On CO2, don't let debate over science stop us from taking action

Let’s talk about the issue of the science of climate change.

Recently in an interview on CNN, they played a part of a quote in which I said “I’m not a scientist” when asked whether or not emissions from coal plants contributed to climate change.

Here’s what you didn’t hear: I pointed out that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a whole list of things about which there is great certainty, other things about which there is some certainty, and still other things about which there is less certainty. We do know that there has been an increases in greenhouse gas emissions and that some warming has taken place.

According to the IPCC, the exact extent that human-made emissions will contribute to climate change is less certain. However, the remaining uncertainties do not provide a reason to not take action.

Especially when you take into consider the advances that we are making with advanced clean coal technologies to capture and store CO2 from power plants. By focusing on technology to ensure a cost-effective means of meeting new emissions standards, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy independence, create jobs and keep energy costs affordable for American businesses and families.

As the IPCC, International Energy Agency, MIT and others have said: this approach is actually the only way meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale.

Comments

[James Spence]

We don't have any idea yet what clean coal technology is going to cost the ratepayers. With the Cap & Trade thing that obama has proposed, it would appear in the not to distant future, ratepayers could be paying 20-25 cents per kwh for their energy. Can our economy and our citizens handle this. I think not!

[Megan from ACCCE]

James:
Actually, we have a pretty good idea what carbon capture technology would cost. A Roadmap put together in 2005 by the U.S. Energy Department found that generating electricity in 2025 using carbon-capture technology will be equal to today’s cost of new power generation without carbon capture.

[dsmith]

The idea that coal-fired plants should be built NOW, and then figure out how to control emissions and mitigate transport cost to make the power "affordable" seems pretty arse-backwards to me. I could change my mind if I had a piece of that action, I suppose.

[Megan from ACCCE]

DSmith:
Think of it less in terms of "having a piece of the action" and more about affordability and reliability. Our ever-increasing demand for electricity dictates that we must start the process of building new plants now. Because coal is domestically abundant and provides almost half of the electricity we use today, replacing it with a higher-cost fuel would raise energy costs for Americans—something many can't afford right now.

On the environmental front, placing a moratorium on new coal-based plants won't stop the use of coal to generate electricity—we'll just be using older, less technologically advanced plants to do it. Even without carbon capture technology, power plants being developed today are far more efficient and emit far fewer pollutants than the older facilities they are to replace.

[Joan Willenborg]

There was an Nongovernmental IPCC conference in NYC Mar 5-10 with hundreds of climatologists to discuss research that the UN IPCC ignores. Their conclusion is that climate change natural and not man made. For information see www.globalwarmingheartland.org

[STGINNY]

Hi Joe this might be a silly question but i just have to ask it. How many c02 emissions were there in the first 5 Iceages/global warming phenomenons? Did the dinosaurs emit high carbons while making coal into electricity? Did they get there cars stuck on the LA freeways for hours at a time while trying to reach there destination? Come on... you know that what ever happens in this world happens for a reason. God wants it to. That's it plain and simple.