Global Warming

Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation. The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.
source:

Environmentalists and Environmental Organizations

Environmentalists are sometimes split up into two groups, Dark and Light Greens. Light Greens are the more popular and more visible part of the environmental movement, which includes the more famous and public environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club. Light Greens do not follow environmentalism as a distinct political ideology, but rather seek greater environmental emphasis within existing ideologies such as Conservatism, Socialism or Liberalism.[5]
Dark Greens are much more radical than light greens; they tend to believe that all the current political ideologies (that are referred to as industrialism) are corrupt and naturally lead to environmental degradation as they do not view mankind as part of the environment but rather as a higher form of life with the right to take what it wants from the environment. Dark Greens claim that this is caused by the emphasis on growth that exists within all existing ideologies referred to a ‘growth mania’. The dark green brand of environmentalism is associated with ideas of Deep Ecology, Post-materialism, Holism, the Gaia Theory of James Lovelock and the work of Fritjof Capra. The division between light and dark greens was visible in the fighting between Fundi and Realo factions of the German Green Party

Environmental organizations can be global, regional, national or local; they can be government-run or private (NGO). Several environmental organizations, among them the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, specialize in bringing lawsuits. Other environmentalist groups, such as the National Wildlife Federation, World Wide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth, the Nature Conservancy, and the Wilderness Society, disseminate information, participate in public hearings, lobby, stage demonstrations, and purchase land for preservation. Smaller groups, including Wildlife Conservation International, conduct research on endangered species and ecosystems. More radical organizations, such as Greenpeace, Earth First!, and the Earth Liberation Front, have more directly opposed actions they regard as environmentally harmful. While Greenpeace is devoted to nonviolent confrontation, the underground Earth Liberation Front engages in the clandestine destruction of property, the release of caged or penned animals, and other acts of sabotage.
On an international level, concern for the environment was the subject of a UN conference in Stockholm in 1972, attended by 114 nations. Out of this meeting developed UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and the follow-up United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. Other international organizations in support of environmental policies development include the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA), the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
source:

Personal Carbon Trades Info

Personal carbon trading refers essentially to the idea of giving an equal allocation of emissions credits to individuals on a per capita basis, within national carbon budgets. Individuals would then have to surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing more energy would be able to partake in emissions trading to secure more credits, just as companies do now within the EU ETS. It is sometimes confused with carbon offsetting due to the shared notion of paying for emissions, but is a quite different concept designed to be mandatory and to guarantee that nations achieve their carbon emissions targets.

Proponents of personal carbon trading claim that it helps increase ‘carbon literacy’, thereby allowing individuals to make a fair contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It also allows the burden of reducing emissions to be shared evenly throughout the economy, rather than focusing all the attention on business and governments, and should encourage more localised economies.

Personal carbon trading has been criticized for possible complexity and high transaction costs. As yet, there is minimal reliable data on these issues. There is also the criticism that personal carbon trading will be publicly unacceptable. Some have criticised the system saying that it would allow the rich to buy extra carbon rations and so go on polluting while the poor have to cut back, but this has generally overlooked the fact that the rich could only buy additional rations from the poor, thus achieving wealth redistribution, while in no way reducing the effectiveness of the scheme in reducing carbon emissions.
Source:

If this option works to reduce pollution, then so be it. But this seems to be no more than the rich and wasteful of the world being given the right to pollute way beyond their means while giving token amounts of cash to the poor. Should the poor be made to accept money from people who maybe just killing them with pollution. A bit on the cynical side yes but imagine this scenario, the rich pay the poor money to have the right pollute more. Eventually the poor can afford to buy more energy and begin polluting more. Besides that, who do the poor buy credits from, themselves. Or are they not allowed to buy credits like the rich. And if the government wants to start up this scheme, then I'll go live in a tent for a few years just to get rich so then I can buy a mansion with ten bedrooms and 5 baths, a pool, and tennis court, and maybe even 4 or five green cars too.

Global Warming Supporters and Detracters

Since 1989 previously skeptical oil and automobile industry corporations have changed their coats as the political and scientific consensus has grown. The creation of the Kyoto Protocol and the publication of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Second and Third Assessment Reports seems to have changed their ways. Some of these corporations have joined up with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change which is a non-profit organisation that is striving to support efforts that are addressing global warming.

USCAP, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership which was formed in January of this year,2007, with a primary goal to influence the United States government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Members included Alcoa, General Motors, Natural Resources Defense Council plus others, joining in April of this year were ConocoPhilips along with AIG.

Exxon Mobil has been a leading funder of global warming skeptical organisations. At least 40 organisations that have been trying undermine scientific findings dealing with global warming are reportedly funded by ExxonMobil or affiliations between both have been maintained and seem to work with skeptic scientists and they continued up until 2002 and possibly could be still involved in these skeptical practises. Between 2000 and 2003 these organizations reportedly received more than $8m in funding. Exxon also reportedly influenced the Bush administration's energy policy, supported by $55m spent on lobbying government since 1999 and direct contacts between the company and leading politicians.
source:

Global Warming Skoffed At For A long Time

The American Petroleum Institute (API) reportedly wrote a memo around 1998 that outlined a strategy that was aimed at making global warming recognition an uncertainty. This memo was published by the New York Times in 1998. This memo was compared to a 60’s memo by a tobacco company that observed, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
In June 2005 a former API lawyer, Philip Cooney, resigned his White House post after accusations of politically-motivated tampering with scientific reports.
In 2002 the Global Climate Coalition (GCC )considered its work in the US against regulation on global warming to have been so successful that it deactivated itself.

source:

Business on Climate Change

Is the business community really combating the global warming warnings or are they still so skeptical that they might be still under minding the global warming communities. It seems that some major corporations continue to play a role by funding through government lobbying and the funding of global warming skeptics.

Some business corporations are playing a role in the mitigation of global warming by making decisions to invest in research and the implementing of new energy technology and also energy efficiency.

Jumping back to 1989, oil and the automotive industries and also the National Association of Manufacturers created a group, Global Climate Coalition to oppose mandatory action which would address the effects of global warming. Sounds like what the tobacco companies did back in the 50’s 60’s to protect their filthy products and misinformation tactics. The industry funded a $13 million advertising blitz leading up to the vote that in 1997 when the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.