WASHINGTON, March 3, 2007
Feds: U.S. Emissions To Grow 19% By 2020
White House Draft Report Predicts Increased Risk Of Drought, Especially In Northwest
-
-
Photo
A polar bear rests with her cubs on the pack ice in the Beaufort Sea in northern Alaska. Polar bears are in deep trouble because of global warming. (AP/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
-
Photo
(AP)
-
-
Interactive
Global Warming
The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
That projection comes from an internal draft report from the Bush administration that is more than a year overdue at the United Nations. The Associated Press obtained a copy Saturday.
The United States already is responsible for roughly one-quarter of the world's carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases that scientists blame for global warming.
The draft report, which is still being completed, projects that the current administration's climate policy would result in the emission of 9.2 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2020, a 19 percent increase from 7.7 billion tons in 2000.
Doing more than slowing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions, which remains the administration's stated goal, will be decided “as the science justifies,” according to the draft report. The biggest source of the gases is the burning of fossil fuels, chiefly oil, coal and natural gas.
But an authoritative U.N. report last month from hundreds of scientists and government officials said global warming is “very likely” caused by mankind and that climate change will continue for centuries even if heat-trapping gases are reduced. That report was approved by 113 nations including the United States.
It was the strongest language ever used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose last report came in 2001.
Despite the dire outlook, most scientists say huge sea level rises and the most catastrophic storms and droughts may be avoided if strong action is taken soon.
“We're on a path to exceeding levels of global warming that will cause catastrophic consequences, and we really need to be seriously reducing emissions, not just reducing the growth rate as the president is doing,” Michael MacCracken, chief scientist at the nonpartisan Climate Institute in Washington, said Saturday. Until 2001, he coordinated the government's studies of the consequences of global warming,
The administration's internal draft covers inventories of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, projected environmental consequences and policies to limit emissions and risk. The New York Times reported on the draft in Saturday's editions.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality has been coordinating the draft report. A spokeswoman, Kristen Hellmer, said it “will show that the president's portfolio of actions and his financial commitment to addressing climate change are working. And the president is always looking at ways to address our energy security and environmental needs.”
Hellmer blamed the delay in completing the fourth U.S. Climate Action Report on the “extensive interagency review process” the draft must go through. The report, which was due no later than Jan. 1, 2006, is required under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Among the consequences of a warming world anticipated in the report is “a distinct reduction in spring snowpack in the northwestern United States,” which supplies much of the water in that region, the report says.
Warmer temperatures expected from more greenhouse gases would only “exacerbate present drought risks in the United States by increasing the rate of evaporation,” it says.
Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a nonprofit watchdog program, said Saturday he expects the final report will evade a full discussion of how global warming might affect the nation.
“I think it is very likely that the main reason the report has been held up for more than a year beyond the deadline is because the administration is reluctant to make an honest statement about likely climate change impacts on this country,” said Piltz, a former senior associate with the federal Climate Change Science Program.
The U.S. spends $3 billion a year to research technologies to cut global warming and $2 billion on climate research. Bush has formed a partnership with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea — producers of half the world's greenhouse gases — to attract private money for cleaner energy technologies. He envisions using more hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources and clean coal technology.
Shortly after taking office, Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a U.N. treaty that requires industrial nations to cut global warming gases by 2012 by an average 5 percent below 1990 levels.
He argued that cutting the U.S. share to below 6 billion tons a year, as the treaty would have required, would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs. He objected, too, that such high-polluting developing nations as China and India are not required to reduce emissions.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 CommentsYour head feel good in the sand?
Well Scott and Randall, you're gonna die from Global Warming. It's that simple. Too bad.
And it's ALLLL Bush and Cheney's fault. All of it, isn't it.
Whose head is in the sand?
Gore must not see an immediate threat or he'd have put solar panels on his mansion before he did "Inconvenient Truth", or maybe would have already signed up with those 'green' power utilities that he and Tipper are still looking in to. He must not be too worried.
Or else his head is in the sand too.
.
So can you name one thing on which you disagree with Bush? Not to be nitpicky, but I have never seen you take a principled stand when he is obviously wrong. At least I have offered my fair share of criticism of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Can you do the same? Or can the GOP do no wrong? Should the marketplace to decide everyhing, or do we need some regulation of industries that, left unchecked, would pose a threat to our safe air and water? When is enough enough?
Scott, fair questions.
First of all, you have to understand I love to joke around and tease people. And I love to argue, to a fault as you've noticed. From your posts, I'm quite sure you and I would get along in person even though we disagree on a lot of stuff. I bear malice toward no one, not even Algore.
I think there is a place for government in business and industry, it's just probably not as big a place as you think it should have.
But when it comes to issues of the environment, liberals tend to frame it so that if you disagree with them, you are for pollution.
I think the hysteria over what's going to happen to our planet because of humans is overblown and wrong, and frankly, is used by some to get more power and control, and in Algore's case, more money.
As far as Bush and disagreeing with him, I am not aware of everything he does or every decision he has made. But I do know that he has a ton of information about things like let's say, the Iraq situation, and he knows things that you and I will never know about it. So I trust him that he is trying to do the right thing in any given situation. I did not always feel that way about Clinton.
That's the beginning of an answer anyways. My 1500 characters are about up.
There are many people in denial about this issue. It is a waste of time to debate with them, because they do not know or care what the facts are...
And it's ALLLL Bush and Cheney's fault. All of it, isn't it.
Posted by HawkSprings at 07:38 PM : Mar 03, 2007
Of course I won't. It'll take longer then the time I have left before the most serious problems show up. As for it all being Bush and Cheney's fault, nope, they're just the latest in a looooooong line of right wing pro-big business republicans who've put pursuit of the dollar (their true god) ahead of the public good and the public health. It's not just their fault, but they sure as he*ll are happy co-conspirators.
Posted by RandalDS at 09:10 PM : Mar 03, 2007
And then there's people like Algore who use this issue in pursuit of the dollar but pretend they're doing it altruistically, and pretend they're really doing something when they really aren't.
Posted by HawkSprings at 09:21 PM : Mar 03, 2007
I've never heard of Algore, but if you're referring to Al Gore then telling absolute and obvious lies about him belittles and cheapens your argument and cause. He is making no more money off from this issue then any other writer writing about something he cares about. If he wanted to make a lot of money he could hit the rubber chicken speech circuit and make much more. No one takes obvious liars seriously here so you may want to come up with a real argument.
Guess who is one of the founders of G.I.M.??
Well by golly, it's Algore.
And guess who is the Chairman of the board?
Well tie me to a pig and roll me in the mud, it's ALGORE!
So who is Algore buying his carbon credits from?
Himself!!!
And when he goes around preaching Global Warming Gloom and Doom, and tells people THEY can buy stock in a carbon offsetting company, and it drives their stock up, who gets richer off of it?
ALGORE!!!
How's THAT for some real arguments?
http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350
...
There are many people in denial about this issue. It is a waste of time to debate with them, because they do not know or care what the facts are...
Posted by jimfinster at 09:02 PM
-------
I agree. You and I had this same conversation over a month ago. But people are wising up. I just hope that we can turn things around before the damage is too great.
http://www.ecotality.com/b
log/?p=350
...
Posted by HawkSprings at 09:48 PM : Mar 03, 2007
I followed the link you provided and found nothing there about your contention at all. Nada. Zip. Also don't you think it's more then a little childish to refer to him as Algore? Makes it difficult for anyone to take you seriously. That said, so far your "arguement" still amounts to a load of bullsh*it.
Posted by HawkSprings at 09:48 PM : Mar 03, 2007
Also this is a news/political blog. Please keep your deviant bestiality fantasies to yourself. Thank you.
Maybe Bush putting the biggest poluters on the honor system wasn't such a good idea after all.
Posted by frankly6 at 11:24 PM : Mar 03, 2007
LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Nowadays, scientists and intelligence operatives have a hard time getting their message through when it doesn't match political agendas ....
It's certainly good to reduce polution but the reason might not be climate change. Other issues
(health, allergies ...) are more likely to hit first. The climate change issue has been biased a lot by politicians, more to the dramatization side in Europe, more to the denial side in the US, both probably wrong.
ALGORE!!!
How's THAT for some real arguments?
http://www.ecotality.com/b
log/?p=350
...
Posted by HawkSprings at 09:48 PM : Mar 03, 2007
Well as usual you people on the Right have a different view of the enviroment than the Vast Majority of Scientist. We should look at what happens if EITHER side is wrong. If the Scientist are Wrong what's the worst that happens? Some of the Richest humans on the planet have to let go of some of that wealth so common folk can build devices to stop them from putting that garbage in our air. Oh my GOD!! Now if you folks on the Right or wrong? Well MILLIONS stand to die, we face a very bad situation living wise AND those Richest humans on the planet get to keep their money. Gosh! Now which way do we go on this one? Well lets look at the history of the Right on issues involving the enviroment. Hummm... Seems you folks are NEVER for improving the enviroment and only AFTER those improvements are made and they are realised to be the RIGHT moves do you support them. Now even a brain dead knuckle head would know the best way to go here.... Also, you really should do something with your obsession with Al Gore. It's gotten REALLY bad... near the Jeffery Dalmer range there if you know what I mean.
Shouldn't that include Mr. Gore, the Holy Father of Global Warming Hysteria?
Randall, when I cut and paste the link http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350, it goes right to the place I'm talking about. Try it again before you dismiss out of hand the facts of Mr. Gore's hypocrisy.
If he goes around saying the sky is falling, yet lives like bourgeois, then why should we believe him?
I have no problem saying the climate is warming. So what, it's done it before and will do it again. The planet is always changing.
According to the Global Warming Hysteria, it's too late, we're all gonna die. So instead of wasting your time posting here, you should be out living it up, because you don't have much time left.
You're trying to promote the idea that environmentalists are anti-capitalist, and nothing could be further from the truth. Being a good citizen does not make you anti-capitalist.
Liberals are allowed to make money, just like conservatives. The difference is that liberals are concerned about the future, so they buy things like carbon offsets, to try and forestall the likely HORRIBLE problems that are going to befall this planet. Scientists are saying a lot of climate change is unavoidable, but if we get going now, it can be mitigated.
My carbon offset for last year was NOT a seriously expensive thing, the major portion of it being for air travel.
But Mr. Gore is being dishonest with you. He is telling you to cut back drastically on your 'carbon footprint' while he doesn't do it himself.
Gore buys his power from Nashville Electric Service, which gets it from TVA. TVA says less than 1 percent of its power is "green," - about 7 percent if you count TVA's hydro power. 90 percent of TVA power is generated generated by burning coal (60 percent) and by nuclear plants (30 percent). It also burns natural gas to generate power during times of high demand. (Details here
Neither NES nor TVA has the capability of directing only "Green" electrons down the wires to Gore's home, so, on average, less than 1 percent of the power he purchases is "green," or less than 7 percent if you county hydro power as "green."
People allude to Gore buying carbon offsets, but his spokesman says he buys them through Generation Investment Management, and GIM doesn't sell carbon offsets. So it is entirely unclear that he really does buy carbon offsets.
What he does through GIM is invest in stock in companies like Staples, GE and Johnson Controls.
So when he buys stock in GIM, an outfit his is chairman of, he is basically padding his investment portfolio whilst claiming to be green.
It begs the question: Does he REALLY believe his doom and gloom? I don't think so. But he wants you to so his stock goes up.
But you know what, I think you're gonna like Global Warming. It will cost less to heat your home in winter. That's a good thing.
There will be less deadly blizzards. That's a good thing.
The northern latitudes will have longer growing seasons, so we can raise more crops farther north. That's a good thing.
The earth on balance will become probably become greener, more tropical because of more water vapor in the air and warmer temps. That will be nice, won't it?
Some areas of the planet will become more arid and people will have to relocate, but that's always happened in our human history, hasn't it? Look how many Okies moved during the Dirty Thirties.
Life won't be all bad during Global Warming.
And with his clever investing strategy, Al Gore will be rich. Richer than God!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist one more jab.)
...
Typical GOP smear tactics, when you can't dispute the science of global warming, you smear the messenger.
MAYBE THE WORLD POWERS WILL WAKE UP....
Posted by frankly6 at 12:50 PM : Mar 04, 2007
Well, when the Apostle of Global Warming doesn't follow his own advice, rather he lives like a power hog, maybe the hype isn't true?
Coal power is cheaper, but if the coal industry took the time to add in air cleaning components, pollution wouldn't as much an issue. And with our folks in government rescinding environmental controls, it's safe to say these companies will not instill such equipment. Rather like how electricity takes the shortest route to get from point A to B. It doesn't like being held back by a resister... Money being electricity and the clean-up equipment being the resister, the analogy should be obvious -- based on current methods and practices.
Thanks to another article on CBSNEWS, the truth of Al Gore is out. I suspected something didn't seem right in the past (Apple Corp's reluctance to address its problems despite competitors (such as HP, ironically) having done so for years, and he's been on its board since 2003...) It's a shame, but I won't be buying another thing from Apple for a very long time.
Answer: none
So before you armchair politicians start blaming the libs or the gop, blame yourselves. It starts with you.
Still obsessed with Al Gore, I see!
So, forget about your fixation on Gore for a minute.
1) Do you deny that global warming is occuring, and is caused by human activity?
2) If you deny, provide scientific facts to support your position.
Cheer up, Dude! You can always live in it.
Sorry, I was gone for awhile. I had to start all my SUVs and let them idle for a few hours. I do it every day. I'm back now, but I'm taking off soon, I've got some old tires to burn.
jimfinster,
Here's a nice little article from National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Here's a brief excerpt:
"Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. (Earth and Mars)"
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
Now the article is skeptical of Adbussamatov, but the skeptics in the article rely on "theory" and "opinion" of the scientific community.
Adbussamatov concludes by saying:
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
So I guess we'll have to wait and see who's right.
But in 15-20 years, the left will have gone thru 3 or 4 more 'crisis' and Global Warming Gloom and Doom will be a thing of the past. Kinda like Global Cooling from the '70s is now. You wait, you'll see.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html
"From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050."
So I guess we're all dead.
And it's all Bush's fault.
...
What? You're going to focus your obsession on Bush now? The problem started many, many, many years ago, long before Bush was born. By idiots that thought they could get away with spewing *** into our waters and air and there would be no consequences. We need to focus on what we can do about it now. And YOU need to quit focusing on everybody else and do what you need to do. With the rest of the world pulling together to try to fix things, Bush will have no other choice but to do the same or he is going to look like an idiot. (of course some people already think he does)
Posted by Hawksprings at 11:48 AM : Mar 04, 2007
Ok this time the link worked, but I still don't see the hypocrisy. This a blog entry from someone who doesn't believe global warming is caused by humans and has apparently twisted the words and meaning of what Gore is doing to try to make him look sinister somehow. Even twisted it doesn't accomplish that. Gore's company makes money off from green investments. Hardly surprising as that's what companies are supposed to do, make money, and it's something he's never denied or tried to hide. So what's the problem? As far as I can see he should be applauded for his efforts in green investments, not derided because he doesn't put out some sort of disclaimer before hand saying that it's possible to make money this way. Everyone knows green investments are better then most.
Shouldn't that include Mr. Gore, the Holy Father of Global Warming Hysteria?
Posted by Hawksprings at 11:42 AM : Mar 04, 2007
Randal (only one l in my name, thank you) didn't say this. I agree with it, but I didn't say it. Also I don't understand why people think liberals and environmentalists have a problem with all rich people? We don't. Just those who abuse their wealth at the expense of the people in general or who make their wealth in ways that harm the environment. The only rich people I have a problem with are the elitist upper "class" type like Bush who believe that their money makes them in charge of the rest of us. The kind of rich people (again like Bush) who want a two class society, a rich upper (ruling) class and a much much much lower class of people who serve them or work for them in one way or another.
RandaL, Can't you see that Mr. Gore propogates and is part of the 'two class' system you don't like?
Mr. Gore goes around telling you and me that we're gonna destroy the planet unless we cut back and change our lifestyles, but he doesn't practice what he preaches. He and his mansion and other homes are exempt from what he expects from you and me.
I can't believe you don't see that and that it doesn't bother you. For me, I can only draw one conclusion: Mr. Gore doesn't believe his own propoganda. And I believe he does it primarily for personal gain.
...
Ok buddy, I think you need some counseling. You are so obsessed with Al Gore it is pathetic. Did you read that article I told you to read about Al Gore defending himself? Of course not, because then it would have proved you wrong and you would of had to move your obsession on to someone else!
Here is roughly some of the things that was in the article "Gore Defends Mansion's Power Consumption".
It says that Gore invests in enough renewable energy to make up for his home's power use. It says he buys enough "green power" such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out his electricy costs-100%. He buys 108 blocks of "green power" every month and he is renovating his home to add solar panels. He leads a carbon neutral lifestyle. I will ask you again-What the **** are you doing? (other than obsessing over something you know nothing about)
Posted by HawkSprings at 06:15 PM : Mar 04, 2007
I see what you see, but I just don't see it the same way. I believe Gore really believes in what he's doing and is not doing it for personal gain. It's possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions and that's what we have here. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.
Gore buys his power from Nashville Electric Service, which gets it from TVA. TVA says less than 1 percent of its power is "green," - about 7 percent if you count TVA's hydro power. 90 percent of TVA power is generated generated by burning coal (60 percent) and by nuclear plants (30 percent). It also burns natural gas to generate power during times of high demand. (Details here
Neither NES nor TVA has the capability of directing only "Green" electrons down the wires to Gore's home, so, on average, less than 1 percent of the power he purchases is "green," or less than 7 percent if you county hydro power as "green."
People allude to Gore buying carbon offsets, but his spokesman says he buys them through Generation Investment Management, and GIM doesn't sell carbon offsets. So it is entirely unclear that he really does buy carbon offsets.
What he does through GIM is invest in stock in companies like Staples, GE and Johnson Controls.
So when he buys stock in GIM, an outfit his is chairman of, he is basically padding his investment portfolio whilst claiming to be green.
It begs the question: Does he REALLY believe his doom and gloom? I don't think so. But he wants you to so stock in his GIM company goes up.
Solar activity has been studied and measured for many years. There has been a small increase, but not nearly enough to account for the temperature increases we have seen. The empirical data shows the temperature increases are primarily due to greenhouse gases. The vast majority of research experts agree on this fact.
You will have to do much better than that.
Also, you REALLY should give up on the Gore angle. Even if he does have a hidden agenda (which I doubt), it has nothing to do with the factual basis of global warming.
The whole point here is you really don't know one way or the other what Al Gore is doing. You are obsessing about something you don't even know for sure. He could be doing everything he should be doing and what he is doing is here nor there. jimfinster is right, the fact is that there IS global warming and we should be greatful that Al Gore has brought it to everyones attention. I mean come on, do you really think that the guy is going to put himself in that position? Do you think he isn't going to be doing what he needs to be doing when he knows the spotlight is shining on him? Let's face it you won't be happy until he is living in a hut on the beach. I will say it AGAIN, you need to worry about yourself and do what you can do, even if it is just changing your light bulbs or buying recycled toilet paper etc.
I suggest you move on and quit wasting your energy on something you can't do anything about. Even if Al Gore wasn't doing anything, what are you going to do about it? What you can do is the things that I just suggested, at least you will know that you did something. We can't control what other people are doing, only ourselves.
The whole point here is you really don't know one way or the other what Al Gore is doing. You are obsessing about something you don't even know for sure. He could be doing everything he should be doing and what he is doing is here nor there. jimfinster is right, the fact is that there IS global warming and we should be greatful that Al Gore has brought it to everyones attention. I mean come on, do you really think that the guy is going to put himself in that position? Do you think he isn't going to be doing what he needs to be doing when he knows the spotlight is shining on him? Let's face it you won't be happy until he is living in a hut on the beach. I will say it AGAIN, you need to worry about yourself and do what you can do, even if it is just changing your light bulbs or buying recycled toilet paper etc.
I suggest you move on and quit wasting your energy on something you can't do anything about. Even if Al Gore wasn't doing anything, what are you going to do about it? What you can do is the things that I just suggested, at least you will know that you did something. We can't control what other people are doing, only ourselves.
This is also likely to hit us before GW ...
(global warming, not Bush).
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 Comments