Tuesday, September 01, 2009
U.S. Climate Bill Delayed
The United States is in danger of losing a key bargaining chip ahead of this year's climate-change meeting in Copenhagen.
By Kevin Bullis
The chances that a bill limiting
greenhouse gas emissions will pass the Senate this year are dwindling.
California Democrat Barbara Boxer,
who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says the bill,
which was supposed to be introduced when the Senate comes back from recess
September 8, won't be ready until later this month. (Boxer had earlier pushed
the deadline back from August, according to the Wall Street Journal.)
That makes it less likely that the
bill will pass the Senate before the United Nations climate-change meeting in
Copenhagen in December. The House has already passed such a bill, which would
have to be reconciled with the Senate version before climate-change legislation
becomes law. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is working on
regulations for greenhouse gases that could go into effect if Congress fails to
send a climate bill to President Obama.
It would be good for the United
States to have climate-change legislation in place going into the Copenhagen
meeting. If the United States is moving to limit its own emissions, other
countries may be more willing to go along with a new international climate-change
treaty. And there's not much point in the United States curbing emissions if
other countries, especially China and India, don't.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
The EPA's new rules are being challenged the US Chamber of Commerce and could lead to a court fight where accountants show the very real costs of the EPA's regulation of CO2 as a pollutant. The EPA in turn must prove with reasonable certainty that CO2 is in fact the dire threat that Gore, Hansen et al would like us all to believe. Frankly, I think the court will side with accountants before the vague predictions of incomplete climate models.
And even if we did have such a new scheme in place, which is ripe for abuse and fraud, it is unlikely that India or China will do much of anything to curb their CO2 output.
kstauff
09/01/2009
Posts:94
That's certainly your right, though I might ask if this is some kind of ideological belief or anything to do with science. If its the science, then would you care to point to your sources which have unconvinced you? (Pointers to some loony sites that say its all sunspots don't really count)
that there will be significant warming or that its effects will be a disastrous as some alarmists believe
Again, i'd like to know your basis. Is this like a guy putting away a couple of Big Macs a day calling his doctor an alarmist?
the lack of legislation which dramatically increases the cost of living is, well, a good thing.
OK, now I'm sure you've been trawling some of those CEI fronted sites. You ought to know industry routinely lies about this kind of stuff because they're more interested in their profits than the future of the planet. Let me just give you one example. Industry claimed it would cost $10/ton to regulate SO2 and drive millions of jobs out of the country. The actual cost after emissions trading? $1/ton.
The EPA's new rules are being challenged the US Chamber of Commerce and could lead to a court fight where accountants show the very real costs of the EPA's regulation of CO2 as a pollutant.
I have no doubt that those who profit from the status quo will put up a very nasty and brutal fight to preseve their profits even at the cost of everyone else's future.
The EPA in turn must prove with reasonable certainty that CO2 is in fact the dire threat that Gore, Hansen et al would like us all to believe. Frankly, I think the court will side with accountants before the vague predictions of incomplete climate models.
That wouldn't be accountants as in Enron and Philip Morris would it. If the courts really know what they're doing, I would say that the EPA should (a) only have to show that not taking action is very risky (easy enough: everyone from 99% of climatologists to the Pentagon knows that and that (b) the costs of taking action are minor relative to the size of the world economy and (c) industry routinely lies about this kind of stuff. In fact I would go so far as to say that it wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years time we start to see runaway climate change there will be lawsuits similar to what hit the tobacco industry for their very sinister attempts to cloud the issue on climate change
snedunuri
09/02/2009
Posts:30
The site is headed by Anthony Watts, a meteorologist with decades of experience. He conducts and publishes results of his own experiments and studies and frequently hosts articles from other scientists, including climatologists like Dr. Roy Spencer and MIT's own Dr. Richard Lindzen, no doubt another "loony" you disagree with. But I'll let you be the judge; you seem to be pretty good at that.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
You might also try this one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Your other assertions are frankly better suited to a political site. If you knew much about me you'd find that you've basically made a complete ass of yourself while jumping to the typical set of conclusions. I have better things to do than listen to your talking points. Have a nice day.
kstauff
09/02/2009
Posts:94
Regarding your links, I did *not* say that all contrarian sites were loony. I said that sites arguing attributing climate change to such factors sunspot activity (which was *long* ago addressed in climate models. Do they really think that 1000's of scientists simply missed that one?) simply shows the scientific illiteracy of the person writing it.
A couple of things you should know about your contrarians. They are well funded - by Exxon-Mobil no less. Secondly, they seem to be having a really hard time publishing their data in *any* peer-reviewed journals. Now why is that? The standard argument is that "its a big liberal conspiracy" but far more radical ideas in science have been published *somewhere*. The reality is that most of these guys stuff doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, so they rant on their own web sites, and since they're well-paid by their Big Oil masters they have nothing to lose.
Finally, since I've looked up your links please do me the favour of looking at this about Lindzen:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/
cheers
snedunuri
09/02/2009
Posts:30
One may grant that my statement that Cap and Trade will increase the cost of living is an opinion, but it's shared by many, and recent articles on this very site will clearly spell out that some of the writers here believe that alternative sources of energy cost more than fossil fuels, sometimes several times more. It stands to reason that if fossil fuels are taxed or fees are required for their use, that those costs will find their way to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as energy is required for the production and transport of nearly every convenience we have.
The potential increase has been estimated as high as 20 percent, and I only ask if you believe it is likely that consumers can expect a matching increase in their income adjusted for inflation. I doubt it, but you may feel otherwise.
Finally, I do not frequent the RealClimate site. It is my understanding that Dr. Schmidt regularly deletes commentary by other scientists and readers simply because they politely question the premises of some of his articles. This is not only childish, it is detrimental to the credibility of the site and Dr. Schmidt himself. As such, I just don't bother. If you would suggest a pro AGW site that remains objective and can withstand scientific criticism, I will gladly review it.
kstauff
09/03/2009
Posts:94
It reads to me like the politicians on both sides of the pond have maxed out on their current 'credit cards' (i.e., government programs), and are looking to open some new ones with freshly untouched spending limits, without bothering to pay off the ones that are maxed out.
justahick
09/01/2009
Posts:11
bilyal
09/15/2009
Posts:1