US Congress does nothing after 20 years on Global Warming

[iNow]

An interesting piece on Bill Moyer's. Full video available at the following:

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch.html

 

 

Two decades later, even as the leading scientists in the world have reached a consensus that global warming truly does threaten the planet, Congress still has not passed any law mandating major cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. So this week, twenty years to the day after his first appearance, Dr. Hansen was back to tell press and politicians of some striking similarities between then and now and one crucial difference. "The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb."

 

 

 

BARBARA BOXER: Now, today, you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill, kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it is too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. Well, the status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that.

 

What more is it going to take before we act? What good will money be if there is no where left to spend it?

Edited July 1, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

Sorry guy, this is politics rather than science. No offense intended. I left a redirect in Environment.

[iNow]

No worries, and thanks. I realized that the tone I had originally intended was not what I wound up with after submitting it. I agree with your decision, and apologize for putting it in the wrong box to begin with... "guy."

[Mr Skeptic]

What more is it going to take before we act?

 

A favorable cost-benefit analysis, preferably one which is also favorable in the short term. For example, if the cost of not acting means no (re)election, that would be sufficient.

 

As for longer term effects, consider that global warming is like a Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

What good will money be if there is no where left to spend it?

 

Huh? I don't understand that question.

[Pangloss]

Cool. Incidentally, I happened to be flipping channels tonight, and ran across one of my favorite "perfect" movies -- The American President -- and was amused to be reminded that its central plot point was a bill to "reduce fossil fuel emissions by 20%". The movie came out in 1995 (just long enough to notice the subsequent aging in its actors), and it's also interesting to note the change in word usage (from 1995's "fossil fuels" to today's "greenhouse gases"). Kind of a "no matter how things change..." moment. We do seem to be in a long-term struggle with this one.

[bascule]

it's also interesting to note the change in word usage (from 1995's "fossil fuels" to today's "greenhouse gases").

 

Lately it seems like things have been drifting towards "carbon emissions," which is odd as there are non-carbon GHGs as well (e.g. nitrous oxide)

 

I guess most of the big worrisome ones are carbon compounds (i.e. CO₂, methane)

[iNow]

Huh? I don't understand that question.

 

My basic point was that it seems economics and a desire not to lose money in some tiny subset of the market are the primary murderers of these bills (they get killed by people focussing more on money during the coming fiscal quarter than on life of the planet during the coming centuries).