Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Climate Bill Limps Forward
A draft version of a Senate bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions is unveiled today.
By Kevin Bullis
A draft of the Senate's version of a climate bill has been released. The official version is scheduled to be unveiled officially today in the Senate.
The move comes on the heels of President Obama's speech to the United Nations in which he called for action on climate change. A House climate bill passed back in May, but since then climate change has taken a back seat to health care reform. There's been some concern that no climate change legislation will be passed before a meeting in Copenhagen this December where world leaders are supposed to work out a new climate change treaty. With no law in hand, U.S. negotiators may find it hard to sell other countries on strict emissions reductions.
The draft bill tightens emissions caps somewhat compared to the House bill, calling for a 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, rather than a 17 percent reduction. It also contains sections devoted to reducing emissions specifically from transportation sources, as well as incentives for emissions reducing technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear power plants, and renewable energy.
But much work remains before the bill can become law. For example, some parts of the bill have only placeholder language, awaiting action from committees. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reportedly said that the bill is on track to be passed by the Senate before the Copenhagen meeting. That's not to say it will become law by then, of course, as it will still have to be reconciled with the House Bill.
Comments
kstauff
09/30/2009
Posts:96
The US "lost" 4,300+ dead soldiers; "lost" an estimated 100,000 wounded, 30,000 severely, as in brain damage and amputated limbs; "lost" a trillion dollars up front, with a couple trillion more in likely follow-on losses; traded (ie "lost") a prostrate and helpless secular Iraq for a momentarily-coerced-into-acquiescience, Shia-dominated, Iran-friendly Iraq, where upcoming elections will bring to power a decidedly anti-American theocratic-inclined coalition government -- with Muqtada al Sadr prominent -- which will tell the US to "Get the fuck out! Now! Every last one of you!"
All of these losses plus no oil, no bases, and a nascent unified, nuclear, super rich, Iraq-allied-with-Iran regional super state.
"Mission Accomplished" indeed!
This is victory? Only to a right-wing, Bush partisan, surge-believing, neo-conned Kool-aid guzzler.
Bush/Cheney engineered a comprehensive and catastrophic defeat in Iraq. Get over it. Bin Laden has won. Painful to hear? Too damn bad. Get over that, as well.
jrd1415
10/03/2009
Posts:2
kstauff
10/05/2009
Posts:96
RD
10/01/2009
Posts:114
Dirty air is a policy matter they'll need to address themselves. The Kyoto Agreement won't do squat to chnage that. Only when a coupl ebillion chinese citizens come down with all sorts of nasty ailments, will they begin to change their pollution practices.
The problem is that these same western thinkers didn't take into account that the Chinese are very patient and have been around the block a few more times than us kiddie countries, so undermining the true power base in China may not be achieved for at least two or three more decades. At least their population has tasted some freedom and would vote against a war if they do have any say in the matter. As for the sickness they're emersed in - they have a big population, so what's a few cancer stricken individuals when you have 2 billion replacement parts?
mkogrady
10/02/2009
Posts:206
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming. There are thousands.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
RD
10/01/2009
Posts:114
cheers
snedunuri
10/03/2009
Posts:30
cheers ;)
kstauff
10/05/2009
Posts:96