| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Unions, Citing Jobless Concerns, Oppose Kyoto-Style Legislation |
| 2003-09-17 |
| Article is posted in today’s Human Events. It is included as an example of why Enviromentalists have not been more sucessful in gaining support for Koyoto within the Democratic Party Is the Lieberman-McCain climate change bill a good idea? Union members certainly don’t think so. On September 9, a coalition called ’Unions for Jobs and the Environment’ (UJAE) circulated a letter in opposition to S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. The Teamsters, Boilermakers, Electrical Workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the Utility Workers Union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the United Transportation Union, the Transportation and Communications International Union, the United Mine Workers, and Marine Engineers all urged senators to vote against the bill, denouncing it as "a bad idea." Along with pointing out that there are no "off-the-shelf technologies to reduce CO2 emissions," the UJAE said passing S. 139 would be "tantamount to adoption of the Kyoto Protocol"--a treaty, the unions note, that was officially rejected by the AFL-CIO in 1997--because it would cost "American jobs and economic opportunity." "It is vital to the health of the U.S. economy," the unions wrote, "that the diversity of fuel use be maintained. Currently, most electricity is generated with coal, followed by nuclear, natural gas, and hydro. "We are concerned that the burden created by S. 139 would fall disproportionately on coal, thereby making the economy more dependent on other fuels, particularly natural gas--a commodity experiencing substantial price escalations. Viewed in this context, S. 139 is simply a bad idea." It should also be noted that, in addition to its devastating economic impact, Lieberman-McCain would do nothing for the environment. Just look at Kyoto, which is more far-reaching than Lieberman-McCain. Altero Matteoli, Italy’s minister for the environment and territory, said on July 7 that, "Within the framework of [Kyoto], we will manage to reach a 2 percent reduction in emissions at best, but we all know that we need to halve greenhouse emissions world-wide by 2050 in order to prevent further damage to climate." Now, even if one concedes that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the overwhelming causes of global warming, according to Matteoli, the world would have to reduce emissions by 50 percent to have any effect. Put another way, the world would need 25 Kyotos (or a lot more Lieberman-McCains) to reduce temperatures to an acceptable level (whatever that may be). The Energy Information Administration said one Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion annually. Even using (at a minimum) a linear calculation--which is dubious--that’s a lot of money for nothing. Mr. Catanzaro is Communications Director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Disclaimer: since leaving the US Navy I have worked in supervision in a conventional power plant, a forging facility and now in an automotive assembly plant (that is unionized.) I am not a supporter of Koyoto for a multitude of reasons that you may consider valid or invalid depending on your own leanings. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #3 Here is my standard global warming rant: I have a multi phase plan to fight carbon dioxide emissions. Phase one is to identify morons who insist on spouting global warming doomsday rhetoric. Phase two is to point out to them that the process of animated preaching leads to excess carbon dioxide emissions from their pie hole. Phase three is to do my part to combat their negligent generation of hot greenhouse gases by taking direct action. I plan to let my grass grow a half in higher until they shut-up. While carbon dioxide is generated during combustion, the gas is heavier than nitrogen. The high percentage of carbon dioxide produced will tend to fall in the atmosphere. This effect should trap heat very near the surface of the earth, probably near my ankles. If residents of the United States are prevented from growing their grass higher by the prescribed half inch by the draconian edicts of their local homeowners association, I suggest they compensate for the added ankle warmth by wearing thinner socks. Note - every bit as much science went into my arbitrary creation of a half inch grass mandate as went into the Koyoto Treaty. If we really want to decimate our economy, we should enact really austere carbon dioxide limits on all industry that we want to export to the third world where production the same industrial processes can be run without any restrictions on greenhouse gases. Lets raise minimum wage by a buck also so that every kid in America can practice on a Play station all summer instead of getting an entry level job. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-17 5:42:47 PM |
| #2 Belgium is also figuring out Kyoto's a ringer. But at this point in time they're stuck w/it. So is Canuckistan, full implementation by 2012(?). Am not looking forward to being sandwiched between 2 3rd world countries. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-17 4:43:59 PM |
| #1 There is increasing evidence that the world is in the midst of a known variable cycle of solar output. There's an indicator that we have already peaked, and are on the downward side of that cycle. There's also evidence that the known solar cycle is only a small part of a series of other cycles that sometimes reach maximum and minimum at the same time, causing extremes of both heat and cold. The latest satellite data indicates we're beginning to cool off after one such maximum. I'd wait a bit to see if they're right, and if additional data supports the theory. Unlike "Global Warming" scientists, most reputable scientific groups and individuals understand that when the data doesn't match the theory, you change the theory. Global warming, despite all the hype, is still just a theory. I've always wondered, too, how CO2, which makes up less than three percent of all greenhouse gasses, had so much control over the environment. In my thinking, water vapor, which accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gasses, would be a more likely candidate. I guess, though, that it would be harder to convince the 'man in the street' to give up water than to give up "some" CO2 generation - I.E., internal combustion engines. Neither makes a whole helluva lot of sense. It seems the global warming whiners want to tame the problem using techniques they know won't work, so they can impose more drastic restrictions. Kinda like taming a lion by trimming his mane. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-17 2:31:33 PM |