We are on the doorstep of environmental and energy crises. In 2003, the fourth hottest year since 1880, thirty-five thousand Europeans died in a heat wave. Today we watch as glaciers recede and ice shelves break off into the sea. In the US, we import over 60% of our oil. Energy has been the primary motivator for two wars resulting in thousands of American armed forces deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in the Middle East.

Hurricane Katrina exposed our energy supply/demand vulnerability – petroleum and natural gas prices skyrocketed, causing economic upheaval after just this one storm. In 2006, the US trade deficit set a record for the fifth straight year. This is not sustainable and leaves the US vulnerable to a sell-off in US stocks and bonds that would stall the economy. Finally, fossil fuel combustion has caused mercury in fish, acid rain, and increasing incidence of asthma.

These are effects and risks that can be grouped under four categories, which I call The Four Biggies:

1) Global warming (global climate change)
2) Dependence on foreign energy
3) Trade deficit
4) Pollution from non-renewable fuels

These serious problems are all related to the combustion of fossil fuels and our dependence on the finite supply of these fuels. The sooner we address this underlying issue, the easier it will be to fix The Four Biggies.

Society gets enormous benefits from small amounts of fossil fuels. However, the market does not internalize (account for) all the costs of fossil fuel trade, masking the true cost of “cheap energy” and giving false signals on environment and energy problems. Simply put: Non-renewable sources of energy should cost more.

We need a market-based solution to set the stage for our ingenuity, drive, and marketplace to fix our energy problem and solve The Four Biggies. We need a solution similar in function and scope to our patent and antitrust laws – that is, we need to change the “rules” for the long-term benefit of all.

One very effective approach is tax shifting – that is, lowering taxes on beneficial activities (like labor) and raising them on negative activities (like burning fossil fuels), with the net effect on the average consumer being a financial wash.

To apply this concept to The Four Biggies, Congress would cut federal income taxes but raise taxes on non-renewable energy sources like oil, coal, and natural gas to replace the lost revenue. This tax shift should be phased-in over 10 years. For individuals and families, the shift should be as close to cost-neutral as possible. Those that pay no income tax or currently receive a credit – that is, those whose increased energy costs could not be offset by lowering their income taxes – would be reimbursed for their additional energy costs in other ways, such as a larger credit and/or subsidized transportation.

The very first things that should change under a tax-shifting plan to address global warming (and other problems) are the massive federal subsidies given to US companies that operate in the arenas of oil, gas, nuclear, coal, and mining.

Examples of such institutionalized subsidies include:

1) Waivers of insurance requirements for nuclear power plants and the massive annual government spending on US nuclear-power management and infrastructure via the Department of Energy’s annual budget.

2) Pricing of mining concessions on federal lands based on a US law that is more than a century old.

3) Financial incentives to oil companies to “go out and find more” at the same time these companies are raking in record profits and cutting exploration and development budgets so they can reinvest their cash in their own stocks as they anticipate further supply constriction, price increases, and even higher profits in the future.

4) Weak pollution laws for all extractive and energy industries and lax enforcement of the regulations that do exist.

Eliminating such giveaways and dirty profits – with the changes being reflected in the prices of the products produced by these industries – would be an easy first step in any effort to shift taxes from workers’ paychecks to polluters’ products.

The resulting higher prices for fossil-fuel energy will reduce our use of it and stimulate the US alternative (renewable) energy industry by “leveling the playing field.” As consumption of non-renewable energy decreases, an automatic “ratchet” mechanism would further shift taxes from income to energy to maintain the incentives and the tax base.

Alternative-energy industries have been hindered by cheap fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, both of which are heavily subsidized. Between 1985 and 2005, alternative energy in the US grew by a mere 0.5%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Phased-in intentional increases in energy prices would make many alternative-energy projects economically viable. The renewable energy industry would grow rapidly, refining their technologies and achieving economies of scale.

This would create an export boom, since other countries face similar problems and are already seeking solutions. A revitalized alternative energy industry will create technical jobs in the US and a mighty economic engine providing life-enhancing products for people all over the world.

This shift in taxes will improve our positions on trade, fossil fuel dependence, pollution, and greenhouse gases – The Four Biggies.

Climate change and global warming – indeed, how to control them – are becoming more central to politics with every new development. Sustainable energy is the method of our times, and government’s across the globe are under pressure – from each other, from environmental groups, and from individuals – to implement genuine and successful ‘green’ policy.

The E.U is one of the biggest political organisations in the world. It comprises 27 member states and under its banner are close to 500 million people. The GDP that the E.U generates accounts for roughly 30% of the world.

In terms of the world’s environment, then, it is a chief player. What is the European Union doing to combat global warming and climate change? And are they committed to the cause?

The official E.U website has this to say on the matter:

”Sustainable Development stands for meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs – in other words, a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. It offers a vision of progress that integrates immediate and longer-term objectives, local and global action, and regards social, economic and environmental issues as inseparable and interdependent components of human progress.

Sustainable development will not be brought about by policies only: it must be taken up by society at large as a principle guiding the many choices each citizen makes every day, as well as the big political and economic decisions that have. This requires profound changes in thinking, in economic and social structures and in consumption and production patterns.”

What is clear, then, is that the E.U see promotion of the message as central; a sustainable future is only possible with a growing conciousness and willingness on the part of the public to accept and encourage environmental policy and legislation.

If the E.U can get its citizens to accept the challenge, though, what policy can be expected from the organizations governments?

The ‘E.U Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS)’ was established to answer exactly that question. In its own words, the SDS will “gradually change our current unsustainable consumption and production patterns and move towards a better integrated approach to policy-making…[it will] reaffirm the need for global solidarity and recognizes the importance of strengthening our work with partners outside the EU, including those rapidly developing countries which will have a significant impact on global sustainable development.”

So the E.U – acknowledging its role within the world’s sphere – champions the importance of climate change as a global issue, and believes that it should be treated as such. Its method for achieving that aim is to work closely and extensively with the world’s other governmental bodies.

The SDS has 7 key areas of interest:

Climate change and clean energy
Sustainable transport
Sustainable consumption & production
Conservation and management of natural resources
Public Health
Social inclusion, demography and migration
Global poverty and sustainable development challenges

Central, then, is the simultaneous need for a maintenance of current ecosystems – to conserve and manage the continent’s current resources – combined with a development of a sustainable infrastructure for the future; investment in clean fuels, plus solar energy, wind energy and biogas.

Indeed, the E.U – through its 7 SDS points – recognises that environmental issues affect everything in our lives, because we are part of the environment, and so everything we do is affecting it also. As such, the E.U beleives that ‘Changing Behaviour’ is imperative in the fight against climate change:

”A host of cultural, economic, social and psychological factors affect the way we behave, often locking us into unsustainable consumption habits. Even those who say they will buy organic food for environmental reasons and the good of their own health may change their minds if products outstrip their budget.”

The overall challenge, then, for the European Union – along with the rest of the world’s nations – is to educate the next generation on the pitfalls of our own.

That way, the E.U can guarantee that it does not return in the future to the issues that have caused the problem in the first instance.

We all love our computers and right now as you read this you know it is only because of your computer that you are. They give us the news, let us play games online and off, meet a dream partner, manage our investments, research vacations and homes, buy cars, bid for goods, watch home videos, create family photo albums, and so much more. Parting with you computer these days would be asking to part with your head.

The Problem

While we all love our computers and there isn’t much debate to the wonders they give us in our everyday lives a problem exists and has existed for some time. The problem is pollution. Yup our handy little buddies are part of a global problem just as much as a solution. What is the extent of the pollution? Try 90 Billion pounds of carbon dioxide a year spewed into our atmosphere in America alone.

Fuel Consuming Computer

Okay, your computer doesn’t necessarily run on carbon fuels however the electricity it uses to run daily does and the amount used has been piling up over the past few decades now as more people buy home PC units to enjoy the world of computing. Are we bad for this? My assumption is no, especially when you are probably finding this out right now. Can we help change this global warming trend that our computer’s contribute to? The answer is yes.

Saving the World One Computer at a Time

So you are probably wondering what solution there may be to help reduce your contribution to this growing problem. There are many ways to help lessen the burden on our mother earth:

* Turn Off Computer When Not in Use
* Adjust Your Hibernate Mode to Idle at a Lesser Time
* Install the Free Co2 Saver from Snap Onto Your Computer
* Explore Alternative Energy for Your Home (Solar, Wind, etc.)
* Try More Outdoor Activities without a Car

Free Energy Saving Program Installs

The Co2 Saver from Snap is a cool install application that is free of spyware that allows you to monitor your computer’s usage and the impact it is making on the environment in relation to carbon dioxide. It is a real nifty little tool as it lets you see what you have saved as well as how much you have consumed. It automatically can adjust your computer to the most environmentally friendly settings in your contribution to battle global warming.

Another cool install does about the same thing exact thing except it also shows you what natural resources you have saved and what you have consumed in relation to your computer’s energy consumption. The program is offered by a company named UniBlue and is called Local Cooling. Both programs are entirely free, so it might be fun to see just how much of a dent you can put in the global warming trend.

While global warming and pollution may seem like a trendy topic often associated with politics, hippie parades, or MTV the topic is nothing to ignore or just show concern for one day out of a year. The reality of life is that we all have just this one planet for many generations to come. This planet is what gives us life, food, air, and water. We cannot expect to enjoy the luxury of living if we do not protect our human habitat.

Scientist David Archibald explains in detail the phenomonen that sunspots have more to do with the earths climate than other factors

Global warming is the continuous increase of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans average temperatures. Mostly this is because of greenhouse gases and natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes.

 Longtime effects of global warming will be; arctic shrinkage; arctic methane release; shrinkage of the Amazon rainforest; extreme weather events; changes in agricultural yields; modifications of trade routes; glacier retreat; species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors.

 One of the short-term effects is the decline of our financial budget, because of the increase in municipal levies and services.

 Colder and warmer temperatures causes us to use more electricity and that in turn causes the power plants to increase there production and so uses more biomass which in turn depletes our natural resources and ad to global warming. It is a vicious circle.

 Most municipality’s and suppliers of energy try their utmost in combating global warming, but we should not leave it to then alone. We all should give our parting conserving energy and in turn save on our expenses.

 By recycling our waste, most of our waste can be recycled to be used again; by harnessing our biggest resource, the sun, and by harnessing natures voice, the wind.

 Although wind generated energy is a great idea in a remote area, it takes a lot of windmills to generate enough energy to electrify a town. And our 20′Th century space is already a problem. So if you do not stay on a farm, your best bet is solar power.

 Many of the suppliers of energy are already busy with efforts to reward people who help by conserving energy.

 One can use solar powered geezers or use solar panels to generate enough electricity for ones own home.

 If all the communities in the world jumps in and conserve energy we might just be able to prolong or even halt global warming on our home, earth.

 Resource: http:// laruchelle.energy4gre.hop.clickbank.net/

Bad weather may be heading our way. Many very smart voices have raised their volume over the number of alarming red flags pointing to a worldwide environmental catastrophe coming in a few years or decades hence. One voice, coming from the sharp mind of James Lovelock is resounding across the world’s media nearly every day. His solution: get more nuclear reactors online and sequester the carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible.

What’s the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle, where you may someday bask year around with temperatures pleasantly at 74 degrees Fahrenheit. According to findings recently published in the journal Nature. About 55 million years ago, there was something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, the entire Earth was heated up by a gigantic release of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Lovelock has insisted we may see that kind of hot later this century.

Now, another brainy man, with whom we have many chats this year, has issued a special 56-page report, entitled “Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change.” Co-authored by Market Strategist Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executive and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous money management firm which bears his name, they present a compelling argument as to why and how global warming and climate change is going to dramatically impact our financial world. You are well advised to read it.

Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or Cheap Arctic Land

Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts of land near the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock’s conclusions force us to briefly consider, what can we do to protect our finances? Global warming, climate change and an apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon are probably too much reality for the here and now. But, what will you do ten to thirty years from now? This past week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of A Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S. Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rational man, even he admitted in an email, “I am afraid I do agree with his (Lovelock’s) concerns.”

If one finds logic within the statistical analysis presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind would want to start protecting his finances today in order to ensure future survival for his family and lineage. Esteemed scientists have picked their way through mountains of statistics, charts and projections about what is happening with melting glaciers, rising temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth. They do not like what they see, they are not alone, and the better minds are not endorsing wind farms or solar panels as “the solution.” They see nuclear fission reactors as mandatory, and the faster these go online, the less we will later have to sweat (literally).

Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid out a possible solution, a cogent thesis as to why we must stop fooling around now. They didn’t write the report to alarm and cajole you to lynch the next environmentalist or anti-nuke whom you come across. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint of what must be done by governments and decision-makers. More importantly, they have given us extremely provocative advice on HOW to protect our finances during the brewing crisis.

Remember, it won’t just be some meteor hitting the earth (although that might happen, too). Global warming is tantamount to boiling water on your stove. First, it gets warm, then warmer and warmer. Eventually, it gets hot. Then, the water boils. In other words, the catastrophe will brew for a while, causing political and economic instability, and a host of other ills, probably better described in biblical terms. Most of us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricane Katrina is a few miles down the road before waking up.

Through the first half of the report, the authors cover global warming and climate change, in just about every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough found nooks and crannies which may alarm you. Did you know the world’s largest aquifer, the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying up because the glaciers, which created this aquifer, are receding? Fresh water is already in short supply for one-third of the world’s population. We may be surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of fresh water to drink. Ask the Saudis why they are building desalination plants as fast they can. Imagine if those arid conditions prevailed across more than 90 percent of the landmass of earth.

What happens as the earth’s temperature goes up? Increased urbanization, growing GDPs and demand for all the niceties that come with “civilization” have a price: more CO2 emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions, which raise the earth’s temperature, poison our air and kill our plants (and us), are very likely going to turn this earth into a potboiler before the century ends.

Nuclear Expansion Needs More Uranium

“This IS the perfect storm,” Kevin Bambrough warned, not as the abused cliché the term has become, but as an angry voice demanding decision-makers take to heart the gravity of CO2 emissions. “We need more nuclear reactors now,” he told us. He directed us to environmentalist Patrick Moore’s contention that the U.S. should reverse its energy source mix from an 80-percent dependence upon fossil fuels, relying instead upon nuclear energy for 60-percent of our electrical power supply.

Under the former Greenpeace co-founder’s scenario, Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclear Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclear power demand is then expected to soar from the current 368 Gw, produced by the world’s 441 nuclear reactors. He computed, using Moore’s premise of a 60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclear reactors would produce 18,900 Twh of the total power demand in 2030, which the WNA estimates might reach 31,500 Twh. To produce that much electricity, Bambrough calculated that by 2030, nearly 2700 nuclear reactors will be required across the planet. Envisioning the “potential” of a 600-percent increase in nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now, Bambrough also calculated how much uranium would be required to fuel those reactors.

According to Bambrough, current global uranium mining production rests at about the 100 million-pound level. By 2030, if nuclear energy expands as Moore insists it should, then the world’s utilities will require on the order of about 1.3 billion pounds every year. With regards to a planetary build-up of nuclear energy, Bambrough wrote, “The supply of uranium may well be the most limiting factor.”

This may become the new case for a sustained rally in the spot uranium price. Bambrough wrote, “Much higher uranium prices will be required to attract enough investment capital to meet the growth in demand.” This has already begun, as uranium prices have skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term uranium recently traded as high as /pound, exponentially higher than the spot price of .40/pound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in his conclusion. Building an underground uranium mine costs far more than it did in the glory days of uranium in the 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to spend more and take longer in constructing any uranium-producing facility, including an ISL operation.

“Marginal mines will become price setters,” wrote Bambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset Management funds have invested heavily in companies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and others. When we first interviewed Strathmore Minerals Chief Executive, Dev Randhawa, in June 2004, he told us his strategy was to capitalize upon a sustained rally in the uranium price by acquiring properties which were uneconomic at the sub-/level. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and continued to do so with each uptick in the spot uranium price. If Bambrough’s conclusion is accurate, the junior uranium developers could very well become the Internet high-fliers. That conclusion was reached by newsletter writer James Dines, this past November, and repeated numerous times in multiple reports by others.

“Large low-cost producers may be able to reap Middle East-like oil profits for decades,” wrote Bambrough. If the spread between production costs and spot uranium keeps widening, the smaller uranium companies are going to hit it big. Those companies, which postponed uranium mining, will be selling their uranium production at the kind of profits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco now enjoy.

Rising uranium prices are probably more of an irritation for fuel traders than the utilities, who worry about construction costs. The actual fuel cost to operate a nuclear power plant borders on the absurd. Bambrough wrote in his report, “Fuel costs (for nuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total costs, even with uranium at per lb. If uranium rises to 0 per lb (a further 150 percent increase), the cost of nuclear power would only rise by approximately 6.75 percent.” Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35 and 73 percent, respectively. And they release massive doses of CO2 into the air.

What else can be done aside from a worldwide, unanimous endorsement of nuclear energy? There may still be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the CO2 emissions problem should have been addressed 50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for the atmosphere to cycle through those emissions.

The Sprott report co-authors concluded there will be supply problems for food, water and energy. They envision problems with national security, soaring grain prices, and greater investments needed to provide water and energy to those who aren’t buried ten feet deep in their indebtedness. They foresee a currency collapse as central banks flood the money system to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will resume the role it has always held during times of overpowering economic calamity.

Is this too much reality for you? Should we just wait a while and see what transpires? We might not be so lucky. Some experts, such as the Chief Claims Strategist for Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006 CERES report, “Global warming has accelerated from a problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one that could significantly disturb the social and economic conditions of our lifetime.”

In other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough are correct in their assumptions and conclusions. The time to get moving is today, not thirty years from now.

For a second opinion, before completing this column, we forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. He wears many hats, including a consultancy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, third-term Wyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium, geology, nuclear power and politics. He responded quite bluntly, “The fuel of the 19th century was coal. The fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run their economic course. Uranium is on its way to becoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The crescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear energy has been growing louder in each year of this new millennium.” Perhaps, we may yet see Moore’s energy mix come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the nuclear sector to more closely approach his targeted percentage level.

One key question remains unanswered, during our two-year investigation into uranium and nuclear energy. Sure, we’ve gotten a lot of answers, but we remain unconvinced. No one has satisfactorily answered this question: “Will there be sufficient supplies of ‘already mined uranium’ and current mining production available to the world’s nuclear reactors to meet the anticipated global demand for electricity?” The make-break word in the above question is “available.” Uranium is nearly everywhere. There are about 1.7 billion pounds of ‘already mined uranium’ in the world’s inventories. But will there be enough uranium made available to the utilities when the time comes?

If there is not, today’s spot uranium price could look comparable to gasoline prices, circa 1965, at some future point.

Today, the Kyoto Protocol will reach the fifth anniversary of its entry into force. But John Christy says that new research is casting doubt on claims that the earth is warming. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change, he said. He is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Video Rating: 4 / 5

Global warming research is becoming increasingly important in modern day times. Studying statistics of the changes happening around the world compared to historical times is commonplace. Many scientists around the world are beginning to come up with answers to global warming based on hard data.

The arctic has been a main area of research with scientists studying global warming. Thinning sea ice near the northern reaches of Alaska has been noticed. Since 1979 the sea ice has been tracked and recently in 2007, scientists participating in the Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institution’s Gyre Exploration Project began taking notice of the effects.

While aboard the Canadian Coast Gaurd’s ship, the icebreaker, they noticed the ship easily broke through the ice that years ago would have been to thick to cross through. They also noticed the ice was disintegrating in other areas and new ice was rapidly melting.

Scientists are also noticing polar bears are literally drowning because they are unable to swim the longer distances caused by land and receding ice. In 2007 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have put polar bears on the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Not only the polar bears in danger because of the melting ice, they are also in danger because the oil and gas companies threaten their habitats. Increased energy consumption produces more greenhouse gases thus increasing the global warming problem and destroying the environment because of the need to drill for oil in protected areas.

There are many ways people all around the world can help alleviate the effects of global warming. In your home you can start by changing your light bulbs to fluorescent or energy efficient bulbs.

You can also make sure you home is well insulated and sealed from the weather. An energy auditor can run tests on your home and help you to determine the efficiency of your home. Any time you buy a product try to buy it with energy efficiency in mind. The Energy Star rating system is helpful in determing how efficient certain products are for your home.

Recycling is also another great way to help reduce the harmful effects of global warming. Keep a seperate trash receptacle for your aluminum cans, and you can make money by turning them in to a recycling center.

Simply maintaining your car and keeping your tires properly inflated will increase your gas mileage, reducing energy consumption. You might also want to look into buying a hybrid vehicle to save on gas and have a more environmentally friendly form of transportation.