Nov 6, 2009 05:21 PM in Society & Policy
As utilities fire up their "clean coal" machines and international negotiators haggle over the precise definition of a tree, only one entity has the courage to stand and deliver the hot air the world so desperately craves on climate change: the U.S. Senate. After a hectic couple of weeks, filled with Republican walkouts and Democratic intransigence, the Senate's Environment and Public Works committee has pushed a bill to the Senate floor that would cut carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately, Republicans (other than Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) are dead set against it. "My colleagues have advanced a bill with potentially serious economic harm without a comprehensive analysis of its costs," wrote Ohio Senator George Voinovich to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "My request [for an economic analysis of the proposal] could have shown whether the bill would have any appreciable impact on global climate change."
One can read this article
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=what-will-it-take-to-force-politica-2009-11-06
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 81
The GOP political machine owns most of the business directly or indirectly that is causing most of our carbon and other pollution problems and they are not going to willingly vote for legislation that puts strict control on their corporate interests.
The only hope the public has is to vote out the political hacks as their elections come up. This last election sent both parties a message to get to work and start getting things done in the public interest. The independents are tired of the lame excuses coming from congress and the white house.
The little I watch TV I have seen numerous adds to support coal burning that is our worse problem. Abroad we continue to support wars to control the conventional fuel supplies of the world and this is not a step to cleaning up the environment.
America already has the technology to clean up its act and needs to start using it as well as share it with the rest of the world. We become more hypocritical every time we tell poor countries they have to clean up the mess we are responsible for.
We cannot preach to the world about global warming when we do everything we can to keep global warming moving at an accelerated pace.
The only choice the public has is to vote in new blood every election until they get the idea they will be gone if they fail to act in the public good.
China leaving US behind in green energy
"The only choice the public has is to vote in new blood every election until they get the idea they will be gone if they fail to act in the public good."
Good luck with that. How is the public to know what the public good is?
America will play corporate crony with global warming until it can squeeze money out of the countries it has polluted and with its greed.
And this is a bad thing?
And Jack, it doesn't matter that all of the worlds leaders accept the propaganda of the IPCC!
The science does NOT support their premise. You can call consensus all day long but the research shows that the predictions of the IPCC, that the temperature of the earth will rise as we increase the atmospheric C02 levels have been debunked.
For more than 20 years the IPCC has been preaching their C02 religion and the converts are not about to be swayed by the facts at this late date!
FACT:
Temp/C02 Larger
For the last ten years the C02 levels continue to rise and the temperature does not!
FACT:
The C02 restrictions proposed will not effect global warming one iota.
Humans produce approx. 1% of the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere reducing that amount by a fraction will have no effect.
It will however restrict our economy making the advancement towards alternative energy slower.
Sorry Richard you and I agree on much but this is not one of them.
And this is a bad thing?
It's an incredibly bad thing. Because climate change isn't going to wait for the deniers to finally catch up to what scientists have been telling us for three decades. The time to act was yesterday.
For the last ten years the C02 levels continue to rise and the temperature does not!
First off, how many "ten years" do you count from 2002 to 2009, especially since the 2009 data aren't even completely available yet (hint, less than 7, which by most calculators would tell you is 3 years less than 10)? Why is that? Oh yes, you've cherry picked to fake a chart. Gee, that's trustworthy. What does it say that you have to lie to make your point? Perhaps that your point is wrong. Go figure.
Here's a thought. Explain your graph. Yep, I said it. Explain your graph. What does the green line mean? What about the pink and blue zigzaggy lines? How about the two dotted straight lines? What's a temperature anomaly? Which scale goes with which line...you know, there's a scale on the left and a scale on the right...which scale goes with which data? Where are the data from before 2002? What data are you showing (surface air, surface ocean, satellite, surface monitoring station, modeling results, actual measured results, etc.)? How does it compare with all the other models and measured data?
While you're at it, who is the source of the data? Yes, I know you plagiarized it from Icecap, but who is the real source? Okay, so you're going to play dumb again. Fine. Yes, we see that it says it is the Hadley data, but we both know that the Hadley data were manipulated by one of your denialist buddies, so which one was it? How did he manipulate the data? What changes (other than the attempt at cleverness with the date ranges and scales) did he make to the data, and why? For example, why does it say "Hadley" data here but "Monthly" data on Icecap? Can't they decide which name gives them the most propaganda appeal? Where did the CO2 data come from? Oh, you didn't know the CO2 data were cleverly extracted from another source and manipulated in such a way to make it look "dramatic." Shame on you.
Let me know when you're done. Until then, the real scientists have determined beyond any rational doubt that climate change is happening and man's excessive release of CO2 is causing most of the problem. Yep, that's the truth. I know your buddies at the non-scientific free market lobbying groups say otherwise, but hey, they aren't actually scientists, remember. They are free marketeers that saw a danger of someone actually taking responsibility and implementing some policy options that would require their member companies to perhaps stop forcing society (i.e., you and me and the rest of the taxpayers) to pay for the pollution they have been foisting onto all of us for decades. In other words, these free market business lobbyists didn't like the idea of regulations so they invented this whole idea to deny the science. Just like they denied that smoking causes cancer (it does), the ozone hole was caused by CFCs (it was), and just like your buddy S. Fred Singer was wrong that Mars' moon Phobos was hollow (and pretty much everything else he ever sold his opinion on).
Well guess what. Lying doesn't stand the test of scrutiny. Take your contention that temperatures are cooling instead of warming. One problem with that - it isn't true. Nope. Not true at all according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians who analyzed without being told what the numbers represented (so they wouldn't be biased).
Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson.
In fact, “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”
Sucks when there are real facts, don't it.
Sorry, time to stop wasting time on the non-scientific free market deniers. Real scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening and we're causing it with excess CO2 emissions. If you can't deal with that reality than I guess you don't have to, but the rest of us plan on inhabiting this planet for a while longer and think that keeping it in one piece for our children and grandchildren is worthwhile, despite people like you.
Got one that is not fake David?
See folks, What David does is to come into discussions like this one and contradicts the information provided...NOT by posting any contradictory information himself but by trying to degrade the poster of the information in hopes of making you believe that the information posted is not valid!
Now one would think that a self professed scientist like David would have at his disposal all sorts of facts and figures that he could use to show that my chart is in fact "fake"...but he doesn't. at least he won't post them!
Now David will retort with......'I have posted fact upon fact in the past and I'm not about to do it again'.
You can't read David? Here let me help, right below the chart is this:
Temp/C02 Larger click on it and the chart will get bigger, then you won't have such a hard time reading it.
For example, you try to make it look like my comments are all about being able to "see" the graph due to its size. Gee whiz, if you read real close you will probably figure out that not only is it obvious that I looked at the bigger version of the graph, but also the alternate version on the web site from which you copied it, and some additional research as well. The questions I asked are basic questions that all scientists ask about all data; questions that need to be answered before any interpretation of the graph can even be attempted. So my questions were to get at what you knew about the graph from the free market front group you put so much faith in. Turns out you know nothing. Big surprise there.
In fact, the original blog doesn't explain it either. And that fits the pattern of deception that the denialist like to use. They don't explain a graph, or even where they got the data, they just post something pretty with a statement interpreting it however they feel like interpreting it. And the reader generally follows along with what the blogger says. Which, of course, is what the blogger hopes. Despite the fact that a cadre of statisticians say they are lying about the graph. Go figure.
Here's the issue. The free market lobbying groups like Heartland and its front groups such as the blogger you cited (and the lackeys who lap it all up) all start at the end of the process. They decide that they don't like "cap-and-trade" or "carbon tax" or "electric cars" or some other possible policy remedy being discussed. Oh no, the government might regulate the very industry that makes Heartland's members so much money (in part because the actual costs of pollution, health, and other long term issues are externalized from the company and left to the government and the taxpayer to pay). Heartland doesn't like the possible remedies so, oops, they decide they will fight the remedy by denying there is even a problem to remedy. Despite not being scientists and knowing nothing about climate change (after all, they are a free market business lobbying group), they claim that tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers by thousands of scientists over several decades of work in every country on the planet "must be wrong" (because they want it to be) and can be simply overturned just because they presented a faked graph without explaining it.
Sorry, science follows the data and the data from all those studies and all those scientists and all those decades led to the overwhelming conclusion that climate change is happening and our CO2 emissions are causing a large part of it.
Science: Followed the data, which led to the scientific consensus.
Heartland: Didn't like the policy cures so decided to deny the science by deception, misrepresentation, and outright lying.
Gee. Who do you think is right?
David the self proclaimed scientist/mind reader doesn't post a chart or figures of his own to show the chart I referenced fake because he doesn't have a chart or figures that will do that.
And as I also predicted.....Not hard as David hasn't changed his dismiss and demean debating style since he started here. He is trying to change the focus on how ignorant I am on the subject. But that's David.
So David how about you prove the chart a "fake"?
And how about Davids consensus argument? He just points to a consensus and says they (the IPCC) have taken all things into consideration in their assessment of the climate.
"Here's the issue."
No David, the issue is that the climate hasn't warmed due to the addition of C02 like the IPCC predicted.
The head of the IPCC admits it, some of the most ardent global warmists admit it, but the faithful, the delusional global warmists (that would be you David) refuse to admit it!
At least you admit that you are ignorant. However, being ignorant doesn't excuse your dishonesty.
Bye
If it salves your bruised ego to say so David.
Bye!
The first graph compares some of the United Nations IPCC model projections (in red, orange, and brown) and actual global temperature surface (green) and satellite (blue) measurements. There is also a yellow line representing the UN’s projection of future temperatures if there were no further human caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The vertical scale shows temperatures and the horizontal scale calendar years.
The second graph also shows global temperatures by calendar year for the period 2002 until mid-2008, but superimposes on this chart yearly atmospheric CO2 levels (shown in green) by year. Since there are two principal sources of global temperature data, surface (shown in black) and satellite (shown in red) measurements, both are shown along with trend lines for each.
Carlin Archives
Are you changing your position?
I particularly like the title of your referenced page:
"Global Temperature Charts Suggest Implausibility of UN CO2 Hypothesis"
Here's one view on Carlin's deception:
But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin’s highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.
But wait, there's more:
Agency officials and outside experts who reviewed his report as a result of the outcry over the episode have said they found it wanting in a number of ways. It included unverified information from blog posts, they found, quoted selectively from journal articles, failed to acknowledge contradictory information and may have borrowed passages verbatim from the blog of a well-known climate change doubter.
Even Carlin admits that it was shoddy work and wouldn't pass muster in peer-review, which ALL science must first undergo.
“There are numerous problems with it,” he said. “I wouldn’t dream of sending it to a journal in its current form. It is totally unacceptable for that type of thing. But it was either do it in four and a half days or don’t do it. I had to take some shortcuts.”
Here's another viewpoint:
One EPA economist, Alan Carlin, cuts and pastes some disinformation from a denier blog post in order to (falsely) assert that the EPA’s endangerment finding is flawed.
It's rather bizarre that an economist with no experience studying climate is being touted as a source, while all the scientists who do study climate science are dismissed out of hand.
That certainly suggests that the interest is not in informing the science, but in pushing the free market lobbying efforts, n'est-ce pas?
Credibility matters. So does honesty. Try it some time.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html
And your point?
Kinda hard to tell what the last ten years has been doing by the 120 year span chart you referenced....but I guess that was the intention.
The chart I provided for the last 7 years however is quite clear. The C02 level rises and the temperature does not.
I hope you're not going to go into that 1998 argument. It's one of the most imbecilic arguments I've ever heard.
Even though it is difficult to tell on your referenced chart, you can still see the beginning of the moderation where the temperatures drop just before the end of the chart in 2000....Wouldn't that signify approximately 1998? Yup sure would!
The truth is R.F. that the moderation that begins at the end of the chart you referenced continues on the chart I referenced through to this year and as far as the research shows continues today.
"The truth is that global temperatures have also been rising and you won't accept that."
How so? I accept what the record shows, prior to 1998 the temperature was for the most part rising...what is to deny? From 1998 forward the temperature moderated and even cooled a bit the record shows, again whats to deny?
BTW,
If that is the 1998 argument you referenced as "imbecilic" you now have the opportunity to prove it so.
Temperatures have been rising overall since the early 1980's. Yes, we're in a plateau right now and there have been others since the '80s. There have been dips, too. But there has not been an annual average global temperature at or below the normal January through December global mean temperature over land and sea since the late 1970's. Not one year. Meanwhile the average temperature deviation from normal has continued to climb as indicated before.
Good glad to hear that, that is not the one! LOL!
O.K. So you agree the temperature has moderated slightly warming and I say it has moderated slightly cooling, we are not that far off in that area.
Do me a favor, go and sign my petition, I think it could have much more impact in advancing alternative energy use and reducing Carbon and the pollution associated with it than most existing incentives available today.
How better to expand alternative energy than to allow the common folk to hook up to the grid with their own solar, wind, hydro or any other micro alternative energy source and get paid wholesale for their excess energy, if they produce an excess?
The idiocy of Dan E's position is that there are technologies already here now that can help us do what we need to do, but it's the denialists that are standing in the way of implementing it. Their goal is nothing but delay, delay, delay until they wring every cent of profit out of pushing their costs onto the taxpayer with no long-term benefit to the taxpayer. All of us suffer so a few deep pocket companies and their droids keep us from taking action that even they will eventually agree is needed.
What a shame.
Maybe you should go have your eye's checked R.F.
I've been posting a lot of articles on the research contradicting the "consensus" that you so desperately hold on to!
Why don't you head on over and dispute those who I post about!
I promise I won't automatically delete your posts like you do mine!
LOL!
Interesting..I'm a skeptic and I'm supporting alternative energy! Hmm....Must not be true David.
"The facts are clear. Climate change is real and we need to start reducing CO2 emissions now."
How many degrees has the worlds Carbon reduction plans reduced the planet's temperature David?
How many degrees will the U.S.s Cap and Tax bill reduce the planet's temperature David?
Answer:
There has been NO reduction in the planet's temperature by any carbon restriction plan and the U.S.'s plan will be no different!
We can stop all man made C02 output and it will have only minimal effect on the planet's temperature, to reduce our C02 a fraction of our total output will result in no reduction in temperature.
Do you have any FACTS that even suggests that what I have posted is incorrect David? Any?
Here, maybe this will help those who are about to believe David.
No, you've cut and pasted propaganda from the blogger Icecap. None of it contradicts the scientific consensus. And why would one expect it to, after all, it's just the talking points pushed by the non-scientific free market lobbying group Heartland Institute and its front groups. Seriously.
Why don't you head on over and dispute those who I post about!
Because you are dishonest in your presentation and your commenting. Besides, I can read all of your posts on the original blog from which you copied them, so there is no need to waste my time with your dishonesty.
I promise I won't automatically delete your posts like you do mine!
That's because I didn't steal your Gather icon photo like you did mine. [And I deleted only two inane comments you left AFTER I told you I would delete them because of your dishonesty and outright theft.] Also, you are desperate for readership and commenters and hope that others follow me over there. Sorry, you can talk to yourself all you want; no one is listening (except when they get bored).
How about the question David?
How many degrees has the worlds Carbon reduction plans reduced the planet's temperature David?
How many degrees will the U.S.s Cap and Tax bill reduce the planet's temperature David?
Because you are dishonest in your presentation and your commenting."
Bull David!
You don't because you can't argue against their positions.
Here try this one:
Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’
Go ahead go read it and come back here and comment on it!
Now folks if David in fact does go and read the article he will not come back here and comment on the content of the material he will come back and carry on on how the author is a hack and not a real scientist, how due to the author's past we should not accept anything he says!
Right David!
Tim Ball is associated with:
Heartland Institute (free market lobbying group)
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (front group for an industry PR and lobbying group)
"Friends of Science" (oil industry-backed lobbying organization)
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (a Canadian free-market think tank and lobbying group)
Tech Central Station ("where free markets meet technology," aka where propaganda meets the road)
International Climate Science Coalition (a free market lobbyist front group; mostly it's a set of fake web sites)
"In 2006 Ball has also questioned the science behind CFC's and the Ozone layer. Ball claimed that "CFC's were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing" (gee, he got that one wrong too)
Perhaps because Ball "is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Ball has also been accused of inflating his credentials (a big no no in the science field)
I can't help it if you keep rolling out people who are associating themselves with free market lobbying groups instead of working with climate scientists.
I know you've said in the past that you don't care about credibility (and that's pretty obvious), but credibility matters. I know you have defended lying and doctoring of videos and quotes before, but honesty matters.
And since you've continued to both comment dishonesty and promote dishonesty, I won't waste my time with you further.
He even linked to one of his own opinion pieces, to prove his opinion! LOL!
How about them IPCC predictions David? Don't want to comment on those?
Naw I didn't think so!
LOL!
Thanks for the giggles, Richard.
But as I said if it soothes your brusied ego to say so!
That actually means that the Ice Pack in the Arctic is growing now, again after the Earth is cooling.
This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Media Relations Contact: Katherine Leitzell, NSIDC: leitzell@nsidc.org or +1 303.492.1497
At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
The third lowest means that the prior two years were lower. Which means that the Ice pack is growing
Dan E. Nov 8, 2009, 10:28am EST
Global sea ice above 30 year average
"The earth is not cooling."
Well maybe not by much but it certainly has NOT been warming for the last 10 years, at least that is what the records show.
I found this great video that expresses in a common sense way man's contribution of C02 to the environment.
This Short Video Shows Why Cap and Trade CAN NOT Effect Global Warming! A Must See!
Want another example? How about selenium. Selenium is an essential element, meaning we have to have it for our bodies to work properly. Just like our old friend carbon dioxide that plays an essential role in humans (mostly as a waste product) and in plants (in photosynthesis, though just like animals, plants also respire [aka "breathe"], and thus use oxygen just like animals). So selenium is essential to life. And yet....at just 6 of your silly little red grains of rice selenium is incredibly toxic.
So your fake "trying to be sciencey-sounding" employee of the free market lobbyist Heartland Institute just sounds incredibly incompetent when it comes to science. Do you really think that willfully trying to fool the public with this charade of a video builds credibility in your non-scientific claim? What does it say that pretty much everything presented from the denialist side is done so with deception? That outright lying is the norm? That a free market lobbying firm prepares the script? That the Luntz propaganda memo gets played out over and over again by the non-scientific denialist industry?
Seriously. If you can't present a case without being deceptive or lying, doesn't that suggest you don't have a case?
Meanwhile, the science is clear. And we need to let denialists die out like the dinosaurs. Perhaps in a few billion years we can use them as a hydrocarbon source.
We did?
When did we do that David?
So how about that question David?
How many degrees has the worlds Carbon reduction plans reduced the planet's temperature David?
How many degrees will the U.S.s Cap and Tax bill reduce the planet's temperature David?
1) Deny was discussed
2) Attempt to distract to some other point that has already been discussed
3) Rinse and repeat
Pathetic
Yup that's the mark of a real scientist! LOL!
You know that you can not answer the question but rather than be honest and admit that you can't answer it after claiming that it is imperative we reduce C02, you avoid the question.
Kinda makes you statement suspect David, that you really don't know that much about it after all, nothing that I didn't already know!
Honesty David? It would be much better that you announce just when you are speaking on faith and when you are speaking as a scientists that way we can know when to ignore you!
Folks! There is a big problem with Davids examples. C02 is not a poison.
What we are talking about here is C02 in the atmosphere in which mans contribution is 15 Parts per million!
See David and global warmists like him would have you believe that those 15 parts per million are what is causing global warming, they want you to ignore the rest of the 385 parts per million (ppm) that exist in the atmosphere.
The want you to believe that to reduce our out put of C02 from 15 ppm to 13 or 12 ppm that that will save the planet from global warming.
Further they want you to ignore the water vapor in the atmosphere (represented by the blue bag in the video) which has a large capability of absorbing heat which makes up between 10,000 to 40,000 ppm of the atmosphere.
No David, the reason you are so upset over the video is that it is so effective in showing how inane your statement is;
"Climate change is real and we need to start reducing CO2 emissions now"
By whom? There are decades of research by thousands of scientists of all political persuasions in dozens of countries with different economic and political systems. So who's "agenda" is being pushed? Oh right. The non-scientific free market groups who could possibly be regulated don't like that idea so they have "agendized" it. Yes, that part is accurate. Meanwhile, scientists keep doing their work and the vast amount of the new data show the problem is getting much worse much faster than earlier thought. That's the science.
It only looks at that which supports the scientists hypothesis, and ignores any contradictory evidence.
That is exactly what the free market supported front groups and affiliated scientists are doing. They ignore tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies and present one doctored graph as "evidence" that all the other science is wrong. They point to the one red ball in a barrel of blue balls and claim it means the blue balls don't exist. Sorry, can't do that. Meanwhile, scientists are looking at ALL of the data, including any legitimate data that skeptics might produce, and all of that data in total overwhelmingly led to the conclusion that is now the scientific consensus.
Until I see a report that factors in the effects of solar flares, and natural cyclical patterns, and answers the contradictions to their claims, I will not buy into it.
You're kidding, right? Solar flares, sunspots, cosmic waves, natural cyclical patterns, influences by cartoon characters, and every other possible influence to the situation HAS been looked at...in depth...by many researchers...in peer-reviewed published papers...and documented extensively. They have looked at everything. Everything. And the data overwhelmingly lead to the conclusion that climate change is happening and that man-made CO2 emissions are the main reason.
Continuing to say that you "won't buy into it" is meaningless in the face of the actual truth uncovered by scientists. That's like saying you don't think Tiger Woods is a good golfer because you suck at golf.
Yup they've taken it all into account, but some how their predictions are not even close.
Hmm, maybe they missed something?
"Continuing to say that you "won't buy into it" is meaningless in the face of the actual truth uncovered by scientists."
Yes David, It's the same as continuing to say they have factored in all possibilities even though their predictions are so far off!
The fact that their predictions are so far off means that they missed some thing(s).
2nd, they need to dump Cap-and-Trade. It has failed in every European Country it has been tried in.
3rd, they need improve incentives. For instance, Solar is great. However, home owners should be able to deduct a portion of the cost of the panels from their taxes. Also, there should be a "Surplus Energy Benefit." What this is, is in some cases, homes with solar panels produce more energy than they consume. They should be allowed to sell this energy to the power companies at a rate of 9/10ths of market value. This will do 4 things:
1) It will lower the costs of power companies produce energy.
2) It will increase the number of homes with solar panels.
3) It will increase house values of homes with panels.
4) It will increase tax revenues from the sales of the panels (although this might be offset by the tax rebates to homeowners)
This is a win-win solution, not a beat down the power company solution
If you haven't already go sign my petition:
Tell Congress to enact federal private citizen net metering regulations
We have all of the incentives you mentioned in NJ. Our democratic assembly and governor instituted these programs.
That's not true. I'll talk about any clean alternative. Sierra Club of NJ even supports using natural gas:
"Congressman Pallone should act in the interests of New Jersey, the country, and the world by supporting policies that:
* Set science-based timetables. The targets and timetables must be sufficient to do what scientists say is necessary to reduce the negative effects of climate change to the maximum extent possible. This will require reductions in total emissions on the order of 20 percent below current levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
* Pursue the cleanest, cheapest, fastest solutions first. This means significant investment in energy efficiency, which provides the greatest reductions in the least amount of time. It also means accelerating the development of existing technologies, including offshore wind, which is among the cleanest, cheapest options currently available.
* Invest in the research and development of emerging technologies. Pilot projects testing the possibilities of wave, ocean current, geothermal, and other types of generation have been initiated in New Jersey and other parts of the country. Providing support and funding to the scientists and engineers working on these innovations is vital to bringing new clean energy technologies onto the market as soon as possible.
* Address transportation. Transportation accounts for roughly half the greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey and is the second largest source of emissions nationwide; therefore, it must be dealt with if we are to effectively combat global warming. This means accelerating the increase of fuel efficiency standards to make our cars go further on a gallon of gas and allowing states to set standards above the federal standard, increasing the use of hybrids and other cleaner technologies, and investing in significant improvements to America's mass transit system.
* Explore the potential of natural gas as a gap fuel. Natural gas produces less than half the carbon dioxide that coal and other fossil fuels do and without the same co-pollutants, such as mercury and sulfur dioxide. This makes natural gas a good replacement fuel for existing coal plants until more renewable sources come online. While natural gas should not be used to supplement coal plants, as this would increase total greenhouse gas emissions, replacing a dirtier source of power with natural gas leads to a reduction in emissions. The gas should also be obtained from existing well fields, as opposed to drilling in new areas, for this to remain an option that reduces global warming with minimum environmental impact."
http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/PressReleases/0024.asp
Why not talk about wind, solar and hydro? But there are also wave, geothermal, algae ethanol, biomass, and agrichar.
"It totally ignores Nuclear, which is very clean and much safer now...."
Not exactly true.
Nuclear Power: The Safe and Easy Way
Nuclear energy hasn't been ignored. It has been ruled out.
Besides, why would you want nuclear energy when companies like First Solar already are at production capacity, equivalent to a nuclear energy plant annually?
First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity
In other words, solar (and wind) are deployable more cheaply and quicker than nuclear. The only reason nuclear energy is being discussed at all is that special interest constituencies own politicians of both parties. But I doubt nuclear energy is going anywhere.
Not exactly true, but cap and trade is not the best approach. Sam Carana writes about feebates, which makes alot more sense to me.
"...home owners should be able to deduct a portion of the cost of the panels from their taxes."
That is the case presently, and I think the current energy legislation increases the deduction or credit - at the federal level at least. States differ.
Also, there should be a "Surplus Energy Benefit.
See Dan E.'s reference to "net metering". It is one of the very few things that Dan and I agree on. I would encourage you to sign his petition.
We need a "shotgun" approach to energy production, By utilizing our domestic energy supply when ever we can, we keep money here and our economy stronger!
By keeping our economy strong more people are employed and more people can afford to invest in alternative energy, as well as keeping the manufacturing costs low.
"The left ONLY wants to talk about Wind, Solar, and Hydro."
I think that might be the impression we get from the MSM, there is however a great deal of effort in many different areas of producing alternative energy, supported by all concerned with a cleaner society.
Carbon restriction has been an abject failure in nearly every case.
I asked the question earlier in this thread to which even Gather resident scientist David K. could not respond!
By how much has all of the worlds carbon restriction programs reduced the earths temperature? How much will the planned U.S. cap and trade plan reduce the planet's temperature?
And another pertinent question:
How much global warming will be averted by reducing our C02 atmospheric contribution from 15ppm to 13ppm? Or would you have us move back to the stone age to reduce our contribution to 0ppm?
Carbon restriction is ineffective and a waste of resources. We can much better effect our carbon output by promoting alternative energy than by restricting carbon output.
Thanks for the shout out Steve, and yes there is much we still disagree on, but there is one other area where I have come to agree with you, one you have preached in the past, and that is residential energy efficiency.
You had claimed that your sources indicated that this was an area that we could save the greatest amount of energy, through conservation, and frankly I thought the claim ridiculous.
Through my more recent research I have come to realize that what you claimed before is most likely correct, it is the area where we can save the greatest amount of energy.
But frankly if I hadn't been trying to disprove your claim I would never have come to this realization.
But I still disagree with you on nearly everything else......So there! LOL!
Of course, they actually study the science.
Or in those -wise- words of Rush Limbaugh regarding quantum physics and global warming: "(W)e are so insignificant. We couldn't cause global warming; we couldn't cause global cooling; we can't do diddly-squat. We're just inhabitants here." Huh?
Who has an agenda in all this? the proponents or opponents. Me thinks the latter.
At any rate, I think Europe is way ahead of us. The byproduct of taking it seriously, is of course reduction in dependence on foreign oil and doing things with less waste in general, hence being more productive. After basic education, here is another area where we shall play catch up some day.
Not to mention China.
"We have the technology today to get started."
First Solar has production capacity of a GW annually, equivalent to an average size nuclear plant.
First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity
That's just one solar company. Others, like Nanosolar, aren't far behind.
Nanosolar Unveils Nanosolar Utility Panel™ Technology
Nanosolar Completes Panel Factory, Commences Serial Production
Christos,
Who thought Cap and trade was cool before the rest of us? Enron that's who!
Who is set to be the first carbon trader billionaire? The man who produced the first scaremonger eco-movie an inconvenient truth, Al Gore that's who!
Who had the first cap and trade plan to to redistribute the wealth from the rich countries to poor ones? The U.N. that's who!
There are a lot of reasons to consider Cap and Trade, it's just that climate change is not one of them! They are all Benjamins (money), billions upon billions of Benjamins to be made and moved about!
These are the same people who screamed about the automobile and how it would cost the village blacksmiths dearly. WTF cares? It's the health of the planet and our kids' futures at stake.
Maybe you could write to Rep. Shadegg.
If there were fewer people around say half as many then there wouldn't be so much pollution.
However the planet is heated and cooled by the sun first and foremost in a 211 year or so cycle at this time. Also as the sun is also warming up slightly every day we on this earth will over the next million of years or so will also generally heat up.
Let’s not forget that the Dinosaurs lived here on Earth for over 250 or more million years, while we humans have been around in civilized sets for 40,000 to 100,000 years, or a very short time.
We humans do well adjusting to climate changes do well in the finding and using energy like Geothermal which is a never ending source, pump water down get steam up turn generators with it. Only problem are small earthquakes, but we’re all used to small earthquakes, therefore not really a problem.
I think that in a few years there will be those same types of people out there saying the same things - totally disregarding the predictions that never materialized and dismissing people who don't believe them as being idiots and simpletons.
Yeah, it will definitely be the same, Dale. Keep that gun loaded, buddy.
The arctic ice expanded in 2008 and again in 2009, which means that the arctic ice is building again.
Also the plankton bloom in the Russian sea was the greatest ever seen in the summer of 2009. That bloom got rid of tons of CO2 and just created almost as much Oxygen.
There are elements in the biology here on earth that has been forgotten which are at work getting rid of the extra CO2, as plants love the stuff
Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark
This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Media Relations Contact: Katherine Leitzell, NSIDC: leitzell@nsidc.org or +1 303.492.1497
At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
The third lowest means that the prior two years were lower. Which means that the Ice pack is growing
(NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center) US satellite measurements show Arctic sea ice extent in 2009 -- the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by floating ice -- was the third lowest since satellite measurements were first made in 1979. The ice area at minimum was an increase from the past two years, but still well below the average for the past 30 years.
Wow, Richard. That's what I call the height of optimism and trying to find some kind of positive crumb in what is overall a terrible forecast. So what? The ice did not reduce at the rate of the previous two years, but overall, there has been massive reduction in ice, rise in water temps, etc. You are really reaching and trying to manipulate tiny bits of data in an overall report that proves exactly the opposite of your premise.
So, a person gains 10 lbs a year, then one year, they only gain 5 lbs. Are they not still getting obese? Geesh!
We will mark your words for future reference.