March 11th, 2009 · Comments Off on Senator Bernie Sanders: 80% by 2050 isn’t enough
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) spoke this morning at the release of a Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution report that lays out, using quite conservative estimates, how “the United States can meet the energy needs of a growing economy and achieve science-based cuts in global warming pollution – without nuclear power or coal.” And, do so not just cost-effectively, but profitably.
The details of that report and of the discussion surrounding it will be the basis of a separate post, but there is one item from Senator Sanders Q&A that merits emphasis. Senator Sanders talked about hwo, virtually every day, there are hearings and scientist stating that the situation is dire. That Senators are hearing from IPCC leaders and participants “forget what we told you two years ago. We were wrong. The situation is far worse.” In light of that, the question:
Q: The Sanders-Boxer bill used to be considered the strongest legislation with an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 was the most aggressive Global Warming bill in the last session of the US Senate. In light of what you are hearing, is that aggressive enough?
A. I think probably not.
Q. Can we expect to see you introduce legislation that would be adequate?
A. The difference is now that we’re working with the Obama people. The political world has changed. But, the answer is yes. If the question is whether we need to go further than we were two years ago, the answer is yes.
Might we be able to expect introduced legislation calling for a “climate-friendly America” by 2050? A carbon-neutral (and more prosperous) economy?
In short, T Boone is calling for generating more electricity from wind, using that to displace natural gas from the electricity system, and then using that natural gas to fuel vehicles as a path to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. After a variety of challenges, T Boone has modified (slightly) the concept, most notable moving from talking about natural gas in a wide range of vehicles to focusing narrowly on just converting 350,000 trucks
Putting aside the problems of relying on wind to displace natural gas, putting aside the questions of T Boone seeking to raid the public coffers to line his own pockets, putting aside the questionable efficiency of natural gas as a transportation fuel, putting aside Pickens seeming desire to ignore climate change challenges, putting aside … Let us take a short romp through the numbers of T Boone’s 350,000 tractor-trailer concept and see if the numbers work out.
Many in the Republican “base” found John McCain an outrage, his policy views and perspectives abhorrent, not least of which that he deigns to consider reality in stating that Global Warming is a serious issue meriting attention (even if his policy prescriptions aren’t enough).
Steigerwald’s scientific credentials shine forth from the opening words.
After George F. Will wrote a column last month questioning the faulty premises and apocalyptic predictions of global-warming alarmists, he caught holy heck from America’s “eco-pessimists.”
Should anyone wonder that the interview that followed simply gave Will another podium for his Will-ful deception?
“Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear…
It is clear to me that climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of “climate change increased the chances of an event” to “without climate change this event could not have occured”.
Should we put aside the “Friedman unit” and the certainty that things will be magical six months for now? Should Tom Friedman ever be enabled to live down his rampant cheerleading for unchecked globalization? The answer, to be clear, to these and other questions is “NO!!”
Yet, when it comes to the questions of energy, Global Warming, and the stresses that humanity is placing on the livability of our planet, Friedman is seemingly ever more on target with every passing day.
His book from last fall, Hot, Flat and Crowded, is not “new” to any of those working the energy / environmental fields and reads too much like a long travelogue (how much carbon for all of Tom’s trips), but is a work that would change the nation for the better if required reading for every member of Congress, every editorial board member, every high school student.
Well, today, The New York Times published The Inflection is Near? A recognition, it seems, of the coalescense of the our three critical problems: economic, energy, and environmental. [Read more →]
A guest post from the ever-insightful and passionate about science APSmith.
That would be character assassination of course – we’re talking about wingers here.
So, this past Wednesday morning on Glenn Beck’s TV show, he bizarrely focuses on a climate blogger and scientist, Michael Tobis of Only In It For The Gold. Beck claims that Tobis has come up with an equation: “Bashing Gore = Killing 1000 People”, as the title puts it. Well, if that’s true, Beck goes on:
you know what, we should keep track of the Glenn Beck death count because I have a feeling if we counted all the times that I made fun of Al Gore, I might be equal in deaths with Stalin.
Yes, indeed you might, Glenn, indeed you might be equal to Stalin. But not for this reason, I think. Read below the fold to discover how one climate scientist got into such a mess – and about the concern troll behind it all.
This post is an effort to provide some links and some of the quotes of the massive number of blog posts calling out George Will and The Washington Post in The Will Affair. [Read more →]
While the world is seeing real impacts (from ice retreats to changing weather patterns) from heating, which science links to CO2 (and other) emisssions. With CO2 levels soon to break 390 ppm, having not been above about 280 ppm through the development of human civilization, and increasing numbers of experts supporting Hansen’s call for action to move in the opposite direction, to below 350 ppm, William Happer, Chairman of the fossil-foolish Marshall Institute, offered the opinion that we are actually in a CO2 famine.
Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairperson, perhaps too admirably restrained herself, keeping from spitting her water all over the hearing table. (It seems that years serving on the Committee with Jim Inhofe (R-Exxon) creates a pretty high tolerance.)
Happer: Many people don’t realize that over geological time we’re really living in a CO2 famine. Almost never have Co2 levels been as low … 285, that’s almost unheard of, most of the time its at least 1000. .. The Earth was just fine in those times. We evolved as a species when Co2 levels were 3 or 4 times what they are now. [Interruption for a fact break: FALSE. See below.] Oceans were fine. Plants were fine. … So its baffling to me that we’re so frightened.
Boxer: This is a weird kind of place you’ve taken us to. You’re taking us back how many years to when we were fine.
Happer. About 80 million year
Boxer. I don’t know how to say this. A lot has happened since then in terms of where people are living and working. We have a society now. So, to say go back to those days, … either I’m missing something or you just don’t seem to think times have changed.
Happer: While I don’t think that the laws of nature or physics have changed. [Said snidely …] or chemistry have changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a prosperous place. There is no reason to think that it will suddenly become bad now …
1. Pleistocene era was 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago, not 80 million years ago.
2. Pleistocene era, when the earth was much colder with more glaciers, had Co2 levels of about 200 ppm (not 1000).
3. It was the Cretaceous Period 80 million years ago, with Co2 levels “3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm”. And, at that time: there were no ice sheets and seal levels were 120 meters higher than today.
No matter the word put against it, humanity is driving change in climate and other aspects of our living space. For decades, scientists, scholars, and public opinion pollsters have sought to place a name against the phenomena.
