Orski: The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a Serious Setback

[Jerry Schneider]

><index.htm>
>Innovation Briefs
>
>
>Vol. 20, No. 22
>
><http://www.innobriefs.com>www.innobriefs.com
>
> November 23, 2009
>
>The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a Serious Setback
>
>----------
>The National Journal, more than any other
>journalistic enterprise in Washington,
>represents the nation capital’s policy
>establishment — the loose assortment of
>journalists, lobbyists, advocacy groups, think
>tanks, and trade association executives that
>strive to (and often succeed) in influencing
>federal policy and legislation. Its "Policy
>Breakfasts" and "Policy Lunches" bring out a
>large turnout of Washington insiders and are a
>good barometer of the thinking within the policy
>community. The Journal’s November 17 "Policy
>Lunch" was no exception. Its choice of a topic
>for discussion—transportation’s role in reducing
>greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—was timely and
>the impressive credentials of the invited
>speakers lent an air of authority to the debate.
>The speakers included Sen.Tom Carper (D-DE),
>member of the Senate Environment and Public
>Works (EPW) Committee; Polly Trottenberg,
>Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at
>the U.S. Department of Transportation; Jack
>Schenendorf, former vice chairman of the
>National Surface Transportation Policy and
>Revenue Commission; Samuel Staley, director of
>urban growth and land use policy at the Reason
>Foundation; and two respected spokesmen from the
>environmental community: James Corless, director
>of the advocacy group, Transportation for
>America and Deron Lovaas, transportation policy
>director of the Natural Resources Defense
>Council. The proceedings were ably moderated by
>National Journal’s Lisa Caruso who
>also hosts the Journal’s Transportation Blog.
>
>Climate Change Legislation
>
>The meeting took place against a background of
>significant new developments in the global
>warming debate. The climate change legislation,
>once one of President Obama’s top domestic
>priorities, has now been placed on the Senate’s
>back burner. Its consideration has been put off
>until "sometime in the spring" according to
>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to make room
>for higher priority matters such as completion
>of health care legislation and financial
>regulatory reform. Senate passage of the climate
>bill even next year appears as anything but
>assured in the face of weakening political will
>to address this issue at a time of high
>unemployment and an economic downturn.
>Opposition to a climate bill is further fueled
>by fears that capping carbon emissions would
>further slow economic growth, raise energy costs
>to the consumer and create a backlash from
>voters in states dependent on coal. Perhaps the
>biggest blow to the Senate climate bill came
>last week when fourteen Senate Democrats, mainly
>from the Midwest, challenged the allocation
>formula of the Kerry-Boxer version of the
>climate bill. Lacking these Democratic votes,
>the proposed legislation would go nowhere.
>
>The Copenhagen Climate Summit
>
>News from the international front has been
>equally discouraging for proponents of forceful
>action on climate change. Chances of enacting a
>legally binding global agreement in Copenhagen
>on GHG emissions have all but evaporated in the
>wake of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
>(APEC) summit in Singapore. Leaders of the 21
>APEC member states, including Mr. Obama, agreed
>to postpone forging a legally binding agreement
>with specific national commitments to reduce
>emissions. Instead they opted for a "political
>statement," deferring adoption of a binding
>agreement to some future date. As the Wall
>Street Journal commented in a November 18
>editorial titled "Copenhagen Collapse–The
>Climate Change Sequel is a Bust":
>"President-elect Obama said of global warming
>last November, 'Delay is no longer an option.'
>It turns out that delay really is an option--
>the only one that has world-wide support." The
>Copenhagen Summit has become "little more than a
>photo opportunity for world leaders," observed another editorial.
>
>A leak of thousands of email messages last week
>from the U.K.'s Climate Research Unit (CRU)
>risks to further weaken global resolve to limit
>carbon emisions. The emails, posted and widely
>circulated on the internet, show climate
>scientists trying to squelch dissent and modify
>or restrict access to climate data that does not
>fit their own views. As critics were quick to
>point out, the internal correspondence, whose
>veracity is not being denied, confirms the
>skeptics' belief in the contrived nature of the
>global warming crisis and adds to the public
>skepticism about the "science" of climate
>change. The controversy, already dubbed
>"ClimateGate," comes less than a month before
>the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Summit and
>further damages the already shaky prospects for
>a meaningful agreement at the UN conference.
>
>Sen. Inhofe Takes the Floor
>
>These events have not escaped the notice of Sen.
>James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the
>Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
>and the Senate’s long time global warming
>critic. In a major address on the Senate floor
>on November 18, Inhofe declared the prospects
>for any climate change legislation dead. "By now
>the message should be clear," the Senator
>stated, "it’s not just Republicans, but
>Democrats who are blocking passage of
>cap-and-trade [bill] in the United States
>Senate." He announced that he will be traveling
>to Copenhagen leading what he called a "Truth
>Squad " to inform the international community
>that the United States "will not support a
>global warming treaty that will significantly
>damage the American economy, cost American jobs,
>and impose the largest tax increase in American history."
>
>###
>
>Not surprisingly, these developments, plus an
>increasingly skeptical press, have had a
>sobering effect on the Policy Lunch
>debate. What had seemed as almost inevitable
>only a few weeks earlier—a strong
>legislatively-backed push to reduce carbon
>emissions—has all of a sudden become a big
>question mark. "The wind seems to have gone out
>of the sails," commented our neighbor at the
>meeting. The need to limit GHG emissions may
>still be justified, but the political will and
>the urgency to act have suffered a serious setback if not a fatal blow.
>
>The tenor of the discussion at the Policy Lunch
>reflected the changed circumstances. It lacked
>the kind of conviction and fervor that
>characterized a meeting in July at which the
>environmental community celebrated the
>publication of the "Moving Cooler" report. (See,
>"A Controversial Report Has the Transportation
>Community Up in Arms," NewsBrief, August 18,
>2009.) Missing in the Policy Lunch discussion
>were "Moving Cooler"-type proposals to combat
>global warming with "land use reform," " "travel
>behavior modification," and "auto
>disincentives." Quite the contrary, U.S. DOT’s
>Polly Trottenberg explicitly disavowed driving
>restraints. Rather than trying to limit driving
>as a way of reducing GHG emissions, she said, we
>should provide more travel choices. Sam Staley
>took a similar posture concerning land use
>changes. Mandatory Increases in metropolitan
>densities, he observed, are neither realistic
>nor necessary. The panel’s two
>environmentalists, Corless and Lovaas, were
>equally restrained in their comments.
>
>Future Prospects
>
>What are the prospects for U.S. climate change
>action in 2010? Sen. Inhofe thinks it’s the end
>of the road: 2009 is "The Year of the Skeptic."
>He cites a growing number of press commentaries
>in support of his view. The headline of an
>article in the Daily Mail (U.K.) asked "Whatever
>Happened to Global Warming?" According to the
>journal Politico, "An aggressive White House
>push on jobs and deficit reduction in 2010 may
>be a sign that climate change legislation will
>stay on the back burner next year." The
>Environment & Energy Daily reports in its
>November 20 edition that the next wave of
>potential GOP officeholders has near-unanimously
>come out against the legislation. "There are
>virtually no major Republican Senate candidates
>running for office in 2010 that are in favor of
>the cap-and-trade climate bill," the article
>stated. Public opinion, according to Inhofe, is
>shifting as well. Polls are showing growing
>skepticism about the science of global
>warming: a Gallup poll in March found global
>warming ranked last among environmental issues,
>the Senator said in his floor remarks.
>
>There is, however, a silver lining for
>environmental advocates. As support for
>cap-and-trade legislation wanes, and November
>mid-term elections loom large, the focus may
>shift to infrastructure and its job creation
>potential. Some environmentalists we have spoken
>to think that a transportation bill could become
>a vehicle for the kind of far-reaching reforms
>that they had hoped to see in the climate change
>bill. Where the money to fund an ambitious
>long-term highway bill might come from is still
>unclear, but that’s a story for another day.
>
>
>
>Please feel free to forward or reprint this item
>with appropriate citation. All correspondence,
>including requests to subscribe and unsubscribe,
>should be addressed to: C. Kenneth Orski,
>Editor/Publisher; email:
><mailto:kor...@verizon.net>kor...@verizon.net;
>tel: 301.299.1996; fax: 301.299.4425. Please
>make sure that your email account is set up to
>accept incoming mail from kor...@verizon.net

[Dennis Manning]

I think this is very bad news. No matter where one stands on climate change
issues it points out how strong the coal lobby is, and it heavily influences
the ability to move forward on clean electrified transportation. If we keep
Old King Coal going it diminishes the attractiveness of introducing PRT to
the world as the PRT promise is to reduce the need for fossil fuels, but if
PRT is fueled by coal generated power it's far less attractive.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>; <ot...@lists.onenw.org>;
<pstr...@egroups.com>; <BalancedTranspor...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:54 AM
Subject: [t-i] Orski: The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a
Serious Setback




><index.htm>
>Innovation Briefs
>
>
>Vol. 20, No. 22
>
><http://www.innobriefs.com>www.innobriefs.com
>
> November 23, 2009
>
>The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a Serious Setback
>
>----------
>The National Journal, more than any other
>journalistic enterprise in Washington,

>represents the nation capital�s policy
>establishment � the loose assortment of

>journalists, lobbyists, advocacy groups, think
>tanks, and trade association executives that
>strive to (and often succeed) in influencing
>federal policy and legislation. Its "Policy
>Breakfasts" and "Policy Lunches" bring out a
>large turnout of Washington insiders and are a
>good barometer of the thinking within the policy

>community. The Journal�s November 17 "Policy

>Lunch" was no exception. Its choice of a topic

>for discussion�transportation�s role in reducing
>greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions�was timely and

>the impressive credentials of the invited
>speakers lent an air of authority to the debate.
>The speakers included Sen.Tom Carper (D-DE),
>member of the Senate Environment and Public
>Works (EPW) Committee; Polly Trottenberg,
>Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at
>the U.S. Department of Transportation; Jack
>Schenendorf, former vice chairman of the
>National Surface Transportation Policy and
>Revenue Commission; Samuel Staley, director of
>urban growth and land use policy at the Reason
>Foundation; and two respected spokesmen from the
>environmental community: James Corless, director
>of the advocacy group, Transportation for
>America and Deron Lovaas, transportation policy
>director of the Natural Resources Defense
>Council. The proceedings were ably moderated by

>National Journal�s Lisa Caruso who
>also hosts the Journal�s Transportation Blog.

>
>Climate Change Legislation
>
>The meeting took place against a background of
>significant new developments in the global
>warming debate. The climate change legislation,

>once one of President Obama�s top domestic
>priorities, has now been placed on the Senate�s

>editorial titled "Copenhagen Collapse�The

>and the Senate�s long time global warming

>critic. In a major address on the Senate floor
>on November 18, Inhofe declared the prospects
>for any climate change legislation dead. "By now
>the message should be clear," the Senator

>stated, "it�s not just Republicans, but

>Democrats who are blocking passage of
>cap-and-trade [bill] in the United States
>Senate." He announced that he will be traveling
>to Copenhagen leading what he called a "Truth
>Squad " to inform the international community
>that the United States "will not support a
>global warming treaty that will significantly
>damage the American economy, cost American jobs,
>and impose the largest tax increase in American history."
>
>###
>
>Not surprisingly, these developments, plus an
>increasingly skeptical press, have had a
>sobering effect on the Policy Lunch
>debate. What had seemed as almost inevitable

>only a few weeks earlier�a strong

>legislatively-backed push to reduce carbon

>emissions�has all of a sudden become a big

>question mark. "The wind seems to have gone out
>of the sails," commented our neighbor at the
>meeting. The need to limit GHG emissions may
>still be justified, but the political will and
>the urgency to act have suffered a serious setback if not a fatal blow.
>
>The tenor of the discussion at the Policy Lunch
>reflected the changed circumstances. It lacked
>the kind of conviction and fervor that
>characterized a meeting in July at which the
>environmental community celebrated the
>publication of the "Moving Cooler" report. (See,
>"A Controversial Report Has the Transportation
>Community Up in Arms," NewsBrief, August 18,
>2009.) Missing in the Policy Lunch discussion
>were "Moving Cooler"-type proposals to combat
>global warming with "land use reform," " "travel
>behavior modification," and "auto

>disincentives." Quite the contrary, U.S. DOT�s

>Polly Trottenberg explicitly disavowed driving
>restraints. Rather than trying to limit driving
>as a way of reducing GHG emissions, she said, we
>should provide more travel choices. Sam Staley
>took a similar posture concerning land use
>changes. Mandatory Increases in metropolitan
>densities, he observed, are neither realistic

>nor necessary. The panel�s two

>environmentalists, Corless and Lovaas, were
>equally restrained in their comments.
>
>Future Prospects
>
>What are the prospects for U.S. climate change

>action in 2010? Sen. Inhofe thinks it�s the end

>unclear, but that�s a story for another day.

>
>
>
>Please feel free to forward or reprint this item
>with appropriate citation. All correspondence,
>including requests to subscribe and unsubscribe,
>should be addressed to: C. Kenneth Orski,
>Editor/Publisher; email:
><mailto:kor...@verizon.net>kor...@verizon.net;
>tel: 301.299.1996; fax: 301.299.4425. Please
>make sure that your email account is set up to
>accept incoming mail from kor...@verizon.net

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=.

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

"a Gallup poll in March found global
>warming ranked last among environmental issues,
>the Senator said in his floor remarks."

Every turn in the process opens up new avenues to get our solutions enacted.  I have never bought the long distance swimming polar bear approach because that image and storyline never matched any of the science.  It was all doom and gloom crap meant to misinform the public and agitate them.  Global warming is a geological time event not next Tuesday but the hoop-la was all centered around an extreme emergency gotta do it now or we all die approach.  Although that method of management works in the short term long term management style is to take a metered, thoughtful and TRUTHFUL approach to any problem.  The addition of CO2 into the atmosphere has its effect.  It does what it does but the more immediate effect from exhaust pipes happens to be the other 159 known chemical compounds that are in diesel and gasoline car exhaust.  Now that the memo-gate has happened that does not negate anything floating in the atmosphere.  The fact that advocates advocated too far past TRUTH is a lesson we here should learn.  Do not over sell your stuff.  It does what it does and it can clean up what it can clean up.  I contend that it can clean up the air in cities that are presently in EPA non-attainment today with a reasonable market penetration in the next 5 years.  This is a bold statement that is predicated on that market shift going to advanced electrified battery/electric or wired/electric powered cars running on elevated guideway that are far superior to today's cars for efficiency.  I will go so far as to say we can make a street car that runs completely off-grid on PV from a garage (see attached) for the normal commute even without the guideway but with all the other advanced features to make that true.  It does have to track the sun as it rotates about its vertical axis and rotates the panels on a powered hinge.  With imported panels we can get payback in a couple years compared to gasoline or diesel cars at twice as good as the CAFE standard mileage. 

Since from this article it is obvious that these "leaks" of memos are stored up for the appropriate moment that no one really cares in congress about the things they say they favor.  They just look for cover for their next move.  The public is at fault for having the attention span of a two year old or a five year old hamster.  Delay till spring translates --- never.  Being a Christian right kind of guy I think we need to respect what we were given and thus am aligned with reducing CO2 more by accident than on purpose but the result is identical.  Use the energy we capture more effectively and not only do you reduce the CO2 you reduce the carcinogens in our air and the ground level ozone known to harm children in cities and it costs less to accomplish the same movement.  The only down-side is the oil derrick owners who I intend to directly target will hate this solution because it completely de-funds them.  Other than this audacious move I see no reason that can be found to discourage transportation progress.  I liked the interview recently that pegged institutional inertia as the major stumbling block to a solution.  I agree completely and did some more probing into the US Dot who I have named previously.  Ray LaHood labels himself and aligns with the Arab-American caucus.  His grandfather was Lebanese and for some reason he never assimilated like the rest of us to call himself an American-Lebanese caucus member.  His voting record is split about down the left/right line indicating to me he thinks he can play both sides against his middle.  Deserving of another name.  Quoting Ray LaHood "During the 14 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives, I have made 13 trips to Lebanon. During the first time that I went there, there was a travel ban: "  Jumping ship to be Obama's token is yet another indication that Ray LaHood thinks he can play both sides.  The man has no education or experience base to do anything with transportation.  His Chicago ties to good ol' boys railroad interests are murky in his transportation votes cast as a legislator for the money pit of Amtrak.  Add institutional inertia to this backdrop and I see nothing coming from the federal government that will solve energy dependence or unhealthy air or melted ice caps in geological time. 

I think we can fool King coal with their own arrogance though.  They think an electric battery/wired car cannot be built that will not need their coal power.  What they are missing is through applied engineering we can dump oil and not increase coal burning one BTU.   (again see attached)

I share your feeling that this is very bad news for more reasons than the obvious but I will grant you also for the obvious.  We are being manipulated in either scenario and I do not appreciate being manipulated.

Back again,  I can back up all the energy and transportation claims.

Jerry Roane
 

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

I think this is very bad news. No matter where one stands on climate change
issues it points out how strong the coal lobby is, and it heavily influences
the ability to move forward on clean electrified transportation. If we keep
Old King Coal going it diminishes the attractiveness of introducing PRT to
the world as the PRT promise is to reduce the need for fossil fuels, but if
PRT is fueled by coal generated power it's far less attractive.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>; <ot...@lists.onenw.org>;
<pstr...@egroups.com>; <BalancedTranspor...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:54 AM
Subject: [t-i] Orski: The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a
Serious Setback




><index.htm>
>Innovation Briefs
>
>
>Vol. 20, No. 22
>
><http://www.innobriefs.com>www.innobriefs.com
>
>     November 23, 2009
>
>The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a Serious Setback
>
>----------
>The National Journal, more than any other
>journalistic enterprise in Washington,

>represents the nation capital’s policy
>establishment — the loose assortment of

>journalists, lobbyists, advocacy groups, think
>tanks, and trade association executives that
>strive to (and often succeed) in influencing
>federal policy and legislation. Its "Policy
>Breakfasts" and "Policy Lunches" bring out a
>large turnout of Washington insiders and are a
>good barometer of the thinking within the policy

>community. The Journal’s November 17 "Policy

>Lunch" was no exception. Its choice of a topic

>for discussion—transportation’s role in reducing
>greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—was timely and

>the impressive credentials of the invited
>speakers lent an air of authority to the debate.
>The speakers included Sen.Tom Carper (D-DE),
>member of the Senate Environment and Public
>Works (EPW) Committee; Polly Trottenberg,
>Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at
>the U.S. Department of Transportation; Jack
>Schenendorf, former vice chairman of the
>National Surface Transportation Policy and
>Revenue Commission; Samuel Staley, director of
>urban growth and land use policy at the Reason
>Foundation; and two respected spokesmen from the
>environmental community: James Corless, director
>of the advocacy group, Transportation for
>America and Deron Lovaas, transportation policy
>director of the Natural Resources Defense
>Council. The proceedings were ably moderated by

>National Journal’s Lisa Caruso who
>also  hosts  the Journal’s Transportation Blog.

>
>Climate Change Legislation
>
>The meeting took place against a background of
>significant new developments in the global
>warming debate. The climate change legislation,

>once one of President Obama’s top domestic
>priorities, has now been placed on the Senate’s

>editorial titled "Copenhagen Collapse–The

>and the Senate’s long time global warming

>critic. In a major address on the Senate floor
>on November 18, Inhofe declared the prospects
>for any climate change legislation dead. "By now
>the message should be clear," the Senator

>stated, "it’s not just Republicans, but

>Democrats who are blocking passage of
>cap-and-trade [bill] in the United States
>Senate." He announced that he will be traveling
>to Copenhagen leading what he called a "Truth
>Squad " to inform the international community
>that the United States "will not support a
>global warming treaty that will significantly
>damage the American economy, cost American jobs,
>and impose the largest tax increase in American history."
>
>###
>
>Not surprisingly, these developments, plus an
>increasingly skeptical  press, have had a
>sobering effect on the Policy Lunch
>debate.  What had seemed as almost inevitable

>only a few weeks earlier—a strong

>legislatively-backed push to reduce carbon

>emissions—has all of a sudden become a big

>question mark. "The wind seems to have gone out
>of the sails," commented our neighbor at the
>meeting. The need to limit GHG emissions may
>still be justified, but the political will and
>the urgency to act have suffered a serious setback if not a fatal blow.
>
>The tenor of the discussion at the Policy Lunch
>reflected the changed circumstances. It lacked
>the kind of conviction and fervor that
>characterized a meeting in July at which the
>environmental community celebrated the
>publication of the "Moving Cooler" report. (See,
>"A Controversial Report Has the Transportation
>Community Up in Arms," NewsBrief, August 18,
>2009.) Missing in the Policy Lunch discussion
>were "Moving Cooler"-type proposals to combat
>global warming with "land use reform," " "travel
>behavior modification," and "auto

>disincentives." Quite the contrary, U.S. DOT’s

>Polly Trottenberg explicitly disavowed driving
>restraints. Rather than trying to limit driving
>as a way of reducing GHG emissions, she said, we
>should provide more travel choices. Sam Staley
>took a similar posture concerning land use
>changes. Mandatory Increases in metropolitan
>densities, he observed, are neither realistic

>nor necessary. The panel’s two

>environmentalists, Corless and Lovaas, were
>equally restrained in their comments.
>
>Future Prospects
>
>What are the prospects for U.S. climate change

>action in 2010? Sen. Inhofe thinks it’s the end

>unclear, but that’s a story for another day.

[rober...@aol.com]

I knew Jerry R. couldn't stay quiet for any longer.

[Jerry Roane]

Robert

Like the noise?

Jerry R

[Jack Slade]

I heard news on the radio this weekend stating that scientists are puzzled by another change in climate.... When thay analyze the figures for the past 10 years, they find no increase in Global Temperature. Has anybody heard this from any other source?   Jack Slade   --- On Mon, 11/23/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

>tel: 301.299.1996; fax: 301.299..4425. Please

>make sure that your email account is set up to >accept incoming mail from kor...@verizon.net

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

The urgency is to avoid a tipping point where reducing our output of
GHG will not change the outcome. We will be stuck in a negative
feedback loop. That's why a 2050 target may as well be never and a
shorter term target is necessary. I won't hold my breath for
politicians to act, but a lot of people will be holding their breath
(in vain) when the floods come.

F.

> <john.manni...@comcast.net>wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  solargarage.jpg
> 62KViewDownload

[Michael Weidler]

I suppose you know where this "tipping point" is since the scientists involved can't even agree. I would also point out that the atmosphere has been considerably warmer than it is now - BEFORE HUMANS. --- On Tue, 11/24/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Rob Means]

Jack,

 

This is likely a repeat of what happened in the 60’s when temperatures went down despite the increasing amounts of CO2 and other GHGs.  The offsetting factor was coal particulate emissions that acted like an umbrella to shade (and cool) the earth.  When the U.S. government forced the coal burners in the country to clean up their act, the measurable temperature started increasing again.  This time it is China which has been putting new coal-fired power plants online at the rate of one per week.

 

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Rob Means, Electro Ride Bikes and Scooters
408-262-8975   rob....@electric-bikes.com
1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913
Discover cycling that's Easy, Safe, Fast - and FUN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JamieB]

Dinosaurs were around before humans and I think life would have been
pretty dicey had we coexisted.

No one is saying that the climate can't warm without human generated
CO2 emissions. But it's absolutely the case that it can with them.

[Jack Slade]

Iwas also thinking, today, that we had a major volcano 10 or 15 years ago ( Mount Pinatubo?) that put an unusual amount of ash in the atmosphere, which also has a shield effect.   Jack Slade --- On Tue, 11/24/09, Rob Means <rob....@electric-bikes.com> wrote:

Jack Slade

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Weidler]

There is no argument that enough CO2 will cause global warming. The problem is that no one knows for certain exactly what "enough" is or for that matter how much global warming is too much. The only planet sized example we have is Venus, and it is not a very good example because the gas ratios are exactly the reverse of what we have on Earth. --- On Tue, 11/24/09, JamieB <cal...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Kirston Henderson]

on 11/25/09 12:20 PM, Michael Weidler at pstr...@yahoo.com wrote:

> There is no argument that enough CO2 will cause global warming. The problem is
> that no one knows for certain exactly what "enough" is or for that matter how
> much global warming is too much. The only planet sized example we have is
> Venus, and it is not a very good example because the gas ratios are exactly
> the reverse of what we have on Earth.
>

As I have pointed out numerous times before, historical geology tells us
that the earth experienced numerous periods of heating and cooling long
before there is any evidence of humans on earth. As an example, the now
ice-capped polar areas were at times entirely free of ice and quite warm,
which explains the reasons that vast amounts of hydrocarbons in the form of
oil and gas exist beneath the surface in, at least, the Northern polar
areas.

I think that we can only conclude that so-called greenhouse emissions
caused by humans is likely a very minor factor, especially in comparison to
solar flare activity over the eons. To put it bluntly, Al Gore and company
are likely all wet and probably only seeking to gain economic benefit from
creating a global scare about emissions.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Michael Weidler]

That would be the Sulfur Dioxide option as performed by nature. --- On Tue, 11/24/09, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote:

[eph]

We may be creating the equivalent of a large meteor crashing into the
earth if you want to look at it in historical geological terms. Fact
is, we don't know what caused those historical fluctuations with
certainty, but we do know with certainty that fluctuations to extremes
are possible and getting the system into a negative feedback loop is
certainly possible, even by human action (and inaction).

It's hard to believe I'm reading this sort of propaganda from
scientifically minded people. The science on this is clear and
unequivocal.

F.

On Nov 25, 1:45 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:

[Kirston Henderson]

on 11/25/09 1:20 PM, eph at rhaps...@yahoo.com wrote:

> We may be creating the equivalent of a large meteor crashing into the
> earth if you want to look at it in historical geological terms. Fact
> is, we don't know what caused those historical fluctuations with
> certainty, but we do know with certainty that fluctuations to extremes
> are possible and getting the system into a negative feedback loop is
> certainly possible, even by human action (and inaction).
>
> It's hard to believe I'm reading this sort of propaganda from
> scientifically minded people. The science on this is clear and
> unequivocal.

On the last point, you need to carefully study the data instead of just
listening to those with axes to grind. The so-called science on this IS NOT
at all clear! As a matter of fact, it is becoming more and more
questionable. As a physicist, I happen to have a reasonably good
understanding of both geological history and the long-term tendency of the
Sun to vary it's output of warming and other radiation received by the
earth. The activity of us humans are relatively minor in comparison to
variations of the output from the Sun.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds)]

Sorry I just could not resist commenting!

I don't understand the reasoning for Kirston's arguments?

It's quite evident there is a massive increase in industrialisation and
consumption in both India and China in the last 10 years. We are
altering our planet through both pollution and industrial activity and
consumption like never before. India still only consumes a fraction of
global population it holds. There is no doubt that we humans are the
single species that has and is drastically altering the way this planet
operates and behaves. If all the people in the developing world start to
consume like the citizens of the developed world there may be no
resources left on the planet.

To cut the long story short. Wake up Guys!!! This is our make or break
century. We do not control the way we act including controlling
pollution, population and consumption there may be no planet left after
all. This is simple economics not astro-physics. So stop arguing and get
your act together. It is now or never!

With warm regards

Sonal

-----Original Message-----
From: Kirston Henderson [mailto:kirston....@megarail.com]
Sent: 25 November 2009 21:34
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Orski: The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill
Suffers a Serious Setback

MegaRail(r)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to
transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service.

This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the email. Copyright reserved.

All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are monitored for legitimate business purposes.

The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It is the recipient’s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for the presence of viruses.

The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use or transmission of this email.

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only.

[eph]

Mission News
Solar Variability: Striking a Balance with Climate Change
05.07.08


Artist concept of albedo effect > View the solar balance Web video
> Download the video
Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center The sun has powered almost
everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun
also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of
each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since
the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert
significant influence on Earth's climate.

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been
the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan,
climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

For the past three decades NASA scientists have investigated the
unique relationship between the sun and Earth. Using space-based
tools, like the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), they
have studied how much solar energy illuminates Earth, and explored
what happens to that energy once it penetrates the atmosphere. The
amount of energy that reaches Earth's outer atmosphere is called the
total solar irradiance. Total solar irradiance is variable over many
different timescales, ranging from seconds to centuries due to changes
in solar activity.

The sun goes through roughly an 11-year cycle of activity, from stormy
to quiet and back again. Solar activity often occurs near sunspots,
dark regions on the sun caused by concentrated magnetic fields. The
solar irradiance measurement is much higher during solar maximum, when
sunspot cycle and solar activity is high, versus solar minimum, when
the sun is quiet and there are usually no sunspots.

Artist concept of the sun and Earth The sun radiates huge amounts of
electromagnetic energy in all directions. Earth is only one small
recipient of the sun's energy; the sun's rays extend far out into the
solar system, illuminating all the other planets. Credit: NASA
> Larger image "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum," said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

Using SORCE, scientists have learned that about 1,361 watts per square
meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere during the
sun's quietest period. But when the sun is active, 1.3 watts per
square meter (0.1 percent) more energy reaches Earth. "This TSI
measurement is very important to climate models that are trying to
assess Earth-based forces on climate change," said Cahalan.

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by
approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar
heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change,
according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's
climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar
radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's
atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate.
Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected
back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean
surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays.
The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean,
and atmosphere.

"Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation
that emanates from Earth," Woods said. The resulting imbalance between
incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely
cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting
polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the
probability of more violent global weather patterns.

Non-Human Influences on Climate Change

Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the
major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in
cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending
about 11,000 years ago.

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has
been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades,
however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have
termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now
really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know
what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug
Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more
active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."

Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to
what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were
observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715.
This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly
responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or
irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During
this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C
than they are today.

Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in
solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide
from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to
dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to
continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of
0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.

Future Measurements of Solar Variability

For three decades, a suite of NASA and European Space Agency
satellites have provided scientists with critical measurements of
total solar irradiance. The Total Irradiance Monitor, also known as
the TIM instrument, was launched in 2003 as part of the NASA’s SORCE
mission, and provides irradiance measurements with state-of-the-art
accuracy. TIM has been rebuilt as part of the Glory mission, scheduled
to launch in 2009. Glory's TIM instrument will continue an
uninterrupted 30-year record of solar irradiance measurements and will
help researchers better understand the sun's direct and indirect
effects on climate. Glory will also collect data on aerosols, one of
the least understood pieces of the climate puzzle.

Related links:

> More on SORCE from NASA's Earth Observatory
> More on SORCE from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
> More on SORCE from the University of Colorado
> The University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics

Rani Gran
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center



Find this article at:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html


F.


On Nov 25, 4:33 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:

[Jack Slade]

If I interpret this right, then you feel that 20 or 30 years of observation is enough enough to convince you regarding a full hot/cold cycle that takes over 22000 years.   Nobody, NASA or anybody else, has any idea of what conditions happen to the sun in it's total trip around the Galaxy, which I think takes about 45000 years.   Al Gore now has a real dilemma:  developing the oil sands is now a threat to mankind,  but his Country needs the oil.   What IS he in favour of?   Jack Slade

--- On Wed, 11/25/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: Orski: The Push to Enact Climate Change Bill Suffers a Serious Setback To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 11:53 PM

Mission News Solar Variability: Striking a Balance with Climate Change 05.07.08 Artist concept of albedo effect > View the solar balance Web video > Download the video Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate. "For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. For the past three decades NASA scientists have investigated the unique relationship between the sun and Earth. Using space-based tools, like the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), they have studied how much solar energy illuminates Earth, and explored

what happens to that energy once it penetrates the atmosphere.. The

Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard.. "It could be considerably more

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:20 AM 11/25/2009, you wrote:
>We may be creating the equivalent of a large meteor crashing into the
>earth if you want to look at it in historical geological terms. Fact
>is, we don't know what caused those historical fluctuations with
>certainty, but we do know with certainty that fluctuations to extremes
>are possible and getting the system into a negative feedback loop is
>certainly possible, even by human action (and inaction).
>
>It's hard to believe I'm reading this sort of propaganda from
>scientifically minded people. The science on this is clear and
>unequivocal.

My impression is that we are already in a negative feedback loop - regarding
the release of huge quantities of methane from permafrost and the oceans.

[eph]

'Copenhagen Diagnosis' offers a grim update to the IPCC's climate
science

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a kick in the
pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse
than the IPCC has so far reported. From Grist, part of the Guardian
Environment Network

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world's foremost
body for weighing and assessing climate science—received a kick in the
pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse
than the IPCC has so far reported.

Twenty-six climatologists—including 14 IPCC members—have released a
startling update to the panel's work, reporting that sea levels could
rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than
the panel had anticipated.

"The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate
Science" is not an official IPCC report; it's a summary of the
hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published
since the IPCC's last assessment. It was released now to fill the long
gap in between official IPCC reports—the last was released in 2007,
but the drafting text is more than three years old, and the next isn't
scheduled until 2013. It was also timed to the Copenhagen climate
talks, of course.

The essence of the new report is that things are grimmer than the IPCC
has reported. And it's not like the panel has been painting a rosy
picture—its 2007 report concluded that the warming-induced melting of
the Greenland ice sheet could create significant sea-level rise in
this century. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said at the time, "If
there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next
two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining
moment."

The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent
faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another
startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for
rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The
IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.

The report's authors (who include the preeminent Stephen Schneider)
write that "if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C
above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between
2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly." If you're keeping score, 2015
is just over five years away—somewhat less comforting than the distant
"2050" you used to hear so much about.

In a time when the correspondence of scientists is hacked and stolen
and as a matter of political strategy, some will no doubt dismiss the
group's research entirely. And even IPCC fans may question whether its
decision-making process is swift enough to remain relevant. It
certainly seems that events are outpacing the political system's
ability to deal with them.

Below are the key findings from the report:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions
from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in
1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day
levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent
probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after
2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding
2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over
the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per
decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse
gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in
solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural,
short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no
significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A
wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond
doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass
at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts
of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-
ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The
area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater
than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent
global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be
~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-
level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting
of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets

Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely
to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the
IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The
upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100.
Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global
temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level
rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable
elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon
rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards
abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-
usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical
thresholds ("tipping points") increases strongly with ongoing climate
change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could
mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are
recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be
limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global
emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.
To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society—with near-zero
emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases—needs to be
reached well within this century. More specifically, the average
annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric
ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in
developed nations in 2000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science/print

F.

[Michael Weidler]

Sounds like a self limiting problem to me. No resources = no pollution. As usual, it is going to really suck to be on the low end of the totem pole. And life goes on.... --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Ahuja, Sonal (Capita Symonds) <Sonal...@capita.co.uk> wrote:

transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the email. Copyright reserved. All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are monitored for legitimate business purposes. The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It is the recipient’s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for the presence of viruses. The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use or transmission of this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Kirston Henderson]

on 11/25/09 6:20 PM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

> If I interpret this right, then you feel that 20 or 30 years of observation is
> enough enough to convince you regarding a full hot/cold cycle that takes over
> 22000 years.
>  
> Nobody, NASA or anybody else, has any idea of what conditions happen to the
> sun in it's total trip around the Galaxy, which I think takes about 45000
> years.
>  
> Al Gore now has a real dilemma:  developing the oil sands is now a threat to
> mankind,  but his Country needs the oil.
>

Of possible interest, I just read a story about residents of Greenland
welcoming recent melting of some of the ice that is uncovering some vast
mineral deposits there and also making it possible to explore for those vast
quantities of oil and gas believed to be buried deep below the surface in
Greenland and the surrounding sea.

As to burning coal, the people in Greenland are probably saying "burn,
baby, burn!" is that is really a significant cause for warming.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®