Sun editorial:

Priority legislation

Senate climate-change bill far too important to delay until some indefinite time

Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.

It was a narrow vote — 219 to 212 — but nevertheless the House in June passed an energy bill that would set both short- and long-term goals for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming.

Passage was seen as a major victory for President Barack Obama, who has made climate-change legislation one of his administration’s top domestic priorities.

Now it is the Senate’s turn to take up its own energy bill, whose emissions goals are identical to those in the House bill — a reduction of 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.

Leading the charge for getting this bill passed will be Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment Committee. Her intention is to have a bill passed by Dec. 7, the day a United Nations conference on climate change begins in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Boxer must ensure that the energy bill does not get lost in the debate over health care. And she must round up 60 votes. That will not be easy, as Republicans, alarmist as always, say the bill would cost jobs and raise energy prices. Proponents counter that the bill would create millions of jobs in the renewable energy industry.

What will be needed in the Senate debate is facts, not suppositions. One fact for certain is that emissions in this country and in other countries are harming our planet in ways that could become irreversible.

The latest climate-change report is from a scientist employed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. His report, published in the journal Nature this month, documents that the Arctic is warmer than it has been in 2,000 years. The New York Times has reported that Arctic ice has retreated so much that shippers are now eyeing the region as a shortcut between Asia and the West.

This bill is too important to put off until sometime next year, or the next. The Senate should make it a priority and, in our view, pass it with a solid majority to set an example for the rest of the world.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By Future

9/16/09 at 2:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

What did we need another way for Wall Street hedge funds to make money off the little guy.

Cap and "trade" is a gift to wall street
By nez212

9/16/09 at 5:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Its time to kill it and save the country.
By rusty57

9/16/09 at 6:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

When none of the climate models predicted the current cooling the importance of passing this bill now (if at all) is pretty small.
By EdDornlas

9/16/09 at 9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

I fully understand that your paper's politics demand that you publish the party line regarding global warming.

I am writing to remind you that in this age of the internet, actual information about the arctic sea ice extent and the actual historic temperatures in the arctic are available direct from satellite and historical data.

Sea ice extent:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/15/co...

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.p...

Arctic temperatures:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/ar...
By Sunlizard

9/16/09 at 9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

If you all think Washington DC politicians even have the ability to understand the dynamics of climate,than I'll bet you think it is a good idea to kill all our marine life by dumping iron fertilizer in the oceans to eat up the carbon in the air. (being considered by Obama Administration).

Believing that those goons you voted for are going to protect you from the climate is like believing there were weapons on mass destruction in Iraq...
By driver55

9/16/09 at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

I completely agree with this editorial. Senator Reid should use his influence as majority leader to promote the clean energy bill. Not only is this bill essential to cut down on pollution, but we can stimulate job growth in new green energy sectors within the United States. These are sustainable jobs environmentally and economically, since many of them are difficult to outsource. Already, Nevada has seen over 3,600 new jobs (29% growth) in the green energy sector since 1998 (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2007) and could see as many as 11,000 more jobs if the clean energy bill is passed alongside the stimulus package (University of Massachusetts, 2009). Solar and wind would do well in the state, especially considering the demand right over the border in California.

The clean energy bill would also diversify our energy portfolio, leading to a reduced dependence on foreign oil and more stable energy prices. Right now we have all our eggs in one basket, and it's a finite, dirty basket based on fossil fuels. We should pass a carbon cap to add incentives to renewables and save ourselves lots of money in efficiency and reduced extreme weather events in the long run.

Meanwhile, the United Nations predicted in 2006 that the global value of the clean energy market would be about $1.9 trillion. I also read an Associated Press article this month that said China is going to be a $1 trillion market on its own. I want the United States to already be well on its way to producing the next generation of renewable technologies, while also specializing in the technologies we already have, by the time that market reaches its potential.

Finally, the cost of the bill has been determined by three separate independent studies to be quite low. The Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency all calculated the cost to each US citizen would be about a dime per day. More stable energy prices, cutting dependence on foreign oil, moving from limited to renewable sources, creating jobs and new industries here at home, AND cutting pollution on top of all that makes the clean energy bill sound good to me. Don't back off the pressure, Senator Harry Reid. You should vote for this bill.
By EdDornlas

9/16/09 at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

The US Treasury has a different take on the expense of Cap and Trade:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/16/u-...
By EdDornlas

9/16/09 at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here's a CBS report on the cost of Cap and Trade:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/...
By liberalview21

9/16/09 at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

We are already creating thousands of jobs in this country based on renewable energy. Cap and Trade will just kill jobs and shift work offshore.
By NLV-Indep13

9/16/09 at 12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Another government shell game that will do little for the environment but wonders for their corporate benefactors. If we seriously wanted to reduce our use of carbon based fuels and lessen our dependence on imports, an annually increasing tariff on imported oil & coal and an annually increasing VAT on domestically produced oil & coal would have the same effect at much less bureaucratic cost. And by gradually ramping up, consumers & businesses would have time to modify their purchasing plans to accomodate the shift (i.e. produce & buy more hybrids). But of course, Wall Street, GE, & others wouldn't profit nearly as much by something so simple.
By odeman

9/16/09 at 11:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yes the earth is getting warmer. Humans are doing it is pure fiction. The only "facts" they have that humans have caused it is the amount of CO2 in the air has risen as the earth has warmed. Not a word that a scientific fact is as oceans warm they release CO2 into the air. Also downplayed by the panic mongers is the warming has coincided with the earths orbit being closer to the sun and increased sunspot activity which increases the amount of radiation given off by the sun. They also downplay the warmest decade in recent record keeping was the 1930's and that we are coming out of the little ice age that ended in the mid 1800's. Look it up for yourself.

A few scientific facts. CO2 is air for plants. Remove all the CO2 or reduce it enough and the plants die and so do we as plants make the oxygen we breathe. War on carbon has been declared, yet humans and much of the planet are carbon based lifeforms. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 3 ONE HUNDRETHS OF ONE PERCENT. We can have 30 times more CO2 and it would still be less than 1 percent of the atmosphere. The earth receives more energy from the sun in one hour than humans produce in one year. So the sun is just an innocent bystander in this debate? Most of the dire predictions are based on unreliable computer models that have a very poor track record thus far.

The earth is not this fragile thing the propaganda claims it is. If the earth were fragile the first time a dinosauer spit on the ground the place would die. Look at all the violent weather, earthquakes, fires, and volcanic eruptions and the earth keeps chugging along. We adapt and so does nature. Taking more time to examine the evidence will not lead to disaster as the Algores of the world claim. They do not want us to see they hold a weak hand.

One good thing about the current economic mess is that it has slowed any support for disasterous programs to combat "human induced" global warming. It has given many scientists and academics who believed in the cause to examine the evidence and many of them now agree the evidence is not there.
By odeman

9/16/09 at 11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

We all need a clean planet, healthy food, clean energy, a quality education. These and others started out as noble causes but they have been hijacked by those who consider themselves superior to the rest of us. These "legends in their own minds" feel the rest of us are unworthy and too stupid to make the correct choices. Choices that should be made by the "superior" ones. This is what the battle is about, not global warming or junk food.

Yes this sounds like a crackpot idea that the worthies will force us to move into dinky apartments in the city while they plow under the suburbs and small towns as we give up our homes and cars and hamburgers and fries and soda pop. Give this crackpot idea a little thought. Al Gore and environmentalists have claimed the car is the worst invention to ever be inflicted on the planet. Look at the efforts to try and ban or at least tax to death foods the "superior" ones declare junk. Look at how hard the "superior" ones try to stop all development and all new sources of energy. They even fight the green energy options. There are many academics who believe in this so don't dismiss it as some old wacko typing away to pass the time. Keep your eyes and mind open and decide for youselves.