| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 1:06:31 AM | Well, it only took a court order to do it, but we now have some more information on climate change - from an unlikely source.
Under Pressure, White House Issues Climate Change Report
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: May 30, 2008
The Bush administration, bowing to a court order, has released a fresh summary of federal and independent research pointing to large, and mainly harmful, impact of human-caused global warming in the United States.
The report, released Thursday, is online at climatescience.gov, along with a new report updating the administration’s priorities for climate research.
Most of the findings, like the spread of warmth-loving pests and the inevitable loss of low-lying lands to rising seas, are not new. But the report included new projections of how the poor, elderly and communities with lagging public-health and public-works systems will face outsize health risks from warming.
Under a 1990 law, presidents must submit a report to Congress every four years summarizing what is known about impacts of climate change and other global environmental problems on the United States.
The last such assessment, undertaken in the Clinton administration and published in 2000 in the early days of the Bush presidency, was attacked by groups and industries opposing restrictions on greenhouse gases. References to it were deleted from some government reports by political appointees in the White House.
Environmental groups sued to force the completion of a new study. In court, the White House contended that a series of more than 20 studies requested by President Bush in 2003 satisfied the 1990 law, but Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of Federal District Court for the Northern District of California rejected that assertion last August and ordered a comprehensive assessment to be published by the end of May.
“This assessment is an example of what federal scientists can and should be doing when they are freed from political interference and allowed to actually do their jobs,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the lead author of the 1990 law, strongly criticized the White House.
“The three-year delay of this report is sadly fitting for an administration that has wasted seven years denying the real threat of global climate change,” Mr. Kerry said in a statement. “In these lost years, we could have slowed global warming and advanced clean energy solutions, but instead America’s climate change strategy has been at best rhetorical, not real.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30climate.html?ref=todayspaper
And here it is :
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/
So we finally have even the White House agreeing to the global warming warnings that so many have fought tooth and nail here against.
The titles of the two documents being released today are:
Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States
Revised Research Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
They are available at:
www.climatescience.gov
www.ostp.gov
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/
PRESS-RELEASE-CCSP-Climate-Assessment.pdf
Why was a court order needed to force the release of an important document on something as critical as this ? | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 7:20:02 AM | | Thanks for the links. I love looking at the actual data and not just the interpretation of the data which is usually skewed towards proving a predetermined conclusion. With regard to the Global Mean Temperature graph on page 51, I wonder how they explain a greater temperature gain between 1910 and 1940 as compared to the last 30 years when there were so few automobiles back then. The latest temperature gains seem to correlate to the introduction of the catalytic converter so it seems pretty obvious that those devices should be immediately band in order to slow global warming. Catalytic converters further breakdown the exhaust fumes into CO2 and water vapor and obviously we do not want more CO2. | |
|
| |
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 10:49:16 AM | | more lefty posts, more crap. try a news corp source. at least they mention both sides. if this really was an issue, why didnt al gore say something about it in 2000? this was the coldest winter on record in some parts of America, for the information of the canucks. | |
|
| |
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 11:30:32 AM | here is my take on climate change. it's real. how much we contribute to it, I don't think we know. I think that it's natural, and I also think there are several contributing factors that no one talks about. the earths temperature has risen .5 degrees in the last 100 years. I think that an increase in population has much to do with it. I think that building more roads (asphalt attracts heat) contributes to it. I don't think that china cares about it. we can't force them to not pollute. I think that as americans, we are wasteful, and contribute to it. the incentive is there for automakers to produce efficient vehicles. honda is ahead of the curve right now. with the release of the FCX clarity, a zero emissions hydrogen fuel cell car, and the honda civic GX NGV, an almost zero emissions vehicle that runs on domestic natural gas, they are leading the other auto makers. also check out the new cr-z. I am planning on buying one of those when they come out!
as americans, we need to choose to drive vehicles like this. george bush never came to my house and demanded that I purchase an escalade. people need to make better choices. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 1:37:13 PM | | finally it's official folks,yep we r under a global warming orchestrated by our government so get the guns cause theres gonna be a fued.I tell u what I for one am sick of those hooky pooky ppl telling me what to drive,how long I can run my a/c,when I can use my hairspray ok that one is enough reason to shoot someone lol.Did ya get the memo about how to get permission to cut ur grass and the deadline for ur request being sent in? | |
|
| |
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 10:23:15 PM | | There is no question that global warming governmental controls will crush manufacturing in America and drastically increase the cost of living and at the same time reduce freedom. The fact is that they only have about 100 years of real data. Using ice core samples from the poles just can’t be accurate in determining the state of the whole planet. They don’t have a clue what the natural temperature cycles are of the earth. These same people that can’t accurately give a weather report for a month out are the same ones that are sure beyond any doubt that they can predict 100 years out. The whole idea of financially decimating industry and the public for sure today based on the unknown consequences of theoretical global warming makes about as much sense as shooting a child right now in the head because of the fear he may get cancer a century down the road. | |
|
| |
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 5/31/2008 11:22:47 PM |
There is no question that global warming governmental controls will crush manufacturing in America and drastically increase the cost of living and at the same time reduce freedom.
That's quite an assertion. Would you care to elaborate? The climate change strategies I'm familiar with will create abundant opportunities for cleaner industries to profit and new 'widgits' to be produced that in one way or the other decrease our carbon footprint. One example that leaps to mind is the Tesla all electric car, that was initially constructed in England but is now being manufactured in the U.S., with a large new plant planned in the near future, I believe in New Mexico.
Manufacturing will only be crushed if manufacturers don't take advantage of all the new manufacturing opportunities.
As to the cost of living, if we all have the chance to purchase and use appliances, homes, and vehicles that are far more energy efficient than what we're using today, we should save money shouldn't we?
I know that by simply replacing my fridge, freezer, and washing machine with energy efficient versions when the originals wore out I cut my electric bill almost in half. By also turning off the outside security lights that came with the house, changing to compact flourescent light bulbs, and ripping out the two baseboard electric heaters that were in the house, I now pay a quarter the electric bill the previous owners did while decreasing my carbon footprint.
It's too early to say exactly what U.S. climate policy will look like, but chances are high that it will involve incentive programs for preferred behavior, rather than absolute mandates. I've heard some creative ideas, like allowing homeowners to pay variable electric rates based on demand at different times of day, just as the utilities charge each other when they generate and purchase electricity. Couple this with development of plug in hybrids and you could charge your car at night when electricity is cheap, then if you don't drive during the day you could sell that juice back at a higher rate. If you do drive you'll be paying far less per mile to get where you're going than you do today.
I made all of my changes without governmental incentive programs, and still came out ahead financially. Imagine how many more people would make similar changes if there were significant additional incentives to do so.
Dave | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/1/2008 7:48:44 AM | http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/30/news/economy/gunther_legislation.fortune/?postversion=2008053018
Chances dim for climate-change legislation
Business coalition splinters, and without widespread corporate support, the bill headed to the Senate is almost certainly doomed.
By Marc Gunther, senior editor
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- An influential coalition of Fortune 500 companies and environmental groups that was formed to support climate-change legislation has splintered over the Lieberman-Warner bill that is headed next week to the Senate floor.
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership formed last year won't take a position on the bill, although nine of its members - including General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), Alcoa (AA, Fortune 500) and four utility companies - signed a letter to senators backing the legislation.
The letter, also signed by big environmental groups and obtained by Fortune, says: "Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America's economy, security, quality of life and natural environment."
But other members of the coalition known as U.S. Cap, most visibly Duke Energy (DUK, Fortune 500), a coal-burning utility, are strongly opposed. "It's going to translate into significant electricity price increases," says Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO.
Without widespread corporate support, passage of the bill - already a long shot at best - becomes even more unlikely this year. President Bush remains opposed. House Democrats have been slow to act.
Besides that, a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and the sluggish economy makes it difficult to win votes for a regulatory scheme that will raise the prices of electricity and gasoline. In fact, a key purpose of the bill is to put a price on the emissions of greenhouse gases, as a way to speed the transition to a clean-energy economy and slow down global warming.
With the Senate scheduled to begin debate Monday, lobbying and advertising around the bill are intensifying. (Here's a new TV commercial supporting the bill from Environmental Defense Fund, and a radio ad opposing the bill from the Club for Growth.) But even supporters concede that the debate will set the scene for action in 2009.
"This will put us in a position to have action next year," says David Doniger, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a supporter of the bill. "We expect in the Senate that the 60-vote rule will be applied. That's a hard one to get over."
"It's a teachable moment," agreed Scott Segal, an advocate for coal-burning utilities that oppose Lieberman-Warner.
The Lieberman-Warner bill sets a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that would reduce them by 70% by 2050. Companies would need permits to emit pollutants that cause global warming. The government would allocate some permits to utilities and industrial companies, and auction others to generate revenues. The question of how to distribute permits and what to do with the money divides even supporters of greenhouse gas regulation.
As currently written, Lieberman-Warner might fall short of a 50-vote majority in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes required to close debate, insiders say. Presidential candidates (and Senators) Clinton, McCain and Obama all support climate-change legislation.
Businesses supporting Lieberman-Warner stand to profit from clean-energy or energy-efficiency iniatitives. GE, for instance, sells wind turbines, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and energy-efficient locomotives and aircraft engines. Just this week, GE and the oil-field services firm Schlumberger announced plans to work together on clean-coal technology.
Utility companies Exelon, FPL Group, NRG Energy and PG&E Corp., which signed a letter supporting the bill, are developing nuclear energy, wind or solar power, or so-called clean-coal plants. They would gain as the costs of burning coal in conventional plans goes up. About 50% of electricity in the United States comes from burning coal.
"In the long run, you want people who burn carbon to pay more," says John Rowe, the CEO of Exelon, the nation's biggest generator of nuclear power. Still, even Rowe worries that the economy could be shocked if the cost of emitting carbon dioxide rises too quickly. "We don't think the economy can stand $30 to $40 carbon in the early years," he says. Political support for climate action could also erode if consumers revolt. In Europe, where permits to emit carbon have been trading since 2005, it now costs nearly $40 to emit a ton of carbon.
The Environmental Defense Fund circulated the letter supporting the bill, which was also signed by U.S. Cap members NRDC and the National Wildlife Federation. The letter was put together in a hurry, a backer said, and not all of the 30 or so companies in U.S. Cap were asked to sign it. The climate action coalition was announced with great fanfare in January of last year.
Rogers, Duke Energy's CEO, says he supports climate action but warns that Lieberman-Warner would have a "draconian effect" on his customers and others in the 25 states that now burn 80% of the coal in the United States. It's unfair, he argues, to place the burden of solving the climate-change problem on coal-burning states, which were urged by regulators to build coal plants in the 1970s and 1980s to achieve energy independence.
"I believe in cap and trade. I believe we ought to put a price on carbon," Rogers says. But senators who want to auction permits, and then use the money for a variety of projects - ranging from deficit reduction to water projects to job training - threaten to turn the climate-change bill into the "ultimate in earmarking."
Billions of dollars are at stake in this argument over how to auction or allocate the pollution permits. The outcome is "almost surely going to be a product of a lot of horse-trading," says Exelon's Rowe, once a final bill is written.
But the fact that businesses and senators are arguing about the details suggests that agreement is growing over the broader idea that Congress ought to regulate greenhouse gases.
"There is absolutely a majority of support for a cap-and-trade bill in the U.S. Senate," says Manik Roy, director of congressional affairs for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. But, as Duke's Rogers likes to say, "both God and the devil are in the details." | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/1/2008 8:01:23 AM |
The latest temperature gains seem to correlate to the introduction of the catalytic converter so it seems pretty obvious that those devices should be immediately band in order to slow global warming. Catalytic converters further breakdown the exhaust fumes into CO2 and water vapor and obviously we do not want more CO2.
The gases pre-catalytic converter harm plants animals and humans much more directly and more plants ='s more CO2 taken out of the atmosphere.
The disconcerting thing isn't the report itself but the selling of "carbon credits", nothing more than purchasing a get out of jail-free card for the worst polluters. There is no intelligent debate on what can be done to counter greenhouse gas production, or to recycle it back into organic material more quickly. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/1/2008 8:31:06 AM | | Actually, alternative energies like solar, wind and biodeisel will create a lot of jobs and small businesses. Relying on foreign oil isn't creating jobs here and its hurting the economy by having us take a hit every time the price goes up. Our economy will be much more stable if we have locally produced energy. And weather reports give consistent trends, its just hard to know the details. Winter always follows summer even if we can't tell if it will rain next week. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/1/2008 11:09:52 AM | Oh yeah, Dave, I see Tesla all electric cars all over the place here in America – NOT! However, your question was a fair one. By the way, I am all for conserving energy and that is a smart thing to do.
The owners and entrepreneurs of business are the ones that have the expertise to efficiently manufacture and run their businesses. As government become more intrusive on business, business spends more and more resources not on manufacturing the best product but on minimizing the cost impact of the government. John Stossel did a brilliant report where he traveled the world looking for countries that were economically booming and what it was that allowed this prosperity. In every single case, all of the booming economies were that way because government had very low interference and controls on businesses there. Governments are monuments of inefficiency and without exception, when government becomes involved in business, those businesses become inefficient and uncompetitive in the world market. The reaction of businesses these days is to pick up and move if government interferes too much and that is exactly what America is experiencing now. Global warming is theoretical but governmental intervention causing deterioration of business is fact. I will take a fact over a theory any day. I very much dispute that the theory of global warming and the proposed doomsday scenario is real and to exclusively focus all manufacturing’s attention on this and to create a massive new industry and work force based on this is lunacy. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/2/2008 11:49:03 PM | Eight years ago you didn't see Prius hybrids all over the place in America. Now look around.
The only Tesla car currently in production is a high end sports car, well outside the price range of all but the super rich. Even still, there is a long waiting list for the thousand or so they're able to produce. Once their new facility comes on line and they start producing reasonably priced sedans, I expect you'll see a dramatic jump in Tesla sightings.
But on to your main point, the relationship between government and business is indeed a tricky one. And I won't dispute that governments make lousy businesses. But without government intervention sweatshops, dangerous working conditions, ultra low wages, and monopolies would be the norm here in the U.S.. Government DOES have a role in business, and indeed as often as not it's the business community who ASKS for government assistance to assure their ability to thrive.
I would call your attention to the following link about China exceeding their wind energy goals:
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/37220
Part of the piece I quote below:
The breathtaking growth of Chinese wind power illustrates how effective government policy can influence the market. Since the issuing of the renewable energy law, the government has enacted a series of policies to facilitate wind power development. One important step has been to improve the wind power pricing regulation, which uses a competitive bidding process to determine the price of wind power. Through five rounds of public tendering to issue wind concessions, policymakers have explored ways to further improve pricing and disperse worries in the industry about excessively low bidding hindering further development.
By 2007, the NDRC had evaluated and approved pricing schemes for more than 60 projects, taking into consideration local conditions and other major benchmarks, including a provision that a minimum of 70 percent of a wind turbine's components be manufactured locally. The more sophisticated pricing schemes have stabilized China's wind power market, while the benchmark of turbine localization has provided market-entry opportunities for fledging domestic manufacturers. The government also supports wind power through tax incentives and subsidies.
Policy incentives and government prioritization have sent a clear signal to the market, and investors are springing into the nascent realm for big growth. What has surprised even policymakers is the exponential growth of China's domestic wind turbine manufacturing industry. Only a few small turbine manufacturers existed before 2005, and most turbines and key components were imported. Over the past three years, however, domestic manufacturers have increased their investment and expanded quickly, while all major international wind turbine manufacturers have started to set up local factories.
That's just one example government playing a positive influence role in business. I expect many more examples to play out in the years to come.
As to your stance on global warming itself, see my post on the other climate change thread currently seeing action in the current events category.
Dave | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:28:20 AM | Dave, I never said that there should be no government, just limited government. Excuse me if I do not rush in to emulate the totalitarian government of China despite there success in wind technology. The example of the battery assisted Honda came to the USA through free market forces. Granted, the proliferation of gas guzzling SUV’s and huge trucks came in the same way. I am a little shocked that you provided China as an example given the 3rd world horrible working conditions there. I truly believe that you are a very decent man with descent life’s goals and concern for your fellow man. Despite what you may think of my views, I too care very much for people and the environment. When opportunist companies were collecting hazardous waste and warehousing these poisons with never any plan of disposal with a criminal business plan to bankrupt the company and take off with the profits leaving the community to deal with the toxic stock pile, I was all for government stepping in to stop it.
Basically, we have about 100 years of accurate temperature data that through all kinds of extrapolation “experts” have determines that we have a crisis and we must take immediate action right now or else we will insure disaster for generations to come. The government’s solution is not to plant more trees, not to work through free market solutions but to come into each and ever business and each and every citizen’s life to control us for our own good. Thanks but no thanks. That solution just takes us closer to living in a totalitarian state and causes more harm and more suffering than anything Mother Nature has in store for us. Again, going back to the temperature chart on page 51 of the report, why was there the same magnitude of temperature increase from 1910 to 1940 as in the last 30 years when cars back then were few and far between and the population was much less? | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/4/2008 11:37:57 AM | to Warmth regarding 1910-1940... I haven't looked at the document. But your question did interest me. Now I am as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to science, so I normally avoid these discussion completely. But your question got me to thinking about Little House on the Prairie days, and the TV show 'The Waltons', plus with my genealogy background, and this is the period of the Great Depression ... I asked myself a few questions... I realize I am really stretching this possibility, but maybe this idea would get the brain cells of others thinking....
According to wiki... Second Industrial Revolution... was 1870-1914
Then I started wondering about the history of logging industry, since that is the destruction of trees...
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=57900&display_order=3&mini_id=57876
CSPN reports that in 1905, Washington became the top lumber-producing state in America and in 1926, the state's lumber harvest hit an all-time high of 7.6 billion board feet (by comparison, 4.1 billion feet of timber were harvested in 2000).
Could the increase of the Industrial Revolution with the all time high of the logging industry COMBINED, explain the 1910-1940 issue?
I'm just grasping straws................. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/4/2008 12:12:40 PM | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest
There is a chart 1/2 way down that shows the deforestation rate of the Amazon year by year... starting with the year 1977. The article does discuss deforestation in detail. It is informative reading. Could the Amazon be a coincedence of our current graph peaks?
I realize, that Washington logging was not the cause of world wide warming... but was the logging industry also going strong world wide? And there has been much controversy about the Amazon logging effect on warming. Just a thought. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/9/2008 10:32:45 PM | Warmthnpassion, I expected I'd catch some flak for using a Chinese example. I don't dispute that there is much not to like about many Chinese practices, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from some of their positive actions, and this seemed like one of those examples.
I too respect your core values, and I suspect if you and I sat down to hash all this out in an extended discussion we'd find much common ground. One area we might not agree on is the validity of current climate research. From my perspective I trust the experts and the fairly in depth research I've done on their work makes their conclusions ring true to me.
But the human impact on the climate is a fairly new concept to many, and a healthy dose of skepticism is to be expected and even welcomed. It forces those making assertions to double check all their research and fill any gaps in their reasoning. That's how the peer review process works in science. The general public, which includes you and me, is just a few steps behind the established climate science community on this issue.
I'm confident that whatever climate change policies we see in the years to come will be carefully scrutinized to minimize or even negate negative economic implications. What we're likely to see is a 'cap and trade' program that will provide a leg up to cleaner, more progressive industries. I see it as creating incentives for desirable behavior. You see it as unwarranted control.
The primary difference lies in our respective views on the urgency of taking collective action to minimize the negative impacts of human activities on a delicate climate balance that makes the only planet we have to call home a comfortable place for us all to live. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one for now.
I think twenty years from now we'll look back on our collective changes to address climate change as positive developments that led to many additional benefits. You may well see all the climate related efforts as unjustified intrusions that will do more harm than good.
Time will tell which of us has the better crystal ball.
Dave | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:07:42 AM |
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.
Bahahahaha !
$8 million is absolute peanuts ! Exxon has revenues that dwarf most countries entire GDP!
It's a pro - g.w. strategy to "construct" this imaginary opposition and to try to discredit legitimate science as "oil company funded propaganda" While in reality , that "oil company funding" really is NOT there!
8 million $ ???? ......
If it were hundred's of millions or maybe billions , then you might have made a point.
Also , if global warming is just a power grab (which it is) , then , you would expect oil companies to rightfully dispute it and fund opposition .....correct??
If the largest corporation in the world was not onboard with the "global warming" agenda......you would see "skepticism" that would be pre-dominant and all encopassing in the media and in governments ....so that this ridiculous g.w. hoax governmental control power grab would have fizzled out long ago!
Wake the heck up!!...
The Rockefeller OIL COMPANY mega- money foundation (through al bore) is very much promoting global warming! | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:13:31 AM |
Fortunately, the ones who make policy in US government are finally getting on board with the very real problems climate change poses. Same goes for either incoming administration as well. This internet debate with the "ignorance is bliss" crowd makes for an engaging pasttime, though.
Yes , ignorance abounds , although , I often don't find it "engaging."
Of course the US government is "getting on board" ....Do you actually think there's any real difference between political parties ?
It has been "good cop- bad cop"
The phoney former lefties come opportunist neo-cons get their war(s?) and the true conservatives very unfairly get the blame for an evil war, then the left comes in and "does good" and "saves the planet"
Tricky buggers !
It's all part of the plan. | |
|
| Court Order Releases US climate change report
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:17:26 AM | "War for oil companies " and " oil company global warming opposition" and both coming from the same mind ?....Yikes!!
You know ,
It boggles the mind that there are so many lefties that can somehow actually hold the belief that oil companies used their clout to cajoule the U.S. into a disasterous , mutli- trillion dollar
" war for oil" and YET , at the same time , they believe that Exxon et al are seriously opposed to the "global warming" power grab ?...... that the best the oil companies could do in thier opposition to g.w. was so pathetic ($8 million) and so very apparent that the left picked up on it and won the p.r. battle ?
This absurd notion proves that lefties often don't think rationally on even the most basic level.
But , that's nothing new, rational people already knew that from the oh so many other examples of lefty insanity.
Of course , many common sense and rational thinkers also feel that the establi$hment's plan for using the easily manipulated and dim-witted left is very well thought out. | |
|
|
Home
login 
