- BIG NEWS:
- Copenhagen 2009
- |
- Climate Change
- |
- Energy
- |
- Animals
- |
At Last, It Begins: Real, Substantive Debate on 2009 Climate Legislation
Read More:
2009 Climate Legislation, Al Gore Climate Change, Carbon Emissions, Carbon Emissions Economy, Carbon Tax, Curb Emissions, Energy Prices, Obama Climate Change, Payroll Taxes, President-Elect Obama, T. Boone Pickens, Taxpayers,
Green News
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…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
b1bezFrLoCPQE3SFoSHU2%2FhXD5p2%2B66v0EhcNAmfi%2Fpb99OMbQs5j%2FPKh5LhZltXbNdjvKizjvrufm1XWoGiZg%3D%3D
MFoWe71NwXiLTfME63LX6w%2BX9HEWUEjFjel1ROm%2BT4hjeX4O68nmqUcTti16HYTINNvBTmmefewXSiYIp%2Boumw%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
realpolitic
}}}}
What is the agenda of Dr. James Hansen and the hundreds of other scientists who contributed to the IPCC report?
{{{{
Same agenda that Al Gore has with his fraudulent Carbon Credits con..
Money..
Wait.. Was that the same Dr Hansen who said that October was the hottest October ever?? The same Dr Hansen who said that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the 20th century??
THAT Dr Hansen??
So, it looks like that, on top of being greedy, he is also incompeten
Michale...
How has Dr. Hansen and other scientists profited by their views on warming? He is paid by NASA. He gets a certain salary regardless of his views. (Gore was already wealthy and is not a scientist.
Also, when you say that Dr. Hansen mistook the 1990's for the hottest decade of the 20th Century, you are confusing the U.S. temperatures with those found in the rest of the world. (The right-wing websites you look at does not make this clear because they want to misled you.) The U.S. is only a small part of the entire globe. The 1930's may have been the hottest on record for the U.S., but the 1990's was the hottest for the world. Regional temperatures changes vary a good deal.
http://www
http://www
http://www
And 2001 was warmer than 2000, and 2002 was warmer than 2001, and 2003 was warmer than 2002, and 2004 was warmer than 2003, and 2005 was warmer than 2004...... And 2000 was warmer than 1996-1997. Wazzup wi dat ???
Not necessarily, each year does not have to be progressively warmer than the year before in order for temperatures to show an increasing trend. Other factors come into play such as el Nino and la Nina and that may cause a year to be just cooler than the year befoore or much hotter.
Michale, average global temps are higher now than in 1997 and 2000. Care to explain that?
Care to prove it??
Because according to the graphs in the link posted by LeftRight, the temps peaked in 1998.
Since then there has not been any higher AGT....
Michale...
Michale, you already proved it with the 30 year temp graph you provided on the Al Gore thread. Or have you selectively forgotten again? You do that a lot. It's the only way you can hold on to the illusion that your smarter than all those dumb scientists.
Michale, you are still misreading the graph. The title of the graph is temperature "anomalies
It is not entirely feasible to have a discussion of environmental issues (of which global warming is a part of) without discussing population.
http://www
DITTO!!!!! Rankola.
@LeftRight
}}}}}
No, it does nothing of the sort.
{{{{{
Can you show me a graph that displays global average temps and shows that temps today are higher than they were in 1998??
No, you cannot....
Michale...
Um... I already did, but you go on thinking that I didn't if it makes you feel better!
Nope.. None of the graphs in your previous link that display average global temps show any temp higher than the 1998 temps.
Each and every one of them shows lower temps since 1998.
As I said.. This is an undeniable and indisputable fact.
Michale...
"The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world."
http://www
"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://dat
Here's another view
http://img
All the graphs that you can find that graph out GLOBAL Average Temps (a misnomer, but apparently an accepted on) clearly shows that temps peaked in 1998 and have been on the decline since then.. Sure, within that time frame there are ups and downs, which is to be expected.
But, the simple fact is, the global average temp is lower today than it was in 1998..
This is an UNDENIABLE and INDISPUTABLE fact...
Michale...
Michale, the graph you are quoting from shows the global temperature "anomalies" from the previous years. In other words, it does not show what year had the highest temperatures. It shows what year showed the most increased temperature from the previous year, which was 1998 because of the strong el Nino that year. In other words, the temperature increase between 1998 and 1997 was the largest on record, but it does not mean 1998 was the hottest recorded year. Rather the year 2005 was, according to the GISS records.
http://dat
LeftRight
}}}}}
No, but I can do one better. I can show you MANY graphs:
http://dat
You can see that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies seems to agree with me, disagree with you, and I can't see YOUR little graph ANYWHERE on the site...... hmm....
}}}}}}
You DO realize that the graph I showed you is ALSO GISS, right??
You should also realize that all those graphs simply prove my point.
That, since 1998, global temps have been FALLING...
Temps peaked in 1998 and have been falling ever since...
Michale...
Thus the reason that I specifically pointed it out. When you mentioned it in the other post, I googled the name, found that page, and found that it contradicts everything that you are trying to say...... Amazing how that works, huh??
Actually, it simply proves my point..
Average global temp has dropped since 1998...
Each graph shows a temp peak in 1998 and lower temps since then..
Michale...
Michale, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and can not even interpret a graph. The GISS website you listed describes the year 2008 as the 9th warmest out of the database of 129 years, with the year 2005 being the warmest, and the year 2007 as the second warmest on record.
I could also list all the false claims made by the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion, but I doubt I could keep it under the 250 word limit...
The two most recent ones are extremely interesting.
As I mentioned, there are 4 main sources that further the Human Caused Global Warming myth. The main one, Dr Hansen's program, recently made a bonehead claim. The claim was that Oct 2008 was the hottest Oct on record. It seems that, rather than actually report the Russia temps, they simply carried over the records from Aug. When caught, they came up with a bogus "Oh, we found an undiscovered "Hot Spot" in the Arctic." THIS claim was shown to be BS when it was shown that the Arctic has 30% more ice today then it had last year..
Finally, Dr Hansen admitted that they just messed up and that Oct 2008 was actually the SEVENTIETH (70th) hottest October on record.
I could go on and on about the bonehead claims by the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion, but you get the idea..
It's not science that drives this religion. It's politics and greed..
Michale...
AAAGHH .. now there is Climate Legislation??? As of this date , Al Gore will still not debate any of the science community who has the audacity opine that man made global warming is a hoax.... The economic crises seems to have evolved SINCE the hysteria of global warming started.
@realpolitic
}}}}
So if the debate is not over, what scientists or scientific organizations disagree with AGW? Would you please keep your list to actual climate scientists?
{{{{
Actual Climate scientists??
The head of the IPCC, the alleged "final authority" in Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is not even an "actual climate scientist".
So why should the list of scientists who do not believe the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion have to be compiled of only "actual climate scientists"??
The simple fact is, the theory is in dispute. This is proven by the actions of Al Gore himself..
Michale...
Michale, I've seen you do this MANY times, so let's see how the shoe fits:
}}}}}Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling){{{{{
-cite please!
http://wat
As you can see by the graph, average global temps are down since 1998...
I live in central Florida. When I originally posted this at 0658 hrs, it was 27 degrees here..
Global Warming?? Sheeya, right.. :D
Michale...
The graph Michael cited is showing temperature anomalies and not actual temperatures. In other words, it is showing the largest differences between the temperature of a year and the previous year. In that case, 1998 likely did show the largest increase from the previous year because of the strong el Nino in that year.
GISS data clearly shows 2005 as the hottest on record and the year 2007 as the second warmest.
"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".
http://dat
Michale made an honest mistake, but insisted it was correct in the face of all other evidence like a true conservative.
the primary cause of global warming is meat. all these green energy solution will take too long. we're in a emergency right now. we need to get 70% of the world population to go veg in order to reverse the effects of global warming.
No..
The primary "cause" of Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is that anyone and everyone with an agenda tries to use hysteria and fear mongering to push said agenda, using Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) as the boogeyman.
Hopefully, logic and rational thinking will win the day.
Michale...
What is the agenda of Dr. James Hansen and the hundreds of other scientists who contributed to the IPCC report?
LOL...that is probably one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. So do away with industrial meat farming and what do ya get? More industrial grain farming. More grain crops planted, more soil erosion, lessened top soil quality, which requires more nitrates to be introduced, which goes into the water supply, streams, rivers, oceans. Oh and not to mention with all that increased industrial crop farming, more fossil fuel usage.
All energy solutions will take at least 1/2 a generation, if not a full generation for the effects to really take place (even if we stopped producing meat). Ok..so poof...a global mandate to stop producing and consuming meat occurs. So what gets done with all the heads of cattle, and the people that depend on it for a living (even if it's a narrow profit margin). do we just destroy the cattle? do we release them into the wild? and what would be the environmental impact of that? Are there enough natural predators to curb the numbers? Then what happens when the natural predator numbers start to increase? we go shoot them?
clearly you have not thought through any of the consequences of which you propose. Besides, it would still take a generation for any benefit to be extracted from such a proposition.
Denial is persistent but isn't denial a sign of (oil) "addiction," the term "W" used in his 2007 State of the Union? We're on a collision course with climate catastrophe. Consider what run-away global heating would mean. We're already seeing countries collapse under global warming induced droughts, famines and disease. If we blow this, most of the world and much of the US will look like Darfur in a century. The penalties for delay or for choosing the wrong policy are very steep.
Economists are virtually unanimous that a carbon tax is the most effective medicine to efficiently steer the whole economy towards fossil fuel conservation and low-carbon alternatives. Regulation won't do the job and would wreck our economy and cap-and-trade is a way to hide the price but it's really a tax, which as proposed so far would give the revenues away, mostly to the very same polluters that would pay. As Dan points out, a revenue-neutral tax would pump cash back into the economy in ways that would benefit everyone.
We need to let Congress know that we're not afraid to use the "T" word. Especially against a more fearsome adversary: Global Heating. (No. I'm not calling it "warming" anymore.)
This is change we can believe in! In some circles, it would be called evolution of a species.
How can there be Human Caused Global Warming when it's a documented fact that temps have been going down since 1998??
Michale...
Would you then list them, please?
I only need to show one.. This is from the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion itself.
http://wat
As you can see by the graph, average global temps are down since 1998...
I live in central Florida. Right now, it's 27 degrees here..
Global Warming?? Sheeya, right..
Michale...
Michale found some graph somewhere with no references and no explanatory notes and like a good conservative he believes it. No matter that his graph is contradicted by all the studies and legitimate sources.
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).
http://www
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.
http://dat
It is always amazing to me that conservatives are so skeptical about everything, except the junk they read in the conservative press.
What? We're all set for debate about the legislation even though, contrary to the premature ejaculations of opinion leaders, the debate on the whether AGW is actually occuring is not over and as you will find out more and more individuals are starting to look at the the arguement and are coming away unconvinced that legislation will change anything..
So if the debate is not over, what scientists or scientific organizations disagree with AGW? Would you please keep your list to actual climate scientists?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
