President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to cut America’s carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 – a goal that most of the world’s scientists believe is vital to avoid catastrophic global climate change. That goal will involve sacrifice, but it is achievable. Using the “bully pulpit” of the White House, Obama will be able to move Americans to make the lifestyle changes necessary to reduce their currently oversized carbon footprint to a trimmer, energy-efficient size by midcentury. His aggressive plan to put the United States in the avant garde of global environmental leaders already has the support of key congressional leadership. Obama’s plan, which will rely on a free-market-oriented federal carbon cap and trade system, also foresees a cut in carbon emissions from U.S.-manufactured cars by 5 percent in 2015 and by 10 percent in 2020. After eight years of the Bush administration discounting the threat of a rapidly warming planet, Obama is keenly aware that far too much valuable time already has been wasted. – Wayne Madsen, Online Journal
Obama promised to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 – approximately a 16 percent cut – and then to cut them an additional 80 percent by 2050. That would mean trimming U.S. carbon emissions to roughly where they were in 1905. Think about 1905 for a minute. There were just 77,988 registered vehicles in the United States, compared with more than 250 million today. Less than 10 percent of the country had electricity, fewer than 5 percent of households had electric clothes washers, only a handful of Americans had dishwashers and no one had air conditioning. Life expectancy was only 47 years, about 30 years shorter than today – although it may have seemed a whole lot longer than that. Reducing America’s greenhouse gases to 1905 levels, even including the substantial energy efficiency gains already made and those projected for the future, would be very costly and require a wrenching transformation of our way of life. – David A. Ridenour, vice president, National Center for Public Policy Research
31 Comments
Obama is a politician. He’ll promise the impossible to get elected. I doubt that he does little more than lip service to attempts on reducing carbon emissions.
Because of environmental concerns we are behind on constructing the electrical generating capacity that we will need in the next few years. Rolling blackouts in the West and i the Northeast are very likely during little Barry’s first term.
Sitting in the cold and dark will make his supporters cranky.
Yeah, co2 at 1905 levels.
Let’s shut down all manufacturing, amusement parks, flying, zero internal combustion engines, no farm animals and no crops above 1/4 acre.
Yeah, that should do it.
We can go back to the dark ages and fiefdoms. Live on roots and berries. Forget about diagnostic medical, that takes energy to do – can’t have that.
This is what the loony environmental terrorists want – the exact goal of Theodore Kascynski – the unabomer – anti-technology.
Anyone here want the likes of cosmos leading the way? You must be mad.
Should it prove man is not causing climate change, the reduction of greenhouse gasses can still only be taken as a positive. Reducing pollution of any kind can only help the earth. David A. Ridenour forgets mans’ intelligence: we’ve come a long way since 1905, and I doubt we would have to backtrack to that technological level.
As a further plus, reducing green house gasses will mean creating jobs. A good thing.
But HLPless, global cooling will make the additional summer wattage unnecessary, won’t it?
You know beber,
I could almost like you, almost. You and I are both suffering from a grave injustice.
Cross Country was one of my favorite channels.
Good Lord! I gave away my radio over it. Cross Country wasn’t the only change. The whole thing became a bland mess. It was still better than what comes over the air, but I just couldn’t continue to shell out a hundred and 25 bucks a year for what I was getting. Thankfully, XM cross country gave me the key to finding many great artists.
I hear ya! I use to come up with an excuse to go somewhere on Saturday mornings just so I could listen to Cross Country until my wife got me one of those XM boom boxes for Christmas a few years ago!
I’ve had XM since it came out.
Oh well, I still have channel 6.
I have no idea what it costs, I have it in the car, truck and even in my motor home. Put it on the same credit card I buy gas with, never look at the itemized bill, I just pay it every month.
I took it out of the car and put it in my popup when I was camped out. Lived in the popup three months this year. Channel six is 60s music, for you who don’t know. I streamed it on the ‘puter at home.
Popups suck when there are tornado warnings.
“[Before fossil fuels] Life expectancy was only 47 years, about 30 years shorter than today.”
All you AGW doubters out there looking for factual evidence, you need to have faith and show some compassion for poor people.
By capitulating to the demands of the AGW believing scientists, you will be helping to prevent poor people from dying off at an old age due to global warming.
If we can get the poor to die off at age 47 due to out-of-reach energy and food prices, we solve that serious problem and do a good deed for all humanity.
Ya’ll See?
If this global cooling trend continues, will we see government regulations requiring businesses to INCREASE the amount of GHGs they release?
“Pro-con: Can Obama keep pledge on carbon emissions?”
He had better or we will fire him and get someone who can.
The days of carefree tearing up the environment are over folks.
Reducing America’s greenhouse gases to 1905 levels,
will be easy once the last American factory shuts down and takes their business overseas.
We won’t need cars because we will have no money to spend anywhere anyway.
Horses might prove to be important again when we shop closer to home (neighborhood).
Outhouses? I’m sure the greens will come up with a reason to restore them.
Perhaps once America stops progressing, and we have birds, lizards, trees, everywhere, we might have to take things a step FURTHER back than 1905.
If GW continues, we may need to revert to the stone age.
Just read what the GW nuts are writing – it could happen.
Here we are again,people are trying to survive just to have enough to eat and the greenies want control of our lives. In my opinion there is no global warming or cooling that man can control regardless of how many regulations the politicians come up with. I will continnue to operate my fossel fuel machines until they are pulled from my grimy hands.
There are those confuse all pollution with CO2 emissions. The earth is the biggest producer of CO2. Pollution comes in many forms besides CO2. Nobody wants pollution in the form of dirty air and water and few doubt the warming trend. It’s the CAUSE that is in question and whether we can do anything about it. We can’t stop the earth from spinning, the wind from blowing or sun from shining.
The AGW crowd tries to accuse the skeptics of wanting a dirty world when nothing can be further from the truth. The skeptics are more concerned about the short term affects of the draconian measures the AGW crowd wants to rush to impose on the already fragile economies of the world.
outlander posted December 19, 2008 at 8:18 am
If this global cooling trend continues, will we see government regulations requiring businesses to INCREASE the amount of GHGs they release?
—————-
The second graph here is outlander’s proof(sic) that there is a “global cooling trend”.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/
Along with lies from Sen. Inhofe (R-Oil), agricultural economist Dennis Avery, and similar scientifically ignorant AGW deniers.
donndublin posted December 19, 2008 at 9:30 am
The earth is the biggest producer of CO2.
——————–
That’s irrelevant.
What’s important is that Earth’s natural CO2 sinks cannot absorb all of the CO2 humans have produced.
That has caused CO2 levels to rise higher than they’ve been in 800,000 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html
Cosmos links to an article pointing out that the the current 10 year cooling period is just too short a period to be valid. OK, fair enough.
To better put the current temperatures in perspective, let’s see the graph contained in this article. Which shows a 2,000 year temperature trend. Here ya go. Interesting.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
cosmos_originally
Posted December 19, 2008 at 10:24 am | Permalink
donndublin posted December 19, 2008 at 9:30 am
The earth is the biggest producer of CO2.
——————–
That’s irrelevant.
What’s important is that Earth’s natural CO2 sinks cannot absorb all of the CO2 humans have produced.
That has caused CO2 levels to rise higher than they’ve been in 800,000 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453291a.html
____________________________________________________
What is that a smoke screen?
“Carbon dioxide variability is almost universally viewed as an oceanic phenomenon, a consequence of the large pools of carbon sequestered there. Changes in ocean circulation, biological productivity, carbon dioxide solubility and other aspects of ocean chemistry have been implicated, but the exact mix of mechanisms IS NOT CLEAR.”
How do you come to that conclusion? I doubt you really understand what your are saying.
outlander posts a link to a paper from this journal(sic),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_environment
Chuckle… So Cosmos, is that 2,000 year temperature graph accurate?
don’t you know outie? when coos’s nuts are in a vice – you know, the facts prove him to be ignorant, he has nothing left to do but attack the source.
Silly rabit.
outlander,
Accurate? There’s no way of knowing, since it’s from E & E.
Have other scientists reviewed, and duplicated their work? You know, that little thing called scientific methodology.
donndublin,
Carbon isotopes and,
‘How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
“However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.”
By all means, let’s go back further. Highest CO2 in 650 million years and still not nearly as hot.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=41&tstamp=200709
‘Does the Loehle reconstruction prove the Midieval Warm Period was hotter than today?’
http://de.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080131103827AAvI6b0
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp
Obama is counting on people being idiots. He is setting a timeline that will not be achieved while he is in office. A typical political trick. Just set a goal and see what happens. If you make it you wonder how that happened. If you fail you hope everyone has either forgotten about it since you left office or if asked just blame the current office-holder.
‘Advocates for Action on Global Warming Chosen as Obama’s Top Science Advisers‘
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121803640.html
What?
Obama’s gonna break his promises?
Wow, that is news!
(Read it and weep Cosmos, your boy isn’t gonna save the world afterall.)