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.
-
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Photo
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)
-
Photo
Greenpeace activists displayed a banner on the Eiffel Tower Jan. 29, 2007, as a reminder to scientists working on the climate change report. (AP)
-
Photo
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.
Video and Galleries from SciTech
-
Video
Bottled H2O Backlash
-
Video
Hohm, sweet Hohm
-
Video
Loaded: On Tour
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 97 CommentsLAUSANNE, Switzerland - A ruling by Switzerland%u2019s highest court released Friday has opened up the possibility that people with serious mental illnesses could be helped by doctors to take their own lives.
I'll split the cost with anyone else for Bush/Cheney travel arranements to Switzerland. Are we on?
Not hard to figure that out.
Business, lawmakers and scientists will huddle come up with a plan that won't do anything except make them richer.
We will pay as usual, wile they smile and pat themselvs on the back for sticking the suckers again.
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 of course, the U.S. was expected to pay for its "ways".
....
Big business has all ready formed partnerships with enviromental groups.
Do both sides see a money maker, you bet.
Hang on to your wallet it's going to be a bumpy ride.
about 85 would be nice, I say let's help this warming a bit.
Honestly where do you get this garbage?
RandalIDS
There should be a special tax on everyone who ignored or denied the science in the last 5 years.
Those who were willingly ignorant or intentionaly spread misinformation to mudy the water and serve their political or economic agendas.
We can call it an idiot tax.
rmsbm4
America remembering why they kicked the GOP out in 06. The GOP has been consistently corrupt and wrong on every major issue facing this country from global warming to the Iraq war.
It's all about the money. Wake up.
Love this idea. Let's tax every idiot who says global warming can be solved, short of stopping the use of fossil fuel forever. And then double-tax every idiot who believes the human race will stop using fossil fuels from self-restraint, that well-known character of humans, they are great at self-restraint.
Then triple-tax every idiot whose response to global warming is to try to create a half-hearted sop to their guilt by supporting a *** plan that does 1/100000000 of the effort that it would take to actually stop global warming. What would it take? It would take something like a world dictatorship, with perfect morals, and minute control over every little barrel of oil or oil well. And percet restraint, and perfect control over the human race, including nations like China and India which will never (read their lips, never) do anything for or because of international pressure.
None of the reasons you listed are reason enough not to try to curb the problem. If we had spent the trillion dollars we are going to spend in Iraq on shifting to conservation and alternative fuels we'd could be energy independent and drasticly reduce our contribution to global warming. We could lead the world in the developement of new more sustainable technological solutions.
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 of course, the U.S. was expected to pay for its "ways".
....
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".
....
IF the real reason that the earth is heating up was because of CO2'2, and as trees absorb CO2 it then stands to reason that any sensible government would be pushing a massive world wide tree planting. They would be ordering that where trees are chopped down replant,and plant trees which will grow in deserts, plant trees on ground that is not being used, plant, plant, plant...are not trees the lungs of the earth??? And from my studies, as trees and grow better because of more CO2's in the atomosphere wouldnt it mean that the massive increase in plant life would cause more rain causing the earth to be cooler as doesnt trees bring water and coolness et. Please correct me if I am wrong...
We have to start thinking for ourseleves instead of letting the powers to be manipulate us into doing what they want us to do...as governments say, "the masses are easy to manipulate,' tell them a few lies and they will believe it...
Better give me some of that LSD too if you expect me to believe that *** lol... Why have we let science become a faith based religion?
Posted by Gaye5
OK
mushroom clouds
yellowcake uranium
WMD
aluminum tubes
mobil chemical weapon labratories
There's more, but you get the point... I'm sure
So, global warming does not exist because it happens to be cold where you are at this moment? Please tell me your logic skills are better than that!!
Even though we are shown huge chunks of ice breaking off from Antartica, both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding %u2013 on balance %u2013 Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice. We are not told he fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930%u2019s than today.
The earth has gone through cycles over its history, what has caused the global warming each time or could the cause be the sun just as some scientists say it is this time.
Scientists, naturally, have to rely on record keepers in decades past, where all sorts of different instruments were used, and this has produced what has become the conventionally accepted estimate of a one-degree rise over the past century.
-----------------------------
bildooreilly:
So, global warming does not exist because it happens to be cold where you are at this moment? Please tell me your logic skills are better than that!!
Posted by jimfinster at 05:11 PM : Feb 03, 2007
+ report this comment
That comment alone shows you have no grasp at all on this subject. You really should invest in some basic textbooks, and try to at least understand the fundamentals.
I live in Central Oregon, a very rugged and remote area of our beautiful country. It was 8 F this morning, which also has nothing to do with global warming.
6 DEGREES, over the next decade, *** teeth dont they say that there has only been one degree over the last decade, so how do they come up with 6 over the next decade, I smell a rat here to get the world to do what they want us to do...
And even if a change is measured, how do we know it's man made? Giant, mile-thick sheaths of ice have come and gone from North America in recent millennia. In our unstable and evolving planet, temperature is often either rising or falling. Who knows whether a trend is the product of human activity or natural?
Let's be honest: All we have is a possible hypothesis.
And bildooreilly you forgot all of the other other deadly flu's we are warned about every year, and only just over 100 people have died from this bird flu, less than 2 months of automobile deaths. if the flu could mutate, then why hasnt the cat flu (and other animal virus's) where cats live in bed with people who also have flu's. are the powers to be are just terrorising us, to keep us controlled...
You buy that ***?
We could make a long list of things that you and I don't understand. That does not mean they are not real or factual.
Simply taking a position of opposition without supporting facts or alternate theories does not make you credible. Anyone can be a critic.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 97 Comments