Beer Monday: A Shift In The Global Warming Debate

Monday! The start of a new work week. Time to get busy, shift a few paradigms, revolutionize outside the box. How ’bout a beer?

 

Someone has slammed a few six packs at the New York Times, which is the only think that can explain how this article got published

The charged and complex debate over how to slow down global warming has become a lot more complicated.

Most of the focus in the last few years has centered on imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to prod energy users to conserve or switch to nonpolluting technologies. (snip)

But now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.

The economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, stated the case bluntly in a recent article in Scientific American: “Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people.”

Mr. Sachs goes on to say we need radically new low carbon technology. It would probably help if we killed 2 billion people and ate them, as Ted Turner suggests, too.

But, there you have it: the Grey Lady says that the carbon capping idiocy would damage economies. Who could imagine that stifling business and throwing huge new taxes and burdens on them could do something like that?

Proponents of treaties and legislation that would cap emissions don’t disagree with this call to arms for new, low-carbon technologies. But they say the cap approach should not be ignored, either.

Of course they think the cap approach should not be ignored, because somewhere along the line it means money in their bank accounts through payoffs and carbon trading pyramid schemes.

One of them is Joseph Romm, a blogger on climate and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit group pushing for federal legislation to restrict greenhouse gases.

Notice that there is no link to the Center for American Progress? I wonder if it could have anything to do with it being a progressive think tank, which the Times failed to mention.

Somehow the story ignores the fact that CO2 concentrations keep going up, yet, the global climate has remained fixed since 1998. Go figure.

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, WayWard Fundamentalist Christian, A Blog For All, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Blue Star Chronicles, Oblogatory Anecdotes – Photoshop Montage/Open Trackbacks, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, and Chuck’s Place, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Beer Monday: A Shift In The Global Warming Debate”

  1. John Ryan says:

    ummm
    many people already see the economy as damaged.
    And with gas and diesel at 4 bucks a gallon I’m guessing that less will be used then if it was at say 2 dollars per gallon

  2. Good on you, Sarkozy!…

    Today French President Sarkozy has put pressure on China to open up or else……

  3. Rosemary says:

    Sorry it took so long. I was just noticing that I forgot to tb some of my links! Oh my!

    I really like the new look. 😉

  4. Ain’t no thang, Rosemary!

    Preciate the feedback on the theme.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8953 access attempts in the last 7 days.