Bush admin climate change plan increases emissions

[ProSense]

U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: March 3, 2007

The Bush administration estimates that emissions by the United States of gases that contribute to global warming will grow nearly as fast through the next decade as they did the previous decade, according to a long-delayed report being completed for the United Nations.

The document, the United States Climate Action Report, emphasizes that the projections show progress toward a goal Mr. Bush laid out in a 2002 speech: that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases grow at a slower rate than the economy. Since that speech, he has repeated his commitment to lessening “greenhouse gas intensity” without imposing formal limits on the gases.

Snip...

But when shown the report, an assortment of experts on climate trends and policy described the projected emissions as unacceptable given the rising evidence of risks from unabated global warming.

Snip...

According to the new report, the administration’s climate policy will result in emissions growing 11 percent in 2012 from 2002. In the previous decade, emissions grew at a rate of 11.6 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Snip...

The report arrives at a moment when advocates of controls are winning new support in statehouses and Congress, not to mention Hollywood, where former Vice President Al Gore’s cautionary documentary on the subject, “An Inconvenient Truth,” just won an Academy Award. Five western governors have just announced plans to create a program to cap and then trade carbon-dioxide emissions. And on Capitol Hill, half a dozen bills have been introduced to curb emissions, with more expected.

more...

Friday, February 2, 2007

Kerry for ‘realistic’ climate change bill

By Danny Lauridsen SPECIAL TO THE TELEGRAM & GAZETTE

WASHINGTON— U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., reintroduced bipartisan legislation yesterday intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, which he called a major cause of climate change, to 65 percent below the 2000 levels by 2050.

Mr. Kerry joined U.S. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, at a press conference in announcing the Global Warming Reduction Act, which they said would make more of an impact than other proposed legislation that does not include incentives such as tax breaks for businesses and individuals.

Snip...

Of his bill, Mr. Kerry said the 65 percent reduction goal is a key difference from other bills calling for more than 80 percent reduction in the same period of time.

“It’s just not realistic,” he said of the other bills. “No scientist has told me that that’s achievable.”

If passed, Mr. Kerry’s bill would require that the United States freeze emissions in 2010 and then reduce emission levels gradually through the use of clean, renewable energy sources to achieve 10- and 20-year target levels in the transportation, industrial and residential sectors.

(more)

The Bush Administration's Air Pollution Plan
Hurts Public Health, Helps Big Polluters, Worsens Global Warming


An excellent video: We Can Run - The Grateful Dead

[globalvillage]

1. Wow. Excellent post.

I love the graphs. Thanks for posting this, ProSense.
I think the gradual reduction of the Sanders-Boxer or Kerry-Snowe has a better chance of working. What's with the sharp declines in McCain-Lieberman, do you know? Perhaps one of those 'shock and awe' strategies they seem to be so fond of. Looks like under their plan in 2012 we all have to start taking the bus, then in 2020, we walk?
Seriously, I'm going to have to look at their proposal, it has me curious.

[TheBaldyMan]

2. Bush has just toured New Orleans and Enterprise - now this!

does the guy ever have a lucid period? Does he have to be waist deep in sea water in Vegas before he wises up? The mind boggles. :crazy:

[ProSense]

3. Kick n/t

[karynnj]

4. Excellent post

Those graphs tell so much about the opposing plans. The Bush paln is useless and makes nowhere the change needed. The sad thing is that the Bingaman and the McCain/Leiberman proposals aren't much better. It is scary that the Republicans can claim they are compromising on Bingaman, where the curve is not much different than Bush's. The McCain/Leiberman curves look fake - at two points there are massive intantaneous 10% decreases. Are these 2 miracles?

From this it looks like Boxer/Sanders and Kerry/Snowe are the serious proposals - though the McCain one has gotten the most press. Hearing Boxer's high praise for Kerry when he spoke at her committee and his compliments to her work, I hope that these 4 people become allies. It is nice that Kerry's is bipartisan.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. And how many here are surprised by this? Show of hands ... ?

I thought as much.

[hatrack]

7. Exactly - this is a serious "What did you expect?" moment, although . . .

The graphs and post are great - thanks! :toast:

[ms liberty]

6. Well now, there's a surprise...

NOT!

Thanks for posting this great article, ProSense...very informative - K&R.

[karynnj]

8. We need to keep these graphs in mind when the Senate/House

start debating these various bills - some seem seriously inadequate - and may be pushed so people can say that they did someting on this.

[sutz12]

9. I would be willing to bet.....

That if we could get the curve started, like in the proposed Sanders-Boxer plan, that the rate of decrease would actually accelerate. The problem is overcoming the inertia of the current big energy lobbies. Once the technology starts to actually roll out, prices will drop and people will get on board.

We have the technology to make massive improvements now. We just need the political will to force the money into the changes we need. Once it gets started, it could go really quickly. The problem, of course, is that we are trying to cure 200 years of "progress" in a short time. It will take decades for CO2 concentrations to actually start dropping back to natural levels.

[karynnj]

10. That actually was a point made by Senator Kerry

both resently and in 2004. Once people really start loving at how technology can help and if the government makes rewards that type of research who knows what research will lead to. One advance often leads to another.

Another thing that Kerry and Snowe deal with is how to handle "losers" when you implement major change. The point is that there is no choice on what has to be done. Some of the other plans ask less up front - which only makes the long term situation worse and harder to deal with.