Feb. 2, 2007
Global Warming Debate Shifts To Who Pays
Release Of U.N. Report On Climate Change Switches Focus In Congress From Science To Cost
-
Play CBS Video Video Conference On Global Warming About 25,000 scientists from 113 nations convened to discuss global warming and who is to blame for it. Charlie D'Agata reports that their findings revealed some very real fears for the future.
-
Video Report: Global Warming Real An international panel of scientists representing 113 governments released a significant report on the global warming. According to the report, man is to blame. Mark Phillips reports.
-
Video Grim Report On Global Warming In an upcoming report, top climate scientists are expected to blame human activity for global warming and warn of terrible consequences if nothing is done. Mark Phillips reports.
-
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Officials at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have agreed that an international report on climate change will say it's "very likely" global warming is caused by humans. (iStockphoto)
-
Greenpeace activists displayed a banner on the Eiffel Tower Jan. 29, 2007, as a reminder to scientists working on the climate change report. (AP)
-
Greenpeace activists displayed a banner on the Eiffel Tower Jan. 29, 2007, as a reminder to scientists working on the climate change report. (AFP/Getty)
-
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
-
Photo Essay Lights Out Landmarks across Europe go dark to call attention to climate change
-
Interactive Eye On The Environment Find out how global warming, air pollution and alternative forms of energy impact our world.
The outcome will sort out winners and losers.
As lawmakers squabble over the details in a half dozen approaches to reducing the flow of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases from power plants, cars and factories, an overriding political worry hangs over the process: cost and who will foot the bill.
"The debate has clearly shifted from a battle over the science to fighting over the scope and design of the solution," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a private bipartisan advocacy group on the country's future direction on energy.
The best climate scientists on the planet say it is clear the earth is getting warmer and greenhouse gases produced since the industrial revolution are to blame, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips from Paris. The release Friday of a United Nations report affirming that industrial activities, mainly burning fossil fuels, are largely to blame for a dangerous warming of the earth, will likely spur the climate debate in Congress.
Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, believe mandatory limits on emissions are needed to make any headway toward stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
To blunt the economic cost of cutting these emissions — chiefly carbon dioxide from burning oil, coal or natural gas — the proposals allow for "loopholes" in the mandatory caps: the ability to buy pollution credits if emission reductions get too costly, to save credits for future use if early reductions are cheaper, or "bank" credits and use or sell them later.
One bill, offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., would allow a "safety valve" whereby companies could ignore the emission caps altogether if compliance gets too expensive.
"All of these programs are designed to minimize the cost," says John Larsen, an analyst at the World Resources Institute who has studied the various "cap-and-trade" mechanisms lawmakers are considering.
The Bush administration doesn't like any of them, arguing that arbitrary pollution limits would be too costly, threaten certain carbon-intensive industries and result in lost jobs as business shifts to other countries.
There's worry about "the unintended consequences," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Friday as he made clear the new report by the international panel of scientists hasn't changed the administration's opposition to the "cap-and-trade" approach.
Such systems have not been tested on the scale they would be implemented to deal with climate change, suggested Bodman, adding: "The U.S. economy is not something to be experimented with, in my judgment."
Instead, the administration argues that a push for new technology will lead to a shift away from fossil fuels, more conservation and an eventual cut in greenhouse gases without hurting the economy.
But lawmakers including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Barack Obama, D-Ill., — both likely presidential contenders in 2008 — and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the committee that will deal with climate legislation, are convinced mandatory emissions requirements are needed.
To do anything else, said Boxer, "is like saying the patient has a high fever, but you're going to leave the only real medicine on the shelf."
Bingaman said the latest report and other findings "compel us to act now." He called on the president "to show leadership and work with Congress to implement a mandatory market-based cap and trade program to address this challenge."
Boxer has offered one of the most aggressive approaches to dealing with climate change, envisioning an 80-percent cut in emissions by mid-century. McCain and Obama are co-sponsors of a bill aimed to cut emissions by two-thirds by that time.
No one has yet analyzed the cost of such emission cuts in higher gasoline prices, higher electricity bills and a shift in wealth among different industries, or on jobs as energy production moves away from fossil fuels to other energy sources and technologies aimed to cut energy use.
A less-stringent bill, which McCain offered three years ago, was estimated to raise gasoline prices by 20 percent, according to the Energy Department. The most modest climate change bill offered this year, by Bingaman, would raise gasoline and electricity costs about 4 percent in 2030, according to the department. But that bill also would have only modest impact on dealing with climate change as greenhouse gases would continue to increase, though at a slower rate.
A growing number of businesses — including executives of 10 large corporations — recently have embraced aggressive measures to cap carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that climate change must be addressed and the consequences will be economically severe if nothing is done.
There will be intense lobbying, however, from various industries and even segments within industries over the details. And the outcome — often in the legislation's fine print — could determine who actually becomes a winner or a loser.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the electric power industry where some utilities are calling for stringent caps on greenhouse emissions, while others argue against government intervention.
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., recently called for capping carbon emissions from power plants, an official of Entergy Corp., attended the news conference. Entergy is the second-largest user of nuclear power among U.S. utilities, and reactors emit no greenhouse gas.
At the same time, some other utilities that are heavily invested in coal plants oppose mandatory carbon limits — but have begun to lobby for favorable language that would reduce their costs.
For example, they say they should be given free emission permits on emissions from older coal plants until carbon capturing technology is developed.
"I think there is a narrowing of view in the industry. It's not a matter of doing it, but when and how," says Jeffry Sterba, chairman of PNM Resources, an energy holding company based in Albuquerque, N.M., who supports mandatory carbon limits.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From SciTech
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 97 CommentsNo all scientists are walking in lock step with the Global Warming crowd.
Someone from the Global Warming Crowd please tell me how Global Warming leads to record cold across much of the US this past two months, and how Global Warming meant we had a non-existant 2006 hurricane season?
Thank you.
The Solution to Global Warming
http://www.androidworld.com/prod60.htm
Posted by frankly6 at 02:15 PM : Feb 05, 2007
The right wing will never accept this idea. They think about money and money alone. To them the idea that we may be pushing the world toward the end of mankind doesn't register with them. They honestly believe that if they have enough money they'll be able to protect themselves and their families from the results of their greed. They don't care if they destroy the environment any more then they care if they destroy the American economy. They don't care about this country or this earth, because they think money will solve all of their problems. Welcome to the neocon/Cheney future. They are insane. They are mad. And they are real.
During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/
just like there was a scientific concensus that the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, etc etc etc.....
The National Academy of Sciences reviewed every published, peer-reviewed, scientific study done on Global Warming in the last 10 years. 100% of these studies agreed on three important issues:
1. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
2. THE CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE CATASTROPHIC
3. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN
The world scientific community and the science itself has been in agreement for years. The so called debate is just a misinformation campaign financed by the fossil fuels industries.
This is not a political issue people. It's an issue of survival.
Repeated scientific verification supports the theories of relativity, the double-helix structure of DNA and even the theory of natural climate change, providing indisputable proof that these theories are in fact the truth. Nowhere in thousands of climate studies is there an instance of incontrovertible evidence that global warming is driven by the activities of humans. If there was even one, it would be widely cited and referenced. We would know the scientist's name as we do Hubble, Einstein and Crick.
A mere 10,000 years ago, the Rochester area was encased beneath thousands of feet of glacial ice. Global warming is a truth. The hypothesis that it is driven by human activity is false.
JOEL WOJCIECHOWSKI
HENRIETTA
The writer has a master's degree in atmospheric physics and a doctorate in biophysics.
scientific misconduct....
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?020207/020207_sr_hume&Political%20Grapevine%3A%202/2&Special_Report_Grapevine&Not%20all%20scientists%20are%20buying%20what%20the%20U.N.%20is%20selling%20on%20global%20warming&Grapevine&-1&Political%20Grapevine%3A%202/2&Video%20Launch%20Page&Opinion
But it is an important sidebar because it is the same combination of government and science that gives us mandatory vaccinations that gives us their foregone conclusion on the cause of Global Warming and how Man should deal, or be dealt with, in order to stop it...
God bless and keep y'all safe
We must not reduce this to a debate on immunisation much and all as I would love to as my husband specializes in children with neurological, plus leaning difficulties. But when there is mercury, anti freeze, aluminium, formaldehyde, egg yoke and many other horrors in immunisations one would have to conclude that maybe the so called cure is not better than the disease. But I wont say more here OlGreyGhost it is not the place for it...
You left out that GW is supposed to cause the next Ice Age but you pretty well covered most of the times "the little boy" cried wolf :)
Next time "they" tell you that there are no dangerous side-effects to a flu shot, tell them you have a friend who suffers from adult-onset muscular dystrophy and you think that's a real serious side-effect...
With we are going to freeze, woops that didn't happen so now we are going to heat, oh dear we have the swine flu, millions will die, then the Asian flu then the ???? and now the bird flu, immunised the masses, and with all the poisons in immunisation it is no wonder the people are so sick and succumb to any virus going around and all this for a virus which as yet has not emerged so they dont know what would work anyway. People dont seem to stop to think for themselves and I feel that the governments count on that, if the bird flu could mutate, then why hasn't cat flu mutated to humans when they sleep on bed with humans etc..and what about other animal diseases, or why haven't they mutated to other animals so as all flesh gets the same flu's... hmmmmm.
I dont believe that they really believe in global warming because of CO2's, other wise there would be a world wide massive rush to plant trillions of trees to obsorb the CO2's, it is as simple as that, very cost effective also, brings more rain, cleans the air etc...but it effectively keeps the people in a constant state of fear so are easier to manipulate...
Young lady you have hit the nail on the head. I hate to be ripped off - by Big Business, Big Religion, and Big Government and the first two usually need the help of the third to make it all work - which is why the first two usually support the third. Any and everybody can make a fair profit by providing goods and services to their neighbors that their neighbors want and I won't fault anyone for that and I'll defend their right to keep what they earn. But I hate paying for things I don't want and didn't ask for - which is what Big Government is usually try to sell me...
And that, ladies & gentlemen, is what "global warming" is really all about. A form of global socialism to make the USA pay for its "ways", and to re-distribute wealth (a tenet of communism) to the rest of the world.
A similar story circulated in the early 1970's,, So-called "social" scientists insisted the earth was experiencing "global cooling" and headed for disaster & possible ice-age; and of course, the U.S. was expected to pay for its "ways".
....
There is nothing wrong with profit, I am a clever girl and organise the building of houses for profit, (one at a time), but when that profit is gained by lies and deception, it is no longer wisdom but theft.
I am sure that you dont mean sun worship type thing, but that is how it has come across to me... could you explain yourself here, or else people might think the Bible pushes sun worship...our sun is not the same as the son of God...
Anyone notice that you are paid (people will buy your used commodity) to recycle some products like aluminum cans and not others? Why is that? Because it is less energy-efficient to recycle some recyclable products than to produce the same material from raw resources. That bears repeating. It causes the burning of more fossil fuels to produce the energy to recycle some commodities that government requires that people sort out from their garbage for recycling than it does to send this stuff to the landfill in the first place. Those commodities that are the most efficient to recycle are the ones that others will buy from you and only an idiot doesn't like to get paid.
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but profit is the father of research and development...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 97 Comments