No word on Smokey bear’s new duties yet, but maybe they’ll make him do a new public service pitch, maybe something like this:
Above: a parody image, see WUWT story on Ursus Bogus
Forest Service Shifts Strategy to Address Changing Climate
The Forest Service has issued a national road map for responding to climate change, along with a performance scorecard to measure how well each individual forest implements the strategy.
The new blueprint outlines a series of short-term initiatives and longer-term projects for field units to address climate impacts on the country’s forests and grasslands.
“A changing global climate brings increased uncertainties to the conservation of our natural resources,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement. “The new roadmap and scorecard system will help the Forest Service play a leadership role in responding to a changing climate and ensure that our national forests and grasslands continue to provide a wide range of benefits to all Americans.”
The national road map focuses on three types of actions Forest Service managers must take. They include assessing risks, vulnerabilities, policies and knowledge gaps; engaging employees and external partners; and management actions, including adaptation and mitigation.
Climate change impacts likely will vary greatly in different places, the strategy notes. “There will never be enough financial or other resources to address all of these risks,” it says. “The first step in addressing climate change is to carefully assess the associated risks and vulnerabilities for natural and human communities alike.”
Immediate assessment actions include providing basic and applied science to help managers respond to climate change, conducting workshops, utilizing national monitoring networks, furnishing more predictive information, developing vulnerability assessments, tailoring monitoring and aligning service policy and direction.
Longer-term assessment will focus on expanding the agency’s capacity for assessing the social impacts of climate change, implementing a genetic resources conservation strategy and fortifying internal climate change partnerships.
The plan’s second component aims to help the Forest Service develop partnerships with other organizations to avoid duplication and build on complementary assets. It calls for public education and outreach and coordination with other agencies, communities and interested groups.
And the roadmap calls for on-the-ground management responses including adaptation to climate change effects, mitigation to reduce the sources or enhance sinks of greenhouse gases, and sustainable consumption.
…
Full story here at the New York Times
h/t to Charles the moderator
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like an extension of the House Resolution 25.
The following is from the Clinton era: (The 25×25 Initiative is sponsored by the Energy Future Coalition, a project of the UN Foundation)
“House Concurrent Resolution 25
“The official title of the resolution [H. Con. Res. 25] as introduced is: “Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.”
WHY 25X25 IS GOOD FOR YOU”
“American’s farms, ranches and forests – our working lands – are well positioned to make significant contributions to the development and implementation of new energy solutions. Long known and respected for their contributions to providing the nation’s food and fiber, an emerging opportunity exists for crop, livestock and grass and horticultural producers, as well as forest land owners, to become major producers of another essential commodity – energy.”
And yes the “working land” this is talking about is private property. This is why the USDA has tried to shove Premises ID down the throats of US farmers for the last several years.
Originally written to prevent government from trespassing on the people’s right to contract, the Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, that
“No state shall … pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts, …” It is this constitutional provision that allows the Federal government to implement Federal programs by using so-called “Cooperative Agreements” (basically, a certain type of contract) in lieu of legislation. Commencing in the late-1950s, the Federal government began to contract with other jurisdictions to implement Federal programs where Congress does not have legislative authority.
In 1976, the U.S. government signed a UN document that declared:
Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice;
D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources;
D-2. Control land use through zoning and land-use planning;
D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government;
D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform;
D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights, which should be held by a public authority.
This document was signed on behalf of the U.S. by Carla A. Hills, then secretary of housing and urban development, and William K. Reilly, then head of the Conservation Fund, who later became the administrator of the EPA.
Land-use controls found their way into the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future,” which first defined the term “sustainable development.” The meaning of sustainable development here defined was codified in another U.N. document called “Agenda 21,” which was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. This document recommended that every nation create a national sustainable development initiative.
“On June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, said, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.” He is referring to the International Criminal Court.
” The ICC is in part modeled on the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Conventions text where [premises] is defined globally and with a global use intended with no recognition afforded to the rights of private individuals, national laws or protections, or the rights or recognition to private property ownership.” http://nonais.org/2009/01/16/bulletin-board-200901/
This is why farmers who have educated themselves are very angry.
And finally President Clinton took the UN NGOs a step further. By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but implementing “regional governance began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm
Smokey the Marmot, maybe? “Only you can prevent Mammoth Marmots.”
Or how’s about “Snowy the Bear,” the Polar version, of course. Claim the copyrights for your blog, so they don’t use it to scare the kids with sad stories of Snowy.
One obvious payoff for the active and publicaly announced “interventions” by governments in all spheres of human activity is that when NOTHING untoward happens, they can proudly proclaim to their follower sheep that it was their brilliant, unprecedented (that word again) forward thinking initiatives that saved mankind from the unthinkable horrors that surely would have pushed all life to the edge and beyond.
Some sensible ideas, overlaid with a thick veneer of box-ticking & beaurocracy?
I am a great fan of Gail Combs who always has interesting points to add. I went to a party last night where there were several members of the British House of Lords. I am sorry to report that they would probably have approved of the US Forest Service taking account of Climate Change. I was too cowardly to address their ignorance, which was held with the usual polite and well mannered religious zeal, and they are, after all, the power in the land, are they not? I understood what the brave Lord Lawson is up against. I feel sure that Gail Combs would have taken them on, but folks, I have to confess that faced with all that power and certainty I let the side down.
Job ch12v24,25 is almost prophetic:
He takes away the understanding of the leaders of the people of the Earth, and makes them wander in a pathless wilderness. They grope in the dark without light …..
(once they close all the coal burning power stations)
They whom the God’s intend to destroy, They first make mad.
According to Dr David Viner (in 2000), a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Last year many councils in the UK ran out of grit for the roads and with many thousands of additional people dying due to the cold it was clear that government in general had seen preparing for cold weather as something that no need to be done due to the likes of the CRU.
Even if it happened 99.99..% of people have no idea what a 0.02C/year rise in temperature means and totally overestimate the impact on the climate. All they see is “warming” and down come the reality shutters over their brain.
They include assessing risks, vulnerabilities, policies and knowledge gaps…
The biggest “knowledge gap” in the Agriculture Department is between Tom Vilsap’s ears. No matter how great the distance, there’s no conclusion too far for him to leap to..
As this department is officially tied to the government…what would you expect them to report?
OT & apologies:-
And then there’s this little gem!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10715787
Not one ruddy mention that sea-levels have risen without the aid of CO2 3000 years ago!!!! Why is it that it’s Climate Change when a Damsel fly returns to Britain, & the Netherlands so it would appear, after 50-60 years of absence, but not when they find a monkey skeleton under water? Nothing, zilch, nada, rien!
I wonder how many billions this will cost us?
They whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. They then put them in charge of the asylum. Noting the cooling in the GISTEMP record and the David Archerbald prediction of a lazy SC24 your National Parks (National Sparks and Wildfires here in Oz) won’t be doing much mitigation so they should save heaps to spend on adaptation; snowploughs and the like.
The Greens here have teamed up with the Labor Party,ridiculously left and obscenely left respectively to win the federal election next month. The Greens want to stop mining and exports, establish national parks on farmlands, prevent new power stations other than solar and wind and generally wish to stuff our economy. The sad thing is there are enough idiots out there to vote them in. Sometimes I think we have left it too late to restore balance and common sense.
My advice to my American friends; don’t let the warm and fuzzy watermelon greens ( green on the outside, red on the inside) ruin your country as well. We are doomed, the EU is screwed. You are really the last bastion of individual rights. Don’t let them go.
Imho, this is Obama’s Administration Plan B on carbon. It appears a carbon bill under whatever name may not pass the Senate this year. You can bet the USDA farm subsidies that one won’t pass in the next Congress. And given some latest polls where “any Republican” noses out Obama if the 2012 election were held today makes if very iffy for an Obama second term.
This, one needs to review this latest publication in the context of Obama’s policies and his political thinking. Click on the “roadmap” pdf and then the link to the USDA link to their five year plan. The term “climate change” throughout government includes, as noted in the USDA plan, just about everything the Sierra Club. USDA even calls out international markets climate change markets on page 9 (i.e., cap and trade) under the heading of Facilitate Access to International Markets. Page 12 even accepts international agreements regarding climate change. The USDA plan scatters “pollution” throughout their document. Now turn to the EPA which defines pollution as CO2 and you’re completing the picture. What’s remarkable is the Forestry Roadmap doesn’t use the term “pollution” but it’s virtually assured to be included in a detailed five year plan when it’s published.
All of which explains the larger picture of how Obama views the Congressional order of implementing his agenda. First big spending bills (call it vote buying), opportunistic actions with the auto industry, the huge push for health care and now financial regulations. Climate change, energy and carbon control have been on the back burner because he doesn’t need a bill given the power SCOTUS gave the EPA along with prior delegations by the Congress. As you read, he’s effectively shut down oil, he’s ramping up tighter (read out-of-business) control over refineries, ditto on the coal industry and just this week the EPA is opening up a process which will shut down natural gas production – first in PA then nationwide.
And this is not a conspiracy theory. It’s just the implementation of Obama’s policies using the tools he has and the oh so willing Administration heads and czar’s. You don’t need a chapter heading to understand the details.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says:
July 22, 2010 at 12:18 am
Gail, you may be interested in this: Forest Products Lab; “Wood Handbook”
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/several_pubs.php?grouping_id=100&header_id=p .
Up until this edition, which came out this year, it had been a purely technical (and valuable) reference for those in the wood industry, but this year they added an entire chapter (Chapter One ), given over to purely political commentary on Climate Change and their role in it. It’s still a valuable technical reference, but the addition of the above tells me that there is considerable political pressure being applied to toe the party line across the board.
The unconstitutional government attack on private property rights, or rather the revolking of the injustices from Gail Combs comment #1 would make an excellent plank for the Tea Party platform.
President Bush senior wiped his backside with the constitution quite often. The acid rain and ozone hole scams come to mind.
Chris L says:
July 22, 2010 at 12:49 am
Smokey the Marmot, maybe? “Only you can prevent Mammoth Marmots.”
Chris L says:
July 22, 2010 at 12:54 am
Or how’s about “Snowy the Bear,” the Polar version, of course. Claim the copyrights for your blog, so they don’t use it to scare the kids with sad stories of Snowy.
—————————————————-
How about “Snowy the Marmot?
I would like to see somebody quantify the costs of all this to the forestry service versus documented benefits, or any benefits. Given year on year variations versus tenths of a degree changes in global temperature I don’t think they will be able to quantify any benefits at all … at least none that would survive scrutiny.
The “national road map” reads like a compendium of all of the climate change myths, disinformation, and pseudo-scientific spin, written in the usual display of governmental bafflegab, all of which has been thoroughly debunked, of course. They continually confuse and conflate naturally-occurring events, and even some man-caused environmental concerns, such as pollution with the manmade climate change myth. I could only wade partway through that pile of total, unmitigated equine excrement before giving up in disgust. Governmental psyience. What a waste.
Only you can adapt to climate change.
Let the idiots stand in the way of a freight train with fistfuls of their own money.
This comes from the same government that just last year commissioned a report telling us snow in the U.S. would be a thing of the past and temperatures and that temperatures would rise ad infinium. Then we’re told in a new study, “climate change” will cause more snow and cold not only in the U.S., but Europe.
It doesn’t really matter what happens, it’s OUR fault.
Anthony,
What a funny cartoon. Do you have a comic graphic to illustrate the Department of Defense attitude about climate change. Those greens in the military will stop at nothing to convince the taxpayers!
In its recently released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the DoD states, “Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment.” No debate. According to the U.S. security apparatus, these are issues that the U.S. security apparatus will have to deal with.
The QDR states two “broad” ways in which climate change will affect U.S. security. Global warming will “shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake”, and DoD will be forced to deal with “the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities.”
The QDR doesn’t blink:
The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
What effects does this have on American national defense? The QDR continues:
Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.
Note the certainty. Climate change “will” cause resource scarcity and “will” cause the spread of disease. For the DoD, these changes have a two-pronged effect, as an “accelerant” of instability and conflict, as well as an increased burden on the military to engage in humanitarian assistance, limiting its ability to focus solely on defense.
So much for campfires.
“There will never be enough financial or other resources to address all of these risks”
translated…
Send more taxpayer money so we can spend it on useless projects, hire more people, and give ourselves raises and pats on the back regardless of the outcome.
Hokey the Bear says: Only YOU can prevent ‘*fireball-earth’!
(*rising sea levels, falling sea levels, high temps, low temps, rain, floods, drought, hurricanes, tornados, plagues of locusts, malaria, eye strain, lower back pain, psoriasis, plaque, gingivitis, tennis elbow, late pizzas, exploding butterflies, sad penguins, lost carkeys, premature ejacuwhatzit, and/or anything else that is or is-soon-to-be linked to fossil fuel usage by undoubtedly rigorous
incomprehensibleincontrovertible peer-revieved study)