EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
Popular content
Today's Top News
350 Goal Will Never Be Achieved With Kerry-Lieberman
The details have finally emerged on the American Power Act, the climate and energy legislation rolled out Wednesday by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). More telling than the details, however, is a number not mentioned in the bill - 350.
You remember 350, don't you?
Environmental activist Bill McKibben and thousands of volunteers organized events last fall calling attention to this number. It represents the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- in parts per million -- that leading scientists now say is safe and sustainable. We know this because we've already crossed that line - 390 ppm and climbing - and the Earth is telling us to go back. Most of the world's glaciers are in retreat, ice shelves in polar regions are shrinking, and the seas are encroaching on islands and coasts.
Any legislation to address climate change needs to have the overarching goal of getting us back to 350 ppm of CO2 and keeping us there. But you'll find no mention of this in the Kerry-Lieberman bill for one simple reason: There's no way in hell their bill can achieve this goal. What's really scary, however, is that most of the politicians in Washington are operating under the assumption that we don't need to get to 350. The real eye-opener for me came last fall when a Senate aide I met with said we just need to keep CO2 under 450 ppm.
I have the greatest admiration for Sen. Kerry and the now-off-the-bus Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for their tireless efforts to craft this legislation. But the flaws in this bill will prevent it from achieving its most important objective - stopping the worst effects of climate change.
In a statement issued Wednesday, several members of the Price Carbon Campaign weighed in on those flaws.
"The Kerry-Lieberman bill fails the acid test of climate legislation, which is to provide clear signals on emission prices," said Charles Komanoff, co-founder of the Carbon Tax Center. "Investors, entrepreneurs and households all need certainty in future fuel and energy prices, but Kerry-Lieberman hides these crucial price signals behind a curtain of cap-and-trade."
The American Power Act tries to limit the price volatility by establishing a price collar that starts with a floor of $12 and a ceiling of $25. The floor price would increase 3 percent a year while the ceiling would rise 5 percent. Even with the collar, though, there would be enough uncertainty in prices to discourage long-term investments in clean energy.
As Komanoff also points out, the pricing proposed in Kerry-Lieberman would produce meager reductions in CO2 emissions. Based on his carbon-pricing model, Komanoff estimates that by 2020 the bill would reduce CO2 by only 3 percent over 2009 emissions.
More damaging, perhaps, than the pricing mechanism, is the inclusion of carbon offsets, which could delay by decades America's conversion to clean energy.
"Instead of making needed investments in renewable energy, utilities will have the much cheaper option of investing in third-world projects aimed at cutting carbon," said Tom Stokes, Coordinator of the Climate Crisis Coalition, another member of the Price Carbon Campaign. "Most of these offsets do nothing to reduce current emissions, and they allow polluters in the U.S. to keep burning coal and other dirty fuels."
In his post Wednesday, Kerry said, "Half measures won't cut it," but that's precisely what's been delivered in this bill, which was thoroughly vetted by big coal and big oil.
He also mentioned the Senate hearing he convened with Al Gore back in 1988 that first called attention to the emerging crisis of global warming. Those hearings introduced the nation and the world to climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, whose dire predictions have proven correct in the years since.
When Bill McKibben asked what the target should be for CO2 in the atmosphere, it was Hansen who said we must get back to 350 ppm. Hence, 350.org was born.
It's time for decision-makers in Washington to listen to Hansen again. At the Climate Rally in Washington on April 25, he proposed the "People's Climate Stewardship Act." It's a simple plan to put a steadily-increasing fee on carbon that will make clean energy competitive with fossil fuels within a decade. It also returns all the revenue to households so that families won't bear the economic impact of rising energy costs.
Granted, I'm not a senator, and I don't have to deal with Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations to play kingmaker. But if I'm trying to save the world, James Hansen is the guy I'd want to talk to, not the president of the American Petroleum Institute.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
20 Comments so far
Show AllNeither Kerry, Liberman nor Graham give a damn about 350 ppm, Bill McKibben or James Hansen. Valk shows how gullible or deliberately stupid he is by this statement: "I have the greatest admiration for Sen. Kerry and the now-off-the-bus Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for their tireless efforts to craft this legislation." Really? They tirelessly craft legislation that glaringly intends to ignore the entire 350 argument, that subverts every sane policy direction that might move us away from irreversible global warming and climate chaos, and you "have the greatest admiration" for these assholes?
They don't even care what Al Gore has to say about this crisis; they are listening ONLY to energy and business leaders and couldn't care less what tree-huggers like McKibben and Hansen have to say. They haven't even HEARD of 350 ppm. Sorry, but the president of the American Petroleum Institute is calling the shots in Washington where this issue is concerned. Nothing is going to be done about it, not now, not ever, if we are waiting for John Kerry, Lieberman or Lindsey Graham to take the lead. But apparently some of us still get a rush of hero admiration for phonies like these when they "work tirelessly" crafting legislation that absolutely guarantees an unliveable planet.
Yep, its all about the Dems and Repugs getting corporate contributions from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.
IMHO the only hope we have of cutting down on CO2 is that we appear to be at the point of peak oil. This doesn't mean we will run out anytime soon, but it means the days of cheap energy is coming to an end. This will be the thing that gets people to change their ways, because at some point the cost of energy will make business as usual, (BAU), impossible for the average person. Don't look to our government to do anything meaningful to change how we do things because they exist only to keep BAU going at all cost.
Of course as we see by what is going on in the Gulf there is a serious downside to the end of cheap energy, and that is deep water drilling. But again even as this disaster runs its course, there is NO MEANING change to BAU coming from Washington. Very sad, but completely predictable.
The end of cheap oil should not be a motivator for change. If global warming is not enough, nothing will be. It's possible that vast, cheap reserves may yet be discovered, then what?
Finding vast cheap reserves at this point is doubtful. The planet has been explored pretty well, and there have been no major finds in decades. Remember when the find a "BIG" field that is measured in billions of barrels, you are only talking about months of world oil usage. The only possibility for a really big find at this point is at the poles as the ice melts, and that wont be cheap.
Remember in our society the only thing that matters is money. They don't care about the planet, but when gas becomes too expensive for the average Joe to be able to drive to his low paying job, then things will have to change.
imo, without a movement from the people, it will never happen from congress or the president. never.
Forget it! We will never see 350 for at least the next 100 years, probably never, no matter what we do or don't do.
The continuing release of the Arctic's methane will insure it will rise way over 500 ppm within a year or two.
"Granted, I'm not a senator, and I don't have to deal with Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations to play kingmaker"
But that actually is the problem. The Senators and Supreme Court justices have allowed the corporations to play kingmaker, against which your words aren't much defense. I mean, they're pleasant to read, and I agree with their sentiments. But its as if, having expressed them, and muttered agreement, we're all supposed to go play in the sandbox now while the adults do what they want.
Senators Kerry and Lieberman voted for Nafta, after being warned by Ross Perot that we would lose our industrial base.
They did not listen, they are responsible for the loss of our industrial base to China. We now have some twenety Million unemployed in this country, however, Kerry and Lieberman get get paid every day they are in office. It really is a case of Screw the working classes, who are the base of the Democratic party.
I hate these double bounce postings.
Here's how the Kerry-Leiberman bill will succeed in spite of itself:
1. The bill sets a carbon credit trading ceiling of $25.
2. Next year at this time the U.S. dollar isn't worth a drachma. The actual price of carbon credits goes above $25. By sneaky law, the pace of inflation is declared to be 1% per year.
3. Nobody in their right mind will buy/sell carbon credits at this price, so the coal companies and oil companies have to close up shop 100%. (oops, after reading the bill's fine print, they'll only have to shut down 85% of their operations).
4. Without oil and coal bucks, ok, their bucks are de facto dimes now, Kerry and Lieberman have no reason to be senators anymore. They don't bother to lose an election, they merely quit one day and flee with Krugerrands in their luggage to Brazil, a wealthy nation. Now that's a success.
You have been listening to Hanson and Gore's trash waaay
tooo lllooonngggg !!!!
350ppm will not be achieved for at least 20,000 years !!!
Even if we were to shut down every emmission on the planet
right this minute.
As I have said on other Climate Collapse threads, Hanson
has been controlling the climate models for industry since
the 1970s. Personally, I have been following the C02
crisis since the early eighties.
They are lieing, they are lieing, they are lieing
about the whole scenario. Yes, we are in global warming right
now due to greenhouse gases. Nothing can stop the carbon
recycling that is going to happen. The climate collapse is
going to be much more severe than what we have been led to
believe.
Rising Temperature + Melting H20 = EVAPORATION !!!!!!!
evaporation = clouds
clouds = albedo
There will be no melting ice in about twenty years !!!
"They are lieing, they are lieing, they are lieing"
Say it as many times as you want, but it is still spelled 'lying'.
"There will be no melting ice in about twenty years !!!" There may be no further ice to melt in about twenty years. But we can still enjoy video of the ice that is melting now:
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
You seem to be hard-set on this topic, having studied it since the '80s (about as long as I've been studying it). I don't agree with your conclusions. My take is pretty well summarized by this short series of slides put together by John Cook for a talk at the U of Queensland:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sks_slideshow.pdf
It's bottom-line conclusion: there is just too much evidence, bub.
The current science is not showing much affect from co2. The sensativity seems quit low in fact. The science of 5 years ago supported the co2 hypothosis. The climate science of today does not.
The prime example of this is the missing heat that Prof Trenbeth can't find. Also, no hot spot in the tropics, amongst many other items.
We just need to ban,, Volcanos! I mean the one in Iceland but out 50yrs worth of CO2 in a week. Now I read it's at it again!.
I've had it and I ain't gonna do another thing till somebody stops these EVIL VOLCANOES! Have they tried throwing Al Gore in it? you'd think with his current size.. he'd plug it right up :)
>^^<
I worked that out last night! Drop a SeaWolf Class Submarine on it at full throttle! That will plug the hole! and justify the SeaWolf Subs existance.. Since nothing else will to date.
>^^<
Consider: a seismic trigger to the tipping point cascade of climate events. The 350 GHG scenario may not play out as a gradual warming into unlivable conditions.
In its recent Water issue, Nat'l Geographic mentioned that the mass of the 3 Gorges dam(s) in China would move the axis of the earth an inch. That means someone somewhere has done calculations concerning mass shift on planetary dynamics.
What happens when land-borne ice sheets melt or, worst case, rapidly change location...?
Kerry-Lieberman and their 'bill' = conflict of interest! The bill was written by and for the corporate interests. So who's running the government?
Again ... deference to the so-called 'experts' and the money! Damn them!
An aside and for consideration: oil, dispersants, oil + dispersants and their affect on ice formation/maintenance/prevention/destruction(at the molecular level) at the poles.