NASA’s chief climate scientist, James Hansen, is calling for a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants, saying it’s the best way to get global warming under control.
“There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants until the technology to capture and sequester the (carbon dioxide emissions) is available,” said Hansen.
But he told the National Press Club this week that no politician of either party is willing to propose it.
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius proves his point.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
56 Comments
…..yawn…..
Shameless (verifiable) LIAR………yawn….
…yawn…
(Can’t comment, sleeping…..)
Oh, im awake…
Build Nuclear!!! We need more nice clean Nuclear Power…
Add on to Wolf Creek, they (Wolf Creek) is already asking the government for an expansion license. They could either add on to the existing plant or build a new one within, i think, 4 miles.
Tony: Sounds logical to me.
Hansen is only a scientist; what can HE know. Damn communist probably believes the earth is roung too. And revolves around the sun instead of the other way around. And that we really did put people on the moon.
Damn wacko!
Heck, they can just buy some carbon offsets and they’ll be just fine and feel good about it. Yep, that’ll take care of it.
Actually SOB, that is a good idea.
Yeah, the best part is how it makes people and companies feel better regardless of the effect.
Wrong SOB. Purchasing credits then requires the seller to cut back. That is the whole idea. Kind of like what is done with sulfur on the Exchanges.
Makes about as much sense as putting a cap on temperatures.
….like anyone can control such a thing.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm
It maybe to late now, seems National Geographic just came out on the side of GW being a hoax. They just released that Mars is going through the same GW and its due to flux in Solar cycles as many “deniers” have thought all along. Seems there have been many many heating and cooling periods evidence.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Now that is perhaps the real “inconvenient truth”.
mrbill, just read your linked article, and would respectfully suggest it doesn’t support what you post.
For those interested, the article linked is a two page news report about a “theory” advanced by a Russian scientist, and contains many links to opposing views. I note with interest that the National Geographic takes no stated position with the content of the article, but is merely reporting upon the Russian contrarian and rebuttals.
Thanks VT – this is OLD news and has been thoroughly debunked. mrbill’s comments would be like saying “The Wichita eagle believes … ” based on something on the Blog.
Vaughn,
Maybe Bush can invite the Russian contrarian to the White House and praise him for his scientific work — you know, like he did with the “scientist” Michael Crichton after he wrote the book _State of Fear_.
Of course by the time anyone can confirm that the GW experts were correct, most of us will be dead and buried. That is the advantage of putting out of these types of long range theories. Objectors or Supporters won’t be around if the theories are proved right or wrong.
Not really sunspot. If you would read the literature you would learn that even an old man like me will see the beginning effects take hold. (Actually they already are). Younger adults will see it big time. And our grandkids will be cursing us for making it happen.
Exactly, Ben.
What I find interesting in this “debate” is that hardly anyone denies a general warming; the discussion is about human contribution thereto, the rate, etc., all of which gets swept up in the phrase “global warming”. Even the Russian contrarian admits to a warming, just disputes the cause, and suggests a subsequent cooling.
I read the common man literature and it is rubbish on both sides and the scientific literature makes my eyes cross. The dispute as far as I have read on is what is causing the global warming. Sad if we do something about it and all the scientasts are wrong, sadder if we don’t do anything about it and the scientists were right. I guess someone will be wanting another portion of my checkbook so they can do whatever, but I wont see it.
Subsequent cooling is in all the models I have seen. Problem is – significant deleterious warming by mid-century with deleterious effects on rainfall patterns etc. Cooling only after several thousand years as we enter that phase of Milankovitch.
sunspot,
We’re ALREADY seeing the effects of AGW — Arctic ice melting, Greenland, Larsen-B ice shelf collapse, pine-bark beetles, etc.
Climate is non-linear. If humans push climate past the “tipping point”, natural positive feedbacks could greatly accelerate warming.
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen.
sunspot – in the scientific literature you will find consensus that it is man-caused. I’m sorry that you find reading so difficult that your eyes cross.
Maybe these guys can help – a bit technical but quite simplified:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
and links therein …
Ben: I believe you are in favor of nuclear over coal and for sure over natural gas.
Using natural gas for power plants of course drives up the cost of natural gas for heating homes and depletes that resource sooner.
But my question is about the source of coal. I believe coal is shipped here on long trains from Wyoming and possibly from southeastern Kansas. Wherever coal is mined, this operation must do a lot of damage to the environment there. Do you know anything about that?
And also the long 100 or more car trains winding there way on a circuituous route across Kansas must create a myriad of traffic problems. But I haven’t heard of any new railroad routes being constructed in Kansas for many years.
Anyone have any thoughts on these questions?
JWink, I posted some ethanol and grain water usage figures for you on the thread below.
“sunspot”?
You need to credit your source.
Your posts here are lifted VERBATIM (look it up) from Rush Limbaugh 2 28 07.
Well..
Why do we need ANY new power plants? Aside from replacing older dirtier ones I mean.
There are no brownouts or blackouts or shortages.
There IS unbelievale waste and great potential in conservation.
No new plants unless they are needed or cleaner!
Basically agree with you JWink. Nuke over coal or nat gas. The coal companies CLAIM that they do a good job of land restoration; however observation, both in the west and also back east, show that to not be true. And, of course, rail issues with the huge unit trains.
Gas – agree that it should be reserved for ’site’ uses. Liquid petroleum – valuable as a feedstock for chamicals.
Of course, I will also join cosmos and call for wind, efficiency, conservation etc.
I still say the greatest source of energy is conservation. There is so much waste.
But Ben?
I KNOW you are a scientis an advocate for the environment.
Nuclear (NEW KLEE UR mr. bush) power scares the hell outta me. It is selfish and short-sighted to meet our energy needs with a technology that creates a waste that is dangerous ……forever. At least in human time perspective.
But if you could put me onto some reading that would allay my reservations, I am open minded enough to consider it.
mrbill – that’s ONE Russian scientist’s controversial theory. Why would you believe one scientist over a worldwide community of scientists?
Oh, I dont know, maybe its a lot like that evolution thingy theorem.
Another theorem to look at.
JR – there was a good article in Technology Review a while back – sorry no link. One point I make with my nuclear scenario – I rely on RECYCLED nuclear material. Decommissioned warheads back-mixed with depleted uranium. This would convert highly enriched weapons grade to lower enriched fuel grade. So, no net “NEW” nuclear material.
Think swords into plowsheres.
(By the way, I agree with you on conservation. But, I also want to REPLACE existing fossil-fuel plants)
Any reduction in demand will reduce price.Any reduction in price will increase demand.
If the United States, through some miracle, reduces its demand for carbon-based fuel, the rest of the world will take advantage of the lower prices.
No net change in carbon use is possible.
It won’t happen folks, it is not possible through regulations or international treaties.
A scientific breakthrough, perhaps, but it won’t be mandated by government.
J R – You need learn how to wipe your butt properly and not worry what I say or get my sources! I did not use any Limbaw surce. That is from me and what I read from newspapers on the net!
You need to take a flying f#cking leap into history, Sunspot. What a sophamoric post.
Paul Fecon101 Rosell?
It is ALREADY happening. That is what this thread is about!
Oh and you forgot your footnote. Relax, I got it.
*”Econ 101″ is Paul F Rosell, broker in fossil fuels securities and leases. Follow the money to Pauls opinion.
JR”No politician of either party is willing to propose it” —that is what opened the thread, is it not?
Try to read the Eagle post before you tell me what it says, OK JR?
BenThe last UN synopsis says that the previous UN report overstated mans contribution to any warming, did it not?
1.) Is warming really happening.2.) Is man the cause of any warming?3.) Can man stop any warming that is taking place?4.) Should we stop any warming that is taking place? (Is it worth the price to take any action, what is the cost/benefit analysis?)5.) Can US action, alone, make a real difference?6.) If international action is necessary, how can any anti carbon treaty be enforced? We cant enforce weapons embargo against Saddam. (Russia and France ignored that one.) We cant get other countries to help us stop illegal drugs.The desire to stay warm in winter, cool in summer and to get to and from work is at least as strong as the desire for a joint, don’t you think?
Any carbon tax will create a black market, domestically.
Any reduction in U.S. demand will reduce international prices will increase international demand.
Countries who deal with high poverty rates will not starve their people for the Limo Liberals.
It wont happen.
We will be using more carbon 20 years from now, globally, than we use today!
Paul F. Rosell,
TXU recently cut the # of new coal plants they wanted to build.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/02/28/02282007waccoalplantreax.html“[State Rep. Charles “Doc” Anderson, R-Waco] gained attention during the coal fight by filing legislation urging the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to consider a six-month moratorium on the permitting of coal-fired power plants.
Now, he said, the state must look at crafting a long-term energy strategy that balances energy needs with environmental concerns.”
“NASA’s chief climate scientist, James Hansen, is calling for a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants, saying it’s the best way to get global warming under control.“There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants until the technology to capture and sequester the (carbon dioxide emissions) is available,” said Hansen”
Paulie? I do believe there was a case in Texas the other day where the building of coal fire power plants was stayed if not stopped. cosmos is better with the links on that. I’ll let him bludgeon you….again.
Hey Paulie?
Go get a copy of Melissa Eheridge’s “I Need to Wake Up”
Train’s left the station Paulie. It’s gonna run you down.Oh and ’sunspot”? Your post is verbatim from Limbaugh. And not any more truthful coming from you. You might like to work on your spelling before you shoot off your post at me runt.
PAUL F. ROSELL.
“The last UN synopsis says that the previous UN report overstated mans contribution to any warming, did it not?
1.) Is warming really happening.2.) Is man the cause of any warming?”
Do yourself, and all of your “financial planning clients” a big favor by CAREFULLY reading this PDF,http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
WOW cos!
Got here BEFORE I needed you. LOL
sunspot
I am not sorry I had to rap you on the nose. If you are going to come here and spout Rushism I am going to bust you on it. Your reactionary 8:08 post shows I hit home. THINK for yourself man! Don’t let Rush think for you. He’s thinking about Rush and nothing else.
JR
There is a “global warming” fight out there.
Dont tell me what defeat or victory looks like in this debate, since you are too egotistical to care about anyones motives aside from your own bitterness.
This global warming battle will do very well for Republicans, over the long run. Think back JR.
Remember how many of you defended Democrats against the Republican charge that you wanted to raise the tax on gasoline?
That gasoline tax was a real tough one for you Dems, it hurt you in several elections.
I dont think that the political left will be able to pass anything close to Kyoto. Kyoto, itself, would not make a dent in global carbon consumption. The “science” which “backed” Kyoto has been modified and changed are revised so much, that only a MORON can conclude that any of the projections that the UN gives NOW wont again be revised in the next report.
So, now the UN says that man’s contribution to warming is lower than the UN previously told us. When the projections were WORSE —Clinton could not get a Democrat Congress to pass Kyoto!
So now, the UN projections dont look as bad, mans contribution to the “problem” has been reduced, and you think the world will pass something MORE restrictive than KYOTO?
And, JR, if by some miracle the left does enjoy some legislative success on this issue, it will be to YOUR ultimate doom.
The public will rebel.
By the way, I agree, “follow the money.” How much coal production is there in Texas, compared to natural gas and oil? It is rather large amount, actually:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/tx.htm
My guess is that that coal will continue to be produced, it will simply be shipped to another state. This, of course, will require MORE energy to transport this coal out of state.
Read my premise carefully: I do NOT claim that you leftist wont pass any eco-nutty legislation. I simply state, flatly, that no legislation that you EVER pass will ever make any positive difference in climate.
Texas will ship its coal overseas if it has to.
My guess is that the politicians who oppose coal will feel the wrath of the coal workers in the next election. By the way, ENRON was very big in the green movement, since restrictions on coal benefited natural gas.
The politicians who supported the coal restrictions in TX will be vulnerable if they took oil and gas money.
Many of them did.
I love it when Paul rants.
You can SMELL the desperation!
PAUL F. ROSELL,
You really are CLUELESS on this issue. It’s CHEAPER to reduce carbon emissions.
‘Let’s set the eyes of Texas on efficiencyIf state thinks big, it beats coal’http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4561108.html“The fastest, cleanest, least expensive way to ensure Texas has the power it needs is for TXU and other utilities to help their customers lighten the load in the first place. That means a comprehensive strategy to invest in money-saving energy efficiency initiatives that cut customers’ bills and reduce emissions instead of saddling them with billions of dollars in debt to build old-school generators.”
And many big business leaders opposed new coal plants in TX.
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/021707/texas_20070217047.php“If cities do not meet federal air standards, the federal government could cut off some of its $3 billion in annual highway funding to Texas and impose severe restrictions on residential and commercial energy useBecause those restrictions could disrupt business and industry, several business groups – like the Texas Business for Clean Air group – have joined the opposition to TXU and the coal plants.”
Heh heh
I’ll hold him you hit him cosmos.
Hey Paul? When a GOP shill like yourself starts telling me what is good for Democrats? I TEND to take it with a shaker full of salt.
You might want to check out the thread about the GOP trying to co op environmental issues from the Dems. They know that issue is rising in importance.
Oh but you already knew that. You don’t LIKE it. But you know it.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“So now, the UN projections dont look as bad, mans contribution to the “problem” has been reduced, ”
Paul is lying again/still. The IPCC report only DELAYS humans impact on climate, due to thermal inertia of the oceans, and masking by aerosols.
And Kyoto was never intended to be the total solution — it’s only a first step to focus attention, and start moving in the right direction.
And Paul… perhaps one of your “financial planning clients” could read Sir Nicholas Stern’s report, and explain it to you?
He says it’d cost much less to cut human-added greenhouse gases now, than to deal with the very expensive consequences later.
Many links here,http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/11/another-week-of-gw-news-november-5.htmlFrom the Sunday Herald (link expired): “It’s no longer just scientists and environmentalists worried about humanity who are demanding urgent action, it’s bankers worried about the bottom line.”
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“That gasoline tax was a real tough one for you Dems, it hurt you in several elections.”
Only the CLUELESS believe that what they pay at the pump is the TOTAL price of gasoline. How about MANY more $’s a gallon?
There are MANY HIDDEN COSTS — military, subsidies to oil companies, loss of jobs, economic penalties, etc.
2003 NDCF report, hidden costs add $5.28 per gallon.http://www.iags.org/n1030034.htm
2006 update, add $8.35 per gallon.http://ndcf.homeip.net/ndcf/energy/NDCF_Hidden_Cost_2006_summary_paper.pdf
Outdated 2002 estimate,http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200203/lol4.asp“Environmental, health, and social costs: $12.00 [added per gallon]”
MTBE pollution, cleanup, etc? Not to mention what the Exxon Valdez did to the fishing industry in Prince William Sound.
And, re coal-fired plants, and carbon taxes,
‘California moves quickly to block new coal-fired power plants’http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/california-moves-quickly-block-new/story.aspx?guid=%7BF5E4FC79-220C-41D1-84EC-CEFD87139FD5%7D “California utility regulators on Thursday plan to end the state’s financial support for building new coal-fired power plants in other states until technology is developed to capture greenhouse gas emissions from such plants.”
‘Business leaders welcome Bush climate change nod’http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/24/davos.climate.reut/“Bush declined in his annual State of the Union address to support mandatory caps on heat-trapping carbon gases that big U.S. companies such as General Electric have pushed for, …”
Paul F. Rosell, the ‘Stone Age’ did NOT end because humans ran out of stones. The fossil-fuel age WILL end soon.
Instead of recognizing the obvious – that global warming is fast reaching the tipping point where it becomes irreversible (and disastrous) – the Bushites continue to keep their heads up the tailpipes and smokestacks of the industries pumping out the greenhouse gases that cause the unnatural warming.
So, we’re doomed, right?
Not necessarily. While Washington foolishly fiddles, officials at the state level have been springing into action. Unlike the White House, state leaders are up close and personal with the effects of global warming – ranging from declines in the production of some crops to having to plan for rising sea levels along their coastlines. So these officials have gotten serious about restricting the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases coming out of vehicle tailpipes, which is the second largest (and fastest growing) source of global warming gases.
California has been in the lead and has now adopted a rule requiring that, ten years from now, cars and trucks there must have technology in place reducing the emission of these gases by 30 percent. Oh, scream the auto makers – this will cause marketplace chaos, car sales will cease, the sky will fall!
The industry refuses to support any restriction on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide, instead rushing to court to stop the California rule and require that only the federal government can regulate these gases. Of course, that would maintain the status quo of do-nothingism. One environmental lawyer, noting that the whole world is moving to stop such emissions, says: “We are going to become the dumping ground for the dirtiest cars made in the world. China will have more stringent standards than the U.S. in 2010.”
This is Jim Hightower saying… Meanwhile, eight states – from Connecticut to Oregon – have also adopted the California rule. To help get your state moving, call the Union of Concerned Scientists at 617-547-5552.
So why doesnt Hightower, a PROMINENT Texas Democrat, write to governor leadership and tell her to get on board?
Oh, that’s right. She’s not a real democrat…
An informative read on the issue,
‘Coal plants get burnedAs concerns mount about climate change, getting new coal-fired plants built is harder than ever for American businesses.’http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/01/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_coal.fortune/index.htm
heheheh Not in Kansas cosmos.
Not with the hand in glove relationship Steve Miller has with Governor Leadership and Joe “Darth Cheney” Harkins.
Other than folks in Lawrence and Salina, there are no elected officials in Kansas opposing this coal fired plant.
The fiddlers three are too busy fiddling their dirge for the Kansas environment.
Oh, and I’d look for the chair of the ellis county dems, glenn staab, at the bottom of the garbage pile getting governor leadership to buy into sunflower electric’s folly.
And you can also look for mischief from steve irsik, the chair of the kansas water board, big time irrigator, and leading contributor into governor leadership’s coffers.
Oh, and did I mention the governor’s go to girls on irrigation? Janis Lee and Sharon Schwartz?
Ya gotta hand it to steve miller. His ass kissing has finally paid off….
heheheheheheheheheh
Looks like there’s more opposition to Holcomb outside Kansas than in.
http://www.kansas.sierraclub.org/Issues/EnergyFacts.htmsee page,”Forces Outside Kansas Oppose Holcomb1) 8 state attorneys general oppose Holcomb.2) Colorado Report says Holcomb Not Needed, Too Expensive.”
Maybe rate-payers will realize it’s a bad plan when their bills INCREASE in a few years? It’ll be too late then tho…
Well gosh, cosmo, governor leadership says her hands are tied.
The other states? They at least use their voices.
Who tied the gag over less than chatty kathy’s mouth when it comes to coal fired plants?
Steve Miller or Steve Irsik?
Poor, poor, powerless governor leadership. I guess she has no access to the same bully pulpit OTHERS have.
Or maybe she just cant piss off her campaign donors? Like steve irsik, john bird, glenn stabb, et al.
“Paul F. Rosell, the ‘Stone Age’ did NOT end because humans ran out of stones.”
THAT has to be one of the best statements I have ever read on this forum!