Monday, May 26, 2008

Global warming debate in Senate set for next week


(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Charles Pence.)

Weekly Angst: Prepare to turn on C-Span next week and watch the debate over the Senate global warming bill. It should be revealing.

Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came up with a “substitute” bill (S. 3036) last week, which incorporates the one by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), but tries to meet some objections to garner more support. It includes, for example, a $955 billion fund (from now through 2050) to pay down the federal deficit, to make the bill budget neutral (if not carbon neutral). The debate is expected to start in the early evening June 2, with a cloture vote that even staunch opponents are likely to go along with – they want a debate too. Lieberman and Warner have signed off on Boxer’s substitute and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) are co-sponsors.

It should be a zoo. This topic elicits strong feelings because global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet but also has implications for industry, as it calls for a seismic shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free (or at least low-carbon) energy. The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system, which puts an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auctions or gives away credits that businesses can trade depending on whether they meet their emissions targets. If they don't, they must buy credits from those who do.

All kinds of amendments planned, from one by Lieberman and Warner to include more nuclear power, to one by Republicans to return revenue from the auction of carbon credits to the taxpayers as tax cuts. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) wants to tell the U.S. to engage in global climate negotiations for real, and a likely Republican amendment will ask for inclusion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. Dems have been alerted, too, about planned GOP amendments specifically designed to embarrass them and their likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

Environmental groups (2 dozen of them) released a statement late last week saying the bill still “needs to be strengthened to ensure it will meet the reductions science dictates” (at least 80% cut by 2050), which it does not. Boxer did not increase the target, which is 71% by 2050, but really only 66% because it does not include all greenhouse gas emissions. It's not clear to me if there’s been any change in the percent of credits auctioned off, which start as 26.5% in 2012, going up to 79% in 2031. Bur since there’s been no mention of it, I assume it hasn’t changed much. That percentage is deemed too low by most environmentalists, because it means more free credits to polluters and less money bolster renewable energy. Many want 100% auctioned.

Where the revenue will go
The Boxer version of the bill lists specific payoffs to different segments from the bill’s revenues, which will come from auction of credits:
• $911 billion for consumers for help with increased energy costs and energy efficiency projects. Most ($850B) would help with energy costs.
• $231B in assistance to steel, glass, aluminum, rubber and paper companies to make needed changes -- they're seen as the industries that will have the most trouble adjusting.
• $566B for states to deal with GHG cuts.
• $307B for electric utilities to revamp.
• $150B for renewable energy companies.
• $68B to the auto industry to retool for hybrids, plug-ins, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.
• $250B for adaptation to climate change, largely for coastal states.
• $288B for wildlife adaptation.
• $560B for a fund states can access if they switch over from their own emissions programs to the federal one.
(All these amounts are spread over 40 years)

Free credits for fossil fuels have shrunk in the new version but more credits will be given for capture and storage of carbon dioxide. But if I’m reading this right, there is WAY too little going to renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to be virtually switched over to them from fossil fuels by 2050. So why so stingy? Could it be that the lobbyists for these fledgling industries don't have the money to spread around that oil, gas and other mature industries have? You betcha.

It looks like nuclear energy will be one of the winners in this new version. The bill now provides $92 million in incentives, on top of what the nuclear power industry already gets from the government. And a successful Lieberman-Warner amendment would bring them even more. Nuclear, which now provides 8% of U.S. power, is a huge bone of contention with many environmentalists who don’t like the radiation involved and say "no nukes, no way." Even those who think some nuclear plants might be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels -- if safety and disposal problems can be solved -- would far rather see money go to really clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and wave action.

Even if this bill should pass the Senate, it's unlikely the House will act before the end of the year. And this president would not sign a bill that would satisfy anyone who sees a need for urgent change. So the debate is probably just the first salvo in a battle that may be more successful with the next Congress and next president. But it still should be interesting to watch it unfold.
(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E News PM)

Take action: Send an e-mail to your senators.

12 comments:

Layer Seven said...

Ocean temperatures are falling, for the last 5 years.

Journalistically speaking, ocean temperatures are a big deal.

You will now have to figure out a way to bleed capitalists and "big oil" for Global Chilling.

I am sure you are up to it.

SBVOR said...

Layer Seven,

Cynthia is impossibly naive and ignorant of science (just like all Environmental Extremists).

Layer Seven said...

Why, yes, sbvor, I agree completely. I could have said it better, just like you did, since:
"global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet"

Since the vast thermal mass of the ocean is cooling for five years, evidently not. Other historically, if not popularly, significant circumstances (solar activity) notwithstanding.

If Cynthia is not impossibly naive, can she please make a cogent post reflecting that? Or do we play games? Fine with me.

Jeff said...

Actually, both of your comments are quite naive.

You should think better of pilfering a scientific finding and fallaciously extrapolating it to meet your political motivations.

In fact, a slight five-year cooling at certain ocean depths is in accordance with climate change models. What's more, longer-term ocean temperature trends clearly indicate an overall warming.

The study to which you are alluding, from Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, did not study the entire "vast thermal mass of the ocean". Since the measurement buoys could only dive to 3,000 feet, they could not study deep ocean temperatures. And the depths they did study only revealed a slight cooling, for just five years. Although you apparently lack the mental capacity to realize that five years of slight cooling at particular depths do not come close to refuting the evidence that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic climate change.

More importantly, Willis himself wrote an editorial taking issue with just your type -- climate change deniers who salivate over any tiny morsel that ostensibly weakens the overwhelming body of evidence of human-induced global warming. In it, he makes it clear that "[i]t is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come," that his findings don't even go against climate models, and that the long-term temperature measurements indicate an overall warming.

Why don't you join in the campaign to reduce carbon emissions? We could use both of your help.

SBVOR said...

Bru,

It appears, based on your profile, that you might be riding the the estimated $50,000,000,000 Global Warming government gravy train.

Yes, or no?

If you want directly cited peer reviewed science examining trends over the last 600 million years which explain why I have no intention of bending over and taking a hosing from the Religious Cult of Man Made Global Warming, I have, as a formally trained scientist, just barely scratched the surface in this post.

Preemptive strike #1 - I do not now and never have worked for any energy company. I do not own stock in any energy company. And, I do not receive any income in any amount from any energy company.

Preemptive Strike #2 - Don’t bother nit picking “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Refute, if you dare, my own analysis.

Speaking of nit picking “The Great Global Warming Swindle” - Over the last 600 million years, which contributed more CO2 to the atmosphere, volcanoes or human activity?

In that vein, examine the chart on page 193 of R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III), (as published in the American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February 2001, P.182-204). If CO2 levels were once 25 to 35 times higher than today, why did the earth not experience “runaway global warming” at that time?

SBVOR said...

P.S.) A cooling trend in the oceans would help explain why NOAA confirms that the continental U.S. has experienced a slight cooling trend over the last 10 years.

Is a ten year trend relevant in the grand scheme of things? Well, no more and no less than the 50 or 100 year trend your side screams about. Within that 100 year trend, 1934 to 1979 saw a profound cooling trend (see the previous link). Are we entering another natural multi-decadal cycle of cooling? Why don’t you ask the experts on AMO and PDO?

Probably the most relevant questions are answered in this link and the associated sub-links.

SBVOR said...

P.P.S.) I see your boy Josh, sounds the alarm about:

“eight inches of sea level rise we've experienced in the past 100 years”

Assuming that’s true, it’s a pity Josh was not around during “Meltwater Pulse 1A” (just over 14,000 years ago and a bit before SUVs).

According to this academic, sea levels, during Meltwater Pulse 1A, rose an average of 4 meters (more than 12 FEET) every 100 years for 500 years.

The fact is that climate changes all the time (quite naturally). And, normally, it changes FAR more abruptly and dramatically than anything the earth has seen in the last 7,000 years (wherein sea levels have been unusually stable).

Jeff said...

Haha. Scanning my profile, calling a scientist "[my] boy Josh"...Looks like it's personal for you. Maybe you should start getting paid for your zeal -- three comments and two "preemptive strikes" (must we use a military nomenclature to discuss the climate?) in a half day's time.

But for all you wrote, you nonetheless did not respond to my rebuttal of your initial claims.

The IPCC asserts in the Fourth Assessment Report (p. 30) that "[o]bservations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the climate system."

So the longer-term trend in ocean temperatures is an overall warming. Do you agree or disagree with this finding?

SBVOR said...

Bru,

Clearly, you are neither a worthy debate opponent nor an honest broker in the climate debate.

Adios.

SBVOR said...

P.S.) "Layer Seven" cited the 5 year trend in the ocean data, not me.

Jeff said...

You mentioned the five-year ocean temperature study as a premise in the fallacious, bait-and-switch argument in your third comment, so don't try to wash your hands of it now that you know it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

A worthy debate opponent would answer the question posed to him or her. So I'll ask you again, if you're willing to stop being a quitter, do you agree or disagree with the IPCC's assertion in the FAR that ocean temperatures in general have risen at depths of at least 3000m since 1961?

SBVOR said...

Bru,

I examined your IPCC assertion. I failed to find any citation of any peer reviewed science which this political body used to reach that conclusion.

With each new assessment, the IPCC has been more and more murky in even pretending to cite peer reviewed science. But, that’s not surprising. When, in past assessments, they have cited peer reviewed science which they alleged backed up their CO2 centric political spin, it became childishly simple to bust these political hacks. I did precisely that in this post (point #5).

That said, given surface temperature trends from 1961 to present, I would expect that to be the case, even despite the current 10 year cooling trend. So what?

My point, again, is that climate changes all the time, with no human perturbation at all. It is pointless to examine any trend of less than 130,000 years (the time of the previous interglacial warming period, known as the Eemian).

In that regard, even your beloved IPCC admits that all evidence indicates that, 8-10 thousand years ago, temperatures during the current interglacial warming period were higher than the present temperatures:

"Was Any Part of the Current Interglacial Period Warmer than the Late 20th Century?"

"At high latitudes of the North Atlantic and adjacent Arctic, there was a tendency for summer temperature maxima to occur in the early Holocene (10 to 8 ka)"


Translation:
8 to 10 thousand years ago, the current interglacial period produced warmer temperatures than we see today.

That is clearly observable in this graph from NOAA.

That period, 8-10 thousand years ago will probably turn out to be the apex (or Climactic Optimum) for the current interglacial warming period (known as the Holocene). The only thing that is unusual about the current perfectly natural, perfectly predictable interglacial warming period is that is has not yet produced temperatures as warm as any of the previous fourinterglacial warming periods.

Okay, I’ve addressed and thoroughly debunked your juvenile question. Now, review the evidence presented here, and attempt, if you can, to broadly refute that as well as my own analysis.

You won’t because you can’t. You can’t because your entire ideology is pure mythology!