Governors Ramp Up Global Warming Pressure

(AP)  Governors want to expand state regulation of greenhouse gases in hopes of increasing pressure for federal action on global warming, the chairman of the National Governors Association said Wednesday.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., said in an Associated Press interview that getting more states to limit greenhouse gases is a priority among clean energy issues for the group. Others include spurring energy conservation and broadening use of renewable fuels such as ethanol.

"We have a federal government that doesn't seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said.

If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy," he said.

A dozen states have adopted plans to require a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles and three other states are considering similar action. Auto companies complain that the limits would require increases in average mile-per-gallon standards that may not be achievable.

In a ruling Wednesday, a federal judge in Vermont said states have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and rejected arguments that only the federal government could do so.

Pawlenty said limits by California, Oregon, Washington and most states in the Northeast "could be the basis for what happens across the rest of the country." That includes the Midwest, where states have been more reluctant to take steps against global warming.

"One of our objectives in the coming year is to either regionally or nationally expand those approaches" and "put a marker out there" with regional groups "or even a national compact" aimed at curtailing greenhouse gases, he said.

Later, at a news conference with Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Pawlenty discussed how states can promote conservation and alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, and accelerate development of clean energy technologies.

The association announced a task force, headed by eight governors, to advance clean energy development at the state level and potentially "alter the landscape of clean energy policy in the United States." The Energy Department said it will provide $610,000 to support the association's effort.

Many governors already are at work in these issues, said Sebelius, who is helping lead the association's clean energy program. "This initiative broadens that commitment." Pawlenty said governors are ready "to lead the way in crafting a sensible, sustainable clean energy future."

But some environmentalists said Pawlenty was sending a mixed message on clean energy in his own state. He is embracing renewable fuels, conservation and a requirement to cut global warming emissions by 80 percent by mid-century, they said, but also endorsing construction of a large new coal-burning power plant right across the border in South Dakota.

Because Minnesota would use half the power from the plant, the state has had a say in allowing construction to move forward.

That plant will emit 4.7 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group.

Pawlenty, in the interview, said he disagrees with the argument by some "that the future involves no coal."

He said he favors development of clean coal technology and coal-burning power plants where carbon is captured and sequestered. But, he added, "there's probably an awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on."
By H. Josef Hebert

[jcr103]

The main reason climate scientists beleive contemporary climate change is primarily the result of human activity is because of the rapidity of the changes we are seeing. There has indeed been temperature and carbon fluctuation in the atmosphere all throughput the Earth''s history but never have such dynamics changed as fast as over the past 125 years, concurrent with the rise of industrial production. We know this because we can track termperature and the chemical composition of the atmosphere over time through the analysis of ice cores from glaciers and the ice pack at the North and South pole that reveal hundreds of thousands of years of data. Such analysis indicates that never have near surface temperatures and the carbon in the atmosphere risen as quickly as they have over the last century. This, in turn, is very compelling evidence that humans are driving climate change through the burning of fossil fuels.

[octavianfdlr]

I apologize for my parody of the post that micma keeps repeating. I have not read any peer-reviewed papers on the legal and political theory of Global Warming. I do not even know if "the National Academy of Sciences" has ever "surveyed" anything, be it a study, journal article, or plot of land. (Perhaps a member or employee has.)

However, there have been plenty of peer-reviewed journal articles about the changes the Earth''s climate has undergone over the past several hundred thousand years. I find it unbelievable that so much as one of these articles would conclude that human activity was responsible for the end of so much as one glacial maximum.

Nevertheless, micma keeps repeating his inane post.

[octavianfdlr]

Are right-wing conservatives stupid, or is it that Global Warming conspirators think we are all stupid enough to buy their rubbish?

[jcr103]

Is it that global warming is a "hoax" or is it that right-wing conservatives are stupid?

[octavianfdlr]

The National Academy of Sciences surveyed every published, peer reviewed study on Global Warming done in the last ten years. Without exception, they all agreed on three fundamental facts:

1) The Global Warming conspiracy is real

2) The Global Warming conspiracy of a phenomenon of man.

3) The consequences of supporting the Global Warming conspiracy will be catastrophic for all human rights.

The time for spin and denial is over. The time for action is now. The SCIENTIFIC debate has long been over. Yet the political debate rages on thanks to millions spent by the fossil fuels industries on shills like micma to promote a disinformation campaign.

[micma-2009]

The National Academy of Sciences surveyed every published, peer reviewed study on Global Warming done in the last ten years. Without exception, they all agreed on three fundamental facts:


1) Global Warming is real.

2) Global Warming is caused by man.

3) The consequences of Global Warming are catastrophic for all life on the planet.

The time for spin and denial is over. The time for action is now. The SCIENTIFIC debate has long been over. Yet the political debate rages on thanks to millions spent by the fossil fuels industries to promote a disinformation campaign.

[octavianfdlr]

This article seems to support the "Global Warming" agenda: more power should be given to governments to regulate (bully) their citizens. Here''s another item (heard on the television):

It seems that yet another municipality, this one in New York, is banning the drying of clothes in its citizens yards. This municipality is slapping a $100 fine on anyone who hangs clean laundry out to dry on a porch or in a front or side yard. The new regulation helps to ensure greater consumption of fossil fuel, and greater carbon dioxide emissions.

Why isn''t the Global Warming crowd jumping all over this? Could it be because Global Warming is about neither carbon dioxide emissions nor changes in climate, but rather about increased governmental regulation?

Contrary to the statements of Mr. Gore, what is needed is not strong international treaties allowing other countries to dictate which laws the United States will pass to tax, jail, and otherwise tyrannize US citizens.

What is needed is judges with the gumption to strike down overly restrictive and counterproductive laws and regulations, and perhaps to force the bureaucrats who originated and enforced them to make restitution out of their own pockets.

[octavianfdlr]

crzmeat "time for you to be informed." The comments by s1ckd09 about the cycling concerns about global warming vs. global cooling are correct.

It is true that we once called emissions of airborne carcinogens "pollution." We still do. But carbon dioxide is not a carcinogen. Subtle changes in environmental temperatures are also not airborne carcinogens.

But do keep repeating your barely intelligible untruths. Keep parroting the claims of the "Global Warming" conspirators that none of the limits that were placed on pollution before "Global Warming" became a popular issue could have been achieved if "Global Warming" were not a popular issue. You''ll do more than I ever can to educate people of one simple truth:

"Global Warming" is a hoax.

[Krazcarl]

1cskdo9 time for you to be informed I see your young and want to look intelligent these issues have been raised for years now it''s called global warming it used to be called pollution. But do like babbling ignoramouses that have no idea.

[s1ckd09]

crzmeat,
You are wrong if you think the govt has been told about warming for 50 years. In the 70s all the talk about man destroying the planet and the doomsday scenarios was coming from the scientific consensus of Global COOLING. 50 years ago it was all about warming. 75 years ago, it was all about cooling. You can look it up in the Time and Newsweek articles from those time periods. The doomsday scenarios are on the same cyle as the rest of the earth.

Be informed before you speak.