US Features
US Congress looks past Bush, takes on global warming
Jun 3, 2008, 12:02 GMT
Washington (dpa) - US legislators this week are considering the first-ever mandatory limit on greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, ignoring White House stiff opposition, instead looking ahead to a more favourable political climate after the November elections.
The Senate began debating a bill that would bring US targets on cutting climate-changing emissions roughly in line with the recommendations of international scientists, and would introduce a cap-and-trade system along the lines of what already exists in the European Union.
The initiative was sharply rejected Monday by President George W Bush and allies in the centre-right Republican Party, who have pushed for voluntary targets and resisted tougher emissions curbs on the grounds that it will cost jobs and harm an already-sluggish US economy.
Environmental groups have mostly welcomed the Climate Security Act as a solid first step, introducing an emissions-trading system that allows companies to buy and sell the pollution allowances allocated to them by the government.
The bill has some bipartisan support, though supporters acknowledge that climate legislation is still unlikely to be enacted until next year.
'We've done the best we can. Let's show the American public this institution can work,' said John Warner, a senior Republican who co- sponsored the bill in the Senate. 'Doing nothing is not an option.'
Most proponents are instead looking eagerly toward a new White House team in 2009. All three major presidential candidates - Republican John McCain and centre-left Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - have advocated stiffer measures to combat global warming and support a cap-and-trade system.
Meanwhile, the mere fact that a discussion among US politicians is taking place represents progress in the eyes of some activists. Senators introducing the bill on Monday called it a 'historic debate' that could only add momentum to climate action.
'Today marks the end of the United States' long hiatus in dealing with global warming,' said Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environment Group. 'This debate is the first step toward regaining US leadership and momentum in forging solutions to global warming.'
Climate advocates believe it is critical for the United States to adopt mandatory cuts before the international community meets at the end of 2009 in Copenhagen to negotiate a global treaty on combatting climate change.
'It would move us into a leadership role, because you can't lead from the rear, and that's what we've been trying to do in the past with no success whatsoever,' said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defence Council.
Opposition to climate legislation in the US remains strong, and if anything has grown louder over the last year amid a sharp downturn in the world's largest economy. The exact costs of a cap-and-trade programme have been the subject of sharp disagreement on both sides of the aisle.
Republican opponents argue that the bill will damage international competitiveness and raise already surging energy prices, citing reports that the costs of the legislation could be anywhere from 700 dollars to 3,000 dollars per year for the average consumer.
'It will without doubt sharply raise the cost of gasoline and electricity in America ... and will surely damage our economy,' said Republican Senator Jeff Sessions. 'It would be a calamity, I'm convinced, to impose this process on the American economy and the American people.'
Supporters argue that the costs have been exaggerated and say the long-term price of inaction - ranging from greater storm damage to real estate lost to rising sea levels - is far higher. Proponents also point to tax relief included in the bill to offset energy costs.
The trading system would cover about 85 per cent of US emissions. It would seek to bring pollution back to 2005 levels by 2012, cut another 30 per cent by 2030 and 70 per cent in total by 2050.
A series of reports last year by a United Nations-backed panel of scientists said that global emissions needed to be slashed about 50 per cent by mid-century to minimize global warming.
The Bush administration has pushed incentives and subsidies for renewable energy technologies as the best means of reducing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Climate activists argue that placing a price on those emissions will give the private sector the financial incentive it needs to plug money into research and greater efficiency.
Debate on the Climate Security Act is expected to continue throughout the week in the Senate. The lower House of Representatives is considering its own version, which may not come up for discussion until later in the summer.
© Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
...$7.00 / gal. gas!
Call and write your senators and congressmen, this is BS, pure and simple.
Please, support your claim, otherwise don't talk.
Carl Sagan is dead. NOTHING is going to get his attention. He's been dead for a year and a half. Get with the times, man.
He died in 1996 fool.
You are absolutely corrct about when he died. My mistake. A the time I posted it, I was reminded of my friend Karl Shagen who died in 2006. Similar sounding words, resulting in mistyping. But at least I got some of it right. Noharness didn't even know Sagan was dead.
'Please, support your claim, otherwise don't talk.'
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5397728631629262815&q=Global%20Warmin g%20Swindle&hl=en
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
Ah what a joke,there still are a few lemming around claiming climate change is a swindle,based on the tripe they include in their links .And they oppose that to the IPCC....Climate change is already happening everywhere ;Only Exxon and the neocons live in this continuous state of danial .
That makes noharness almost 12 years wrong. Yikes, the 60's must have really kicked his ass!
RE:'Please, support your claim, otherwise don't talk.'
Those who claim that the last bout of warming we experienced, we are now cooling off, was caused by human activity. They claim that we humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide so much that heat can not escape the atmosphere quickly enough to prevent atmospheric warming. In other words, they are claiming that refrigerant gases are behaving as insulators. I have read up on as much of this stuff as I can find and I have yet to find in any of it a credible description of a mechanism that could cause such an effect.
If we were in fact suffering from climate change forced by increases in atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide, we should have seen a change in the relationship between altitude and temperature. No such change has been found. More importantly, there should have been increase of temperature in the stratosphere accompanied by a shutdown in stratospheric convection. There have been no such changes.
Further, I invite your attention to the scientific literature, not the drivel published by the politically motivated control freaks at the United Nations. No where will you find in any of that literature an unchallenged claim that we are on the verge of a 'greenhouse' disaster.
This whole thing has been based on theoretical speculations made back in the nineteenth century. Those speculations have never been seriously questioned, but accepted at face value. The entire procedure has been an exercise in the preposterous.
I'm afraid, Dan, that the burden of proof is on those who have taken anthropogenic global warming and subsequent climate change as a matter of faith, not on the skeptics.
I will believe in global warming when it gets warm. As it is for the past 3 years it has been 5 to 8 degrees (Celsius) colder than average, where I live. And that is on the west(wet)coast of North America.
'This whole thing has been based on theoretical speculations made back in the nineteenth century.'
How about BA038, and naharness' assertion it ran out of fuel. It had fuel on board. It did not run out of gas.
We are still waiting for your apology, Dr. No.
Show me the dead grass. Show me how much fuel came out of that airplane. Explain to me how it is that the engines failed to spool up when the control linkages and the software involved was found to be without flaw. The throttle valves were wide open and there were no leaks or blockages found anywhere in any of the fuel system. There is only one reasonable explanation for that crash--no fuel. Worse, the main fuel pumps were damaged by cavitation, which means that airplane that crashed that day had been being flown very low on fuel on numerous occasions.
I have, as I promised, kept an eye on what British authorities have reported on this incident. So far, they have NOT declared a cause for this crash and their investigation is continuing, even though the cause is obvious to anyone not facing the pressures the British authorities are facing.
If and when the British authorities officially declare that the crash was cause by something other than a fuel shortage, I will apologize. So far, they have not given me reason to apologize.
Climatologists take note!
www.surfacestations.org
None of you have been gathering your own data. You have relied upon the data gathered from a network of long established surface stations. What you did not know is that much of this network is faulty and has been relaying erroneous data for quite some time. There may be some way to salvage much of this data, but I doubt it. Given the import of you work, it would, in my opinion, unwise of you to try such a thing.
show you the dead grass? Get a brain. The British are fastidious about appearances. They had the contaminated soil and grass removed within a week. Fresh soil and sod were put down. The wing tanks did not rupture, only the center main leaked, after the left wheel assembly tore it open. As usual you make ASSumptions about the damage to the fuel pumps. (note the heavy emphasis on the first three letters.)The only dead grass is the stuff YOU smoke.
The average temperature of the earth surface is rising,not cooling .Year after year this remains a fact .One only needs to look at a few facts like the melting of the glaciers,the north west passage,the polar caps,the eternal snow cap of the mountains,the recorder average temperature everywhere on earth,the raising of ocean levels,etc,etc,all confirmed by the world communities of climate scientists .the few simpletons claiming the opposite here are just ignorants .
All you lefties and IQ-deprived fellow travelers, now hear this.
You've gotten it 180-degrees wrong; again.
The threat to civilization as we know it isn't warming, you buffoons.
Instead, global cooling is what should be everyone's concern.
Just Google the phrase 'Ultralong Solar Cycle 23 and Possible Consequences' and then follow the first link.
'Please, God, give these lefties a modicum of common sense before it's too late for all of mankind.'
Sidebar: Everyone who can, help pass the marriage-defense amendment that's up for vote this November in California.
..like the article on www.spacedaily.com about how the c02 groups are massively mis-stating the c02 output from power plants, worldwide...
..or the curious democrats who are telling the press this is DOA in Congress..that's the democrats...you remember them, right Tonny?
Curiously it is John MCCain who is for Cap-and-Trade...
imagine that!
Nationalization of Natural Resources in North America, (OIL)
It is now time for the current US Congress to draft a law that will authorize the use of the Armed Forces of America to seize control of all Oil reserves, assets, and property within the borders of the United States of America. Americans are suffering financially because of the profiteering that is being sanctioned by the current Congress. The very survival of America will depend on the controls and relief to the consumer. By controlling the oil and refining process, the final price to the consumer can drop back to levels in the two digit margin, i.e. 39 cents. It is now a matter of National Security that this happen within a very short period of time, or every American will suffer the financial burden of out of control price per gallon for fuel, thus driving up every consumer product and service beyond the affordable means of an average income American.
The American Republic will recommend that the current US Congress and President be held accountable for this 'crime against Humanity' as well as numerous others.
It is time to fire the US Congress and President, now and in November, 2008. A new Republic for North America is underway.
We are a Legion of many, who will live a life of peace, and have respect for all living things, while having considerations for those who are different, and look for ways to truly accommodate those who are slow in understanding.
We support the poor, helpless, and defenseless people. We support the freedom of Women, we support the sane treatment of animals and the environment, we support the freedom of religion and expression. We do not support ignorance, period.
We are a growing nation of people that encourage anyone or Nation anywhere to become part of the New American Republic!
NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM
Judah Ben-Hur, Sui Juris
Ambassador
The American Republic
Diplomatic Mission: North America
Get Our Free Newsletters Via Email
Search All Our Sites at SpaceBank
ENERGY NEWS
Audit Shows Pervasive Inaccuracies In Washington DC Think Tank's Climate Campaign
Three other plants - the Cumberland plant in Tennessee, the Sherbourne County plant in the Becker, Min. and the Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport, Pa.-- are also incorrectly labeled 'Dirty Dozen' by CARMA.
by Staff Writers
Washington DC (SPX) Jun 03, 2008
A newly released audit report reveals that the popular online power plant emissions ranker Carbon Monitoring for Action, run by the Center for Global Development (CGD), is utilizing erroneous and questionable CO2 emissions data.
The new report, titled 'Climate Campaign Built on Questionable Data,' provides quantitative evidence cataloguing the depth and breadth of errors and gaps in CARMA's numbers, which have faced criticism before.
The report also raises questions about CGD's lack of disclaimer and disclosure policies. CGD has known of data quality issues since early December of 2007. Given the policy importance of climate management (and the unmistakable role that a rallied public plays in the issue), the auditors provide guidelines for generating reliable and actionable CO2 data.
'The first signal of CARMA's dubious data emerged when Hong Kong's Castle Peak power station publicly refuted CARMA's numbers,' said the lead author of the report, environmental consultant Shakeb Afsah.
Afsah, a policy analyst trained at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi, is best known for his work with the World Bank, implementing environmental rating programs in Indonesia and the Philippines in the mid nineties. CGD's explanation of the Castle Peak errors led Afsah to suspect broader problems in CARMA's database.
When CARMA was launched on Nov. 14, 2007, Castle Peak presented the group with company data showing electricity production at 14.15 MWh for the year. CARMA had calculated power generation at 28.2 million MWh for Castle Peak - twice what company data showed. The CGD corrected the error.
Its communications department then wrote: 'So far, out of the 50,000 plants listed only one meaningful discrepancy has been identified.'
NOT TRUE - The audit reveals that 90 percent of CARMA's CO2 estimates have discrepancy with US Government's data if a +-5 percent margin of error is used. And more than half of CARMA's CO2 estimates exceed a 25 percent margin of error when contrasted with the USEPA data. These differences are difficult to reconcile.
Examples abound. USEPA data shows Florida's Manatee plant generating 5.7 million tons of CO2. CARMA sets the number at 11.7 million. The Mountainview Power plant in California, Hays Energy in Texas, RS Nelson in Louisiana. are just a few plants with CO2 emissions values differing by more than one million tons between CARMA and USEPA data.
Given such immense differences, both data sets cannot be correct. The contradictory numbers pose an additional problem: the public has no clear understanding of which ranking system, data set and website should be trusted.
The audit report shows that CARMA's model accounts for the discrepancy between USEPA and CARMA numbers. CARMA's numbers are simply too outlandish. CARMA estimates that the Laramie River power station in Platte County, Wyo. generated 24.8 million MWh of electricity in 2007. The plant's maximum generation capacity, by all accounts, is 70 percent less.
CARMA has other illogical estimates for Laramie River. It shows the coal based power station generating 815 lbs of CO2 for every megawatt hour of electricity. Coal fired power plants generally have carbon intensity ranges between 1800 and 2200 lbs CO2/MWh. CARMA's inordinately low numbers raise red flags for analysts.
These errors impact rankings. USEPA ranks the Laramie River plant 24 among US carbon emitters. CARMA ranks this plant at 58. The discrepancy has serious reputational implications for a company. The Rockport power station in Spencer County, Ind. sits on CARMA's distinctive 'Dirty Dozen' list. But the USEPA ranks Rockport at 22, reserving the 'Dirty Dozen' label for another company.
Three other plants - the Cumberland plant in Tennessee, the Sherbourne County plant in the Becker, Min. and the Bruce Mansfield plant in Shippingport, Pa.-- are also incorrectly labeled 'Dirty Dozen' by CARMA.
The relative ranking of power plants is the driving force behind activism incentives that CARMA aims to create. If this critical information itself is questionable, it raises doubts about CARMA's usability for climate protection initiatives. There are clear signs that CARMA's methodology doesn't resonate well with the CO2 monitoring and verification protocols like those recommended by the World Resources Institute.
CARMA's technical inconsistencies extend beyond CO2 estimates; its carbon intensity data seems implausible. CARMA attributed many natural gas power plants with a carbon intensity of 6,000 lbs/MWh - nearly three times the average for coal-fired plants. Natural gas simply cannot generate so much CO2 during the combustion process.
Nabiel Makarim, former Minster of Environment in Indonesia, who first conceived the idea of environmental rating and disclosure program in 1993, considers accurate information vital. 'Data credibility is essential for environmental disclosure programs. Such programs have zero-tolerance standard for inaccuracies.'
Stakeholders on both sides of the contentious issue of carbon emissions have read the pre-release draft of the report. They have uniformly expressed support for disclosure and reiterated Makarim's concerns.
'For decision makers to arrive at sensible climate policies, they must have available reliable and verifiable data on which to base legislation and regulations,' said Ned Leonard, Vice President for Policy at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Environmental economists who read the audit report also expressed that CO2 emission rankings should be based on actual measured data and not statistical estimates.
Why have the principles of quality been compromised? The surging popularity of climate issues has created a tempting environment for public recognition, but popularity doesn't preclude the need for accuracy. Terms CARMA employs, like 'Power plant voyeurism,' stimulate the public around negative information. This is not information-sharing. CARMA's public promises are not being kept.
Even geographical coordinates have been fudged. CARMA claims to have marked the exact locations of 50,000 power plants, but 41 percent of U.S. power plants are missing from their database. The plants that are marked have faulty geographic coordinates, placing, for example, Washington D.C.'s Benning power plant in an apartment complex.
Afsah hopes that his due diligence work results in more disciplined data-based analysis and stronger on-site monitoring and verification of CO2 emissions. He says that CARMA fosters an asymmetric focus on large power plants when in many cases these plants have the lowest carbon intensity.
Smaller power plants with worse carbon intensities get relegated to an irrelevant subset by CARMA. This lopsided effect of CARMA's ranking system could shape distorted policies.
CGD severed contact with the audit's authors after reading an initial draft in December-07, to the authors' distress and disappointment. As a publicly relevant policy instrument CARMA and its backers at CGD should be answerable to those with legitimate concerns.
CGD's behavior raises questions about the accountability channels available to the public when such organizations run policy programs using private data. A public agency would face higher accountability standards.
On Dec. 7 of last year, Dennis de Tray, Vice President for Special Initiatives at CGD, communicated that CARMA's David Wheeler would 'deal with many of the issues' raised about the program's methodology. More than five months later, and five days after a pre-release version of the audit hit the internet, CARMA released a methodology paper.
Power engineers quickly confirmed that important operational variables, like the supply stack that reflects the mix of power plants in a region, are not included in CARMA's estimation model. Such omissions inevitably create questionable estimates.
Such concerns were voiced early on by the Australian spokeswoman for the New South Wales Energy Minister Ian MacDonald: 'The US study has utilized a number of assumptions, some of which are highly questionable.
For example, the quoted tonnes are inaccurate because they are based on capacity only and ignore actual generation, fuel type and efficiency. Simply using the size of a power plant is not appropriate for comparing rates of emissions.
The study also appears to have assumed how the power stations operate, rather than researching the actual operation data.' Now that CARMA's methodology is out, authors of this report look forward to full debate on this matter.
But unfortunately CARMA has again withheld information - the database used to create CARMA's estimation model, comprising information on around 3,000 power plants, remains outside the public domain. As such, the model remains impossible to replicate.
Auditors don't expect perfection, but are CARMA's numbers accurate enough to rank power plants or geographical aggregates? CARMA's discrepancies have impacted county aggregate rankings - Walker County, Ala. is ranked first for CO2 emissions by CARMA, but USEPA ranks it 115. CARMA ranks California at 13, but USEPA sets it at 25.
Similarly Michigan ranks at nine by CARMA but 13 by USEPA. Which ranking is right? The auditors hope that their report initiates a profound discussion on public disclosure and data accuracy.
In the meantime, dedicated CO2 monitors can use data from the USEPA, an institution that has adopted many of the basic steps that would make CARMA more honest and more valuable, including disclosure about where statistical models were used in place of hard data, what the margin of error is in those occasions, and full 'open sourcing' of the model so the public can review and critique the data and updates on the database.
Harry Reid decided that the debate over this bill would be too embarrassing and too damaging to the Democrats to let the debate go on. He's pulling the bill. Say g'day to the SEVEN TRILLION MONSTER--for now.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. If the article is too long, NO ONE READS IT!!!
I read it, but then I do not suffer from the currently fashionable disease. What is it that they call it? Oh, yeah! Adult Attention Deficit Syndrome. To bad people with ADDS don't.
Normally, I do not do long posts, but this one merited attention. It is a blatantly scathing commentary on exactly what is wrong with this pseudo-science called global warming.
Nonetheless, you are correct, and I will keep my posts small, whenever possible...
..by the way, how's the bill doing in congress???
hahahahahahahaha!
page: 1
NoharnessJun 3rd, 2008 - 12:17:07
Way to go, John McCain! Once again you have accepted a false premise and acted on it! Now we'll spend something like seven TRILLION dollars and create something like 35 to 45 new government agencies!
I think though that I will vote for Barak Obama. This isn't nearly enough! We need to clean up faster than this. Besides, this bill will allow the President to hold it up in abeyance at HIS discretion. Even worse, this thing, (S3036) has a thirty year sunset clause. And another thing, folks, seven trillion is just barely a big enough number to get Carl Sagan's notice. We need to come up with one that would make his eyes pop.
Report this comment