I saw Roland Chessman’s post last week Would you follow the money? In this he points out the US reticence to ratifying Kyoto. But it seems US President Obama has other Ideas. But Roland did not mention Obama’s election platform was to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. Ratified or not Kyoto aims are not even that strong
Here is an article today in entitled “US Climate Czar: CO2 Regulation Ruling To Come Soon” In this it reproduces a Dow Jones Newswire story, which says
President Barack Obama’s climate czar said on Sunday the Environmental Protection Agency will soon issue a rule on the regulation of carbon dioxide, finding that it represents a danger to the public. The White House is pressing Congress to draft and pass legislation that would cut greenhouse gases by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, threatening to use authority under the Clean Air Act if legislators don’t move fast enough or create strong enough provisions.
Carol Browner, Obama’s special advisor on climate change and energy, also said the administration is seeking to establish a national standard for auto emissions that could mean tougher efficiency mandates for auto makers. The new standard could be fashioned after strict proposals developed in California that would limit greenhouse gas emissions – initiatives that car makers have vigorously fought.
The comments – the first by the administration on the topic – could lead to another blow for beleaguered car companies such as General Motors and Ford that are already tottering.
Industry fears it could shut down the economy, not only preventing plants from operating and spurring a dramatic retooling of the energy sector but also pushing up costs and hurting the international competitiveness for a raft of sectors. Environmentalists, meanwhile, say action by the administration is required by law and need to pressure lawmakers to act.
Looking at the debate from another perspective. It seems not everyone including many scentific communites are aligned on the premise itself that Global warming is man made. It is asserted that 94% of the carbon in the atmosphere has the same isotopic signature as the natural background. 6% is of an organic origin, fossil fuels included. Half of that organic source, 3% is what the IPCC itself says man is contributing.
This chart sourced from Anthony Watt’s who leads an excellent forum on scientific fact and opinion to understand climate issues in “Watt’s up with that This chart is included in his “The madness is about to begin” post.
I wonder what Al Gore is thinking this morning? He would be breaking out the chapagne for sure. And the US car makers I imagine will now be booking tickets to visit China to find out how they and the rest of the world are already making green efficent cars.
But all that aside, what does all this mean for business? Regardless of the vested interests, who Roland says don’t want to retool or invest in alternatives and continue fight for more mileage on setups they control, it seems is is all going to happen. The money will be spent and the climate will be changed. Albeit some would have it only adversely on economic climate.
So with Executive power about to be exercised on a “no turning back platform” to delver on, it seems the debate is resolved and we will cut emmisions regardles. The the impetus to clean up the planet with the US now leading must be a good thing from many other perspectives too and business and economies involved in the energy to do this will surely benefit.
I am interested in what others think too.