In case you missed the debate on the Senate floor today over the Waxman-Markey bill, here is a video segment of interest.
Jackson agrees that the USA effect on global CO2 would be minimal, Chu does not.
Washington, D.C.-During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.
“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries.
“I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”
Along with Administrator Jackson’s statement, Energy Secretary Chu responded with an unequivocal “no” when asked whether he agrees with the analysis depicted in the EPA chart. “No, I don’t’ agree with that [EPA] chart,” Chu asserted.
“I was somewhat surprised that Secretary Chu disagreed with EPA’s analysis of what would happen if the U.S. acts alone to address climate change, which cap-and-trade supporters claim is a global problem,” Sen. Inhofe said. “EPA’s analysis that global greenhouse gas emission levels can only be stabilized with meaningful, mandatory action by China and India is widely accepted. I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks.”
Source: EPW
And what incontrovertible proof does Chu offer to support his off the cuff claim?
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please…
At a recent Senate committee hearing in the Australian Parliament,our very own ETS Architect Prof. Ross Garnaut was asked a similar question, “If Australia ceased emitting CO2,would it make any difference to world CO2 levels”. His answer was “No, but politically it will make a big difference”.
There you have it, science is on the back burner, political correctness is in.
“I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks.”
How do you clarify “no”? I thought it was pretty clear.
[snip – ad hom]
This just in over the wire:
Hmmm
Actually, nobody has proven that we are even responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, which historically has followed warming, not preceded it.
So, that chart is pure fantasy, whether anyone “agrees” with it or not. Okay, maybe not fantasy, but certainly conjecture.
Of Course EPA Administrator Jackson´s statement is correct.
This can be shown easily:
The USA are planning to reduce their CO2 Emissions by 20 % up to the year 2020 on the basis of 2005.
The total emission in 2006 of the US is roughly 20% of the world’s emission, with decreasing fraction because of the increase in India, China, and Russia.
Every year the atmospheric CO2 increase is about 2 ppmV/year (Mauna Loa measurement). In 15 years this sums up to 30 ppmV globally.
The part belonging to the US (20%) is therefore 6 ppmV.
The anticipated reduction of 20% amounts to 1,2 ppmV.
According to IPCC the global temperature increase is 3°C while doubling the CO2 from pre industrial 280 ppmV to 560 ppmV, which is for an increase of 280ppmV.
(Obviously the global temperature increase will be much lower if natural variations like the activity of the sun are considered)
Therefore the US are reducing the global temperature up to 2020 by
3°C x 1,2 ppmV/280 ppmV = 0,013°C !!!
(Remark: Indeed it is a factor of 1/ln2 = 1,44 higher, if instead of a linear approach the correct logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2 concentration is assumed.)
This indeed is a negligible even immeasurable contribution.
It is an easy task to calculate with different reductions in CO2.
Neil, you have to realize that “do you wish to clarify your remarks” is bureaucrateese for “do you have anything that leads you to that conclusion?” Obviously Dr. Chuless doesn’t or he would have elaborated on his “no” without coaxing.
I like Inhofe. Keep up the info pressure, and the bill won’t make it through Senate. People are still ignorant.
Not entirely OT. The link is, clear unequivocal graphs from supposedly trustworthy sources about key items of the science: With falling temperatures globally, I would expect ocean heat content to show signs of decrease – and I hope someone is able to keep an independent watch on the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements since currently that seems to be a monopoly and another potential source of data fudging.
Great point…
The “I don’t move as long as nobody moves”-approach is surely constructive and a clear way to innovation and progress. The point is: EU already has such a plan, so it’s time you do something, folks. Here’s a short story for you…
————————————————————————————————-
Nasreddin was seating next to a traveller, under a tree. The traveller then asked him:
– “Nasreddin Hodja, how much time does it take to reach the next city?”
– “Walk!” was Nasreddin’s answer.
– “I’m asking you how much time it would take me to reach the next city, old man, not how to reach it”
– “I said: walk!”
The traveller, thinking Nasreddin was obviously deaf as a post, shouted:
– “In how much time…”
– “I told you to just walk” said Nasreddin, interrupting him.
The traveller stood up and left, insulting the old man. A few seconds later, Nasreddin turned to him and said:
– “At this rate, it should take you two hours”.
————————————————————————————————-
Get it?
Neil:
“How do you clarify “no”? I thought it was pretty clear.”
No, but….
Neil Shearing (00:22:46): How do you clarify “no”? I thought it was pretty clear.
You have it backwards. You cannot clarify a yes, but you should clarify a no explaining why you disagree. Just trying to get links are you? Links are more helpful when you say something smart. — John Reynolds
Looks like Stephen Chu’s science degree isn’t worth much if he can’t do arithmetic.
crosspatch (00:49:50) :
This just in over the wire:
Reuters — Drafts for a meeting of the 17-nation MEF at the G8 in Italy have dropped any reference to the goal of halving C02 by 2050.
Hmmm
It was stated that there has been a big break through since the Chinese agree with to reduce global temperatures by 2 degree.
It looks like they will have their climate treaty, free money and the solution until 2050:
A combination of natural cooling and manipulation of the data sets.
A lot of countries are in desperate need of a new government and their populations a proper education.
Our Governments in control of earth’s thermostat! (virtual manipulation).
I think Dr. Chu was really just pissed at the argument that the US should not act, as others are not acting. I wished he had been more reasoned and less emotinal and put the senator in his place.
Though the EPA is correct, thought the details I am unsure, It is very likely that if in the future that is Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise unabated, and climate changes effects more dramatic, I would not put it past a nation like America taking unilatreal action and even sucombing to using geo-engineering projects. These are dangerous and hard to predict the effects off, but by that time may be only option. So in theory US action can solve whole problem, but it isn’t ideal.
Chu has to support his “no” with believable concrete reasoning (not hand waiving). If he cannot, he loses all credibility with me. That is, I won’t believe anything he says from now on (without concrete proof in hand).
Anyhow, I think Chu was a “political” appointment — picked because he supports the environmentalist agenda without “public” reservation. Being Dr. Chu gives him credibility with non-scientists — who make up the bulk of the House, Senate, Media, and Public. Won’t work with skeptical peers, however.
I think Chu was actually saying that he disagreed with the existence and presentation of the chart, rather than the informational content ( the Inconvenient Chart ). Or maybe it was just the colors he didn’t like.
crosspatch (00:49:50) :
This just in over the wire:
Reuters — Drafts for a meeting of the 17-nation MEF at the G8 in Italy have dropped any reference to the goal of halving C02 by 2050.
In addition this is a good laugh:
A draft prepared for the MEF meeting dropped any reference to this and aimed instead for agreement on the need to limit the average increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.
It is amazing that politicians have been convinced they hold earth’s thermostat in their power !!!
OMG, what is happening to most of our supposed “leaders”? I think they ate to many vegies growing up even to this day. Some body give him a Medium Rare Steak so that he may realize the error of his remark.
The argument is made that the Climate Treaty is not effective if China does not submit to similar CO2 reductions.
Well, the Chinese will join a world wide climate treaty and the Senators will lose the argument.
They should question the science, the costs and the effects for the US economy before they discuss what other countries will do.
The US Senate must send the Climate Bill to the bin.
AGW is not about climate science at all. It is about political power.
AGW offers the same benefits for public policy as did eugenics.
Do my ears deceive me?
Did Boxer tell Inhofe to direct his question first to Chu because he is a scientist? That seems a pretty lame criteria – as though being a scientist imparts some mystic aura of omniscience to any statement made by the person.
This little video segment might go a long way to defeating cap & tax if played for the average American. Chu should be made to elaborate on what exactly is wrong with that information.
That chart is completely bogus anyway (consider the source). Even with accelerating emissions, the higher atmospheric concentrations produce an accelerating absorption rate of CO2 emissions into the biosphere and the oceans. Net effect is a 1-negative exponential curve. The rate has to reverse and go toward asymptotic horizontal eventually as levels increase. This might explain the failure of CO2 levels to perform to to our grand masters’ instructions so far. 1000 year residence time? – uh huh Susan.
Chu’s one of the best examples of a highly educated idiot that I have ever seen.
Secretary Chu’s answer can be easily explained: he’s from California, where AB 32 is now the law. AB 32’s preface states that California alone cannot stop global warming, but California can and will *show the way* for the world to increase economic activity while reducing greenhouse gases.
Dr. Chu was a professor at University of California – Berkeley, and director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley is the center of such beliefs.
AB 32’s goal of 80 percent reduction in GHGs by 2050 compared to 1990 levels requires a reduction from 1200 million metric tonnes per year down to 87 million metric tonnes per year. That is approximately a 93 percent reduction from the Business as Usual case, the 1200 figure above.
This is also consistent with the liberals’ desire to punish Western mankind by reducing our energy use by more than 90 percent. Our 20 tons CO2 per capita per year would then be reduced to 2 tons CO2 per capita per year, on a par with the undeveloped world.