's Muslim Manifesto made it clear that "Political and cultural subservience goes against their grain" because "at its inception Islam created a political platform from which Muslims were to launch themselves on a global role as founders of great states, empires and a world civilization and culture."

Why should an article in a leading U.S. newspaper mark the beginning of the end? According to the UK's Muslim Manifesto, "The fact is that a Muslim woman cannot be a western woman." The problem for Muslims in Great Britain was that "There are laws on the British Statute Book that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah."

"We are Muslims first and last."

"Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having British nationality by birth or naturalization does not absolve the Muslim from his or her duty to participate in jihad: this participation can be active service in armed struggle abroad and/or the provision of material and moral support to those engaged in such struggle anywhere in the world."

"Islam is our guide in all situations."

Ultimately this became clear to the non-Muslim citizens of England when on July 7, 2005, born-and-bred Muslim British citizens killed some of them in London's subways and buses. This year in August it scared a lot of people to learn that British Muslims were planning to destroy ten commercial airliners and kill thousands of travelers.

Assimilation, according to the Manifesto, wasn't even an option. Why need it be? By the early 1990s, there were already about 1,000 mosques in Great Britain, many of them former Anglican churches that had been abandoned and sold to Muslims.

As is the case of France today, the Manifesto recommended that "The Muslim community may have to define 'no go' areas where the exercise of 'freedom of speech' against Islam will not be tolerated."

In the now famous words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they are us." If America, the lone superpower, does not hold out against the march of Islam, it will fall into the Dark Ages of Muslim control, a place where born-and-bred Americans like the fashion designer will determine what American women will wear and other Muslims will impose the Sharia law of Islam upon all of us.

The next time you want to mock the "fundamentalist" Christians, famed for their patriotism, think again.

The next time you shrug when you hear your local school system has banned the playing or singing of Christmas carols, think again.

The next time you are inclined to say or think unkind things about American or Israeli Jews, think again.

The next time your neighborhood, community or city yields to some new Islamic demand to conform to their "religious" rules, think again.

The next time you read demands that something not be published or aired in America because it offends Muslim sensibilities, think again.

The next time anyone tells you that Islam preaches tolerance or peace, think again.

This is how nations and ultimately western civilization will slip-slide into a world no American would ever want for their children and grandchildren.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, His new book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" has been published by Merril Press.

Alan Caruba, 2006

Making Sense of US Population Growth

By Alan Caruba

October 23, 2006 - San Francisco, CA - - It's not very often you will find me agreeing with an avowed environmentalist, but facts are facts and, when it comes to population growth, they are ignored at our peril if America is to avoid sliding rapidly into a Third World status.

"The American people, especially our leaders, must bring themselves to face the reality that our population cannot be allowed to continue to grow without disastrous consequences," said Donald Mann, president of Negative Population Growth, Inc. in response to the news that on October 17, 2006 our population passed the three hundred million mark.

Of that number, the estimate of illegal immigrants ranges from twelve to twenty million. In his bestselling book, "State of Emergency", Patrick J. Buchanan noted that "Rarely have immigrants constituted 10 percent of our number," adding that "We have almost as many foreigners here today as came in the first 350 years of our history?(and) most of those coming are breaking in." The U.S. Census bureau calculates that an immigrant sets foot in America, legally and illegally, every 31 seconds.

Americans, in addition to the out-of-control immigration crisis, have an even larger crisis looming and it too will impact every aspect of our lives. With more people being born every day than are dying, we are less than thirty years away from a population of 400 million!

We do need a new, replacement, younger work force and the current Social Security and other benefits programs depends on this. It's predicted to go broke in a decade or so anyway.

A dramatically growing population is going to require more roads, bridges, power plants, airports, housing, jails, schools, hospitals, and other elements of our national infrastructure just to keep pace with our current needs. By any measurement you apply?crime, healthcare, education, transportation?life in America is going to grow worse without the facilities and the energy to maintain our current lifestyles.

The quickest, easiest answer is to stop all immigration, legal and illegal, into the nation and do not tell me this cannot be done. It has already been done. Between 1924 and 1965, America declared a moratorium, a forty-year pause that allowed the "melting pot" to facilitate assimilation into our culture.

There is another factor this massive growth of our population portends. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "worldwide marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by 71%." Of the various sources of energy, "petroleum consumption is still expected to grow strongly, reaching 118 million barrels per day in 2030." America will be closing in on a hundred million more people at that point.

America will not only be more crowded and in need of far more electrical energy generation than exists today, but it is going to need to exploit the oil reserves we have or import even more oil to fuel our transportation needs, heat homes, and provide the vast petrochemical needs of our industries.

Three hundred million Americans want to turn on the electricity where they live and work. Our electrical grid system needs massive upgrading and expansion. We offer few incentives to utility companies to do this.

We must rid ourselves of the impediments to expanding our nuclear energy industry.

We must begin to more effectively exploit our existing oil reserves in "mature" fields and to explore for more offshore and in places like Alaska's ANWR.

In December 2005, Merchant Consulting in Houston released a study about "enhanced oil recovery projects." David Merchant noted that two-thirds of the world's proved oil reserves lie in the Middle East and that the world consumes around 80 million barrels of crude oil a day.

Not only will the worldwide oil demand increase, it will do so as the top 14 super giant fields are in decline.

Yes, oil is finite. Yes, we're going to have to import more to support the needs of 300 million Americans. And yes there remain millions of barrels of U.S. oil that can be discovered, extracted and recovered, but Congress has created a vast matrix of laws that obstructs or discourages this process.

Today's population of 300 million Americans doesn't care much about the logistics of oil until it becomes too expensive at the pump. They are convinced that Big Oil is always going to provide oil and natural gas, and they are right.

Ponder this, on October 17 the U.S. Census made its announcement and Negative Population Growth, Inc. issued its warning. On October 15, however, ExxonMobil quietly announced it had signed an agreement with Qatar Petroleum to build a $3 billion world-scale petrochemical complex. The new facility will be devoted to the production of liquefied natural gas. That's the good news.

The bad news is that America desperately needs to close its southern border to prevent obscene numbers of illegal immigrants arriving daily. We need to pause our current immigration to let new Americans assimilate or, to put it another way, to learn English!

We can have our expanding suburbs. We can respond to the needs of older Americans. We can pass on the America we know to a new generation.

This will not occur if our economy continues to be victimized by environmental policies that deter access to our nation's energy reserves, puts curbs on new housing, and opposes our nation's agricultural and corporate communities.

Ultimately, with three hundred million or four hundred million, if America fails to protect and assert its national sovereignty there won't be a nation to save.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, His new book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", has been published by Merril Press.

Alan Caruba, 2006

"Open Access" or Covert Propaganda?

By Alan Caruba

October 16, 2006 - San Francisco, CA - - In his book, "State of Fear", author Michael Crichton appended an opinion entitled "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous," and cautioned against, "a social program masquerading as a scientific one", citing the widespread eugenics movement in the early part of the last century. (

"A second example of politicized science is quite different in character," warned Crichton. "It exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts." Just as eugenics drew praise and support from politicians, academicians, and media in its time, so too has the manufactured crisis of global warming today. (Emphasis added)

This politicizing of science can be found in the way the United States government spends billions to fund various research programs. One example is the $40 billion spent by the U.S. Global Change Research Program since 1990. For that kind of money one would think something conclusive has been ascertained about "global warming", but if its recent report is any indication, the answer is no.

Another egregious example can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency that, over the past decade, has made grants to more than 2,200 nonprofit groups. An Associated Press article by Rita Beamish in December 2005 noted that those grants often went to groups "that lobby and sometimes sue the agency."

Multiply this by all manner of government agencies concerned with energy, education, health care and other issues, and by countless advocacy organizations and individuals receiving billions in taxpayer funding.

What emerges is research that often reflects the outcome of whatever cause or theory government bureaucrats are advancing.

Some of this research is published in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals, and while some good science is achieved, there is no way of knowing how much government-funded research exists to advance various social and political agendas.

Amid these problems, we now have a new piece of legislation called the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (S. 2695), which was introduced last May. The bill would mandate that, "federal agencies develop public access policies relating to research conducted by employees of that agency or from funds administered by that agency."

The Act would further require original research papers that, "have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and result from research supported, in whole or in part, from funding by the federal government" be available to anyone with access to the Internet.

We paid for it, so why shouldn't We the People have access to it? The problem is that We the People don't get to decide what gets researched and what doesn't. Furthermore, We the People rarely have the scientific training and knowledge to grasp the implications of such research. That's why serious journals, at considerable expense, publish peer-reviewed studies for their peers rather than Joe Sixpack.

Moreover, hardly a day goes by when a headline screams from the pages of some newspaper that some study has concluded that the Earth is doomed or everything you breathe, eat or drink will kill you. The public has been bombarded for years with bad reporting about bad scientific research, a trend "open access" would only compound.

This innocent sounding bill might better be called "The Advancement of Junk Science Act of 2006."

All the government-funded studies, whether having merit or redolent with hidden agendas, would be available to become a platform by which various social agendas would be advanced.

Nothing truly impedes anyone from access to published research studies; it's available for those who want to read it. "Open access", however, is an invitation for more clueless journalism and covert advocacy.

This bill literally forces publishers of medical, scientific and scholarly journals, which invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year in their publications, to give away their work. There is something inherently wrong in that. The Open Access bill is, in this respect, an unconstitutional "taking" of intellectual property by the federal government.

So, what starts out appearing to be a reasonable mandate based on federal funding turns out to be bad news for everyone; from those doing the research to those publishing the research. Ultimately the unskilled consumers of "open access" could also be at risk inasmuch as they are unaware of whether the material they're reading has any real merit.

Another way to further debase the process that supports questionable science is to create "alternative journals." It should come as little surprise that liberal financier George Soros, through his Open Society Institute, is a big fan of "open access" and alternative journals.

In 2002, Soros gave $3 million dollars to the Budapest Open Access Initiative, one of whose objectives is to "assist in the establishment of alternative journals that are committed to offering free and unrestricted online access to published articles." Open access to bogus research could result in the easy dissemination of the social control agenda behind global warming and other "theories."

A government that commits boneheaded mistakes every day should not be in the business of requiring what research should be openly available while it competes against private research that may well be of far superior merit.

An email, letter or call to your Senator might be a good idea before S. 2695 becomes law.

For very good reasons, medical, scientific, and scholarly journals are intended to be read by those in the communities they serve, not the general public.

This system has worked for a very long time to winnow out ultimately bad or junk science and should be left alone to continue that process.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, His new book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", has been published by Merril Press.

Alan Caruba, 2006.

California Commits Eco-Suicide

By Alan Caruba

September 5, 2006 - San Francisco, CA - - In late August, Democrats in the California legislature and Governor agreed to a deal that would impose a limit on all greenhouse gas emissions. As reported by the Associated Press, "The bill would require the state's major industries?such as utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns?to reduce their emissions of the pollutants widely believed to contribute to global warming."

Among the many problems involved with this deal is the fact that there is no global warming as defined by environmentalists, i.e., a sharp, scientifically predictable increase in the Earth's overall temperature in the years, decades, and centuries ahead. After touting a coming Ice Age in the 1970s, the Greens reversed course and began to conjure up global warming. Basing public policy on a hoax has become the political choice of Democrats.

Worse, the California deal would allow businesses "to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies." A completely bogus market will be created where real money will buy meaningless "credits" while the emissions involved will continue.

You want electricity? Other than nuclear and hydroelectric power, you will have to tolerate some emissions. Slightly more than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from the burning of a resource we have in abundance, coal. California, which has consistently failed to provide for sufficient generation, now wants to make the provision of electricity even more costly.

If there was ever a better way to drive business and industry out of the State, it has yet to have been invented.

The Democrat Party, intellectually and morally bankrupt as this point in its history, has decided to embrace environmentalism's biggest lies because they will provide a new basis to attack the industrial heart of the nation's economy.

Ignoring the real threat, the worldwide Islamic Jihad, Democrats will attempt to distract Americans with scary stories about the future climate of the Earth.

Addressing the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in late August, Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered the Democrat plan to attack global warming in the next session of Congress. She unveiled a legislative package she intends to introduce that would require the auto industry to improve mileage and "coax" power producers to meet emissions standards. This is an extension of the deal California lawmakers have reached with the Governor to the entire nation.

"There is now a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and we can't stop it," said Feinstein during an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. This is a lie. A very big lie.

Far from any consensus, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that utterly disputes and debunks that claims made for global warming.

In a recent policy analysis report issued by the Cato Institute, Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies, a professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and the past president of the Association of State Climatologists, concluded that "It is apparent that many recent stories on melting of high-latitude ice, hurricanes, and extinctions are riddled with self-inconsistencies, are inconsistent with other findings, and are reported?as much by scientists themselves as by reporters?in extreme or misleading fashions that do not accurately portray the actual research."

The Cato analysis was buttressed by 77 footnotes documenting the misuse of science to advance the global warming hoax. Ironically, the early Green warnings of a coming, new Ice Age were far closer to the truth, given the fact that the Earth is nearing the end of an interglacial period, thus putting us closer to a colder, not warmer, future.

There is no need for the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Even with such controls, the climate of the Earth will be determined by known cycles of solar activity, by known cycles of oceanic activity, by known cycles of hurricane activity, by forces far beyond the control or influence of human activity.

The Democrat program of emissions controls is a cruel hoax tied the even greater hoax of global warming. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Sen. Feinstein's "goal would be to keep global temperature increases to a manageable 1 or 2 degrees by the end of the century. To do so by 2050, she said, the United States would have to cut carbon dioxide emissions to levels 70 percent below those of 1990."

What Sen. Feinstein and the Democrats are proposing is nothing less than a criminal conspiracy to undermine the American economy while nations such as China, India, and even Europe would continue to ignore such senseless limitations on the use of energy to expand their economies.

Sen. Feinstein told her audience at the Commonwealth Club that, "without such measures, the global temperature could rise by maybe 9 degrees. In that scenario, three of every five species would die, the sea would rise by two feet, massive floods would hit every 10 years and the state's drinking water supply would be in jeopardy."

This is lying and scaremongering on a grand scale and it is about to make its way from California to the halls of the U.S. Congress.

She will be joined by Sen. Kerry who is calling for "energy independence" by advocating mandates to reduce U.S. consumption of oil by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2015.

Among the steps that would achieve true energy independence would be to open a small section of ANWR to oil drilling and that alone would take ten years before its effect would be felt. Another step would be to require states to permit offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Meanwhile, China, in cooperation with Cuba will be drilling for oil just ninety miles off the shores of Florida, while that State continues to refuse to permit any drilling.

California is about to commit eco-suicide and wants the rest of the nation to join it. The business and industry that will flee the Golden State is incalculable. The danger of these anti-energy policies to the future of the nation is beyond comprehension.

Alan Caruba's new book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", has been published by Merril Press. His weekly commentaries are posted on the website of The National Anxiety Center,

Alan Caruba, 2006

Visit Mr. Caruba's website - National Anxiety Center

2006 Alan Caruba, all rights reserved.