At Last, It Begins: Real, Substantive Debate on 2009 Climate Legislation
Before President-elect Obama's cabinet is named -- even before we know who the next Senators from Minnesota or Georgia will be -- jockeying for position on 2009 climate legislation is well underway on Capitol Hill. Detailed intellectual cases and functioning coalitions are getting built now, not just for the idea that we need robust climate legislation fast - that's already widely accepted and anticipated in Washington - but for which specific mechanisms will deliver the biggest, fastest impact on carbon emissions and the economy.
Significantly, these discussions aren't all taking place behind closed doors, but in full public view, for example at a public Hill briefing December 9 with carbon tax supporters like NASA scientist James Hansen, economists Gilbert Metcalf and Robert Shapiro, Canadian public affairs expert James Hoggan, and Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn., 1st district), who has just been elected chair of the House Democratic Caucus, and who introduced an early piece of carbon tax legislation into the House. The public can attend, along with Congressional members and staff -- details here.
If introducing a new tax on carbon seems like a quixotic political battle in a time of historic economic and fiscal crisis, then you're out of touch. The economic crisis has in fact given it a big boost, and in this crisis-ridden political environment, the carbon tax is an increasingly formidable competitor to cap-and-trade schemes.
The latter work by creating trillions of dollars' worth of complex, tradeable instruments, and public faith in market gurus to make such trading efficient, or in government agencies to regulate them, is at an all-time low.
Critics point out lots of places to hide in the cumbersome trading scheme, witness 800-pages of special interest potlatches in the DOA Warner Lieberman bill, whereas a carbon tax is as inexorable as... taxes.
Crisis-driven volatility in oil prices has proven what advocates of gasoline taxes and energy taxes have said all along: price spikes may come and go, but if we don't somehow tax wasteful use of carbon fuels, the highs will just put windfalls in the pockets of oil producers and do nothing for American interests, either for energy independence or for getting control of our emissions. A carbon tax would put an effective floor under the price of gas, help smooth volatility, cut into the windfall profits of producers during price spikes, and as prices fall off the highs, keep oil consumers from going, as President-elect Obama recently said, from shock back into trance.
Perhaps most appealing of all amid the economic crisis is the fact that a carbon tax could be kept revenue-neutral. That would allow us to pay as we go to curb emissions; and wouldn't entail any huge government outlays or bureaucracies to get addicted to the revenue. Along with the increase in energy prices, carbon tax revenues would be big, but the money would be given right back to taxpayers, whether in the form of direct payments like Alaskans get for oil production, or in the form of a progressive tax cuts like cutting or eliminating payroll taxes, as progressives like Al Gore and even conservatives like T. Boone Pickens have proposed.
Payroll taxes are the biggest, most regressive taxes 80% of Americans pay, and a big drag on employment since they artificially raise hiring costs. Cutting them would both put money back into the pockets of middle-class and working-class families, and take the self-imposed brakes off job creation.
If you're President-elect Obama and you've promised to create 2.5 million jobs by 2011, and to lower taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, while finding the means for a meaningful economic stimulus and major reductions in carbon emissions, that has got to sound good.
If you're a concerned citizen who has been waiting for years for the political static to clear, and some real, productive grappling with meaningful climate legislation to begin, this is your moment. You can weigh in, sign petitions, write letters to Congress, attend that Hill briefing, and generally be part of substantive, small-d democratic debate about serious climate legislation at the Price Carbon Campaign.
Dan Rosenblum is the co-director of the Carbon Tax Center, www.carbontax.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
@MGhamma
}}}
BTW Michale,all of your evidence gets debunked. Just because you refuse to admit it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
{{{{
And all your evidence gets debunked and just because you refuse to admit it doesn't mean it doesn't happen..
Which simply proves my point that the science is in dispute and is NOT ironclad...
Michale.....
realpolitic provides links to real scientific sources, Michale provides links to real political sources. Consistently.
Yes, and remember Exusian. He really knows his science way better than I ever would.
@Realpolitic
The answer to one simple question will say it all..
Do you think you could be wrong in your belief of the Human Caused Global Warming theory??
Michale.....
Michale, do you think that you could be wrong?
Absolutely..
I could be wrong and global warming could be the worstest catastrophe since Krakatoa...
So, do you think you could be wrong???
Michale.....
Well, if you consider other factors like solar radiation we would be in a cooling phase now. Being that scientists can measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the oceans through an increasing acidity, being that sea reefs are dying and the Artic ice and mountaintop ice is rapidly diminishing, plants and animals are moving north or to higher elevations, weather patterns are growing more severe, given all the evidence in general, I think human induced warming is a very serious concern that is documented in one study after the next. There is no scientific organization in the world that disagrees with human induced warming. Therefore, I would lean toward the scientific thought on the subject rather than a website called wattsupwiththat. Thanks for asking!
Have you considered you may be wrong and how much evidence do you need before you reconsider? Or is Al Gore just a bad guy!
So, do you think you could be wrong about Human Caused Global Warming or not??
YES or NO??
Michale.....
@realpolitic
}}}}
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2�C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. ."
{{{{{
Actually, it is you who doesn't get it.
You simply refuse to accept ANY information that doesn't support your belief in your god..
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-warmest-year-on-record-coldest-in.html
"One month ago, we noticed that November 2007 was the coldest month since January 2000. Well, the RSS MSU satellite data prepared by remss.com show that December was even cooler. The December anomaly was -0.046 °C, compared to -0.014 °C in November. That means that December 2007 was also cooler than the average December from 1979."
For every bit of "science" you show that "proves" your belief in your "god", I can show you REAL science that disproves your "proof".
Michale.....
Michale, your "real" science is from a blog and not a legitimate organization or a scientist. Further, you are saying in the quote above that different individual months may have been cooler than the same month in another year, but we are talking about the year as a whole and not just a particular month.
Then your blog says: "In alarmist jargon, it was the ninth hottest year on record: the most recent year (2007) was cooler than all other years in this century as well as 1998 (by a whopping 0.41 °C) and even 1995." However, the GISS data directly contradicts this statement. GISS says 2007 is the second hottest year on record (tied with 1998) and behind the record warmest year of 2005.
I quote from another source:
"The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
}}}
" However, the GISS data directly contradicts this statement. GISS says 2007 is the second hottest year on record (tied with 1998) and behind the record warmest year of 2005.
{{{
EXACTLY my point..
There is contradictory evidence..
So, why are YOUR scientists right and the scientists who disagree are wrong?
Can you answer that simple question??
Michale.....
I really like the comment I saw on one of Michales links, that Nov. 2007 was the coldest >this century
1)Michale, you did not show me evidence of how Dr. James Hansen has profited from his views on warming?
2 )And if 1998 was the warmest on record then what about this statement?
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Please answer both questions!
1. Dr Hansen is known as the "father of global warming" and has obtained numerous multi-million dollar federal grants to study Global Warming.
2. I am simply using the GISS graphs that clearly show 1998 as the warmest year on record as far as global average temps go. If you dispute their information, take it up with them.
Michale.....
1) Well then what are the grants and how do they profit him? He works for the government and can not receive private funds. (Show me specifically how he profits!)
2) The graph you are referring to is not even a graph of the hottest temperatures. It is a graph of the greatest temperature "anomalies" from one year to the next. Read the title of it. That means it shows the greatest increases in temps from one year to the next.
The year 1998 was much hotter than 1997 because of the strong el Nino in 1998, which caused temperatures to rise a great deal. Thus, the biggest temperature increase on record is between 1997 and 1998, but it does not mean 1998 was the warmest year.
Do you understand any of this explanation? Look up the word "anomaly."
Michale, thanx for the entertainment. It's fun to watch realpolitic school you, and watch you just come back for more. LOL!!
So, tell me... Aren't those scientists worthy of being heard from and their opinions considered??
Dr Landsea apparently was good enough to be on the IPCC report.. Until the "science" of the IPCC went south and he refused to have any part of it...
Is there no room in your religion for rational, objective and logical dissent??
Michale.....
Which scientists?
Yes, there's room for rational, objective and logical dissent. I'm still waiting to see some.
Dr. Christopher Landsea:
Leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
- resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, released earlier this month stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."
- wrote a lengthy and detailed open letter to his scientific colleagues explaining why he was withdrawing from helping to author the report.
- "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.” - "In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
Dr. Frederick Seitz:
Past-president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University
- “ I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report… this report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."
Dr. Landsea's conclusion about hurricanes are in the IPCC document. The general thought was that hurricane frequencies may not be affected by warming but the severity of them would increase. I believe he emphasized that wind shear, another factor, would be important as well. It is all there.
"I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized."
-Dr Christopher Landsea
'nuff said.
Michale.....
"In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity." He went on to say "with the Atlantic hurricanes in particular, they're due to changes both in the ocean as well as the atmosphere. Just changing the ocean where it's a little bit warmer isn't sufficient." As for climate change affecting hurricane strength, Landsea said that global warming theories and numerical modeling suggest only that "hurricanes like Katrina and Rita may have been stronger due to global warming but maybe by one or two miles per hour.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Landsea
His ideas are very similar to what is in the IPCC document concerning hurricanes. Read it!
From your OWN link:
"In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.[2] Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: "global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent". He strongly questions the accuracy of the historical global hurricane database for comparisons with current observations, citing an uncounted, catastrophic 1970 storm as an example.[3] According to agency emails gathered by Salon and later released by Rep. Henry Waxman, Republican administrators chose Landsea over another scientist in the NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans."
Anything coming out of the IPCC has it's basis in POLITICAL considerations, not in Science...
Michale....
@realpolitic
}}}}}
Well, scientists do know. It has to do with solar radiance linked to the number of sunspots seen on the surface of the sun; earth's distance from the sun, occasional earthquakes and other activities. I am not an expert. I have seen many here who know far more than me. I am sure there are interesting books on the subject to check out. Right now the temperatures are rising so quickly and we are not far away from a tipping point that we may not have seen I believe in quite, quite a long time. I would have to look it up.
}}}}}
And there are scientists that dispute that "tipping point" theory...
So, which scientist do we believe??
You seem intent of believing only the scientists whose theories match your own opinion.
Science is not a popularity contest.. You can't say, "Oh THAT scientist is right and THAT scientist is wrong" merely based on your own personal preferences..
You see the difference in us? You are religiously claiming that you and your chosen scientists are RIGHT and those that dispute the notions are wrong...
I merely claim that you MIGHT be wrong and that further study is needed...
You see the difference??
One opinion bordering on the fanatical that brokers NO discussion or debate..
The other opinion that is rational and objective and, above all else, logical..
Michale....
A "tipping point" is a phrase that once it is reached it will be considerably hard to turn back from. A number of natural processes reinforce one another, such as the Artic ice cap melting and much of the snow caps, changing the albedo, and thus increasing warming further. So the "tipping point" is a temperature, perhaps another 1.5^, where then the effects will be very difficult to reverse.
And yet, there is 30% more sea ice in the Arctic today then there was at this time last year.
How can you explain that???
Michale.....
October 2008 Possibly Set for Record Sea Ice Extent Increase Rate
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/october-2008-possibly-set-for-record-sea-ice-extent-increase-rate/
Sea Ice records set in 2008
largest January daily increase rate (44,000, previous record 39.800 in 2003)
largest February daily increase rate (27.500, previous record 25,400 in 2005)
largest May daily decrease rate (47,100, previous record 46,000 in 2005)
largest August daily decrease rate (66,800, previous record in 62,600 in 2004)
So, since we see such dramatic increases in Arctic Sea Ice, that SHOULD (logically speaking) push the "tipping point" back even further, right???
Michale.....
@realpolitic
}}}}
Most of these errors you so tirelessly point to make minscule changes in the overall data set. They do not dispute warming at all.
{{{{
Really??
So, even the ERRORS don't dispute warming??
Do you see how fanatical you are in your beliefs?? EVERYTHING proves Global Warming to you. Even the errors..
How is this not like the religious fanatic who points to every blade of grass, every cloud, every coincidence, every occurrence and states, "See!! That PROVES the existence of god!!"
If you could step back and look at things logically and objectively, you would see what I see. Many MANY theories abound and not one of them give DEFINITIVE, INCONCLUSIVE and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence to support any firm conclusions...
The ONLY firm conclusion one can POSSIBLY come to is that more study and debate is needed..
But the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion, in the form of Al Gore, WON'T DEBATE the issue.. Why is that??
If the theory is such a slam dunk dead on ballz accurate theory, surely only GOOD could come from having Al Gore debate it... Right?? If all of the science is irrefutable and obvious than what's the harm in Al Gore debating it??
I'll tell you why. Because the science is iffy at best. Every time there HAS been a debate on Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory, the theory has always, ALWAYS lost.
This is fact...
Michale.....
Well, natural selection is a theory as well. It is just a theory that all the evidence points toward, as it does with human-induced warming. The big bang is a theory with considerable evidence behind it. Have you read even one scientific document, such as the IPCC Fourth Report. Read it!
The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, not a scientific one.
The chairman of the IPCC is not even a Climate Scientist!!!
Beyond that, it's a UN Political organization..
You remember the UN, right? They are the ones who made NINE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR off the Iraqi Oil For Food program. The organization that sent "peacekeepers" down to Africa to disarm the rebels, but ended up actually arming them, making a nice profit in the process.
And you want me to put the fate of the planet in the hands of THAT organization???
Surely you jest...
Michale.....
Maybe THIRD time's the charm.. :^/
But it IS interesting that no one has answered the one question I asked.
How many months/years of cooling temps and record cold temps must there be before ya'all concede that Global Warming is over??
Michale.....
OK, Michale, whatever you say! I recognize a true believer when I see one. Let Rush tell you what to think. It is fine with me!
Actually, I don't ever listen to Rush, nor do I read anything on his website if I can help it..
But the fact is that the science is in dispute...
It's also another fact that the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. Why is it, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, humankind's fault?? What caused the Earth's climate to grow warmer and colder a million years ago, before man was even on the planet???
Science cannot answer these questions...
Ergo, the science is in dispute..
And, since the science IS in dispute, it's reckless and dangerous to try and take action, based on faulty science...
Michale....
@realpolitic
}}}}
Michale most of those papers differ on small points of methodology and do not dispute warming in the slightest. It is another attempt, very successful I might add, to misled you.
{{{{
That simply proves my previous point.
All the papers and links you put forth are "proof positive" that the "god exists" IE that the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory/religion is true and valid.
All the papers and links that call the faith into question is the work of the Devil and is designed to "mislead" the faithful.
The religiou-fication of the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory is a fascinating study...
Michale......
Michale, I think you are the one approaching the discussion like a true fanatic who will disregard the evidence no matter what!
Not at all.
It is you who disregards ALL data and evidence that calls into question the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...
I acknowledge that your evidence MAY be valid.
But do you acknowledge that the evidence that disproves the theory might be valid??
No, you do not.
So who is the fanatic??
If I am fanatical, it is only a fanatical adherence to logic and objective thinking..
Michale.....
What I find fascinating is how much the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) movement is so much like religious fanaticism..
Look at all the posts in here defending the movement. All of the "priests" (scientists) that follow the "scriptures" are pure as the driven snow. All of the "priests" (scientists) that disagree with the "faith" are branded as heretics and liars etc etc...
This is probably caused by the fact that Al Gore actually has attempted to "religiou-fy" the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) movement... This is well-documented..
But, the bottom line is this.
The science is in dispute. For every respected scientist who says that the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory is a fact, there is another respected scientist who says it's a myth..
So, because the science is in dispute, it surely makes sense to do more studying and have more debates on the theory..
Michale.....
Michale, you can make up those facts if you like. But it is simply not true. But I am sure Fox News teaches you that facts are relative.
What "fact" am I making up??
That the science is in dispute??
You HONESTLY believe that the science is settled??
Michale......
The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html
" is the sum of good government. - THOMAS JEFFERSON
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Debunking the myth, Part 14: World Meteorological Organization Flunks History
The World Meteorological Organization says 2007 is shaping up to be the fifth-warmest year on record and that this past year has seen, what it calls, a number of remarkable global climatic events, including the record melting of the Arctic Sea ice, which opened the Canadian Northwest Passage for the first time in recorded history.
However, Roald Amundsen and a six-man crew sailed the Northwest Passage in 1905 in their 70' sloop Gjøa while Robert McClure proved the route in 1854, winning a £10,000 prize for finding the Passage. So many have done so that there is a 'typical' route and at least a half-dozen others."
Another case of hysteria and fear-mongering exxagerating the REAL science in an attempt to sway the sheeple...
Michale.....
In 1903, Amundsen led the first expedition to successfully traverse the Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans with six others in a 47 ton steel seal hunting vessel, Gjøa
After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen was able to navigate a passage into the Beaufort Sea after which he cleared into the Bering Strait, thus having successfully navigated the Northwest Passage. Continuing to the south of Victoria Island, the ship cleared the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on August 17, 1905, but had to stop for the winter before going on to Nome on the Alaska Territory's Pacific coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen
Michale, why do you believe everything you read on right-wing nutty sites and ignore legitimate information? So many of the conservatives who post here are like that!
Forgot to link the above...
http://lakeminnetonkaliberty.blogspot.com/2007/12/debunking-myth-part-14-world.html
Michale , when Amundsen sailed the Northwest passage he was trapped in the ice for three years!
Systems such as we are developing, that convert ambient heat and/or zero point energy into electricity and/or torque, are on the horizon worldwide. Skeptics are understandably legion. We are including toys and university demonstration devices in our program in order to accelerate acceptance. Cutting the cord on a plug-in hybrid will be another achievement impossible to ignore or dispute. That will open the door to automotive vehicles that do not depend on fuel, batteries or recharge.
Cars, trucks and buses that need no fuel and do not depend on batteries, may well be developed with the urgency that the times demand. There is no reason that commercial development cannot be done 24/7, with adequate support.
The market for automotive vehicles that need no fuel, or recharge, is likely to ramp up as rapidly as manufacturers can adapt. That market can provide a major stimulus for the entire economy. Now, look at V2G. Plug-in hybrid cars with a two-way plug can be tapped for perhaps 20kW to assist with peak load demand. Cars powered by these newer systems will be portable power plants when parked. Wireless transfer of up to 150kW from a bus to the grid has already been prototyped.
This revolutionary new distributed generation is an alternative to building new coal plants, or conventional nuclear plants - that can be expected to have a 10 year time horizon. Both the economics and carbon reduction are expected to be very attractive.
And just to clear up any misconceptions that there is not any "peer reviewed" papers that dispute the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion..
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
Here's a bunch...
Michale.....
Michale most of those papers differ on small points of methodology and do not dispute warming in the slightest. It is another attempt, very successful I might add, to misled you.
I mean "mislead you."
This is why NASA and GISS are always getting called on their "cooked" data..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/24/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-76/
Garbage In, Garbage Out..
But, the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) fanatics should have no fear.. If the REAL temps don't make things warm enough to use the normal hysterical fear-mongering tactics, they can always find some 'previously undiscovered hot spot in the Arctic" to help tweak their data.
But the might first want to make sure that the sea ice in the arctic hasn't increased 30%. Like the LAST time they tried that bogus claim...
Michale......
Most of these errors you so tirelessly point to make minscule changes in the overall data set. They do not dispute warming at all.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/39781-hansen-s-giss-temp-data-wrong-again-2.html
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
