False choice: Inaction on global warming is no option
The House Energy and Commerce Committee last week took a major step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It approved a bill that would cap releases of heat-trapping gases and create a national market to trade pollution credits.
The bill comes on the eve of talks that will set the stage for a new international treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The old treaty — the much-discussed Kyoto Protocol that the United States refused to sign — is set to expire in 2012.
Any new agreement will have to ask more of developing countries — including China and India — that were exempted from previous limits. But the United States can’t credibly ask them to reduce their emissions if it refuses to curb its own.
The climate change bill approved last week faces many serious challenges before it can be considered by the full House of Representatives. It already has been watered down to satisfy some powerful interests. But that hasn’t stopped critics from mounting a major disinformation campaign to defeat it.
At the heart of this disinformation campaign is a false choice — vote for the so-called cap-and-trade bill and face higher energy prices, or do nothing and keep costs low. It’s a seductive but specious argument.
In reality, the status quo comes at an unsustainable cost. Global warming already is occurring. Even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, the effects would be felt for decades.
Climate change imposes very real costs on all of us, on our children and on our grandchildren. We are subsidizing current energy prices at the expense of our progeny. The longer we defer payment, the higher those costs will be.
In a landmark 2006 report, the British Government Economic Service warned that delay could reduce the world’s gross domestic product by between 5 percent and 20 percent. That would occur because of a simultaneous need to switch from carbon-based energy to some other source and to address negative effects of climate change that were decades in the making.
It’s as if we are financing our lifestyle with an interest-only mortgage. There’s a big balloon payment looming in our future, but we’ve refused to set anything aside to pay it.
As originally proposed, the cap-and-trade system would have required companies to bid for permits that would allow them to emit greenhouse gases.
The idea was to encourage them to reduce emissions and reward those that succeeded. Companies that failed to cut back would pay a penalty; they’d buy permits from the companies that no longer needed them.
But that’s not how the bill approved last week works. Most permits would be given away, many to utilities like Ameren that generate electricity by burning coal.
Giving away permits reduces the financial impact on consumers. But it also substitutes political considerations for market forces to determine who gets to pollute. Favored industries like electric companies get lots of credits. Less favored industries like oil companies get very few.
Despite those drawbacks, the cap-and-trade bill represents an important advance because it has a realistic chance of being approved.
If we do not start reducing our global warming liabilities now, we will be overwhelmed with the debt later. We can’t do that by wallowing in denial.
Antonio - maybe you could get a job with the PD Editorial Page. They are sorely in need of a guest writer that doesn’t have their head up Obama’s, well you know what goes here.
I am beginning to wonder if all those lefty-loon posters during the election weren’t actually ACORN plants. Where have all the ACORNies gone?
bman—
You don’t see acid rain now in the US because there was an aggressive regulatory effort that stamped out the issue through limitations on sulfur emissions. Not unlike, though at a smaller scale, than what is being discussed with greenhouse gases. The solution worked, had minimal impacts on industry, and did not affect utility bills.
We do not have a problem with acid rain now. Canada certainly does…
In response to Your Not Qualified’s post: science in this country is debated in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. To date, I am not aware of any articles published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that challenges global warming.
I am in favor of global warming. I’d like to grow a garden the year around. If people cause it, do more to created it faster. Unfortunately there is not one shred of proof anywhere in the world that shows mankind has any effect on the temperature of the EARTH. If you know of a shred of proof, post it here. I will destroy it in a new York Minute.
Fact, if government grants to “study” the non-problem ceased, the problem would disappear.
Next someone will want a study to see if we need to put a thermostat on the Sun. Indeed that would solve the non problem.
Note to the PD. I was off topic, and had to be. To address that ridiculous editorial is not possible. You didn’t post enough truth in it to even qualify it as propaganda. You need to brush up your skills. I recommend the writings of Joseph Gobbles, so you have a better understanding of how to write more believable propaganda. The editorial was a complete bust.
Josh -
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23697/Still_More_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html
Regarding Peer reviews and the ipcc
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
My original link:
“Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself. What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.
The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries. In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries. ”
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/purists-who-demand-that-facts-be-correct-5309
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html
It is alarming the extent that politicians have taken this over. Might it be occuring? perhaps. But there is no documented evidence yet. How about we spend that money fighting malaria or providing 3rd world countries clean water. One cannot guarantee that GW will kill anyone, but we are sure that malaria and poor water will kill millions over the next 10 years.
Josh the real problem here is that groups such as yours don’t question anything that supports your preconceived notions and that is just wrong.
My Turn -
Since so much of the GW “science” to this point uses computer models to map future conditions. Please provide to me the links to studies that have used computer models to predict GW and have had those models accurately predict the future. Hint: You aren’t going to find them.
Oh look everybody. If we don’t do something about Global Cooling/Warming/Change ™ now, we’re going to “overwhelmed with debt”.
Please.
In case you didn’t notice, we’re overwhelmed to the tune of almost $2 TRILLION a year already. This exercise in governmental stupidity ain’t gonna help.
The global warming hoax and cap and trade scams will go down in history as the worst public policy disasters since the inception of the Socialist welfare state.
Josh: Where in Canada do they suffer from “acid rain”? I go up for meetings four or 5 times a year and I haven’t seen any. I have never seen any in Southern Illinois.
Now to the evils of chemicals. How about the “loony scientists” who put MTBE in gasoline to “purify” the ambient air? Did it work? Nope. What did it do? It “poisoned” the groundwater in 32 states. It made ghost towns in some western states that relied on ground water for survival.
For you who are concerned about “greenhouse gases”, did you know that some 95 percent of kitchens in your homes have more undesirable gases and pollutants than the outside ambient air. When is the last time you had your home tested for Radon, one of the most carcinogenic gases known to man, woman, or transvestite?
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s own welfare and not relying on the government to keep you safe. Government has a 200 year history of failing to protect you. Name one family the government has protected against radon. You can’t.
Oh johnh, certainly you realize that you as an individual is insignificant. It is the collective that is important. This editorial board is part of the collective. They cannot think for themselves, but know what is best for you. Soon, they will develop a prenatal test to determine if a child will be part of the collective or not. This test will determine the potential intelligence. If the baby is going to be smart, it will be aborted and the mother will be brainwashed into thinking she chose that course of action. Only the stupid will survive. And the first words they will speak are “Hail Obama”.
There are more areas where we could address CO2 pollution. I think Al Gore would be proud of this list:
* Ban carbonated beverages. Science has shown that the sound waves from the fizz are disrupting reproductive abilities of bees, but the tons of CO2 emitted from these beverages has risen global temperatures 0.001 degrees C.
* Tax exercise. When people work out, the expell more of that deadly gas. An implant will be required for all people and it will send back to the IRS data on physical activity.
* Mandatory reforestation at all public buildings. No more White House lawn. That green space must be planted with nice CO2 munching trees. Non-essential government buildings will be razed to make way for the new national forest.
* Mandatory termination of life for anyone who has a terminal illness. Saving the planet is much more important than allowing grandma to live our her last few days. Diseases where it is more likey that you will die than survive will result in immediate termination. This also has a nice benefit of reducing healthcare costs.
Hail Obama
When, Oh when are we going to put a stop to this ‘global warming’ hoax. If anyone thinks that Bernie Madoff, the Wall Street crook, pulled off the biggest scam in history, they have not taken a look at the Al Gore/liberal/social engineering crowd’s scheme on environment ‘control’. For the sake of our way of life, our children, and all that is held dear….call, write, vote…….scream this scam to a STOP.