Jun 26 2009

Climate Changes

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several news stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

Global warming--and efforts to fight global warming--are both putting national wildlife refuges at risk, according to a new report from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Not surprisingly, climate change and rising sea levels threaten to destroy marshes and other critical habitats. But the report also warns that wind and solar farms and electric transmission lines can slice up wildlife habitats. The report calls for incentives for landowners to protect sensitive land and for better siting of power infrastructure. 

The Waxman-Markey climate bill comes to the House floor for a vote today, with strong backing from President Obama. Public opinion if divided on its central provision, cap-and-trade: 52 percent of those surveyed in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll support the approach, with 42 percent opposed. But three-quarters of Americans, including even a majority of Republicans, support federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

A group of 20 corporations, including PG&E, HP, Applied Materials, and Starbucks ran an ad supporting Waxman-Markey, declaring: "Putting a price on carbon will drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy." 

Opponents of the bill include the American Petroleum Institute, the National Pork Producers Council, Friends of the Earth and most Republican members of Congress. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner, "Americans know that this bill would have a disastrous impact on our economy and our constituents." However, studies by the Congressional Budget Office and EPA suggest the average cost per household would be somewhere between $80 per year and $175 per year to help prevent potentially grievous economic and environmental harm.

Even if the United States passes a climate change bill with teeth, getting other countries to go along will remain a challenge. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently said Russia might cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 10 to 15 per cent based on the 1990 base year used under the Kyoto deal. But because Russian emissions were so high that year, such a target could still allow the country to increase emissions by a third by 2020.


Leave a comment


E-mail this post


Your Name:
Your Friend's Email:

Search NEXT100

> Go

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Blog rssIcon

> Go