The Post ran an editorial, “Cap and Return: Fight the recession or fight global warming? Congress can do both,” that is as confused as it is well-meaning.

The Post supports strong action now, but they recycle a new inactivist talking point — we need to modify or weaken our climate strategies because of the recession — they seem astonishingly unfamiliar with the policies that are currently being discussed, and they embrace a climate proposal that simply won’t work. Let’s run through it:

… the looming recession will lessen the political will in Washington to pursue policies that would add costs to doing business or take money out of the thin wallets of consumers.

Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have committed to putting a price on carbon-burning fuels such as oil and coal through a cap-and-trade system of declining emissions allowances that would be auctioned off to polluters. We agree with Mr. Obama’s plan to auction 100 percent of the allowances to reach the goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. But how to accomplish this without exacerbating the recession? No problem. Return to the American people every penny of the trillions of dollars expected to be generated by these sales.

Exacerbating the recession? The people who write editorials for major newspapers really ought to know better.

Is it possible that the next president and Congress would agree to and enact a cap-and-trade system that even starts constraining emissions before 2012? No.

Heck, none of the major bills on the table actually lowers emissions from current levels for two decades (see “Dingell and Boucher draft climate bill: Likely no CO2 cut until near 2030” and “Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill update: Probably no U.S. CO2 emissions cut until after 2025“). Just how long is this recession going to last?

And returning ever penny is an equally questionable strategy, but before commenting on it for the umpteenth time, let’s see what else the Post says about it:

Read more

Andy Revkin has written a very fair-minded NY Times piece, “If Elected … Candidates Agree on Need to Address Global Warming.” He notes:

Both candidates say that human-caused climate change is real and urgent, and that they would sharply diverge from President Bush’s course by proposing legislation requiring sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury.

Such rare agreement has both industry and environmental groups expecting a big shift, no matter who is elected, on three fronts where the United States has been largely static for eight years: climate legislation, expansion of nonpolluting energy sources and leadership in global talks on fashioning a new climate treaty.

But, he notes a change after McCain’s early leadership on climate change:

But in recent weeks he has taken heat from some environmental activists for statements on the stump implying that he might not seek mandatory emission cuts. His campaign has not said how the ailing economy would affect his climate agenda….

Mr. McCain would also initially allow businesses to meet all their emission targets either directly or by buying a kind of credit, called an offset, generated by, say, a landowner who can prove fields or trees are sopping up a certain tonnage of carbon dioxide or a business that can prove an investment avoided emissions that would otherwise have happened. His Web site says the fraction of emission reductions allowed through offsets “would decline over time,” but offers no specifics. Calls and e-mail messages to the McCain campaign were not answered.

It is astonishing that the McCain campaign apparently has no desire to elaborate on or walk away from rip-offset provisions that completely gut his climate proposal (see “McCain speech, Part 2: Relying on offsets = Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic“).

Then Revkin gets to the headline quote:

Read more

Wildfires in Southern California this week “destroyed more than 50 homes and forced thousands of residents to flee.” “At least two deaths have been confirmed, more than 10,000 acres have been scorched, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency.” Just one week of bringing three wildfires under control cost over $12 million. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) rightly recognized that this problem is only going to get worse with global warming:

As the climate warms and wildland fires become bigger and more intense, a rapid response is critical to prevent the spread of fires.

And yet, as the San Jose Mercury News reports, “The Bush administration has failed to outfit massive California Air National Guard cargo planes for firefighting duty despite pressure from the military and elected officials—a delay that could have grave implications as the state confronts the worst of its wildfire season.” In April, Schwarzenegger told Bush it “would be reckless” to not have these aircraft ready. In July, more that 1,700 wildfires burned across California, at a cost of greater than $200 million. And October and November bring the peak of the southern California wildfire season, with Santa Ana winds fueling potentially catastrophic conditions.

Of course, Bush has not only made fighting wildfires harder by his mismanagement of the National Guard, but also by his reckless inaction on global warming. The San Francisco Chronicle explains the vicious wildfire-global warming cycle:

The risk of catastrophic wildfires like those that swept through the state the past two years is expected to increase as the world heats up, forests dry out and weather patterns shift, forestry experts said.

Studies have shown that fires in general are burning hotter and bigger and that fire season is coming earlier in the year. A recent study by NASA predicted lightning will increase about 6 percent as the amount of carbon dioxide doubles.

Research by the U.S. Forest Service shows that the average number of trees killed by fires increases due to a warmer climate and consequently less snowmelt. The data were bolstered by UC Davis scientists who have reported significant changes in weather patterns over the years, including less snowfall and more rain in the Lake Tahoe Basin contributing to drier forest fuels and more severe fires.

“It’s a vicious circle,” Pfister said. “Global warming leads to dryness, more fires, more health effects, more dead forests and less vegetation to take up the carbon. And this all adds to more global warming.”