Obviously, this has the intent of “Doing Something” to limit anthropogenic global climate something or other
(Washington Post) With global efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions stalled, the United States and five other countries are starting a new program to cut other pollutants — including methane, soot and hydrofluorocarbons — that contribute to global warming.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is set to announce the five-year initiative Thursday morning. Canada, Sweden, Mexico, Ghana and Bangladesh are also participating. The plan will be administered by the United Nations Environment Program, with a $12Â million contribution from the United States for the first two years. Canada will add $3Â million; contributions from the other countries are not known.
Right now, you’re probably thinking to yourself “these damned people are going to enact legislation and regulation that will limit my freedom and raise my costs.” Actually, no. Here’s what you get for your $13 million (which could buy 5.038 million school lunches)
The new program, called the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, will not set targets for reductions in pollutants. Rather, it will fund education projects and joint public-private efforts to reduce emissions, said three people briefed on the announcement. They said the new program is likely to encourage nations to reduce diesel exhaust, stem the burning of agricultural waste, and capture methane from landfills, coal mines and natural gas wells, among other policies.
So, it won’t actually “Do Something”, simply fill the airwaves with propaganda.
Paul Bledsoe of the Bipartisan Policy Center noted that, in the United States, efforts to reduce methane and soot are far less politicized than efforts to reduce carbon dioxide. Even one of the most vehement congressional opponents of limiting carbon dioxide emissions, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), supports cutting soot emissions.
Well, yeah, there is nothing wrong with cutting soot: it is bad for breathing. And methane is a much more serious greenhouse gas than CO2, and even the IPCC admitted (by accident) that it is one of the major causes, in terms of agriculture and landfills. I’ll agree we need to reduce both. It’s a bad idea to link these to globull warming though, as many people will simply tune out.
Yeah, because we aren’t doing anything about clean diesel or collecting any methane from landfills. And the natural gas companies could care less about converting methane to usable natural gas to be sold on the free market. Why would we ever want to do these things?
I have never understood how money can be spent on new programs without congressional approval or a budget.