My Review of Mitt Romney's New Energy Policy

On August 23, 2012, Mitt Romney announced his new and improved energy policy that he would implement if elected president of the United States.  He was in Hobbs, New Mexico when he made his speech that outlined the measures that he would make to ensure that America becomes "energy independent" by 2020.

In this article, I will discuss each point he made, points he has made in the past, how some are wrong and what his goals will mean to the United States.  I am not writing this as a liberal, or as a supporter of President Obama, but as an environmentalist.  I will give you facts and not opinion.  I will post a link to the video on the C-Span website since the entire speech is not available for download yet, but when it is I will insert it in this article.  I will do an in time paragraph for every point he makes, meaning the article will go along with the speech - I will put the time, point and then my response.  You will pick up on it.

Here is the link for the video: http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Events/Mitt-Romney-on-Energy-Policy-in-New-Mexico/10737433371-1/

In Governor Romney's 30 minute speech, he emphasized that his main goal, when it comes to his energy policy, is the idea of America becoming energy independent by the year 2020 and for North America to become energy independent by 2020 as well.  If we know one thing about Mitt Romney, it is his strong support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the pipeline that is proposed to be built from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast.  He used the KXL Pipeline as the centerfold of his energy plan.

00:00 - Mitt Romney Walks on stage.

05:00 - Mitt Romney mentions "5-Point Plan for America's Future", number 1 being energy resources.

06:25 - starts talking about his energy policy plan.

06:30-7:15 - "American and North American energy independence by 2020" - by 2020 he wants all energy used in America, Mexico and Canada to be produced here. He starts listing his plan to achieve this goal.  Brings up a bar graph showing the breakdown of energy demand and production. He says we "are producing 2/3 of what we use and importing 1/3."

08:00-09:15 - Begins the process of describing how he will make America become totally energy independent; he suggests that we will see a minor decrease in conventional production (ex. wells, technology and energies that we already have).

1) an increase in production and exploration of Off-Shore Oil.

2) "Tight Oil", oil that has to be extracted via fracking methods.

3) Alaska; he suggests tapping ANWR oil reserves and other reserves in Alaska.  ANWR is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a very delicate and unstable ecosystem.

4) Natural gas a liquids.

5) Biofuels; he suggest increasing production of bio-diesel and ethanol.

6) Canada; here he mentions the Keystone XL Pipeline and how he will sign this into effect on Day 1.  7) Mexico; mentions that their production is on the decline and with a new (hopefully in his case) president, his administration can convince their government to work with American companies and American technology to increase Mexican production of oil.

09:30 - finishes his graph discussion with his prediction of the amount of barrels of oil produced per day in North America being 23-28 million barrels per day.

10:00-16:00 - begins to list how he will go about achieving these goals.

1) give states the power to grant permits for drilling on federal lands within the respective state boarders.

2) Put together a five year leasing plan for off-shore resources.  Mentions the Carolinas, Virginia and Gulf.  Gives power to drilling companies to meet targets.  Emphasizes for state-of-the-art technology for drilling and regulations for safety, not to stop drilling procedures. "Using the law to stop the production of energy is not in the best interest of the United States of America and our people."

3) establish an energy partnership with Canada and Mexico - create fast track process for energy infrastructure, mentions KXL again.

4) get an accurate inventory of how much energy we actually have through seismic studies both on-shore and off-shore. Claims President Obama says we only have 2% of worlds oil reserves, he believes that we have 7 times that amount.

5) change regulatory and permitting process to make it more transparent. Make sure regulations are meant to help get production where needed and not to stop production of energy.  Accuses the Obama Administration of not wanting to use oil, natural gas and coal due to regulations.  Says regulations are so expensive that is an attempt to make solar and wind cost effective.  Then says that he "likes wind and solar like the next person", but doesn't want the law to stop the production of fossil fuels.

6) promote energy innovation; brings up Solyndra and says that President Obama wants to invest our money in companies, about $90B in "so-called 'Green Jobs'".  "Government of the United States is not a very good venture capitalist."  Says he doesn't want POTUS to invest in companies that are his campaign contributors.  Wants more efficiency in our uses of energy.  Says that we can become an exporter of our energy is we can bring down energy usage.  Wants the money invested in science and research, not companies.

16:05-18:45 - benefits of his plans.

1) 3 millions jobs to come from all of this in oil, gas and coal industries.

2) adds $500B to the size of our economy.

3) 10's to 100's of billions of dollars in tax revenues to be used on military, schools, seniors and infrastructure.

4) Lower energy prices for homes and business to bring businesses back to America.

5) reduce trade deficit by 80%.

6) Stronger national security; no reliance on "people who may not like us very much".

19:00 - end of energy issue talk, onto jobs, and his other talk points.

Lets break this all down, point-by-point.

Mitt Romney opened up his speech by mentioning that we produce 2/3 of our current energy needs here in America and import 1/3.  For President Obama's first term in office, he made it a goal to significantly decrease our dependence on foreign oil; President Obama's plan already seems to be taking effect as we have seen a decrease in our dependence on foreign oil that is imported since he has taken office, according to the US Census.  In 2011, the Energy Information Administration released the United States energy dependence; in this chart, it states that 52% of American oil used is domestic to North America, whereas 48% is imported.  Of the imported crude oil that America receives, 22% of it comes from Arabic nations, the other large importers are African nations, at 20%, and the remaining 6% is dispersed among other nations.  We are already on the path to energy independence, with or without Mitt Romney's plan.

In the next set of points, the governor mentioned the steps to get to energy independence - there are many issues here.  In his first point "Off-Shore Drilling", he calls for an increase in production of domestic off-shore wells.  Aside from the fact that no other president in history has been able to achieve American energy independence, how will Mitt Romney be different?  He mentioned that he is targeting the Eastern Seaboard as his main region of off-shore oil exploration and production, mainly the Carolinas, Georgia, Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic.  These are all regions that have continuously stated that they want no part of off-shore drilling in their waters or off their coasts.  How will he be able to change their views on the issue to grant permission?  When will he approach these states with this matter?  He says that he wants to be totally independent by 2020, but will he go right at these states and risk a potential second term?  Or, will he wait until 2016, when he can act with no personal, political repercussions?  It can take up to a year or more for oil exploration.  In addition to that year for exploration, it takes on average 2-5 years (depending on the type), to build the rigs.  There is his first term in office with no rigs in the water extracting off-shore oil.  In addition to this, he is planning on producing off-shore oil rigs in some of the most dangerous and vulnerable waters in the Atlantic.  Each year, many tropical storms and hurricanes make their way up the East Coast of the United States; these oil rigs will be in the direct path of some of these storms which can cause environmental disasters on the scale of the BP Horizon spill if the rigs are damaged.  With meteorolgists and climatologists claiming that we are set to see and increase in severe tropical storm activity in the coming years, is it smart to put these off-shore rigs in these locations?

Next is "Tight Oil"; this resource is located in many parts of the continental United States.  The term tight oil is used to describe oil deposits that are trapped and unable to move in shale rock.  We can find many of these deposits all over the country which gives us the opportunity to acquire its energy.  Unfortunately, due to the difficulties of acquiring it, we have only been able to use the "fracking" processes to reach the oil deposits.  Fracking is a relatively new technology that is drawing much criticism from peoples of both parties.  It is the process of mixing freshwater with hundreds of chemicals to break apart the rock to extract the oil (this same process can also be used for natural gas, which will be discussed later).  The problem lies with the chemicals used and how many of these chemicals have been found to leak into freshwater reserves for many communities.  Over 25% of the chemicals used in fracking are found to be carcinogenic; carcinogenic or not, chemicals leaking into water reserves contaminate the water that we drink which puts human health at risk.  

Alaska and ANWR were Gov. Romney's next points.  He wants to open up ANWR for drilling; ANWR is home to hundreds of species of animals and plants, some of which are endangered.  In Accordance with the Endangered Species Act, any process that can harm or put the wellness of an endangered or threatened species at risk, risks being terminated.  Tapping this region, which has shown to be rich in oil, has a significant chance of putting species, such as Polar Bears and other marine and terrestrial life, at risk.  In addition to these species, there is also a Native population living in that region, the Inuit peoples.  This project could potentially displace them or harm their habitat or species from which they live.  Also, experts believe that no significant amount of oil will be produced for at least 10 years, putting the governor's 2020 goal out of sight.  

Natural gas and liquids followed the Alaska point; this idea is similar to the Tight Oil point.  The only way to extract natural gas, at least for now, is through fracking.  Until a new, safer technology is found to acquire natural gas and tight oil, the idea to put human health above energy resources should be a no-brainer.  

Bio-diesel and ethanol are also relatively new sources of energy.  While these sources of energy emit less fossil fuels than conventional oil and coal, they also come with a lot of baggage.  In terms of fuel for vehicles, if your car is not fitted with a flex-fuel type engine, your vehicle will most likely not be able to run off of bio-diesel or ethanol.  Also, ethanol and bio-diesel will require the use of mass amounts of crops, mainly soy and corn, to produce it.  According to Matthew Brown, the energy program director at the National Conference for State Legislatures, we would have to divert about 60% of our soy crops for bio-diesel and ethanol production.  This would cause a massive decrease in the amount of soy and corn that would be used for other purposes.  This processes is highly inefficient in terms of the amount of energy you receive and how many resources you put into the process.  Many experts do not believe that this source of energy will be able to make a large impact in a nations energy needs.  

Canada and the Keystone XL Pipeline have been the center of controversy in the energy debate for a few years now.  Governor Romney has stated that he will approve the KXL Pipeline on Day 1 of being in office. Aside from the fact that we would be creating a large pipeline across the entire mid-west and delicate ecosystems and natural resources such as underground water deposits, the burning of the Tar Sands in Alberta bring up the issue of climate change and what the impacts would be on the climate on a global scale.  He expects to create a few hundred thousand jobs through the manufacturing and development process of building the pipeline; while this may be true, it is important to note that the jobs are temporary.  These jobs would be very important to the project, but what would happen after the pipeline?  Would we have to create more and more pipelines to keep these jobs? Mitt Romney will have to clarify his statement by saying that this project will "create a few hundred thousand temporary jobs" that will move on with the pipeline as it expands, not all at once.  He needs to make a statement claiming how many permanent and temporary jobs will be created, when will they be created and when they will be terminated.  

Finally, he ended this part of his speech with Mexico.  His plans to work with Mexico come along with issues that many, maybe not even his advisors are aware of.  He wants to bring American corporations into Mexico to help them innovate and produce their resources while at the same time, importing oil from Mexico to the United States.  The issue here is that the Mexican Constitution makes it illegal for any foreign corporation to develop Mexican natural resources - only Pemex, the Mexican nationalized oil and gas company has exclusive rights to extract in Mexico.  In a highly unlikely task, Mitt Romney is asking Mexico to re-write or pass a constitutional amendment in order for American corporations to help drill and produce Mexican oil.  This is certainly not a slam-dunk; my question is, what is his contingency plan if Mexico says "No" to his proposal? 

After listing the goals of his energy policy plan, he went on to discuss how he will go about achieving them.  The first point that he made was that he would take the responsibility of granting drilling permits on federal land away from the federal government and give the responsibility to the states.  By doing this, he believes that it will speed up the permit process which will allow for drilling to happen faster and more often.  He will be opening up an unspecified amount of federal lands for the states to decide who can drill and who can not.  

He moved on to discuss off-shore drilling and how he is targeting the Eastern Seaboard as his area of research and development of off-shore and deep-water rigs.  Once again, in states that have continuously opposed the notion of drilling off of their shores, how does he expect to completely change their minds to proceed with these processes?  At this moment, after he made this speech, he is risking the votes of key states, two of which are battleground states  - North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia - all states that he is targeting and all states that have said they do not want off-shore drilling on their coasts.  He also made the point of weakening the regulations to increase drilling procedures instead of the current regulations which he says hinder those operations.  He only plans to enforce regulations to ensure the safety of these processes.  

His next point, the energy collaboration between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is one of his only points that made sense to me.  It would make more sense to me, and probably to our foreign neighbors if our elected government officials would work together within our own borders.  How can a foreign government take us seriously when we say "Let's work together!" when our government can't even work amongst itself.  As the saying goes, "if you're gonna talk the talk, you have to walk the walk." 

Governor Romney then claims that President Obama is lying when it comes to the total amount of oil that we have in the United States.  Experts from the EIA, OPEC, Dept. of Energy and the Institute of Energy Research all say that the U.S. has 2% of proven oil reserves.  The governor claims that we have 14%.  Experts show that we have what we have in proven reserves; now, while there may be more in undiscovered oil reserves, he insists that we will be able to discover, tap and refine 700% more oil deposits in the US by 2020 - IF we can even access these reserves, and that's a big IF.  

The next point that he makes is how he wants to make regulations more transparent.  He wants to get rid of regulations that could possibly stop or slow down oil production, mainly through the Clean Air Act, which now regulates carbon emissions.  By doing this, only with the help of Congress, he will make it easier for oil companies to produce fossil fuels without having to regulate emissions and water and air pollution as much.  This could have serious environmental and human health impacts as we will be breathing dirtier air and polluting waters. He also mentions that the Obama Administration is out to get the fossil fuels industry with regulations that they put in place.  President Obama has put a cap-and-trade on carbon emissions to decrease CO2 levels in our atmosphere and has set a target MPG for cars in the years ahead.  Some argue that he has a War on Coal, but many nations, not just the U.S. are distancing themselves from coal due to the effects that it has on our air and human health issues.  It seems that the regulations put forth by the Obama Administration are nothing more than regulations to protect human and environmental health.  He also accuses the Obama Administration for making the costs of producing fossil fuels so high that it makes alternatives such as wind and solar more affordable and efficient.  In his next sentence, he says that he likes solar and wind just as much as the next guy.  

Finally, Governor Romney ends with the notion that he wants to promote innovation, but not by investing in corporations such as Solyndra or other alternative energy companies.  He claims that the Obama Administration has wasted over $90B in bad investments to "loser" companies.  These investments are nothing more than government subsidies to promote green jobs and alternative energy technologies.  The $90 billion in subsidies is no where close to the $409 billion spent on fossil fuel corporations in 2010, an amount that the governor plans to increase when president in his plan to invest in "science and research" about oil and fossil fuels.  He also makes the erroneous claim that President Obama is granting subsidies to the same corporations that contribute to his campaign; without going on a rant here, Mitt Romney's main sources of campaign funding within the last year have come from SuperPac's run by the Koch Brothers (who own an fossil fuel energy conglomerate) at $1.46 million and probably more through their SuperPac's, Harold Hamm (a billionaire oil tycoon who is also his energy advisor) and his company Continental Resources at $1.26 million, Exxon Mobile at $1.5 million, and the largest being Oxbow Corp, an energy company founded by the third of four Koch brothers - William Koch - which has funded close to $3 million through Koch brother-run SuperPac's.  (All figures from www.opensecrets.org).  Mitt Romney has absolutely no room to point fingers at someone claiming they are trying to make regulations to grow a certain industry when his entire energy plan caters to the Oil and Fossil Fuels Industry in every way.  He held a meeting with some of the most powerful people in the energy industry just two days prior to this speech; his energy plan will most likely insure that the CEO's and individuals funding his campaign will receive billions of dollars in personal gains over the years to come.  

At one point during this presidential campaign, Mitt Romney spoke of his energy plan which, at the time, included alternative energies and nuclear power.  As we can see, he has thrown those options out the window and is going with a fossil-fuel-only type energy policy.  Aside from the environmental repercussions that will follow his plan, his idea of becoming totally energy independent by the year 2020 will most likely not happen.  The idea of being energy independent is one that I support and I believe that we can achieve it, but not like this.  Aside from the political views that separate Mitt Romney and me, the facts are facts, and that is what I have presented you with.  By leaving many important details out when speaking to the public, he leads them to believe that this is the only way to achieve energy independence.  He argues for clean energy, yet he wants to do away with all regulations that make energy production clean.  It is as if this energy plan was written by the CEO's of America's oil corporations since it will give them billions of dollars more per year.  

He pledges that he will create millions of jobs, but leaves out the fact that many of them will be temporary.  He pledges for lower energy prices, but leaves out the fact that many economists and scientists have stated that the KXL pipeline will not lower our energy prices.  He pledges that we will be energy independent by 2020 when the fact of the matter is we will not.  It is not possible with our current sources and energy demands to meet that goal by that year.  ANWR won't produce enough oil for 10 years so that option is already past 2020.  Off-shore wells may not be up and running for at least 5 years before they can produce oil and even there, it will not be a significant amount right away; this option puts us past 2020 as well.  The fracking of oil and natural gas is still new and will not create enough energy to make us independent on its own - again past 2020.  Mitt Romney loves to give himself a deadline for a certain issue when it is in every way impossible.  One day we will be energy independent, many nations are on the path to that goal, just as we are, it just won't be by 2020.  

That is the breakdown and reality of Mitt Romney's newly released energy plan that he will bring to the White House.  Some may think that I gave my own opinion, but these are all supported facts and figures.  

Please leave comments, I am interested to hear your thoughts! 

Billabong Pro Tahiti Day 2

Today we just finished Round 2 in mediocre surf.  A few upsets were dealt sending a few favorites home early.  Late in the day, event organizers were planning on stopping the contest for the day, but the surfers called for it to go on.  Here are the results and thoughts from todays action. 


H3: 1st Julian Wilson, 2nd Willian Cardoso - after a slow first heat, Julian picked it up and was smart in the water in the first heat of the day. He now moves onto Rd 3.  This was a must win for Julian in order to keep his high ranking.  He seemed more in-tune this heat...hopefully he can maintain this surfing throughout the event. 

H4: 1st Jeremy Flores, 2nd Dusty Payne - Jeremy took it to Dusty in this elimination heat. Dusty goes home early and it will be interesting to see how the second half of the season goes for him.  Flores placed well here last year - I have a feeling he will do so again this year. 

H5: 1st Michel Bourez, 2nd Pat Gudauskas - Pat gave up a crucial wave to Bourez in the beginning and could not recover. Local boy Michel Bourez has never really done as well as he could in the Tahiti contest.  Could this be his year to take the title for his home country on his own soil?  He sure has the ability to do so. 

H6: 1st Alejo Muniz, 2nd Jadson Andre - two countrymen went at it.  So far this year, both surfers have had lackluster results.  I did not see either surfers going far into this event.  

H7: 1st Kieren Perrow, 2nd Tiago Pires - a great heat by KP. Pushes him through to Rd 3.  I originally had KP on my roster, but replaced him last minute...I wonder if I will be kicking myself by the end of the event.  He is looking strong and is known for his good surfing here.  

H8:  1st Miguel Pupo, 2nd Yadin Nichol - The boys up top called it the heat of the day..high scores and barrels. Pupo threw away a 9.0 to give you an idea... Fresh off of a 2nd at the US Open of Surfing, Pupo is in good form.  He showed us in Fiji that he can hang with the veterans in high-quality waves.  He could upset some of the favorites here.  

H9: 1st Damien Hobgood, 2nd Matt Wilkinson - an unfortunately loss for Wilko (first surfer on my team to lose). An all around slow heat wave wise. Great surfing by damo, always a threat in these waves.

H10: 1st Brett Simpson, 2nd Adam Melling - Melling never really got anything going. Good signs for Simpo as he moves on and needed this win for his rankings.  

H11: 1st Fred Pattachia, 2nd Bede Durbidge - Freddy proved to us why he is a top contender for this contest, his surfing was great and he was getting some big scores.  Bede has struggled this year.  He has not surfed like we know he can, I wonder if there is anything going on or if he is just going through a phase.  

H12: 1st Kai Otton, 2nd Travis Logie - mediocre surf in the last heat of the day, Kai won the heat with a high 9 point ride. An unfortunate loss for Logie as he was a semi-finalist last year as a wildcard. Second surfer I lost so far.  Kai is one of my favorite surfers and is constantly forgotten as one of the best goofy-footers.  His carves and barrel riding are some of the best.  Keep an eye out for him in Tahiti.  


These are the results from the day.  I expect a few lay days coming up, so we unfortunately won't have any action.  What are your thoughts on the event so far?  How are your teams holding up?  

Check out the Worn Trails Facebook page for real time heat results and thoughts at: http://www.facebook.com/worntrails

You can watch the event live on your computer, smartphone and iPad here: http://billabongpro.com/tahiti

Here is the video recap of Day 2: 

Billabong Pro Tahiti Day 1

Well it hasn't been the contest that we were hoping - meaning it wasn't 20+ foot waves like we saw last year.  Nonetheless, it is still Teahupoo and the waves are still pumping.  The contest started on the first day of the waiting period in head high surf; if the waves can remain consistent, we will see a great contest.  

Round 1 consisted of some great heats, high scores and upsets, sending some big names into the elimination Round 2.  I felt good with my team and was confident that my choices would pay off today.  

Here are the heat recaps and my thoughts about each one.  

H1: 1st John John, 2nd Miguel Pupo, 3rd Pat Gudauskas - John John is looking lethal..one of my predicted winners.  His knowledge of the wave is phenomenal at his young age.  Miguel also looked strong, but it is almost impossible to beat John John in waves like this.  

H2: 1st Taj Burrow, 2nd Damien Hobgood, 3rd Dusty Payne - good action this heat, Dusty is quiet in the water in his first heat back this year.  Taj is looking strong as always...same with Damo, a former winner here in Tahiti.  

H3: 1st Taylor Knox, 2nd Mick Fanning, 3rd Brett Simpson - TK won in the last minutes on a great small barrel wave to overcome Mick.  This was a huge win for Taylor as he has had trouble this year in Round 2 heats.  

H4: 1st Adriano de Souza, 2nd Willian Cardoso, 3rd Bede Durbidge - Adriano was on fire and easily the standout of the day scoring two 9+ point rides.  

H5: 1st Joel Parkinson, 2nd Ricardo Santos, 3rd Kai Otton - Parko looked dominant out there, great wave selection.  He is currently in 3rd place on the world rankings and a strong result here could do wonders for him in the title race.  Dos Santos won the trials for the second year in a row to surf in the event.  Look out for him as a sleeper.  

H6: 1st Kelly Slater, 2nd Travis Logie, 3rd Alain Riou - Kelly was being Kelly. Good heat for Logie.  

H7: 1st Josh Kerr, 2nd Jadson Andre, 3rd Tiago Pires - Kerr went absolutely crazy today opening up with two massive scores off the get go. If he can keep this up he will win this.  After an unfortunate injury in Fiji, Kerr is surfing stronger than ever and it showed today.  He is underestimated when it comes to barrel riding.  He is also in contention for the world title and if he can pull off a win, which he very well may, he will be right up there with Kelly, Mick and Parko.  

H8: 1st Ace Buchan, 2nd Kieren Perrow, Jordy Smith - this wave has been good to goofys today and Ace took advantage. KP looked strong, but Jordy lacked momentum. He needs a big result here.  This wave was favoring goofy-footers today, although it usually favors regular footers.  The smaller surf allows them to really take control of their surfing and maneuvers.  

H9: 1st Owen Wright, 2nd Yadin Nichol, 3rd Alejo Muniz - Owen looks like he wants a win this year instead of runner up. He was surfing really well. Yadin needs a result here if he hopes to stay on tour; he hasn't had good luck in the second round. Hopefully he can pull it off in the next round.

H10: 1st Heitor Alves, 2nd Matt Wilkinson, 3rd Julian Wilson - an unexpected result by Julian after winning the Nike US Open of Surfing, but great surfing by Wilko and Heitor.  Wilko had a huge result here last year which was one of the reasons that I picked him for my team.  Hopefully he can pull off another result this year.  

H11: 1st Gabriel Medina, 2nd Michel Bourez, 3rd Adam Melling - Once again, Medina shows his versatility. Bourez is looking strong on his home turf.  Medina may very well be the future of surfing, along with John John and Julian.  He continues to dazzle us in waves many say do not suit his "style".  

H12: 1st CJ Hobgood, 2nd Fred Pattachia, 3rd Jeremy Flores - this was probably the best heat of Round 1; CJ was picking the best waves and capitalizing on opportunities. Freddy, a favorite this contest, almost bested CJ. Flores, who had a great result here last year, is once again looking strong in Tahiti.

We also started the first few heats of Round 2 and saw a stunning upset: 

Round 2:

H1: 1st Mick Fanning, 2nd Alain Riou - a great, high scoring heat; tons of barrels and Mick found some great ones.

H2: 1st Ricardo Dos Santos, 2nd Jordy Smith - a huge upset here. RDS owned the heat from the horn. Jordy couldnt get anything going after his 8.0 to begin the heat with. An unfortunate early exit for Smith as he needed a good result here.



I thought that I had posted this yesterday, sorry for the delay.  For up-to-date feedback on the event, "like" my Facebook page as I will be posting heat results and thoughts after each heat as soon as they finish.  Here is the link: http://www.facebook.com/worntrails 

Here is the video recap of Day 1: 

Billabong Pro Tahiti: Day 1 Update

Made a last minute change to my Fantasy Surfer roster.  Dropped Kieren Perrow and Dusty and picked up Freddy P and Travis Logie.. Freddy is favored by some to win and Travis needs a result as he is sitting #24 right now...Day 1 updates to follow today's action..should be up tomorrow.

Surf Videos

Haven't done one of these segments in a while.  Here are my recent favorite surf videos.

This is a crazy little edit of Dion Agius in the United Arab Emirates in a wave pool.

This is the trailer of the new Kai Neville film "Dear Suburbia" - really looking forward to seeing it.

I've been watching a new mini series by ...Lost recently called the "War(d) Stories" about Chris Ward.  These videos are amazing.  Edited by Joe Alani.  Keep an eye out for them - released every Friday. 

Here is a snippet of the new Coffin Brother project "Electric Wilderness".  This short film features the best young surfers in Indo.  For the full feature, check out the Coffin brothers website www.youngwisetails.com

Billabong Pro Tahiti: Preview

It is about time we had another WCT event, it seems like eons ago that we had the Fiji event.  I couldn't be more excited for the Tahiti event as the boys are tearing apart Huntington Beach in the Nike US Open of Surfing.  We have seen Dusty Payne, who has been injured for the entire season, back in action and looking good.  Josh Kerr, who tore a ligament in his foot in the first heat of his Fiji campaign, is also back.  The lineup for Tahiti is looking good and I have a feeling we may see some new faces in the final days of competition this year.

My team has a variety of power surfers and new-era surfers, as well as some usual favorites.  I put John John, Kelly, Owen, Kieren Perrow, Wilko, Mick, Dusty and CJ on my roster this year.  It is still a little early to get a good forecast outlook for the event, but if it is anything like last year, I feel that these surfers will excel throughout the entire competition.

I went with John John for obvious reasons; he is currently a contender for the US Open and is hungry for another WCT victory this year.  His experience in Tahitian waves, as well as at home at Pipeline, will put him above most surfers this event.  He has been traveling to Tahiti and surfing at Teahupoo since he was a kid and knows how to surf this wave in almost all conditions.

Kelly won this event last year in the first of three consecutive final appearances against Owen Wright.  I do not think that I need to explain much further about why I chose him for my roster.  His knowledge of this wave will once again make him a contender this year.

Owen Wright also seemed like another good pick for me.  His barrel riding constantly is undermined by his aerial tactics which are shown in his feature films.  We saw last year what he can do in 15 ft Teahupoo and this year in Fiji.  I expect him to once again make a good run at the contest.

KP was a surfer that I had going far in Fiji, but unfortunately lost out in a close heat.  He is arguably the best barrel rider on tour and he WILL get a good result here in Tahiti.  Being a veteran on tour, I have a feeling he will show the youngsters on tour how to really surf Teahupoo.

Wilko made it well into the later rounds of this contest last year.  At one point, it looked like he could have won it.  Like Owen, Wilko is a phenomenal barrel rider and is not afraid to drop in to a 20 foot bomb.  If he can surf like he did last year, I do not see why he wouldn't be able to have another good result here.

Mick surfed really well in Fiji this year, it seems like he is really in tune with his surfing and boards.  He has always surfed well in Tahiti and this year should be no different.

CJ made a statement in Tahiti that he still deserves to be on tour.  His frontside barrel riding is some of the best in the world and him and his brother could take charge in this contest as they did in the last.

Dusty is my risky pick.  With only $3,000,000 to spend, I figure with Freddy P most likely not entering this contest since Dusty is back, Dusty is my best choice.  He gave me confidence in this pick with his power surfing and high scoring heats at the US Open.  He is not shy about big waves, although with this being his first contest back, I am a bit worried that he may back off on some waves and not push himself to the fullest.  I am excited to see him back in a jersey and hopefully he is capable of surfing like we remember.

This is just a preliminary article and I will put another out as soon as the forecast becomes available.  My roster may change, but I have a good feeling that this could be a winner.  Do any of you have your rosters ready? Who do you have on it?

My Vision for the Next 100 Years on Earth

This article will discuss future woes that will inevitably become a reality in our society. The supporting evidence that I will use in this article will be strong and respectable scientific evidence.  Believe me when I tell you that I am not alone about the thoughts that I will bring forth. As they say, history tends to repeat itself. Scholars and I believe that what you are about to read, may very well happen. It is not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.

The world is changing, there is no doubt about it. The United States, the most influential nation in the world, is once again at the forefront of the current changes and will be leading (along with other powerhouse nations such as China and Russia) the future changes. Over the last 200 years, the human race has gone from what some would call prehistoric, due to the unimaginable lack of technology, to an "advanced race".  We travelled to the moon, planes practically fly themselves, technology is advancing each day, and there are 7 billion people and counting. But everything hasn't always been so peachy sounding, nor will it in the future. Those alive today, along with future generations, face a dark and dismal future filled with war, famine, disease and a potential economic collapse due to corruption and globalization of monopolistic corporations.

One of the worst dilemmas that the world faces today is the energy need of the future.  Scientists at Oxford speculate that we will deplete global oil supplies in about 40 years (2052), give or take, at our current rate of extraction and consumption (OPEC).  In addition to that statistic, Oxford also estimates that oil demand will exceed oil supply, globally, in 2015.  It is sad to see that Governor Romney and his billionaire oil-tycoon energy advisor, Harold Hamm, are pushing for increased use and production of U.S. Made oil.  This action, if pursued by Romney, given he wins the presidential election in November, will put the United States and the world in a position that may increase global consumption and production of oil bringing the 2052 point much sooner.  It is time to start deviating from the tradition methods of creating energy for the world; with our backs up against the wall, and only 3 years or so until demand exceeds supply, we have no time to waste…we must start heavily investing in alternative energy sources. 

Getting back on track, after 2050, when all oil deposits are depleted of their resources, I speculate that the United States, and most of the world, will only start to begin the process of mass producing alternative energy sources to supply our nation and world with energy.  As we have seen in the past, society tends to wait until it is too late to act on whatever the problem is; in this case it is energy.  With information such as that presented by Oxford, we have yet to see a major push for alternative energy in the Untied States, or the world, that would indicate a societal and governmental change in the way that we view obtaining energy. 

As we have seen in the last two decades, whether some want to believe it or not, there have been global wars for natural resources, namely oil.  The United States has created a significant presence in the Middle East starting with President George H. W. Bush and continuing until today.  I see this as a tactical move for the future.  Within the next 50 years, as oil supplies approach depletion, the United States will be in the perfect position to acquire the worlds largest oil deposit.  With thousands of troops in the region, and the thousands more that will mostly likely be deployed there over the years, we will have a military presence capable of defending the natural resources available.  As stated in the beginning of this article, I mentioned that there will be wars fought over resources; the Oil War, as I like to think of it, will be the first of their kind.  It will not be the United States against the nations that make up the Middle East, no.  This will be a global war comprising of two groups, the United States and its allies (most likely the EU nations, NATO nations, etc) versus Russia and its known allies, and the soon to be allies of Russia.  The end result will be the war ending when the oil is gone.  If ended prior to that point, there will be one side who will have the oil and the remaining countries will become oil-less. 

Oil always has, and always will be (until it is gone) the driving force of the global economy.  No nation on Earth can currently sustain itself without oil.  I believe there will be select countries that will realize the severity of the situation and act in a way that will set them up to succeed and survive the issues ahead of us.  Already, nations in Scandinavia, Europe and Asia are taking the necessary steps and starting the transition towards a sustainable alternative energy fueled nation.  Most of the residencies in states such as Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Finland are heated by means of geo-thermal energy, using the Earth’s emitted heat to warm their water and houses.  The Netherlands is using tidal power and wind power to fuel much of their country.  China is investing billions of dollars a year to fund the research and development of solar panels as they try and strive away from one of their current major sources of power, coal.  But what do we see in America, no action and only the criticism of those who are trying to lobby for this action.  The first attempt by President Obama to follow in China’s footsteps by subsidizing the solar panel manufacturer, Solyndra, ended in the company ultimately filing for bankruptcy.  This should in no way discourage Congress or the public from progressing in this direction.  Success cannot come without failure.  One way or another, we will have to make the transition to a total alternative energy driven nation.  This WILL happen within the next 100 years. 

The location and resources available in our nation are immense; we have thousands of miles of coastline that can be used for tidal and wind energy, millions of acres of open land in the mid-west for solar energy and the entire country has the ability to support geothermal energy.  In addition to this, the United States has arguably the best and most advanced technology to support new nuclear power plants, which can essentially replace oil as the largest supplier of energy.  Unfortunately, nuclear energy may be a non-renewable resource itself, as we do not know how much uranium is available on Earth.  Our nation has the ability to successfully invest in every type of alternative energy to power our nation, our houses, our cars and every other energy-requiring object.  The first steps are always the hardest, but we must take them. 

In accordance with the energy need of the future and our current way of acquiring energy (through the use of fossil fuels), climate change will eventually reach a tipping point and the consequences will be devastating.  Currently, carbon dioxide is the target emission that governments around the world are trying to reduce and eliminate in an effort to combat and possibly reverse the current state of climate change.  Scientists dispute the “tipping point” at which we will see irreversible changes to our environment and climates.  Some say that 450ppm (ppm, or parts per million, being the measurement at which carbon is measured in the atmosphere) is the maximum amount of carbon before all Hell breaks loose.  Others, such as 350.org, are suggesting that 350ppm was the tipping point.  We are now hovering above 395ppm, according to, co2now.org.  Regardless of what the tipping point is, scientists have no way of determining what it might be and what the consequences will be once we reach it.  Whether or not we passed it or are rapidly closing in on it, the climate is changing and with each year that passes, we are noticing more extreme weather and are recording startling levels in sea-level rise, global temperature and their effects on the Earth and society. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, mankind, due to the burning of coal and fossil fuels, has risen carbon dioxide levels more than 100 ppm.  The last time that carbon levels were this high was more than 15 million years ago (Wolpert).  So in essence, in 200 years, we have been able to raise carbon levels in ways that it took the natural world millions of years to do – round of applause to mankind!  It is a known and accepted fact among scientists that carbon dioxide in a greenhouse gas.  A greenhouse gas is a gas that has the ability to trap heat transmitted from the sun and reflected off of the Earth’s surface in the atmosphere.  A major argument among Global Warming non-believers is whether or not carbon dioxide causes global warming.  While it is not the only contributor, carbon is one of the largest, especially today at the rate it is being emitted into the atmosphere.  Just like oxygen and water, carbon has the ability to retain heat at higher levels than oxygen, and methane is 20 times better at retaining heat than carbon ("Methane…”).  So the ability of carbon to retain heat is real and it is happening.  With more carbon added into the atmosphere (carbon levels are rising at an average of 2ppm per year) more heat in being trapped in the atmosphere causing average global temperatures to increase – the Greenhouse Effect.  Unfortunately, due to the rise in global temperature, scientists believe this is the direct cause of the extreme weather and rise in sea level seen over the past 100 or so years. 

At current rates, we will surpass the “tipping point” of 450 ppm years before the estimated oil depletion year.  In the future, due to extreme carbon dioxide levels, the earth is supposed to warm up anywhere from 3-7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 50-100 years (Blaine).  Whether it is 3 or 7 degrees, or somewhere in between, a one-degree increase over the last 100 years ("Future Climate Change…”) has caused mass glacial melting, which in turn has caused sea levels to rise 4-10 inches – varying due to location – ("Climate Change Over…”).  In addition to sea level rise, the amount and magnitude of weather anomalies’ has drastically increased; we have seen stronger tropical storms more frequently, which have taken countless lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.  If the estimated increase in global temperature happens (some sort of increase will happen), we can expect to see a partial, to total melting of the Antarctic, Greenland and other glacial caps.  On July 18, 2012, the Huffington Post reported that the Petermann Ice Cap in Greenland broke off into the ocean.  This piece of ice is double the size of Manhattan (Borenstein); this is yet another example of ice cap depletion which may have consequences on humans around the world.  If we were to lose both of these ice caps, global sea level is estimated to rise two feet globally, which will essentially put many island nations, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, under water, displacing millions of people from their homes and forcing them to relocate elsewhere in the world.  Aside from that threat, here in the U.S., New Orleans will no longer be inhabitable; much of Florida and Manhattan will also be under water.  Simply put, maps will have to be redone and the face of the Earth will be forever changed.  What are now the beaches of the United States will be underwater and those who lived miles from the ocean may have beachfront real estate.  With 44% of the worlds population (or 3 billion people) living within 150km of the ocean ("UN Atlas…”), by the end of the century, we may see close to 1 billion environmental refugees due to sea level rise.  That means 1 billion, or more, people whose home are underwater and have nowhere to go.  Many of these people will most likely relocate to urban centers inland as the coastal metropolises will be uninhabitable.  The most populated area in the world that will be effected by this the most is South East Asia, specifically China and India.  Just over 1/3 of the world’s population lives in these two nations (Exner) with most living in cities such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, Calcutta, Mumbai and Kochi – all of which are cities only a few miles from the ocean. 

So far, the future isn’t looking so bright.

Global Warming is directly related to, but not the only cause of, Climate Change.  Many believe these two terms to be the same, when they are in fact very much different.  The process of global warming affects the systems that make up climate change.  One of the better-known examples is the melting of the ice caps, which releases freshwater into the oceans.  Our oceans are driven by a system called thermo-haline circulation, which is a mixture of salinity (saltiness) and the temperature of the water – an example: Hot water rises, cold water sink and saltier (denser) water sinks and less salty (less dense) water rises.  This system creates our oceans currents and creates the atmospheric climates that define our world.  With the addition of freshwater, salinity is directly affected which throws off ocean currents, the main driver of global climate.  Over the past decade, we have seen extreme weather differentials in the U.S. and all over the world.  Summers tend to be getting warmer, winters are mostly getting colder, droughts are becoming more prevalent and extreme and what were once temperate climates (The Mid Atlantic Area and North) and are becoming more like tropical regions for longer amounts of time out of the year. 

Over the past few months, as a result of drought and climate change, thousands of towns across the country have broke temperature records, and we are currently experiencing one of the worst, if not the worst drought in our history.  “The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently named over 1000 counties in 26 states as disaster areas – the largest declaration in history – as a result of the recent drought, wildfires and other extreme weather events” as former Vice President, Al Gore, put it on his website (Gore).  These types of phenomenon are not being seen in the United States alone; extreme weather has affected almost every region of the world in the past five years, and it is only getting worse.  According to the University College of London, almost all of the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing extreme droughts that have drastic consequences on the local regions (University).  Fresh water resources in Asia and Africa have evaporated leaving millions of people with little freshwater, people are starving because their crops and livestock are dying and the shear heat that is overcoming these nations is hot enough to kill. 

As stated earlier, climate change is partly occurring as a result of a disruption in the thermo-haline circulation system.  Over the next 100 years, with the Earth’s global temperature set to raise more anywhere from 3-7 degrees, with the most extreme temperature increases occurring in the polar regions, we can expect to see a total melting of glacial ice releasing billions of gallons of freshwater into the oceans which will not only raise sea level drastically, but it can possibly shut down the system that drives our global climate.  Now this shutting down of the thermo-haline circulation system will most likely not occur immediately, but with most or all of the glacial water in the oceans, it will only be a matter of time before we start seeing drastic global climate change.  The changes that we will inevitably face will force all of humanity to adapt to the new ways of life that will come as a result of climate change.

 This is a figure of the average temperature increases until the end of the century. The rows (left to right) go from the year 2011-2100.  Row 1 (Top) represents the best case scenario, Row 2 (Middle) Represents the expected increase and Row 3 (Bottom) represents the worst case scenario.  

With oil, global warming and climate change all serious threats, arguably the most severe issue that humans face in the next 100 years, is the decreasing access to freshwater.  Water is essential for all life - humans, animals and vegetation.  Without water, life as we know it would most likely not exist on this planet.  Although over 70% of the world’s surface is covered in water, less that 3% of it is fresh water.  According to National Geographic, of all of the freshwater that is on Earth, only .007% of it is accessible and drinkable for the 7 billion people living on Earth ("Clean Water Crisis...”). 

The most essential element of life is also one of the hardest to access, which will become a larger and more serious issue in the next 100 years, as our population is most likely going to exponentially grow.  Our population is expected to grow to 10 billion or more people by the end of the century ("Global population …”).  This issue directly affects the current and future global water issue as well as the ensuing food crisis that many nations around the world are already facing.  There is already famine killing millions of people each year; with a drastic population increase within the next 100 years, our already unstable food supply will undergo growing pressure to feed more people than it is capable of.  With only 7 billion people on the Earth at the moment, more and more forests and farmland are already getting destroyed in order to support the ever-growing population.  Within the next 100 years, we may no longer see the our planet from space as a blue and green, but more or less a blue and brown planet with lights covering every corner of the Earth.  With this being said, we will see the second and third natural resources wars, the Water War and the Food War. 

The issue at hand, that will ultimately decide the future of mankind is not the state of the economy, or who is the strongest nation, no.  The issue that is constantly under minded and ignored, but is the most threatening to our species is the status and stability of the environment and ecosystem.  My vision is in no way exaggerated or dramatic, it is actually supported by many of the worlds leading scientists and politicians.  Unfortunately, the issues of global warming, climate change and overpopulation draw harsh criticism from people who are fed false information.  Hundreds of billions of dollars per year are spent on advertising to brainwashing information in an attempt to persuade the public that global warming is a hoax, or that climate change is not real, or that our future is looking peachy and that everyone will have food (or only Americans considering it is mostly American corporations that monopolize the global food industry) so that the value of their company does not decrease and so their annual profit reports continue to break records.  The fact that our own politicians, the ones that we elect and who swear under oath to protect and serve the civilians of the nation and who are the same ones protecting these companies and special interest groups, should make you cringe. 

Those who realize this corruption that we call Congress and the natural resources industry are often labeled as “green freaks” or “eco freaks” because of the opposition that they show towards these corporations and people who are single handedly destroying our world now, and the future that our children will live in.  I fear for those who will be alive in the next 100 years.  It will in no way be a world that I would want to live in.  It will be a world filled with war, not because of political differences, but in an effort to survive.  Natural resources, water and food are already scarce, but will only become less available.  Global warming will raise sea level in ways that will flood most of the metropolitan areas of the world forcing billions of people to become environmental refugees.  In addition to the billions who will become refugees, there may be billions of people who will lose their lives due to global epidemics that will rapidly spread, lack of clean water for drinking and hygiene and the fact that a majority of the world population will no longer be able to eat. 

With the exception of the worlds richest nations (America, China and a few European countries) what was just said will affect the rest of the nations.  What are now our allies will become our enemies as we fight to acquire the remaining natural resources such as oil, water and food. 

I, along with millions of people, have been laughed at for caring about the environment.  Unfortunately, most nations outside of the United States do care about the environment and make it a government responsibility to ensure the environment recovers and stays in a stable state.  We have had to make sacrifices for the health of humanity and the environment before in the cases of chlorofluorocarbons (or CFC’s; a chemical used in aerosols that was a factor in the deterioration of the ozone layer) and lead.  Within a few years, most of the global community rid of the use of all CFC’s and lead in paints and fuel; not too long after that, we saw a recovery of the ozone layer and a decrease in lead concentrations in the atmosphere, as well as lead-attributed illnesses.  There is no reason that this same philosophy could not be applied in the carbon dioxide and fossil fuel issue.  Actually, there is – the Oil industry and those who protect it.  Unless we make a change to the way our governments protect and view the oil industry and start to heavily regulate carbon dioxide levels and fossil fuel use, and start to transition to renewable energy, my vision of the future can and will happen.  The United States is the strongest and most influential nation in the world, but with the political polarization that we have in our nation, it will take a drastic change and restructuring of our government and the views of a certain political party (including its public constituency) to realize that we must change our ways. 

For those who believe that environmentalism is a joke and that climate change or global warming are not real, or that humans are in no way contributing to global warming, wake up.  You are the same people that will utterly destroy our planet.  Science has proven that the combustion of fossil fuels release carbon dioxide.  Science has proven that carbon dioxide traps heat and finally, science has proven that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun causing global temperature to rise.  Global warming and climate change are very real and are occurring right in front of our eyes. 

For those who do not believe that a stable and healthy environment create a stable and health economy, also need to wake up.  We have seen that natural disasters such as tropical cyclones, mudslides and tornadoes’, as well as other natural disaster, have not only caused millions of lives throughout history, but it has also caused national and global economies to plummet - Hurricane Katrina did it in 2005.  With an unstable and climate change-prone environment, strong tropical storms, heavy rains, droughts and more natural phenomena will continue to occur.  Without healthy crops and livestock, our market prices will skyrocket, as we are seeing now with the drought that is sweeping the United States. 

Some have forgotten that the fossil fuels debate is just as much of an environmental issue, as it is an economic issue, if not more.  It was the natural world that developed the fuel that we use every day.  Without the millions of years that it took to create the oil, coal and natural gas, there would be no fossil fuels here.  We only started heavily using these resources less than 200 years ago at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and it will have only taken 300 years to deplete the oil deposits, and possibly the natural gas deposits as well. 

I believe that this future will happen, although I believe it is possibly preventable.  It will take drastic changes to global government priorities and it will most definitely upset many people who have special interests in certain industries.  There is no longer time for political debates on issues such as carbon emissions and global warming because the science is there and for the most part it is universally accepted.  To prevent the apocalyptic possibilities that may very well become the reality of our future, we must significantly decrease carbon emissions, ultimately eliminating them within the next few years.  Oil extraction and use must eventually stop within the next few years, as oil combustion is the leading carbon emitting source caused by man.  All developed nations, since they are the ones that use the majority of carbon emitting fuels, must start the permanent transition to renewable energies, such as nuclear energy, solar energy, hydro-electric energy, wind energy, etc.  And finally, the technology to sequester carbon from the atmosphere must be used.  While this may not completely reverse the unimaginable damage that humans have already caused to the environment, it may possibly slow down climate change systems. 

The inevitable fact that population increases will occur is another issue.  I unfortunately believe that more countries will adopt the same policies that China has on how many children a family may have in an attempt to control global populations.  With population growing as fast as it is, this may be the only temporary solution for the next 100 years until another there is better technology to care for and feed the billions of people that are expected to inhabit the Earth by the end of the century. 

This is our only home; we know of no other places in our universe that we can get to which can support our way of life.  So this is what we have.  We need to realize that the Earth was here billions of years before us and it will be here billions of years after us.  99% of all species that have lived on Earth have become extinct; with the current path that we are on, we may very well join that statistic.  We are a part of nature, as is every other living thing on this planet.  We abuse the resources that the Earth produces for us to live off of and show it no respect back.  I hope for the sake of our lives, our children’s lives, and for the future generations, that we change the way we currently live life and treat our environment.  To leave a dead and unstable environment as our legacy is not something that I want to be remembered for, and you shouldn’t either.  Again, everything that I said is not bogus material, it is scientific facts that will happen.  I do not want to live in a world consisting of global wars, billions dead and environmental disasters because we are too stubborn to stop emitting increasing levels of carbon and cutting use of fossil fuels. 

This is my letter to you all, to warn you about the future world that you and your future generations will live in if we do not change our current ways.  It is bleak, grim and disturbing.  I fear for us all, for our lives, for humanity and for all life on Earth that there may no longer be life past the end of the century.  But, if we change our ways of life, and follow the steps that I discussed, we may still have time to halt our damage and begin to reverse that damage that we have done.  It is up to us to decide our own future…what will you do? 

Works Cited:

Blaine, Thomas. "Global Climate Change, CDFS-186-96." Ohioline. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0186.html>.

Borenstein, Seth. "Petermann Glacier In Greenland Breaks Off Iceberg Twice The Size Of Manhattan." Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/greenlands-petermann-glacier-iceberg_n_1682463.html>.

"CO2 Now | CO2 Home." CO2 Now | CO2 Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://co2now.org/>.

"CO2 and Heat-Trapping Gases FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists." UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html>.

"Clean Water Crisis, Water Crisis Facts, Water Crisis Resources - National Geographic." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/>.

"Climate Change Over the Last 100 Years." Welcome To The White House. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://clinton5.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/last100.html>.

Exner, Rich. "36 percent of world's population lives in China and India: Sunday's Numbers | cleveland.com." Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - cleveland.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/07/36_percent_of_worlds_populatio.html>.

"Future Climate Change | Climate Change | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#sealevel>.

Gore, Al . "Al's Journal." Al's Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://blog.algore.com/>.

"Global population to pass 10 billion by 2100, UN projections indicate." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38253>.

"Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/methane/>.

OPEC. "OPEC." World Oil Outlook 2011. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2012.

<www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/WOO_201

"UN Atlas: 44 percent of us live in coastal areas « Coastal Challenges . com." Coastal Challenges . com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://coastalchallenges.com/2010/01/31/un-atlas-60-of-us-live-in-the-coastal-areas/>.

University College London. "Drought Monitor." Global Drought Monitor. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://drought.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/drought.html?map=%2Fwww%2Fdrought%2Fweb_pages%2Fdrought.map&program=%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmapserv&root=%2Fwww%2Fdrought2%2F&map_web_imagepath=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_imageurl=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_template=%2Fdrought.html>.

Wolpert, Stuart. "Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago,

scientists report / UCLA Newsroom." UCLA Newsroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx>.