The Climate Bill Is Doomed
The question is, could that be a good thing?
Kevin Bullis 11/03/2009
- 15 Comments
Last week researchers and policy experts gathered at MIT to talk about geo-engineering--a subject that's becoming more popular in the face of concern over inaction on climate change.
The upcoming United Nations climate change convention in Copenhagen seems unlikely to produce the binding and stringent agreement needed to sharply curtail greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, greenhouse concentrations continue to mount, driving scientists who were once opposed to the idea of tinkering with the planet to reconsider it.
Now they've got another reason to be worried. Earlier this year a climate bill that would've limited greenhouse emissions and helped renewable energy sources compete with fossil fuels seemed well on its way. In June a version passed the House. But then other matters--mostly health care reform--distracted Congress, and a Senate version of the bill got bogged down. The Senate recently took up the bill again, but yesterday a report in the Washington Post declared that "there is almost no hope for passage" of the bill.
Democrats are divided over the bill, and Republicans have been vocally opposing it. If the report is right, countries meeting in Copenhagen will have even more reason to criticize the U.S. for inaction, and to use that as a reason to delay a climate treaty or water it down.
That's one way to look at it, at any rate. Here's another: Copenhagen is probably doomed already--why the rush to push legislation through? That's essentially what Republican Senator George Voinovich (Ohio), who opposes the current bill, reportedly said last week, "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"
It certainly is hard to be against getting something right. But will slowing things down lead to a better climate bill? Probably not, as long as the chief objection is that the bill will make energy more expensive, something that seems unavoidable. But if the delay can lead to a better system for distributing those costs equitably, and if along the way inefficient subsidies can be weeded out and emissions caps tightened (wishful thinking?), it could be worth the wait.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
erbium
337 Comments
'tinkering' with the planet
It's funny to hear people look horrified when someone suggests we DO something that 'tinkers' with the weather. Launch solar shades, put sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, increase cloud cover..
This is because we have, albeit unintentionally, been tinkering on a grand, ever increasing scale with the atmosphere for the last 150 years. We now emit 1% of the global total of CO2 yearly, and have for last 40+ years. We cut forests globally, changing albedo (sunlight, heat reflected off planet) and build black pavement colored roads that absorb heat. We fly planes so much that on 9/11 global temperatures dropped a large amount more than usual as very few planes were spewing cloud cover versus normal days where they are crossing the US and the planet by the minute.
Star trek episodes aside, where Piccard comes back and mentioned the weather control bureau, looks like we should plan or account for the effects whether we limit them or not. And certain weather modifying schemes are now within reach of the world's wealthiest individuals, who could perform 'weather terrorism' and decide to unilaterally build plants to spew sulfur clouds, etc.
Me, I'd just like to quietly retire to (soon to be) tropical beachfront property in Montana by 2050 :)
Reply
colinnwn
88 Comments
Re: wrong direction
"We fly planes so much that on 9/11 global temperatures dropped a large amount more than usual as very few planes were spewing cloud cover"
You do know the global temp went UP (not down) for the several days after 9/11, because the particulate matter emitted by planes was not there to reflect more sunlight back into space.
Reply
cheadrick
2 Comments
Re: 'tinkering' with the planet
Where did that 1% number come from? There have been no accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels that I am aware of. There are estimates... an estimate however is not a hard scientific number... it cannot be quantified if it can't be measured.
Reply