global warming

  • November 18, 2011

    by Jonathan Arogeti

    “Cap and trade is not going to happen next year, or the year after that, … or the year after that,” recalled the former staff director and chief counsel for the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, paraphrasing President Obama’s forecast for climate change legislation following the 2010 midterm election.

    Gerard J. Waldron, now a partner at Covington & Burling, opened a recent ACS panel discussion, “Global Warming and Political Cooling,” with a reflection on the Obama administration’s efforts to combat this problem. In June 2009, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which according to The New York Times was the first time either the House or the Senate had approved legislation “meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.” That summer’s apex of optimism only gave way to the “great failure” that was the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. And by the following summer, the Senate still had not taken up the bill.

    Against this backdrop, environmental groups are looking to new local, state and regional legislative efforts along with enforcement of national legislation already on the books to combat climate change.

    Environment America, one such group, released a report on restoring “momentum in the fight against global warming.” According to its estimates, the United States could reduce emissions standards by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 34 percent by 2030 by adopting clean energy policies that include increased CAFE standards.

    “Wherever we can get emissions reductions, wherever we can get them quickly, wherever the public support exists, we’re working to do that,” said Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America’s Washington, D.C. office. “We’re going to have to actually enact comprehensive climate legislation, but there is a ton of stuff we can do to reduce tons.”

    She points to these “incremental steps” that will bend the emissions curve downwards and ultimately allow this country to wean itself off of oil. “We’d like to live in communities where people’s houses use no net energy except for the energy that they produce themselves on site, where they can get to work or school or play through alternatives other than driving, and if they have to drive, that their car can plug into the solar panel on the roof.”

  • October 23, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Jim Ludes. Mr. Ludes is the Executive Director of the American Security Project, a bipartisan national security think-tank in Washington, DC, and blogs regularly on ASP's Flashpoint Blog.

    "God bless America!" That's all I could think to say when I heard the story of Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, a veteran of the U.S. Army who last week branded as traitors anyone with the temerity to disagree with him on policy. I sought God's blessings as a plea for divine intervention to save us from our worst-selves.

    The email from Representative Metcalfe has been circling the Internet since he sent it. It is breathtaking. At once he dismisses climate change as nothing more than "leftist propaganda." Then he asserts that any veteran advocating action on climate change is "a traitor. . . . " He then goes on to remind readers that Benedict Arnold-the Revolutionary War general who sought to betray West Point to the British-was a veteran too.

    I'm assuming that Mr. Metcalf is talking about the kind of treachery obvious in quotes like this:

    By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.

    Or maybe it's this:

    The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity
    to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

    Or maybe it's this:

    . . . Common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy.

    I can understand why Mr. Metcalf would want to expose the purveyors of this kind of "leftist propaganda." So let's expose them right here-on this blog. The propagandists who cobbled together the above are none other than the Republican National Committee. (See page 35 to be precise.)

    So let's take this head-on. Climate change or global warming is real. Mankind is contributing to it significantly. The consensus of the scientific community is overwhelming in this regard. Even Mr. Metcalfe's fellow Republicans concede the reality of climate change.