Forced Recycling Is A Scam

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

I wanted to make this report on the problems of the bottle deposit program but I first must make this fact clear:  In Connecticut, and many other places that have this program, you do not earn five cents for returning a can, bottle, or glass, you REDEEM five cents.  This means that you, or whoever bought the drink, had to pay an extra five cents for each bottle at the register, at the time of purchase, and only when you bring back your bottle do you get that five cents back.  It seems as if this is something that shouldn't have to be explained but you would be surprised at how many people still do not understand how this works.

Moving on, earlier this year there were reports that the state of Connecticut wanted to raise the bottle deposit up from five cents to ten cents.  Also this year in relation to the bottle deposit, a bill was introduced in the state legislature that would drop the deposit of five cents and replace it with a non redeemable tax of four cents, as well as a bill that would require beverage distributors to pay a higher handling fee to bottle redemption centers.  Instead of going over the intricacies of these proposals, I think it would be much better to simply explain how the bottle deposit program is just another revenue generating scam by the state.

First it needs to be understood that empty cans, plastic, and glass bottles don't really have any value.  If it was cheaper to create new bottles out of recycled bottles than it was to create them from scratch, bottle manufacturers would be paying you for the empty bottles.  In other words, if you could actually make something of value out of your used bottles, at a profit, the state wouldn't need to force you to recycle, there would be a market for them, people would be offering you money for your empty bottles.  As an example of this, the state doesn't need to force people to recycle copper, or other forms of scrap metal because the cost of recycling these things is currently cheaper than the cost of manufacturing them from scratch.  Because of this people will come and take the metal from a garbage pile on your sidewalk for free, or go into your house uninvited to steal your copper pipes.

The time and money that it takes to collect recycled bottles, truck them to a location, sort them, clean them, and actually begin the recycling process is highly inefficient and cannot be done at a cost that would make this process profitable.  A representative from the Coca Cola Company testifying against one of the proposed bottle bills briefly describes the problem his company faces:

"Though our industry sells tens of millions of dollars in bottle bill scrap from Connecticut, the revenue does not come close to balancing the inherent expense our industry faces in fuel, energy and handling fees … nor does it compensate for the sub-optimization of our delivery routes and warehouse space, as a lot of time and space is required to handle containers for processing."

Of course this is all done under the guise of protecting the environment but when you factor in the fossil fuel used to move these recyclables around, the energy used at these recycle facilities, the water used to clean the empty bottles, and other aspects of the process, it could leave a person questioning whether this is really helping the environment at all.  And while many environmentalists support these forced recycling projects and any project that has the stated goal to conserve resources, they seem to neglect the most important resource of all, the one that we can't make more of; time.  Every moment of the process, from you bringing your bottles to the redemption center to the recycled plastic being turned into something is time lost that could have been used to do something more productive or preferential.

Soros Influencing CT Affordable Housing Laws

(This is a video of the following analysis.)

The state of Connecticut has a statute (8-30g) that requires at least 10 percent of a town or city's housing stock to be considered "affordable".  If a town in Connecticut does not meet this standard, as most do not, a developer looking to build high density housing that gets denied by the towns zoning and planning commission, can appeal to the state and essentially override the local towns decision.  This battle has taken place and is taking place across Connecticut, including in Simsbury where the local planning commission recently denied a proposal for a high-density affordable housing subdivision.  The developer is appealing the decision with the state citing the 8-30g statute.

There are two bills proposed in the state legislature this year (HB 6880 & HB 7057) that, according to supporters of affordable housing who are opposing these bills, would weaken the 8-30g statute. Without getting into all of the details of the proposed legislation, the bills would seemingly make it harder for developers to override local planning and zoning commissions using the 8-30g statute.

By examining the testimony of the groups that oppose this legislation we can learn a lot about the motivations behind the push for "affordable housing".

One group's testimony that I found particularly interesting was that of the Open Communities Alliance, which is "a non-profit civil rights organization that focuses on ensuring that low-income families of color have access to the wealth of opportunities in our state through a balanced approach to affordable housing creation."  In the testimony of Erin Boggs, executive director of Open Communities Alliance, she says that municipal zoning has "exclusionary roots" meant to keep non-whites out of white neighborhoods.  Boggs says that "[w]e as a state and a country still struggle with the historical legacy of [that] kind of racist sentiment" therefore supports the state using 8-30g to override a town or cities decision on development:

"It is the concern of many communities that CGS Sec. 8-30g takes away local control over zoning. It does, when reasonable affordable housing development proposals are rejected by towns that do not have sufficient levels of affordable units. There is a way to address this – proactively work to generate suitable housing within your town to reach a moratorium or surpass the 10% threshold."

In other words, communities can make their own decisions as long as they do what they are told by people not in the community.

The Open Communities Alliance not only lobbies for changes in legislation but organizes coalitions, produces "research" to support their policies, engages in public outreach, and more.  One example of their work to subvert local sovereignty can be seen in a case in Westport last year where a developer, Richard K. Freedman, submitted a proposal for a 48-unit, 30 percent affordable housing project but was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).  Freedman, citing the 8-30g statute, said he will file a lawsuit against the town because it has a pattern of denying affordable housing.  In his proposal, Freedman submitted a letter from the Open Communities Alliance supporting the development using what seems to be veiled legal threats and dubious racial statistics.  One part of the letter states "Westport is a high opportunity area, meaning that it is thriving with high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods. Unfortunately, Westport does not reflect the racial, ethnic or economic demographics of its geographic region or state as a whole" and goes on to say that Westport lacks 'people of color' and single parents, proportionally speaking.  To an outsider it may seem that this lack of "diversity" could possibly be a reason why Wesport has high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods but anyone capable of making that connection would never dare as they know it would surely lead to them being derided as a racist, misogynist, or some other form of ad hominem attack.

Anyway, I decided to look a little bit further into this Open Communities Alliance, and after seeing who funds the organization, the propagation of racial conflicts and attacks on local sovereignty all made sense.  They receive money from the Ford Foundation, an organization that I previously written about in regards to their push for world government, population control, and other policies that align with United Nations Agenda 21.  They also receive money from Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by the infamous billionaire George Soros.  In a previous video I showed how Soros money was being used to fund other groups in Connecticut causing racial and political conflict.

Another organization that submitted testimony against the bills currently in the state legislature regarding statute 8-30g is the Regional Plan Association.  The Regional Plan Association is another tax-free organization funded by the Ford Foundation, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, two foundations that I have written extensively on in the past in regards to their subversion of local sovereignty, among other topics.

While I do not pretend to understand all of the intricacies involved in the proposed legislation, and rarely ever endorse bills, judging strictly by who is against these bills, I would venture to say that these are genuinely good pieces of legislation, in the sense that they would increase local decision making power.

Related Stories:

• George Soros, The Ideal Globalist - March 13, 2017 (link)
• What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut - Thursday, February 9, 2017 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)

Who Wants Toll Roads In Connecticut? Answer: The Rockefellers

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

For those out here that are unaware, the state of Connecticut is contemplating creating a system of congestion pricing, a newer version of toll roads, on some of the states roads.  If you are a Connecticut resident you might be thinking 'Who in their right mind would support an increase in taxes in a state that already taxes its residents at exorbitant rates and has a problem managing their already enormous budget?'  The short answer: The Rockefellers.

Before explaining what I mean by that, let us take a look at all of the testimony submitted for one of the proposed bills 'H.B. No. 6058 AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC TOLLS'.  There are over two hundred people that have submitted testimony for this bill, and the vast, vast majority are in opposition to it.  Randomly clicking on any of the names of the people that submitted testimony will very likely lead to a testimony submitted AGAINST the bill like CT resident Pat Belote who said "enough already, how much more can you squeeze out of the citizens of CT?" or Steve MacDonald who said in all caps "SAY NO TO TOLLS!!!!!!!"

But I knew that if I kept on looking I would find testimony submitted in favor of the bill coming from one or more of the many tax-free foundations that are constantly lobbying the state to lower our standard of living under the guise of fighting climate change.  I was right.

I have written multiple times in the past on the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), which is a "non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing car dependency in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut" that brags on their website about using their influence to do things like "halting highway widenings".  In the past the TSTC has lobbied for red light cameras to be installed on intersections across the state, tolls roads to be installed, as well as other tactics that would create a heavier financial burden on operators of motor vehicles.

So it was no surprise when I came across the testimony of Joseph Cutrufo, a director at the TSTC.  Cutrufo is speaking on behalf of the TSTC in his testimony in support of toll roads in the state, explaining how this policy can be used to get people out of their cars and onto public transportation.

Another tax free organization that I have written about in the past, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, also submitted testimony in favor of electronic toll roads, using the same justification as the TSTC, that tolls will lower the amount of cars on the roads, therefore reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Now let us get to how the Rockefellers fit into all of this.  Regular viewers of this channel are already aware of the nefarious influence that tax free foundations are playing in society today.  I often recommend the book "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser which discusses the 1950's congressional investigations into tax free foundations.  Before high level forces in government began to sabotage the committee's research and findings, the investigations were uncovering a subversive network of highly powerful and influential tax free foundations.  The Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund were two foundations mentioned in the book and the Rockefeller family subversive influence through foundations continues to this day.

The previously mentioned Tri-State Transporation Campaign which constantly lobbies the state to implement anti-car policies shows a list of supporting foundations that give grant money to their organization on their website.  Many of the organizations can be traced back to Rockefeller money.  For example, they receive money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a fund started by the five Rockefeller brothers.  Another foundation listed as a supporter, the Energy Foundation, also gets money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was actually formed by the Rockefeller Foundation.  The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation is also listed, and the letter "R" in Geraldine R. Dodge, stands for Rockefeller.  I can continue with the Rockefeller-TSTC connections, but you get the point.

Now looking at the other organization mentioned that gave testimony in favor of tolls, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, we see similar connections.  The Connecticut Fund for the Environment has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the One Region Fund, which has gotten it's money in part from the Rockefeller Foundation.

In their testimony in support of tolls in Connecticut, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment cites studies from organizations that are themselves connected to Rockefeller money.  When declaring that greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the state as a result of increased vehicle use, the Acadia Center is used as a source.  The Acadia Center gets grant money from the Energy Foundation, which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, as previously mentioned.  In another instance a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council is quoted lauding the benefits of tolls.  The Natural Resources Defense Council has received money from both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.

You can see what is happening here.  The average person is not a supporter of toll roads.  These policies are not happening from a grassroots level as we are made to think.  The well funded foundations are behind the push for these anti-car policies like toll roads.  The same foundations are all funding and citing reports from each other.    Watch my related videos to understand more about the influence of foundations, and more specifically the Rockefeller influence on global politics.

Related Stories:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)
• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)

What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

On February 4, 2017 dozens of people blocked a roadway in New Haven, CT, allegedly delaying an ambulance that was on the road and forcing workers to perform an emergency medical procedure on a patient.  These protesters were apparently demonstrating against President Donald Trump's immigration policies.  I say apparently because that is how the local news channel describe the protest, but when I look at the footage from the event it is clear that immigration reform was not the only idea being propagated.  Some of the signs used were anti-capitalist, pro-socialist propaganda, like one that read "Trump is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease, Revolution is the cure."  The so-called "leader" of the roadway protest was Norman Clement, who on his Facebook page can be seen promoting Gloria La Riva, a socialist candidate for President in 2016.

I am always suspicious of these mass protests because I know how difficult it is to organize even ten people to show up to a demonstration.  The average person has a lot of things to do during the day with work, family matters, and other personal issues.  Therefore, when I see over one hundred people show up in New Haven to protest, red flags go up for me.  One of the sure signs that an event is more than just grassroots is the uniformity of the posters and signs.  While this event definitely had home made signs, the expensive, professionally made signs were also present.  Zooming in on some of these signs you can see the website AnswerCoalition.org at the bottom.  It is difficult to find who exactly is funding the Answer Coalition but there are many clear ties to Socialist and Marxist organizations.

And then comes the George Soros connections.  For those that do not know George Soros, he is a man of immense wealth who uses his money to support opposition movements and the overthrow of governments throughout the world, and just so happen to financially support Hillary Clinton for President in the 2016 race.  It appears that Soros may be using his regime-changing tactics in the United States, funding groups to protest, riot, and possibly create mass civil unrest.  One sign that was present at the New Haven protest read "No! This Fascist Regime Must Be Stopped Before It Starts", and while the news station did not show the bottom of the sign, performing a google search of this poster slogan will bring you to the website "Refuse Fascism", which appear to be the creators of this meme.  Refuse Fascism reportedly received $50,000 from a George Soros funded organization.  Refuse Fascism has been accused of being one of the groups behind the violent protests that happened in Berkley last week.  Antifa was another group accused of being behind the violence at Berkley, and they also had a presence at the New Haven protest.

News Channel 8 said that the New Haven protest was organized by an organization named "Unidad Latina en Accion".  Unidad Latina is a member of a group called The Immigration Strategic Funders Collaborative for Connecticut, or simply "The Collaborative."  The Collaborative received a $100,000 grant from George Soros' Open Society Foundations in 2015.

I would go into more depth, or create a separate analysis just on George Soros, and his tactics of influencing politics throughout the world, but there is already so much written on it that any interested reader could do a simple Google search and have unlimited number of pages of information.

That is all that I have found so far in regards to this New Haven situation, but these "grassroots" protests are something that we really need to keep our eye on, more specifically who is funding them.  Things don't just happen, everything takes money.  Trying to figure out where the money is coming from is usually more important than whatever story is being pushed.

The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for .mp3 download of this analysis.)

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage and CT Governor Dan Malloy

Transcript:

After reviewing a 2014 news conference concerning an increase in the minimum wage, I am completely convinced that Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy does not have the least bit understanding of economics.

"Today I am proud to announce one more piece of legislation that I will be submitting which is to increase the state minimum wage to $10.10 over the next three years"

That some people can think government is able to make our lives better by setting a minimum wage baffles me.  Forget the fact that everything government does is inefficient by nature, or that for government to help one person it must hurt another.

Let us just logically take a look at the idea of minimum wage.  Advocates of the minimum wage range from wanting a federally mandated $15/hour minimum wage to over $20/hour but regardless of the number requested I always have the same question; why stop there?  If you think the government could set a minimum and make everyone's life better, why only $20/hour?  Why not $50/hour? or $100/hour? or maybe the government can pass a law that mandates a $1000/hour minimum wage, so that way we can all be rich, live in mansions, and drive Lamborghini.

Obviously this is absurd, as there are not many businesses that will be able to pay the increased wages, and would be forced to either drastically raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Well this concept applies to any increase in the required wage.  There are many small businesses that are struggling to stay open and pay their employees at the current required wage, and if it were to increase by just a dollar or two, the business would not be able to pay the extra hundreds or thousands a month and be forced to raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Now that employee that you were trying to make have a better life, has no job.

As shown by the next clip, Governor Malloy at least somewhat understands this concept but shows further ignorance of economics by brushing the increased prices away as no big deal, and makes the absurd statement that most businesses that pay the minimum wage are forced to stay in an area and can't leave regardless of the increased labor cost.

Reporter:  "Governor, no business has ever passed an exorbitant tax or an increase, its passed onto the consumer [sic].  Don't you feel that you just increased the cost of living in the state?"
Governor Malloy: "Well I think to some extent that may be reflected in costs but if you look at the nature of the businesses that are largely paying the minimum wage, they are businesses that can't leave the state.  They're here, they're providing services and products to the people of the state of Connecticut."

This is such an absurd conclusion that I don't know where to begin to dispute it.  When mentioning businesses that can't leave, I am assuming Malloy is referring to minimum wage jobs like restaurants that are very location focused, that have built their business through satisfying the local population, and can't just get up and relocate.  While it is true that these businesses can't just get up and relocate to another state, there is nothing that prevents them from just shutting down.  If they can't afford to pay their employees, or lose customers due to the increased prices that are a result of the increased salary paid to their employees, then the businesses will just close down.  The first businesses to close will be the single small family owned restaurants as they do not have the resources that big chain restaurants have, to deal with costly government regulation.  A restaurant like McDonalds has the resources to invest in automated order taking machines as a substitute for the newly increased cost of having an actual human employee.  But even a restaurant like McDonalds isn't REQUIRED to stay in a city and lose money.  If government regulations become so taxing that even a big chain store can't make a profit, then they will eventually just close or leave as well.

The next thing Governor Malloy says is really ridiculous, in my opinion.  He essentially says that people want to pay their workers more but I guess are just not smart enough to pay their workers what they feel they deserve and that is why we need government to force them to pay their workers more through minimum wage laws:

 "...I think when you ask people of the state of Connecticut whether they believe that the people who wait on them, who care for them, who take care of their children, should receive a $10.10 salary , I think you are going to find overwhelmingly that the people of Connecticut do agree."

So, according to the Governor's logic, there are people in Connecticut who are paying someone the minimum wage to watch their children, who feel that the babysitter deserves more than the minimum wage, but just aren't paying the babysitter more because there isn't a law requiring them to do so?  Why wouldn't they just pay the babysitter more themselves?

This same concept applies to the other group that Dan Malloy mentioned, waiters.  If Connecticut residents truly feel that the people who wait on them at restaurants deserve more pay, there is nothing from stopping those people from leaving a bigger tip.  It is obvious that Governor Malloy, with his push for an increase in the minimum wage, is just appealing to the low income, low information voter that doesn't understand the impact of government wage laws.

To conclude, more laws and bigger government are not the solution to the countries economic problems, but in actuality the cause of them.  Instead of asking for a government mandated "livable wage", we should be asking why the current non-livable wage of $10/hour, would be an extremely great wage just fifty years ago.  $10 in 1966 would be the equivalent of about $74 today.  This devaluing of the dollar is caused by inflation, or more money being "printed" into circulation resulting in increased prices.  This crippling power that the Federal Government, working in conjunction with The Federal Reserve has, needs to be the main topic of any discussion involving government involvement in wages and prices.  Other than that there is not much Dan Malloy or any Connecticut politician can do to help the economy other than to get out of the way and let the free market operate.

Related analyses:

• Is United States Senator Chris Murphy The Answer To The European Terrorist Problem? - March 25, 2016 (link)
• Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes. - March 16, 2016 (link)
• Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
• CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)

Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes.

Excerpt from video: "If you haven't watched my latest videos, it is discussed how Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy has been propagating a new message for 2016.  The Governor is now saying that we are in an economic downturn that resembles the Great Depression, where wages and home values will not continuously rise.  I'm making this video because I was just watching President Obama speaking at South by Southwest a few days ago, originally recorded March 12, 2016, and I hear him imply that the economy is doing good and saying that he SAVED us from the Great Depression.  Now, Malloy and Obama seem to be pretty close, as Malloy was "honored" with a seat next to the first lady during the Presidents 2016 State of the Union speech, so I would think that the Governor and the President would have a much more similar opinion on such a fundamental issue.  I don't know but either way Dan Malloy is saying we are in the depression, while Obama is saying that he saved us from the depression, here are the clips"

Related Links:

• Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
• CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)

Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition

As discussed in my most recent video, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is delivering a new message to the people of Connecticut about how there will be no recovery from the recession and we should not expect to have as much as previous generations.  Malloy says that he, along with "economists across the world" had predicted a normal recovery from the recession, but have now come to find that this is not, and will not be the case, as the Great Recession is looking more like the Great Depression.

"It's clear that the Great Recession had a long lasting impact on the American economy.  We had all hoped, economists across the country, across the world, had predicted that although it might be a little bit slower, it would be, in essence, a normal recovery from the Great Recession.  That's not true. The Great Recession is more like the Great Depression in its long term impact on the economy." - Dan Malloy on WNPR, 02/18/16

While it is true that the Governor had been telling everyone for years that the economy was recovering and improving from the recession, it should be noted that there were some economists who predicted this lack of growth, and were saying exactly what Dan Malloy is now saying.  One particular economist is Peter Schiff, who most famously predicted the 2007-2008 crash.

For example, when Dan Malloy in 2012 was saying that "things are coming back" and in 2014 saying "the economy is improving", Peter Schiff was saying, in 2012, "we've been in a depression since the end of 2007", and in 2013 saying "wait until you see how bad it's going to get during the Obama recession".

In my opinion, Dan Malloy's solutions to the economic problems, such as increasing the minimum wage, will only make things worse.  In future videos I will be further critiquing Dan Malloy's views on the minimum wage, and overall economic policy.  To be sure to catch the latest uploads, subscribe to our channel on YouTube or click 'like' on The Goodman Chronicle Facebook page.

CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016

To open the legislative session for 2016 the governor of Connecticut Dan Malloy has a new message: get used to a lowering of your standard of living because the pre-recession prosperity of your parents days, where wages and home prices went up, is not coming back.

"Really what the overall message today is that Connecticut's and the nations economy was changed by the Great Recession.  We all thought that, you know, that we'd get back to what was an old normal.  Well quite frankly, we're in the new normal.  And I think government has to catch up to where the people are and understand that the people have already made that adjustment.  They're not counting on an economy that their parents and their grandparents counted on where wages and home values went up steadily every single year." - Governor Malloy, opening day round-table discussion

"We live in changing times, you don't have to take my word for it, you hear it from your constituents everyday.  A visceral feeling that our country and our state are not going back to how things were before the great recession.  Families are budgeting differently. Their expectations are changing. They know that they can't rely on the same economy their parents and grandparents did, where wages and home values steadily increased." - Governor Malloy's Opening Day Address to the General Assembly 

What the governor does not tell you is that many policy makers view the economic downturn and the lowering of our standard of living as a good thing because it means we use less energy, thus saving the planet from greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

As an example, in 2014 the state announced that it had met its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and credited "the economic downturn" as one of the major factors involved with helping to reach that goal.  Director of Policy for the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, Jessie Stratton, was working for, and speaking on behalf of the Environment Northeast Organization back in 2010 when she also credited the economic downturn for "reduced electricity consumption."

To better understand this concept of a reduction in energy consumption being a good thing we have to go back to at least 2001 when the state had announced its goal of reducing green house gas emission in the state by up to 85%.  This means a reduction in energy use, which means a reduction in the use of products that require energy to be made, which means a reduction in pretty much everything.  As an example of the vast level of green house gas reduction looking to be imposed by the state, a 2008 state document said that "Connecticut will need to decrease GHG emissions by more than one million metric tons per year for over 40 years"  which they say is "equivalent to the emissions from electricity used by over 137,000 homes each year or the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year."

This idea that single family homes and private motor vehicles are bad for the environment is being used by the state and federal government to implement a program of "Smart Growth".  Smart Growth occurs when government attempts to reduce private motor vehicle and single family home ownership by using taxes, laws, and regulations to focus high-density development around a transit line.  An example of this is occurring in the capital city of Hartford where over a thousand apartment units have been or are being constructed in the downtown area along the newly built CTFastrak bus line.  These construction projects have received millions of tax-payer dollars in loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance.

Policy makers like to tout the benefits of living in an apartment, next to a bus line, and not needing to own a car or maintain property, but they leave out the many benefits of home and car ownership.  For example, your options as to where you would like to live, work, grocery shop, or seek entertainment are vastly increased when you have a personal motor vehicle.  Without a personal motor vehicle your options on where to live, work, shop, and play are limited to what is on your bus or train route.  There are a number of benefits of personal home ownership as well, not the least of which being privacy, and not having to be around people that you do not want to be around.  When our buying options are limited in such a way by these state-sponsored energy-reduction Smart Growth policies designed to restrict private motor vehicle ownership and single-family home ownership this directly results in a lowering of our standard of living.

This policy of Smart Growth was not created at the state level though, it is a top down policy that extends up through the federal government all the way up to the international government level with the United Nations.  Evidence of this can be found in the various Connecticut climate change papers where various organizations affiliated with the United Nations, like the IPCC, are cited, but most specifically in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan where the topic of greenhouse gas emission is discussed, it is stated: "The ultimate goal mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  This is relevant because the United Nations is more explicit in their desire to lower the standard of living of industrialized nations like the United States, all in the name of fighting "climate change".  In the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, an action plan presented at the same 1992 Earth summit in Rio that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was presented, it states that "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries."  This sentiment is even more explicitly expressed , and quite coincidentally in almost the same terms that Governor Dan Malloy is using, in the children's edition of Agenda 21.  Rachel Kyte, the Vice President of the World Bank Group at the time of the publishing of the childrens edition of Agenda 21 is quoted as saying that children should not expect as much as their parents.  The actual quote is this:

"You can't bring up a new generation of people telling them they can have everything we have and more."

An interested person researching climate change and the United Nations will continue to come across this concept of a lowering in the standard of living of industrialized nations being a necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  At TheGoodmanChronicle.com we attempt to document how this agenda is directly affecting residents of Connecticut.

To conclude, we need to look at this recent revelation by Governor Malloy in its proper context.  The state government, along with the federal government, have been adopting policies in order to get the people to use less energy and reduce consumption.  This is why the economic changes brought with the recession are being embraced.  When we have less money, we consume less.  As we progress further in this agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emission we can expect further economic, as well as social and cultural changes, all in an apparent effort to fight "climate change".  Only an informed and vigilant citizenry can get in the way of these changes from taking place.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.  Click here for an .mp3 audio version)

In this part of the series of 'The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy' we are going to take a look at many of the groups behind CT climate change policy, and their curious connection to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which will be referred to as RBF from this point on.  We are going to start by following the timeline of the implementation of Connecticut climate change policy.

The first action taken by the state in regards to "global warming" was in 1990 with the passing of Public Act 90-219 "An Act Concerning Global Warming", but we will start this analysis in the year 2000 as that is when the state's focus on climate change and global warming began in earnest and significant action began to be taken.

In the year 2000 an alliance of New England Governors met with Premiers from Eastern Canada to adopt "Resolution 25-9 concerning global warming and its environmental impacts."  These New England Governors were brought together through a forum named CONEG, or the Coalition of North Eastern Governors. According to their website, "CONEG works with the governors and their staff and policy advisors to examine current and emerging regional issues, develop effective solutions, and undertake cooperative actions that benefit the individual state and the region."  CONEG polices are identified, formulated, and carried out by their staff at the CONEG Policy Research Center Inc.  Various official documents from the RBF show that they were funding CONEG Policy Research Center Inc. from its inception in the mid-1970's through the 1980's.  Therefore the RBF has had an influential connection to Connecticut climate change policy from its inception.

In 2001, this coalition of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers came together once again to create a Climate Change Action Plan for the region.  This plan called for each state to create their own climate change plans, programs, and policies.  As a result, the governor of Connecticut at the time, John Rowland, in 2002, created a Steering Committee "to coordinate Connecticut’s actions on climate change."

The same year that Governor Rowland created the Steering Committee, the Commitee met at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

At this meeting it was stated that one of the first steps that Connecticut needs to do to address climate change is to have an inventory of "greenhouse gas" in the state.  It was announced that Connecticut had approached the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop this greenhouse gas inventory for the state, and in 2003 NESCAUM released their report titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000".

NESCAUM is an organization cited throughout the state documents in relation to climate change.  The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given multiple grants to NESCAUM, funding various studies put out by the organization.

In the 2003 report on Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, written by agents of NESCAUM, the origins of the concern over "greenhouse gases" is detailed, and they cite the starting point when "[i]n 1992, the United States joined more than 160 other countries in signing and ratifying the [United Nations] Framework Convention on Climate Change. [UNFCCC]"

As detailed in the report Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut, the UNFCCC was a specific aspiration of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as they admittedly "organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change."  One of those early advocate organizations that has played, and continues to play, a leading role in the climate change debate is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has been a highly influential organization propagating the belief that man-made global warming is a real and serious threat.  The IPCC is known as an "internationally accepted authority on climate change."  IPCC reports are cited  throughout the many Connecticut official documents relating to climate change policy.  The IPCC was co-funded into existence by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)
(Click here for an .mp3 download of this presentation)

In the first two parts of this series we discussed the fallacy that man-made global warming is a fact, as well as how the methodologies that the state is using to calculate its supposed effects are not accurate.  We are now going to examine one of the proposals that is constantly offered by state officials as a combative action towards fighting man-made global warming; the reduction of private motor vehicles.

Regular readers of The Goodman Chronicle are already aware that the state of Connecticut has a policy of reducing private motor vehicle usage.  A recent example of this happened on December 3, 2014, when Connecticut state officials met with "transportation advocates" to discuss the future of transportation in Connecticut.  The discussion mainly focused on ways to further restrict private motor vehicle ownership, and usage, through measures such as an increase in the gasoline tax, toll roads, and more.

This analysis will show, using Connecticut climate change documents, how this anti-car philosophy in the state is derived from the idea that man-made global warming is a real and pressing issue in our society.

(It should be pointed out in the beginning of this analysis that this desire to reduce the amount of private motor vehicles is only one part of a much larger plan to concentrate people into highly regulated, dense neighborhoods, with public transportation being the main form of transportation.  This type of centralized planning is known as "smart growth", and will receive its own analysis in a later section of this multi-series report.)

The state believes that they need to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) by one million metric tons per year, over the next forty years.  According to their calculations this is equivalent to the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year.

One option that the state has considered to deal with the GHG coming out of vehicles is to increase the taxes on cars that emit high levels of GHG, and offer tax breaks to consumers who purchased low GHG emitting vehicles.  This is known as a feebate program.  As a result of this policy, governments hope to encourage auto manufacturers to produce cars with less GHG emission.  Connecticut has yet to pursue this policy, however the federal government does have a similar program that offers tax incentives to consumers of "eco-friendly" cars.

Encouraging car manufacturers to make cars with less GHG emission is an option that the state continues to pursue, however they admit that this will not be enough to reach their target goal, in terms of passenger vehicle GHG emission:

"Connecticut’s increasingly cleaner cars will be overshadowed by the fact that we continue to drive more"

Because making cars "cleaner" will not be enough to reduce GHG emission to the level that the state would like, they pursue a policy of forcing people out of their cars and onto public transportation.  This is done by increasing the cost of driving:

"Implement a tax on driving (gasoline, toll, or mileage-based insurance) that would be channeled in its entirety to a dedicated fund to subsidize mass transit, walking, and bicycling."

Throughout the Connecticut climate change documents, there are various tactics recommended to state agencies in an effort to discourage the use of private motor vehicles.  One of these tactics includes adding tolls to roads.  Formulas have been developed to calculate how much of an increase in the cost of driving is needed to reduce private motor vehicle trips, as can be seen by this excerpt taken from a 2004 state document pertaining to climate change:

"A recent Connecticut report completed an analysis of travel demand mode shifts that would result from a value-pricing toll of $0.20 per mile in the southwest Connecticut corridor.  ConnDOT’s travel-demand model predicted that this pricing measure alone would create a 6 percent reduction in drive-alone trips, an increase in new rail trips of 72 percent, and an increase in bus use of 25 percent. The results are consistent with the results of the 1994 COMSIS Transportation Control Measure study, which indicated that a highway value toll of $0.10 per mile was expected to reduce VMT by 3.5 percent." 

The 2005 Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan states that getting us out of our cars will not only be good for the environment, but it will also improve our health as a society.  The idea seems to be that if the state can get people to use their bicycle or walk instead of taking their car, this will have health improvements for the individual.

"Health benefits from increased mobility. Auto­centric development patterns have  decreased mobility among adults and children, reducing opportunities for walking and  bike riding. The Surface Transportation Policy Project released a report this year  demonstrating a statistically significant correlation between sprawl, obesity, and  hypertension. Research suggests that people in compact, mixed­use areas reap benefits from increased opportunities to integrate walking and biking into their everyday  routines.  Smart growth seeks to encourage centralized, mixed­use communities with well­ developed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Given the myriad health costs associated with inactivity, creating opportunities for increased mobility through smart  growth has a clear (although unquantified in this analysis) economic value."

Of course taking your bicycle, or walking, to the park, on a nice sunny day, instead of using your car sounds like a nice idea, but when it is raining, cold, or snowing, and you have to get work, school, appointments, etc., waiting around for public transportation would be a terrible scenario, and in many cases, unfeasible.  The many positive benefits of having your own private motor vehicle is never stressed in these documents.

The possible list of quotes and citations from these Connecticut climate change documents pertaining to the reduction of private motor vehicles is nearly endless.  We could go on, but you get the point.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that the Earth is warming, humans are causing the warming, and reducing the number of cars on the road will help stop the warming.

In the next analysis we will take an inquisitive look into the groups behind the creation of these policies and their curious connection with Rockefeller family-related organizations.

Previous reports on Connecticut climate change:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

In the first part of this series we discussed the question of whether man-made global warming was as factual as many of us are led to believe, and concluded that this was not the case.  In this second part, we are going to take a look at the different admissions made in the Connecticut climate change papers, as to the inaccuracies in their reporting and predictions.

Throughout the hundreds of pages of Connecticut climate change policy papers, the writers are forced to vaguely admit that the "scientific" information that they are presenting is not entirely accurate, and is subject to change.  In 2003, the state attempted to determine the level of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) produced in Connecticut from 1990-2000, and added the caveat to their findings that the process was "time and labor-intensive" and, as a result, "it was prohibitively difficult for states to produce inventories for more than one or two years."  In the same report it is stated that "[m]ethodologies for estimating GHG emissions are constantly evolving, and key conversion factors...change periodically in response to current scientific guidance."

Three years later, in 2006, they still did not have an accurate way to measure GHG levels, as they were forced to admit:

"The third barrier [to meeting 2010 GHG Reduction Goals] relates to the very tools and analytical methods used to assess current and future GHG emissions reductions. Some methods now in use are either not appropriate or very accurate when used to measure GHG emission reductions. This is due in part because the tools and methods developed to assess direct GHG emissions reductions either do not adequately account for indirect reductions (especially those for energy efficiency) or the assumptions used to verify the reductions are not as precise." [emphasis added]

Gathering accurate data continued to be a problem as exhibited in the 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health", put out by the Governor‘s Steering Committee (GSC) on Climate Change .  The GSC created an Adaptation Subcommittee, consisting of four working groups, to evaluate "the projected impact of Climate Change in the state."  The working groups stated that they could not make any specific conclusions using the data provided:

"All of the recommendations from the Adaptation Subcommittee workgroups centered on the need for additional research and monitoring programs to determine more precise risk, including the true financial risk of climate change. Many of the workgroups also found it difficult to completely account for all of the features in their assigned universe, prompting the need for further definition"

After making several specific predictions and scenarios of what may occur in the agricultural sector, as a result of climate change in the state, the report is forced to concede that "...it is difficult to accurately predict the many changes that will affect agricultural productivity in the next few decades."

Some of the statistics and predictions are presented in such a way that they can't be wrong regardless of the true income.  For example, they say that global warming will increase rainfall, but they also say that it will increase the frequency of droughts.

"Precipitation may increase by 5 to 10% by the end of the century. ...Droughts may increase in frequency, duration and intensity."

Therefore, whether there is massive rainfall, or a drought, these planners can refer back to their "predictions" and claim they were right, and that the change in weather is a result of global warming.

Finally, in the ultimate hedge on their predictions, the adaptation subcommittee essentially says that their reporting and predictions could be way off, and in the future, change dramatically:

"Change is the most certain element of our future climate. The climate impacts used in this report are based on the best available information at this time, but these projections will certainly change, and possibly very dramatically, as we gain a better understanding of uncertainties in the climate system (e.g., timing of melting ice sheets, tipping points, feedback loops). Therefore adaptation strategies must continuously evolve and flexibility will be critical."

So far in this series we have determined that not only is man-made global warming not a fact, but the way governments are measuring its supposed impact is not accurate.  In the next part in this series we will take a look at one of the changes that the state of Connecticut would like to focus on in its efforts to fight "carbon", and that is to force people out of their private motor vehicles, and onto public transportation.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?

(click here to download an .mp3 audio of this analysis)

The issue of man made climate change is affecting everyone, in ways most people do not understand.  I am not speaking in terms of the changes in the weather that may or may not be occurring, but the actions being taken by governments in response to what they believe is happening with the climate.  The state of Connecticut has been planning for, and implementing changes in response to, "global warming" since the year 2000.  These planned changes have been slowly transforming most areas of society including transportation, construction, and agriculture.

This is the first part in a multi-part series examining the various reports, action plans, and other official documents from the state of Connecticut, in relation to "global warming", or "climate change".  The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has a list of "several significant documents" that chronicle the agency's efforts to take action on climate change.  These documents will be cited throughout this multi-part series examining Connecticut Climate Change policy.

The first aspect of this conversation that should be examined is the idea that humans are having an effect on the climate by engaging in activities that increase carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that "Connecticut residents have accepted climate change as undebatable" and that "[d]ue to the overwhelming supporting evidence [of climate change]...we have chosen not to revisit the validity of climate change debate."  Therefore, even when there are multiple critics of climate change science in the state, as evidenced by the public comment section of this 2010 Connecticut Climate Change report, the state has chosen not to even entertain debate on the issue.

State officials rely heavily on information put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to justify their "climate change" programs.  The IPCC has come under heavy scrutiny in the past, as there have been many documented errors with information put out by the organization.  Furthermore, the IPCC information cited by the Connecticut Governors Steering Committee in 2007 indirectly states that man made climate change is not 100% conclusive.  Quoting from that document:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth Assessment report, stating that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations.” [emphasis added]

If the topic of man made global warming is truly "undebatable" with "overwhelming supporting evidence", then why did the IPCC use the phrase "very likely", and not "definitely" or "factually"?

The truth is that man-made climate change is not as factual as many people, and organizations, purport it to be.  There are many scientists, including "climate scientists", who do not agree with the notion that human activity is causing warming.  A popular meme that goes around regarding this topic is that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is real and man made", but this number has been shown to be false by various independent researchers and organizations.  Even if the 97% number was real, should it really matter how many people agree on something?  Isn't science based on reproducible results, facts, and not on consensus?

While this analysis may seem logical, many people are hesitant to take the scientific opinion from someone who is not a scientist, such as myself.  Therefore, when it comes to the topic of man made global warming, people should not only listen to the scientists constantly cited by mainstream sources who are perpetuating the idea that global warming is caused by human activity, but also seek out, find, and listen to, the scientists that hold a different view.  One such scientist, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has been very public in his disbelief in the prevailing "climate science".  Coleman made a presentation titled "There Is No Significant Global Warming", which presents many convincing arguments in his favor, that should be watched by interested persons. (video below)

Now that we have established that man-made climate change is not a "fact", in the second part in this series we will analyze the different Connecticut climate change documents, and examine the various admissions made as to the lack of accuracy in their calculations.  Stay tuned!

Connecticut Judge Charles Gill Thinks People Should Be Forced To Get A License To Have Children

Charles Gill, former Litchfield District Superior Court Judge

There are people in high positions of power, in the United States, that believe people should be forced to become "licensed" before they are allowed to have children.  One of these people is former judge for the Litchfield District Superior Court in Connecticut, Charles D. Gill.  Judge Gill wrote the foreword to a book called Licensing Parents, and says that this was the book that convinced him that parents should be licensed.  For an in-depth analysis on the extraordinary details and suggestions propagated in Licensing Parents, read the report A Critical Examination of the Book and Concept of "Licensing Parents".

The influence of Charles Gill in Connecticut law and politics was briefly described in an analysis titled "Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights".  In the analysis it was discussed how Judge Gill was attempting to make United States law consistent with United Nations resolutions, more specifically The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).  The UNCRC would drastically reduce the rights of parents over their children, by increasing government involvement into the lives of children, in the name of "protecting" them.  Judge Gill has been quoted as admitting that the UNCRC makes the state directly responsible for the child:

"The (UN) convention makes a total break from previous approaches to children's rights. Previous 'rights' were paternalistic, whereas the convention makes the state directly responsible to the child."

Gill wrote an article for the The School Superintendents Association (AASA) where he promoted the UNCRC, as well as discussing, among other things, a trip he took in 1972 to the Soviet Union as part of a "special education tour" with American and Soviet educators.  In the article Gill shows admiration for the way the Soviet Union viewed children as "national treasures", and bemoans his belief that Americans don't share the same view of their children.  Gill also displays an, in my opinion, radical view of the purpose of "public school leaders", suggesting that they should put "dangerous" knowledge into the minds of children to effect political change:

"Because of your experience, position, and leadership, you have the capacity to become "armed and dangerous" on behalf of our national treasure—our children. You are "armed" with knowledge and "dangerous" because you can put that knowledge to work in the political arena."

One excerpt from the article seemingly shows Gill's true feelings towards the parent/child relationship, implying that parents are detrimental in the development of children.  Writing about the need to "develop children", Gill says:

"An outstanding elementary school principal from Butte, Mont., Kate Stetzner, makes the point with perhaps more clarity. She subscribes to something she calls "the bathtub theory." Children come to school each day as empty bathtubs. Caring teachers and administrators dutifully fill that tub with nurturing, values, inspiration, and information, then the children go home ... and somebody pulls out the plug."