By Craig moore on 05-23-10
According to Pew, here are the public’s priorities: http://people-press.org/report/615/
Lawmakers would do well to keep those priorities in mind and weigh the value of special interest legislation.
Then there is this: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Examiner-Editorial-Kerry-Lieberman-energy-bill-is-a-bad-joke-93852494.html
=================
Using the MAGICC/SCENGEN climate model originally developed for the Environmental Protection Agency and assuming no other nation adopts the same measure, climate researcher Paul Knappenberger found that Kerry-Lieberman would reduce the average global temperature 0.077 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, compared to what it would be if the bill were not adopted. That is one-fifth of one degree, which, as Knappenberger notes on the MasterResource blog, is a “scientifically meaningless reduction.”
One problem for Kerry-Lieberman is that China, India and the rest of the developing world show no inclination to join the U.S. to achieve carbon emissions reductions of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below by 2030, and 83 percent below by 2050. If anything, China is headed rapidly in the opposite direction, building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants in recent years and generating two-thirds of its electricity from the most emissions-intense fuel..
===================
Look to who benefits from this legislative fiasco and you will find their motivations.
By Craig moore on 05-23-10
Also see: http://ht.ly/1OD7O George Wuerthner writes about the bill:
===============
...among other goodies for industry, a clause that legally defines biomass incineration as “carbon-neutral” and “renewable.” Biomass includes field stubble, sewage, construction waste, municipal garage, and other sources, but the largest source for commercial biomass electrical generation plants is wood.
While I cannot comment on the merits of the bill overall, the provisions that would allow wood biomass energy to be labeled as renewable and carbon neutral poses a real threat to our forest ecosystem, human health, and global planetary climate. Already in Europe two thirds of the “renewable” energy portfolio comes from wood biomass—and increasingly that wood is being imported from even outside of Europe including the US and South America.
This legislation will only increase the demand for wood biomass consumption. Far more dangerous is the legislation helps to promote the widespread perception that burning woody biomass is somehow “green” energy. Since many government entities from local cities to states now require renewable energy as part of their energy portfolios, defining wood energy as a renewable energy creates a direct economic windfall profit for the timber industry.
Worse, the use of woody biomass burning to meet renewable portfolio “clean energy” mandates is a fraud perpetuated on unsuspecting consumers, many of whom believe when they are paying for “renewable” electricity they are supporting the development of clean and truly renewable sources like wind and solar energy. Instead, millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being poured into incinerators and subsidies for the cutting of forests to provide biomass energy that could be better spent on energy conservation.
===================
It’s hard to imagine how anyone serious about the environment and climate would get behind this bill.
By fcb on 05-24-10
Scientists, and especially solar scientists, are becoming assertiveagainst the AGW fraud.
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the Roman Warm Period, around the time of Christ, was warmer still.
Too often we witness climate alarmism being promoted by the media while solid science is ignored, misrepresented, or downplayed.
This makes great fodder for scary movies, scary news articles, and scary documentaries, but it is still bad science.
.
By WHJFV on 05-24-10
Hey Craig, your comments make no sense and your sources are suspect, at best. C’mon, the SF Examiner!!
That being said, I’ll address the first comment, according to pew, 3 of the top five interests, including #1 and 2, are included in such legislation. It appears that public interest is right in line, hence the need for comprehensive action…. ‘nuff said.
Have you seen the National Academy of Sciences’ latest findings on Climate Change, which was released last Wed.? Not much to dispute there…..
Big oil knows it’s up against its toughest challenge with such legislation, and has continued to spin everything that comes its way in order to keep folks like, well yourself, from being able to understand the severity of the situation…....If you’re a big oil supporter, there’s not much else I can say.
In meetings with Senators, it was clear that such legislation is crucial, however the details still have to be worked out. Wrapping this issue up in partisan politics and rhetorical spins remains the only agenda of BIG OIL, and is one of the major reasons such legislation continually gets ‘framed’ negatively in order to keep the pessimists fueled.
Remember, we didn’t leave the stone age because we ran out of stones…........
By WHJFV on 05-24-10
Great work Montana Business Leaders for Clean Energy! At least someone is trying to make a difference rather than quarterbacking the issue from behind a computer screen! Keep on fighting the good fight!
By Craig moore on 05-24-10
WHJFV, instead of prevarications how about you demonstrate with stated confidence factors just what the climate bill will do for climate. What will climate look like after this bill? Provide proof. By the way the source was not the SF Examiner. A careful reader would have discerned that.
Regarding the Pew report it states: “Only about a third (32%) says it is very important for Congress to address climate change in the coming months, including 47% of Democrats, 29% of independents and 17% of Republicans. This is consistent with earlier Pew Research surveys that show the public putting a relatively low priority on addressing climate change.” Did you fail to read it?????
By Craig moore on 05-24-10
Also, WHJFV, have you heard of Dr. James Hansen? He wrote an editorial in the NYT trashing the kind of scheme, you praise, in this so called “climate bill.” See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
He writes:
“AT the international climate talks in Copenhagen, President Obama is expected to announce that the United States wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to about 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But at the heart of his plan is cap and trade, a market-based approach that has been widely praised but does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It merely allows polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars. “
Symbolically “trying to make a difference” doesn’t make it so.
By WHJFV on 05-25-10
Craig, I know it’s very easy to pull opinion pieces off the internet, from numerous ‘news’ sources all over the country and post them as “proof” on issues, but what good does that do. It shows that person has lots of time on their hands to surf the internet and throw certain keywords into Google, and that may make that person feel well informed and educated. Yet, still not impressed my friend.
When hearing one of the most brilliant minds in the world, in person, Steven Chu, the United States’ Energy Secretary, insist that carbon emissions MUST be lowered through a “capping” process, that’s all I need to understand that that’s what has to happen.
What comes after, whether it be trade, or tax, or dividend, or what have you, the crucial action is that of lessening the amount of CO2 emitted into our atmosphere. That’s not political, that’s not left- or right-, that’s not blue or red, that’s pure science; undeniable science!
The partisan approach to this problem is exactly what I’ve read above. Frame the issue with keywords such as “regimes” and “Scams” and “fiascos”. The biggest mistake that can be made in regards to this issue, is simply to do nothing!
By the way, it looks as though your comments and stats and quotes are getting a lot of thumbs down…..... With this I graciously bow out of this conversation. Best wishes, and again, good work to all those who traveled to DC because they actually care about the place they call home!
By Craig moore on 05-25-10
WHJFV, I don’t care whether you are impressed or not. This isn’t personal, it’s about the issue:
—Will this bill do anything to change climate—
Dr. James Hansen of NASA says no. Dr. Hansen also supports attention to carbon reduction but he says this bill is garbage. Paul Knappenberger says “no” and provides a number.
YOU have nothing. You continue to duck, dodge, deflect, and prevaricate. Don’t be so Pollyannish to embrace symbolism without substance.
By hammer on 05-26-10
WHJFV, go get in your car, go on a trip and burn some gas.
By reborn on 05-26-10
great article Dan, as usual. well balance and thoughtful. great to see that Montana business are taking the lead in moving us toward the clean energy economy we need. Too bad that our electric co-ops are trying to hold us back. Pass clean energy and climate change legislation this year!!
By Yudamni on 05-26-10
To hell with clean and green! I want warmer days and winters!
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.