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
Chu’s probable position is that reducing emissions a la cap and trade in the US will reduce the world-wide rise of CO2 an eensy-teensy bit.
Therefore he does not agree with the chart.
What Al et al and his intergalactic buddies may have (hopefully) learned from this is:
“Exaggeration leads the coalition of disbelief.”
If we don’t believe you – you don’t exist.
Dr. Chu probably believes American CO2 has more global warming effect than other nations CO2. American emissons more agressively warming the Earth’s atmophere because of our political, cultural and economic arrogance.
Gavin has no solar stance.
>>>>>>>
EL says:
7 July 2009 at 9:23 PM
Gavin,
What is the stance on the Deep Solar Minimum here? My simple mind sees it as a factor in this summers temperatures. Since you cut my post, I’m curious about your stance and why you have it.
[Response: I don’t have a stance. The sun is obviously a key boundary condition, which we clearly don’t have much predictive ability for. – gavin]
<<<<<<<
How convenient.
I watched some Senate opening speeches at YouTube.
One of the Senators stated that even the science was under discussion, probably in the board room of Exxon Mobile and here on the Hill.
I think we still have a lot of calls to make to selling the message that the science is flawed and we don’t want cap & trade.
So please, keep pushing and grab the phone, send a fax and confront the Senate with your opinion.
This is a major battle which can be won.
The majority of Americans don’t want to spend a single dime on Climate Change.
They are not stupid and the Senate has a good track record sending previous proposals to the shredder.
The pledge to keep global warming under 2 Celsius sounds like a good bet to me, even if CO2 continues to grow at previous non-regulated levels. The Lorenz attractor looks like it is pulling our climate back to the cold side following the late 90’s, highs.
My left knee has started to ache quite badly over the last few weeks, a sure sign next winter is going to be very very cold.
I’ve got more faith in my knee being right than I have on the Met Office or IPCC predictions – history has shown that they never get it right – time will tell!!!
I think I put more faith in a left knee than a complete ass.
Dr. Chu is right.
If we destroy the U.S. economy with this bill, then China and India will have no one to purchase their goods and services, and their energy use and CO2 output will also drop.
The height of the chart is twice the width. To me that usually indicates an intentional effort to exaggerate.
” Jim (06:35:26) : I think the real point is that we don’t need to reduce carbon emissions at all.”
That may or may not be true, but it is not the topic of the post. (and the more accurate statement would be that a 20% reduction by the US would have negligible effect on global CO2 levels). I see the topic as the impact certain actions by the US would have on global CO2 levels.
The biggest impact is not the direct reduction of our emissions, but the potential effect on efforts to get other countries, particularly India and China, to reduce their CO2 emissions. That may be squishy touchy-feely, but it is accurate.
Commenter Keith Minto (00:13:28) dismissed testimony in an equivalent hearing in Australia with the observation “There you have it, science is on the back burner, political correctness is in.”
My point is that considering the political effects of action is no more putting science on a back burner than is considering the economic effects of actions.
Considering the economic effects of CO2 controls isn’t “putting science on the back burner.” Considering the international political effects of US CO2 controls isn’t “putting science on the back burner”.
Charlie says, I’m surprised that Chu didn’t clarify his “no” with an explanation along the lines of “it’s difficult to convince India and China to do something if we don’t believe in it enough to do it ourselves”.
Shouldn’t ths logic apply to congress (and proponents like Gore). Instead we have congressional travel up over 50% in the past two years. Please congress, set an example, do something about your own carbon footprint first.
“Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.”
That $22,000 doesn’t include the government provided air transportation.
Pierre may be spot on. We elected these idiots, who appointed some other idiots, and most of them are nothing but looters. Their focus groups show them how to fool the brainwashed masses by using catch words and phrases to appeal to their emotions. A few examples:
Positive Feelings: hope, change, fairness, stability
Negative Feelings: windfall profits, evil rich, catastrophe
This is how you get what we now have: tyranny of the masses.
I agree with Ron de Haan. The focus should be on the flawed science or the fraudulent science, whichever emerges from various studies. Anthony is showing, in my opinion, fraudulent surface station temperature gathering that is being used for the purpose of making public policy by showing an “unusually” warming environment.
In the current story, even though there is a disagreement between Energy Secretary Chu and EPA Administrator Jackson, they both believe that CO2 is a potent “Greenhouse Gas” and pollutant — and they want it “regulated”. I long for the time when pollutants meant those that do real harm to humans, e.g., ground-level CO, lead, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and size of particulate matter. The focus on CO2 is absolutely ridiculous and should be ridiculed at every turn.
As much as I agree with fellow Californian Roger Sowell, I wish he and most other conservatives who desire to demonize “liberals” would finally get it. Liberals want: 1) individual rights; 2) equality of opportunity; 3) freedom of thought and speech; 3) limitations on the power of governments; 4) the rule of law; 5) individual’s right to private property; 6) a transparent system of government; 7) open and fair elections; and 8) commitment to scientific inquiry. Seen many of them lately??? The last person these ideals describe is Obama. CO2 demonization and regulation is mainly, largely, primarily a ruse to destroy our liberal representative democracy honored by both conservatives and liberals.
The contention that China and India won’t act to limit their greenhouse gas emissions is ridiculous.
Both are already planning to install more nuclear power than the U.S. has, and China has (laughable) plans for 180 gazillion watts of wind power. These countries have bought into the idea of a post-carbon economy. They can see how much trouble our middle east oil dependency is causing us.
Has anyone been watching C-SPAN? Has the Carlin situation come up at all?
Charlie (08:55:11) : I do understand your point Charlie. You are saying the effort to reduce CO2 might induce India and China to reduce CO2 emissions. My point is that the effort to reduce CO2 is based on the false premise that CO2 emissions are bad. They are not and the US should not reduce CO2 for any political reason. I submit to you there is no science-based reason, and if you want to consider economics, there is every reason to continue to burn oil, nat gas, and coal until we can build out nuclear. In the meantime if solar and other “green” energy sources can compete price-wise with more conventional sources, then more power to them. If they can compete, people will use them.
Tenuc (08:39:34) :
The pledge to keep global warming under 2 Celsius sounds like a good bet to me, even if CO2 continues to grow at previous non-regulated levels. The Lorenz attractor looks like it is pulling our climate back to the cold side following the late 90’s, highs.
My left knee has started to ache quite badly over the last few weeks, a sure sign next winter is going to be very very cold.
I’ve got more faith in my knee being right than I have on the Met Office or IPCC predictions – history has shown that they never get it right – time will tell!!!
Tunec,
Excuse me but I think this is the most insane proposal I have ever heard.
Why not file a bill to prevent earthquakes, stop volcanic eruptions or stop the earth from spinning.
Only idiots can come up with a proposal like that.
Cap and Trade has nothing to do with the environment. It is just another means to plunder America and redistribute our wealth to those who did not and refuse to earn their own.
The 535 members of Congress already have unilateral, discretionary control of about 40% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. This is an oligarchy and every action of Congress and the President to date is to reduce the American public to serfdom. It is deliberate, no mis-estimations are involved.
Best regards,
Gail S
http://backyardfence.wordpress.com
Randall (08:55:16) :
“Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.”
This is why so many distrust and even hate government and its functionaries. They believe they’re entitled by being “government” to take tax payer money and jet around the world on the public’s teat. At least the private sector earns their trips and doesn’t lecture us on carbon footprints.
Energy is a key component to economic growth.
If energy is taxed here, but not in India or China, and they already have a competitive advantage in labor rates, and cost of overhead rates, why would I choose to build widgets in any of the countries that sign on to energy rationing plans?
If your business uses energy to create a product or service, your boss is going to have one more reason to ship your job overseas.
Even if your job doesn’t directly depend on the use of energy, but your customers’ job is shipped overseas, will he still have the money to pay you for the work you do?
Chu is a former scientist at the fringe of science. He is now in politics and is there in the name of rubber stamping and lending validity as a chief sock Puppet. I remember the oil boom andbubble that became an oil bust in the 1980′ Shady and corrupt oil companies hired CPA’s to be controllwers so banks wouldn’t question their financial statements. But some did and they got busted like Chu here.
I suspect he had some personal reflection to Chu on after the hearing.
Charlie and others with similar views: A nation’s foreign policy is driven by self-interest. China, India and Russia donsider CO2 emission reductions to be irrelevant. Their interests are best advances by economic expansion from continued use cheap, affordable energy from fossil fuels. They are immune to political pressure or embarrassment from nations committed to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. They will benefit from the wealth transfers that result from nations who convert to non-fossil fuels fro energy.
Russia, China and India may promise to reduce use of fossil fuels. They may even sign treaties committing themselves to do so. But, they will cheat and lie while expanding consumption of fossil fuels.
It is time for you to grasp reality. Currently, the only nation whose foreign policy is consistently contrary to its best interests is ours. Just follow the news that is spun to praise him while he presides over the destruction of our capitalist democracy.
What’s with Chu’s facial contortion at 0.47s into the video? Anybody catch it?
pyromancer76:
believe me, I *get it*. A lifetime of observing and participating and debating allows me to *get it*. That was the funniest line I have read in a long, long time: “The last person these ideals describe is Obama.”
You must have a VERY different definition of *liberal* from mine. However, this thread of Anthony’s is not the place for such a discussion. I will therefore reserve my comments for another time.
US Middle east oil dependency is a myth/lie/crap. Less than 6%.