Global Warming.

Global warming refers to a period of increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It is generally used to refer to the increase currently occurring, and to imply "as a result of human activity". The more neutral term climate change is used for periods of increase or decrease, or indeed change in non-temperature variables, with no particular implication of human cause. The Earth's climate system is inherently unstable and global warming can precipitate sudden climate shifts as have been discovered to have occurred within the Earth's recent past. Because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly.

Climate scientists generally agree that Earth has undergone several cycles of global warming and global cooling in the last 20,000 years. The IPCC estimates that surface temperatures have risen by around 0.6°C since the late 19th century.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts 1.5 to 7 °C warming is likely within the 21st century, unless severe measures are taken.

Impacts on human health, agriculture, the economy and the environment

Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 1.5 to 7 °C. Government officials are concerned that the current warming has the potential for harm to the environment and agriculture.

If warming continues at the present rate, it will cause changes in ocean circulation, catastrophic global climate change, loss of biodiversity and irreversible damage to agriculture in those ecoregions most affected. In some regions, e.g. Western Europe, Bangladesh, damage is projected to be extreme, due to loss of Gulf Stream warming and global sea level rise respectively. More frequent bouts of destructive weather are also anticipated, and risk experts in the insurance industry have expressed very strong concerns, advocating a proactive approach based on the precautionary principle. Estimates accepted by the IPCC and by some insurance industry bodies estimate up to 3.5 billion people could be affected by rising disease, loss of fresh water supply, and other impacts. The Global Community has created a global ministry to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies have now been developed and are operating. The ministries have developed:

1. policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and 2. strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

The examples of secondary evidence cited above (lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes) are examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; many species will be forced out of their habitats and to extinction because of changing conditions, while others may spread. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.

Another cause of great concern is sea level rise. Sea levels are rising 1 to 2 centimetres per decade and some small countries in the Pacific Ocean are expressing concerns that if this rise in sea level continues they soon will be entirely under water. Global warming causes the sea level to rise mainly because sea water expands as it warms. Scientists are concerned that the polar ice caps and glaciers have started to melt. As a consequence, the sea level could rise by several metres. As the climate gets hotter, evaporation will increase. This will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion. Many people are concerned that the climate change results in more extreme weather as global warming progresses.

Due to potential effects on human health, the economy and on the environment, global warming is a cause of great concern. Already some important environmental changes have been observed and linked to global warming.

Actions in response to Global Warming

In opposition to action stand the fossil fuel industry and skeptics, who oppose immediate action to mitigate Global Warming. They argue that crippling industry and infrastructure to prevent an unconfirmed ecological catastrophe does not make economic sense and that healthy economies are required to fund technologically innovative solutions, as required by the UNFCCC. President G. W. Bush, made this argument in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Bush did not reject the science outright, and argued that the greenhouse gas control was a matter of voluntary restraint by industry.

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries. It is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in Kyoto, Japan.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) establishes a process for developing an international response to the perceived global warming problem. 181 countries have ratified the UNFCCC, including all industrial nations. The UNFCCC, however, does not provide any binding emission targets.

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries. It has been ratified by 104 countries, representing 43.9% of emissions. Developed countries are required to limit their emissions to, on average, 5.2% below 1990 levels: 29% below pre-Kyoto estimates for 2010. The precise amounts vary from an 8% reduction for the European Union to a permitted increase of 10% for Iceland. Controversially, developing countries, including India and China, are exempted from reductions until they become sufficiently industrialised.

Because global warming is a " tragedy of the commons" problem, the Kyoto Protocol will not take effect until 90 days after countries responsible for over 55% of emissions ratify it. This will occur when Russia ratifies it. The United States, responsible for one-third of emissions of greenhouse, has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but never ratified it. The Kyoto Protocol is a proposal to require countries to adhere to binding emissions targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which are linked to global warming.

The formal name of the proposed agreement is the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The treaty is expected to come into force when it is ratified by Russia.

U.N. and European backers of the Kyoto Protocol who had hoped Russia would commit to ratification were disappointed in September 2003 when Putin indicated his reluctance to sign at a Moscow conference.

Details of the treaty

According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:

The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of some greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut.) The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008 - 12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.

Emissions trading

Emissions trading is a proposed economic solution to air pollution. In such a plan, government agencies set limits or "caps" on each pollutant. Groups that intend to exceed the limits may buy emissions credits from entities that are likely not to exceed the limits. One variation of this scheme is called a cap and trade system.

The idea is that a central authority will grant an allowance to entities based upon a measure of their need. For example an allowance to a country might be based upon total population. An industrial facility might be granted a license for its current actual emissions. If a given facility does not need all of its allowance, it may offer it for sale to another organization that has insufficient allowances for its emission production.

Current trading systems

The United States began emissions trading after passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how muchSulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit.

In New York State's proposed cap and trade program, the state would set an industry-wide "cap" on carbon dioxide emissions, lower than the current amount, and then give each power plant a target and a deadline. Companies that reduce emissions further than required could then "trade" emission credits with companies who cannot meet their goals. The concept, used with some success in the national Clean Air Act to reduce smog and acid rain emissions, is designed to reduce costs for the regulated businesses.

The Kyoto Protocol will bind ratifying nations to a similar system, with the UNFCCC setting caps for each nation. Under the proposed treaty, nations that emit less than their quota of greenhouse gases will be able to sell emissions credits to polluting nations. Critics of the Kyoto Protocol see it as a means of forcibly redistributing wealth from the United States to the Third World. This is because the U.S., which produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, would likely exceed its quota and would have to buy emissions credits from nations such as China, India, and Russia. Critics also argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems as groups that do not pollute are granted emissions credits which they then sell. Some environmental groups are attempting to solve this problem by buying credits and refusing to use or sell them.

Effects on society and enterprise

In private enterprise, emissions trading is very attractive because it does not harm industrial concerns, or require government subsidies. When the price per ton of emissions becomes high-enough, well-managed polluting enterprises can make a rational decision to invest in pollution control equipment, and sell part of their emissions licenses.

In some proposed systems, the government grants tax credits to enterprises. However, these are more expensive for governments, and far less popular for that reason.

Emissions trading is attractive to public-interest environmental organizations, because in an open market, they can purchase, and retire emissions licenses. This permanently reduces the total amount of pollution produced.

Effects on the environment

The effect on the environment is that if the total permitted amounts are fixed or decreasing, public interest groups can decrease them further by purchasing licenses. The net effect is to drive total emissions toward zero with no economic harm to industry.

Stable totals are critical to a stable market

A critical part of emissions trading is that the amount of emissions must be fixed, or controlled in some socially-agreed fashion. Many people favor starting at the current level of emissions. It clearly can form no emergency for existing industrial concerns, and at the same time promises no new pollution. The total of all allowances issued may be adjusted to an agreed reduction rate for the particular emission or pollutant. Thus, the central authority may control the emissions, and allow market forces to encourage countries to produce less of the emissions. For example, less developed countries with relatively high populations, and lower pollution per head than western countries may sell their allowances to the industrialised west. However, as the supply is finite, the more that the west produces, the more that the additional allowances will cost them, until it becomes uneconomic to pollute, and more economic to convert to less environmentally harmful technologies.

Enforcement is critical to a stable market

Another critical part of the bargain is enforcement. Without effective enforcement, the licenses have no value. Two basic scheme exist.

In one, the regulators measure facilities, and fine or sanctions those that lack the licenses for their emissions. This scheme is quite expensive to enforce, and the burden falls on the agency, which then may need to collect special taxes. Another risk is that facilities may find it far less expensive to corrupt the inspectors than purchase emissions licenses. The net effect of a poorly financed or corrupt regulatory agency is a discount on the emissions licenses, and greater pollution.

In another, some other agency, usually a commercial agency licensed by the government, verifies that polluting facilities have licenses equal or greater than their emissions. Inspection of the certificates is performed in some automated fashion by the regulators, perhaps over the internet, or as part of tax collection. The regulators then audit licensed facilities chosen at random to verify that certifying agencies are acting correctly. This scheme is far less expensive, placing most regulation in the private sector. In addition, auditing can be performed on well-paid contracts by persons (such as university professors or antipollution activists) whose reputation is more valuable to them than any practical amount of graft.

The protocol operates in an interesting fashion. Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.

Countries also receive credits through various shared "clean energy" programs and " carbon sinks in the form of forests and other systems that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Status of the treaty

As of February 2002, the agreement had been ratified by 104 countries, representing 43.9% of emissions. Countries do not need to sign the treaty in order to ratify it—signing is a symbolic act only. A total of 19 countries had signed the protocol but not ratified it. The remaining 58 parties to the UNFCCC had neither signed nor ratified the protocol.

According to the terms of the protocol, it enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."

Revisions

The protocol left several issues open, to be decided later by the COP. COP6 attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union on the one hand (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).

In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting was held in Bonn where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to get Japan and Russia in as well by allowing more use of carbon dioxide sinks.

Current Positions of Governments

As of 2002, 104 countries have ratified the protocol, including Canada, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and the fifteen countries of the European Union.

19 countries have signed the protocol but not ratified it. Of those eight are Annex I countries:

Australia (not intending to ratify)
Croatia
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Russia -- Because of the collapse in the Russian economy, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, and may be able to benefit from selling emissions credits to other countries. Russia is expected to ratify the treaty, which will be sufficient to bring the treaty into force.
Switzerland -- Switzerland passed the CO2 law on October 8, 1999 which should allow it to achieve its target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by the Senate but not yet by the House of Representatives. [5] [6]
Ukraine -- The Ukrainian economy, like the Russian economy, is such that meeting Kyoto commitments should initially be easy, and Ukraine is expected to ratify the treaty.
United States -- The US, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does not intend to ratify the treaty. (see below)

The eleven Annex II countries that have signed but not yet ratified are: Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, Niger, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Solomon Islands.

Position of the United States

Summary: The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States until such time that the United States ratifies it.

On June 25,1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

President George W. Bush, another Conservative or Republican fellow, has indicated that he did not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he did support the general idea, but because he was not happy with the details of the treaty.

China is an Annex II country under the protocol, and emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 million per capita). China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.

The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. This may change at the next change of government, as the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so.

Position of Canada

On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. This was however opposed by groups of businesses and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US. Later, Canada, under a Conservative government, up out of the Protocol.This decision was mostly reflecting the push for the development of the dirty tar sands oil of Alberta. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was greatly influenced by the Alberta oil and gas industry. The PM spent billions of the taxpayers money to help the industry and promote his pet project: the dirty tar sands oil. The PM would rather see the world destroyed than stopping the production of the dirty tar sands oil. This is not OK because the Conservative PM is using taxpayer money to give to oil and gas companies that are already making a large profit. They are using the cash to upgrade their facilities. But their facilities are producing the products, fossil fuels, that actually destroy the global life-support systems. So where is the logic here?! We are rewarding the criminals?! Money is also given to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) to give away contracts to their professional engineers. Often the contracts are coming from a U.S. company requesting upgrading to Canadian standards. Now how much money is given away towards paying for these contracts and are therefore subsidized by the Government of Canada? In the past professional engineers never help fighting for the environment and the global life-support systems. The reason why professional training in now offered at the university level is because environmentalists exerted pressure on all governments and universities to have those training programs in place. So now engineers are trained to do simple tests for specific standards, and they are getting large amount of money to do so. And again they are receiving the money from taxpayers to do their contract work. Why is it that a large group of professionals (not just engineers) in our society actually get high salaries to do work they never truly care about? These same people would use the money to buy cars (SUVs), trucks and what not, that are more polluting than the facilities they are paid to test for pollution. Why are they not made responsible and accountable just like the environmentalists who have spent their own money to fight for the environment and the global life-support systems. Why are we rewarding the criminals? Do we reward terrorists for killing innocent people? So why is the Government of Canada subsidizing the polluters? The Government is actually giving them money to become better polluters. They become more efficient at being a polluter. Dont you know oil and gas are products that create global warming and burn the Oxygen of the air? Where is the logic here? Do we have to explain to all these 'professionals' that is what they are doing?

Overview of results from this report

Currently, the biological carbon cycle in the broadest sense may not be balanced because of human influences on it. CO2released via respiration, decomposition, and burning may not all be taken up by plants. That is, we may be experiencing a net loss of biomass on Earth at present. However, this is not certain. A few years ago, scientists believed that anthropogenic land conversion (basically, deforestation, and largely in the tropics) constituted a large net input of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time due to human activities, such as:

burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations,
cattle farming and pipeline losses leading to higher methane concentrations,
the use of CFCs in refrigeration and fire suppression systems.

When we drive our cars, and light, heat, and cool our homes, we generate greenhouse gases. And we also burn the Oxygen of the air. Drivers affect three global life-support systems by:

* creating the global warming of the planet * changing the global climate, and * burning the Oxygen of the atmosphere

Forests contribute to absorbing carbon dioxide and act as CO2 sinks. Conversely, deforestation largely in tropical countries is a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 releases from deforestation are about 1/6 of sources from fossil fuel combustion. Not all the CO2 is absorbed by the atmosphere; part of the CO2 is absorbed by oceans, and part by forests through the process of photosynthesis. Water vapour and clouds are some the most important atmospheric constituents of climatic significance that cause about two-thirds of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Concerning these other greenhouse gases it was observed (World Meteorological Organization) that:

* Detailed analysis of fossilized air in polar ice cores indicate that, during the pre-industrial period of the last millennium, concentrations of carbon dioxide within the atmosphere have varied by less than 5% around a mean value of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Furthermore, this background value represents the upper range of concentrations throughout at least the last 220 000 years of earth's history. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution some 200 years ago, concentrations have increased by about 27% above this upper value, and now average almost 360 ppmv. * Similar measurements of atmospheric methane concentrations show that pre-industrial levels have been more than doubled during the past two centuries. * Concentrations of other greenhouse gases are also increasing. Nitrous oxide concentrations are rising slowly but steadily, and now exceed pre-industrial levels by about 13%. Clorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halogen gases, most of which have no significant natural sources, have been accumulating rapidly. Meanwhile, in some parts of the world, the concentrations of tropospheric ozone has increased dramatically, with levels in the Northern Hemisphere today estimated to be about twice that of pre-industrial levels. * Scientific studies have conclusively linked the above changes in greenhouse gases to emissions from anthropogenic sources. While incremental emissions of some greenhouse gases, such as methane, remain in the atmosphere on average for slightly more than a decade, others such as CO2, N2O, CFCs and some fully fluorinated compounds (FFCs) remain for centuries and even millennia. Hence, in many respects these changes in atmospheric composition are irreversible on human time scales. * While natural fluxes of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems are estimated to be some 20-25 times larger than current humans emissions, ice cores confirm that these natural fluxes have on average been remarkably well balanced during the past 10,000 years. Anthropogenic emissions, while comparatively small, have incrementally caused a significant imbalance in this natural cycle, resulting in an accumulation of excess carbon dioxide in the atmospheric reservoir of the carbon cycle. On the other hand, human emissions of many of the other lesser greenhouse gases, as well as aerosols, today already significantly exceed those from natural sources. * Various scenarios of future human emissions of greenhouse gases suggest that increased atmospheric concentrations equivalent to a doubling of CO2 by 2100 is almost unavoidable, while a tripling or greater by that time is a distinct possibility. * Although atmospheric aerosols from coal combustion and biomass burning have an average residence time in the atmosphere of days and weeks, sustained emissions have resulted in average global concentrations estimated to be about triple that of background levels. Local concentrations in some industrial regions of the northern hemisphere have increased by a factor of 20 to 30.

There are important results obtain from research done so far:

* the model equilibrium responses of average surface temperatures to a doubling of CO2 consistently lies between 1.5 and 4.5°C, and clearly exclude zero change; * the rate of average global warming due to increasing greenhouse concentrations anticipated over the century is in the range of 0.2 to 0.5°C per decade. Inclusion of effects of increases in aerosols may reduce this by 0.1°C/decade; * land areas warm more than oceans, and high northern latitudes more than equatorial regions. Greatest warming is in high northern latitudes in winter. * precipitation and soil moisture increases in high latitudes in winter. Most models also project dryer summer soil conditions in interior continental regions of northern mid-latitudes; * global sea levels are expected to rise about 2 to 8 cm/decade for the next several centuries, in response to melting land ice and increasing ocean temperatures. Such rises threaten many island states and low lying coastal areas around the world with inundation. For example, a one-meter sea level rise would displace millions of people in countries such as Bangladesh, and would affect 15% of agricultural lands in Egypt. * margins of many terrestrial ecosystems will experience increasing stress as ambient regional climates become mismatched with those required for healthy growth of species within. While most species can migrate in response to slow climate change, paleo studies suggest than rates of change in excess of 0.1°C/decade are almost certainly too rapid to avoid disruption. Species in mountainous terrain also have absolute limits in vertical migration potential, with high elevation species threatened with extinction as climate warming eliminates their climatic ecozones. Increased vulnerability to insect and disease infestation adds to such stresses. * forest dieback and increased forest fires in stressed ecosystems and the gradual decay of Arctic permafrost will cause large increases in greenhouse gas emissions from natural ecosystems, thus causing a strong positive climate change feedback; * changes in ocean temperatures and circulation patterns will alter fish habitats, causing collapse of some species and migration of others. Some of the recent collapses in certain fish stock, such as that of the North atlantic cod, are already believed to be linked to regional changes in ocean temperatures. * changes in global distribution of rainfall will cause droughts and increased aridity in some agricultural regions, wetter conditions and increased flooding in others. Fish populations will migrate with changes in ocean currents and be affected by changes in ocean temperatures. While impacts on total global food supply are uncertain, the distribution of food will change. Poor nations will have little capacity to adapt to such changes; * frequency and severity of extreme regional weather events are expected to change, particularly in terms of intense rainfall, droughts and heat spells. Severe storms, including hurricanes, may extend further into mid-latitude regions as ocean surfaces warm. * climate sensitive diseases such as malaria are likely to increase their range poleward.

Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. There are two fundamental types of response to the risks of climate change:

1. reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and 2. reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

1. policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and 2. strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

The Global Community also proposes that all nations of the world promote the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the criteria to obtain the Global Community Citizenship. Every global community citizen lives a life with the higher values described in the Scale and the criteria. Global community citizens are good members of the human family. Most global problems, including global warming and world overpopulation, can be managed through acceptance of the Scale and the criteria. We know that stabilizing emissions of greenhouse gases will not stabilize concentrations. While slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations, such actions will still likely lead to a doubled CO2-type environment within the next century. Considering the residence time of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a reduction of 10% in methane emissions would be required to stabilize methane concentrations, reductions in excess of 50% would be required to stabilize CO2 and N2O emissions, and virtual elimination of emissions would be needed to stabilize concentrations of very long-lived gases such as fully fluorinated compounds. Scientists will also need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils. Proposals to extract CO2 from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon. The Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. For example, identification of tree species that can grow well under current as well as projected future climates will help develop reforestation programs that are less vulnerable to both climate variability and change. Genetically improved species can be developed to replace the weakess species. Assessment of the role of agricultural subsidies and disaster relief programs in actually encouraging farmers to cultivate lands which are highly susceptible to droughts or floods can improve the adaptability of the agricultural sector. Alternatively, developing socio-economic activities that can thrive under anticipated climate changes can help realize some of the benefits of climate change. Collectively, such actions will help reduce human vulnerability to climate change, and hence raise the threshold at which such change becomes dangerous. Human activities that add CO2 to the atmosphere:

(1) Burning of fossil fuels, contributing about 5 billion metric tons C/year. The combustion of fossil fuels oxidizes organic carbon, with carbon and oxygen combining to yield CO2. (2) Anthropogenic land conversion (ALC)

Unfortunately, humans have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes. The impacts of such activities have been to:

(1) Remove a large sink for atmospheric carbon (because forests take up and store larger amounts of carbon than do other terrestrial ecosystems). Tropical and temperate rainforests have been subjected to heavy logging during the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforest around the world is shrinking rapidly. Estimates range from 1 1/2 acres to 2 acres of rainforest disappear each second. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated that the remaining rainforests could disappear within 40 years at this present rate of logging. Further estimates suggest that large numbers of species are being driven extinct, possibly 50,000 species a year due to the removal of their habitat. The largest rainforests can be found today in the Amazon basin (the Amazon Rainforest), the inner parts of Democratic Republic of Congo and on Borneo. (2) Add a large source for atmospheric carbon (when the trees decay or are burned, releasing carbon). About 80% of the wood removed during tropical deforestation is destroyed (burned or decayed) or used as fuel wood, so the carbon stored in it is released rapidly as CO2, as opposed to the delayed slow release that occurs when used for lumber.

Thus, there is an increased flux of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere, resulting from this land conversion. It was estimated that the net input of CO2 to the atmosphere from ALC was about 1/4 as much as from fossil fuel burning (1.3 billion metric tons of carbon per year compared to 5 billion metric tons of carbon per year from fossil fuel combustion). Most of this increased flux now comes from tropical Africa and Asia, but until about 1920, North America actually provided the largest ALC flux to the atmosphere. At present, however, fossil fuel burning is a more important source of CO2 to the atmosphere than is anthropogenic land conversion (ALC). Let us evaluate the impact of burning fossil fuels. Crude oil is certainly a major fossil fuel in use today. More recent data have shown that there are seven billion tons of carbon emissions injected into the atmosphere every year and only a total of 5.4 billion of those tons accounted for! The remaining 1.6 billion tons represents the "missing carbon mystery!" If 40-50% of the carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere and 15-30 % go into the oceans, what happens to the remaining 20 - 35%? See sections J3 and J5 for possible explanation. There is much uncertainty concerning the magnitude of fluxes associated with tropical deforestation, and whether it does in fact represent a net flux. The current range of estimates for fluxes from tropical deforestation is from 1.1 - 3.6 billion metric tons of C/year, which would be between 20-65% as much as from fossil fuel emissions. Quite a huge spread in estimates! Most estimates agree that between 1/5 -1/3 of the increased flux of CO2 to the atmosphere results from deforestation.

Fossil fuel burning contributes about 5 billion metric tons C/year to the atmosphere. It is important now to describe the human activities that are involved in combustion. At present, however, fossil fuel burning is a more important source of CO2 to the atmosphere than is anthropogenic land conversion (ALC). Let us evaluate the impact of burning fossil fuels. Crude oil is certainly a major fossil fuel in use today.

Conclusion

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, and temperatures are rising globally due to these activities. There are plenty of observable effects of the global warming. And certainly this ridiculous and false solution of buying environmental credits from each other should not be considered as a way out of resolving the problem. The ratification the Kyoto Protocol is only a beginning to protect the global life-support systems. There is much more to do! It is OK to be more energy efficient for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is also OK to build new cars with engines that do not emit greenhouse gases. Global Community has seen oil companies improving a lot on many important aspects of their business. And that is OK! A lot of new solutions to resolve the problem of global warming are welcome and certainly are OK. But none of them tackle the problem head-on! None of the solutions make a dent in resolving the problem. None are significant solutions! None of the solutions truly show any significant cut in greenhouse gas emissions. None of the solutions tell us that producers of the deadly gases are the problems and so are consumers. Producers of the deadly gases are fooling themselves first and then they fool the consumers of their products of mass destruction, the greenhouse gases. Global warming is the highest threat to Earth security and is everyone's business. Terrorism was, and still is, a problem humanity needed to tackle head-on and resolve the best we could, but global warming is by far the greatest threat to the security of all people on Earth and to life itself. We have never tackle the problem head-on. We played around the problem and its solution. We know the solution to the problem of global warming, we know what we need to do to make this generation and future generations safe and secure, but we just never do what we really have to do to resolve the problem. Why? What will it take to make us act on the problem of global warming? What will it take to make the North American Way of Life safe and secure to humanity? What will it take to make Canadians and Americans understand that it does not matter how many guns we have, how many weapons of mass destruction we have hidden everywhere, or how good a 'Star War System' could be, and how many nations we invade, and how big is our GDP and how good is our economy. None of that matters! None! The biggest problem to security is smaller than anything we can see, smaller than the smallest particle we can breathe, and it is a trace element in the air we breathe. A deadly gas, the greenhouse gas! We all know the problem, and we also know the solution. We can stop creating greenhouse gases. So now what is the problem? The biggest problem is the North American continent Way of Life, consuming too much of the wrong things. The biggest problem is too much freedom of doing the wrong things. The biggest problem is our own weaknesses and helplessness in tackling the problem head-on and solve it. The biggest problem is that Canadians and Americans are getting too proud about things that are completely unimportant and missing out on the things that are truly important, and we have been left behind by most other nations on those things that are truly important for the generations to come and to life itself. Global Community is asking North Americans and everyone else on Earth to tackle the problem head-on. We must solve the problem we have with global warming. Producers of the greenhouse gases tell us "we are energy efficient" but the truth of the matter is that they are producing the deadly gases of mass destruction, and those deadly gases are killing us all, and all life on Earth. It does not matter how smart you may be in fooling yourselves in accepting a slow death, a suicide in a way, you are still killing yourselves and the people of the next generations. That is a crime against humanity. You are criminals. An oil company is proudly telling us with all sorts of gifts, grants and awards to the community that every year they have 'given' to their customers trillions of litres of the deadly gases. And, their customers, very proudly and carefully burned all of those litres. That is the biggest problem. We are told that we should be proud of burning the deadly gases. Americans invaded the Middle East to take over OPEC and their oil and burn trillions of barrels of oil. That means trillions of litres of the deadly gases entering the atmosphere of the Earth. The best and cheapest oil in the world being taken over by the worst consumers of the world. Just how mad are we? How insane are we getting to be? How can anyone be proud of thenselves about such an invasion? What is it? We enjoy driving with freedom on the highway?! We enjoy driving and to forget completely that we are actually killing ourselves and taking away the lives of people of the next generations. We want to forget we are destroying all life on Earth. And please dont even mention the 'carbon emission trading permits' (a mechanism by which oil companies could buy and sell greenhouse gas emissions trading permits) as a possible solution. You are just extending the death of all lives by a few years, and you are not tackling the problem head-on. Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! In order words, a person becomes responsible and accountable for anything and everything in his or her life. As a business you may be using standards of operating and managing that are similar to the ISO 14001 environmental management plan (internationally recognized standards that provide guidelines to reduce environmental impacts). ISO 14001 provides a framework for continual improvement to mitigate potential environmental impacts from operations and businesses dealing with your company. The problem is not so much how good is your environmental management plan. The problem is the product you produce and put on the market to consumers. The problem is your product, a deadly product of mass destruction. It is worst than all known weapons of mass destruction as it kills by making consumers believe it is good for them. Like smoking cigarettes! Companies making cigarettes have for long told their consumers that a longer filter would not affect them so much and they would not get cancer and die of it. Whether or not you use the most energy-efficient machines and the best management team, and ISO 14001 for that matter, at the end it does not matter. You are still producing the deadly gases and consumers are still burning them. Consider the long filter for cigarettes as an illusionary solution to the problem and so are carbon emission trading permits. Oil companies are responsible and accountable of their products from beginning to end. The 'end' for an oil company does not end at the gas pump where a consumer buy your refine products. No! The end for you goes all the way to global warming, to pollution of the environment, to the destruction of the global life-support systems, to taking away lives of future generations, to the destruction of life on Earth. Very much so! Global Community proposes to ask you to pay a global tax on your products. The tax would be high enough to discourage consumers from buying your products and force you to use viable alternatives. The Governments of the United States and Canada should put a high tax on all oil based products and their derivatives and certainly gasoline should have the highest tax possible. The tax would be a carbon tax allocated for the protection of the environment and the global life-support systems. A workable type of Tobin tax should also be in place as it is a powerful instrument to promote sustainable development and force shareholders in moving away from producing oil. Global Community also proposes to develope a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards. The WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the UN are worldwide organizations that can and should be used to raise global taxes to redistribute to the poorest and developing nations.

Recommendations

Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2) gas at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO2 is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million. Combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2are consumed. A typical American uses 15 times as much lumber and paper as a resident of a developing country. Reducing wood consumption in the industrialized world is unlikely to stop forest loss in developing countries however, since most of the wood consumed comes from trees in the industrialized countries themselves. Nevertheless, the consumption model offered to the rest of the world threatens accelerated forest loss as both populations and economies grow in developing countries. Scientists will need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils. Proposals to extract CO2 from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon. We need to improve on our ability to:

* predict future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. While demographic, technological and economic factors are in many respects inherently speculative, better observations and understanding of the processes by which human activities directly or indirectly contribute to emissions are clearly required. These in particular include emissions from deforestation and agricultural activities; * obtain more data on the effect of human emissions on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Not only do we need to reduce the uncertainties about past and current sinks for emitted greenhouse gases, but we need to better understand and quantify the long term feedbacks such as CO2 fertilization and physical and biological response to climate change if we expect to improve our confidence in projections of future concentrations. * measure direct and indirect effects of radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols. * measure climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing. * measure the response to climate change of biological and physical processes with the terrestrial and ocean systems * obtain an early detection of the signal of human interference with the climate system against the change caused by natural forces or internal system noise is important in fostering timely and responsible coping actions. * develop actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare to adapt to climate change. However, stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions will not stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and climate but only slow down the rates of change. * live with the facts that climate change is unavoidable, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are already signficantly higher than pre-industrial levels, and that aggressive efforts to reduce their anthropogenic emission sources would only slow down the growth in their concentrations, not stop it. Therefore, policy response to this issue must also include strategies to adapt to the consequences of unavoidable climate change.

XI. Preventive actions against polluters

Individuals, too, can help bring about a world that is more secure and more supportive of life, health and happiness. They can educate themselves on population dynamics, consumption patterns and the impact of these forces on natural resources and the environment. They can be socially, politically and culturally active to elevate the issues they care about. They can become more environmentally responsible in their purchasing decisions and their use of energy and natural resources. And individuals and couples can consider the impacts of their reproductive decisions on their communities and the world as a whole.

What is needed is for government and the private sector to make reproductive health services available to all who seek them, to make sure that girls and boys can go to and stay in school, and to make economic opportunities as accessible to women as to men. Combined with improved energy and natural-resource technologies and saner models of consumption and the “good life,” these strategies can bring humanity into enduring balance with the environment and the natural resources that people will always need.

Nationalization of natural resources As defined by the Global Community, the concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone, to all life on Earth, as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. October 29 is the day to celebrate ownership of our natural resources. Along with ownership comes the obligation of using the resources, share them or lose them. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world and to Wall Street. You own property because the previous owners could not pay. Use that property, share it or lose it. The Global Community stipulates that land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. So, by definition, land here, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits, fossil fuels, water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fishes in the seas, lakes and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to such natural resources. In order to better protect life on our planet, the Global Community is asking people of all nations to defend and protect their natural resources. In particular, all the hydrocarbons within a national territory must be nationalized. It is an obligation, not only of a national government, but also of all the active forces in a country; it is the duty of local and municipal authorities, the duty of state authorities, of everyone, to take upon themselves this defense and this recuperation of natural resources. Nationalization is a necessity because American corporations have been buying local corporations to acquire natural resources of a country. This state of affairs has been going on ever since WWII. Over the past decades, the US national debt and annual deficit have been out-of-control because of a complete business freedom of the US corporate world. No taxation! When a large corporation is about to go out of business, the White House intervened with a bail out. For example in Canada, the property of the hydrocarbons, the oil and natural gas, and tarsands, have mostly owned by American and other foreign corporations. Our natural resources have been bought out by foreigners. Pipelines have been built to transport the oil and natural gas to the customers in the United States without paying taxes to Canada. Canadian corporations that have been taken over by American corporations with bankrupted money, paper money, Stock Exchange money, money that Americans dont even have. The White House prints dollar bills by the trillions and give them to corporations to buy more Canadian corporations. This is no longer a fair exchange of something tangible with something else of an equivalent value. We have natural resources and Americans have bankrupted money to exchange with. That's not right! How can we let that happened? It is time to nationalize Canadian natural resources. From this point onward, with the nationalization of our natural resources, those Canadian natural resources will be under control of the Canadian people, for Canadians, and help resolve Canada's economic and social problems. Nationalization is not new. The global financial crisis is good example of nationalization. When Wall Street started to crash, the US Government thought it would be wise to nationalize key financial institutions, even partially nationalized, so why not natural resources? They are in great danger of being destroyed (forests, oceans, fresh water, soils, air we breath, electromagnetic spectrum) or destroying all life on Earth (petroleum rersources). Once Canadians have recovered these natural resources, it will generate employment. Today here in Canada, the new P.R. b...s... the conservative government uses to promote the development of the dirty tar sands oil of Alberta and of its transportation through pipelines to the West and East coasts of Canada and, from there by ships to places such as China, is:

"It is good for all Canadians and economic development. More taxes will be coming to Ottawa for every baril of oil sold overseas."

What a monumental lie once more! For one thing, the conservative government uses tax money to promote the dirty tar sands oil development. No other industry has this kind of attention by the hundreds of millions of tax dollars. And secondly, this project will make very rich the following terrarist businesses and major partners in producing the dirty tar sands oil

Suncor, Syncrude, Shell, Chevron, Marathon, BP, Oxy, ConocoPhillips, Cenovus, CNRL, Devon, Statoil, Nexen, Imperial Oil, Petro Canada, ExxonMobil, Laricina Energy, OSUM and KNOC.

Most of those businesses are owned by foreign corporations. CEOs of those corporations and their shareholders have no problems transfering their money to offshore bank accounts so as to avoid paying taxes to Canada. And thirdly, just the greengase emissions from the burning of the dirty tar sands oil will bring up the overall emissions in the air we breathe to 600 ppmv and that means the end of civilization as we know it, and the end of most lifeforms on our planet. And again let us mention that while this is happening today, the conservative government is shoting the Canadian manufacturing industry. And they have the guts to tell us that this is all good for Canadians. There is so much corruption in the Canadian conservative government and in the oil and gas industry of Alberta it supports by the billion of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money that no one understand what is happening. A normal person understands losing let say fifty thousand dollars because of some climate change disaster. But when it comes to losing or wasting several billion dollars of taxpayer money in supporting the oil and gas industry, everyone dont understand what is happening, and it seems unreal, and we keep hearing in the news a message from the conservative government that is good for all Canadians, and therefore corruption stays unpunished. While in Alberta I struggled to find employment related to my education and training. Being seen as an environmental activist never help me, my wife and her two daughters. Then my wife and I decided that I would go to Ottawa and campaign to re-elect Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada. We thought helping will translate into a job for myself. I campaigned with the team in Ottawa Centre. We re-elected him. And yes I got a job offer, an eleven months contract work as Analyst with the Energy, Mines and Resources Branch in Calgary, my home base. My job was to analyze oil and gas applications for incentives, i.e. money to explore and develop new oil and gas wells mostly found in Alberta. When I started working the Branch was already giving away 33 1/3 % for any expenses incurred during and after exploration of wells including their development afterward. This percentage was down from a 50% incentive of previous years. Even expenses for wells that did not end up producing anything. Imagine that! In the US the White House helped the U.S. auto manufacturing industry with large amounts of US taxpayer dollars in the hope they will pay back every penny. And they have! But here in Alberta the oil and gas industry never paid back the amounts of Canadian tax payer dollars given to them. Neither did the big corporations pay taxes to government. Many of them are not even Canadian owned corporations. They are getting away from paying taxes due to loopholes everywhere in the system. In the 80s instead of paying taxes big oil corporations found ways to waste money everyway they could, including money used to develop tar sands projects. Throughout the 80s the development of the tar sands was very costly and the price of oil was low. Indeed it was not good economics to produce the crude oil from the tar sands. But this way the big oil corporations did not have to pay taxes. It was classified as research and development by Conservatives. During those years I was doing activism work on my own against the development of the tar sands. Of course I was labelled as a social nonsense. During those years big oil corporations were very successful with their Public Relations (PR) strategy. They kept saying how badly they were taking avantage by Ottawa. The reality was that Ottawa was paying for half of their expenses. Today those same big oil corporations are using a PR strategy that says how good they are: "look we remediate sites after using them by growing grass over the land". Of course they never mention what happens in between because that would not be good PR. Here is what really happens. The environmental impacts of tar sands development include: irreversible effects on biodiversity and the natural environment, reduced water quality, destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest and associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration, fish deformities and negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities, and the destruction of the global life-support systems with their enormous quantities of greenhouse gase emissions resulting from the production and processing of the tar sands, and the transportation and burning of the crude oil. The Energy, Mines and Resources Branch was grandfathering oil and gas applications made in 1980s and kept paying throughout the 90s. I myself analyzed and paid over 200 millions dollars to applicants during my eleven months contract work in Calgary, Alberta. I must say that analysing was nothing but following a protocol designed and approved by the Conservative Government. It really meant to just sign an apllication. Each application was worth at least a million dollar to tens of millions. And there were 10 other analysts like myself doing the same work. They had been around for much longer then I was and kept working after my eleven months and throughout the 90s. Very likely billions of Canadian tax payers money went back to Albertans towards oil and gas exploration expenses in the 80s and 90s. Noone truly knows how many of those expenses were really exploration and development expenses. There was corruption everywhere. Money spent may have been expensive private jet flights to Vegas and extravagant meals CEOs were having with friends and relatives. They treated themselves as do princes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy where the royal family dominates the political system. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil reserves and very much your friend. There were a few scandals in Alberta on the fraudulent use of tax dollars but the media was reluctant to report on them because the media itself was and still is own by large corporations with a definite Conservative agenda. And the Energy Branch was not about to do anything about them. But then could the people of Saudi Arabia have told King Abdul Aziz and his princes not to waste resources money the way they have done? The people over there have been kept so backward that they cannot even research and develop the working of a toaster. They buy everything from elsewhere, especially the military armament from the US. What a waste of Earth resources, the military. You should be ashamed Sir of your military and your war industry, and so should the British people of their military and war industry. The US military and its war industry are the worst polluters on the planet. Not only do they pollute the planet but they also bomb communities and destroy everything, the latest examples being Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. These countries and their people were sent back to stone age by your military Sir. You decided not to use diplomacy because you did not like either Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or Col. Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi!? Your invasions were truly uncivilized, barbaric, and unjust. You have shown no respect for life on our planet. And it was truly for the oil owned by the people of those countries. You just had to steal the oil. You figure your military should be good for something. Stealing being one of them. In my book Sir, Americans and British people are plundering the Earth resources wherever they are found. And of course your war industry is back there again selling armaments to rebels, and they will pay you with their oil revenues. What a disgusting waste! You shut down the Tar Sands Keystone XL Pipeline project but you should completely shut down your military Sir. And that would be good! During my 12 years of living in Alberta I embraced Conservative values and campaigned with Conservative candidates provincially and federally. One thing that still is stuck on my mind to these days was a fundamental Conservative value we, as Conservatives, all agreed upon and was that "growth should pay for itself". Government should not be helping corporations to pay for there expenses. Tar sands projects are an obvious example of large corporations not paying for their own growth. Beside not paying taxes, they also never paid for building the infrastructures and facilities needed by their own workers. Schools, hospitals, fire stations, health care services, and so on! What we have witnessed happening in the tar sands kingdom was that the fundamental Conservative value, "growth should pay for itself", was truly not on the agenda of the big corporations. In fact, not only they would not pay for their growth but they would not even participate in the 'growth' of every one else in Canada. That makes them 'separatists'. They would gladly separate from the rest of Canada and join the US. Big oil corporations figure they are a country themselves and own the planet resources. They are the 1% . The plundering of our natural resources by international and transnational oil and gas companies must come to an end. And for this reason we want to share the joy on this historic day of nationalization. If indeed previous governments have used the Armed Forces for the benefit of transnational corporations, the Armed Forces can now be used to unite for their country, for their nation, for their patria. We are a government of the people, a native government. We are a global community. We want to ask government to defend its sovereignty, its dignity and above all the integrity of its territory, we want to ask that it take charge of all the oil fields of all of its nation. Unless a reformed or empowered Global Community is leading firmly upon the principle of equal rights for all Global Citizens, then the planet will be controlled by a handful of vested interests. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to natural resources. The Global Economic Model proposes to make private property the product of labour. Common property is all what Nature offers. The Global Economic Model policy removes taxes from wages and increases taxes and user fees on common property. Claiming ownership of the Earth as a birthright Along with all the global communities, the Global Community, all life on Earth, and the Soul of Humanity can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth as a birthright. And October 29 of every year is a special day to claim that right. Let us celebrate! The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land and all other natural resources around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, all life on Earth, and the Soul of Humanity, a global community has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. Founders and Spiritual Leaders of the Global Community organization are happy to celebrate that day with all life on Earth. To create a biodiversity zone over the entire planet by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone over the entire planet by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources. Climate change is a result of the rising global temperatures associated with global warming and human activities, the effects of which have a direct impact on all life on Earth. Global warming is causing the melting of the polar ice caps. The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030. The Global Community also proposes that all nations of the world promote the Scale of Global Rights and the criteria to obtain the Global Community Citizenship. Every global community citizen lives a life with the higher values described in the Scale and the criteria. Global community citizens are good members of the human family. Most global problems, including global warming and world overpopulation, can be managed through acceptance of the Scale and the criteria. The Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. There are two fundamental types of response to the risks of climate change:

1. reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and 2. reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

1. policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and 2. strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

The Global Community has given back responsibility to every citizen on Earth. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of life within the Global Community. We will work together in finding sound solutions to local and global problems. It would be wrong and dishonest to blame it all on the leader of a country. Most problems in the world must find solutions at the local and global community levels (and not assume that the leader alone is responsible and will handle it). There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be utilized. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, and encouraged to develop his or her own life for the better. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future. Everyone can think of better ideas to sustain all life on Earth and realize these ideas by conducting positive and constructive actions. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss; that is the grassroots process. The Global Community can help people realized their actions by coordinating efforts efficiently together.

XII. Recommendations

The Global Community has developed a global strategy to reinforce primordial human rights. Recommendations to that effect are:

* provision of minimal standards of health, education, and housing worldwide * reduce inequality in access to work opportunities * care for the quality of life of the people * all nations must ratify an agreement to form the Earth Court of Justice * increase global cooperation between nations to deal with terrorism in a more selective, targeted way * help the Global Community promote and implement its global civic ethic program worldwide * allow our volunteers perform their global ethical management tasks during conflict resolution * emphasise social responsibility of corporations in the whole cycle of their products or services * expand coordination and global cooperation among nations, agencies, and NGOs, regarding information, early warning, apprehension, and punishment of terrorists through the Earth Court of Justice. The Court will create an environment for transparent Justice. * when there is massive damage done to a country that is abhorent to most countries of the world then the Earth Court of Justice will find it justified to go after the suspected criminals wherever they may be hiding

Agricultural practices must be changed to get more crop per liter of water by:

* developing plants that are drought-hearty and more tolerant to a lesser quality of the soil * practicing desalination and water efficiencies in agricultural and urban usage

The lack of potable water and availability of water for agriculture use will contribute to the cause of conflicts between nations. In order to avoid conflicts over water, other actions have to be taken:

* investing in reforestation and in watershed management * promoting the healthy effects of vegetarianism * using animal stem cells to produce meat tissue without animals * securing treaties and cooperatives agreements on water rights * implementing integrated water management plans

Drinking water is primordial human right Green tax policy INCREASES taxes and fees on:

* Land sites according to land value * Lands used for timber, grazing, mining * Emissions into air, water, or soil * Ocean and freshwater resources * Electromagnetic spectrum * Satellite orbital zones * Oil and minerals

Green tax policy seeks to ELIMINATE subsidies environmentally or socially harmful, unnecessary, or inequitable. Slated for drastic reduction or complete removal are subsidies for:

* Energy production * Resource extraction * Commerce and industry * Agriculture and forestry * Weapons of mass destruction

1. reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and 2. reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

Mitigating the causes of global warming implies limiting the rates and magnitudes of increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing emissions or by increasing sinks for atmospheric CO2. Reducing the harmful consequences can be achieved by co-operating together with the global ministries on climate change and emergencies. The Global Community has created the global ministries to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies are now operating. Global warming is the highest threat to Earth security and is everyone's business. Terrorism was, and still is, a problem humanity needed to tackle head-on and resolve the best we could, but global warming is by far the greatest threat to the security of all people on Earth and to life itself. We have never tackle the problem head-on. We played around the problem and its solution. We know the solution to the problem of global warming, we know what we need to do to make this generation and future generations safe and secure, but we just never do what we really have to do to resolve the problem. Why? What will it take to make us act on the problem of global warming? What will it take to make the North American Way of Life safe and secure to humanity? What will it take to make Canadians and Americans understand that it does not matter how many guns we have, how many weapons of mass destruction we have hidden everywhere, or how good a 'Star War System' could be, and how many nations we invade, and how big is our GDP and how good is our economy. None of that matters! None! The biggest problem to security is smaller than anything we can see, smaller than the smallest particle we can breathe, and it is a trace element in the air we breathe. A deadly gas, the greenhouse gas! We all know the problem, and we also know the solution. We can stop creating greenhouse gases. So now what is the problem? The biggest problem is the North American continent Way of Life, consuming too much of the wrong things. The biggest problem is too much freedom of doing the wrong things. The biggest problem is our own weaknesses and helplessness in tackling the problem head-on and solve it. The biggest problem is that Canadians and Americans are getting too proud about things that are completely unimportant and missing out on the things that are truly important, and we have been left behind by most other nations on those things that are truly important for the generations to come and to life itself. Global Community is asking North Americans and everyone else on Earth to tackle the problem head-on. We must solve the problem we have with global warming. Producers of the greenhouse gases tell us "we are energy efficient" but the truth of the matter is that they are producing the deadly gases of mass destruction, and those deadly gases are killing us all, and all life on Earth. It does not matter how smart you may be in fooling yourselves in accepting a slow death, a suicide in a way, you are still killing yourselves and the people of the next generations. That is a crime against humanity. You are criminals. An oil company is proudly telling us with all sorts of gifts, grants and awards to the community that every year they have 'given' to their customers trillions of litres of the deadly gases. And, their customers, very proudly and carefully burned all of those litres. That is the biggest problem. We are told that we should be proud of burning the deadly gases. Americans invaded the Middle East to take over OPEC and their oil and burn trillions of barrels of oil. That means trillions of litres of the deadly gases entering the atmosphere of the Earth. The best and cheapest oil in the world being taken over by the worst consumers of the world. Just how mad are we? How insane are we getting to be? How can anyone be proud of thenselves about such an invasion? What is it? We enjoy driving with freedom on the highway?! We enjoy driving and to forget completely that we are actually killing ourselves and taking away the lives of people of the next generations. We want to forget we are destroying all life on Earth. And please dont even mention the 'carbon emission trading permits' (a mechanism by which oil companies could buy and sell greenhouse gas emissions trading permits) as a possible solution. You are just extending the death of all lives by a few years, and you are not tackling the problem head-on. Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! In order words, a person becomes responsible and accountable for anything and everything in his or her life. As a business you may be using standards of operating and managing that are similar to the ISO 14001 environmental management plan (internationally recognized standards that provide guidelines to reduce environmental impacts). ISO 14001 provides a framework for continual improvement to mitigate potential environmental impacts from operations and businesses dealing with your company. The problem is not so much how good is your environmental management plan. The problem is the product you produce and put on the market to consumers. The problem is your product, a deadly product of mass destruction. It is worst than all known weapons of mass destruction as it kills by making consumers believe it is good for them. Like smoking cigarettes! Companies making cigarettes have for long told their consumers that a longer filter would not affect them so much and they would not get cancer and die of it. Whether or not you use the most energy-efficient machines and the best management team, and ISO 14001 for that matter, at the end it does not matter. You are still producing the deadly gases and consumers are still burning them. Consider the long filter for cigarettes as an illusionary solution to the problem and so are carbon emission trading permits. Oil companies are responsible and accountable of their products from beginning to end. The 'end' for an oil company does not end at the gas pump where a consumer buy your refine products. No! The end for you goes all the way to global warming, to pollution of the environment, to the destruction of the global life-support systems, to taking away lives of future generations, to the destruction of life on Earth. Very much so! Global Community proposes to ask you to pay a global tax on your products. The tax would be high enough to discourage consumers from buying your products and force you to use viable alternatives. The Governments of the United States and Canada should put a high tax on all oil based products and their derivatives and certainly gasoline should have the highest tax possible. The tax would be a carbon tax allocated for the protection of the environment and the global life-support systems. A workable type of Tobin tax should also be in place as it is a powerful instrument to promote sustainable development and force shareholders in moving away from producing oil. Global Community also proposes to develope a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards. The WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the UN are worldwide organizations that can and should be used to raise global taxes to redistribute to the poorest and developing nations. Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2) gas at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO2 is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million. Combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed. A typical American uses 15 times as much lumber and paper as a resident of a developing country. Reducing wood consumption in the industrialized world is unlikely to stop forest loss in developing countries however, since most of the wood consumed comes from trees in the industrialized countries themselves. Nevertheless, the consumption model offered to the rest of the world threatens accelerated forest loss as both populations and economies grow in developing countries. Scientists will need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils. Proposals to extract CO2 from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon. We need to improve on our ability to:

* predict future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. While demographic, technological and economic factors are in many respects inherently speculative, better observations and understanding of the processes by which human activities directly or indirectly contribute to emissions are clearly required. These in particular include emissions from deforestation and agricultural activities; * obtain more data on the effect of human emissions on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Not only do we need to reduce the uncertainties about past and current sinks for emitted greenhouse gases, but we need to better understand and quantify the long term feedbacks such as CO2 fertilization and physical and biological response to climate change if we expect to improve our confidence in projections of future concentrations. * measure direct and indirect effects of radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols. * measure climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing. * measure the response to climate change of biological and physical processes with the terrestrial and ocean systems * obtain an early detection of the signal of human interference with the climate system against the change caused by natural forces or internal system noise is important in fostering timely and responsible coping actions. * develop actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare to adapt to climate change. However, stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions will not stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and climate but only slow down the rates of change. * live with the facts that climate change is unavoidable, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are already signficantly higher than pre-industrial levels, and that aggressive efforts to reduce their anthropogenic emission sources would only slow down the growth in their concentrations, not stop it. Therefore, policy response to this issue must also include strategies to adapt to the consequences of unavoidable climate change.

Global Civilizational State

Earth Governance

Earth Management

Global Consumption

Global warming

Impacts on human health, agriculture, the economy and the environment

Actions in response to Global Warming

The Kyoto Protocol

Details of the treaty

Emissions trading

Current trading systems

Effects on society and enterprise

Effects on the environment

Stable totals are critical to a stable market

Enforcement is critical to a stable market

Status of the treaty

Revisions

Current Positions of Governments

Position of the United States

Position of Canada

Overview of results from this report

Conclusion

Recommendations