Point of no return approaching for global climate!

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science

/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

Lets hope the Bush administration doesn't continue to sabotage

international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. We need to get with the program on this immediately.

[DrSmellThis]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm[

/url]

[a.k.a.]

This is very disheartening.
If

only 5 degrees seperate us from the last ice age, 11 degrees sounds like Hell on Earth. When you consider that

current climate changes (which have already proven catastrophic for polar ecosystems) are the result of a .6 degree

shift (from pre-industrial temperatures), even the low estimate of 2 degrees could be more than our current social

structures can manage.

I think if we’re waiting for Bush to get on board with this issue, we’re

already doomed.
I don’t see how anything short of an international social upheaval can save us. And frankly

I don't have that much faith in human nature.

[CptKipling]

I agree, we are in a lot of

trouble.

[DrSmellThis]

Glad to cheer everyone up.



Hopefully people will learn enough to wake up and demand that our politicians act. Corporations who do the damage

won't change without "legal incentives."

[DrSmellThis]

[url="http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1154"]http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=1154[/url

]

[DrSmellThis]

February 6th, 2005 7:47

pm
Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth

Floods, storms and droughts.

Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers, oceans turning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last week that

dangerous climate change is taking place today, not the day after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then, says

Geoffrey Lean, read this...



The

Independent

Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable world, are

likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of 2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could

have sleepwalked into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed human civilisation to flourish over the

past 11,000 years - they may well identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.
Last week, 200

of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters

at Exeter - issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change is taking place, and that time is

running out.

Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to control global warming, comes

into force after a seven-year delay. But it is clear that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.

The alarms

have been going off since the beginning of one of the warmest Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri -

chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference in Mauritius that

the pollution which causes global warming has reached "dangerous" levels.

Then the biggest-ever study of climate

change, based at Oxford University, reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the IPCC's worst

predictions. And an international task force - also reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by his close ally,

Stephen Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no return" in a decade.

Finally, the UK head of

Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just before his company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling oil,

one of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless governments take urgent action there "will be a

disaster".

But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters, incongruously set in a dreary

industrial estate on the outskirts of Exeter, that it all came together. The conference had been called by the Prime

Minister to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous climate change". He needed help in persuading the world to

prioritise the issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of economic powers.

The

conference opened with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant

impact" from global warming "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations from top scientists and

economists from every continent. These showed that some dangerous climate change was already taking place and that

catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now seen as likely (see panel). Avoiding the worst was

technically simple and economically cheap, they said, provided that governments could be persuaded to take immediate

action.

About halfway through I realised that I had been here before. In the summer of 1986 the world's leading

nuclear experts gathered in Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian delegation

showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly found ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor

core.

It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper followed learned paper, once again a

group of world authorities were staring at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.

I am willing

to bet there were few in the room who did not sense their children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their

shoulders. The conference formally concluded that climate change was "already occurring" and that "in many cases the

risks are more serious than previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely does justice to the

sense of the meeting.

We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has lost almost

half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the

weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than those - such as earthquakes -

that are not.

We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after the sand eels on which

they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to

global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.

Worse, leading scientists warned of

catastrophic changes that once they had dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful

evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid,

threatening all marine life (see panel).

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey,

presented new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt, threatening eventually to raise sea

levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the IPCC's last

report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I would say that this is now an awakened

giant."

Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the shutdown of the Gulf Stream,

once seen as a "low probability event", was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200.

If it comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a climate

like Labrador (which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up: if it comes later it could be

beneficial, moderating the worst of the warming.

The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger,

mirroring the attitude of the climate science community as a whole: humanity is to blame. There were a few sceptics

at Exeter, including Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year called the Kyoto

Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is much easier to find sceptics among media pundits in London or

neo-cons in Washington than among climate scientists. Even the few contrarian climatalogists publish little research

to support their views, concentrating on questioning the work of others.

Now a new scientific consensus is

emerging - that the warming must be kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if catastrophe is to be

avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change,

below 400 parts per million.

Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding 370ppm and rising,

but experts at the conference concluded that we could go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought it

down rapidly afterwards. They added that this would involve the world reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 -

and rich countries cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.

Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If

action is put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20 years, it will cost

between three and seven times as much.

The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by cutting

energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the

air) to turn into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and - maybe - using more

nuclear energy.

The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested the cost would be about 1

per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20 years; another suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold increase

in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe combatting global warming would increase prosperity, by

bringing in new technologies.

The big question is whether governments will act. President Bush's opposition to

international action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader

with the best chance of persuading him to change his mind.

But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced

by the President than the other way round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for the pollution reductions

needed in favour of agreeing on a vague pledge to bring in new technologies sometime in the future.

By then it

will be too late. And our children and grandchildren will wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift

into the First World War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"

WATER WARS

What could happen? Wars

break out over diminishing water resources as populations grow and rains fail.

How would this come about? Over 25

per cent more people than at present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the future, and

global warming will make it worse.

How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said that the

next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.

DISAPPEARING NATIONS

What could happen?

Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu - with highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will

disappear off the face of the Earth.

How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are rising,

partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the water in the oceans expands as it gets warmer.

How

likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today, the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some

small islands have already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.

FLOODING

What could

happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities and vast areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh

disappear under tens of feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.

How would this come about? Ice caps in

Greenland and Antarctica melt. The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the West Antarctic

ice sheet by another 15ft.

How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year reported that

the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take hundreds of years, however, for the seas to rise that

much.

UNINHABITABLE EARTH

What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the world's

whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much hotter and less hospitable planet.

How would

this come about? A process involving "positive feedback" causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point

that finally tips the climate pattern over.

How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past.

Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule

it out.

RAINFOREST FIRES

What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon,

go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife habitats and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to

speed global warming.

How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that much of the Amazon

will dry out and die within 50 years, making it ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it

ablaze.

How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right. Already there have been massive forest

fires in Borneo and Amazonia, casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.

THE BIG

FREEZE

What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder because the Gulf Stream, which provides

as much heat as the sun in winter, fails.

How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the

North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the underwater current which the Gulf Stream needs.

How

likely is it? About

evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last

week.

STARVATION

What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as rainfall dries

up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.

How would

this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in

southern Africa this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its farms.

How likely is it? Pretty

likely unless the world tackles both global warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will

increase in a warmer world.

ACID OCEANS

What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more

acid. Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will die off. Much of the life of the oceans

will become extinct.

How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon dioxide, the main cause

of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and

shells.

How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the chemistry of the oceans is changing in

ways unprecedented for 20 million years. Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die within 35

years.

DISEASE

What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide every year -

reaches Britain with foreign travellers, gets picked up by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer

climate.

How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry the disease, and hundreds of

travellers return with it annually. The insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.

How likely

is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may happen by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020.

Some experts say it is miraculous that it has not happened already.

HURRICANES

What could happen?

Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate, grow even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's

repeated battering of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to come, say scientists.

How

would this come about? The storms gather their energy from warm seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur

and threaten areas where at present the seas are too cool for such weather.

How likely is it? Scientists are

divided over whether storms will get more frequent and whether the process has already begun.

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/

science/02/11/warming.planet.nasa.reut/index.html

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/scien

ce/02/17/global.warming.reut/index.html

[DumLuc]

solutions

... The need for energy will almost certainly increase the rate of fossil fuel burning. Listed are

a number of proposed "solutions" to combat global warming

[DrSmellThis]

New global warming evidence

presented; Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame
David Perlman /

San Francisco

Chronicle

Washington -- Scientists reported Friday they have detected the clearest evidence yet

that global warming is real -- and that human industrial activity is largely responsible for it.

Researchers at

the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science cited a range of evidence that the

Earth's temperatures are rising:

-- The Arctic regions are losing ice cover.

-- The populations of whales

and walrus that Alaskan Eskimo communities depend on for food are crashing.

-- Fresh water draining from ice

and snow on land is decreasing the salinity of far northern oceans.

-- Many species of plankton -- the

microscopic plants that form the crucial base of the entire marine food web -- are moving north to escape the

warming water on the ocean surface off Greenland and Alaska.

Ice ages come and go over millennia, and for the

past 8,000 years, the gradual end of the last ice age has seen a natural increase in worldwide temperatures, all

scientists agree. Skeptics have expressed doubt that industrial activity is to blame for world's rapidly rising

temperatures.

But records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up -- due,

researchers said, to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants

burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars -- and the effects are clear.

"We were stunned by the similarities

between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim

Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for

rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer

tenable. We've nailed it."

Barnett and other experts marshaled their evidence and presented it to their

colleagues for the first time at a symposium here.

For the past 40 years, Barnett said, observations by

seaborne instruments have shown that the increased warming has penetrated the oceans of the world - - observations,

he said, that have proved identical to computer predictions whose accuracy has been challenged by global-warming

skeptics.

The most recent temperature observations, he said, fit those models with extraordinary accuracy.



But a spokesman for the Bush administration -- which has been criticized for not taking global warming seriously

-- was unfazed by the latest news.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook,

spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."



"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet, and especially in the Arctic, " said Ruth Curry, a physical

oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "and there is large-scale drying throughout the Northern

Hemisphere."

Ice cores drilled deep into the Greenland ice cap show that salinity of the ice at the upper

layers of the cores has decreased sharply due to the incursion of fresh water draining from melting snows on the

surface, she reported, and land ice and permafrost are in decline all around the Arctic. In the meantime, she said,

measurements show that salinity of the ocean waters nearer the equator has increased as the rate of evaporation of

warmer tropical and subtropical oceans quickens.

It may take several centuries for all the ice that covers

Greenland to melt, Curry said, "but its release of fresh water will make sea-level rise a very significant issue in

this century." In fact, she said, changes in the freshwater balance of the oceans has already caused severe drought

conditions in America's Western states and many parts of China and other Asian countries.

Already, the physics

of increased warming and the changes in ocean circulation that result are strongly affecting the entire ecology of

the Arctic regions, according to Sharon L. Smith, an oceanographer and marine biologist at the University of Miami.



Last summer, on an expedition ranging from Alaska's Aleutian islands to the Arctic Ocean above the state's

oil-rich North Slope, Smith said she encountered the leading elder of an Eskimo community on Little Diomede island

who told her that ice conditions offshore were changing rapidly year by year; that the ice was breaking up and

retreating earlier and earlier; and that in the previous year the men of his community were able to kill only 10

walrus for their crucial food supplies, compared to past harvests of 200 or more.

Populations of bowhead

whales, which the Eskimo people of Barrow on the North Slope are permitted to hunt, are declining too, Smith said.

The organisms essential to the diet of Eider ducks living on St. Lawrence Island have been in rapid decline, while

both the plants and ducks have moved 100 miles north to colder climates -- a migration, she said, that obviously was

induced by the warming of the waters off the island.

Another piece of evidence Smith cited for the ecological

impact of warming in the Arctic emerged in the Bering Sea, where there was a huge die- off in 1997 of a single

species of seabirds called short-tailed shearwaters.

Hundreds of thousands of birds died, she said, and the

common plankton plants on which they depend totally for food was replaced by inedible plants covered with calcite

mineral plates. Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the

major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce, Smith said. "What more convincing evidence do we need that warming is real?"

Smith asked.

[DrSmellThis]

[b]solutions[/b

] ... The need for energy will almost certainly increase the rate of fossil fuel burning.

Listed are a number of proposed "solutions" to combat global warming

Thank you

for that. We need to keep possible courses of action in mind, to say the least.

If the powers that be would

accept the science and our responsibility we could make solutions our primary focus. But as the above article says,

the White House still dismisses all the science as "uncertain," without substantive comment.

Truly

frightening.

[DumLuc]

It looks like the

rest of the world is working toward taking measures that President Bush feels are just too costly. I wonder what the

President feels would be a fair price?

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) - Cows and sheep grazing in fields,

joggers' shoes or even the kitchen fridge could all be targeted under a new U.N. pact meant to rein in global

warming.

The Kyoto protocol comes into force on Wednesday in a bid to brake a build-up of heat-trapping

gases that many scientists fear will trigger more heat waves, droughts and floods and could raise global sea levels

by almost 3 feet by 2100.

And tennis balls may be an infinitesimal part of the problem.

Kyoto focuses on

cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, emitted by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars and widely

blamed as the biggest contributor to nudging up world temperatures.


Wednesday, Feb.

23

[img]http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/g/i/ewp_left.gif[/i

mg]


Power companies call on Bush for carbon dioxide cuts

[Netscape

News]
[col

or=#0000ff]

[/color]
What does the Kyoto Protocol actually call for? [Netscape

News]
[col

or=#0000ff]

[/color]
Global warming may stifle that cool summer breeze

[CNN]
[col

or=#0000ff]

[/color]
Learn Why Methane Matters

[EPA]
[col

or=#0000ff]

[/color]
Map: Early Warning Signs of Global

Warming [Climate Hot

Map]




[img]http://cdn-channels.netscape.c

om/g/i/icons/smicon_messages.gif[/img]


Is it time to start worrying about global warming? [Netscape

Community]
[color=#d4480b

]

[/color]
Global Warming Blog: Deal with it

and get on with it--what do we do? [Climate Change

Blog]
[img

]http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/g/i/ewp_right.gif[/img]
The 141-nation Kyoto pact, weakened by a U.S.

pullout in 2001, will also seek to limit a cocktail of five less common gases found everywhere from cows' stomachs

to aluminum smelters, from car tires to household refrigerators.


"There's been much less attention to these

other gases even though some of them are very powerful in their greenhouse gas effect," said Bo Kjellen, a former

Swedish climate negotiator now at the British Tyndall Center environmental think-tank.


"A major problem has

been that it's more difficult to calculate their effect on the climate," he said. "There will have to be much more

focus on these gases in coming years."


One of the gases, sulfur hexafluoride, is estimated to be 23,900 times

more powerful at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, according to the secretariat of the U.N.

Framework Convention on Climate Change.


BOUNCE


Hexafluoride is used to give bounce to some sports shoes,

tennis balls or car tires.


The European Union has draft legislation to outlaw some of the gases, forcing

industry to make upgrades costing hundreds of millions of dollars.


"Most countries are not doing enough to

control these gases," said Mahi Sideridou of the Greenpeace environmental lobby in Brussels, saying that the EU

plans were a lowest common denominator.


Outside the EU, many countries have no legislation on many of the

gases, viewing them as harmless or the best available.


Under Kyoto, developed countries will have to cut their

overall emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.


President Bush withdrew in

2001, saying Kyoto was too costly and wrongly excluded developing countries from the first round of targets. Bush

doubts whether scientists know enough about the climate to warrant Kyoto-style caps.


In 2001 carbon dioxide

accounted for 83.6 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human sources, followed by methane at 8.7 percent

and nitrous oxide at 6.1 percent, according to official U.S. figures.


The other gases -- sulfur hexafluoride,

perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) -- made up the remaining 1.6 percent.


Concentrations of some of

the trace gases, albeit tiny, are rising. Methane concentrations have risen by about 150 percent since the start of

the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.


Farmers worried about global warming may have to get used to

phrases like "manure management" and "enteric fermentation" -- the latter referring to how methane is produced in

the stomachs of livestock like cows and goats and expelled.


FERTILIZERS


Changes in diet or in fertilizer

use can help cut livestock emissions. Methane is also released from sources which include rice farming, rotting

vegetation and coal mines.


Kjellen said the non-carbon dioxide gases would become more important in coming

years when backers of Kyoto seek to encourage developing countries, where energy use is less intensive and

agriculture more important, to sign up from 2012.


"Some of the main problems relating to methane are linked to

the developing countries -- rice fields in India, cattle and so on," he said. Some developed countries have big

farming sectors.


Methane from livestock is the biggest source of greenhouse gases in New Zealand, where 49.2

percent came from agriculture in 2002, more than from energy.


The world is sharply divided about how to axe

some of the non-carbon dioxide gases.


Some, including those used in refrigerants, were introduced as

substitutes for gases that were banned after they were found to be destroying the ozone layer which helps shield the

planet from damaging solar radiation.


The European Union, for instance, wants to phase out use of HFC 134a,

the refrigerant universally used in car air conditioners. The United States, for instance, does not favor some of

the HFC substitutes because they are flammable.



02/16/05 07:56

[DrSmellThis]

All this would be a great issue to write your congress people about.



***
Where have been our compelling counterproposals to the Kyoto Protocol, if it's too "expensive,"

"economically unsound" to implement; or otherwise fatally flawed? Where has our leadership been as the primary

offender?

The primary cause of economic prosperity is stable earth resources.

Period.

You

have to work closely with the planet to create that condition and optimize it.

The two goals are

different aspects of the same thing. We are foolish to the extreme for not recognizing this.

Economic

hardship is contagious from one country to another, ultimately. We are already experiencing this.

There is

only one real piggy bank, and we all live on it.

[DrSmellThis]

By John Heilprin /

Associated

Press

WASHINGTON - Mandatory limits on all U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse"

gases would not significantly affect average economic growth rates across the country through 2025, the

government's says.

That finding by the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Energy

Department, runs counter to President Bush's repeated pronouncements that limits on carbon dioxide and other gases

that warm the atmosphere like a greenhouse would seriously harm the U.S. economy.

Bush has proposed ways of

slowing the growth rate in U.S.-produced greenhouse gases and methods to reduce emissions of methane

internationally. But he rejected U.S. participation in the Kyoto international treaty negotiated by the Clinton

administration — a pact which seeks to mandate reductions in emissions.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked the

EIA to study the possible effects of a proposal from the National Commission on Energy Policy. The commission's

proposed cap would affect energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, methane emissions from coal mines and several

other gases related to global warming.

William K. Reilly, the commission co-chairman and former head of the

Environmental Protection Agency under the first President Bush, said it was an old argument that the economy could

not withstand greenhouse gas reductions. He said both his commission and the EIA have now shown otherwise.



"This is a reassuring set of conclusions," he said.

EIA estimated that the cost to each U.S. household of

using a market-based approach to limit greenhouse gases would be $78 per year, from 2006 to 2025. That would reduce

the gross domestic product in 2025 by about one-tenth of 1 percent, it said.

The commission also had

recommended a 36 percent increase in the average fuel economy for cars and light-duty trucks between 2010 and 2015

and doubling to $3 billion a year the budget for federal energy research and development. In addition, it called for

new tax incentives for gasifying coal and building nuclear plants. Adding those measures to the greenhouse gas plan,

EIA estimated, would reduce the nation's gross domestic product in 2025 by about four-tenths of 1 percent.

[DumLuc]

Well that's some good news and

thank-you for keeping us up-to-date on the issue, Dr.

Unfortunately I don't feel as though our "puppet"

president will be swayed, but at least now a few more of his strings have begun to fray.

And it does set the

stage for a future president to act, if we can elect one who isn't owned by those who are destroying our world.

[belgareth]

if we can elect

one who isn't owned by those who are destroying our world.

There's the rub. Finding one that isn't

already bought and paid for by big business or other special interest groups is the real trick.

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/changing.earth/