Americans have long prided themselves on their giving nature.  They contribute much of their time and money to various worthy causes; and they do it willingly and with a smile.  No one requires it of them, and they ask for nothing in return; for virtue is its own reward.  Unfortunately, a coterie of illuminati that seeks to save us from ourselves feels something a bit more forceful is required to make us do their bidding: not necessarily do what's right, mind you, but what their enlightened wisdom dictates.  And in the case of potential global warming, that wisdom has decided we must submit ourselves to a set of legally binding regulations developed by globalist politicians more accustomed to taking than giving.

In addition to the flimsy scientific arguments put forth to support their call to regulatory arms, the would-be planetary managers say the force of law, with its associated penalties, is required to make their plan successful.  Just as in the case of their shaky science, i.e., computer-based climate models, however, real-world data say otherwise.  Demonstrable facts clearly indicate that Americans, as well as people all across the globe, are caring enough to do what is needed voluntarily, if anything is needed at all.

A case in point is described in an article in the 2 August 2001 Seattle Times, where City Councilwoman Heidi Wills, who chairs Seattle's Energy and Environment Policy Committee, strikes an effective blow for freedom in advancing a telling argument -- albeit unwittingly -- against U.S. adoption of the Kyoto Protocol or anything like it.  She notes, for example, that the citizens of Seattle have taken many steps on their own initiative to wage war upon what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be a serious climatic threat to the planet.  In addition, she notes there are over 100 cities in the United States and over 400 cities across the globe that have done likewise, declaring themselves "Cities for Climate Protection."  And they've done it without any help, as she puts it, from the "do-nothing" White House.

Well hooray for Heidi!  And hooray for President Bush.  Together, they've shown us we are perfectly capable of pursuing our own personal beliefs on this matter and that we do not need the federal government breathing down our necks and telling us what to do in order to get us to do what the enlightened few want us to do.  Instead, each of us, citizen by citizen in city after city from sea to sea (and across the whole world, in fact) can make up his or her own mind and do his or her own thing to fight or not fight, as we each deem appropriate, what we may or may not believe to be a problem or non-problem of grave or no concern.  And they have proven we can do so; for 400 cities worldwide are already doing it!

So how does the voluntary effort work in an entity the size of a city?  In Seattle, Heidi reports the City Council, which represents the citizenry, passed a resolution to fully eliminate all greenhouse gases from fossil fuels associated with the city's electricity supply, and that the city will be making investments in renewable energy such as wind and geothermal power.  They will also be "utilizing waste heat for energy or investing in alternative transportation programs; preventing greenhouse-gas emissions, such as capping methane from landfills; or sequestering carbon dioxide through planting trees or preserving pristine forests from clear-cutting."  In another place, she says they will also be using "more energy-efficient operations in our city buildings; more efficient cars, such as hybrid vehicles, for the city fleet; reducing the use of solvents [and] reducing solid waste and recycling more."  And, of course, there's the ever-popular "conservation."

Yes, there is clearly no reason for the federal government or some international planetary management authority to compel us to do these or any other things related to the goal of pretending to save earth's climate.  As Heidi, Seattle and 400 other cities have shown us, not only can we do these things on our own accord, we will do them, especially if we believe in their necessity.  Likewise, if we do not believe in their necessity, we should not be forced to do them.  And that is the beauty of the Heidi-Bush Plan.  It lets everyone do what he or she truly feels is appropriate with respect to the issue; and it lets every city do the same via vote of its elected officials.

What could be better for so complex an issue as potential climate change, where it appears that consensus will never be reached, even among scientists?  The H-B Plan is much like the U.S. Constitution, providing for a balance of power between the climate alarmists and the climate skeptics.  We, for two (of the skeptics), heartily endorse it.  And how can the climate alarmists do otherwise?  They claim there are but a handful of skeptics, so they should have no problem converting every city on earth to their way of thinking.  And if their arguments are really as good as they claim, there shouldn't be a need to enforce a single regulation, as everyone (except for the miniscule number of skeptics, which is supposedly so small as to be insignificant) will willingly do the right thing, or at least what they tell us to do, without coercion.  In addition, as Heidi thoughtfully points out, "all these activities, and other local actions, are good for our community, regardless of their important contribution to reducing the threat of global warming."

It's clearly a no-brainer: nobody needs Kyoto, or anything like it, forced down their throat.  If it's as righteous a medicine as the illuminati say it is, or even if it isn't, we'll take it on our own.