Thread: Global warming argument heats up again

Global warming argument heats up again

By Dina Cappiello May 12, 2011 12:17 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) – An expert panel asked by Congress to recommend ways to deal with global warming said Thursday that the U.S. should not wait to reduce the pollution responsible and any efforts to delay action would be shortsighted.

But that's exactly what Republicans and some Democrats in Congress are trying to do.

With a majority in the House and many freshman lawmakers skeptical of the science behind climate change, Republicans are pushing measures to block the federal government from controlling greenhouse gases.

The House passed a bill to do that last month. An identical measure failed to get enough votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but a majority there did support reining in the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to reduce heat-trapping pollution.

The report released Thursday from a 22-member panel assembled by the National Research Council strongly suggests that the U.S. should be heading in a different direction. But it also recognizes that some strategies may be politically infeasible.

"We know enough, know that acting sooner is better than acting later, and that uncertainty is a reason for acting rather than not acting," said Albert Carnesale, the chairman of the committee, which included scientists, economists, former politicians and business leaders.

"Politics are different now, and they will change over time," said Carnesale, an engineer and chancellor emeritus at the University at California Los Angeles. The recommendations the panel is making, he said, will be relevant years down the road.

The report is the last in a series requested by Congress in 2008, when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. It offers a stern warning about the risks of global warming and irrefutably affirms what it says is a preponderance of scientific evidence showing that pollution from the burning of fossil fuels is to blame.

With every ton of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, the panel says, the U.S. is putting itself more at risk and increasing how much it will cost to reduce pollution later.

The best and most economical way to address global warming, the panel concludes, is to put a price on carbon pollution through a tax or a market-based system. The Democratic-led House, with the support of President Barack Obama, passed a bill nearly two years ago that would have set up a market for greenhouse gas emissions. It died in the Senate amid concerns that it would raise energy prices and a Republican campaign calling it "cap-and-tax."

Obama said after the election last year that he would seek other ways to combat global warming, since the new House majority would not support his preferred approach.

The panel Thursday said the second-best ways to reduce pollution would be to expand efforts at the local, state and regional levels, such as laws requiring a certain percentage of electricity to come from clean-burning sources. It also suggested that the federal government adopt standards under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's use of that law is what Republicans in Congress are attacking.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who drafted the bill that passed the House in 2009, said the committee's conclusions should be a wake-up call.

"Republicans in the House should be ashamed of their votes denying climate change and handcuffing the Environmental Protection Agency," Waxman said. "If we wait to act, it may be too late to save the planet from irreversible changes."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who attempted to get a similar bill through the Senate, said Thursday that he didn't know what additional proof was needed to prompt action on global warming.

"They should use these scientific findings as more than kindling in the bonfire of partisanship that's stood in the way," Kerry said.

But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of Congress' most vocal skeptics of the science behind global warming and the sponsor of a Senate bill to bar EPA from reducing greenhouse gases, seemed undeterred by the panel's findings.

"What is clear and irrefutable is that the NRC's proposals to address climate change would impose massive costs without meaningful benefits," Inhofe said, referring to the fact that U.S. action alone would do little to help reduce the Earth's rising temperature. The panel recognized the global nature of the problem, but focused on the task assigned to it by Congress — what the U.S. response should be.

Advocates pressing for action and dismayed at the course Congress it taking said Thursday they hoped lawmakers heeded the report's message.

"House leaders can choose to ignore this advice and side with polluters over the public's health if they like," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "But they can't hide behind a veil of scientific uncertainty if they continue to take this dangerous course."

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/05/12/g ... -up-again/

We need to look at solar power instead of further drilling for oil, corn ethanol (which would raise the cost of food) or electricity for cars (the price would only go up for regular electric use and it pollutes also). Of course, solar power wouldn't benefit the wealthy tycoons financially once the machines were done being created and in use, unlike the need to refuel oil, electric or corn ethanol, hence the automakers not pushing solar ahead of all other types of car engines-gee, what a surprise.

Deport the illegals and their anchors. We would save more energy than you can imagine!

Mayday: absolutely!!

It is good and right for scientists to warn us of any impending doom. I have no doubt that the Earth is generally getting warmer; has been for a long time. Will progressive policies slow it down?


Just heard yesterday that the rate of sea level rise (which has been going on for thousands of years, from where the continental shelf exists) has been slowing, according to the University of Colorado. We are now down to 3 millimeters per year on average. In one hundred years that will be less than one foot.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/se ... st-century
We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data. The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

Originally Posted by sacredrage

We need to look at solar power instead of further drilling for oil, corn ethanol (which would raise the cost of food) or electricity for cars (the price would only go up for regular electric use and it pollutes also). Of course, solar power wouldn't benefit the wealthy tycoons financially once the machines were done being created and in use, unlike the need to refuel oil, electric or corn ethanol, hence the automakers not pushing solar ahead of all other types of car engines-gee, what a surprise.

If the EPA would allow it ( and also states with very high standards, such as California) we could have high mpg vehicles running on diesel-biodiesel blends. The high mpg would make a limited reliance on biodiesel fuels realistic----and people like Senator Chuck Grassley advocate this sort of thing. The high fuel economy would be a lot easier on people's pocketbooks. Instead of spending $200-300/mo for fuel, how about fifty bucks? Ford Motor Co already has the technology to do it. Ford Fiesta sold in Europe gets 65 mpg in non-hybrid mode. Ford will produce plug in hybrids in the US, but unfortunately because of the EPA, no 65 or 90 mpg vehicles here.

Ford’s ECOnetic Fiesta Gets 65 MPG. You Can’t Have One.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/02/ford-will-give/
* By Ben Mack Email Author
* February 10, 2009 |

The ECOnetic Fiesta that Ford sells in Europe is a sporty little five-passenger hatchback that gets 65 mpg and emits less CO2 than a Toyota Prius. It is the greenest family car sold in Britain and just the thing to boost Ford’s sales – and image – at home. But Ford has no plans to bring it to America for one simple, stupid, reason.

It’s a diesel.

The Fiesta sports a 1.6-liter turbocharged engine with direct injection. It produces just 88 horsepower, so acceleration is, shall we say, relaxed, but European customers don’t seem to mind. They’ve snapped up more than 42,000 of them since the car’s debut last fall.

But we can only look on with envy.

Diesels are huge in Europe, where they comprise about half of all cars sold. They’re slowly catching on in America as European automakers like Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz bring them here and the IRS offers tax credits to make them more attractive. Even Japanese automakers plan to roll them out in America. But the Big Three – which make and sell diesels in Europe – have shown little interest in offering them here because they don’t think it’s economically viable. They don’t see people buying them, so they can’t see making money on them.

"We don’t have a full scale energy policy in place in the U.S. that promotes the usage of diesel fuel," Ford spokesman Said Deep told Wired.com. "So, we will bring the Fiesta to America in the most affordable manner."

The US-bound Fiesta will arrive in 2010 with a 1.6-liter four-cylinder gas-burning engine with fuel economy in the high 30s. Nice, but less than half what the diesel gets. It’s hard to stomach considering the ECOnetic has exploded on the EU market like a pinata full of pesos. Aside from the stellar sales figures, the car – which starts at less than $13,000 – has been lauded with awards from the likes of What Car? and CleanGreenCar.com. The Sun predicts it will be Britain’s best-selling car this year.

J.D. Power and Associates predict that diesel sales will account for as much as 14 percent of the
U.S. auto market by 2017. European automakers Mercedes-Benz and VW are leading the way with cars like the E320 Bluetec and the Jetta TDI, which was named Green Car of the Year by Green Car Journal. BMW may bring a diesel Mini to America in 2010. It helps that this new generation of clean diesel cars is eligible for a federal tax credit of $900 to $1,800.

Yet most Americans still associate diesels with 18-wheelers and buses, and taxes can make diesel as much as a dollar more a gallon than gasoline. Detroit is also committed to electric vehicles partly because American consumers don’t find diesel as sexy as hybrid or electric vehicle technology, even if diesels can deliver the same fuel economy at much lower cost.

"We have to change the perception of diesel in America and make sure it is not left out," said Jeffrey Breneman, Executive Director of the U.S.
Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars. "It’s here today, not tomorrow."

Photo: Ford.