Will The Senate Pass The Climate Bill, Then Reject A Global Treaty?

treehugger.com:

Senator John Kerry says that unfortunately, that's a distinct possibility.

Read the whole story: treehugger.com

Comments

[realpolitic]

"Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrumental records began, were in the past decade."

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

[gladiator777]

Hmmm...temperature down 1 degree since the inconvenient lie came out.....well, I thought gore the bore said we'd all be dead and burnt to a crisp now?

[RomeoMD25]

In 1997, Enron set about to promote an international treaty to impose
cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing emission rights trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and it would help Enron’s growing commodity trading business.

As the push for a treaty gained more support around the world, Enron CEO Ken Lay and other business leaders wrote to President Bill Clinton on September 1, 1998, asking him to create a bipartisan blue ribbon commission that would essentially shut off the scientific debate on global warming and discredit those scientists who opposed the treaty and did not support the global warming theory.

[realpolitic]

Did you notice that Enron disappeared years ago, Lay died, and the other Enron bigwig is in jail where he belongs?

[NL207]

"other Enron bigwig "

Correction: bigwigs, as in plural. Jeffery Skilling and Andrew Fastow.

And who put these clowns in the slammer, Real? Bush's administration did, didn't it? So where was all this cronyism with the energy companies that the left constantly accused Bush and Cheney of? It sure didn't appear here.

This is in sharp contrats to the Democrats. They couldn't manage to prosecute the crooks in Fannie Mae as vigorously. They stole more money and damaged more people than Enron by a wide margin. The subprime mortgage crisis they fueled and the credit default swap collapse their securities are at the heart of caused the present financial panic.

Lesson: Republicans demonstrated resolve in the face of criminal behavior from their friends and punished their crimes. Democrats excused their crooks with a slap on the wrist.

[realpolitic]

Hey, NL, if the Bush Justice Department was so wonderful, why is former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez still unemployed? HaHaHa!

[realpolitic]

Here is an interesting graph showing ocean heat content...

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

"We have previously reported estimates of the variability of the ocean heat content (OHC) of the world ocean [Levitus et al., 2000, 2005a]. The warming trend in OHC dominated earth’s heat balance during the past fifty years [Levitus et al., 2001] and the trend has been attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere by Levitus et al. [2001] and Barnett et al. [2001, 2005] among others."

[SFTor]

The reason no global agreement will pass is that any insistence of carbon tariffs are certain to derail any negotiations towards one. Carbon tariffs would almost certainly run afoul of GATT. Without tariffs, American and developed-world jobs will be lost. For obvious reasons this is a political third rail in this depressed economy.

Congress will pass the climate bill, confident that nothing much will happen as a consequence.

So in other words, politics as usual. As the planet seems to be cooling anyway it is probably not a bad outcome for all concerned. UAH numbers for June 2009 shows that the global tropospheric temperature is 0.00 degrees above normal.

[111]

Interesting reading about whether or not there is reason for alarm but our politicians aren't really interested in what is happening or not happening to our climate.

Kucinich outlined the reasons to reject this bill
The targets are too weak
Sets about meeting those targets through "Enron Style" accounting
Gives coal industry record subsidies
Contains massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense
Doesn't require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030
It contains off sets that will allow polluters to continue polluting without repercussions

How can we sign any kind of global treaty when the majority of the Ruling Class has determined that polluters in the US will be permitted to continue polluting the environment and the coal industry will receive money rewards out of the tax payers pockets.
It's all about the money, not the environment, just the money.

[blimie]

This will be a tremendous tax burden on Americans without really affecting the environment. It's very aggressively and quietly being pushed though. Michael Jackson and Iranian protests are getting all the coverage while this is being ignored by the media.

[RomeoMD25]

Carbon dioxide, a benign, life giving molecule has been miscast by a world wide political movement to be an environmental hazard in what
will soon be discovered to be the hoax of the century. This molecule, CO2 is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living
things and even comes from nocturnal emissions by plants. It forms the bubbles in your soda, wine and beer. Standard air has 370 parts
per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which 93% comes from "natural sources" which are all beyond human control. These sources include
decomposition of organic matter, exhaling by living things and volcanic vents, which is by far the greatest atmospheric source.
When the full scope of the scientific errors involved in this hoax are exposed everyone will realize this has been the greatest
folly since the flat earth theory. We deserve a real debate. In this case, the truth will be very inconvenient.

Anxiety Grows in Global Warming Alarmist Camp

climate-change alarmists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their position that human activity
has warmed Earth to crisis proportions.

Polar bears keep growing in numbers, Antarctic ice keeps expanding, deserts keep receding, temperatures keep easing,
the ranks of science skeptics keep multiplying. It's tough to scare people with that kind of sound-science evidence.

[Exusian]

I see not only does Romeo like to play the denial disinformation game, he also likes to play mole in the wack-a-mole game.

Here he once again combines the "dilution" argument with liberal portions of the irrelevant "we call it life" or "CO2 is plant food" nonsense, plus he plays lose and fast with the facts.

Fact: Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over one third since the start of the industrial revolution, from ~280 ppm to ~386 ppm (+ ~106 ppm, or + ~38%), half of that since 1950 alone, or + ~19%. There is presently more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the past 2-3 million years.

Fact: Almost all of that increase is from human activity. In fact, CO2 from human activity is responsible for ~200% of the observed and measured increase in atmospheric CO2. That's correct, 200%. That's because half of what we emit each year is absorbed by natural carbon sinks, especially the ocean, while the rest remains in the atmosphere, some of it for centuries.

Fact: CO2 emitted by decomposition of organic matter and exhaled by living things does not add CO2 to the atmosphere, it *returns* CO2 to the atmosphere. It's called the active carbon cycle, a concept Romeo appears to be ignorant of.

continued...

[Exusian]

...continued

Fact: Volcanic emissions of CO2, on the other hand, are true *additions* to the active carbon cycle since that CO2 comes from carbon that has been locked out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years, However, volcanic emissions amount to less than 1% as much as CO2 emissions from burning fossil carbon fuels each year. (Carbon that has also been locked out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years.) Now that's a dilution argument.

The greatest "hoax" and folly since the flat earth theory is the denial of greenhouse gas induced global warming/climate change.
It is nothing less than the denial of science itself.

[Exusian]

Yet again the "dilution" argument combined with liberal portions of the irrelevant "we call it life" or "CO2 is plant food" nonsense, plus "facts" that are not facts at all. This has turned into the game of whack-a-mole.

Fact: Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over one third since the start of the industrial revolution, from ~280 ppm to ~386 ppm (+ ~106 ppm, or + ~38%), half of that since 1950 alone, or + ~19%. Atmospheric CO2 lis presently at levels not seen in the past 2-3 million years, at least.

Fact: At the height of glacial periods over the past 700,000+ years atmospheric CO2 has fallen to ~180 ppm for extended periods of time, yet photosynthetic plants did not go extinct and forests did not globally disappear.

Fact: CO2 emitted by decomposition of organic matter and exhaled by living things does not add CO2 to the atmosphere, it *returns* CO2 to the atmosphere. It's called the active carbon cycle, a concept everyone should read up on.

Fact: Almost all of that increase is from human activity. In fact, CO2 from human activity is responsible for ~200% of the observed and measured increase in atmospheric CO2. That's correct, 200%. That's because half of what we emit each year is absorbed by natural carbon sinks, especially the ocean, while the rest remains in the atmosphere, some of it for centuries.

continued...

[realpolitic]

You certainly have patience! Keep up the good fight!

[econ1]

Unfortunately, if China and India don't go along, the cap and trade bill will do nothing for global warming. It will end up as a significant tax on American productivity, a boon only to the traders, consultants, auditors, bureaucrats and others involved in counting and collecting the carbon credits.

[BannedNBoston]

As oil prices increase you will see "CLEAN COAL DIESEL APPEAR"
Its not clean and and its enviromental effects of mercury lead and sludge ponds
are terrible.
LEGALIZING HEMP IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS

[dennisrs]

Banned--- What does Pot have to do with coal diesel? Ever cleaned your bong?

[fumes]

the slower you drive the more fuel efficiently you travel..

pot helps with this!

[mioffe]

Coal is the cheapest source of energy. GHG from coal are toxic.
In huge power plants we are loosing 80% of energy-heat energy in vain.
We need 1.6 ton of wood to receive the same amount of energy as from 1 ton of coal.
If we will start new policy to produce energy in small power plants we could use as electricity as heat. In this case we need at least 4 time less energy, than we using right now.
In this case wood will provide more useful energy even than oil product right now in power plants.

GHG FROM OVEN, USING WOOD AS SOURCE OF ENERGY COULD BE SOLVED IN WATER TO WATERING FORESTS SUROUNDING THESE POWER PLANTS. TOGETHER WITH ASH IT WILL BE the best nutrition to grow trees. IT COULD BE SOURCE OF ENERGY WITH ZERO EMISSION.

Not cap-and-trade direction, but wood as source of energy must be our goal.
This direction could make USA energy independent, make 100% of employment, and because of that 100% of ensured people.

Also we must think about car with weight above 2000 Lb, which moving person with weight 200 Lb.
Real efficiency of this movement of person is around 1%.

Road without intersection, cart weighting 20 Lb, (instead of car) moving automaticaly by road must keep attention of our Government.

[Exusian]

mioffe, in another thread I asked when your article would appear in the science journals Nature or Science.

You replied: "Dear Exusian, I send my articles in many magazines, newspaper, to many Senators and Congressmen, even to Presidents Bush and Obama and their staff."

I'm sorry, but none of that is at all relevant. You claim to have an insight that overturns established science. You need to test that insight in the proper crucible: the scientific literature. That is where science is debated, where new ideas and hypotheses are reviewed, critiqued and tested by the wider scientific community.

[mioffe]

Dear Exusian, you know maybe better than me that in science magazine, the same as in others our news media credentials is more important, than ideas. Robert Redford, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michail Gorbachev, Pak Ki Moon, Tony Blair will be published, not you or me. Credentials in any field open doors for all fields.

I understand your points about GHG.
Why you even do not try to understand my points about properties of water, fumes point about soot, what will happen if we till land, build roads, cities, etc, what will happen if we will grow forests, and use wood for electricity production? Let cooperate, your English and knowledge, my ideas, ideas of fumes and many others who disagree that GHG are main player in Nature. How I could reach you for coperation?

[Exusian]

Mioffe, no, I'm sorry, news media credentials will not get one published in a professional science journal. Such credentials are irrelevant. One's scientific credentials will help, but they are not necessary. if your ideas and research are original and sound and raise interesting questions that can move science forward, then present them and allow them to be debated withing the wider scientific community.

Mioffe, I have tried to understand your points about the atmospheric water cycle, fume's points about black carbon (soot), and about how land use changes and built infrastructure effect weather and climate. I readily acknowledge that all are active players as all of those ideas are already part of mainstream climate science. What I am not convinced of is that any one of them alone or even all of them combined eclipse, let alone negate, the effect of the measured increase in CO2, CH4, NOx, CFCs and other greenhouse gases.

As for your idea of burning wood to produce electricity, I think you very seriously underestimate the negative impact of doing so.

[mioffe]

Dear Exusian, maybe this article could change your mind:Micha­elCrichton­.com | The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming.
"As for your idea of burning wood to produce electricity, I think you very seriously underestimate the negative impact of doing so." Could you please explaine detail.

[Exusian]

No, mioffe, Michael Crichton, a med school graduate turned *fiction* writer with no training in climate science, is not going to change my mind.

[Exusian]

And lest anyone get the wrong idea, keeping an open mind does not entail letting your brain fall out into the cesspool of pseudo-science.

[mioffe]

Dear Exusian "As for your idea of burning wood to produce electricity, I think you very seriously underestimate the negative impact of doing so."
Could you please explaine detail.

[Exusian]

I already did, or rather scratched the surface, but you brushed my points off.

[RomeoMD25]

The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

[realpolitic]

Romeo, do you really think you can fool anyone here with your misleading nonsense>

[RomeoMD25]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal gas that trees and other plants need to survive, just like oxygen (O2) is the principal gas that humans and other animals require. Trees absorb CO2 and release O2-- animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2. See how nice this all works!

Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm (0.038% of our atmosphere) and most of that comes from entirely natural sources.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not to be confused with its poisonous evil cousin carbon monoxide (CO), which can kill humans and animals in just a few minutes. Life as we know it could not exist without carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.!!

[Exusian]

...continued

2) The CO2 that photosynthetic plants take in is released back into the atmosphere by animals that eat those plants, or by the remains of the plants after they die and decompose. The same carbon is thus recycled again and again and again. It's called the active carbon cycle.

3) Atmospheric CO2 is well over 380 ppm today and still rising, however, over 100 ppm of the current level comes not from natural sources of the active carbon cycle at all, but rather from the burning of fossil carbon in coal and petroleum, carbon that has been locked out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years. It is for all practical purposes "new" carbon that has been added to the atmosphere and to the active carbon cycle.

4) CO2 can also kill humans and animals in just a few minutes, as it did in Cameroon at Lake Monoun in 1984 and at Lake Nyos in 1986.
That said, there is no direct health danger what so ever from the current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Romeo only mentions it as yet more irrelevant diversionary misinformation.

5) He further intentionally muddies the water by mentioning smog, carbon monoxide and the pollutants in car exhaust, which is just more irrelevant distraction.

This is how the denial disinformation game is played.

[NL207]

"The same carbon is thus recycled again and again and again"

Not entirely true. Where do coal, natural gas and oil come from?

"Atmospheric CO2 is well over 380 ppm today and still rising,"

Moreover, it has been rising monotonically for most of the last century and a half. So why hasn't global warming also not risen monotonically over the same interval if CO2 is the dominant term in the relationship?




"CO2 can also kill humans and animals in just a few minutes"

Yes, at 12,000 ppm. The lowest ever recorded lethal concentration was 9,000 ppm.

So can Water and Oxygen in lethal concentrations, but you don't consider them pollutants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia

[dennisrs]

Exusian-- I thought it was H2S gas that did the villiage in.

4) CO2 can also kill humans and animals in just a few minutes, as it did in Cameroon at Lake Monoun in 1984 and at Lake Nyos in 1986.
That said, there is no direct health danger what so ever from the current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Romeo only mentions it as yet more irrelevant diversionary misinformation.

[Exusian]

Nope, plain old CO2. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

[Exusian]

Good point about coal and oil formation, NL, but then sequestering carbon from the active carbon cycle through coal and oil formation takes tens of thousands to millions of years, while we are currently returning millions of years of fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere in mere decades.

Only the scientifically naive or someone trying to deliberately mislead people would suggest that a monotonic increase in CO2 would produce a monotonic increase in temperature because other climate forcings do not magically disappear nor does natural climate variability magically stop when there is a monotonic increase in CO2.

Apparently you missed that I explicitly wrote: "there is no direct health danger what so ever from the current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration," and I have never referred to CO2 as a pollutant. You might try reading what was actually written and not putting words into other people's mouths.

And finally, human activity is not directly increasing atmospheric H2O or O2 content (O2 is actually going down as we burn more fossil carbon, btw), but then we already know that you like to use red herring and strawman arguments.

[Exusian]

Ah, the "CO2 is plant food" argument, a variation on the Competitive Enterprise Institute's "We call it Life" campaign.

Although fundamentally true--phot­osynthetic plants do indeed require CO2, is utterly irrelevant.
It is yet another intentional slight of hand meant to divert your attention from the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Add on top of that an incompetent delivery full of factual errors and omissions of relevant facts:

1) The omission of the fact that photosynthetic plants require oxygen to metabolize the sugars that they produce through photosynthesis, meaning they do not only take in CO2 and produce O2, they also take in and consume O2.

continued...

[Exusian]

But you only provide the sugar and O2 production side of the equation, sport.

Did you intentionally leave out the consumption side where it takes oxygen to metabolize that sugar to produce energy, or was it you who skipped class?

And then there is the fact that all that plant starch and sugar is eventually turned into CO2 again by the animals and microbes that eat the plants.

Otherwise there is no incompatibility between what I wrote and the equation as you wrote it.

But then you go no to use the "dilution argument", which I shredded in the "Krugman: Republicans' Climate Change Denial Amounts To Treason" thread here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/29/krugman-republicans-clima_n_222226.html

And then you have the audacity or outright ignorance to cite the bogus "silenced" Carlin "report," which is nothing more than plagiarized denialist talking points, and Austrailian Senator Steve Fielding, who has demonstrated repeatedly that he knows absolutely nothing about climate science.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[DesertDogAlpha]

Yes. They probably will hesitate on a treaty. The states most impacted by a climate treaty and severe limitations on carbon emissions are those with huge dependency on coal-fired electricity generation (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc.). In other words the rust belt states most impacted by the recession.

Before we blame the Chinese (who have a per person carbon footprint only 25 percent of that for the US) for not carrying their load, let's ask a question closer to home. Will folks in Oregan and Washington state, who have the benefit of government subsidized zero carbon hydroelectric power be willing to help subsidize the folks in Michigan and Indiana to equalize the pain? I doubt it.

Let's check with the good Democratic senators from Oregon to see what they think. The words "hell no" will resonate. This is why we are where we are.

[kevsters]

This is a must read article on how progressives need to reframe the cap and trade argument.

Read it, and pass it on.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2002

[JanBjernfalk]

From the "must-read" article: "... it is a tax none the less placed on corporations who emit greenhouse gases. But if progressives reframed the argument and called it a fee for having to clean up the pollution being emitted, it then takes on a different tone ..."

Good grief, how naive do they think the public are?

Here's an idea: let's "reframe" the concept of income tax and instead call it a fee for having government do lots of nice things for us. Presto, no more income taxes!

There, I feel better already.

[Pquilson]

In the words of the great, all-knowing Obama: "They must think you are stupid."
He, and they truly think we are stupid. Perhaps we are.