November 3, 2009 1:31 PM

Republicans Boycott Climate Bill Debate

By
CBSNews
(AP)  Updated 12:38 p.m. ET

Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, protesting that the bill's costs have not been fully examined. The action put a spotlight on the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session for 15 minutes to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He insisted the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but concern that its widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided "a full blown economic analysis" and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted, "We're not rushing. We are taking our time."

Climate Bill Faces High Hurdles in Senate

Africans Boycott U.N. Climate Meetings

The partisan rift in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which delayed votes on amendments to the legislation, exposed the sharp divisions in the Senate over how to address global warming. Democrats also have been split on the issue. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who said he had deep reservations about the bill also was absent.

Boxer had hoped to push the legislation out of her committee this week, so it could be merged with provisions from five other committees and demonstrate to the world some progress in Congress before the international climate conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel in an address to Congress said Tuesday there is "no time to lose" when it comes to global warming and that the United States and Europe must lead if an international agreement on curtailing greenhouse gases is to be achieved. She said if developed countries act, she expects China and India to take action as well.

She made the same plea to President Barack Obama at the White House earlier in the day — as did European Union leaders in separate meetings at the White House. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called an international climate deal "a defining moment" for this generation of world leaders.

Obama has repeatedly called on Congress to pass climate legislation. But the issue has become bogged down in the Senate over strong opposition from Republicans — and some Democrats as well — who fear the loss of jobs and higher energy prices.

The Democratic bill calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by mid-century. Polluters would be given pollution permits that they could trade among themselves to ease the economic effect of the transition from fossil fuels.

"This is not a ruse to prevent this committee from marking up a climate bill. Rather this is a genuine attempt ... to have the best information available as we debate and amend the bill that will have consequences for every person in the country," said Voinovich whose state is especially vulnerable because of its reliance on coal and manufacturing base. He said an analysis by the EPA cited by Boxer was inadequate, made "unrealistic assumptions" and was based on a House-passed bill that he said is significantly different from the bill before the Senate panel.

But Boxer disagreed and said the bill she has co-authored along with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was "90 percent the same" as the House version that has been fully examined by the EPA. That EPA analysis estimates modest cost to households from higher energy prices of $80 to $111 a year.

"There is no reason at all for additional analysis and spend more taxpayer dollars doing it when the work has been done," said Boxer. She called the GOP boycott a delaying tactic and promised, "we're going to be here every day until they join us."

Democrats have a 12-7 majority in the committee and enough votes to advance the measure. But an attempt by Boxer to ram the bill through committee without Republican participation could backfire when the measure gets to the floor where it will be combined with other climate legislation.

On Monday, the ranking Republicans on five other committees that will have some say in climate legislation also called the EPA analysis unsatisfactory and said senators should not be expected to vote on a bill "without a full and complete analysis of the likely effects." They warned in a letter to Boxer that failure to accommodate GOP senators seeking further studies "would severely damage rather than help" the chances of getting the bipartisan support needed to get a bill through the Senate.

AP
Add a Comment See all 60 Comments
by deftfixer November 5, 2009 12:02 PM EST
Here Consider:

"... little noticeable benefit to the climate ... a multibillion-dollar windfall for ... biggest polluters."

+ Money and Lobbyists Hurt European Efforts to Curb Gases / NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1


"Policymakers have settled on 'emissions trading' as their favorite global-warming fix. But it isn't working."

+ The Carbon Folly / Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/36517


+ Cap-and-trade bill is second rate--LA Times Opinion

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/25/opinion/ed-captrade25


"... industrial emissions are well out-pacing even the most aggressive forecasts ... ... the IPCC's 2007 climate assessment failed to account for potentially devastating feedback cycles ..."

+.Burning rainforests, melting Tundra could accelerate global warming well beyond current projections / mongabay.com

"The world is investing too much cash and hope in carbon capture and storage.

+ The illusion of clean coal / The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=13235041



+ Trouble in store, carbon capture and storage / The Economist,

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=13226661

+ The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal / BusinessWeek,

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090055452749.htm

+ The Dirt on Clean Coal / The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/berman

"The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics."

+ Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb' / BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

Yet: "... even after controlling the greenhouse effect, the earth would warm up due to heat wasted from energy use. ... solution lies in using renewable sources that don?t add extra heat to the planet."

Energy waste causing another global warming / One World South Asia

http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/energy-waste-causing-another-global-warming/?searchterm=energy

"A German study has found children under five are at 60% greater risk of getting cancer and 120% greater risk of getting leukemia if they live within five kilometers of a nuclear power station."

+ German Study: More Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants / Nuclear Monitor:

http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm664.pdf

Colossal Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine = Permanent Magnets = 20% more power + 50% less cost = low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = areas surrounding the US = 24/7 = US Dept. of Energy says offshore could meet current US demand!!!

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/super-powered-magnetic-wind-turbine-maglev/


+ Popular Science's 20th Annual Best of What's New Awards / Nanosolar Homepage:

"Nanosolar has created an ink that takes sunlight and converts it into electricity. The ink is coated onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil with a printing-press-like device. The sheets are lighter, inexpensive and as efficient as traditional solar panels."

Wind/Solar = Clean Hydrogen for Power Plants (for "rainy days")
Reply to this comment
by Stop_the_crying November 3, 2009 6:29 PM EST
Let the republicans suck on auto tail pipes for a while. Then they might get the idea. The party of NO strikes again.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns2 November 3, 2009 4:14 PM EST
Every reputable scientist in the world agrees that we are experiencing global warming. Look at the ice caps yourself if you want proof.

The republicans boycotting this is no surprise. They boycott anything Obama wants to do so as to see him fail.

Republicans SUCK! (and their stupid)
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns2 November 3, 2009 4:15 PM EST
They're stupid.
by Stop_the_crying November 3, 2009 6:26 PM EST
The party of NO strikes again. Was this a command from the leader RUSH. He's the one everyone follows. They, the repub's, all have there heads up his back side so far that they can see out of his belly button.
by timdgrim November 3, 2009 3:58 PM EST
The GOP (Greedy Oil Party) will never consider a change for cleaner energy until every drop of Dinosaur Juice is sucked out. That Elephant, that is the GOP logo, would be more appropriate being a Dinosaur. Dead and Decayed!
Reply to this comment
by fiberglass3 November 4, 2009 9:21 AM EST
timdgrim - I believe that you are right. While most of us see "Green" as getting away from oil, Washington needs to realize this also. We see hybrid as only a step in the right direction toward electric transportation. Paying $ 2.75 a gallon to go 20- 25 miles keeps many of us off the roads.
by louiville35 November 3, 2009 2:13 PM EST
by j_mcdonald-2009 November 3, 2009 1:25 PM EST
I'm not a climate scientist, and only had about 15 minutes to read it, but I've found two major problems:

(1) Lindzen implies that raising sea surface temperatures would reduce long-wave radiation, implying some kind of infinite positive feedback mechanism -- completely bizarre and physically unrealistic.

(2) He adds a fudge-factor of 4 W/m^2/K in order to get his results:
?Also DSWR/DSST needs to be balanced with DOLR/DSST.
From the consideration, FLW = -DOLR/DSST + 4 and FSW = ? DSWR/DSST ? 4.?
Without that somewhat obscurely hidden and completely arbitrary tweak, his conclusions fall apart.

But, as I said, I'm not a climatologist, so maybe someone who is can correct me here...
===========================================================================
(1) he's making the opposite claim (see fig. 2).

(2) no it doesn't see first law of thermodynamics (hint most SWR is converted to OLR) and that is his resultant not his "Fudge" oh and BTW it's a -2 or did I miss something.
Reply to this comment
by briannorwood November 3, 2009 3:02 PM EST
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC.

ENOUGH SAID!
by chitown639 November 3, 2009 1:50 PM EST
Republicans are boycotting Climate Bill??? We have no time for this!!! We already are falling behind in the manufacturing aspect of going GREEN...China has already started a massive move towards manufacturing products like windmills and solar panals...by the time our Congress enacts a weak watered-down Climate Bill into law, the Chinesse will have flooded the market with their cheap Green products....the American workers will be the biggest loser again.......
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 3:00 PM EST
China is going into electric buses in a big way (that use rechargeable batteries rather than overhead electric lines). They will work out the kinks in their designs and, when the U.S. finally gets its head out of its a**, they will be poised to dominate our mass-transit industry (which, of course, will have to be put on hyper-drive to make up for all the lost time and extra CO2). You are right to point out that other nations see massive opportunities where the U.S. sees only costs.

The proper phrase regarding green technologies right now is: "last one in is a rotten egg"
by lmartink November 3, 2009 3:05 PM EST
Chitown -- You hit the nail on the head. Continued Republican obstruction will only work against us.

In the short term it will mean fewer jobs here, and more indebtedness to China.

In the long term, people like us need to educate our descendants about the party of "do nothing" and let them know that not everyone wanted to pass on a planet running a fever, and an impoverished world.
by midlclass November 3, 2009 1:34 PM EST
the questions to ask are have the ice caps in both the aryic and antartic ever melted at this rate before? during mans time here has the northwest passage ever been open year round? are ocean levels going up? aare we really experiencing temp increases? if we are if there are scientist that can back this up and or not these are the people that should be going infront of congress and the EPA. the senators both republican and democrate should do there jobs by sitting down and LISTENING to the scientific debate not sitting out of it or boycotting it that is just shear ignorance! do your job repulican senators engage and debate, don't run like little chickens.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 2:51 PM EST
Earlier this year, an article in Science showed that the last time CO2 levels were THIS HIGH, global sea level was 75ft to 150ft higher than it is today. Its hard to just completely discount that kind of information, but the denier community does it.
by louiville35 November 3, 2009 1:25 PM EST
Your paper is referring to radiative feedbacks. As CO2 climbs the primary effect is a warming of the atmosphere (the paper says so explicitly). With a warmer atmosphere, more radiation will be emitted. But there's also more H2O and this can have both positive and negative feedback effects. The paper is trying to distinguish, based on the time of response, whether negative or positive feedback mechanisms predominate in the tropic atmosphere.

However, feedbacks are secondary responses to a primary impulse. The primary impulse is that rising CO2 causes the tropic atmosphere to go up in temperature. So nothing in your paper refutes the primary conclusion of global warming. Instead, it tries to determine the secondary feedback mechanisms that predominate after the primary mechanism, which can determine the 'extent of the damage' caused by the primary mechanism. It suggests these feedbacks are primarily negative, which is good, while the 11 climatological models suggested they were primarily positive.

Sounds like good research, but nothing that refutes the primary conclusion of GW, which is that it is real, human caused, and potentially serious.-by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 12:57 PM EST
========================================================================

You need to re-read your post, The AGW science is pretty clear when they claim that the Sun emissions make no difference. So according to your argument with a static solar out put to the earth we not only raise the temperature of the earth but also raise the output from the earth.

THE PROBLEM with that is, as any freshman physicist student can tell you, that violates energy balance. In other words that would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.
energy cannot be created or destroyed in."

So what you are saying is you believe CO2 makes it's own heat.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 2:34 PM EST
I said no such thing and you know it. Your article talks to feedbacks. There are no feedbacks without feed; no secondary effects without primary ones. As such, the article never refutes the central claim of the GW deniers: that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no affect in heating the atmosphere and earths surface. Because THAT is the primary impulse, and the paper restricts itself toward understanding the secondary responses.
by louiville35 November 3, 2009 2:51 PM EST
by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 2:34 PM EST
I said no such thing and you know it. Your article talks to feedbacks. There are no feedbacks without feed; no secondary effects without primary ones. As such, the article never refutes the central claim of the GW deniers: that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no affect in heating the atmosphere and earths surface. Because THAT is the primary impulse, and the paper restricts itself toward understanding the secondary responses.

Ummm I'll repeat it again for you with a constant energy source striking the object you cannot increase the the temperature of the object and simultaneously increase the energy reflection.

What the paper says is and they describe it clearly is you should see a temporary drop in outgoing radiation as the system absorbs heat due to increasing green house gasses. Eventually the system must balance so a corresponding increase in outgoing radiation will occur.

The problem you have though is it's not showing up as CO2 increases according to the empirical data. (see fig 2 of the report, ERBE is the empirical graph, the others are the various "Climate Model" generated graphs of what they expected to be emitted)In other words your so called experts expected feedback and it doesn't show.

So you argument of massive heating due to CO2 of the earth needs resuscitation. (For you to be right CO2 has to generate heat and we both know that can not be)
by louiville35 November 3, 2009 1:01 PM EST
by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 12:38 PM EST
In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, IPCC concluded: "In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points."

So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year, about one tenth of a penny on the dollar, even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case. And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.

The IPCC's conclusion, and every single word in the report, was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion.

So, I think, louiville35, that you are the one being alarmist.
======================================================================
Your first mistake is in quoting the IPCC, we have empirical data to use from those who signed and tried to follow the Kyoto treaty and the data doesn't fit the IPCC.
Reply to this comment
by louiville35 November 3, 2009 12:52 PM EST
by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 12:34 PM EST
There was a PEW poll last July in which they polled American Scientists (not just geo-scientists, but general scientists, so most of these would not have funding dependent on their answers): 84% of them believed global warming was real and human caused. But only 49% of the general American public agreed with them.
===============================================================================

Yes I addressed that poll, I suggest you go to their site and see how the poll was conducted. More important is how they conduct polls of scientists.

The other poll she mentions they contacted 10,000+ scientist but only about a third responded. So the question is how many of the other 2/3 didn't respond out of fear of cut funding, activist death threats, intimidation from politicians/fellows.....................

I've gotten several death threats, numerous threats of violence, then of course thousands of alleged liberals calling names.......... over the last four years on this issue and I'm just one little guy on a blog that no one but us read. Which is what I try to remind them of as they foam at the mouth.
Reply to this comment
See all 60 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook