• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Global Warming Debate Heats Up Again

    Climage change is making its way back into the news and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher managed to do something that other global warming proposals have not: They’ve actually upset the environmental groups that have been clamoring for reductions on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the first place.

    Last week Dingell and Boucher released a climate change legislation discussion draft that, similar to past legislation, calls for enormous emissions reductions by 2050 but has

    looser emissions limits in the earlier years of the program and a policy that puts the House bill in line with recommendations from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of businesses seeking to shape the legislation.”

    This has environmental activists in an uproar. Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense Fund, asserted that

    The unbending science demands that we reduce global warming pollution far enough — and fast enough — to protect us from the worst consequences of climate change. The near-term targets and timetables in the current draft of the proposal fall far short of that goal.”

    It’s clear that no matter how stringent a global warming policy would be, environmentalists will always push for a more stringent one. The draft legislation claims that loose emissions targets in earlier years will allow carbon-capturing technologies to develop. Others are saying that the financial crisis is leading to less-stringent targets in earlier years. As Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate official put it,

    You can’t pick an empty pocket.”

    Whether or not emissions reductions are more lenient in earlier years, it’s inevitable that any global warming legislation will reach deep into the American taxpayers’ pockets. A Heritage Foundation analysis of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, found that

    • Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
    • Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
    • Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.

    The science on global warming is anything but incontrovertible and while it’s almost certain that any legislation won’t be passed this year, but Dingell and Boucher’s draft discussion is setting the stage for next year. Both presidential candidates support implementing a costly cap-and-trade system. And as I’ve said before, it’s all for naught. Even according to the Environmental Protection Agency, a U.S. cap-and-trade system would have negligible effects on global temperature:

    Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 will reduce CO2 concentrations by only 25 ppm in 2095. This reduction would affect world temperatures by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. In other words it makes virtually no difference.”

    Policymakers shouldn’t use the country’s economic woes as an excuse to hold off on global warming policy or loosen up targets in the initial stages their emissions reduction plans. Instead, they should simply recognize that it is bad policy and it shouldn’t be implemented at all.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Global Warming Debate Heats Up Again

    1. Darlene Stanaland, F says:

      I am sick and tired of the politicans getting rich off this scam of golbal warming. Even if we do everything the liberals think up to do, what do we do about the other countries? They contribute a lot more to the problem, except they could care less. I don't care what the liberals say, they have plenty of ideas as long as they are on the money making end and not the paying end.

    2. Pingback: The Global Warming » Blog Archive » Global Warming Debate Heats Up Again

    3. Dave, laguna niguel, says:

      These bozos think the ONLY contributor of "global warming" is mankind. Number one,I thought scientists proved we are really in a cooling period and have been for several years now and two, what about undersea volcanos? The core of the earth is MOLTEN ROCK?LAVA….pretty warm down there, but it has NO EFFECT on sea ice or ground temperature now does it?! Of course not because it can't be controlled or made to pay MORE money like we humans! Amazing how a couple dimwits can control the whole world, right Mr Gore?

    4. Phil Johnson, Helena says:

      Read the 2009 Farmer's Almanc on Solar cycles.

    5. Thomas Gray, South C says:

      One of the problems of the world today is [ to many people have more mony than common sense ] and it's only gotten worse since I heard those words.

      These activist groups are tearing our country apart, the laws need to be changed to stop these activist funded lawyers that are working outside of the government from useing random judges to rule to many issues that are supposed to be ruled by our government that is supposed to be working for the interest of the majority of the people.

      Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. Gore’s film does not represent the “consensus” at all. Indeed, he exaggerates the supposed effects of ice-melt by some 12,000 per cent. The UN, on the other hand, estimates the probability that humankind has had any influence on sea level at little better than 50:50.

      OK sea level rise is off the list,, in five days these people can point there finger at more climate data and say see this, this is caused by man and must be stopped and if it to is debunked something else is pointed to. WHAT these climate change activist are doing is not sceince.

      Tom.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×