Tips Guides

President George W. Bush once famously declared: “I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” But when it comes to environmental issues, especially global warming, Bush often sounds more like the dissembler than the decider.

Throughout his presidency, Bush’s so-called leadership on global climate change has lurched from outright stonewalling in the early years, when he refused to discuss or even acknowledge the issue, to misdirection and political sleight-of-hand.

Speaking recently from the White House Rose Garden to consider new climate change strategies, the president set what he called a “realistic” national goal to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

Unfortunately, the president offers no actual plan for achieving the new goal, instead calling on Congress to find some way to make it happen. More to the point, the goal itself falls far short of what many scientists believe must be done to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming, which is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions at least 15-20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, not simply to stop emissions from increasing.

Bush believes that it is possible to protect the environment without hurting the economy, and said any new policies or legislation must strike that balance. Bush thinks advanced technology is the key to solving global warming and recommended incentives that would make it more cost-effective for businesses to adopt new clean-energy technology instead of sticking with old systems that emit more greenhouse gases. Again, he never offered a plan for how to get the job done.

Bush praises his administration for increasing the use of wind and solar power and called for continuing investments in renewable energy and carbon sequestration, but he points to nuclear energy and coal - including so-called “clean coal” - as the keys to America’s “energy and economic security.”

The president says his administration has provided “billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies” and “in 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development.”

Bush criticizes U.S. courts for applying what he considers narrow and outdated laws to a broad issue such as global warming. Specifically, he says “the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate.” He took a slap at the U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The president believes stretching environment laws “beyond their original intent” could force the federal government to act like a local planning and zoning board and to regulate a wide range of small energy users and producers - from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings - which he says would have “crippling effects on our entire economy.”

In discussing various vague strategies that might help fight global warming, the president rejects tax increases, tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations that might lead to higher costs for businesses. Instead, Bush recommends creation of an international clean technology fund “that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world” and called on all nations “to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services.”

Many concerned observers are unimpressed with the president’s new strategy to address the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

“Unfortunately, President Bush retains the mantle of the most anti-environmental president in history,” stated Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, in a telephone interview with The Guardian. Karpinski pointed out that Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign promise to cap global warming pollution from power plants was never honored. “Since that time, all we’ve had is empty words but no serious action.”

“This basically sounds like the same quarterback calling the same play,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, in an interview with the Washington Post. “It’s just another way of Bush saying no.”

President Bush believes that the strategy he has laid out shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people - and that’s a resource that will never run out. He is confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.

Let’s hope so, because the only amazing thing about the president’s strategy for greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is its lack of any real effort to address such serious problems.

James Nash is a climate scientist with Greatest Planet (www.greatestplanet.org). Greatest Planet is a non-profit environmental organization specialising in carbon offset investments.

James Nash is solely responsible for the contents of this article.

Kathy Cox appeared on the Fox TV show, “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” and failed to prove that she is smarter than a fifth grader, despite being the first contestant to take home the one million dollar top prize.

Technically, she only proved that she is as smart as a fifth grader, since she answered no questions above that grade level. But we know she’s smarter, because she had a plan and a message, and the courage to carry it through that her political detractors in Georgia don’t have the imagination to conceive or the guts to carry out.

Kathy Cox is the Superintendent of Schools for the State of Georgia. When word got out she would be on the show, she was publicly criticized; how foolish it would be to risk her own professional reputation and that of the state school system. After all, she would be representing by association 140,000 Georgia teachers. Georgia State Representative Rob Teilhet (D - Smyrna) even ran advertising DURING THE SHOW criticizing Cox for appearing on TV while problems persisted in classrooms.

Critics are so worried about never being wrong, about showing vulnerability and appearing perfect they can’t conceive their own purpose in humanity. Kathy can. Kathy Cox is a truly a Trouble Breaker, someone who goes for it and breaks past trouble because she knows she can. She understood exactly what she could control on the show, what she could and couldn’t do, and used that to inspire students (and more than a few adults).

We heard Kathy say more than a few times, “I’m doing the best I can.” Isn’t that a great message for students? For us all? And Kathy Cox taught millions of people that it’s OK to be wrong. She accepted that she might miss a question and go home empty-handed. She wasn’t afraid to try and keep trying.

With $500,000 “in the bank” she earned the right to deliver the Million Dollar Lesson. She was faced with a decision other contestants had faced before, but they lacked the vision and conviction of a Kathy Cox. Cox was there for the kids; she had committed to donate her earnings (it’s demeaning to say to say she “won” the money) to three Georgia schools. A lesser person would have settled for the $500,000 and missed the chance to deliver a much more valuable prize.

With the eyes of millions of young people on her, she proclaimed with force and conviction, “DON’T DROP OUT OF SCHOOL.” The short-term gains associated with dropping out pale in comparison to the huge lifetime rewards of staying in school. Kathy Cox effectively paid $475,000 to say that — the difference between the $500,000 “in the bank” and the guaranteed $25,000 she’d keep if she missed the question.

I’m convinced she came into the show with a Million Dollar Lesson Plan to teach us:
- Always do the best you can. That’s all anyone can ask, and that’s always enough.
- Go for it. The worst that can happen is you might be wrong. So what?
- Finish what you start. That includes STAY IN SCHOOL.

That plan works even without the million dollar question. All through the show, we saw Kathy Cox go for it and do the very best she could. Yet if she ever met a question she knew she couldn’t answer, she would prefer to knowingly fail and go home sans money than drop out of school.

Lucky for us all she made it to the top so more people would listen to her message.

Some Georgia politicians don’t know now lucky the Peach State is to have Kathy Cox as Superintendent of Schools. In just one hour, she taught us all a lesson that is worth far more than a million dollars to the future of this country. From coast to coast and in every state, we’re all richer today from her Million Dollar Lesson Plan.

Copyright 2008 Paul Johnson.

Paul Johnson the Trouble Breaker is a keynote speaker who works with organizations to convert trouble into double and triple digit performance breakthroughs. Discover breakthrough concepts at http://www.ShortcutsToResults.com. Visit http://TroubleBreaker.com for presentations on leadership

Thank Heavens for George Bush! With elections coming up, neither Republicans nor Democrats want to appear soft on terrorism, genocide, nuclear detonation in urban areas, nor overdue parking tickets. Both parties agreed to take care of you, me and Grandma Jones and make sure that all the telecommunication companies are free to work with Georgie Wuh and continue to listen in on anything they want at anytime. Finally Obama had the back bone to cave in and side with Johnny boy and the Bush. Obama didn’t want to appear soft on terrorism either, so what’s a few liberties when votes are at stake? And it’s about time.

At least we don’t have wimpy politicians like David Davis in the UK who stood on the steps of the Palace of Westminster to announce his resignation from the House of Commons! It seems he was outraged that the House would vote to detain suspected terrorists for 42 days without charge. He accused the government of presiding over ’slow strangulation of freedoms,’ and the ‘ceaseless encroachment of the state,’ into their daily lives. Spineless!

Somebody has to listen in on every conversation on the phone. After all, these terrorists are on every corner. Britain and Cousin George have made it a new law to glorify terrorism…wow! I love it!

They’ve made it law to incite religious hatred. That is the way to get rid of hatred, hate it, stomp it, jail it! Kill the bastards! Oh, I am so proud of the stodgy Brits with their new law of 10 years now, the ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Order.’

It is time we woke up, America! We are the land of freedom and we cannot have freedom unless we can account for every single person on our soil, where they are, what they are doing and making sure they are doing the right thing and in the right way! Every person needs to know the REAL history of America and its leaders. Each of us needs to know what the other is doing in order to keep each other on the right track. It is time we realized that security is everything!

We need to learn from history. My parents went to China many years ago for a two week excursion. They were amazed to find that if you left your camera on the park bench no one stole it! I remember reading at that time a big editorial in one of the leading religious magazines praising China’s people for their honesty and telling us how we should be more like them.

In those days China had no cameras to watch its citizens, no biometric scanners or centralized databases, yet they were the most respectful, honest people on this earth! Much like President Bush now, we have Chairman Mao to thank then, for all that wonderful change in the people.

Chairman Mao’s slogan was, ‘Serve the People,’ and it rang out in all humility wherever he was, from the concubines that surrounded him to the litters that carried him by the peasants. All Chairman Mao had to do was simply kill 70 million people to get that degree of honesty, a small price to pay for security. My parents got their camera back.

So, all you wonderful Statespeople folks in that idyllic Washington, D.C., my hat is off to your courage, your clear thinking and your vision of the future of our country. After all, what’s a little change here, a law there? Congratulations in being arm in arm with Chairman Mao!

We are a nation of laws, of security, a nation of honesty! Let’s see, 300 Million people, less 70 Million, that’s about, roughly, nearly 230 million people…OK, that is an acceptable number. It’s just cleanup, collateral damage. Oh, you divine thinkers, so glad you’re in charge!

Scott McGregor is the founder of http://www.Doppelit.com, the Entrepreneur Connection. He is considered The Consummate Entrepreneur, started companies when it was impossible and financed companies when there was no money for nearly 50 years. His mission is to show other Entrepreneurs that they CAN!

Women have been making headlines in politics across the globe.

There was once a time when having a woman in a powerful political position was unheard of. Those days are gone, for the most part. There always will be people who oppose the idea, but they are becoming the minority.

Margaret Thatcher paved the way for the future of women in politics. She held the position of British prime minister from 1979-1990, the longest tenure in that office since 1827.

She led the Conservative Party from 1975-1990 and was the first and only female (to date) to hold either position. Nicknamed ‘The Iron Lady’ she was a close ally of U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Margaret Thatcher once said, ‘The woman’s mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine. Hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine elements into all of its activities.’

Women Now the Majority in the Spanish Cabinet

Thatcher isn’t the only woman to hold an important political position. Spain’s newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has a strong platform for gender equality. Until recently, his cabinet was equally split between male and female members. He changed that balance when he named a woman, Carme Chacon, as the new defense minister.

This created a shift that made a majority of the cabinet female for the first time in history. Nine of Spain’s 17 cabinet members are now women. Zapatero also is planning to raise the number of women in the Spanish armed forces.

Zapatero’s choice for defense minister has been met with some skepticism because Chacon lacks a military background.

She earned her law degree from Barcelona University. In 1989, she joined the Cataluna Young Socialists. Later, she joined the PSC Catalan Socialist Party. Her first formal experience in politics came in 1999 when she was elected first deputy. The following year, she was elected as a Socialist MP for Barcelona. Chacon was later given the title of first vice president of Congress.

Hillary Clinton Runs for President

Another prime example of women in politics is Hillary Clinton. In 1992, she became the U.S. first lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president.

She proved herself a headstrong woman during their eight years in the White House. She ran for and won a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2000. She was re-elected in 2006. Her formidable 2008 presidential campaign has helped to break through even more barriers for women in politics.

Hillary Clinton has held strong to her beliefs in health care, women’s rights, child advocacy and a fair voting process. She also has taken the stance that the fight at home over the U.S. economic crisis is just as important as the fighting going on overseas.

Women in Politics

More and more qualified women around the world are entering the political ring and they are paving a path for the future of women in politics. A growing need for equality has made it possible for more women to run for office.

We may one day see a time when having females in top leadership positions, or in the majority of a nation’s leadership, is no longer viewed as a unique occurrence, and Spain is leading the way at the moment.

Tribune Properties produce a series of European travel guides including for the Spanish island of Tenerife at http://www.yourtenerife.net

The guide includes a Tenerife map

The deregulation of an industry only happens once, but in the case of energy (electric and natural gas services) it is a slow-release process migrating from state to state.

Energy deregulation revolves around the concept of allowing competition into the market place, giving consumers a choice of electricity and/or natural gas suppliers.

The $220 billion energy industry has been referred to as “the last great government-sanctioned monopoly.” To break it down simply, up until a few years ago, when you moved into a new house or apartment, you had only one option in energy provider whether you liked it or not.

Since the 1990s, however, in several states consumers have had a choice in energy providers, thus opening the market up to competition and driving down overall rates; but has it worked?

In Pennsylvania, electricity consumers were given choice starting in 1998, and by the end of 1999, nearly 500,000 residents had chosen a competitor over the local incumbent provider. On average, consumers who chose a competitive electric company were still getting the same service and reliability over the same physical lines, but at an average of $10 less per month.

On the flip side, California’s rush into energy deregulation in 1996 took a much different turn. Not long after the plan was voted into law, price gouging began to sour the pallets of many would-be money saving consumers, and within 2 years, lawmakers there sought to repeal deregulation legislation. Those measures failed, and by 2000, the price of electricity in California nearly doubled for residents of some communities. By early 2001, the electric utilities faced financial hardships to the point where electricity shortages occurred.

Good or bad, positive or negative, many states are still pushing the issue of energy deregulation. A couple have deregulated electricity in recent years to rousing success, including Texas and New York. Georgia and Illinois are moving forward in the deregulation of natural gas.

The key seems to be in a careful and slow approach, ensuring that competitive electric and natural gas companies seeking to do business within a particular state are able to meet standards of quality and customer service, as well as financial responsibility.
Illinois, for example, has allowed natural gas customers choice since 1993, though approval processes have been methodical and standards strict in order to protect consumers. This has created a very slow trickle effect that protects residents from companies doing under-handed business.

Consumers in Illinois still bare some responsibility and are encouraged to research any natural gas provider they plan to switch to. In addition, consumers are not encouraged to sign long-term contracts with new providers as this will lock them in and keep them from taking advantage of future savings.
Whether you are for or against the deregulation of electricity and natural gas, you should research the concept fully in light of your state’s provisions and make a decision based on the needs of your budget and family.

In short, deregulation of energy can benefit the consumer, as long as the deregulation process itself is well-regulated.

Al Haneson blogs about Illinois issues and life at Ambit Illinois Natural Gas and Midwest Lawn Tips

Knowledge is power. Presently the voters have taken an active role in choosing our next president. A leading factor is if the candidate can bring out change. Voters will benefit greatly by understanding the powers of the presidency.

The most familiar power of the president is the president’s power as Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. The president has the power to deploy the military even if there is no war, and can establish military governments in occupied areas.

The Vietnam War was a long protracted war that did not have a declaration of war. Because of this war, congress adopted a new law over president’s veto, the War Powers Resolution. This requires the president to consult with congress whenever possible prior to committing armed forces, or when he has committed forces. When committing forces, it must cease within 60 days unless congress declares war or extends the sixty day period.

The president has great powers over international affairs as international spokesman. The powers are great because the president will not have any issues with the States and the president does not need authority from congress to act as spokesman for the United States.

The president has broad power with treaties and executive agreements. With treaties, the president needs two-thirds approval of the Senate. A self-executing treaty takes effect without any enabling legislation. It is equivalent to a legislative act and supersedes state laws. With conflicting treaties, the later in time controls.

A nonself-executing treaty needs federal legislation to implement their provisions. This is usually needed to get the states to take action with their state laws.

In March of 2008, President Bush suffered a defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his assertion on the powers of the president regarding U.S. treaties with the States. In Medellin vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that the States are only bound if the treaty explicitly said so or if there was legislation to make that clear.

This case was emotionally charged because the defendant was convicted to death for the gang rape a murder of two Houston teenagers, and a total of 51 Mexican nationals who were convicted and sentenced by state law were made part of this case.

The International Court of Justice ordered President Bush to tell the states to review cases of some foreign defendants who were denied the right to contact their embassies when they were arrested. President Bush ordered the states to review the cases.

The issue before the Court was whether the treaty was binding on the States in accordance with President Bush’s order.

The right to contact their embassies was included in the Vienna Convention and the Optional Protocol which gave specific jurisdiction to ICJ. (Later on the U.S. withdrew from the Optional Protocol.) The United States insisted on this right when it negotiated the treaty.

But now the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s executive power does not give him the authority to intervene in those state criminal cases unless the treaty explicitly says so or if there is legislation to make that clear.

This set a strong line on the difference between self-executing and nonself-executing treaties.

The last power of the president is executive agreements. This does not need Senate approval but will prevail over state law. The scope of power of executive agreements included when the president recognized the Soviet government and made an agreement which forced New York State to have the banks release funds to the Soviet government. United States vs. Pink 315 U.S. 203 (1942).

The president can settle claims by executive agreement. When assets were frozen for the Iranian hostage situation under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president released the assets by executive agreement.

Understanding the powers of the president and what areas are not within the scope of power will help the voters make a more realistic evaluation of the candidates.

Knowing your legal and consumer rights is your best defense.