Global Warming deniers follow tobacco industry tactics

The current issue of Newsweek has an excellent article that follows the myths and motives of the Global Warming deniers. I urge you to read it as it demonstrates how the argument against accepting the reality of Global Warming is created by the people who have the most to gain from ignoring it. Most interesting to me is the following quote:

“They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”

cross-posted at www.local-warming.blogspot.com

Bush to host climate talks

I learned from the BBC today that President Bush has invited the UN and EU plus 15 of the world’s leading economies to join him September 27-28 to talk about climate change. Bush of course is asking for the big emitters to enter into a gentleman’s agreement about voluntary reductions, which is the same plan he mentioned at the G8 back in June. Bush also claims that “this would then contribute to a global agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009.” This treaty would replace Kyoto. Let’s see- Bush hates the Kyoto Protocol and he doesn’t believe in mandatory limits on emissions.

House passes energy bill, Bush set to veto

The Washington Post published an article yesterday reporting that the House passed an epic energy bill on Saturday that includes a 15% renewable energy standard. The bill passed 241 to 172 and also includes:

  • more energy efficiency in appliances, buildings and power grids, which proponents of the bill say would reduce carbon dioxide emissions and electricity use

  • more energy efficiency measures in the Capitol building

  • grants for studies to promote ethanol pipelines

  • installation of pumps for 85 percent ethanol fuel at gas stations

  • production of cellulosic ethanol.

According to the Post:

The House last night also passed, 221 to 189, a companion tax package, totaling nearly $16 billion, that targets the oil and gas industry. In a letter to Congress, however, the Bush administration said Friday that the two House measures would result in less domestic oil and gas production. The letter said President Bush‘s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bills.

Here is what did not make it to the bills, which may occur later this year in a reconciliation of House and senate energy bills, or in a global warming bill:

  • other mandates for renewable energy

  • incentives for coal-to-liquid production (thank GOD- that stuff has twice the CO2 emissions of gasoline)

  • tougher vehicle fuel-economy standard (heavily opposed by UAW)

cross-posted at www.local-warming,blogspot.com

rebuttal to liquefied coal article

Lowell Miller’s column arguing in support of liquefied coal as an energy source was disturbing and irresponsible.

Mr. Miller claimed that carbon sequestration has rendered concerns over liquid
coal’s pollution obsolete. That is simply untrue. Carbon sequestration is not reliable technology on a commercial scale.

Some climate experts say we have ten years to stabilize, then reduce, greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of global
warming. Subsidizing coal to liquid technology would be a giant step in the wrong direction.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, every gallon of liquid coal burned would generate twice the carbon emissions generated by a gallon of gasoline derived from petroleum.
If we want our children to have a chance at inheriting a planet without melted polar ice caps, coastal flooding, unpredictable weather patterns and
the chaos and poverty this entails, we must vote now for energy policies that strive for energy independence created by clean, alternative energy technologies such as wind, solar and bio-diesel power.

A future based on clean energy independence means a future of better global health and security. I am proud of leaders like Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has recently formed a commission to reduce Maryland greenhouse gas pollution 15 percent per capita by 2015 .
This necessary goal is achievable if we are willing to make voluntary changes to reduce our carbon footprint and demand legislative changes that move us toward an energy policy based on clean, renewable energy.

Katherine Hinckley
Towson

Decoupling 101

Decoupling essentially works like this: The profits a utility company receives are separated (un-coupled) from the amount of kilowatt hours produced. Right now in Maryland (and most states) power companies earn more money the more energy they produce (the more coal they burn, the more kilowatt hours they push onto the grid). Therefore, the companies make more money when more energy is consumed. Clearly, this is not going to usher in a new era of energy efficiency.

With Maryland energy bills hitting record-highs recently, it’s time for Maryland to consider something new. In 1999, lawmakers passed a degregulation bill. They capped utility rates for seven years at pre-1999 levels and hoped that competition among energy providers would drive down prices. But, when the caps expired last year, Constellation Energy (which owns Baltimore Gas and Electric) proposed a 74% increase- and the Maryland Public Services Commission approved it! And now, people are demanding action on energy policy like they never have before.

Recently, the Public Services Commission decided to try decoupling to increase Maryland’s energy efficiency. Decoupling would remove the disincentive for the utilities to pursue and encourage energy efficiency projects. Instead of having profits that are dependent upon total kilowatt hour produced, the power company rates profits of a certain amount are guaranteed by the state. If Maryland consumers use less energy, the power companies would make up the difference with a flat distribution charge. So, this means a few things: 1) Rates will not change much. Marylanders will not experience the 75% rate hikes- rates will remain relatively stable. 2) Efficiency projects, that in the past meant less kilowatt hours produced and therefore lower projects, can occur more readily without disrupting the profits of the company. In fact, power companies realizing that they can earn more by producing less may even embrace energy efficiency projects everywhere- saving homeowners and power companies money.

There are a lot of problems with the way our energy system is managed today. Can decoupling be part of the solution? O’Malley seems to think so. What do you think?

For more information and a more in depth analysis of the issue, see this daily kos post by A Siegel. Continue reading

BCAN and CCAN Unite on YouTube

Watch how the forces have come together in Maryland to use grassroots activism in the fight against global warming. Keep up the great work CCAN members!

FACT: Wind farms will have zero impacts on migratory bird populations

Among the many colossal falsehoods routinely espoused by the media and misguided activists about wind power is the canard about how wind farms threaten bird populations. People how make this claim, who say birds are at risk in Appalachia from existing and proposed wind farms, have zero — ZERO — data to back up their claims.

On the other hand, there’s now an enormous body of scientific evidence, backed up by radar studies, showing the opposite: that bird populations are in no way threatened by wind power development in our region.

Please see below and here an essay I posted on the CCAN website in March 2006. This is thoroughly documented stuff, not hot-headed rhetoric. Here’s the truth: global warming is the single biggest threat to all the planet’s bird and bat populations. And wind power can and already is a safe and responsible part of the solution to global warming.

Read the essay>>