Committee on global warming?

[Soxy]

Linky-link.

 

Pelosi seeks global warming committee

 

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 18, 6:52 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) sought to create a special committee Thursday in an effort to jump-start long-delayed government efforts to deal with global warming and produce a bill by Independence Day.

 

Pelosi, D-Calif., said the committee would hold hearings and recommend legislation on how to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels, that most scientists blame for a gradual warming of the earth's climate.

 

"I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming," Pelosi said.

 

Pelosi set a goal of the Fourth of July for finishing a global warming bill that would "truly declare our energy independence."

 

The committee will be led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who shares Pelosi's goals, said a Democratic leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because Pelosi had yet to announce her choice.

 

Actual bill-drafting duties will be left to committees that have a say in the matter. That could be several because global climate change could affect virtually everything.

 

Pelosi's move increases the likelihood that Democrats will propose far tougher constraints on greenhouse gas pollution than the Bush administration wants. She also has outflanked for now — and angered — a few Democrats who head important House committees.

 

"We should probably name it the committee on world travel and junkets," said Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which overseas the Clean Air Act and the

Environmental Protection Agency.

 

"We're just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor," said Dingell, a champion of the auto industry, which could be required to producing cleaner-burning and more fuel efficient vehicles.

 

Dingell, the House's longest-serving member at age 80, long has viewed environmental legislation as being his domain.

 

"They're going to get under the feet of and interfere with those who are trying to do a decent job of legislating," Dingell said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm unaware of anything they will do that will be of any value."

 

Reminded that Markey was one of his proteges, Dingell replied: "I won't be able to help him on this undertaking, now will I?"

 

Dingell convened Democratic members of his committee for two hours of private talks Wednesday. He said they agreed to send a delegation to meet with Pelosi and iron out who controls what.

 

"We're all jealous of our jurisdiction," Rep. Gene Green (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, said after the meeting.

 

Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the new committee builds pressure on the Bush administration, Dingell's panel and other members of Congress. It creates "an opportunity to go from denial into what needs to be done in the future," he said.

 

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., withheld judgment until he learned more. Rangel would have jurisdiction on any tax legislation aimed at affecting industry behavior on the environment.

 

"The appointees are totally unknown," he said. "I understand that they will have no legislative authority."

 

Environmentalists hailed Pelosi's decision as a momentum-builder to challenge the administration.

 

"This is a really gutsy move by the speaker," said Philip Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust. "Action on global warming is so urgent that the speaker has probably taken the only course that could produce a comprehensive bill before the 2008 elections swamp the political process."

[kapkomet]

Ahh, the turf wars start. Pelosi is a piece of work.

[southsider2k5]

"I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence ... and to stop global warming," Pelosi said.

 

Well they are serious about the first part as they are already ensuring price increases down the line by eliminating subsidies, increasing taxes, and stopping drilling projects. The quickest way to change behavior is to increase the price on it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Global Warming Panel=Waste of Time/Money/Energy

[Chisoxfn]

Considering I think for a large part global warming is more a natural issue than it is a polluting issue (Ie just globa temperature changes are cyclical as the history of the world has shown). Now I'm not saying pollution doesn't have an impact and I'm always for less pollution, but at the same time I don't buy into this end of the world global warming crap that a lot of people spew.

 

Still I do think we can always do things better, I just think a panel for global warming would just be political in nature and absolutely useless as opposed to something that was actually just there to try and reduce pollution, increase new ways of recycling things and using less minerals and all that jazz (without debating on how if we don't the world will end, but rather using the common sense that it keeps things cleaner and that has to be better for the planet we live on).

[kapkomet]

I bet global warming contributed to the end of the ice age. What do you think about that?

[NorthSideSox72]

Considering I think for a large part global warming is more a natural issue than it is a polluting issue (Ie just globa temperature changes are cyclical as the history of the world has shown). Now I'm not saying pollution doesn't have an impact and I'm always for less pollution, but at the same time I don't buy into this end of the world global warming crap that a lot of people spew.

 

Still I do think we can always do things better, I just think a panel for global warming would just be political in nature and absolutely useless as opposed to something that was actually just there to try and reduce pollution, increase new ways of recycling things and using less minerals and all that jazz (without debating on how if we don't the world will end, but rather using the common sense that it keeps things cleaner and that has to be better for the planet we live on).

 

I bet global warming contributed to the end of the ice age. What do you think about that?

 

In all the studies, articles and published research in the past decade or two, not a SINGLE article that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal claimed that global warming was not tied to human impact. On the other hand, a hundreds of them made the connection.

 

Scientists: 1000 to none. I'll go with the scientists over political talking heads, especially when they are that overwhelmingly sure.

 

Do either of you have even one shred of evidence to suppot your theories? Because there is a gigantic pile of evidence as to the reality of the situation.

 

 

Well they are serious about the first part as they are already ensuring price increases down the line by eliminating subsidies, increasing taxes, and stopping drilling projects. The quickest way to change behavior is to increase the price on it.

And I agree with the subsidy elimination and stopping the ANWR drilling. Taxes, though, I do not want to see raised in the overall burden. If you want to shift taxes OUT of income tax or other areas TO gas tax increases, that I would be in favor of.

[Balta1701]

I bet global warming contributed to the end of the ice age. What do you think about that?

Actually it did. In fact, humanity may even have played a part in the ending of that ice age...there are studies out there that do suggest that the climate cycle for the earth for the last 10,000 years or more may be strongly tied to human activity through such practices as deforestation or domestication and harvesting of crops.

 

Considering I think for a large part global warming is more a natural issue than it is a polluting issue (Ie just globa temperature changes are cyclical as the history of the world has shown). Now I'm not saying pollution doesn't have an impact and I'm always for less pollution, but at the same time I don't buy into this end of the world global warming crap that a lot of people spew.

The problem is, if there are people out there saying that global warming will end the world, they're not the ones you should be listening to. The earth and the human race in particular are remarkably adaptable systems, and anything less than a Venus-type greenhouse (highly unlikely, I can explain why if you'd like) won't put an end to civilization/life as we know it.

 

On the other hand though, the fact that mankind will live through it does not mean that dramatically changing the climate won't be very very very very very bad, and that doesn't mean that it won't potentially kill or displace billions of people. Pretty much you name the feature of human existence, it is in some way tied to the climate. Shifting the climate shifts growing regions, shifts water resources, shifts shorelines, moves diseases, changes erosional patterns, and changes patterns of natural disasters. All it takes is a small shift to make many places where hundreds of millions of people live suddenly become uninhabitable.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem is, if there are people out there saying that global warming will end the world, they're not the ones you should be listening to. The earth and the human race in particular are remarkably adaptable systems, and anything less than a Venus-type greenhouse (highly unlikely, I can explain why if you'd like) won't put an end to civilization/life as we know it.

 

On the other hand though, the fact that mankind will live through it does not mean that dramatically changing the climate won't be very very very very very bad, and that doesn't mean that it won't potentially kill or displace billions of people. Pretty much you name the feature of human existence, it is in some way tied to the climate. Shifting the climate shifts growing regions, shifts water resources, shifts shorelines, moves diseases, changes erosional patterns, and changes patterns of natural disasters. All it takes is a small shift to make many places where hundreds of millions of people live suddenly become uninhabitable.

 

I'm glad to see someone else have this kind of perspective. Climate effects everything, and we effect climate. Ridiculous press from movies like The Day After (or whatever that was called), and crackpots saying the world is ending, just make it worse, because they marginalize the validity and importance of the topic.

[kapkomet]

 

I wasn't that serious. Of course, we humans have an effect on climate. That goes without saying. How much impact? Now that is the real question.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm glad to see someone else have this kind of perspective. Climate effects everything, and we effect climate. Ridiculous press from movies like The Day After (or whatever that was called), and crackpots saying the world is ending, just make it worse, because they marginalize the validity and importance of the topic.

And we will see climate changes regardless of what humans do. No one is going to tell me the first ice age was created by humans. Who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off (and the climate being ridiculously hot at that time). We've had ice ages and times where the earth is much hotter and its been very cyclical. Sure humans may have some impact, but the long history of the earth shows many different time periods with drastic climate changes (that take place over a period of time).

 

So yes, I think we should help the environment and do things as such, but maybe we should also realize we aren't necessarily the cause of global warming since the earth has had climate changes its entire history (and not all of them could have possibly changed by humans).

 

That said I don't doubt that an extreme climate change wouldn't have an effect. We could see shorelines change, land that was once fertile for crops no longer being fertile for those specific crops (meaning we have to change food sources) but the people will adapt. There are so many things that will be impacted but as far as I'm concerned, sometime in our planets future we will face that (and no, I don't think humans are the reason for that, although we may have an effect on it getting stronger, but I think the net effect will not be near as large as some indicate or claim).

[Balta1701]

And we will see climate changes regardless of what humans do. No one is going to tell me the first ice age was created by humans. Who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off (and the climate being ridiculously hot at that time). We've had ice ages and times where the earth is much hotter and its been very cyclical. Sure humans may have some impact, but the long history of the earth shows many different time periods with drastic climate changes (that take place over a period of time).

 

So yes, I think we should help the environment and do things as such, but maybe we should also realize we aren't necessarily the cause of global warming since the earth has had climate changes its entire history (and not all of them could have possibly changed by humans).

Ok, this is simply wrong. Yes, the earth has had climate changes in the past, and yes, the earth will do so again. But The fact that the climate of the earth has changed in the past is in no way an argument that humanity can't change the climate of the earth, nor is it an argument that the current climate changes are not due to human activities.

 

Right now, we believe we have a very solid understanding of the underlying principle here. A certain amount of light is radiated away from the earth. Gases in the atmosphere can absorb this light and prevent it from leaving. Water has done this for billions of years. But CO2 has been kept artificially low in the Earth's atmosphere by the fact that life takes up CO2 and stores it. Because CO2 is so low, when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, you can significantly increase the amount of heat absorbed by that CO2, and therefore you can force the earth's surface temperature to rise so that it will emit heat at a different wavelength where CO2 does not absorb as much light.

 

Simply saying "There are climate changes in the past and there will be again" is totally ignoring the reality of what we're doing. We've increased atmospheric CO2 by something like 50% in the past 150 years. Simplyt saying "oh the climate will change" ignores the abruptness of what we've done, and totally ignores the interdependence of humanity on the climate systems.

 

Oh, and who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off? Well first, evolution; they took a major hit with the development of angiosperms, the leaves of which their stomachs were not able to digest. Then, they were finished off by a very large impact event which killed large numbers instantly and left the rest to starve in a nuclear winter (they may very well have survived though had it not been for the development of flowering plants). Which I think is interesting because it is a nice illustration of how inter-dependent many of the systems on earth are; one thing changes, then a species moves to the brink, then a catastrophe happens and they're wiped out, but without the first change, they may well have survived.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

Scientists: 1000 to none. I'll go with the scientists over political talking heads, especially when they are that overwhelmingly sure.

 

 

me too. but i'd be careful not to blindly believe everything they say. many of these scientists to have a financial gain in additional global warming research. reminds me of the Y2k issue. as a computer scientist i had huge doubts that the 'mass doom and gloom" senerio was at all likely. well, needless to say that was not a popular opinion especially seeing that many computer scientists were making coin off the whole Y2K thing. it was a problem, just not as large as predicted.

 

i think global warming is real, but i'm not really sure about the scientific predictions off mass extinction within 20 years.

Edited January 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm glad to see someone else have this kind of perspective. Climate effects everything, and we effect climate. Ridiculous press from movies like The Day After (or whatever that was called), and crackpots saying the world is ending, just make it worse, because they marginalize the validity and importance of the topic.

 

As do moronic ex presidential candidates who attempt to use fear as a means to promote their message (gasp! something he complained that the Repubs were doing!)

 

Here's the problem for me: global warming is a recurring theme throughout the Earths history. To say that humans aren't to blame for SOME of the global warming is asinine. However, to pretend as Mr. Gore does, that humans are single-handedly causing a catastrophic disaster is equally asinine. The problem with most 'scientific' research on the topic is that they try to answer whether human action is a cause. Ok, agreed, it is. Now, the follow-up, and more important question, is how much of a cause are we? There are too many forces at play here to accurately conclude what percent of global warming is caused by human actions. Not enough is known about the cycles of the sun (what I’m leaning towards as a major factor), the earths climate shifts/changes, the oceans effects on climate, etc etc to be able to determine what is causing global warming. To me it's like arguing over the cause of the stock market crash. There are good theories from multiple angles but in the end you still don't know what did it. It's more likely a combination of a lot of different factors.

 

There's no denying that humans aren't helping the situation. But it makes me sick that this issue has become political and now morons on both sides are leading people to believe false information. This panel is a political move that won’t produce any valuable results that aren’t already available in the scientific community (a better place to find the answers anyway). It’s a waste of tax payer money and energy that could be used to solve more important problems like why people keep blowing us up.

[Chisoxfn]

Ok, this is simply wrong. Yes, the earth has had climate changes in the past, and yes, the earth will do so again. But The fact that the climate of the earth has changed in the past is in no way an argument that humanity can't change the climate of the earth, nor is it an argument that the current climate changes are not due to human activities.

 

Right now, we believe we have a very solid understanding of the underlying principle here. A certain amount of light is radiated away from the earth. Gases in the atmosphere can absorb this light and prevent it from leaving. Water has done this for billions of years. But CO2 has been kept artificially low in the Earth's atmosphere by the fact that life takes up CO2 and stores it. Because CO2 is so low, when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, you can significantly increase the amount of heat absorbed by that CO2, and therefore you can force the earth's surface temperature to rise so that it will emit heat at a different wavelength where CO2 does not absorb as much light.

 

Simply saying "There are climate changes in the past and there will be again" is totally ignoring the reality of what we're doing. We've increased atmospheric CO2 by something like 50% in the past 150 years. Simplyt saying "oh the climate will change" ignores the abruptness of what we've done, and totally ignores the interdependence of humanity on the climate systems.

 

Oh, and who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off? Well first, evolution; they took a major hit with the development of angiosperms, the leaves of which their stomachs were not able to digest. Then, they were finished off by a very large impact event which killed large numbers instantly and left the rest to starve in a nuclear winter (they may very well have survived though had it not been for the development of flowering plants). Which I think is interesting because it is a nice illustration of how inter-dependent many of the systems on earth are; one thing changes, then a species moves to the brink, then a catastrophe happens and they're wiped out, but without the first change, they may well have survived.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. In no means do I intend to say we as humans have not had an impact on the earth, however, I think a lot of people (not you) think that there was no global warming/climate changes prior to 150 years ago or even 500 years ago. In reality that couldn't be further from the truth and I've seen many shows on Discovery, History, and TLC that mention this.

 

I fully think we should do things to clean the environment because we have done a lot of bad too it (namely the polluting of the ocean and the over-fishing of certain species). I have a fear that 40 years from now no one will be able to enjoy fish due to the high toxin/pollution and I'm sure many fish will die off because of that pollution.

 

What I hope is that we adapt and make changes (and as a whole I think our society has become far more green, but at the same time I also realize that there is a business and the economy must go and I am not pushing us to be on the extreme side and make ridiculous regulations, however, I don't mind being aggressive and doing what we can do regulate CO2 emissions). The main problem is, while we do this (and while the US could do better, it still does a better job than anyone else, imo) we have no ability to force other nations to do this and many 3rd world countries (and 2nd world/developing nations) are polutting like mad as they are essentially industrialist doing anything they can to make a buck (and yes, I'm sure many of those factories do in fact involve products us Americans are buying).

 

Still, what body is going to truly enforce the entire world to clean up its act. Its great for the US to do so, but the US is far from the problem (even though we are obviously vast consumers). I want our country to strive to be leaders in the world (both economically, politically, environmentally and so on) but we also must find ways to force the hand of other countries (and thats going to be tricky).

[Jenksismyhero]

Simply saying "There are climate changes in the past and there will be again" is totally ignoring the reality of what we're doing. We've increased atmospheric CO2 by something like 50% in the past 150 years. Simplyt saying "oh the climate will change" ignores the abruptness of what we've done, and totally ignores the interdependence of humanity on the climate systems.

 

I think you're ignoring the fact that you have 150 years worth of data out of how many millions? Isn't it possible that CO2 levels have fluctuated due to natural events that are beyond a 150, hell, a 1000 year window?

 

Imagine the fear of the world if we went through a mini-ice age like what happend in the 1620's-1630's, the same time the Pilgrims were coming over here. People think it was strange that it was 60 in Dec, what would they think of blizzard/sub-freezing conditions going on into April like they experienced?

[Balta1701]

The main problem is, while we do this (and while the US could do better, it still does a better job than anyone else, imo) we have no ability to force other nations to do this and many 3rd world countries (and 2nd world/developing nations) are polutting like mad as they are essentially industrialist doing anything they can to make a buck (and yes, I'm sure many of those factories do in fact involve products us Americans are buying).

 

Still, what body is going to truly enforce the entire world to clean up its act. Its great for the US to do so, but the US is far from the problem (even though we are obviously vast consumers). I want our country to strive to be leaders in the world (both economically, politically, environmentally and so on) but we also must find ways to force the hand of other countries (and thats going to be tricky).

2 points.

 

1. The U.S. is actually a HUGE part of the problem. In terms of energy consumption, the U.S., with something like 1/20th of the world's population, consumes over 25% of the world's resources, and therefore is producing over 25% of the world's CO2 outputs (and yes, it will be more if you consider the fact that many places in Europe are moving rapidly to cleaner sources of energy and the fact that a large chunk of the non-U.S. pollution is created to send products to the U.S.)

 

If we ignore the U.S., we are quite literally ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

2. The U.S. itself can actually find ways of enforcing these sorts of measures if it really wants to. The nation simply doesn't have to take imports from every country that wants to send stuff here; we already embargo nations for other political reasons, there is absolutely nothing from stopping the U.S. from using its economic power to motivate nations to clean up their act.

[mr_genius]

a large chunk of the non-U.S. pollution is created to send products to the U.S.

 

ah, so thats the excuse the left will use to let china off the hook for pollution. i was wondering what it would be.

 

of course, it's america's fault.

[kapkomet]

Nice, mr-genius.

[Balta1701]

I think you're ignoring the fact that you have 1,000,000 years worth of data out of how many millions? Isn't it possible that CO2 levels have fluctuated due to natural events that are beyond a 150, hell, a 1000 year window?

 

Imagine the fear of the world if we went through a mini-ice age like what happend in the 1620's-1630's, the same time the Pilgrims were coming over here. People think it was strange that it was 60 in Dec, what would they think of blizzard/sub-freezing conditions going on into April like they experienced?

Fixed that for you.

 

Yes, it is entirely possible that CO2 levels have fluctuated due to natural events. But you know the other remarkable thing? By taking measurements of the CO2 concentration in oceanic surface waters, measuring the amount in the atmosphere, and doing some simple calculations, it can actually be shown quite readily that there is close to a 1 to 1 correlation within error between the amount of CO2 released by human burning of fossil fuels and the CO2 increase in the environment. The current rise in CO2 by 50% within 100 years is not only unprecedented within the last million years (in both the rapidity of the rise and the absolute value of the atmospheric CO2), it is also nearly entirely due to human consumption of fossil fuels.

 

And the little ice age is in fact another good example of the real issue here; how tied humanity actually is to the climate. The little ice age killed quite a few humans, simply by disturbing crops. That's seriously all it takes.

 

ah, so thats the excuse the left will use to let china off the hook for pollution. i was wondering what it would be.

 

of course, it's america's fault.

Did I not also suggest a solution that the U.S. could use to make Countries like China comply with new regulations?

[mr_genius]

we already embargo nations for other political reasons, there is absolutely nothing from stopping the U.S. from using its economic power to motivate nations to clean up their act.

 

of course. but aren't you against embargo's? remember, they are inhumane tools of the white male oppressor. like the ones cuba has to endure. it's not castro's fault cuba is poor, it's america's.

[Balta1701]

of course. but aren't you against embargo's? remember, they are inhumane tools of the white male oppressor. like the ones cuba has to endure. it's not castro's fault cuba is poor, it's america's.

Actually, I'm opposed to the Cuban embargo for one simple reason; I'm sick to death of having to drink soft drinks that substitute corn syrup for real sugar because that embargo has made real sugar more expensive than corn syrup in this country, but that's a different story.

 

So let me ask this, do you think that if the U.S. started using its economic power as a negotiating tool to force developing nations to enforce Carbon limits as they develop, or set up a cap-and-trade system such that countries which clean up their act even more are further rewarded, it would be an inhumane thing? We're not talking about preventing people from getting medical supplies, or at least I hope not, all it would involve would be some establishment of a reward-based system for compliance with rules. THen the only remaining question is how stringent we want the rules to be.

[mr_genius]

So let me ask this, do you think that if the U.S. started using its economic power as a negotiating tool to force developing nations to enforce Carbon limits as they develop, or set up a cap-and-trade system such that countries which clean up their act even more are further rewarded, it would be an inhumane thing?

 

i do not think it would be inhumane. i also support import tariffs on chinese goods to help american manufacturing. their labor practices and trade policies give them illegal trade advantages.

[Balta1701]

i do not think it would be inhumane. i also support import tariffs on chinese goods to help american manufacturing. their labor practices and trade policies give them illegal trade advantages.

Then I think we're at least not too terribly far apart on this one.

 

The interesting thing about CO2 is that a cap and trade type system would almost certainly work, and work well, if it were set up globally. A global treaty, say signed in a Japanese city, sets up a system where each country is given a goal to reach in terms of decrease in CO2 output compared to today, and countries which decrease faster than the current rate wind up turning a profit by selling their credits to countries that decrease more slowly. That sort of system doesn't work for some pollutants, like Mercury, that hang around in one spot, but because CO2 is so well mixed in the atmosphere, I think it would actually be fairly effective if we could get the major powers in the world to join in (and the developing world would actually have motivation to join as well, because they'd have the opportunity to turn a profit just by cleaning up)

[NorthSideSox72]

Instead of replying to all the posts, I'll just say...

 

1. I'm glad those of you dismissing Pelosi's committee are at least cognizant of the fact that we as humans do have SOME effect on the climate, and that then effects us back. And its true, the only argument really is to what extent that occurs.

 

2. It should seem pretty logical that the changes are so severe - it correlates nicely with the population of the earth. And the changes in temperature and CO2 levels are indeed much more dramatic than we have seen elsewhere in the long path of human history.

 

3. Go Balta! I pretty much agree with whatever he is saying on this topic.

 

Oh wait, forgot one...

 

4. I don't get the argument that its important, but we'll deride Pelosi's committee. I mean, will it actually achieve anything? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see how you can say you are in favor of doing something about it, but aren't in favor of the House starting work on it.

Edited January 19, 2007 by NorthSideSox72