US environment chief draws fire on global warming

[jpak]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-07-26T204459Z_01_N26444475_RTRIDST_0_CLIMATE-USA-EMISSIONS.XML

WASHINGTON, July 26 (Reuters) - The Bush administration's environment chief drew fire on Thursday from Democratic senators for delaying a decision on whether to let California regulate global warming emissions from cars and light trucks.

Stephen Johnson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has said the government will decide this question by year's end, two years after California's first request to set state air quality standards stricter than national rules.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who heads the Environment and Public Works Committee, told Johnson at a hearing she found the delay incomprehensible.
Reuters Pictures

"I fail to understand why it should take the agency until December, a total of two years, to decide this waiver request. In 30 years, EPA has granted over 50 waiver requests and has never denied one. ... Deciding this issue should not take so long," Boxer said.

<more>

[jdlh8894]

1. 35 Years ago

People waited in line for fuel. And the "New Ice Age" was the point of the time. Things happen with the planet we live on and there is not a thing we can do about it.JMHO

[amitten]

2. Things happen naturally. But we have sped up warming

due to our gigantic output of CO2 into the air. A natural warming might take a thousand years. Studies prove that since the industrial revolution we have sped up that warming to take only a hundred years.

The planet can't adapt that quickly. This is why so many ecosystems are now breaking down before our very eyes. And if they go, eventually we go.

We need to do whatever we can to at least slow the warming. This is within our power.

On edit: Also, just because climate predictions from 30 years ago were inaccurate doesn't mean that they're inaccurate today. Science has come a very very long way since then.

[jdlh8894]

4. How many sodas

did you open or buy as a fountain drink today?Where do you think that CO2 that makes it fizzy comes from? There is more CO2 emitted from one fast food place in a lunchhour than 1 18 wheeler in a day.

[jpak]

6. Welcome to DU!

:evilgrin:

[jdlh8894]

7. Thanks!

I usually try to keep my keyboard (mouth) shut,but some things really bother me.

[hatrack]

10. Maybe you should stick to your usual behavior

Oh, and by the way, do you have any scientific citations, papers or peer-reviewed research on how it was going to be one big ice age back in the 1970s?

I'd just love to see it.

No rush, whenever you're ready.

[jdlh8894]

11. Time Magazine

June 24,1074

[hatrack]

12. Time Magazine is peer-reviewed?

Sorry, try again!

[Dogmudgeon]

13. Time's archives don't go back to 1074

Not June 24th, anyway.

--p!

[jdlh8894]

16. Sorry

Excuse slip of finger.

[Dogmudgeon]

32. Me, too -- I shoulda used an emoticon

I didn't get back here intil a few minutes ago -- half a day!

It's a good thread, though.

--p!

[jdlh8894]

14. And another

denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[hatrack]

17. Yes, Denis Dutton, the philosophy professor

Tell me, does Dr. Dutton have a publication record in such peer-reviewed journals as Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Eos or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences?

Or does he just pontificate for hack industry-funded Astroturf groups like the one linked to here?

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=33 (he's listed near the bottom as an affiliate).

[amitten]

8. What is your point exactly? All CO2 emissions that aren't

unavoidable need to be reduced. If you can't reduce one source, you can reduce another. It's still helpful.

And I don't drink soda.

[jdlh8894]

9. But it's still CO2

Right?

[amitten]

15. So, we shouldn't reduce any CO2 emissions because of soft

drinks? I guess that is your argument but I don't think it's a good one. There is of course CO2 in soft drinks but this is hardly the bulk of what is being put into the atmosphere.

CO2 is also exhaled by every human on the planet. But of course there is no way to cut down on those emissions! So, we are focusing on those that can be cut down and still make a noticeable difference. There is no way to eliminate all greenhouse gases, but we can and will reduce the big ones. We can improve efficiency of cars and power plants and make a big change for the better. It will help slow the warming until we can get a better handle on it.

People much smarter and higher up than you and I are now actively working on this. You don't have to participate or even believe in it. Your life personally will not have to change in any way. So have your soft drink and concentrate on something else you care about...the grown-ups are getting global warming under control.

[jdlh8894]

19. Thank you for being condesending

#1 There is NO Such thing as Global Warming ! # 2 As far as being a grown up,I'm 54 years old. #3 I spent 23 years with the USDA (SCS) so I know from where I speak(type).

[amitten]

21. You're an adult but you're uneducated on this particular subject.

If you were fully educated on it, you would never question it because it has been proven to be true by thousands of qualified scientists. Repeatedly, and over the course of more than 20 years. But I don't need to convince you. Changes are being made with or without your help.

Also, if it doesn't exsist, why are you even bothered by the whole concept? If it doesn't exsist, don't worry yourself about it, okay?

[jdlh8894]

24. Concept?

So it's now a concept and not proven fact?

[amitten]

26. No, it is a proven fact. If you want to fight over semantics then

fine. My choice of wording doensn't make global warming any less real. Wish it could, though.

[jdlh8894]

27. Would like to discuss this longer

But,I have to go. I hope you appreciated some of the things I said. Didn't mean to get you upset.

[amitten]

28. I'm not upset. Just tired. It's like trying to convince people that

the world isn't flat. No matter how much proof there is or how credible, people just believe what they want to believe.

Not much I can do about that. So rather than convincing people that refuse to believe the obvious, I focus on doing what I can to make changes myself.

[jpak]

18. No it's not. The CO2 in the soda pop is carbon neutral

It is rapidly removed and released back into the atmosphere.

It's no different from CO2 the photosynthesis/respiration cycle - it does not increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Trucks release fossil carbon - and lots of it per day - that's what is accumulating in the atmosphere and causing global warming.

The quantity of CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels (7+ billion tonnes C per year) dwarfs the use of CO2 in the beverage industry.

The rest of the nonsense about global cooling is just that. There was NO scientific evidence or consensus that the Earth was cooling into another Ice Age in the '70's.

It's ignorant RW claptrap.

and Ted Kennedy rules...

[amitten]

20. This thread is getting hilarious. Global-warming deniers can't

even understand the most basic of principles regarding CO2 cycles. They only know how to repeat the rantings of an equally uneducated radio show host. It's like arguing about religion when you've never even read the Bible or any other religious book. How can you argue about something when you're basically completely uneducated?

Really, it's a waste of time. Better to focus effort on the thinking types who have actually done their homework.

[jdlh8894]

23. Just gave you my credentials

Don't even thought I brought religion into the conversation.If you don't like what I have to say, then just say so.

[amitten]

25. Your credentials don't show that you are fully educated on this

topic.

The point about religion is that a lot of people that argue about it aren't even educated about it. Same goes for global warming. You can't argue about a subject when you only know a small fraction of information about it.

I believe in God...even though I don't have "proof" God exists. What I find interesting is that so many people who believe in God (with no hard proof) DON'T believe in global warming (with tons of hard proof). Just an observation.

Once you've read all the available and credible literature on the subject, we can talk. Until then, I can't argue with you because you haven't been fully educated on the subject. The USDA is not a climate think tank, so I can't consider that a qualification.

[malakai2]

30. Wow, it took a long time for someone to mention the carbon cycle

Too long, IMO. Seems like if people don't start with an understanding of natural sequestration mechanisms, coal, oil, natural gas, and peat, then they are vulnerable to the cow flatulence and sunspots theories. Or the "It's happened before, and we didn't drive it then, so we can't possibly be driving it now" fallacy.

[Eugene]

31. Are you sure about those numbers?

Let's do some back-of-the-envelope math...

Given:

* 1 gallon of diesel fuel yields 2778g of CO2. (EPA)
* Let's assume 6g of CO2 per liter of soda
  (~5.6781g per 32oz drink)

A gallon of diesel fuel yields the CO2 equivalent of about 489 32oz sodas.

* 2778 / 5.6781 = 489.2482
* Let's assume that a typical Class 8 diesel truck burns the minimum
  1.25 gallons/hour idling. We are around 612 sodas.
* Let's say that truck idles 6 hours a day.
  (6-8 hours are commonly cited statistics.)
  That brings us to about 3669 sodas.

Assuming a 90-minute peak lunch time, that's approximately 2 sodas
every 3 seconds, and the truck hasn't gone anywhere yet.

* Let's assume that this truck gets 6.5 MPG and goes 400 miles
  (~61.5 gallons used).

2778g * 400 / 6.5 = 170953.8462 grams of CO2 or about 30,108 32oz sodas.

Altogether we have a soda every 2 seconds for 18 hours.
That's one busy fast food joint!

[phantom power]

3. The community of climate scientists would beg to differ with you.

[Imperialism Inc.]

5. You can have your humble opinion.

Me, I'll take facts and research instead.

[CabalPowered]

22. So the Montreal Protocol on CFC's wasn't necesary?

Just as Kyoto isn't necessary?

[amitten]

29. Here is something for you to do in your free time.

Take a look at this site:

www.realclimate.org

It has some good up-to-date information from credible sources. There is a list on the far right of the page that gives links to different climate study groups.

If you look at the people listed under "Contributors" you can have a look at their credentials and what they are up to.

Also, you may want to click on the "Start Here" button at the top. It gives a basic overview for those new to the study of climate change.