Governors Ramp Up Global Warming Pressure

National Gov's Assn Pushes For Increased Regulation By States

(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."

[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.

[Krazcarl]

The goverment has been told this since the 60''s it''s not news to enlightened people so for nearly 50 years they have been trying to cover it up but now it is politacal correct if we had worked on these issues 50 years ago we would have avoided wars destoying the planet. Got Mother Earth News handbook of homeade power in 1974. Were still doing nothing just talking and talk is cheap.

[hawksprings]

When I going to elementary school in the 70''s, all we heard was how we had destroyed the enviroment, and that by the 1990''s there would be:
- no clean air
- no clean water
- no viable cropland left
- no more oil
and on and on.

Now it''s 2007 and NONE of those things has happened, not even close.
And it seems like every week they announce more oilfield finds, and increase the estimate of existing fields, and we have a bazillion barrels of oil here in the US that we''re not allowed to touch, thanks to environmental wackos.
Plus you can even find theories that the geologic forces of the molten core of the earth is what creates crude oil deposits in the crust, not dead dinos, thereby making crude oil an almost inexhaustible resource.

We''re not destroying the Earth. But lets keep it clean.

...

[s1ckd09]

ETHANOL IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Only narrow minded people with no vision believe that ethanol is the answer, or even that it is a large part of the answer.

Ethanol burns cleaner than gas - true, but only in CO gas, not CO2, the greenhouse gas everyone is supposedly so upset about. And since ethanol is less efficient than gas, it requires more ethanol to go the same distance.

Do this simple math:

In 2004, the U.S. consumed 318 billion gallons of petroleum.

Today, we can get 335 gallons of ethanol from an acre of biofuel crops.

We would need 949,256,731 acres, or 1,483,208 square miles of land to replace that energy consumption.

THAT''S 1/3 of the total U.S. land area. Still want to talk about environmental impacts?

[s1ckd09]

If the dire predictions come true, future generations could well view Bush and Cheney as international criminals for their stewardship of the environment during this administration.
Posted by afmca at 09:32 AM : Sep 13, 2007

You are right.. IF the dire predictions come true. The problem is, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the predictions created by the models are supported by reality. NONE! In fact, there are many things that are going contrary to those predictions that have the scientists baffled. Baffled? I thought we were supposed to believe they knew everything about the climate.

The only thing EVERY scientist in the world has agreed on is that we don''t fully understand how the earth''s climate works. There is no point in implementing changes if you don''t know the environmental impact of THOSE changes will be.

[hawksprings]

Check out this lovely article from Earthtimes.org about how "The Concensus" on Global Warming isn''t as universal as Algore and his Global Warming Flock would have you to believe:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

But hey, I''m all for Global Cleanup.

...

[octavianfdlr]

PapaBC asked "can they really stop global warming?"

juwboy asked "What caused this to happen?"

According to the oxygen isotope data retrieved from oceanic foraminiferous ooze deposits, 115 millenia ago the sea level was 5 m. higher than today. Did "they" stop global warming then? What happened to cause global warming then?

It seems that the unprecedented upheavals that the Intergovernmental Panel, et al., have been warning us about are all based on the precedents set at the end of one of the most recent interglacials. Does that mean we could have expected all of these calamities even if we had never discovered coal and oil?

The even bigger question is: can we stave off the next glacial maximum?

The next question is: if we can, should we start not to ensure that we do not?

[papabc]

All the panic and Hype...

Maybe should call it Global Cleanup but can they really stop global warming?

Seems like the herd following one miss-directed leader off the Global Warming ledge.

[juwboy]

The first half of the 19th century is known as The Little Ice Age because of the unusually low global temperatures during this period.

The year, 1816, "The Year Without A Summer", was even colder, because suspended volcanic ash in the atmosphere, caused by the eruption of Tambora, prevented a significant proportion of the sun''s rays from reaching the Earth''s surface.

However, during the years, 1815-1817, 18,000 square miles of the ice-pack off the coast of Greenland melted.

What caused this to happen?

[afmca]

This will be the legacy of Bush/Cheney, their Republican lemmings, and the pseudo-christians that followed their unholy alliance. Environmental issues did not start with Bush Inc. but their total lack of leadership - even to the point of denial - has worsened the situation. If the dire predictions come true, future generations could well view Bush and Cheney as international criminals for their stewardship of the environment during this administration.

[rushman71]

This is partially the reason on why gas rates are so high. To make co2 emmissions more environmentally friendly!!! What a bunch of crock!!!