Yes, it is this week
Congress is coming back in session and is worried about the climate – and for once it isn’t strictly the political kind that has captured the attention of lawmakers.
Fresh from a one-week break, the Senate today begins consideration of bipartisan legislation meant to limit carbon emissions. But virtually no one expects the bill to get very far, so the floor fight is considered strictly a warm-up for a more serious look at global climate change expected to take place next year with a new administration in the White House.
Republicans are actually pleased the legislation is coming to the floor at the moment, because they think it will given them a platform to talk about how emissions curbs will drive up already soaring energy costs. Conversely, some Democrats are far from thrilled.
Perhaps the GOP in the Senate will get off their fannies and release a plan like the House GOP has. Did you know that the price of gas was $1.52 on average for the USA in January 2001? Or that it was around $2.20 in January 2007? And now, a bit over a year later, it is of course $4.00.
Moving on, over to Jed Babbin at Human Events
The Dems will almost certainly win today’s cloture vote to proceed with debate on the bill because Republicans foresee a field day of exposing the fallacies of the highly complex 494-page measure. The rest of the week will probably be spent on amendments to it, including measures by Republican Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Ok), the bill’s leading opponent, and Bob Corker (R-Tenn). In the end, the bill will almost certainly not pass for one big reason: it will significantly increase the price Americans pay for gasoline and electricity. “Cap and trade†is an economy-killer.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republican spokesman Marc Morano told HUMAN EVENTS yesterday, “It seems unlikely that as American families face harsh economic times that any Senator would dare stand on the Senate floor and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump and cost millions of American jobs — all for no environmental gain.â€
I see three problems with all this “we gotta stop anthropogenic climate change” talk from politicians. First, it can damage the economy. Second, it can damage the economy for no gain, as most of the recommendations are simply feel good. Finally, it is BS. CO2 is not the monster it is made out to be, and most of the people demagoguing it don’t live the life they tell everyone else to live. Now, if they were talking about methane output, I would be with them.
There’s always a new report about global warming, but the one released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with its charts on optimal temperatures for soybeans and peanuts, is downright creepy in its detail. This isn’t your usual futuristic fodder, with vague but dire predictions. The USDA report is more frightening because it states matter-of-factly the practical changes in farming, forestry and water that are transforming the landscape now and will do so again over the next few decades.
The Senate is scheduled to vote this week on a sweeping bill that would require carbon emissions to be slashed 70% by mid-century. Its chances for passage are slim; President Bush opposes it, as he has opposed all meaningful attempts to curb global warming, on the grounds that it would harm the economy. He ought to read the USDA study, along with a similar but more comprehensive report released last week by his science advisors, which specifies the effects of global warming and its very real costs.
Yes, but is based on what could happen, not what will happen. Computer climate models are inaccurate, generally failing to incorporate the effects of the Sun and water vapor, as well as methane outputs. They are typical over the top, and ignore issues such as the one that shows that CO2 outputs have continued yet the global temperature has remained flat for 10 years. It is basically a political and economic issue, not a scientific one. Many people have quite a bit of political prestige and money on the line to get legislation passed and to get people to “buy green” and purchase carbon offsets.
When the people pushing all these draconian measures, not to mention the economic benefits for themselves, start walking the walk, I will listen. Until then, they are simply blowhards.
so Teach the only time you will listen is when those on the other side, are all people with perfect personal environmental records. Is that your normal way of evaluating debates ? looking for perfection from speakers must really limit you in having ANY belief systems at all
that does sort of remind me of the “chickenhawk” argument that the right so vociferously claimed was invalid.
No one is expected to do all, all are expected to do some in helping to solve this problem
As for whether the earth is warming 2007 was the 5th warmest on record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.htm lGlobal Temperatures
For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred from eastern Europe to central Asia.
Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.
The greatest warming has taken place in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere (and as I have ointed out before this is where 80% of the population lives, extra snowfall in Antartica is really not so important)
Teach this is what the US governmental agency NOAA has to say about climate change, it is real and it is happening. It may not have much effect on me personally but I a do have concerns about what it will be like in 20 years, even though I will probably not be alive.