Jackson Free Press

Today, the Obama administration's plan to reduce greenhouse emissions and lower America's dependence on fossil fuels will come under intense Congressional scrutiny. With more than 50 witnesses scheduled to provide their expert opinions on the legislation, partisan pundits are already screeching their opinions in whatever format will hear them.

The conservative argument is tending toward familiar fall-back positions: The policy is "the biggest tax increase in history and will clobber low- and middle-income families," wrote Gov. Haley Barbour in a Washington Times opinion piece. The "proposal for $81 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry," he continued, "will add that much more to gasoline and electricity prices, while also reducing supply, thereby driving fuel costs even higher."

On the progressive side, the opinion is that America should take the lead in the fight against global warming, a lead that has escaped this country in our ever-more frenetic "keep up with the Jones'" accumulation of material wealth. The progressive position is also in opposition to the conservative one, which should not surprise anyone.

In a report released Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted the bill would "'drive the clean energy transformation of the U.S. economy by making it more economically attractive to invest in renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate-friendly technologies' – and, in some scenarios, actually lower energy costs for low-income consumers," according to a story in The Chicago Tribune.

Who's right? I suspect both have some good and some really bad arguments. But this fight needs to stop being about partisan politics and special interests—and fast—to begin making an impact on our global quest for clean air, clean water and a planet that can sustain life into the next centuries.

No one's going to get away clean and free. All of us—individually, corporately, legislatively—are going to need to bite the bullet we've crafted through our collective ostrich-like behavior and respond appropriately. We all need to do a little growing up, in other words. All sides need to let go of the ideology, policies and opinions that have taken us to this point and come up with innovative, equitable solutions instead.

We can do it now, or we can do it later. Later will be even harder, not to mention hotter.

Previous Comments

ID

146193

Comment

Like I said before, stop dumping toxic waste into our oceans, stop clearing rain forest, stop testing huge explosives, then we will have real progression. Everyone wants clean air and water, but I say do these other few things before you take more of my money. Side note: I love when the media shows polar bears on ice, and talk about how sad that visual is, when, in reality, polar bears can swim hundreds of miles off shore. But you know Al Gore!

Author

....

Date

2009-04-22T22:53:50-06:00

ID

146216

Comment

JOK, I agree that we need to do all of the thing you mention, but we also need end our dependence on fossil fuels. Are you saying that we should continue to freely burn oil and coal until your particular issues are cleared up? Seems a little selfish, really, and very binary. We can do more than one thing at a time. The Bush administration was probably the least environmentally friendly of all administrations in recent memory, setting us back by decades in moving the country away from dependence on fossil fuels. Under W's leadership, citizens bathed in the illusion that we could drive our SUVs forever, not worry about alternative energy, recycling, pollution or endangered species and environments. That entrenched attitude is about to bite our collective asses, because we can not continue to simply ignore the damage we do. Polar bears are a symbol of what's happening because of global warming, i.e., endangered environment and ice caps melting. Just showing melting ice wouldn't be particularly effective, now would it. And yes, polar bears can swim offshore, but not "hundreds of miles." They have been tracked swimming as far as 100 kilometers from shore, which is about 62 miles. I'm not sure what you mean by "you know Al Gore." I can deduce that you don't hold him in high regard, but would appreciate your getting clearer on your references.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-04-23T11:58:27-06:00

ID

146235

Comment

Personally I favor strong initiatives to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels. Consumption of foreign oil, especially from hostile nations, is a national security issue more so than an environmental one.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-04-23T19:42:50-06:00

ID

146238

Comment

JOkeefe, I'm with Ronni in not understanding how you can reconcile no taxation with environmental regulation. Doing the things you say you support requires money, and the government takes in money through taxation. I am a bit baffled. As for polar bears, love it up, but they're facing a loaded deck in this century. Polar bears probably can't survive if we lose Arctic ice cover, and we're likely to lose that ice cover in the next half century. We've already lost about 70 percent of the old ice. They are finding drowned polar bears that have tried to swim for retreating ice, and there's been reports of polar bears hybridizing with grizzly bears, which shows a species under serious selection pressure. As for Al Gore, I wish you wingers would give it a rest. For one, he did a great service in slapping the public in the face about global warming. More to the point, what does he have to do with the federal government classifying polar bears under ESA? It's infantile, the way you all spas out about him. Here, I'll show you what it's like. Global warming? Bush! Cheney! Gore made a movie. Bush and Cheney are corrupt war criminals who tried to bully scientists so they could boost petro-profits. Why don't we just stick to the subject at hand?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-23T20:54:24-06:00

ID

146239

Comment

"Bush and Cheney are corrupt war criminals who tried to bully scientists so they could boost petro-profits." I completely agree with that. Winger, eh? So, mentioning Al Gore makes me a right-winger? Oh, ok.

Author

....

Date

2009-04-23T21:05:05-06:00

ID

146240

Comment

"We've already lost about 70 percent of the old ice. They are finding drowned polar bears that have tried to swim for retreating ice, and there's been reports of polar bears hybridizing with grizzly bears, which shows a species under serious selection pressure." Ok, well if this is true then I take that statement back.

Author

....

Date

2009-04-23T21:06:45-06:00

ID

146242

Comment

Consumption of foreign oil, especially from hostile nations, is a national security issue more so than an environmental one. I agree that they are right there together Jeff. Even from a more superficial capitalist view, the United States should be poising ourselves to be the technology leader in the emerging field of everything "green". This is the new economic frontier. I don't really get the downside that everyone is so scared of. Unless they are oil company executives.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-04-24T06:09:16-06:00

ID

146244

Comment

JOKeefe, I don't actually think you're a "winger" in the usual sense, because you seem hostile to Republicans a good bit of the time. But your comment on Al Gore was ripped right from the playbook of right-wing babblers. The right wing tries very hard to make global warming a complaint about Al Gore's vanity. They twist the issue into an ad hominem food fight over Gore and Soros and the like. That is like an octopus squirting ink into the water.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-24T06:23:32-06:00

ID

146245

Comment

Here is an AP story on drowning polar bears. It's hard to say how many drown each year. They found four carcasses in 2004. Here is a story on a polar bear-grizzly hybrid. It is not evidence of climate change, per se, but it does indicate pressure on polar bear populations. Talk about not being able to find a decent man. And here is a story on first-year ice in the Arctic. Although in the past year the ice extent has recovered slightly, its average thickness is way down, largely because much of this year’s ice formed just this last winter, Meier adds. While the average proportion of multiyear ice in Arctic seas is about 30 percent, this spring the proportion of ice older than 1 year old is a record low 9.8 percent. The region’s floating ice “is much younger and thinner compared to previous years,” Meier noted. You won't see George Will talking about the loss of multiyear ice. The level of dishonesty in discussion of this issue is such that "skeptics" claimed a victory for their side because Arctic ice failed to set a new record for minimum extent last year. But it set a record for second-lowest minimum. If you can explain how that bolsters skeptics' arguments, I'll be most impressed. Check out the graphic.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-24T06:39:37-06:00

ID

146246

Comment

The melting of ice cover is also an important factor in the positive feedback loop contributing to the problem. As the ice recedes and uncovers marshland, methane gas is released. Methane is a "greenhouse" gas and adds to the warming effect which in turn melts more ice which uncovers more marsh land and releases more methane. These type of cycles have a runaway effect and are one of the reasons that the warming tends to accelerate.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-04-24T07:23:27-06:00

ID

146273

Comment

I support cap and trade and any environmental regulations that need be enacted to enforce the plan. While the polar ice issue is of great importance, we can do much to reduce emissions here in Mississippi. To start, I would like to see legislation passed that would reduce the cost of license plates for hybrid and plug in electric cars to $0. Tags for vehicles registered to licensed businesses would be a flat fee of $100 per year regardless of the age of the vehicle provided it could pass a certified emissions test at least every 24 months. Failure to pass the emissions test would disqualify the vehicle from being registered or insured. Non commercial cars, trucks and SUV's would be subject to emissions testing every 24 months and the tag fee would be based on a formula using the gvwr (gross vehicle weight rating) and the combined city / highway EPA mileage rating. Lighter vehicles with better fuel economy would pay considerably less for tags than heavier less fuel efficient vehicles.

Author

Jeffery R

Date

2009-04-24T13:02:34-06:00

ID

146281

Comment

Great ideas, Jeff. I was amazed the first time I got a vehicle inspection in Mississippi. Um, so we're making sure the blinkers work? In Wisconsin, you have to go to this cybernetic testing facility where they put a tube on your muffler and make you drive on these spinning wheels. If your car is spitting out too much junk, you have to get it fixed. You know, Republicans would cry and moan about your proposal being a "tax increase." All it really is making polluters pay for their pollution. It's basic fairness.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-24T18:58:39-06:00

ID

146282

Comment

Interesting proposal on the car tag rates, Jeff R. You might want to pass it on to your legislators; they'll be back in session soon and trying to figure out what to do about car tags. On a different note, one of the things conservatives never seem to propose in their responses to alternative energy proposals is for businesses like the oil & gas industry to post nearly flat profits before passing any costs to consumers and laying off workers. Those industries, which Barbour singled out in his column, have been making record profits for years on the backs of consumers. Recently, their profits are down (along with consumer costs), but they're hardly hurting. Barbour and his cronies are completely predictable with their alarmism to the public, while never suggesting that their Big Business supporters are the ones who need to tighten their belts first. Is that such a radical idea? In the long run, wouldn't businesses, consumers and workers all win if businesses put people and the environment first? The only entity with a downside would be the stock market, and honestly, if most stock owners didn't see the values of their stock rising for a while, many of them wouldn't be affected on a day-to-day basis--stock value isn't cash investors live on. Granted, folks may not see their 401Ks increase for a while, but that's always been the downside to investing in the market (and the reason 401Ks have never been a good bet to fund retirements).

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-04-24T19:02:42-06:00

ID

146284

Comment

Jeff- tags prices are already based on gvwr and an EPA gas guzzler tax is already added to the price of cars and truck that get bad mileage. The gas guzzler tax has been added to cars and trucks that get less than 22.5mpg since 1978.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-04-25T00:29:10-06:00

ID

146289

Comment

Great debates going here. The R's have, in fact done a bad job with this but so has the Gore team. If you actually study this subject what you will find is that there are a large group of REAL scientists who haven't drank the Gore kool-aid. However, and this big, they don't think there are no potential problems...they just think they haven't been debated. Remember, scientists exist to research, study, and debate. They don't (or shouldn't when they do) care about what the public is saying on stuff. There are well known scientists presenting extensive research that in their findings, show a 1 degree warm-up as actually good for some crops. That is the debate they want to have, not what the tax rates should be! That's politicians playing in their realms!! We have got to break our addiction to foreign fossil fuels...we are sending billions to the people who hate and want to kill us. We have to focus on renewables of all sorts (biofuels, wind, solar, etc.) and maybe even more importantly focus on demand side conservation. The technology exists today if used to cut 30% of our energy appetite. It's there and that's what should be mandated. The last problem I wrestle with on international issues like this is what's the rest of the world doing. I know, I know, you shouldn't get into the "if they jump off the bridge, should we?", but the fact is that China is putting enough coal powered power plants into service every three years to eclipse EVERYTHING being consumed in America today. So are the other BRIC countries. We've got to engage the world and convince them with a dove rather than a hammer to go along with us if this is something we should be doing.

Author

Hayes

Date

2009-04-25T12:33:58-06:00

ID

146349

Comment

...there are a large group of REAL scientists who haven't drank the Gore kool-aid. Citations, please, Hayes. Who are these scientists? You've made a lot of broad generalizations in your comments. They're difficult, if not impossible to debate without additional details. Like this one: There are well known scientists presenting extensive research that in their findings, show a 1 degree warm-up as actually good for some crops. OK... what scientists and what crops? Conversely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that a one degree rise in temperatures will increase the melting of polar ice, increase hurricanes in the South Atlantic and increase droughts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that just a one degree rise in ocean temps can kill off some algae that feed coral reefs, at which point corals begin to starve and die. I think we might be on the same page, but over-generalizations tend to cloud the issues, not clarify them. Like this one: [W]e are sending billions to the people who hate and want to kill us. You're expressing a common meme here, but we shouldn't forget that the West's exploitation of Middle East has been going on for a very long time. Many in the Middle East have good reason to hold grudges against the West--America in particular. I'm not saying that their response is "right" in any way, simply that we've brought much of their hatred on ourselves through our exploitative foreign policies. We've got to engage the world and convince them with a dove rather than a hammer to go along with us. I couldn't agree with you more, Hayes, but we have a really crappy record of doing exactly the opposite. Which leads back to what I said previously. We've been the biggest bully on the block with the biggest appetite for the world's resources for decades. It's going to take some time to rehabilitate ourselves in the World's view. We need to start in our own backyard and then lead by example.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-04-27T14:26:29-06:00

ID

146352

Comment

What ever happened to the lawsuit John Coleman and 30,000 scientists filed against Gore for fraud about global warming?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-04-27T14:56:58-06:00

ID

146354

Comment

As I read more and more of these type debates on other forums, the more convinced I am that neither side can say with 100% certainty whether man is significantly contributing to global climate change or not. There still appears to be significant debate in the scientific community about it. Most laymen opinions I read seem based more on whether one feels that man is capable of harming the environment or not, and is more prone to believe statistics and groups that support that 'feeling'.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-04-27T15:50:18-06:00

ID

146362

Comment

Will do Ronni, I've got it up on Facebook but will post it here from my office. I think Jeff's right, there is a growing number of scientists saying that emperor Al has no clothes, but I'll put 'em up. Cap and trade is simply not the best way to handle it on an international basis unless everyone (or almost everyone)plays.

Author

Hayes

Date

2009-04-27T19:34:25-06:00

ID

146366

Comment

Jeff Lucas, there will always be debate in science as scientists are rarely, if ever, able to use the phrase "100% certainty". But to give you an idea of the consensus of climate scientists here are the results of a study published in Science Magazine December 4, 2005 called appropriately enough, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Some highlights: This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-04-27T19:56:36-06:00

ID

146368

Comment

Is this seriously a discussion about the "science" of climate control??? At this stage? I'm sorry, but this is absurd.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-04-27T20:03:07-06:00

ID

146432

Comment

Seriously. I assume you all mean well, but there really is NOT scientific debate about whether or not human activities are driving global warming. What's sad to see is comments like Hayes' claim that "if you study" this issue you'll find a "large group of REAL scientists who haven't drunk the Gore kool-aid." The fact that you would say something so entirely and completely WRONG shows that you have not studied this issue at all. (Hint: Reading right-wing blogs does not count as study of the scientific literature.) Please, do illuminate us on all the REAL scientists you've kept locked up in a cave. Dentists don't count.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-28T18:52:39-06:00

ID

146433

Comment

In fact, I openly challenge any one of you to cite ONE peer-reviewed study that calls into question the fact that human activities are driving global warming. One study. Do you have that?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-28T18:57:16-06:00

ID

146440

Comment

Brian, "On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget" by Nir J. Shaviv Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010866.shtml What do I win? :D The point I am making by taking up your challenge is to say that there IS debate among climate scientists. Science is not religion because it is not based on faith or belief but on investigation and evidence. Watching that debate from the sidelines one thing is obvious. There is an overwhelming majority of climate scientists who agree that the warming the earth is experiencing is being caused by the carbon gases humans release into the atmosphere. They don't agree because they drank someone's "Kool aid" they agree because there is just a ton of evidence supporting the theory. The debate is so lopsided now, and the consequences so dire, that we really can't afford to not address the problem anymore.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-04-29T08:03:07-06:00

ID

146442

Comment

Interesting citation, WMartin, I think. Or it would be interesting if I was a physicist. If I'm reading it correctly (and I have doubts, mind you) the author attributes less than half a degree of warming to "changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," and states that "the rest should be attributed to anthropomorphic causes." With that statement, doesn't the study confirm Brian's point and not refute it? It's also more than four years old, which is a lifetime in some scientific circles The fact that humans are contributing to global warming does not seem to be debated seriously any more. The debate now comes down to: (1) how much of the warming is caused by humans; (2) the degree of damage caused by specific human-related factors; and (3) what and how much can be done to halt or reverse the damage.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-04-29T09:05:04-06:00

ID

146449

Comment

Good reading, Ronni. The study estimates the contribution of cosmic rays is .19 degrees kelvin, which even if it's accurate accounts for no more than a third of the warming over the last century. The rest, as Ronni noted, is driven by "radiative forcing," which is fancy scientist talk for the greenhouse effect. So this article would not count. That said, if we dug around long enough we could probably find a peer-reviewed article that does challenge anthropogenic global warming, though I have never seen one. The purpose of my challenge was to call Hayes' bluff, because I don't think HE can cite such a study, despite his claim to have "studied" the issue. WMartin, there really is not substantial debate about whether people are driving climate change. There are certainly scientists who disagree with the consensus, though most of them have no expertise in climate science. (See Freeman Dyson, for example.) The debate is over the extent of the change and the mechanisms of global warming. There is a lot of ongoing research in this area, and there are certainly spirited disputes among scientists on these secondary questions. As for the peer-reviewed results on our side, that is the whole point of the IPCC. Its mission is to review all of the peer-reviewed literature and assess the findings. See the IPCC mandate here. Deniers are now backed into a corner where they have to claim that the IPCC is somehow corrupt, that it is driven by special interests. Such accounts are about as convincing as Ben Stein talking about intimidation and corruption among evolutionary scientists. I urge all deniers to actually read the IPCC's Fourth Assessment, because I very much doubt that most of them have.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-29T11:29:26-06:00

ID

146456

Comment

I think the three of us trying to decipher the scientific paper I posted makes Ms. Ladd's point from earlier. Any debate about the human contribution or outright cause of global warming other than by serious climate scientists at this point is absurd. And I say that because the evidence for it is so overwhelming. The problem is so complex that if we decided to wait until there was 100% certainty from all scientists we would be waiting forever. To the deniers, I would ask. If the fact finding skills of 12 laypeople are certain enough to decide life or death, why isn't a thousand experts all agreeing a high enough standard to at least begin to address the problem?

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-04-29T12:35:29-06:00

ID

146459

Comment

Can I hear an "Amen."

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-04-29T12:52:53-06:00

ID

146558

Comment

Brian, try going back and taking a look at my post and find where I said carbon increase in the atmosphere isn't man made. I didn't say it because I don't believe it! It is manmade...the fact that you'll joke about right wing blogs just shows you want this kept in a political realm. Hell, I'll admit I'm not technical but I can read, thank you. Try Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton. I'm not even technical enough to get his stuff up on this site. I'll apologize for that as well, but you can find him. I would also tell you that the two references up here are from 2005 and late 2007. There has been a ton of movement in this issue just in the last 12 months.

Author

Hayes

Date

2009-04-30T14:41:27-06:00

ID

146579

Comment

Hayes, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the meaning of your incendiary comment about "the Gore Kool-aid." In case you didn't notice, I posted a link to the IPCC report above, which is about as far from being political as we can get. I take it that your point is that many scientists think the issue should be debated more. Frankly, I don't what the hell you're talking about. There are hundreds of studies on global warming published every year. Whether a 1 degree increase in temperature may be good for some crops is rather beside the point. The latest study about crops I've seen comes to the opposite conclusion. But the real point is what is the overall effect on the environmental health of our planet? The vast majority of published scientific literature finds that global warming will be extremely negative for both people and the environment. Don't bring a physicist to a fight over global warming. Moreover, don't bring a physicist who takes money from ExxonMobil. Happer servers on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a politically conservative think tank funded by ExxonMobil and directed by the American Petroleum Institute. Oh, it also gets funding from arch conservative Richard Mellon Scaife. Learn how to use Google, my friend. His damning loyalties aside, Happer makes a number of idiotic statements in his Senate testimony. For one, comparing measures to curb global warming with prohibition is a specious argument. The fact that he argues that we have seen no warming in the last 10 years makes everything else he says suspect, because that is a ridiculous, misleading argument. According to NASA: "The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006." Yet Happer makes the asinine argument that there has been "slight cooling" over the last decade. Look at the trend lines in the link I posted to see how dastardly his statement is. And his testimony is full of ridiculous straw man arguments, such as the claim that not all climate change is caused by people. Who has ever claimed such a thing? Or that the Earth has been warmer in the past. Who disputes that? I'll take the IPCC over the musings of a physicist who is wholly owned by the petroleum industry. Prove that there has been a ton of "movement" on this issue in the last 12 months. Or do you just have oil industry whores like Happer?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-30T15:58:10-06:00

ID

146580

Comment

Brian- the IPCC a was set up by the United Nations Environment Programme a part of the United Nations that's about as political as you can get. :)

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-04-30T16:11:31-06:00

ID

146587

Comment

Bubba, I will count on you to warn me when the black helicopters are coming to mutilate my cattle. The IPCC is under the umbrella of the UN but it is made up of climate scientists from around the world. It is an apolitical body.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-04-30T16:57:40-06:00

ID

146592

Comment

Brian- The last time I saw an UN helicopter on tv they were painted that god-awful baby blue they paint everything not black.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-04-30T18:01:36-06:00

ID

146603

Comment

Bubba, you cannot win with some folk and that's ok. What is happening is that there is a growing backlash to not only the fourth assessment because of the exact point you hit on...it's a political statement by a political organization. As far as Happer and his "whore" leanings....let's just let Brian's comments stand on their own. That would be like me saying something like, "look at what Gore has whored for on the left". But I've learned that's not productive or even intelligent, so I try to avoid comments like that. And I mean this in a complimentary way, I've learned that here. While I don't think it's fair sometimes, it's forced me to do a little more homework. I actually want to have policy makers more seriously consider mandates. That will force everyone into the game...everyone. With Cap and Trade there are as many loopholes and exceptions as you would...well...think would come out of Washington. If we're going to force our country to move towards renewables (which I support) let's really make it happen. Mandates will.

Author

Hayes

Date

2009-05-01T06:27:40-06:00

ID

146610

Comment

Hayes, saying that you can't win with some folks is a cute way of acknowledging that you can't prove your point. Your argument about Gore might be compelling if I had ever cited him as an authority on climate science. That's your canard, and it has nothing to do with the arguments I've made. My argument is based on science. Yours is based on politics. I challenge you, once again, to provide evidence that there is "a growing backlash" to the Fourth Assessment. Writing that the IPCC is a "political organization" is simply a smear, and it only further erodes your credibility in this argument. You can't dispute the science, so you engage in the same old right-wing mud-slinging. You should be ashamed. I sympathize with the fact that you were seduced by Happer. That's the whole point of there being a Happer. The petroleum industry has poured billions of dollars into funding junk science designed to confuse the public. Check your sources, especially if you're going to throw them out into a blog debate. You're the one who told me to Google Happer. The third hit of that Google search steered me toward his industry ties. It's not like it's a big secret. I am not sure what you mean by mandates, but I assume you mean that we should simply require a certain percentage of renewable energy. I heartily agree with you there, and I share your skepticism regarding cap and trade. The most important point is that we take action now. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and we have had more than enough years of fake controversy in climate science.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-05-01T08:45:44-06:00

ID

146624

Comment

Ok, I'll just agree to disagree.  You can't win this with me either so there's no point in discussing it.  I believe you will see in the coming months and years "broader" disagreements on this subject...so since that's the best I can do and neither one of us can know exactly what's going to happen, you'll just have to be satisfied that you can provide a big time "I told you so" eighteen months from now. I will also tell you that I haven't been seduced by anyone since 1984 and Reagan.  While it's not primarily the area of this topic, I work in public policy and know the difference between someone p*&&#xin;g on my leg and a rainstorm.  So let's just move on. The paragraph below will illuminate better how I feel about big oil. You guessed right about my feelings on mandates. I have a bio-refinery in Greenville that makes non-ester renewable diesel. Right now even with the $1.00 and + or - $.26 on RIN's, we can't make a profit. No one can play the spread between oil and commodity feedstocks. A mandate would solve that problem. Big oil knows this and is sitting back chuckeling. Don't forget almost HALF the profit of the WHOLE Fortune 500 this year came from Exxon. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're still sending over 200 billion dollars a year to folk who want to KILL us.

Author

Hayes

Date

2009-05-01T11:24:51-06:00

ID

146635

Comment

Hayes, I do take it as a promising sign that even though you're skeptical about global warming, you're aggressive about taking measures that would ameliorate it. I get the sense that if anything, you would be more aggressive than Obama about taking measures to support renewable energy. There was a lot of talk about a coalition between folks with national security concerns and environmentalists, but it doesn't seem to have amounted to much. Or maybe it's just hard to see the fruits of that alliance compared to the juggernaut of big oil, big coal, and all the other corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I think people have to accept the idea that we can't get energy independence for free. It's not going to happen magically. We have to tax carbon, one way or another. The revenues can go to tax breaks, so the tax isn't regressive. The added cost of oil products would make products like biodiesel more competitive right off the bat. As for global warming, I guess we will have to wait and see, but the science is not trending toward skepticism. A new study described in the journal Science conducted by the NSIDC found that we'll likely have ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2037. If we wait until then to tackle this problem, no one will be able to take satisfaction at being right.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-05-01T14:50:32-06:00

ID

146650

Comment

Anything like this that's worth doing...and this is...is going to carry costs. I happen to believe the added costs will force us to address this issue in a real way. Tricking the system won't work, but if you mandate and force compliance...that will. Let me ask a question Brian, read Paul Krugman's piece on Cap and Trade in yesterday's NYT's. He says MIT's Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group says we'll consume only 2 percent less under controls by 2050 than without. What are your thoughts on this?

Author

Hayes

Date

2009-05-02T07:45:02-06:00