Seeking an Olympian achievement on climate change
A home destroyed by beach erosion in the Alaskan village of Shishmaref. It was evacuated because of global warming.
When President Barack Obama was in Copenhagen on Oct. 2, he was trying to attract an Olympic Games for Chicago.
Next time, he should aim higher: He should try to help save the planet from global warming.
In December, representatives from 190 countries will meet in Copenhagen to start hammering out a new climate change treaty.
It’s crucial that those negotiations not meet the same fate as Chicago’s failed Olympic bid.
The evidence of man-made global warming is simply overwhelming, as virtually every national climatology and scientific society — including the U.S. National Academies of Science and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have acknowledged. The planet is warming. The pace of change is occurring faster than even the worst-case scenarios had predicted.
To avoid the most serious consequences, developed and developing nations must act together to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
The only reasonable hope of achieving that is a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Climate Accord, which will expire in 2012.
Mr. Obama clearly would have something to brag about at the meeting. He can point to significant efforts to curtail carbon-dioxide emissions, including two that have occurred in the last week.
Among those efforts are new regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions that were proposed last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
And a new bill introduced in the Senate would create market-based controls on carbon-dioxide emissions. The House already has passed a similar measure.
The new EPA regulations would apply to big power plants, oil refiners and manufacturing facilities that each release more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s the amount that would be generated by burning 131 rail cars of coal.
Those facilities together account for about 70 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is both logical and productive to start by regulating them.
Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced agreements with automakers that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks. That rule will take effect next year.
The Senate bill and proposed new EPA rules are not likely to win quick approval.
Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spearheading the opposition, already have begun running ads against the cap-and-trade bill.
But the chamber has suffered some high-profile defections as a result of its obstructionist efforts. Three large utility companies, the computer maker Apple and shoe giant Nike have resigned from the chamber in recent weeks.
Even without final approval of a cap-and-trade bill, Mr. Obama’s efforts to curtail U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will give him vastly more international influence when negotiators begin shaping details of the new agreement.
He probably will need it.
World leaders paid lip service to the need for reform during a U.N. summit on climate change in New York last month. But that rhetoric wasn’t matched by performance.
Channeling former President George W. Bush, China’s Hu Jintao pledged to reduce the “carbon intensity” of his country’s economy. Together, China and the United States account for about 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the obstacles, Mr. Obama should do what it takes — including making a personal appeal — to move reluctant world leaders to reach an agreement.
Compared to the catastrophic environmental changes that scientists say climate change can unleash, another trip to Copenhagen is a small price to pay.
This will only work if EVERY NATION is on board. If not, then we should not be made to suffer the costs of “cap & trade”
There’s no evidence whatsoever that making US manufactured goods cost more relative to competitors will reduce total worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. It will simply shift well paying jobs and emissions to emerging markets, where there are fewer controls. It’s sad that the drive the Land Rover to Earth Day liberals that push this stuff have so little concern for the middle class and poor folks whose jobs will disappear.
There is touchstone to determine the intellectual worth of a climate change advocate. Ask him/her how they feel about nuclear power.
.
.
.
NUCLEAR - THE POWER TO SAVE THE WORLD.
OMG, is this fraud ever going end? This must be part of the socialists new religion. “Man is ruining the earth!” As the old saying goes, “Don’t go away mad. Just go away.” One-hundred years from now, readers will look back and see how “quaint” (and clueless) some of our generation was.
What is the environmental impact of newspaper publishing? How much would it help global warming if the federal government prohibited printed newspapers, and required all of you to go to electronic publishing in the next 12 months? How would that affect the viability of the newspaper industry?
This is a great article about the effects of global warming … but I also think that one of the most persuasive reasons for us to pass legislation and encourage clean energy development domestically is our current dependence on foreign oil. We send a billion dollars a day overseas to line the pockets of other (often hostile?)regimes and Big Oil execs… why not invest that money here instead to develop new industries? The environmental benefits of reducing pollution are great, sure, but so are the foreign policy and economic benefits. It’s about time the U.S. took control of its energy future, I’m tired of depending on OPEC. (I know some of you think drilling here is a good alternative … but those sources will run out too, and then we’re in the same tough spot but with more pollution … lets put in the work now instead, it will be worth it.)
That’s a good point Nick. It’s hard to square the position of the editorial page with the 100’s of imported petro hogging, greenhouse gas emitting vans that go speeding around the metro each morning delivering the Post. You’d think the corporation would lead by example first before hectoring others, but I suppose when you’ve got an eco-phony like Al Gore leading the movement, it’s no big surprise. What they do matters, whereas the ordinary guy working in a factory whose company loses business because their costs go higher, well that’s just the price folks gotta pay so wealthy liberals can feel a little less guilty.
I agree with Kristen, great article guys.
The whole point of cap and trade is that it adds certainty to the markets and helps businesses to plan. Investors are waiting for a clear policy signal that creates new demand for climate solutions. As Daniel Abbasi, Senior Director at Mission Point Capital Partners, testified: “We are…holding back a lot of “dry powder” - or uninvested capital -…(because) without a cap and trade we won’t see the market demand needed to fully pull those (low-carbon) solutions through. A cap on emissions is the necessary trigger to drive innovation and jump-start the transition to a new clean economy.
If we wait to enact a nation-wide policy, the U.S. risks sending the next generation of good jobs and huge profits overseas and being shut out of the market altogether. The stakes are high - the world is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050, and many will be aspiring to live American-like, high-energy lifestyles. In such a world, clean power and energy efficiency will be in huge demand. Without a strong demand for climate solutions at home, the U.S. risks losing out on these promising and robust new markets as companies choose to move overseas where demand is higher.
Sen. Bond and Sen. McCaskill, the world is moving to a low-carbon economy and the U.S. needs a strong national climate policy now to create markets and drive investments in the made-in-America technologies that will get us there. If we do nothing, America will lose its competitive edge and American jobs will continue to go overseas. Support clean energy legislation this fall.
I just saw a PBS show on ARCTIC dinosaurs. They were mostly plant eaters. There were fossils of plants that these dinosaurs ate. They determined the avg temp when these dinosaurs lived would have been about 70 plus degrees. The funny thing is, they didn’t find the fossils of the cavemen or the SUV’s they were driving that caused the warming way back then.
“Compared to the catastrophic environmental changes that scientists say climate change can unleash, another trip to Copenhagen is a small price to pay.” You really need to put this debate in your theological section.
Man-made global warming is rooted in crackpot science that does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, the globe MAY be warming but to say it is man-made is a big stretch. Yet, you advocate a complete restructuring of the American economy (aka, export more industry and jobs to China) based on this farce of epic proportions. See you in Nov 2010…