What will it take to force political action on climate change?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

David Bielo, Scientific American

As utilities fire up their "clean coal" machines and international negotiators haggle over the precise definition of a tree, only one entity has the courage to stand and deliver the hot air the world so desperately craves on climate change: the U.S. Senate. After a hectic couple of weeks, filled with Republican walkouts and Democratic intransigence, the Senate's Environment and Public Works committee has pushed a bill to the Senate floor that would cut carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, Republicans (other than Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) are dead set against it. "My colleagues have advanced a bill with potentially serious economic harm without a comprehensive analysis of its costs," wrote Ohio Senator George Voinovich to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "My request [for an economic analysis of the proposal] could have shown whether the bill would have any appreciable impact on global climate change."

And Democrats from coal country are skeptical of a bill that would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. "I'm not for either bill," either the House or Senate version, known alternately as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer respectively, said Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia at an event to unveil the world's first demonstration project to both capture and store CO2 (albeit just 1.5 percent of the attached power plant's total emissions). "It's too much too soon."

And Rockefeller is just one of 32 senators from the 16 states that produce coal—to say nothing of the many more states that rely on the dirty black rock to produce cheap electricity—some of whose votes will be needed to pass any bill. Rockefeller's price tag is not low: he's calling for another $10 billion to develop carbon capture and storage to make coal cleaner (on top of the $3.5 billion in the recent stimulus package) followed by another $20 billion to $25 billion over the long term, "which is nothing. Health care is $850 billion and we're talking about the future of the world," Rockefeller said.

Nevertheless, the coal country Senator is no contrarian about climate change. "Some thinks it's a hoax," he said. "Well, it isn't. It just isn't." And he feels the time is coming for climate legislation, if not quite yet (or in time for international negotiations in Copenhagen this December). "The climate change legislative piece is going to be pushed off to next year."

Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Committee looked into what might be done if the world fails to act before climate change becomes catastrophic: geoengineering. "If geoengineering is ever used, it should be as a short-term emergency measure, as a supplement to, and not as a substitute for, mitigation and adaptation," testified environmental scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University. "And we are not ready to implement geoengineering now." Sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Senate is looking for.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/pos...tica-2009-11-06

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

David Bielo, Scientific American

As utilities fire up their "clean coal" machines and international negotiators haggle over the precise definition of a tree, only one entity has the courage to stand and deliver the hot air the world so desperately craves on climate change: the U.S. Senate. After a hectic couple of weeks, filled with Republican walkouts and Democratic intransigence, the Senate's Environment and Public Works committee has pushed a bill to the Senate floor that would cut carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, Republicans (other than Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) are dead set against it. "My colleagues have advanced a bill with potentially serious economic harm without a comprehensive analysis of its costs," wrote Ohio Senator George Voinovich to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "My request [for an economic analysis of the proposal] could have shown whether the bill would have any appreciable impact on global climate change."

And Democrats from coal country are skeptical of a bill that would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. "I'm not for either bill," either the House or Senate version, known alternately as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer respectively, said Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia at an event to unveil the world's first demonstration project to both capture and store CO2 (albeit just 1.5 percent of the attached power plant's total emissions). "It's too much too soon."

And Rockefeller is just one of 32 senators from the 16 states that produce coal—to say nothing of the many more states that rely on the dirty black rock to produce cheap electricity—some of whose votes will be needed to pass any bill. Rockefeller's price tag is not low: he's calling for another $10 billion to develop carbon capture and storage to make coal cleaner (on top of the $3.5 billion in the recent stimulus package) followed by another $20 billion to $25 billion over the long term, "which is nothing. Health care is $850 billion and we're talking about the future of the world," Rockefeller said.

Nevertheless, the coal country Senator is no contrarian about climate change. "Some thinks it's a hoax," he said. "Well, it isn't. It just isn't." And he feels the time is coming for climate legislation, if not quite yet (or in time for international negotiations in Copenhagen this December). "The climate change legislative piece is going to be pushed off to next year."

Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Committee looked into what might be done if the world fails to act before climate change becomes catastrophic: geoengineering. "If geoengineering is ever used, it should be as a short-term emergency measure, as a supplement to, and not as a substitute for, mitigation and adaptation," testified environmental scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University. "And we are not ready to implement geoengineering now." Sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Senate is looking for.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/pos...tica-2009-11-06

The question is, what it will take for you to STFU! Steve thinks his crusade is making a diff. Here ya go you lil fart in the wind! Let me pick a lil diddy out for ya!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Better YET! Look at Steve crack that whip!

Edited November 9, 2009 by ={Rogue}=

[DEDixon 39]

the problem is, there are too many people on earth, we need to nuke the chinese and the indians and pakis ... no offense to them, there are just too many of them. should probably add mexico to the list.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

the problem is, there are too many people on earth, we need to nuke the chinese and the indians and pakis ... no offense to them, there are just too many of them. should probably add mexico to the list.

OMG!

[alienlovechild 75]

Coal's dirty but very cheap and powerful. There's no easy substitute unless there's a massive reduction in the use of energy in this country. China will continue to burn dirtier brown coal no matter what we do so the planet won't to be that much cleaner unless environmentalists think they can force countries like China to not burn coal.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

People in this country love their energy. Especially California.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

To answer the question. I'm guessing totalitarian government?

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

What will it take? A majority of conressman ans Senators that imagine they can make difference in the earth's climate by making a law.

Just like congrss ended poverty, racism,drug problems, crime (several times!) I can't wait for the US government to "fix" climate change.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Gary and Alla

[nowhereman 1]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Edited November 9, 2009 by nowhereman

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

[DEDixon 39]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

this is getting old steven especially coming from the FAR LEFT... you have absolutely no ground to stand on here.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

You're Right Guano's Gall Stone - We'll be getting rid of several in the 2010 primaries and replacing them with radical right wingers who are racist and want to exterminate blacks. Force women (and men if we can figure it out) to have babies, put gays in concentration camps, and buy everyone a Bible and fine them when they don't read it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

this is getting old steven especially coming from the FAR LEFT... you have absolutely no ground to stand on here.

I take it you've never heard of this organization:

Republicans for Environmental Protection

We are Republicans. We share a deep concern for the environment. We know that a healthy environment and a sound economy are both essential to our nation’s prosperity. We believe that by working together, we can preserve both our environment and our economy for current and future generations of Americans.

We Want:

Clean air and water

Food free from harmful chemicals

Clean, efficient businesses & industries

A high quality of life in our cities & rural communities

Strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws

Economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl

High priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection

Protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters

Effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats

We support and vote for Republican elected officials and candidates who share these values and concerns.

How does REP answer those who believe that no "real Republican" wants to protect the environment or believes in conservation? How do we respond to those who insist that regulatory reform and property rights are more vital than laws to prevent the extinction of species? 1. We point with pride to the great GOP leaders of the past who fought to save natural treasures, signed landmark environmental-protection laws, and established many of the policies we take for granted today. We remember Teddy Roosevelt, who established our unmatched system of wildlife refuges and national parks. We remind people that Barry Goldwater, the father of conservatism, was a lifelong conservationist (and also a REP America member). We recall that Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and also established the Environmental Protection Agency.

2. We talk of the bi-partisan efforts of previous decades, which eliminated burning rivers, toxic waste dumps, DDT and other environmental horrors. Republicans had no special exemption from polluted air and contaminated water, so they made sure their leaders heeded their concerns.

3. We remind skeptics that nothing is more conservative than conservation. True conservatives should safeguard the resources on which the health, recreation, and economic prosperity of present and future Americans depend. There is nothing conservative—and certainly nothing wise—in squandering our energy, clean air and water, beloved landscapes, wildlife, wilderness, wetlands, and other natural treasures.

If you are a conservation-minded Republican, we invite you to join REP. Help us grow a greener GOP from the ground up!

http://www.rep.org/

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

this is getting old steven especially coming from the FAR LEFT... you have absolutely no ground to stand on here.

I take it you've never heard of this organization:

Republicans for Environmental Protection

We are Republicans. We share a deep concern for the environment. We know that a healthy environment and a sound economy are both essential to our nation’s prosperity. We believe that by working together, we can preserve both our environment and our economy for current and future generations of Americans.

We Want:

Clean air and water

Food free from harmful chemicals

Clean, efficient businesses & industries

A high quality of life in our cities & rural communities

Strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws

Economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl

High priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection

Protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters

Effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats

We support and vote for Republican elected officials and candidates who share these values and concerns.

How does REP answer those who believe that no "real Republican" wants to protect the environment or believes in conservation? How do we respond to those who insist that regulatory reform and property rights are more vital than laws to prevent the extinction of species? 1. We point with pride to the great GOP leaders of the past who fought to save natural treasures, signed landmark environmental-protection laws, and established many of the policies we take for granted today. We remember Teddy Roosevelt, who established our unmatched system of wildlife refuges and national parks. We remind people that Barry Goldwater, the father of conservatism, was a lifelong conservationist (and also a REP America member). We recall that Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and also established the Environmental Protection Agency.

2. We talk of the bi-partisan efforts of previous decades, which eliminated burning rivers, toxic waste dumps, DDT and other environmental horrors. Republicans had no special exemption from polluted air and contaminated water, so they made sure their leaders heeded their concerns.

3. We remind skeptics that nothing is more conservative than conservation. True conservatives should safeguard the resources on which the health, recreation, and economic prosperity of present and future Americans depend. There is nothing conservative—and certainly nothing wise—in squandering our energy, clean air and water, beloved landscapes, wildlife, wilderness, wetlands, and other natural treasures.

If you are a conservation-minded Republican, we invite you to join REP. Help us grow a greener GOP from the ground up!

http://www.rep.org/

Don't worry - we'll be dispensing of them shortly.