2/21/2010

Senate to push global warming bill this week?

This push, if it materializes, is surprising given that big Senate debate over health care. From Reuters:

A last-ditch attempt at passing a climate change bill begins in the Senate this week with senators mindful that time is running short and that approaches to the legislation still vary widely, according to sources.
"We will present senators with a number of options when they get back from recess," said one Senate aide knowledgeable of the compromise legislation that is being developed. The goal is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists say threaten Earth.
The options will be presented to three senators -- Democrat John Kerry, independent Joseph Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham -- who are leading the fight for a bill to battle global warming domestically.
The aide said the Senate's drive for a bill got a boost last week with President Barack Obama's announcement of an $8.3 billion government loan guarantee to help start expanding the nuclear power industry, a top Republican priority. "The administration is really putting their money where their mouth is," the aide said.
The Senate trio's success or failure likely will have a profound impact on international efforts to reduce carbon emissions and prevent Earth's temperature from exceeding a possibly dangerous 2 degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) increase from pre-industrial times. . . .


This last paragraph is in something that claims to be a "news" story.

Labels: ,

1 Comments:

Blogger John A said...

prevent Earth's temperature from exceeding a possibly dangerous 2 degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) increase from pre-industrial times...

Oh dear. Even according to the IPCC, the globe has already had a two-degree-Celsius temperature increase since "pre-industrial" times, defined as "since 1850" which I for one would not characterise as being pre-industrial (railroads alone qualify as industrial, not to mention that internicine squabble between "industial" North and "agricultural" South). The supposed [and improbable] increase is what some modeels show[ed] for the next century - as opposed to the one-degree warming 1850-1950.

Cut back on pollution, I can agree it is a good idea: even the rate of CO2 increase - sure, it is plant food, but animals - such as humans - have trouble with it past a certain point.

Human CO2 output inreased. Temperatures went up. But a one-for-one correlation? Completely off-the-wall agenda-driven "correlation shows causation" drivel.

2/21/2010 1:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home