Republicans preview 'rational environmentalism' approach to climate policy if they take control of H

[groundloop]

Source: ABC News


House Republicans previewed how their party would approach climate and energy policy if they win the majority in the House of Representatives at an event at the United Nations' climate summit known as COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, this week.

The GOP delegation to COP27 included members of the Conservative Climate Caucus who sit on critical House committees that handle issues around regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy policy.

Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana, ranking member of the House Select Committee on Climate, and the other Republicans at the summit said the U.S. should not demonize fossil fuels like natural gas and that those types of fuels can can still be part of the energy transition to a cleaner energy system.

"The target here that we're trying to attack is the emissions is not the energy source, and I think that our research and development needs to be focused on the types of energy resources that each country has and in the United States one of those is oil and gas, 30 times the energy density of the next closest renewable," he said.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/International/republicans-preview-rational-environmentalism-approach-climate-policy-control/story?id=93122819

[emulatorloo]

1. So they plan to be "rational"? Good luck with that. They aren't capable of rationality.

[durablend]

2. LOL bullshit

The only thing you're going to hear from them is DRILL DRILL DRILL

[paleotn]

3. Conservative Climate Caucus?

It would be funny if this wasn't so damn serious.

[Botany]

4. "the U.S. should not demonize fossil fuels ... "

If you are not going after reductions in the use of fossil fuels you will not even
begin with working on climate change. Rule #1 Stop putting that shit into the earth's
atmosphere and let us allow the CO2 to participate out of the atmosphere on it's
own naturally and design our infrastructure, landscapes, farms, and buildings so as to
actively sequester CO2.

[PSPS]

13. "allow the CO2 to participate out of the atmosphere" -- sadly, that will take at least 100 years.

Even then, where will it go? The oceans are already saturated and the rain forests are going away.

[Botany]

20. Yes, it will take time but as of now it looks like that is one of our only choices.

And I think much of the CO2 can go back into the soils.

[hatrack]

22. +/- 25% of fossil CO2 remains in the atmosphere for millennia, not 100 or 200 years

EDIT

University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this”. “The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge,” Archer writes. “Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.”

The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that unless we kick our “fossil fuel addiction”, to use George W. Bush's phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and thaws that has lasted for more than a million years. “If the entire coal reserves were used,” Archer writes, “then glaciation could be delayed for half a million years.”

“The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the least well understood part of the global warming issue,” says paleoclimatologist Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. “And it's not because it isn't well documented in the IPCC report. It is, but it is buried under a lot of other material.”

It doesn't help, though, that past reports from the UN panel of climate experts have made misleading statements about the lifetime of CO2, argue Archer, Caldeira and colleagues. The first assessment report, in 1990, said that CO2's lifetime is 50 to 200 years. The reports in 1995 and 2001 revised this down to 5 to 200 years. Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere's CO2 levels elevated for millennia. Even as CO2 levels drop, temperatures take longer to fall, according to recent studies.

EDIT

https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122

[LT Barclay]

5. The last round of this Bullshit was called the "wise use" movement.

"Wise" meant industry led policies.

Republicans are all fascist pigs. I don't trust anyone who would put an R behind their name or vote for one of them.

[rurallib]

6. bribery and corruption - it is all they know

[TheBlackAdder]

7. More like RATIONALE Environmentalism: Will I still be alive then the Earth floods & catches fire?

[sakabatou]

8. Bullshit. They'll just give more money to coal and oil, while cutting renewables and nuclear

[not fooled]

9. They put more effort into coming up with that duplicitous name

than they will to conducting any "rational environmentalism," which taken literally would mean stopping ecocide.

Wonder how many $$$$$ consultants and focus groups went into coming up with that name.

[TheFarseer]

10. I've never heard a conservative climate policy

What is it? I thought their plan was to not have a plan because nothing is the matter?

[EndlessWire]

11. They are fooling themselves.

This is bullshit republican gobbledygook. The World Meteorological Organization states that we have increased CO2 production to 150%. This is something that we cannot reverse. We currently cannot meet the goal of reduction of global warming.

"...Our research and development needs to be focused on the types of energy resources that each country has and in the United States one (sic) of those is gas and oil..." Oh, really. How utterly stupid can you get.

We don't need to assign reasons or guilt to what is happening to the climate. We only need to realize it is really happening, and implement rules to reduce greenhouse gases pdq, not spew out crap justifying the continued exploitation of natural resources such as this stupid plan to favor the already rich.

We need some oil, to hedge our defense industry, but everything else should switch to renewables as fast as possible. Couple this with new technology to deal with the fast-changing environment. Adaptability has always been a hallmark of a survivor.

But, it's nice to know that they only intend to continue the enrichment of the oil companies. What a plan. Individuals need to forge ahead on their own. Continue to switch to electric cars and solar power. Continue to make sound decisions without their input, because clearly, they are stupid beyond belief.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

23. I find it amusing to read it when people (on our side) act like the only purpose of FF's is to

'enrich' the fossil fuel companies.

As it stands right now, if aliens showed up with a machine that stole all the earths fossil fuels overnight, probably something like 4B people would be dead within a month or two.

Liberals generally really, really undervalue the fact of how much fossil fuels are keeping humanity alive, and their existence is in fact the reason that most of us were ever born in the first place.

Not saying we don't have ourselves stuck in a Faustian bargain, or that nothing needs to be done to combat climate change, but ... it's not JUST 'profits!!!' ... it's our friggin lives.

Most of us would be straight up DEAD without them. That's why WE as a species ... extract them, and then use them.

We have no other practical choice at this time. And we may, in fact, never have a real choice without a massive population reduction on the planet.

[EndlessWire]

28. I disagree.

Pretending that continued extraction of fossil fuels is in the interests of 4B people is short sighted. At the least, these people pushing "our interests" are really just speaking for economic privilege which they control.

The emphasis should be on new technology. Already, we are seeing changes that we have no control over. What good is any amount of oil and gas if the climate is going to overwhelm us? We, as a species, much less what each country has to exploit, should be creating alternate forms for every needed energy, which don't rely on that which we will run out of no matter what we do. We should stockpile oil for heavy lifting in industries that have those needs in which oil is irreplaceable. The rest should be replaced with alternate forms of energy.

If you don't try, you can't do. We do have choices, or we can proceed to make new choices. When you find yourself floating out to sea on a raft, it will be too late. You weren't born to fill the pockets of oil barons. You were born to advance the interests of humanity. Joy in the morning includes solving problems. Climate change is a big problem, and reduction of greenhouse gases is all our responsibilities.

Do you honestly, in your heart, think that pushing extraction of oil instead of finding new solutions is anything but protection of an oil company's best interests? You think they are up there wearing white hats with Bibles clasped to their breasts? OMG, that would be a first. Power, money, and the US above all other countries is what they are about.

You'll notice that they are not embracing a world collective of combatting climate change. Also, we could reduce dependence on other countries and avoid subjugation of our power to countries predisposed to wielding power over other countries. That would be a goal worthy of free thinking individuals.

I'm sorry if I amused you with my ideas of finding workable solutions. We cannot reduce CO2 emissions below pre-industrial levels EVER. Long before we finish sucking the life blood out of the Earth, we will be fragmented into pockets of humanity eeking out a suboptimal existence, wishing we had paid attention while we could. And whether we like it or not, no matter how funny we think it is, this is reality for our children and grandchildren. And great grandchildren.

We have to do something, and it doesn't include doing nothing, which is the option presented by the Republicans. Just keeping on won't cut it. I mean, this is an embarrassing comment by an adult, fcs. Just embarrassing.

The Republican energy plan sucks. It blows in the worst way. Luckily, people have independent wills to move on without them.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

30. Let me sum it up

I don't think there's any actual 'solutions' to avoiding climate catastrophe that don't involve absolutely massive reductions in the 'standard of living' that a huge % of the world's population is accustomed to, and the population of the world being reduced by numbers that are in the BILLIONS, and that reduction happening ... really pretty soon.

So when I hear/read people saying that the only reason we continue down this road with FF burning is to 'protect profits of the corporations' ... I fundamentally disagree.

We do so because HUMANS WANT TO LIVE COMFORTABLY ... NOW.

As opposed to not dying, soon ... poor, and starving.

I don't think a lot of people admit to themselves that the only reason that vast majority of us are here in the first place, to be upset about climate change ... is because fossil fuels allowed them to ever actually exist in the first place.

My belief is we will continue to avail ourselves of the cheap energy provided by 10's of Millions of Years of Ancient Sunlight that was trapped by plants and animals and stored under the surface of the earth, for our brief exploitation, as long as the EROEI is a positive number.

When it's tapped out, billions of people will die, 'life' will return to being a massive day-to-day struggle for 98% of the remaining population as it was for most of our history. 98% of what the 98% will be eating and drinking is what was grown/raised within a few miles of their current locale, etc.

And it's going to be way hotter on average, with a much more savage and unpredictable climate.

Thinking we have an actual alternative, that could save our 'way of life', and support 7B+ humans ... is wishful thinking.
I think we want to think there's a 'way out' if not for 'the bad guys' ... but's actually totally wrong. There's not. 50 years ago? Maybe. Not anymore.


MHO, you're welcome to disagree.

[EndlessWire]

31. I do disagree.

But, I have more of an interest in doing something constructive, not appearing at a world summit and throwing in the towel. Your hedonistic viewpoint fails to take into account that the planet can become uninhabitable long before we run out of oil. And. I believe that the number will be closer to 12 B...

We have to change our way of thinking about "desirable" life styles. Our children can do it. This isn't about us. It's about them. You and I are going to be long dead, and they will be stuck with what we created. Reduction of greenhouse gases is a desirable goal.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

33. Not saying it's not a desirable/laudable goal ...

But I disagree on this:

"that the planet can become uninhabitable long before we run out of oil"

What actually really matters is when we START to run out of oil as a world. When that happens, the matter of climate change will be relegated to the dustbin of importance to society.

I think that happens long before this place is uninhabitable, in fact I think it's in the next 10 years.

Honestly the more compelling argument for alternative energy is that ... this fuel isn't gonna last forever, we gotta make other plans now.

Depletion of FF's will happen sooner and rapidly become a much, much more urgent problem when it starts.

But yeah, we do have to change our thinking, as you say. Like ... DRASTICALLY simplifying in a way that almost no 1st person-country-living human can possibly imagine w/o it being spelled out in brutal fashion to them.

There is not another way to keep living as we're living, with THIS MANY people, and so many of them living so high on the hog, energy-wise ... without exploiting massive amounts of FF's every single day.

And ultimately that's why we're stuck where we are. Oil companies are simply selling us what we all need to live.

It's cause there's not another way that allows us to continue living like this. They're profiting, sure. But so are all of us.

[dalton99a]

12. The target date for their "transition" plan is 200 years from now

[purr-rat beauty]

14. oh bullshit

Conservative has become an oxymoron for these morons, they want to burn it all down for the holy dollar

[StClone]

15. "Rational Gun Laws" too as our kids die by them more than any other country

"Rational" is the "Clear Sky" euphemism for lies.

[Yavin4]

16. Don't they still owe us a healthcare plan?

Granted. I haven't checked for it in a while.

[Mr.Bill]

17. I was led to believe they were going to focus 100% of their efforts

on impeaching Joe Biden and investigating Hunter's laptop.

I wish they would make up their minds.

[airplaneman]

18. How can a rational person make any sense of this article

"So one of the things we ought to be doing is not attacking oil and gas but be attacking the emissions associated with it to where it can be indistinguishable from other renewable energy technologies to where it can be an arrow in the quiver as we try to address our objectives of energy, affordability, reliability, cleanliness, exportability, and securing the supply chain."

I would assume snapping your fingers would accomplish this goal!

"We better not have a higher cost for our solutions than the problem itself.

Hell never change the status quo please!

Crenshaw said the U.S. should allow the oil and gas industry to expand

The most brilliant solution I have heard to date for climate change - do I hear double, tripple!


-Airplane

[KY_EnviroGuy]

19. "Rational" to republicans means profitable and nothing more.

When climate change causes about ten market crashes, then they will start to care.

Thanks for the post, Groundloop.

KY

[OldBaldy1701E]

21. Big Oil has its fingers deep in our government, doesn't it? (n/t)

[dembotoz]

24. the return of beautiful clean coal mined in America

not that dirty coal mined elsewhere.

[yonder]

25. Sounds a lot like "compassionate conservatism":

It's just another cheap handle from their handle factory.

[Mysterian]

26. All of a sudden, it will be "rational"

to destroy the biosphere.

[maxsolomon]

27. "...those types of fuels can can still be part of the energy transition to a cleaner energy system."

umm... they are. no one is banning the use of oil and gas; the plan is to REDUCE use.

i don't see how battery-powered jet travel is going to work, or battery-powered rockets.

[Marthe48]

29. fingers crossed this is moot

and the r's are muted.

[tclambert]

32. Rational environmentalism? Here its is: 1) Stop burning fossil fuels, 2) Start massive program to

remove carbon dioxide out of the air and sequester it somehow.

And when I say, "Stop burning fossil fuels," I mean 100% of fossil fuels as soon as possible. Converting to other sources of energy will take decades, which means we will, best case, still put many millions of tons more of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which is why #2 is necessary . . . and we have no current technology to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere on the scale required. We only have a few demonstration projects that don't show much promise for scaling up to the massive, massive program required.

Therefore, the really rational policy is to 3) Accept we are headed for a climate catastrophe, and kiss Florida and New Orleans and Bangladesh goodbye.

[markodochartaigh]

34. Rational; to be profitable

Thank you, I will update my Newspeak dictionary.

[louis-t]

35. Another stupid repug saying. Like 'compassionate conservative'.

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah. Say one thing, do another. Once the money starts flowing from the oil industry, they will forget all about it.

[ck4829]

36. So non-solutions and character assassinations in shiny packaging, like "hardening"

[Beartracks]

37. Wow, another new way to say "status quo"!

Who are they trying to kid? Republicans' climate change plan looks like their inflation reduction plan, which looks like their health care plan, which looks like this:

.
.
.
.

=============