History making legislation on regulating C02 to curb climate change could pass the house this week, but not everyone will be happy.
Last month, in an interview, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was asked:
Are you saying the US should agree to cut emissions by 30%, as the EU is proposing to do, if other industrialised countries come on board?
Pachauri’s response: "I think at least 20%, because that is what the EU has already committed. They should do that now. Whether the EU would move to 30%, I don’t know. That remains to be seen. What Japan or Australia does is also important. But it seems to me that it is reasonable to accept that the US should at least go down to 20% by 2020."
However, the bill that might get passed by congress this week will include a compromised reduction of only 17% by 2020. If the bill passes, it will face a tougher fight in the senate.
According to a Time.CNN report today:
With the greenest lawmakers in charge and the President cheering them on, the prospects of sweeping controls on greehouse gases seemed rosey. After a month of fighting among themselves, however, House Democrats announced an agreement on Thursday that reflects more about the legislative process than the need to stop the planet from heating up. The annuoncement indicates that sponsors have enough democratic votes to push a bill past its first legislative hurdle, the house Energy and Commerce Committee, as early as next week. But the patchwork of concessions necessary to win over champions of industrial and regional interests weakened the initiative, leaving it far short of the global warming gas reductions that scientists insist are necessary to stave off catastrophic climate change.
***
The circle-the-wagons action by congress, to protect disproportionate manufacturing states, that use more coal and electricity, is blamed for the reduction concession. Even while some of these states are experiencing major droughts and increased wildfires, blamed on climate change, the representatives of these states seem to focus only on their back yards, without the ability to see the global issue.
"This bill marks the dawn of the clean energy age," said Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in a statement. "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revive our economy and create millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.”
But Greenpeace USA represented several environmental groups with this statement:
“Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet,” Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford said in a statement. “While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure."
The election of President Obama, after his campaign promises on energy legislation that would create 5 million new jobs, sent the message to the International community that the United States is once again engaged in a “clear commitment” to climate change legislation.
If President Obama can’t get a strong climate bill passed and implemented, it will be a lot harder for the United States to be seen in a serious leadership role at the Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December, 2009, which is meeting for the sole purpose of ironing out an agreement to replace the Kyoto protocal, set to expire in 2012
Meanwhile, the melting of polar ice caps will continue. Climate change and global warming are not interchangeable words. The words “climate change” describe the events that are caused by “global warming”, with evidentual events happening all around the world, from dying coral reefs, devasting droughts, floods, and melting snow packs; to animal migration. These events are happening in real time, not 50 years from now. Climate change will continue and it will get worse, according to scientists, and all the squabbling and hand-wringing over tough solutions by politicians, will not stem the tide.
Only immediate and urgent action will put us on the path to reversing the environmental damage that continues to plague our planet.
Reuters breakdown of the permit allocation
Comments
Jean should read the latest SCIENTIFIC report out of Antarctica. The researchers there have confirmed the aggregate ice pack there has been growing since 1970. Since 90% of the world's ice is there -- you've got nothing to worry about, Jean.
I swear this man-made GW nonsense is the nuttiest scam I have ever seen, and there is no question who is behind it -- global corporate elite who want to use this issue to spur on the one-world UN-mandated government.
Jean, wake up and smell the manipulation. Research the real science and you will understand that you've been had.
People are dieing from global warming alarmism now. Biofuel mandates are causing people to starve around the world. Kind of reminds one of the DDT ban that ending up killing 40 million people from malaria, mostly children.
Why do liberal environmentalists always end up hurting more people than they help. What's worse, in this case it's to cure a non-problem. Anyone wanting to learn the truth should follow these links:
hootervillegazette (dot) com/LordMonckton.html
joannenova (dot)com (dot) au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-1.pdf
Brook,
If she believes in anthropogenic global warming it's proof Jean hasn't done one bit of research on her own, but instead relies on news articles and CNN and Al Gore. My site HootervilleGazette (dot) com has a great deal of information on this subject than Jean should read.
Awww, and here we go, as the naysayers start crawling out of the woodwork to bash the author, who is writing something they don't want to hear or agree with, but it doesn't make it irrelevant, just because you say so.
Brook says, "Jean, wake up and smell the manipulation. Research the real science and you will understand that you've been had."
Well, Brook, what makes your science "real" and the majority of other "science" false? Because you say so?
Same goes for Dash riprock 111. Sigh...
Actually, the US position is worse than this. Pachauri was referring to 20% by 2020 at 1990 levels (which is what the IPCC and everyone else uses). Obama's target is 0% at 1990 levels - they use a 2006 baseline because it makes them look better (erm - like 16% better). Waxman/Markey bill is around 4% at 1990 levels - cut back from around 7-8% before it was watered down.
What is the simplest and fastest way to halt climate change? According to the UN, meat consumption contributes more to greenhouse gasses than all form of transportation put together. Mr. Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change advises us to "Eat less meat" as the most effective solution. Let's save this planet for our children! Adopt a plant based diet!
Jean, your suggestion for plant based diet as a way to curb climate change, while it is a reasonable thought, it may not be very practical, given the reality that a planet populated by vegetarians is unlikely.
Also, from the economical stand point, there would be thousands of direct and indirect livelhoods that would be adversely impacted, from the ranchers and suppliers, to the independent meat markets, and everything in between.
Maybe a compremise could be having a salad or veggie night or two per week, if there isn't an inclination to eliminate meat all together.
The bottom line is that Waxman-Markey isn't good enough. Legislators who really care about stemming the tide of global climate change need to insist that their colleagues take a look at what the majority of leading scientists, economists and opinion leaders support: a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!