On one hand, we have a sensible decision, on the other, no good deed goes unpunished. – Anthony
U.S. global warming rules won’t change to help polar bears
By Jim Tankersley
Reporting from Washington — The Interior Department on Friday let stand a Bush administration policy barring the federal government from using the precarious state of the U.S. polar bear population as a reason to crack down on global warming, upsetting environmentalists and cheering oil and gas companies.
…
“The single greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic Sea ice due to climate change,” Salazar said in a conference call announcing the decision. But the Endangered Species Act “is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue,” he added.
Like Bush administration officials before them, Interior officials said it would be impossible to directly link any one factory or power plant to the decline in polar ice, and thus impractical to regulate their emissions.
Environmental groups promised to sue.
“It just doesn’t make any sense to recognize that the polar bear is threatened and then exempt the primary threat to the species,” said Noah Greenwald, biodiversity program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.
…
Energy industry groups celebrated Friday, as did many Republicans.
“The Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.
…
President George W. Bush’s Interior Department listed the polar bear as threatened last year. But shortly before Bush left office, the agency issued a rule prohibiting the government from using the bear’s status under the Endangered Species Act to curb greenhouse gas emissions, closing what Bush officials called a “back door” to climate regulation.
Salazar pledged to reconsider the rule when he took office in January. On Friday, he said that revoking the rule would lead to “uncertainty and confusion” in the department’s efforts to protect polar bears.
Instead, he said, the U.S. must tackle climate change with a comprehensive set of emissions limits, such as the one President Obama is pushing Congress to enact this year.
…
Yet Salazar sided with Bush on another high-profile species issue, moving ahead with a plan to remove gray wolves from the endangered list in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Mountain West.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once Obama puts in Cap and Tax and it’s gets colder and colder, we can have a Revolution and get rid of Washington forever.
Possibly OT, but you have to see this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20090509/cx_nq_uc/nq20090509
Maybe someone can help me understand something that has been bothering me for sometime. I know it’s a little OT.
Why don’t we have CO2 measuring capabilities at every NOAA weather site?
It seems to me we know from Beck’s work that local CO2 amounts vary significantly from location to location. This is even used by warmists to discredit Beck’s work. So, if there are local differences that can be up to thousands of PPM then it seems like that should also impact the local temperatures. It would also seem like forecasting weather would be severely hampered without CO2 monitoring since the effects of radiation are immediate.
Of course, if we had this capability then I can think of several ways to demonstrate the validity of the CO2 effects on temperature. So, why haven’t climate scientists been up in arms demanding that we have this data?
I realize that the satellite that was lost could have provided some of this information. And, other satellites are available. But it seems to me very local CO2 monitoring stations where the temp is monitored right next door would be invaluable to understanding AGW.
Why aren’t we putting the dollars budgeted for improved models into collecting this data. Can anyone tell me where I’m off base?
I have a question (maybe a bit off topic)
Will Cyrosphere Today never use/update the “Compare side-by-side images of Northern Hemisphere” tool again?
I found it quite interesting to compare the sea ice area from this date to another, previous date.
Re: Paul Coppin (03:47:50)
Come on now Paul, there are a few more than 6-12 polar bears in Alaska.
“Two populations of polar bears occur in Alaska: the Southern Beaufort Sea population which is shared with Canada and the Chukchi/Bering seas population which is shared with Russia. Based on recently conducted mark/recapture studies from 2001-2006, the Southern Beaufort Sea population has approximately 1500 bears and is currently thought to be declining. Although accurate estimates of the Chukchi/Bering seas population are unavailable, the best available information suggests that there may be about 2000 bears and that the population is declining. Sport hunting for polar bears, which was thought to be the primary reason for the decline in the Alaska populations prior to 1972, was stopped with the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA)”
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm
Steven Hill (09:09:30) :
“Once Obama puts in Cap and Tax and it’s gets colder and colder, we can have a Revolution and get rid of Washington forever.”
Besides all the local State wide initiatives, Three serious threats remain:
1. Cap&Trade, as you just stated
2. Regulation via the Clean Air and Clean Water Act by EPA
3. Adaption of the already signed Montreal Treaty (Ozone)
There are people who would like the public to do something now.
Revolutions are too messy.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/when-will-agw-bubble-burst.html
“Although accurate estimates of the Chukchi/Bering seas population are unavailable, the best available information suggests that there may be about 2000 bears and that the population is declining.”
Yup, I do like scientific non-sequitors 🙂 I’m holdin’ to 6 or 12. The rest are Canadian bears our Inuk sent over to help get the population going again….
You can’t change Washington without revolution……those people have been up there for 30 and 40 years are totally controlled by greed. That’s why they want to ban guns in the US. The 2nd amendment was put in place for just such occasions, Jefferson knew this would happen in time.
MattE and Geoff Adler bring up some interesting points. Assume the science does prevail. Taxpayers the world over will find they have been swindled by the UN and their own governments. As Michael J. Bentley points out, these days most science is funded by the government and expected to produce a desired result. Most taxpayers don’t know that.
We non-scientists are dumb about these things. We respect scientists because they can do things we can’t do, and because we’ve been taught from childhood that scientists are noble, impartial searchers for truth. Once we find out how those smart, smart ‘scientists’ prostituted themselves to politicians and real scientists didn’t blow the whistle I believe many people will be unhappy. I suspect scientists in all fields, not just climate-related ones, will face neo-Luddite backlash. “Why the he!! should I believe you? Where were you during the Great AGW Swindle?”
MattE is right. It will be some time before most Americans regain any respect for science, real science. How can we non-scientists tell the difference?
Funding will be hard to get. I hope the backlash stops there.
John K Sutherland.
Hitting it a little early aren’t we?
Gary Plyler (23:17:55) :
It truely is all about money, isn’t it. One of the provisions in the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming bill on Cap & Trade (Tax) is the right for organizations like WWF and others to sue CO2 emitters for “PROJECTED FUTURE HARMS” due to predicted global warming.
Gary you pegged it in the first post! It’s not about AGW and CO2 as a pollutant. It’s about the ability to sue the government with its endless pool of money. It’s about how laws are written and a complicit judiciary that help to facilitate the thievery. In California, the Department of Fish and Game have a 100 year old fish stocking program that has to now provide an environmental impact study. They were sewed, lost, and now, cannot stock many lakes and man-made reservoirs. Why the Fish and Game stocking program? Because it is funded by license fees. It is a pool of money that is not in the California general fund (state budget), We also have the Delta Smelt; it was used to cut off water to farmers that have been farming for three generations. Remember the Spotted Owl? The EPA is not an elected body, and are therefore not accountable to voters. This is why you’re seeing more and more states asserting “states rights”. I believe Cap and Trade has pushed people to the limit and the backlash is going to expose most of the corruption. The good thing is that we know who they are!
From today’s Non-Sequitur comic strip:
http://www.uclick.com/client/spi/nq/
I don’t usually read comics other than Dilbert, but I have noticed how political the kiddie page is getting. Even when I agree with the message, I wonder what the take-away message is for kids. I was happy to see this one – til I showed it to my (generally-savvy) teenage daughter, who thought it a pitch for global warming.
Still, I’d have to say, the message is getting through, however subtly. If cartoonists are beginning to see the light, maybe in 20 years, the current generation will look back on the early decades of the 21st century with some sense of irony over what “they” believed.
Bill P (12:47:56) :
Re: today’s Non-Sequitur comic strip:
Did I misread it?
Since you’re in correction mode, “loose” should be “lose” 😉
Bravolingus!
I keep making this point over and over and over whenever some troll shows up and tells us we’re all idiots, that AGW is a proven fact. I guess they bought a few CFL bulbs and feel all smug about themselves.
Jeff Alberts,
Not enough coffee – thanks
Mike zzzzzzzzzzz
These are the consequences when a judge decides in favor of an endangered species, this time a fish in California:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/insanity-eco-zealots-put-80000-farm.html
The fun part of a trial would be in watching what actual science gets introduced as evidence. And if reality actually wins in court, even more entertainment could begin. A court ruling which involved the lack of global warming would be nice. I’d be tempted to buy a subscription to every newspaper that actually reported the result.
I just hope everybody is clicking the “green” Ads by Google like I am. It is good indeed when I know they must pay, and for every cent that my energy bill increases I will click more, dump my cache and click again.
Reply: Please stop this kind of encouragement, any attempts to game the system could lead to a loss of the privilege. You don’t think this kind of behavior is easily detected? ~ charles the moderator
Worthy of note, sorry charles.
Charles, Google Adsense is *not* a privilege. Blogger has run it on their system for ages and Google is aggressively pandering it out to whoever will accept it. Its simply another ad marketing scheme being used by Google to facilitate revenue flow. WordPress has simple signed on, and gets a piece of the action. It sounds to me like WP marketed it to Anthony as a big deal (and maybe they’re just starting to play with it). A big deal its not – its available to most bloggers if they want to open an account and put the code up. When users click, the ad circle is complete. The only time the system is gamed is when Anthony clicks, and he’ll be IP restricted as the account holder. Google uses the creativity of its users to facilitate a sales tool to advertizers, and may toss a small residual to the blogger. Although I’ve seen money come and go on the blog I put it up on, I’ve yet to see a cheque. Anthony should do better with his traffic, but only if people participate.
REPLY: Actually in this case, Adsense is a priviledge, only the VIP hosted blogs on WP.com are allowed to have it. They run about $500 per month to operate. So I’m getting the opportunity to earn something, without the base cost. – Anthony
Global Warming won’t lead to Cap & Trade either, anyhow that’s what it looks like:
Is Cap & Trade Dead?
May 10, 2009
Is Cap-and-Tax-and-Redistribute dead?
“Democratic dissention, Republican opposition and growing public skepticism may derail Congress’ potentially economy-crippling carbon cap-and-trade bill, perhaps saving Americans billions [TRILLIONS] of dollars.
The bill’s author, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, is opposed by centrist Democrats, who fear the Draconian regulations would severely harm their constituents. Congress members representing the steel industry and coal and nuclear power generators oppose the 648-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, authored by Rep. Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.
Meanwhile, Republicans cite studies showing the bill would increase a typical family’s energy prices at least $3,100 a year, and over 20 years result in 7 million lost jobs and $7 trillion in reduced economic output. Republicans say the legislation is essentially a “tax bill,” and plan alternative legislation to create incentives for “clean” coal and more nuclear energy. …
Growing skepticism over the approach – and even the need – to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions isn’t limited to Capitol Hill. An artificial market in government-mandated carbon credits would be “monstrously stupid to do right now,” Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Charlie Munger told CNBC, adding that the move is “almost demented” considering other nations’ intention to continue industrial development, emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases.
Public sentiment is at a new low, too, says pollster Zogby International. Only 30 percent of Americans support cap-and-trade, and 57 percent oppose it. A Pew Research poll of voter priorities ranked global warming dead last behind the economy and 18 other areas. …
In addition, a recent study by the National Center for Climate Research shows that if fully implemented, the Waxman-Markey bill would produce global temperature “savings” of only 0.05 degree centigrade over 50 years [calculated assuming AGW theory, which is bogus]. Even James Hansen, the NASA scientist and perhaps most ardent proponent of manmade global warming as a threat, urges the bill’s defeat, saying it would be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases.
Even the premise for curbing greenhouse gases is flawed. There has been no cause-and-effect relationship convincingly established between rising carbon emissions and higher temperatures. Indeed, temperatures have leveled off or declined since 1998 while CO2 emissions have skyrocketed, the opposite of the global warming theory.
Considering its questionable assumptions, economic costs and hardships, this bill promises a paltry return on investment. One might say it’s “almost demented.”
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-cap-and-tax-and-redistribute-dead.html
The green meanies plan to sue. That is nothing new, that is what they do over virtually every park and forest plan, power plant, refinery, dam, and other energy sources. They get even a minor ruling in the suit to go their way and the govt pays them jacked up lawyer fees. It has been going on for years. The last time that I checked, the Sierra Club made something like 130 million a year, but owned only nominal land. The rest went to lawyers suing the government (you and I) and million dollar salaries. They could buy and ‘save’ 40,000 acres every year, but feel that the lawyers are a better investment. It is not about the environment, that is just an excuse.
Getting the EPA to list the polar bears as endangered was supposed to be the environmental lawyer full employment and enrichment act of 2006. They were honked when they could only get endangered status, and then hit right in the wallet when Bush stopped the CO2 related suits. Of course they are going to sue. This was supposed to be their meal ticket for the next few decades. This would open the door to sue the evil oil cos, the evil industries, the evil utilities, the evil car companies, the government, and evil capitalists all over the planet. (Whistling, “We’re in the money..”)
Someone above mentioned the relentless brainwashing by Nova, Discovery, Nat Geo, et al.. That is something that anti-AGW theory folks and political conservatives are way behind on. The ovine population believes their telescreen and their teachers at school. As a result the next generation thinks that capitalism is bad, socialism is good, and buying a Prius will save the world.
By my bar bet record, only about 1 in 10 have heard of the federalist papers, but almost all of the other 9 have been green washed and strongly believe that green socialism holds a bright future for the USA. Since the left and green own academia and the media outright we are pretty much fighting an uphill battle trying to bring some sanity to these issues.
No new lawyers needed for 50 years, close the Universities.