At least once or twice a week global warming is the topic of either a House or Senate hearing, whether it’s political interference with the science, exploring coal sequestration, evaluating CAFE standards, or Al Gore making an appearance.
Momentum is building for climate legislation, but as you can tell from the graph below (from John Larsen at the World Resources Institute), the difference in emissions allowed by various proposals is vast. We need to keep tabs on the legislators to guarantee long-term thinking, as well as short-term.
The latest UK Draft Climate Change Bill sets an admirable example of short-, medium-, and long-term thinking. One cumulative target is set (60% below 1990 levels by 2050) and a handful of 5-year budgeting periods are used to incrementally step emissions down.
For summaries and analyses of legislation proposed in our own Congress, there are several resources available. Check out the National Wildlife Federation’s Guide, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s summary of Senate cap-and-trade pieces, and bill-specific analyses by the National Resources Defence Council, in addition an assortment from Resources For the Future – including their most recent and comprehensive comparison and analysis.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
[...] Climate Progress At least once or twice a week global warming is the topic of either a House or Senate hearing, [...]
Thanks for the great links! They are appreciated.
Thanks for writing about this, I missed that article
Climate Progress At least once or twice a week global warming is the topic of either a House or Senate hearing…
I’m not a numbers cruncher like some of you guys, nor would I have access to the pertinent numbers, but consider this: Catalytic converters turn carbon monoxide into [what used to be called ‘harmless’] carbon dioxide. Correct? How much carbon could we save if we banned the things? What would be the trade-off in pollution vs. reducing GHG? Anybody care to wrap their head around that problem?
well written. so easy to understand!
How much carbon could we save if we banned the things? What would be the trade-off in pollution vs. reducing GHG? Anybody care to wrap their head around that problem?