I agree, this is politically as good as it can probably get. I'm glad the author thinks we might have a 10-20% chance of stabilizing at 350. I'm not that optimistic, but who knows, maybe people will realize how bad it is and be willing to mobilize as if we were facing WWII.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must stop stinky socks from causing a global corn crisis. It will cripple our economy and won't do anything about corn or stinkly socks, but we will feel good about our uneducated selves.

First you might want to see the planet actually warm. AGW is a THEORY that hasn't panned out. Instead of buying into this bullshit you should be worrying about real problems.

Obama term 2? HA HA HA HA HA HA never. The dems will loose big in 2012 to a crippled repug party. Obama is already first in line for worst prez ever, and easilly most corrupt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big fat bill full of special interest goodies for Wall St Commodities traders and the coal industry. Evidence that bill will "cool" earth to "safe" levels in future: NONE.

We don't know what temps will be decade, two decades or five decades from now. No one can attest the "computer models" of IPCC can definitely predict anything.

Research on all possible sources of climate change should be focus of US and advanced nations. Solar radiation, CO2, other pollutants, ocean flows, everything should be on the research table. CO2 is one of the LEAST likely causes of global warming-over millions of years CO2 levels follow atmospheric changes, not cause the changes.

The amount of CO2 in atmosphere is miniscule, even with the increament added by cars and industry in past 100 years. These IPCC advocates know the world wants growth and will have growth. And that means carbon and nuclear.

Solar and wind will never be more that a small fraction of world energy production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does Congress ignore simple, non-bureaucratic solutions like cost-effective bi-fuel natural gas vehicles and full disclosure of emissions data to consumers? Cars and trucks set up at the factory with the capability to use either fuel can yield an instant 20% to 30% life-cycle reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when operated 100% on natural gas. Provide back-up Flex-fueltank for long trips and eliminate unnecessary anti-tampering rules and the conversion cost becomes negligible; since natural gas is $1/gge cheaper than gasoline the driver gets his payback in less than 2 years if she/he drives more than 12,000 miles per year.

Motivated greenies can then make their own solar hydrogen and blend it into their CNG to get even more carbon reductions if they are willing to spend the money to do so -- and many will once they see that they can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 by any other name…

…Is still CO2. A carbon dioxide molecule from a wood burning biomass electric power plant is the same as that from a car’s tailpipe or a coal plant’s smokestack. Each molecule is just as “dirty” – it has the same impact on global warming: polar ice caps melt just as fast and human health impacts are no different.

Though it may appear that our state and federal governments are passing laws to curb emissions of CO2 to ameliorate climate change impacts, we’re being duped. Twenty seven states have declared that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from wood and trash burning incinerators used to generate electricity “don’t count” because the trees grow back and trash is also “renewable.” Now Congress is in on the charade-- release the CO2 but pretend it's not there-- and we are really in trouble.

The 946 page W-M “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” bill labels incineration “waste-to-energy” and “biomass” renewable to justify ignoring CO2 emissions from these plants. The bill provides billions in taxpayer grants and ratepayer subsidies to power utilities, oil refiners, and the corporate forest industry to make sure all this burning happens pretty darn quick, before we figure out what’s happening. And the atmosphere is supposed to magically absorb the CO2 and other greenhouse gases from all this subsidized "green" burning without any short term effects--because the CO2 will theoretically be reabsorbed over the next century as trees re-grow. The only problem is, we don’t have a century to wait, since the climate crisis is now.


ACESA will result in total U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise until 2026. Add that every megawatt generated by incinerating forests and trash creates 50% more CO2 than burning coal. The industry doesn't dispute it and so W-M can't deny that incineration subsidized by ACESA will cause a near term increase in CO2 emissions.

Not only does ACESA not address climate change now, it makes it worse by promoting incineration as “renewable energy.” It subsidizes new incinerators to burn our treasured federal forests and state parks, so we will be losing trees and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. The ACESA allows polluters to ignore their emissions impacts by spending billions to buy “offsets” to save forests, primarily in developing nations, while giving billions to US incinerators to burn our forests. That is a costly paradox and ratepayers will bear those costs.

We have much at stake here in Western Mass., beyond increased air pollution from incinerators: tons of “woody biomass” from our forests for five proposed power plant incinerators. Extracting this wood will clearcut our state parks, such as Mt. Greylock State Park, the state's highest peak, cherished by generations of factory workers from nearby North Adams and students from Williams College. The energy industry is swooping down on the region but citizens are exposing the “industrial energy complex” schemes as the biggest public scam since sub-prime mortgages were hailed as “safe".

Citizens are pointing to Massachusetts’ precedent setting lawsuit against the George Bush EPA in which the U.S. Supreme Court that CO2 and greenhouse gases from tailpipes must be regulated. Citizens want to know why CO2 from smokestacks on wood burning incinerators are exempt from regulation– since CO2 by any other name is, after all, CO2.


A climate change bill could promote real renewable energy and conservation while using transparent financing mechanisms that won’t further bankrupt our country. It is not too late for Congress, especially the Senate, to show real courage and leadership to produce a bill that will actually meet these goals.

I'm a Massachusetts liberal!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]