« What Ails the Music Industry? | Main | Freedom's Just Another Word for Let's Bomb Iran »

Delahunt v. Bush

29 Sep 2007 04:24 pm

Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) returns from a visit to the UN and cosigns a letter with several House colleagues:

In order to achieve a comprehensive international climate regime that includes all major emitting countries after 2012, there is an urgent need to make significant progress in negotiations at the Conference of Parties to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) being held this December in Indonesia. You have invited representatives from the world’s leading emitting countries to Washington, DC on September 27th and 28th under the auspices of advancing these negotiations.

We are concerned that in announcing the Major Emitters Meeting, and then again in the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s Sydney Declaration, you have focused on reaching long-term “aspirational” goals. Given the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provide clear evidence of global warming impacts on all continents and most of the oceans, we need actual reductions in global warming pollution, not aspirational goals.

Indeed. Full text below the fold:

To avoid the most catastrophic impacts, the IPCC has suggested the need to cut global emissions by 50 to 85 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. Given our historic responsibility for the current concentrations of global warming pollution in the atmosphere and our technological capabilities, the U.S. contribution to such a global target should be on the order of 80 percent reduction in our emissions by 2050.

The United States is the largest emitter of global warming pollution in the world. It is, therefore, incumbent on our government to adopt mandatory policies that will reduce our global warming emissions in a timely manner. In this June’s G8 summit declaration, you and the other G8 leaders reaffirmed the responsibility to act on climate change and the need for policies that “accelerate action over the next decade.” Furthermore, the fact sheet released with the announcement of the Major Emitters Meeting calls for the adoption of “ambitious mid-term national targets and programs, based on national circumstances.”

To that end, we call on you to partner with Congress to put in place mandatory domestic policies that will achieve real reductions in emissions, protect vulnerable communities at home and abroad, and demonstrate the United States’ commitment to finding a global solution to this global challenge. We support increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development, but policies to drive their adoption in the marketplace are needed. Ensuring mandatory domestic actions that reduce global warming pollution in the United States would be the most effective way of advancing the international negotiations.

Good for Delahunt.

This summer, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed energy legislation that could lead to significant reductions in global warming pollution. The House bill included a national renewable electricity standard and provisions that would result in a major increase in the energy efficiency of appliances, and the Senate bill included a provision to increase the efficiency of our nation’s vehicles. Taken together, these provisions could achieve 25 percent of the reductions in heat-trapping gases the United States needs to make by 2030 in order to keep the world on a path to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Congress will be in negotiations to reconcile the two energy bills this fall with the intent of sending you energy legislation that will increase the nation’s energy independence and reduce the threat of global warming.

The House will also soon consider legislation establishing a mandatory domestic cap for global warming pollution to realize the rest of the necessary emission reductions, and to provide assistance to the most vulnerable communities in coping with the impacts that are no longer avoidable. The adoption of such legislation in the United States will facilitate expanding the international carbon market, allowing developed and developing world countries to use market mechanisms to reduce global warming pollution.

Your commitment to work with Congress to enact these crucial pieces of legislation would demonstrate, as no other action could, your dedication to achieving an international climate agreement for post-2012. We urge you to work with us this fall to ensure that the United States establishes ambitious, mandatory polices that will further negotiations for appropriate mandatory commitments from all major emitting countries under the UNFCCC, and will meet the twinned challenges of global warming and energy security.

Share This

Comments (10)

You didn't say who the letter is to. I assume it's Bush, but...

Good indeed. Your comment "Good for Delahunt" seems to interrupt the text of the letter.

As a proud resident of the Massachusetts 10th (the Fightin' Tenth), I express my great pride and support for my Congressman. Go Bill!

If Congressman Delahunt is serious, then he best stop being FOR Open Borders and AGAINST nuclear power.

Open Borders gives us 363 million "Americans" by 2030, 420 million by 2050. Thinking more efficient electrical appliances and cars will cut energy usage by 25% while population surges from swarms of 3rd-Worlders and offspring is a pipe dream.
Same with the "fairy dust" solutions Delahunt and his colleagues are fond of touting about how wonderful and exciting solar and wind power are ...and other "exciting alternative energy sources" - all while being voiciferously against any nuclear power in "Blue" America, against exploring for new oil or gas, and against coal and hydro dams as almost as dirty and evil as nuclear power is....Equally bad as the wind farms Delahunt opposes inside and offshore of "scenic Massachusetts".

Economist studies state we will need to go from 106 present quadrillion BTUs of energy used in the US to 122-128 if we add 33% more "Americans" in the next few decades. That includes conservation savings and the 4-8 Quads we can realistically expect from "exciting alternative energy sources".

The United States is the largest emitter of global warming pollution in the world.

No it is not. China has been the leader for some time because of it's thousands of coal mine fires - mines written off, coal burning for decades underground.

To that end, we call on you to partner with Congress to put in place mandatory domestic policies that will achieve real reductions in emissions

A fine place to start would be in pro-immigration Massachusetts, where it's energy comes from oil, natural gas, and energy piped in from coal power plants to the West.

1. No more immigration except for those with unique skills we can't train American workers to do and no more than 100,000 a year. No more refugees, no more family reunifications, no more illegals. Kyoto and it's "children" were crafted by Euros with few children and lower immigration than America..

2. Mass needs 3-4 nuclear plants to get it's carbon contribution down to the level of States like CT, Vermont, Virginia. Show a sense of urgency and get building!

3. Mandate that the wind farm off Cape Cod proceed no matter how much the Kennedys and other Elites protest it.

4. Continue research into global warming and if CO2 is really to blame for most of it, or only a small part of the phenomenon. The more urgent problem will be the end of oil peak production with 5 billion more people anticipated and what we do to find oil substitutes.

5. Be honest with the public and stop touting ideological cures like solar power as if they were some magic elixir. Or that conservation will somehow allow present lifestyles to go on unaffected.

*Less people globally, end immigration into the West for the most part.
*More nuclear. More breeder reactors, less 3rd World breeders.
* Be honest about "fairy dust" energy solutions.

Can anyone give me the name of an environmentalist that doesn't consume fossil fuels at a rate that the self same enviromentalist believes will result in world catastrophy?

I'll take global warming seriously as soon as someone can give just one name......

Wow...just, wow.

"The United States is the largest emitter of global warming pollution in the world.

No it is not. China has been the leader for some time because of it's thousands of coal mine fires - mines written off, coal burning for decades underground."

If 'some time' means some time estimated to be in 2007. Yeah, cause 3 months or so equals since the 50s or earlier. Of course China's a problem, but Delamont's not a representative for it.

"More nuclear. More breeder reactors, less 3rd World breeders."

Can we be a bit more bigoted? Sounds like the right wing is trying to co-opt environmentalism for anti-immigration efforts with your exhortations to limit immigration.

Some of your ideas start off making sense, but then you veer off into crazy territory. Try to think more rationally. It does us all good.

Mr. Delahunt is wrong.Given the charisma of the Current Occupant of the White House, these are inspirational goals not aspirational goals.

Jeremy - the two 800 pound gorillas in the room the environmentalists refuse to address are nuclear power and population growth.

1. They hate nuclear on ideological reasons. The birth of environmentalism was supposed to be favoring tech that the local hippie commune could use - cars running on hemp oil, methane from organic chickens...that sort of thing. Billion dollar nuke plants were the antithesis of all that.

2. Population growth cancels out all conservation gains and marginal contribution of "exciting alternative energy sources". Again for political reasons, after the 3rd World backlash to Erhlich, the Left joined the Right in the pretense that there were unlimited resources to exploit that "high technology" would open up that would allow unlimited immigration into the USA and allow various 3rd World nations to double their populations every 20 years without consequence.

And China, after satellites discovered the magnitude of their coal regions underground fires and the CO2 put out, have actually been ahead of the USA in CO2 generation since the 60s.

"...and against coal and hydro dams as almost as dirty and evil as nuclear power is..."

By any objective measure, coal is far, far more dirty than nuclear. ANY measure. Area of the planet despoiled, CO2 emissions, heavy metals entering the biosphere... Even by the one standard nuclear energy opponents obsess about, radiation.

Yes, coal even releases more curies of radioactive isotope into the environment per kwh generated than does nuclear power. Coal contains a few ppm of uranium and thorium, and you have to burn so much coal to produce power, that a 1000 MW coal plant is releasing into the environment about 18 tons of just those two isotopes, not to mention all the daughter species such as radium created by their decay in the coal seams.

On the bright side, fly ash does look to be a worthwhile source of fuel for nuclear plants...

Let me clarify, that's 18 tons of uranium and thorium per year per 1000 MW coal fired plant. Not over the life of the plant.


Comments closed October 13, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.