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
Where’s Tonya Reiman when you need her.
(A frequent guest on the O’Reilly factor for a segment that analyzes body language of various newsmakers.)
There is no doubt in my mind that Chu is simply towing the AGW line on this. No doubt whatsoever….
” Barkmor (11:11:12) :US Middle east oil dependency is a myth/lie/crap. Less than 6%.”
That’s not really all that relevant to the topic at hand, but such a statement just cries out for comment.
With a fungible commodity like oil, what counts in our sensitivity to Middle East supply disruptions are 1) the percentage of oil that the US uses that are imported, and 2) what percentage of total worldwide exports are from the Middle East.
Does anybody know of chinese, or russian papers on the subject of the so called “global warming”?. Because those from “crazy driven occidental civilization” could be checked against these.
Barrasso, Inhofe assert EPA transparency a sham
Jul 08 09 – 12:02 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter sent yesterday to EPA Administrator Jackson, U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator John Barrasso (R-Wy.) questioned the transparency governing the development of EPA’s endangerment finding. Senator Inhofe noted, “Having clearly articulated your commitment to transparency, one would expect Agency officials to uphold your commitment through its actions.”
“It’s clear that the data EPA used were outdated and inconsistent, as the report’s authors have revealed,” Senator Inhofe said. “Making scientific decisions while ignoring key data politicizes the scientific process and shows that important policy decisions are being made in a black box. The Agency’s actions fail to meet the Administrator’s commitment to transparency and openness.”
“The Agency’s commitment to transparency must be more than just words. The EPA cannot put a gag order on sound science,” Barrasso said. “Folks’ livelihoods are on the line.”
Full text of letter below:
June 30, 2009
Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dear Administrator Jackson:
On April 23rd 2009, you issued a Memo to all EPA employees focusing on transparency, which we believe is vitally important to achieving the Agency’s mission. In this memo, you expressed your commitment to uphold the values of transparency and openness by “letting more sunlight into our Agency.” You also stated that, “The success of our environmental efforts depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve.” In addition, you wrote, “In all its programs, EPA will provide for the fullest possible public participation in decision-making,” and that, “EPA [will] remain open and accessible to those representing all points of view, [and] EPA offices responsible for decisions [will] take affirmative steps to solicit the views of those who will be affected by these decisions.”
Having clearly articulated your commitment to transparency, one would expect Agency officials to uphold your commitment through its actions. Over the last few days, however, we have learned that a senior EPA official suppressed a detailed, rigorous account of the most up-to-date science of climate change. This account, written by two agency employees, raises serious questions about the process behind, and the substance of, the Agency’s proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
In short, the authors raise an issue that is difficult to ignore or dismiss: the scientific data supporting the endangerment finding is out of date, is from non-EPA sources, and is inconsistent. As the authors wrote, “These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP.”
According to a series of emails obtained by a non-governmental organization, the director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) refused to consider the report, and rejected a request to forward the report to agency officials tasked with analyzing the science behind the endangerment finding. Moreover, the director specifically barred one of the authors from disseminating or discussing the report’s findings.
We believe this and many other issues and complexities involved in the endangerment finding were either ignored or given short shrift in EPA’s proposal. In our view, this lack of transparency seriously undermines the integrity of EPA’s actions. Indeed, in reviewing the EPA’s proposed rule, there are only three pages (out of 130) devoted to discussion of key uncertainties.
In the coming weeks, we will make a series of inquiries to ensure EPA’s process governing the development of the endangerment finding is open and transparent—and that the Agency considers all view-points, and makes use of the best available, and most up-to-date, scientific data. We believe you share our commitment to transparency; therefore, we hope through your leadership that EPA will be an open, accessible, and science-based agency.
To assist us with our inquiries, please respond to the following questions:
• Do you believe the process governing the development and review of the proposed endangerment finding reflects the Agency’s, and this Administration’s, commitments to transparency and scientific integrity, as outlined in your April 23rd and May 9th memos?
• How can you ensure that the Agency’s rulemakings will be based on the best available, and most up-to-date, scientific data? What process will you develop to make this happen?
• The NAAQS review process requires a five year review to assess the latest scientific data on criteria pollutants. Would you consider implementing a similar process to review the scientific data supporting the endangerment finding?
• In an effort to resolve uncertainties documented in the report mentioned above, will you commit to resolve the Proposed Endangerment Finding solely on the record of the scientific evidence, utilizing the procedures of APA sections 556-557?
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Please respond to these questions by July 10, 2009. If you have any questions or concerns, please speak to Tom Hassenboehler of the Environment and Public Works Committee Staff at (202) 224-6176.
Sincerely,
Senator James M. Inhofe
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works
Senator John Barrasso
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works
http://www.littlechicagoreview.com/pages/full_story/full_story?content_instance_id=2908218
>Mark (10:42:37) :
>
>What’s with Chu’s facial contortion at 0.47s into the video? Anybody catch it?
IMHO the blink and other aspects of the facial contortion were thinly veiled epithets that he knew he could not speak aloud on camera. There was more he probably wanted to say (perhaps derogatory comments directed not only at Sen. Inhofe, but also at the EPA Admin.), but was biting his tongue so he would not. He despises them, but has to act like he respects them. My interpretation of a blink like that is that he is really responding, “No, you ninny. Get out of my sight!”
This inquiry by the US Senators Barasso and Inhofe should do the job, especially because Inhofe knows what the up to date science is.
I have a good feeling about their initiative.
CO2 is more exponentially more soluble in cold water than in hot water. Just a few degrees of cooling phase of the ocean waters might reduce the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly more than if we even stopped every power plants and cars in the world. A global cooling will naturally reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
How can you trust someone that told the President that CO2 is a poison and it can cause cancer?
As Baron Monckton has pointed out in his letter to Congress, after he was denied the opportunity to testify, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf, pp 15-16,
despite CO2 emissions growth that is well above the IPCC’s projections, CO2 concentration is rising at a rate well below what the IPCC projects and is in fact on a trend line that would indicate a CO2 concentration at the end of the century of 575 ppm. A brief glance at the EPA’s chart shows that level would not be meaningfully different from their “best” case scenario of the whole world joining us in a mutual economic suicide pact by embracing the destructive principles of Henry ” the Evaporator” Waxman’s boondoggle laden legislation.
Over at http://www.ted.com Dr. Hans Rosling has a very interesting presentation on world poverty in which, at about 8:40 in, he somewhat embarrassedly provides a statistical animation that reveals the direct relationship between CO2 emission growth and improving conditions for humanity. From the tenor of his comments, which indicate that he has thoroughly internalized the propaganda of the carbon demonizers, I doubt that Dr. Rosling would agree with me, but I would suggest that he has provided a most compelling piece of evidence to support my own conclusion that doing absolutely nothing about our pattern of fossil fuel usage would lead to a vastly superior outcome for humanity than any scenario of corrective action suggested by the alarmists, no matter what climate eventuates in the future. In fact, given the strong correlation between increasing prosperity and increasing consciousness of environmental issues, I think a strong case can be made that using our finite financial resources for private investments to provide the people of the developing world with expanded energy supplies and the expertise to efficiently utilize them to build their prosperity will not only lead to profound improvements in their personal existence, but will lead to a general improvement in the state of the global environment. In contrast, pursuing the plans that are now being railroaded through by our own and other world governments, will lead to vast increases in the misery index of the world, as everyone who is not in the employ of a government bureaucracy or running some type of carbon scam will find their living standards diminished and the environment will suffer as the demands of survival overwhelm concerns about damage to it.
Whoops! forgot to include the link for Dr. Rosling’s presentation, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
“Since when is a majority of the people not respected?”
Umm, since we started putting liars, lawyers, and morally corrupt and ethically challenged people in Congress.
BTW, the USA is not and never has been nor should it ever be a “majority” rule. This is a republic and in the paraphrased immortal words:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Winston Churchill
and Thomas Jefferson..
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Majority rule is a sure way to find a country at the thumbscrews of tyranny. We, the USA, are supposed to be a nation ruled by law, that is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is also why the majority do not elect the President and why there is no right to vote in a federal election. You do not have that right.
The majority… have caused these problems with this BAD, very BAD science being pushed. If I were a scientist I would be ashamed to support something that some no-nothing off the street punk can see the holes through this so called global warming BS.
But, science has no shame. What it has is the same thing it always has had… a need for money and they are more than willing to whore themselves out for grants and bend at the knee to support this or that government or high-priced endowment payer.
Dear Dr. Chu– Even in the improbable event that the whole world halves its CO2 emissions, IPCC’s own models show that the resulting temperature reduction is climatologically insignificant. Do you disagree with their graphs too?
Taxman/Malarkey is nothing but a pathetic effort to appease the climate gods with human sacrifice.
BTW, for those who are not familiar with the graphic tools Dr. Rosling is using in his presentation, info about and access to them is available at http://www.gapminder.org/.
I find that they make powerful insights that challenge conventional wisdom about a wide variety of subjects more easily accessible and discoverable than any other method of presentation that I’ve experienced.
Ron (12:35:12) :
So, if a Democracy is a form where the Minority Rule (i.e. Gov, banks, etc) then, you DO have a Democracy in the USA and not a Republic.
Take a look at this video… the “x” at the top of the list for Democracy is the bankers.
An interesting bit of information has not made it into this discussion, but
always bears repeating.
The US is a net carbon sink. As a nation, we remove the CO2 added
by China and India. Since our contribution is negative, what more should
we be doing?
California is leading the way all right. They’re already bankrupt.
Mike D. (15:10:50) : “California is leading the way all right. They’re already bankrupt.”
And NJ, NY, IL are right behind CA.
Odd that all those states voted Democratic.
forgot to add:
but correlation is not causation.
Mike D., re California bankruptcy. Almost, but not yet. Just a minor deficit of $26.3 billion. The comedy increases out here, as the state treasurer announced he will accept California’s IOUs as payment for taxes owed the state.
Seriously… we are recycling IOUs rather than having real money flow.
Who are the geniuses in charge out here, anyway?
Tom_R (08:49:30) :
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.
Tom-R
This is a very shortsighted and dangerous idea.
1. The US people will not accept such a scheme long term
2. India and China will develop their own middle class and consume its own production
3. It is madness to shut down the most efficient producing countries.
Japan, Europe and the US beat China approx. 7 : 1 in regard to energy efficiency.
We produce not only efficient but alo “clean” and with clean I am not talking about CO2 which I do not regard as a pollutant.
We can not afford to stop our evolution and we don’t have to.
All claims of lack of energy and resources are BOGUS.
All real “problems” can be solved.
Take a walk down memory lane and try to pre-guess the party platforms of old. Then read what they were really like. If you are blue now, you would have been red back then and visa versa. The dems believed in states rights. The repubs believed in a more nationalist view of things. And there were others. It is an interesting read and helps explain why two dems or two repubs will have two different definitions of who they are.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/politics/tl_tree.html
Charlie,
The question to Prof Garnaut about Australia’s emmissions was asked by Senator Barnaby Joyce in an attempt to fathom out whether or not Garnaut’s report was based on science. Garnaut is an economist and I feel tries to be as honest as possible even if his report makes for difficult reading. It was really taken for granted that politics was behind all of this. All that was needed was a public admission and we got it!
With the clamour for all emitting countries to back some sort of ET scheme, it seems to me that stopping this runaway madness will become more difficult .
This is why I said that we are moving away from scientific reason and further into the murky ,consensus ridden,collaborative world of politics. Science will always win out, it is the continued weakening of western democracies through fuzzy logic that really concerns me.
Frank Perdicaro (14:58:03) :
An interesting bit of information has not made it into this discussion, but
always bears repeating.
The US is a net carbon sink. As a nation, we remove the CO2 added
by China and India. Since our contribution is negative, what more should
we be doing?
What we do now Frank. We take their money.
Huge CO2 Emissions Disagreement Between EPA and Energy Dept. Ignored by MSM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/08/huge-co2-emissions-disagreement-between-epa-energy-dept-ignored-msm