Tag: Climate Change

Is It Really Global Warming?

Or if you want……climate change.

I have been hit on here by many on the right that say that I am ignorant or stupid or just plain wrong on the global warming thing.  I have looked at both sides of the question and say what I think…but then that is an opinion just like my critics have their opinion.  It is an argument that will continue for decades longer because NO ONE has a spine.

But beyond that opinion…who is right and who is wrong?

In a recent issue of Time Magazine a report has been published with predictions of what is to come.  Now with that said, why not write these down and see if they come true….then maybe we can put the debate to bed.

The predictions from Time are:

Water Woes. Precipitation will generally become heavier in northern areas, and will tend to fall in severe downpours, leading to more widespread flooding. Meanwhile, the South — and especially the Southwest — will become drier. That’s alarming because the Southwest and Southeast, where populations are growing faster than in any other U.S. region, are already struggling with drought.

Heat Index. Get used to sweating. Under a business-as-usual course, by the end of the century, Washington, D.C., could average as many as 90 to 100 days a year above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, up from around 30 to 40 days now. Southern Florida and southern Texas could see more than 160 days a year above 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

Polar Thaw. Climate change is being felt first in the Arctic regions, which explains why Alaska is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the country, and could warm by as much as 13 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 50 years. That will melt sea ice and severely affect already endangered species like the polar bear and the walrus. And warming could ruin the state’s valuable fisheries — as sea temperatures warm, the habitat for cold-water fish like salmon and trout could all but disappear in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Northeastern Exposure. Warming will make skiing, ice-skating and snowmobiling pastimes of the past in many areas of the Northeast, decimating the multibillion-dollar winter-sports industry. The center of maple-syrup production will shift from New England to Canada, and production of apples and other produce that depend on cooler winters will decline.

Early Deaths. All those heat waves will take a serious toll on human health, with a significant increase in deaths due to high temperatures. The poor and the young will be most vulnerable.

The list is out there…..now we must watch to see who is right in the climate debate.

Emissions Trading: The Con

For a week or more I have been seeing an ad on the tube urging me to urge my Congressional team to support and pass the Waxman-Markey Bill.  At first I was not sure what it was but I did a little research and found my answer.  It is the new climate change bill.

The new Climate Change Bill is working its way through the Congress at its usual slow pace, but is it the answer to the problem?

The bill would require polluters to obtain “allowances” — permits allowing them to emit a given amount of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide or methane.  This bill would put a price on them.

To satisfy Democrats from states with coal mines or heavy industry that would be hit hard, committee leaders dropped their target for emissions reductions by 2020, from 20 percent to 17 percent. And they agreed that, instead of all credits being sold to the highest bidder, 85 percent would be given away.

The Green Party has responded to the proposal:

Greens have criticized emissions trading (‘cap and trade’), calling it a concession to polluting industries that will impede efforts to curb global warming. In many instances, emissions trading encourages greenhouse gas emissions, since companies with low pollution will be able to sell their conservation credits to the highest bidders, giving major polluters a license to maintain or increase pollution levels. Party leaders called emissions trading schemes like the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” a capitulation to polluting industries.

“Democratic leaders in the US House are planning to give away 85% of the greenhouse gas emission credits. Giveaways bypass the trading and auction strategies that cap and trade advocates have promoted as a free market solution. Such allowances are a signal that Congress is more willing to satisfy industry demands and ‘grandfather’ polluters than to demand the necessary extensive reductions,” said Tony Gronowicz, political historian and 2005 New York City Green Party mayoral candidate.

The whole idea of the cap and trade was to make those pay for the emissions they produce that in turn are damaging the planet.  Looks like that will be just another pipedream of actually doing something constructive to protect the planet.

2009 Anal-Ocity

Is it just me or does Texas have some of the dumbest SOBs in the country.  And most of them are elected–not saying too much good about Texas voters huh?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is concerned about the plight of marathon runners under a cap-and-trade plan.  Anal is as anal does!

Barton says the average healthy adult exhales between four-tenths of a ton and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.

“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”

One indication that the EPA likely would consider 20,000 runners a single source of pollution is that the agency is trying to regulate waste-water runoff and emissions of drilling rigs in oil fields by attempting to define entire areas as a single source of pollution, Barton says.

Repubs cannot move past the whole politics of fear thing.  Just sad and pathetic.

Is The Environment As Important As They Say?

With the win of Obama last November I have heard many in the environmental movement say that a better day was coming for the planet and for programs to save us from ourselves.  I pray all are correct…but so far I have not seen that change that was coming.
In his budget, Obama included a serious proposal for a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. While a cap-and-trade system at best can only slow the rate of increase, it can be one important part of a more broadly-based climate change program. This is one of the proposals expected to have the most difficulty passing Congress this year. As a kicker, however, the Environmental Protection Agency has finally declared that global warming is a hazard to human health and welfare and that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity should be regulated. Even if the cap-and-trade system doesn’t pass Congress, the EPA can play a crucial role in starting to tackle climate challenges. (In one of the more ridiculous examples of Bush White House bumbling, the White House dealt with an earlier EPA report on carbon, which had been ordered by the Supreme Court, by refusing to open the e-mail to which the report was attached!). It will be possible for the EPA to take a larger role on these issues due in part to a large increase in its budget, another policy Obama deserves major credit for.

The commitment to “clean coal,” something which we should indeed put money into researching but which for the present is just an illusion. His administration also leans too much toward the development of more nuclear power plants, even though there is no realistic plan to deal with nuclear waste, not to mention the potential for accidents (like the Japanese nuclear reactor which was damaged in an earthquake recently), and not to mention the health risks for miners and their families and communities who dig up and process the uranium.
We also need to be mindful that ice at the poles is melting faster than the worst predictions of a few years ago, carbon dioxide emissions worldwide are still increasing, and that no president or administration by itself can accomplish what needs to be done. The environmental movement and organizations, in alliance with labor, civil rights, and other mass movements, need to apply pressure on Congress, including on many Democrats, to get with the program, to seriously tackle the life-threatening nature of the environmental challenges that face the whole world. The Obama administration does not act in a vacuum, it acts based in part on public understanding, public pressure, international pressure, and the necessity of saving humanity.

The Dems have the power to make a difference in climate change–will they do the right thing or the most profitable thing?

Could There Be A Greenhouse Gases Plan?

In a landmark move that countered eight years of inaction by the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency determined yesterday that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare because they contribute to climate change.

The ruling set the stage for the agency to regulate emissions from a spectrum of sources, including automobiles, ships, airplanes, power plants, oil refineries, steel mills, and more.

The finding, which includes carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, is subject to a period of public comment, after which the agency has no timetable and broad leeway in how to proceed.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse-gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday.

Sen. James Inhofe (R, Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading skeptic on global warming, said the decision would “unleash a torrent of regulations that will destroy jobs, harm consumers, and extend the agency’s reach into every corner of American life.”

The EPA’s analysis also found that climate change has “serious national-security implications” because of the potential for political and social upheaval related to food shortages, environmental refugees, and clashes over fuel, water, and other resources.

The Obama Admin has made a first step…..will they keep walking or is it just that …one lone step?

Obama’s Cap And Trade

As a candidate, Barack Obama said he’d tackle climate change by imposing caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Now, as President, he’s doing exactly that. He proposes reducing U.S. emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below by 2050. And he’d raise $646 billion from 2012 to 2019 by auctioning the rights to emit such gases—in effect putting a price on carbon emissions. With Congress also serious about the climate, business knows the battle has been joined for real and is trying to shape a compromise bill likely to emerge this year. “We are now playing with live bullets,” says the Environmental Defense Fund’s Mark Brownstein, who works with a group of companies that supports the plan.

In theory, a workable cap-and-trade market for carbon emissions would give business executives more certainty about future energy costs, helping them make better investment decisions. A market price on carbon would boost energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts, already beneficiaries in Obama’s stimulus package. Nuclear power plants, such as Exelon’s, would become more valuable. “I have great hope for the ‘green’ stimulus, but it won’t fulfill its potential unless there is a price on carbon,” says James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy.  Also, there’s little chance of getting China and India to agree to binding limits, which American companies insist is needed to keep the international playing field level, unless the U.S. takes action at home.

The real fight, therefore, is not whether to impose carbon limits but how to do so and at what cost to business. Obama proposes that companies buy an allowance, or permit, for each ton of carbon emitted, at an estimated cost, to start, of $13 to $20 per ton. (Those permits could also be bought and sold.) Even at the lower range of $13 per ton, energy companies and utilities would likely pass along the added cost to consumers. It’s estimated the price of gasoline would go up by 12 cents a gallon and the average electricity bill by about 7% nationally—and far higher in states more dependent on coal. Unfair, say many executives. “It is a clear transfer of the middle part of the country’s wealth to the two coasts,” says Michael G. Morris, CEO of American Electric Power, a coal-heavy power generator based in Columbus, Ohio, that supplies electricity in 11 states.

The Obama team points out that its cap-and-trade plan returns much of the money raised by permit sales to consumers nationwide in the form of lower taxes, so many people come out ahead. And the Environmental Defense Fund has created a map of 1,200 alternative energy or energy-efficiency companies in key manufacturing states that stand to benefit from the climate plan. While the Midwest will bear a higher cost from reducing carbon emissions, the region will also benefit from the most new jobs, the EDF argues

New Budget–The Winners

President Barack Obama’s first budget is his clearest opportunity to date to put U.S. money where his mouth is by establishing priorities for his new administration.

The big winners in the new budget are:

* THE BANKING INDUSTRY. The budget sets aside $250 billion as a “placeholder” if Obama decides to ask Congress for more money to help the troubled U.S. financial system. Officials said such a decision has yet to be made.

* CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY. The budget includes billions of dollars in revenues, starting in 2012 and lasting many years, from a greenhouse gas emissions trading system, one of Obama’s key proposals to fight global warming.

* HEALTHCARE OVERHAUL. The budget includes a 10-year, $634-billion reserve fund to help pay for the president’s proposed healthcare reforms.

* PUBLIC WORKS. Officials are trying to jolt the faltering economy in the face of 14 months of recession with public-works spending.

* MIDDLE CLASS. Tax cuts would benefit the U.S. middle class.

Now The Bad News

Climate change is “largely irreversible” for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study’s authors said there was “no going back” after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are “largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped.”

The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.

The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to “lock in” a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years.

Rising sea levels would cause “irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged,” the study said.

Decreases in rainfall that last for centuries can be expected to have a range of impacts, said the authors. Regional impacts include — but are not limited to — decreased human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts.

2009 To Be Warmest On Record

Next year is set to be one of the top-five warmest on record, British climate

scientists said on Tuesday.

The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina.

That would make it the warmest year since 2005, according to researchers at the Met Office, who say there is also a growing probability of record temperatures after next year.

Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius – well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.

Warm weather

that year was strongly influenced by El Nino, an abnormal warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific.

Theories abound as to what triggers the mechanisms that cause an El Nino or La Nina event but scientists agree that they are playing an increasingly important role in global weather patterns.

The strength of the prevailing trade winds that blow from east to west across the equatorial Pacific is thought to be an important factor.

“Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Nino develops,” said Professor Chris Folland at the Met Office Hadley Center. “Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface.

For Voters On Environmental Issues

Just as a soldier needs to be well armed to enter into combat, a voter needs all the ammo available to be well armed with knowledge.

Climate Change

We face economic, humanitarian and environmental crises from unchecked global climate change, including the loss of important water sources that help quench the needs of our industry, agriculture and homes. Our coastal cities will also be threatened by rising sea levels, and the frequency and severity of storms are predicted to increase.

Solution: We need to pass a comprehensive bill on climate change to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as the world’s leading scientists of the IPCC have prescribed.

Obama’s Plan: Obama supported legislation to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and has a plan to achieve that through a market-based cap-and-trade system.

McCain’s Plan: McCain co-sponsored the first bill in the Senate calling for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, in 2003. He supports action on climate change, but his proposals fall far short of what is recommended by scientists. His plan only calls for a 60 percent drop below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Coal

Half of Americans get their energy from coal, but it is the dirtiest of our energy sources, and the extraction, cleaning and burning of it has caused major environmental and health problems.

Solution: We need to end our use of coal and instead use cleaner, renewable sources of energy. We should not be supporting “clean coal” technology or coal-to-liquids fuels because these do nothing to address the destructive practices of coal extraction, including mountaintop removal mining.

Obama’s Plan: Obama has proposed investing $150 billion over 10 years in renewables, but this includes so-called “clean coal” technology. He also was the co-sponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, which he later “clarified,” saying he would only support liquefying coal if it emitted 20 percent less carbon than conventional fuels.

McCain’s Plan: McCain is also a supporter of “clean coal” technologies and wants to spend $2 billion annually investing in it. He has said he wants to “find a way to use our coal resources without emitting excessive greenhouse gases.”

Renewable Energy

As we face dwindling supplies and increasing environmental harm from fossil fuels like oil and coal, not enough attention and resources are being directed toward developing and implementing renewable energy projects.

Soluiton: Cut our dependence on energy sources that cause carbon emissions and instead focus our resources on clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

Obama’s Plan: Obama’s plan would double federal research money for renewable energy, would aim to get 25 percent of our electricity from clean sources by 2025 and would create a clean technology venture capital fund. Obama supported renewables in the Senate, making it back for a key vote (that McCain failed to vote on) during the primary campaign.

McCain’s Plan: In both 1994 and 1999, McCain voted against more money for renewable energy, including solar. In 2005 he voted against legislation that would have required utilities to get 10 percent of their power from renewable sources. In 2007 he missed every vote on renewable energy. He is against subsidies for wind and solar energy, although he is in favor of subsidies for nuclear power.

Biofuels

With the price of gas rising, many people are looking to biofuels, such as ethanol, as a replacement. But growing food for fuel has caused the price of commodities like corn to rise and has increased the use of water and pesticides, causing more environmental harm.

Solution: Explore the development of fuels that are created from waste products and other nonfood items.

Obama’s Plan: Obama’s plan calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the United States each year by 2022 and 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the country each year by 2030.

McCain’s Plan: McCain used to be against ethanol but is now in favor of it, although he is not in favor of government subsidies for it. He also favors the development of “second generation” fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which wouldn’t compete with food crops.

Fuel Efficiency and Home “Greening”

While there is an increasing recognition that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy, there has been little talk about how much money we can save and how much emissions we can cut by increasing efficiency.

Solution: _Raise energy efficiency and fuel efficiency standards and help people save money by saving energy and lowering their carbon footprints.

Obama’s Plan: Obama’s plan has a goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent in the next 10 years and providing energy incentives for conservation. He voted yes on comprehensive energy legislation that included raising automobile fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020.

McCain’s Plan: McCain has repeatedly voted against raising efficiency standards and still opposes setting a specific target for an increase in fuel efficiency standards. McCain didn’t show up when the Senate voted and approved comprehensive energy legislation that set a deadline to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020.

Water

We face a water crisis from global warming, pollution, scarcity and privatization. In the next 10 years, 36 U.S. states will be facing water scarcity. Municipalities are strapped for money to maintain and repair aging infrastructure as funding from the federal government has fallen 66 percent since 1991. This has opened the door for the privatization of public water sources, causing rates to rise and services to diminish.

Solution: We need full funding from the federal government to protect and clean up water sources, stop the privatization of municipal water, and ensure adequate funding of our water infrastructure.

Obama’s Plan: Obama voted for on an amendment that would include $900 million for flood management and pollution caused by runoff from roads. Obama supports full funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which helps states keep their water clean and safe.

McCain’s Plan: While in Congress, McCain cast 10 votes against clean water, which also were against drinking water protection and enforcement, controlling microbes in water, and money for water pollution control. He supported delaying funds for leaking underground storage tanks and allowing municipalities to set their own standards for toxic waste.

Oil Drilling

As Democrats and Republicans talk about solutions to rising gas prices and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, there has been renewed interest in offshore oil drilling and drilling in ecologically pristine areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Solution: New offshore permits and drilling in ANWR should be taken off the table, as they would do nothing to ease the strain of drivers struggling with rising prices.

Obama’s Plan: In 2006, Obama rejected efforts to open up 8 million acres off the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana for oil and gas drilling. He has also been against drilling in ANWR. However, this summer he said he would reconsider lifting the ban on offshore drilling if it were part of a larger energy bill.

McCain’s Plan: McCain has recently come out in favor of new offshore drilling permits. He does not support opening up ANWR to drilling — but his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does.

Air

Coal-burning power plants, vehicle emissions and other pollutants threaten air quality and health.

Solution: We need to phase out coal plants and strengthen the Clean Air Act to make sure corporations are accountable to the communities where they operate.

Obama’s Plan: In the Senate, Obama helped to stop Bush’s rollbacks on the Clean Air Act, which would have increased industrial emissions of mercury and sulfur. And he fought a Bush administration rule that would have delayed meaningful reductions in mercury emissions from power plants for 20 more years.

McCain’s Plan: McCain voted to squash an amendment that was intended to reinstate the mandate to control toxic emissions from motor vehicles. He also voted yes on the Nickles-Heflin amendment, which would handcuff the EPA’s ability to enforce all Clean Air Act requirements and limit citizen suits.

Nuclear Energy

As awareness about global warming has increased, the nuclear industry is trying to rebrand nuclear power as a clean, renewable source of energy.

Solution: Nuclear power is not a clean or safe form of energy and should not be given government subsidies.

Obama’s Plan: Obama has said that he supports nuclear power if it is clean and safe, but he has not defined what it would take to make nuclear power and its waste clean and safe. He is against the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and has not specifically called for building any nuclear power plants.

McCain’s Plan: McCain is in favor of nuclear power as an energy source for the United States, and his plan calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants in the country by 2030. He would use money raised from auctioning emissions permits for his global warming plan to spend on R&D for nuclear power. He is in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca

Green Jobs

The economy is tanking and global warming emissions continue to rise despite warnings from leading scientists about the threats of climate change. A green jobs program could help tackle both of these problems at once, but action needs to come from the federal government to jump-start it.

Solution: We need a federal initiative that would invest $100 billion over the next two years to help create 2 million new jobs in clean energy products and services. Such a program would provide good-paying jobs for middle-class Americans, help lift people out of poverty, help increase energy efficiency and reduce global warming emissions.

Obama’s Plan: Obama would use revenue from auctioning emissions permits from his global warming plan to help develop cleaner energy sources, create green jobs and help lower-income people pay for their energy bills. He also seeks to create a Clean Energy Jobs Corps and Green Job Corps for disadvantaged youth. His plan would create 5 million new green jobs.

McCain’s Plan: McCain has said he is interested in “building the infrastructure for a non-carbon energy future.” However, he missed a key vote in the Senate that would have provided around $5 billion for renewable energy, energy efficiency and green jobs.