New Yorker: the coming House/Republican assault on climate science

[wtmusic]

Know thine enemies - especially the powerful and certifiably loony ones.

"Uncomfortable Climate

Darrell Issa, a Republican representative from California, is one of the richest men in Congress. He made his money selling car alarms, which is interesting, because he has twice been accused of auto theft. (Issa has said that he had a “colorful youth.”) As the ranking minority member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he earned a reputation as President Barack Obama’s 'annoyer-in-chief.' Issa told the Times a few months ago, 'You can call me a pain. I’ll accept that as a compliment.'

Now, with the Republicans about to take control of the House, Issa is poised to become the chairman of the Oversight Committee. The post comes with wide-ranging subpoena powers, and Issa has already indicated how he plans to wield them. He is not, he assured a group of Pennsylvania Republicans over the summer, interested in digging around for the sort of information that might embarrass his fellow-zillionaires: 'I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear.' Instead, he wants to go where he sees the real malfeasance. He wants to investigate climate scientists..."

<>

"John Shimkus, of Illinois, is one of four members now vying for the chairmanship of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. At a congressional hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change by quoting Genesis 8:22: 'As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.' He added, 'I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for His creation.' Another contender for the Energy Committee post, Joe Barton, of Texas—who is one of the House’s top recipients of contributions from the oil-and-gas industry—argues that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with climate change, and, in any event, people will just adapt. 'When it rains, we find shelter,' he has said. 'When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay.' (Barton is perhaps best known for the apology he offered, last June, to the C.E.O. of BP, Tony Hayward, for what he described as a 'shakedown' of the company by the Obama Administration.)"

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/11/22/101122taco_talk_kolbert#ixzz15qolQvGU

[jpak]

1. FYI - all climate deniers are NOT anti-science republican morans

they are just anti-science morans

yup

:D

[joshcryer]

4. The Democratic Party Platform recognizes climate change.

Pages 44-45.

Therefore, all climate deniers in the Democratic Party do not support the Democratic Party Platform.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

3. And so the two years of no subsidies for renewables slowly begins.

Just another few months and you guys will see. The only companies that will get renewable bids are those who are already have strong lobbiests. There will be no new startups. Nothing that Obama could've gotten done had he focused instead on energy rather than health care. I applaud him for the latter, but I do so wish he prioritized the former. Energy is everything.

[ishaneferguson]

5. The path to oblivion

Barton wants Obama to apologize to BP? ;-(

Shimkus says God's promise to Noah ....

[kristopher]

6. And yet both use CO2 as a justification for building more nuclear power

Nuclear Power and Our Energy Future

BY DARRELL ISSA

SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 2010 AT 12:04 A.M.

…Despite a commitment for increasing loan guarantees to ramp up the development of new nuclear plants, the administration’s determination to shutter the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain effectively jeopardizes this goal.

In recent years, Washington’s concerns about environmental quality, climate change and energy security have led it to spend billion of dollars to promote renewables like wind and solar power. And while their contribution to the nation’s electricity generation has increased, it is at this time unrealistic to believe we can depend on these resources for more than a small fraction of our total energy needs.

Indeed, America will never reach its goals of energy independence and reducing carbon emissions without a sustainable nuclear industry. It’s long past time for the United States to adopt sensible energy policies that embrace every available resource and realize the promise that nuclear technology holds for our energy future.

http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343&Itemid=29&tmpl=component

The GOP's Energy Alternative
We need more nuclear power.

By MIKE PENCE, JOHN SHIMKUS and FRED UPTON

While the price of gasoline has risen 50% in the past five months, Democrats in Congress nevertheless seem determined to make our energy situation even worse. Case in point: Legislation sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey to establish a cap-and-trade system that will sharply limit carbon-dioxide emissions and increase energy prices.

Independent analyses by Charles River Associates Inc. and the National Association of Manufacturers predict the Waxman-Markey bill will cost millions of domestic jobs as manufacturers relocate plants to countries with less draconian environmental regulations. Meanwhile, the electricity rates under a cap-and-trade system would, as President Barack Obama said in January 2008 "necessarily skyrocket," by some estimates up to $4,300 each year.

This is not the way to go. Instead, House Republicans this week unveiled legislation that will lead to lower prices, more jobs, a cleaner environment, and greater energy independence. The centerpiece of our American Energy Act is a commitment to increase the production of our abundant domestic natural resources, and not to punish traditional energy producers and consumers.

The cleanest way for utilities to control CO2 emissions is to increase the supply of carbon-free nuclear energy. This is obvious and simple, but in the thousand-page Waxman-Markey bill nuclear power is hardly mentioned.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124467604217304035.html

[Radical Activist]

7. Whores for any industry with a lobbying budget.

[kristopher]

8. I don't think it is just lobbying money, they sincerely believe in nuclear power

There are 2 reasons:
1) Energy security is a prime concern for them and nuclear power represents an easy-to-envision answer to threats to our energy supply;
2) they attach no value to the external costs of nuclear energy (just as they do coal), therefore the cost benefit equation is heavily weighted in favor of nuclear in their minds.

No, I don't think it's just lobbyist's money, they sincerely believe in nuclear power.

What is a hoot though is that they use climate change to try and justify it when they don't believe for a second in AGW.

[Radical Activist]

10. Shimkus is a moronic zealot who hasn't thought anything through that far.

And both of those "reasons" are ridiculous.

[kristopher]

11. I agree he is a moronic idiot, but the reasons are accurate.

If you'd like me to quote the academic research on the values and beliefs of nuclear supporters, I'd be happy to. Perhaps you're going astray by looking at decision-making on things like this as "thinking". It does involve reasoning, but the reasoning always starts with things we already
1) believe to be true and
2) how those beliefs become prioritized by the value we place on them.

For example Shumkus almost certainly has a basic concern about "the environment", but he *believes* that aspect of his world is under the control of an invisible dude in the sky. He therefore devalues that concern while focusing on an area he thinks HE is responsible for - energy.

I'm not saying it makes a bit of sense, but I am saying it is the way these things are worked out in the mind.

[joshcryer]

12. Many people have a "basic concern about the environment" but have other things which delude...

...them that the problem is being taken care of. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

13. It's a shame that this board is intolerable

because every conversation is taken over by nukebots repeating industry talking poitns.

Energy security? Let's compare power sources.

1) Coal - US has some of the world's largest supplies.
2) Wind and solar - limitless supply.
3) Natural Gas - New reserves and extraction methods mean many decades of domestic supply.
4) Nuclear - Ooops. We import most of our uranium. Transporting, extracting, and processing it safely is a huge security risk.

So if "energy security" (whatever you think that phrase means) is a concern then move nuclear power to the bottom of the list. Fucking ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

14. I don't advocate nuclear industry technologies.

I advocate the thorium fuel cycle or the once through traveling wave design which burns up depleted uranium. We have stockpiles of both to last for centuries.

But I'm still boxed in as a "nukebot" and am insulted every few days.

[kristopher]

15. I couldn't agree more...

The preference for nuclear is (IMO) often related to fact that nuclear is a "plug-and-play" type of solution. Unplug coal, plug in nuclear - problem solved.

The fact that there is a larger picture just never enters the equation for people like Shimkus.

[wtmusic]

16. What if the talking points are true?

"Most U.S. uranium is mined in the Western United States."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=nuclear_home-basics

Ooops.

[pscot]

17. Crackpot logic

Start with an inane premise and the sky's the limit.

[kristopher]

18. Unfortunately that is the way people arrive at conclusions.

How else do you explain things like support for Sarah Palin or denying climate change in the face of all the evidence?

IMO christian (or any other kind of) fundamentalism plays a large role in preparing a mind to accept the irrational.

[joshcryer]

9. Thank you for not slandering the OP.