What a beautiful gift to find under my cyber Christmas tree this morning (give me a break, its Christmas Eve and I’m going to milk my holiday references for all they’re worth). From harman on earth, the good news that State Senator Rodney Ellis has filed legislation to get Texas working toward a climate change solution.
Harman reports,
The Texas Global Warming Solutions Act, refiled by Ellis for the 2009 Legislative Session after a failed effort to get traction in 2007, would create a state commission to make an accounting of all the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and then help craft policy to begin reducing those levels. It would be quite a task. It has been widely reported that if Texas were its own country (as some would still have it, no doubt), it would rank as the world’s eighth-largest emitter.
To bring those levels down, Ellis’ act would have all state agencies required to account for their greenhouse gas contributions and create plans to reduce them. Private industry would also have to begin to monitor and report their releases.
In order to move forward with global warming solutions, Texas needs a thorough understanding of our contribution to the problem.
Check out Harman’s full post. Brief warning: the cockroach video is just a smidge on the creepy side. My stomach isn’t ready for talking bugs first thing in the morning.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
While we all want the cleanest, most abundant environment to live in, this and other political initiatives like it are really bad ideas.
It would be a shame to waste limited tax dollars, especially in an economic downturn, on fixing the wrong thing when it comes to our environment. Even if it goes forward, what tangible benefit will Texans see for their money?
According to the human-driven theory of carbon dioxide forcing, we should’ve had a consistent upward warming trend since WW2. Instead we’ve had coolings along with warmings and have lost all of the previous warming as of last year.
If you are interested in open debate on this topic, check out a recent body of scientific evidence by Henrik Svensmark that makes sense with ALL the major aspects of our climatic history. You can read on the internet on his work about the interplay of the sun and cosmic rays and its global effect on cloud cover and therefore, global temperature change. He also has a book out with Nigel Calder called “The Chilling Stars”.
pracphilosblog,
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on global warming science, the facts are these: majority of scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change. Deniers like Henrik Svensmark represent the fringe, and their work is largely contradicted through the peer review process and better science. For specific info on Svensmark, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_and_controversy and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
2) CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases have a specific, measurable effect on our atmosphere. We don’t know everything, but what we do know points to man-made warming.
3) The Nobel-prize winning International Panel on Climate Change, Union of Concerned Scientists, UK Hadley Centre on Cimate Change, and others have stated that to keep from warming more than a few degrees, we need to cut worldwide emissions 80% by 2050 and 25-40% by 2020. Texas needs to do the same.
While it is definitely a shame to waste limited tax dollars, most states that have started tackling climate have had a major stimulus. Utah, for example, spent $1.5 million on energy efficiency and cutting the state’s carbon footprint in 2006. In two years the savings on energy have paid for themselves and will save the state $655,000 per year. Considering some state agencies rival the size of the entire Utah state government, isn’t this something we should be doing?
Lastly, President Obama and Congress have signaled they will regulate greenhouse gases on the scale recommended by IPCC. Texas can get ahead of federal regulation or be run over by it. Senator Ellis’s bill and other proposals by Senator Watson and others represent an opportunity to make Texas the leader in renewable energy and efficiency.
Interesting comments, Andy. My responses:
1a. The majority of scientists of do not agree with the anthropogenic theory. That is incorrect. The recent Poland conference had serious challenge from 650+ scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
And the Oregon Petition details some 31,000 signatories expressing skepticism as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
It’s like we don’t have a science-based, rational Western society anymore. One thing that is not debatable is that we have only a partial understanding of our climate and how it works. This is not a reason to do nothing. Rather, it indicates that we MUST have rigorous debate and exploration of this topic because the current theories do not explain the climate we see now or therefore, in the future. No climate models can do other than explain past climate changes. We have to understand what actually makes climate change before we pour trillions of dollars into the wrong place/efforts with little or no effect (even if today’s environmentalists got all of their money and changes enacted, they admit it would have virtually no effect on our climate).
1b. As with any new or revolutionary theory (Svensmark) that upsets existing theories, many other scientists will attempt to disprove it. This is the way it should work (vs. by politicians, social activists, etc). The real, objective or scientific truth will emerge.
1c. Since as little (geological time) as 6000 years ago, there have been 6 warming and cooling periods with warmer and colder temperatures than today’s current temps. Given these periods are generally accepted by the environmental community as having happened, it is a significant indicator that another factor or factors was/were responsible for major climate change.
2. Yes, CO2 has a quantifiable effect. It’s just that is such an insignificant part of our atmosphere and it has never been documented as a significant driver of anything. Research indicates it lags behind temperature rise. Past history also has documented levels many times higher than anything we’ve experienced today and also indicates that life flourished more richly during these periods.
3. The IPCC central group is a political/governmental body that writes a completely different summary than the actual studies and findings that make up the main body of individual IPCC studies and findings. They have been documented several times as exaggerating or rewording uncertainty statements out of original texts to create alarmism and an unsubstantiated call to action. I would assert any money spent on reducing anyone’s (State or otherwise) carbon footprint is an absolute waste of money on something that has absolutely no tangible benefit. The only ‘savings’ appear to be from artificial, Soviet-style government dictates that bear no ties to science or reality. As we now in an economic downturn, I predict this boutique issue (global warming) will fade into the background until real scientific understanding emerges and then, real benefits.
As an environmental science major, I am alarmed and saddened at the amount of human bias and agendas in the debate on this entire topic. Soon we will have to coin a ‘Big Environment’ term to properly identify those involved in this debate for business/financial, political, and other non-scientific interests.
I’ll respond below, with your statements in italics.
1a. The majority of scientists of do not agree with the anthropogenic theory.
You are grossly incorrect. IPCC bases their conclusions on published, peer-reviewed literature, and so represents the conservative, consensus position on climate change based on a reading of the literature. That’s their process, and you can argue with their methodology (that it is self-feeding, etc), but not that they do not accurately reflect what is being studied and written about in scientific journals, etc.
As for the 650 scientists touted by Senator Inhofe (himself a politician and doing this for political reasons, which you seem to hold suspect) and the Oregon Petition, there are websites abounding which debunk and mercilessly attack those methodologies and the people included on the list of signatories (not that they are being attacked personally, just that some of them are dead, not scientists, not experts in atmospheric sciences or climate, and some of them just plain DO believe in global warming and have no idea how their names ended up on this list).
I think a good, balanced resource here, however, is the subsection from wikipedia about scientific consensus in global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus The links there overwhelmingly point to a strong consensus by the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change, including statements from the national academies of sciences of the G8 and over 50 professional organizations which use the term “consensus.” Remember, consensus does not mean unanimity.
Furthermore, George Mason University recently did a study showing that 8 in 10 US climate scientists believe human activity has increased global temperatures. They disagree on how severe the effects will be, but they agree on the substance of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Ultimately, I could trot out more scientists than you (like 1800 signatories from the Union of Concerned Scientists this past summer http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html) but would it really matter?
If you are correct that there is still a large amount of scientific uncertainty, doesn’t that mean we should be acting more rapidly, despite a lack of consensus? This is a great quote from Gary Yeohe, an economist who has studies economic impacts of dealing with climate change.
(Full interview here: http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2101)
It’s like we don’t have a science-based, rational Western society anymore.
Yes, yes, because some people like to play fast and loose with the facts. I get your point, though, that science is based on people attempting to disprove one another’s theories in order to get at the truth.
2. Yes, CO2 has a quantifiable effect. It’s just that is such an insignificant part of our atmosphere and it has never been documented as a significant driver of anything.
Except for Jim Hansen’s research (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf) which indicates that CO2 at current concentrations equal an extra 1.5- 2 W/sq. ft of energy being reflected back to earth. Insignificant until you aggregate the square footage of the earth.
Research indicates [CO2] lags behind temperature rise.
Actually, it doesn’t. Read here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
Past history also has documented levels many times higher than anything we’ve experienced today and also indicates that life flourished more richly during these periods.
Yes. Those were times like the Carboniferous Period, and those were not times when humans were on the earth. “Life” may have flourished, but human civilization? Are you saying we should keep emitting greenhouse gases because you think some future climate may be beneficial to us?
3. The IPCC central group is a political/governmental body that writes a completely different summary than the actual studies and findings that make up the main body of individual IPCC studies and findings.
Again, you can quibble with their methodology. But for every person who thinks they are overstating the case on climate there is one who says they are understating it. But if you don’t like the IPCC, try http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-summary.php , the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, a synthesis of the opinions of 13 government agencies. They seem to have no problem with the “theory” of climate change, and are even warning of things like up to 35% crop yield loss for Texas agriculture if we have even 2 degrees of warming.
I would assert any money spent on reducing anyone’s (State or otherwise) carbon footprint is an absolute waste of money on something that has absolutely no tangible benefit.
Is it a waste of money for the state of Utah to save $655,000/ year because of energy efficiency? What about the cities of Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio that already have robust efficiency goals in place? What about the customers in San Antonio that saw lower energy prices this summer because they were using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels? What about the homes being built in Germany which use as much electricity as a normal hair dryer? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?em
All of these things have tangible benefits—they save money!! The UCS study I mentioned earlier estimated that investments in green energy would have an economic return on investment of anywhere from 10:1 to 20:1. This analysis (http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp) by McKinsey and Company shows we can cut our emissions by almost 40% at a complete cost savings.
The only ‘savings’ appear to be from artificial, Soviet-style government dictates that bear no ties to science or reality.
Again, I’m sure the very, very conservative state of Utah would be glad to know you think they are using Soviet-style government. Same with Dallas, Houston, etc….Policies like a renewable portfolio standard or a cap-and-trade have the distinction of being market-based solutions, far from anything “Soviet-style.”
As an environmental science major, I am alarmed and saddened at the amount of human bias and agendas in the debate on this entire topic.
As a citizen of the United States and a person with brain, so am I. Unfortunately, the great majority of the “human bias and agenda” as you put it comes from the oil companies, other industry, and government ideologues who don’t believe in climate change: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html. Hey, well, at least my doctor tells me to smoke Marlboro cigarettes- he says they don’t cause cancer at all!
Soon we will have to coin a ‘Big Environment’ term to properly identify those involved in this debate for business/financial, political, and other non-scientific interests.
I pray for the day when “Big Environment” is in the catbird seat of government the same way the fossil fuel industries have been. Oh, my goodness—how horrible!! They want things like *GASP*! clean air and water!
The truth is, you have the science wrong, you have the economics wrong. If you choose to disagree with the majority of scientists and economists who say it is so, then how do you explain phenomena like greater arctic and Greenland ice melts? More active and destructive hurricanes and storms? More flooding in wet areas, more drought in dry areas? Anthropogenic greenhouse gases and their radiative forcings explain a lot, but not everything. We’re still learning, and we may not have the exact right answer right now, but if we simply do nothing we are headed for disaster.
~~Citizen Andy
You should take a look at this. These guys seem to have found a
Global Warming Solution