Browner: Climate Change Law Would Bolster U.S. Role at Global Warming Talks
The Obama administration today acknowledged that its ability to play a leading role at international climate change talks later this year will be dictated largely by how quickly Congress acts on global warming legislation.
"The president has been very clear that he wants to re-establish the United States as a leader on the issue of climate change," Carol Browner, the president's adviser on energy and climate change issues, told an energy conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology this afternoon. But Browner added that the U.S. position at climate talks will be "driven by what we are prepared to do domestically."
Congressional legislation, Browner said, "is absolutely essential to our position and what we can ultimately hope to achieve in Copenhagen," where more than 180 countries will meet in December to write a new treaty to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner's comments offer some of the most explicit public statements yet from the administration on how it plans to handle climate change policy this year. They suggest that the White House is exerting significant pressure on Congress to keep global warming legislation at the top of its agenda in coming months.
"I am very confident Congress is going to act," Browner said, noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a commitment to allow debate on global warming legislation and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be supportive of such efforts as well. "We talk to the staffs virtually every day on our efforts with Congress," Browner said.
Meanwhile, there were new signs today that House Democratic leaders are listening closely to the concerns of their colleagues in manufacturing states, many of whom are warning that a cap-and-trade program to limit emissions will have a negatively impact on their state's industries. Particularly in the Senate, the support of these moderate Democrats will be central to passing legislation.
"We have to set aside a certain amount of carbon credits to ensure that the steel and the paper and other trade-sensitive, energy-intensive industries are not exploited in the near term by the Chinese and others," Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, one of the leading House Democrats on climate change and the recent coauthor of a draft global warming bill, said at the conference today.
In the past, President Obama and some Democrats have called for auctioning all carbon credits. But in order to win votes in Congress, they now seem to be making concessions. "We can't have all the credits auctioned off immediately," Markey said.
Reader Comments
Climate change
To legislate against climate change is an oxymoron, on a par with fixing the value of Pi. But before even attempting to do anything about it we should first make sure that such a "climate change" actually exists. IPCC tells us that there was this "late twentieth century warming" which started around 1977 or thereabouts and continued into the eighties and nineties. They feed the warming temperatures from this period into their computers and extrapolate them to give us a climate catastrophe by the end of the century. Unfortunately satellite data show that there was no such warming at all in the eighties and nineties, meaning that ground-based records that show it have severe systematic errors (or are cooked?). Hence, feeding these imaginary temperatures into their computers will give imaginary predictions known in the trade as GIGO. Taking action against carbon dioxide based on such non-sensical predictions is simply tilting at windmills. And advocating such actions is advocating a waste of our national resources. To learn more about the science behind this check out my paper on ICECAP.
No one in Congress considers Global COOLING
The sun is very quite. Hathaway at NASA has finally acknowledge this. A long quiet minimum means the entire cycle 24 will be quite. Scientists in Russia, Egypt and elsewhere are predicting a mini Ice Age some are even suggesting a return to a real Ice Age.
So what does Congress do? We divert grain to Ethanol for fuel, this caused Sec of Ag Ed Schafer to state last spring "the cupboard is bare, the USA has no more grain surplus." Thanks to the Omnibus bill just passed Congress removed thousands of miles of rivers from hydro power use, shut down oil drilling, mining also nuclear power is already a no-no. Worse Congress is now trying to pass several bills than will make growing food illegal for the average citizen Al Gore stated to a FFA winner several years ago "There will be no more farming in the USA" Looks like he means it
David Archibald, an Australian Scientist did some rough calculations to predict the impact of the strong climatic changes that occur during the turning points of a Gleissberg cycle (mini Ice Age) on US agriculture. He predicted a 20% decline in production. For Canada and Russia, at more northern latitudes the reduction could be as great as 50%. (the USA grow about 25% of the world food supply)
Meanwhile Baxter shipped to Europe a bio-weapon as a flu vaccine. The plans for "Who will live and who will die" are already in place in hospitals according to an article published last year. I suggest readers Google Maurice Strong and read exactly who is behind Al Gore. Strong Hates American prosperity and wants to divert our tax dollars to China. That is why China a much heavier polluter than the USA is set up to receive the carbon credit money instead of paying it.
"Splain this, Lucy"
For the past 15 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon to me.
My interest in global warming and energy policy is so great I launched www.energyplanusa.com. I've waded through the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the United Nation's IPCC reports, and conclude they lack the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. The reports are jargoned-up and rely heavily on computer models that have not proven terribly prescient (similar, I'm afraid, to the ones that predicted the American economy was a perpetual motion machine). Most importantly man-made global warming theory ignores the fact that the earth cooled from the 1940s to 1970s, when CO2 was on the increase. It also ignores evidence from reliable studies. For instance, it's widely understood that the globe was warmer 1,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were normal, then it is today. Then, Vikings grew grapes in New Foundland and even named it Vinland. There are many examples of the Medieval Warming plus Roman Warming periods that need to be reconciled--not ignored--by man-made global warming proponents if they want me back in the fold.
I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into religious zealotry where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the American press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence. Please, help me get at the truth. If anyone can provide the C02 smoking gun, I'd be greatly indebted.
advertisement
