Republicans Repeal the Existence of Climate Change

Global warming is just some crap scientists made up to get that sweet, sweet grant money, right? Never mind that this money goes to the research, not the scientists themselves, so researchers would have nothing to gain here; it's obvious (to Republicans, at least) that scientists are pulling a hoax to get grant money, which allows them to spend their days researching something that doesn't exist. I guess because it's fun.

Well, the gravy train stops here. The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday voted climate change out of existence. Problem solved. Add it to the other huge problems facing our nation that the GOP is working hard to solve, like the microscopic fraction of federal money spent on NPR or making sure the words "In God We Trust" are plastered over every blank square inch of America. You know, all that important "fiddling while Rome burns" stuff.

Sean Pool, ClimateProgress:

House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee demonstrated their commitment to science denial yesterday by unanimously voting down three separate amendments offered by Democrats to reaffirm basic facts about climate science. They then unanimously voted to pass the Upton-Inhofe bill to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse pollution.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

A Real Solution to Deforestation

They've been called "the lungs of the world." The Amazon rainforest and other old growth forests pull tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere, slowing global warming. In a 2002 report for one of those BS White House programs that have since gone nowhere, it was estimated that one acre of rainforest can sequester between 6 to 72 tons of carbon.

Last year, the Independent reported, "Scientists say one days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere."

It's always bothered me that people seem to have stopped giving a damn about deforestation somewhere back in the '90s. The Independent piece tells us that deforestation accounts for 25% of all greenhouse gases, "while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each."

And here we are dicking around with emissions on cars. While important, vehicle emissions aren't our biggest problem here. We're losing old growth forests and, as these forests are lost, the carbon sequestered in them is released as the wood rots, burns, or is dried in a kiln for lumber. So deforestation is an environmental double-whammy -- not only are you increasing emissions, but you're losing a method of sequestering future emissions.

Part of the problem is that many of the world's old growth forests are in the developing world. It's easy for us to tell them to knock it off, but hard for them to do so. Rainforests and old timber mean money -- and you don't get that money unless you harvest the wood or clear the land for other industries. So the trees come down, acre after acre, tons of carbon are released and future emissions have nowhere to go but the atmosphere.

But there's another way to make money off trees -- carbon credits. A new study shows that global warming could be a boon to the developing world, by offering them a way to monetize forests without destroying them.

Agence France-Presse:

Global carbon markets could generate billions of dollars each year for developing countries that tackle tropical deforestation, a major source of global warming, according to a new study.

Reducing the rate at which Amazonian rain forests are disappearing by only 10 percent, for example, would yield 1.5 to 9.1 billion euros (2.2 to 13.5 billion dollars), depending on world carbon emission prices, researchers calculated.

That money could then be plowed into national conservation efforts that would further mitigate climate change, creating a virtuous circle.

Slow down deforestation by another 20 percent, and the potential income for the region would top 45 billion dollars if carbon prices reached 30 euros per tonne, said the study, one of two dozen scientific papers on the future of the Amazon released Monday by The Royal Society in Britain.

If paying people to leave stuff alone seems a little weird to you, consider that Al Gore and Sir Richard Branson are offering a $25 million prize to anyone who "comes up with the best way of removing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." So, if you build some big high-tech carbon filter gizmo, you're a gazillionaire (you'll take the prize and sell the gizmo). But leave acres of trees untouched -- which already removes carbon from the atmosphere -- and you're a chump.

Does that make any sense to you?

The problem is that the time to start doing this is now. The AFP piece tells us, "The UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that rising global temperatures could transform much of South America's rain forests into semi-arid savannah-like areas within five decades." Grasslands don't sequester a lot of carbon -- trees do that. Killing the rainforests will result in higher temperatures which will make any reforestation impossible. Once gone, it's gone -- and we're royally screwed.

Luckily, this sequestration market already exists. Nine US states and several countries have passed legislation to limit carbon emissions. A key part of these laws is a provision called "cap and trade."

Union of Concerned Scientists:

These systems draw on the power of the marketplace to reduce emissions in a cost-effective and flexible manner. In practice, cap-and-trade systems create a financial incentive for emission reductions by assigning a cost to polluting. First, an environmental regulator establishes a “cap” that limits emissions from a designated group of polluters, such as power plants, to a level lower than their current emissions. The emissions allowed under the new cap are then divided up into individual permits—usually equal to one ton of pollution—that represent the right to emit that amount.

"Because the emissions cap restricts the amount of pollution allowed, permits that give a company the right to pollute take on financial value," we're told. The idea is that companies that operate under their cap can sell their -- I guess you'd have to call it "excess polluting capacity" -- to other industries. If we could bring developing nations into this system, they could sell their sequestration capacity to offset the emissions by polluters. The Amazon alone accounts for a full half of all sequestration capacity on the planet. Add to this further restrictions on emissions and developing technology that commodifies carbon dioxide itself and we could conceivably reduce carbon emissions to near zero.

Meanwhile, we help developing nations create huge national parks or even a new industry of for-profit forestry. The "lungs of the world" would have full-time care.

I can't think of an effort that would have a bigger impact.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; environment; global warming; science; business; markets; cap and trade; carbon dioxide; sequestration; Paying the developing world not to destroy the Amazon and other rainforests makes a lot more sense that it may seem

On the Nobel Peace Prize and the Buggy Whip Industry

It was a bad day for climate change deniers worldwide yesterday, when former Vice President Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize with the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri.

According to the Norwegian Aftenposten, "Pachauri said the actual costs of mitigating climate change aren't as high as many might think, especially if they're taken during the next seven years before the consequences of global warming become irreversible. Nor, he said, do emissions control measure need to halt economic growth."

Pachuari was countering a climate change skeptic argument -- one shared by the Bush administration -- that reducing carbon emissions would be bad for economies. It's hard to see the reasoning here. You develop new technologies and new industries and that's supposed to hurt business? Look at the computer boom -- how was suddenly doing everything differently bad for the economy? Even breweries are computerized now. These aren't the concerns voiced by people thinking about the future, they're the concerns of those invested in the status quo. It's the argument of the buggy whip industry against horseless carriages.

In fact, Pachuari pointed out that dealing with the effects of climate change would be more expensive than controlling it. "Where extreme weather events become more intense or more frequent with climate change, the economic and social costs of those events will increase," he told the audience in Oslo. How much did Hurricane Katrina, in purely monetary terms, cost us? More than "three-quarter billion in federal dollars" have been spent just reimbursing local agencies, according to FEMA. Untold hundreds of millions more were spent by insurance companies and other private business. Even more was raised by charities. And it's still not enough. Even if we completely disregard the human cost, there's no way we can afford to do this very often.

Gore's speech was more direct. "We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency," he said, "A threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst -- though not all -- of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly."

He also accused two of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses -- China and the US -- of using each other's inaction as an excuse for their own. "Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment," he said.

Gore predicted a policy change for the US, no matter who won the 2008 elections. "I think that they do not accurately represent the wishes of the American people," he said of the Bush administration -- at least, indirectly. "We are in the midst of a process of massive change. The world is coming to grips with this crisis, but we are in a race against time. The United States of America, the natural leader of the world community, should lead instead of obstructing."

In awarding the prizes, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel committee acknowledged that this year's choice of laureates was politically inspired. "The Norwegian Nobel committee rarely raises its voice," he said. "Our style is largely sober. But it is a long time since the committee was concerned with such fundamental questions as this year."

Writes climate activist and actress Laurie David for the Huffington Post, "Rarely also does the largely Norwegian audience break into a standing ovation but it did today after Al Gore's powerful and emotional speech. 'The earth has a fever. And the fever is rising...something basic is wrong. We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.'"

The audience is right, Gore is right, the Nobel Committee is right, and Rajendra Pachauri are right. If there's anything you can do to get the ball rolling here, you should do it.

Go ahead and disregard the folks with the buggy whips.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; climate; environment; Norway; international; UN; Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, and the Nobel Prize Committee are right -- the only wrong approach to dealing with global warming is sitting on your ass