1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush Admin scientists finally admit climate change's "single largest cause"

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Invisible Fan, May 31, 2008.

Tags:
  1. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,680
    Likes Received:
    25,621
    For the crazies...

    White House report backs climate change warnings
    After a court order and four years late, Bush administration scientists issue an assessment.
    By Margot Roosevelt and Kenneth R. Weiss
    Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
    May 30, 2008

    President Bush's top science advisors issued a comprehensive report Thursday that for the first time endorses what most scientific experts have long asserted: that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion "are very likely the single largest cause" of Earth's warming.

    The 271-page report could undercut opposition to the more aggressive provisions of climate legislation, which is to be debated in the Senate next week.

    The Bush administration had long resisted a congressional mandate, the 1990 Global Change Research Act, requiring the White House to report every four years on the science and impact of global warming and other environmental forces.

    A U.S. District Court in August ordered Bush to comply with a 2004 deadline for an updated report, after the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups filed suit.

    Sharon Hays, deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the report did not represent a changed assessment but "a rolling up of a whole bunch of reports on the science, showing that climate change is primarily caused by human activity of the last 50 years."

    The administration had earlier issued reports on the effect of climate change on transportation, agriculture and human health.

    But environmentalists celebrated what they saw as a long-overdue admission from an administration that has been reluctant to join global efforts to curb greenhouse gases, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

    "This report represents a stark shift in what the administration has been saying since 2001," said Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group.

    "For the first time, it has had to admit that global warming is already having clear impacts in the United States, and the impacts are going to get worse even with the most aggressive action to cut emissions," he said.

    The report by the National Science and Technology Council and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program asserts that natural causes alone cannot explain recent extremes of heat and cold, warming seas and an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.

    It also shows that regions of North America could warm faster over the next few decades than the global average. In Los Angeles, heat-related deaths, which averaged 165 a year in the 1990s, could jump to between 319 and 1,182 by the 2080s, the report says.

    The warming climate also will accelerate the spread of diseases carried by water, food and insects. Among the most vulnerable people are the young, elderly, frail and poor, the administration's scientists concluded.

    The few positive effects of climate shifts are outweighed by negatives. For example, warming and higher levels of carbon dioxide are expected to speed up growth of forests and certain crops, but will also increase insect outbreaks and lead to more wildfires, which are likely to take a larger toll on crops, forests and property, the report predicts.

    Warmer, less-snowy winters will decrease winter road maintenance costs, but increased coastal and river-related flooding and landslides will cause more serious problems. Heat spells, the report says, "could cause railroad tracks to buckle or kink and could affect roads through softening and traffic-related rutting."

    The cost of heating is likely to fall, but the increased demand for air conditioning "would require the building of additional electricity production facilities (and probably transmission facilities) at an estimated cost of many billions of dollars."

    Industry representatives greeted the report with a shrug.

    "It's well known that autos represent about 20% of the total in the U.S. of man-made [greenhouse gas] emissions," said Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

    Jim Owen, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, said the power industry "abandoned the science debate years ago. It's universally recognized in our industry that climate change is very real."

    Nonetheless, said Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, the report underscores "the reality and urgency of the climate crisis."

    "Administration officials have spent nearly eight years trying to deny and downplay the science," she said. "They just cannot do it anymore. They are boxed in by court order."
     
    #1 Invisible Fan, May 31, 2008
  2. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    #2 Classic, May 31, 2008
  3. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,821
    Likes Received:
    3,414
    I saw the movie when it was briefly shown. It was sickening to see GM fighting tooth and nail to get these cars back from those it leased to. They then destroyed a bunch of new ones. The car was a plug in total electric car that is just what we need now and the US was far ahead of Japan.

    The executives who did this should be tarred and feathered and be considered traitors to the nation. There names should go down in infamy.
     
    #3 glynch, May 31, 2008
  4. Fatty FatBastard

    Fatty FatBastard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    15,916
    Likes Received:
    159
    Really, glynch? While I'll agree that BATTERY technology, and not electric technology has become the focal point for how we can combat the oil crises, it needed to be cheaper than gasoline, period, for any industry, or person, to accept it.

    Did you buy an EV1 Glynch? That was a suckers move, and I can understand the bitterness.

    Here's the latest battery operated car:

    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w1C44JQU7Pc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w1C44JQU7Pc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

    And that is the saddest thing about bleeding heart liberals. You look at the trees rather than the forest. And if you do it long enough, lightning will strike you.

    My father, who was at Exxon for 35 years, told me a few weeks ago that oil would have to reach a price of $300/barrel before other methods were used. (ie. in the 70's OPEC B.S. they were charging $35/barrel, and Exxon said if it went over $50, it made more sense to use their refineries to liquefy coal. OPEC tried to put it to $70, and Exxon didn't budge.

    Lotus just came out with a battery operated car that can blow by 90% of people. That is where we should be placing our research.

    OH, and btw, both coasts and ANWAR are going to be open immediately. If not for "environmentalists" (and I can show you EXACTLY how much damage the Alyeska pipeline did to the caribou) we'd have this entire thing taken care of, already.

    Incidentally, hippies were against the original pipeline in Alaska before OPEC pulled this ***** in the 70's.

    Kudos to OPEC for remembering the hippies...
     
    #4 Fatty FatBastard, May 31, 2008
    Last edited: May 31, 2008
  5. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,425
    Likes Received:
    5,370
    Nothing we do will put a dent in what China and India does to the climate over the next 30 years.
     
    #5 El_Conquistador, May 31, 2008
  6. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    42,748
    Likes Received:
    6,123
    So you admit human activity is causing climate change?
     
    #6 A_3PO, May 31, 2008
  7. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,821
    Likes Received:
    3,414
     
    #7 glynch, May 31, 2008
    Last edited: May 31, 2008
  8. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    56,654
    Likes Received:
    48,748
    Deep thoughts...
     
    #8 KingCheetah, May 31, 2008
  9. Fatty FatBastard

    Fatty FatBastard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    15,916
    Likes Received:
    159
    My dad worked at Exxon as their environmental supervisor. He worked there for 36 years. Had industries been allowed to do exploratory drilling without Gov't restraints, we would be much more self-reliant on oil than we are now. Believe me, I know more about oil than I care to.

    It would seem that it is YOU who is relying on traditional Lib talking points.

    Batteries are the new technology, and they will replace gasoline soon enough. But it is still more than a decade away, and we are and will be paying the price for those restraints.
     
    #9 Fatty FatBastard, May 31, 2008
  10. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,446
    Likes Received:
    1,114
    There's a winning argument.

    My neighbor's grass is taller than mine so I don't have to mow either.

    Nice.

    How about we look at today and see that we CURRENTLY are the largest producer of CO2 emissions. How about we take the position that we are the greatest R&D country in the world and take lead on in inevitable crisis.

    Or, lets look at it from your capitilization stand point. MANY Americans and people from all over the world are interested in spending money on 'green' technology. Lots of money. Why doesn't an American company realize this trend and build something to satisfy the demand ...and make a crap load of money in the process.

    If an American company had a viable alternative car on the market right now, they wouldn't be able to keep them on lots. But NOOOOOOO, big oil and big auto is too focused on short term gains that they both completely lost sight that the long term market was inevitably going to change ...as it is now. A huge opportunity to make gobs of money is being lost and hopefully a foreign company doesn't beat America to the table for the first main stream alternative fuel car.
     
    #10 krosfyah, May 31, 2008
  11. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,680
    Likes Received:
    25,621
    Admitting it wasn't the problem. Doing something about it was the problem.

    I'm beginning to see a shift from climate deniers into climate fatalists. "Since we're screwed anyways, lets use our money and resources into better and more efficient solutions..." :rolleyes:

    Makes me sick.
     
    #11 Invisible Fan, May 31, 2008
  12. NIKEstrad

    NIKEstrad Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2000
    Messages:
    10,080
    Likes Received:
    3,833
    While the electric car can be significantly curb our oil dependence, it's impact on carbon emissions (and really the topic of this thread) are mixed. Plugging in your electric car to a coal power plant doesn't do too much for the environment. If your source is solar or wind power, it's great, but our ability to utilize those sources are extremely limited.

    Additionally, the ability for the current grid to withstand powering automobiles is dubious. There are currently over 200 million cars in the US -- even in the last 3 years, we've experienced rolling blackouts in parts of the country. Having cars added to that need, especially with relatively new battery technology/poor efficiency, you're likely to see a spike in utility prices and capacity constraints.

    For the electric car to be a really viable option for the masses, you need several things to happen:
    --More efficient electric engines
    --More efficient/larger batteries that are also safe
    --Cleaner grid (a CCS breakthrough would be great)
    --Increased grid capacity

    Breakthroughs in the last two items can mitigate the need for engine efficiency.
     
    #12 NIKEstrad, May 31, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now