By Environmental News Service
To fight climate change, the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity Thursday opened a new law institute in San Francisco and announced the dedication of an initial $17 million to the project.
The Climate Law Institute will use existing laws and work to establish new state and federal laws that will eliminate energy generation by the burning of fossil fuels - particularly coal and oil shale
“To meet the challenge, the Center for Biological Diversity has created the Climate Law Institute to extend the reach of current environmental and human health laws to encompass global warming, pass new climate legislation, and reinvent America’s approach to protecting endangered species and public lands,” he said.
“The planet can not afford a single new coal-fired power plant,” said Suckling. “It can’t even afford existing coal plants. Working with partners in government and the environmental movement, the Center for Biological Diversity will ensure America moves beyond coal energy as rapidly as possible. Our lives depend on it.”
The primary goals of the Climate Law Institute are to:
* Establish legal precedents requiring existing environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Protection Act, Clean Water Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act to be fully implemented to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, land management, and wildlife management
* Establish new state and federal environmental laws and policies to rein in global warming
* Ensure all new laws and policies are judged against the scientific standard of whether they will lead to a reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the current level of 385 parts per million to below 350 ppm
* Prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants and coal mines while quickly phasing out existing coal-fired power plants
* Prevent the creation of an oil-shale or tar sands energy sector
* Reverse the deadly process of ocean acidification
* Prevent the loss of Arctic ice cover and likely runaway global warming that would ensue
“Climate change is a crisis we don’t need and can’t afford. It’s time to kick the fossil fuel addiction once and for all,” said Climate Law Institute advisory board member Patrick Parenteau, professor of law at the Vermont Law School.
Initial funding of $6.3 million for the Climate Law Institute has been provided by the California Community Foundation, The Sandler Foundation, The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, and others.” Read more here.
By Dr. Nicholas Drapela , Oregon State University Chemistry Department
My dear colleague Professor Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end. When you have dedicated the bulk of your career to a cause, and it turns out the cause has been proven false, most people cannot bring themselves to admit the truth. It is truly sad to read the rantings of this elderly man and see that they contain neither reason nor truth when compared to the volumes of daily literature being published in scientific journals today on climate change. It is not difficult to refute the words of Professor Hansen.
On the contrary, one feels it is almost unfair. Note that in his piece he never refers to factual data. It is not scientific, but 100% political. He does not use logical reasoning based on evidence, which is what science is based upon. Instead, he employs the following tactics, none of which are relevant to science:
1. The “consensus” card. I feel sorry for this human being. Not only is there no consensus on global warming in the scientific community, but I would wager that MOST scientists have discarded the theory today. Google the Oregon Petition on Global Warming which contains the names of 31,000 scientists who say global warming is essentially an embarassment to science today.
2. Errant, capricious statements. 99% certainty on global warming? This sounds truly more like a senile senior citizen that a lucid scientist. What is he talking about? Where did he get these numbers? Does he not read the scientific literature? I have to presume he does not!
3. A truly desperate, alarmist tone and wording. The global warming “time bomb”, the “present, dangerous situation”, “the perfect storm”, “global cataclysm”, “disasterous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.” These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.
4. Attacking a scapegoat, presented as the very source of evil itself, namely petroleum companies, and attributing the lack of agreement between scientific data and his views to a vast, conspiratorial cover-up by “them”.
5. Ultimatums. Act now or you die. Right now. This very instant. Don’t think. You have 5 seconds to decide. I ask you, is this science or high-pressure salesmanship? But I cannot go on. The piece above is sad but actually a little bit scary to me. Scary in the same way that it was scary when Ronald Reagan was losing his mind in the late 80’s and was still the most powerful man in the world.
The fact that the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute apparently has the inability to use reason unsettles me. I’m worried about Professor Hansen. He evidently lives in a world where he is unaware of reality and only sees what he believes exists. Not only this, but he feels obligated to save modern society today by completely controlling it. “We must all sacrifice for the common good. Progress. Greatness.” The manifesto above sounds more like Lenin, Mussolini, or Hitler than I care to admit. Please, people, don’t base your beliefs on authority no matter who is talking. Base them on reason. Get the facts. There are many places to start, but you are welcome to start at my site. The site is primitive, but will hopefully get you started on the road to your own assessment based on facts. At this site you can find documentaries, other professor’s talks, and references to the primary scientific literature. It’s a start. I urge you: Know the world for yourself.
Senator Joe Barton Opening Statement House Energy and Commerce Committee
WASHINGTON - Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, today made the following statement during the Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing entitled, “The Climate Challenge: National Security Threats and Economic Opportunities”:
“I am skeptical that mankind is causing global warming. I do agree that the climate is changing - that’s self-evident. But because I’m a registered professional engineer, I have a problem with finding that mankind is the cause after I look at all the evidence of the past cycles to see what’s different from this one. The expert IPCC models, unless they’ve miraculously improved them in the last four months, don’t even do a very good job of predicting the past. Half the time they get the degree of change and direction wrong even though they know all the factors exactly. Maybe that’s changed some in the last six months and maybe some of these witnesses can educate me on that.
“We understand that global warming is a theory and it may even be a practical theory, but I’m not yet ready to accept that it’s a theology. Some of the more fervent global warming advocates do take it as theology or a pseudo-religion. When we try to debate the facts, they get intensely upset.
“Global warming advocates believe that humanity’s CO2 emissions harm the earth by raising the global temperature, and they say that only draconian action led by the U.S. will save the planet. The U.S. cap-and-trade group that testified before the full committee several weeks ago supports a proposal that would cut CO2 emissions by 80 percent in the United States by 2050. Again, I’m willing to be corrected, but my understanding is if we cut our CO2 emissions by 80 percent, we’re back to levels we last experienced in the United States around World War I when we had about 120 million people in this country and half of those lived on farms and the per capita income was measured in the hundreds of dollars a year.
“If we do what the advocates say we should do, the econometric models, which I believe are more accurate, almost guarantee two- to three-percent GDP negative growth - in other words, a contraction of GDP - on an annual basis. If you want to launch another Great Depression, do some of the things that result in that kind of contraction.
“Instead of heading back to the Bronze Age, I think we should look to the future for solutions. I think it is possible on a bipartisan basis to do things that actually further the science, further the research into carbon capture and conversion, and accelerate the use of existing technologies like nuclear power and some of the alternative energy sources that we know are zero-emission, like wind power or new hydro power. We can have a bipartisan solution or bipartisan proposal.
“No poor country values its environment more than it values its people’s ability to make a living. It’s one thing to ask industrialized society to do with a little less, but it’s another thing entirely to ask an evolving society not to do at all. If you go to some of the countries in Africa and Asia and some of the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, and ask them to just not have what we’ve taken for granted in this country for the last 50 years, I think we’re going to get a rude surprise about what kind of lives that people want to lead. They’re just not going to do what we want. If the choice is wash your clothes in the ditch or put in electricity that’s generated by a coal-fired power plant so that you can actually buy a washing machine, most nations are going to build the coal-fired power plant. That’s why we need to do things like Mr. Boucher’s bill on CO2 research for conversion and capture, and also do some of the things I’ve already alluded to.
“Suffice it to say I’m very involved in this debate, Mr. Chairman. The process is that we’re going to do the hearings before we move the bill - that is somewhat unique in this Congress - and I appreciate your doing that. I look forward to today’s hearing.”