 |
|
|
|
|
ARBIRD-L for Friday, June 6, 2008
[ Prev Day
| Next Day
| Calendar Month
| ARBIRD-L Info
]
|
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and people
From: Jack and Pam <jackstewart_us(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 10:26am
fyi
The Climate Security Act has just failed in the Senate.
The good news is that both of our Arkansas Senators voted for the act and they
had originally been opposed to it. Also good is the fact that far fewer
Senators voted against the bill than have done so in the past on similar
legislation. There is clearly momentum building for the United States to
restore its leadership position in the world, decrease dependence on foreign
sources of energy and use its technology to reduce carbon emissions.
If you called our Senators about this issue, thank you for taking action. It
seems to have helped. You might also consider sending an email or phone
message of thank you to Senator's Lincoln and Pryor.
Jack Stewart
Newton County
on the Buffalo National River
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Climate Security Act/Contact information
From: Jack and Pam <jackstewart_us(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 11:43am
Here is the contact information for those of you who requested it.
They seem to have stopped giving out email addresses and instead direct people
to their websites where there is a form to use. It takes a few minutes longer,
but I guess it helps them presort by issue.
Anyway for Lincoln it is <lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html>
for Pryor it is <pryor.senate.gov/contact/
OR a toll free number for Pryor is (877)259-9602
I don't have a toll free number for Lincoln. To call the Washington office it
is (202)224-4843 and in Little Rock (501)375-2993.
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: DOBC Field Trip
From: "J. O. and Sally Jo Gibson" <sjogibson(AT)ALLTEL.NET>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 12:14pm
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
The Disorganized Bird Club will sponsor a field trip tomorrow morning, June
7, 2008 to Baker Prairie, Harrison, Arkansas, led by Jack Stewart. We'll
meet at the Harrison Middle School parking lot on Goblin Drive at 7 AM.
After we walk the prairie we'll cover the "usual" route that we take at this
time of year in other areas of Boone County. Target birds are the Willow
Flycatcher, Grasshopper Sparrow and grassland birds. There are also
probably some interesting flowers/plants for those who are interested.
Hope to see you there.
Sally Jo Gibson
Sally Jo Gibson
512 Yorkshire Cove
Harrison, AR 72601
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." [Especially if you're birding!]
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and
people
From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 5:29pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I wanted to mention the effects on Arkansas (& the nation) by this bill,
should it pass:
The Senate's leading climate-change bill, while aiming to combat global
warming by reducing carbon dioxide in the air, actually poses "extraordinary
perils" for Americans and the economy, according to a new study from The
Heritage Foundation.
The study, produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts
severe consequences-including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost
and falling household income-if Congress enacts the so-called
Lieberman-Warner bill.
May 20, 2008
How Arkansas Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change
Legislation
by William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nick Loris
a.. Table 1: Estimated Economic Impact of S. 2191
b.. Table 2: Changes in Household Energy Prices Due to S. 2191
c.. Chart: Economic Impact by Congressional District
Workers and families in the state of Arkansas may be wondering how
climate change legislation before Congress would affect their income, their
jobs, and the cost of energy. Members of Congress are considering a number
of bills designed to address climate change. Chief among them is S. 2191,
America's Climate Security Act of 2007, introduced by Senators Joseph
Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).[1]
The Lieberman-Warner legislation promises extraordinary perils for the
American economy, should it become law, all for very little change in global
temperature--perhaps even smaller than the .07 of a degree Celsius drop in
temperature that many scientists expected from worldwide compliance with the
Kyoto climate change accords. S. 2191 imposes strict upper limits on the
emission of six greenhouse gases with the primary emphasis on carbon dioxide
(CO2). The mechanism for capping these emissions requires emitters to
acquire federally created permits (called allowances) for each ton emitted.
Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple untested and undeveloped
technologies will lead to severe restrictions on energy use and large
increases in energy costs. In addition to the direct impact on consumers'
budgets, these higher energy costs would spread through the economy,
injecting unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production
and consumption.
Implementing S. 2191 would be costly in Arkansas, even given the most
generous assumptions. Notable costs are listed in Table 1.
Consumers would be hard hit. Table 2 shows the expected increases in
retail energy prices (adjusted to 2006 dollars to eliminate the impact of
inflation) in 2025 for Arkansas. Between 2012, when the restrictions first
apply, and 2025, the prices of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline could
rise by nearly 20 percent nationally when compared to prices in a world
without S. 2191.
In addition to taking a bite out of consumers' pocketbooks, the high
energy prices throw a monkey wrench into the production side of the economy.
Contrary to the claims of an economic boost from "green" investment and
"green-collar" job creation, S. 2191 reduces economic growth, gross domestic
product (GDP), and employment.
William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis; David W.
Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate
Change in the Center for Data Analysis; Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy
Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies; and Nicolas D. Loris is a Research Assistant in the
Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation.
Information we should also consider.
Cheryle Sytsma
Vilonia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack and Pam" <jackstewart_us(AT)YAHOO.COM>
To: <ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and people
> fyi
>
> The Climate Security Act has just failed in the Senate.
>
> The good news is that both of our Arkansas Senators voted for the act and
> they had originally been opposed to it. Also good is the fact that far
> fewer Senators voted against the bill than have done so in the past on
> similar legislation. There is clearly momentum building for the United
> States to restore its leadership position in the world, decrease
> dependence on foreign sources of energy and use its technology to reduce
> carbon emissions.
>
> If you called our Senators about this issue, thank you for taking action.
> It seems to have helped. You might also consider sending an email or
> phone message of thank you to Senator's Lincoln and Pryor.
>
> Jack Stewart
> Newton County
> on the Buffalo National River
>
>
>
>
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Rallus elegans
From: kenny nichols <kingbird101(AT)GMAIL.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 5:30pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Had great looks at a King Rail at Bald Knob NWR this afternoon. My first for
the refuge and one of only a few records for there. The American Avocet pair
continues just west of the grain bins as does a single Least Tern.
Good birding!
Kenny Nichols
Cabot, AR
kingbird101(AT)gmail.com
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: The Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act: A Solution Worse
Than the Problem
From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 5:39pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----DELETED multipart/alternative MIME SECTION----
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
June 2, 2008
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act: A Solution Worse Than the =
Problem
by Ben Lieberman
Backgrounder #2140
Major policy decisions require weighing of trade=ADoffs, and that =
is especially true with regard to global warming. Clearly, the American =
people would not benefit from measures designed to address global =
warming that do more economic harm than environ=ADmental good. For this =
reason, it is important to weigh the consequences of any proposed =
climate legislation: both the costs to the American people and the =
bene=ADfits in the form of reduced adverse impacts from glo=ADbal =
warming.
This Backgrounder is a companion to the Center for Data Analysis =
(CDA) report titled "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate =
Change Leg=ADislation."[1] It concludes that the leading bill-S. 2191, =
America's Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsored by Senators Joe =
Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA)-would likely impose costs out of =
proportion to any benefits.
Introduction
Concern that emissions from fossil fuels and other sources are =
gradually warming the planet has emerged as the major environmental =
issue of the day. Though the science is not settled, as some claim, many =
in Con=ADgress consider it settled enough that they have moved on to =
manufacturing fixed solutions.
Chief among the legislative proposals is America's Climate =
Security Act of 2007.[2] This bill would set a limit on the emissions of =
greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, =
oil, and natural gas. The bill starts with a mandated emissions freeze =
at 2005 levels in 2012 and ends with a 70 percent reduction of 2005 =
levels by 2050. (See Chart 1.)
Because energy is the lifeblood of the American economy and 85 =
percent of it comes from fossil fuels, S. 2191 represents an =
unprecedented level of interference by the federal government in the =
economy. It is therefore crucial that policymakers have a sense of the =
economic burdens of the Cli=ADmate Security Act that would accompany any =
environmental benefits.
How the Bill Works
The climate-change legislation sponsored by Senators Lieberman and =
Warner is a "cap and trade" bill. Greenhouse gas emissions from =
regulated enti=ADties will be capped beginning in 2012. Each power =
plant, factory, refinery, and other regulated entity will be allocated =
rights to emit limited amounts of six greenhouse gases, called =
allowances. Some of these allowances are given away, while others are =
auctioned off.
The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide and was the main =
focus of our study. Those entities that reduce their emissions below =
their annual allot=ADment can sell their excess allowances to those who =
do not-the trade part of "cap and trade." Over time the cap is ratcheted =
down from the 2012 freeze to a 70 percent reduction below 2005 levels by =
2050. Our economic analysis, however, does not look be=ADyond 2030, as =
doing so was deemed too speculative.
Proponents describe cap and trade as a flexible and market-based =
approach that allows the private sector to find the most cost-effective =
means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They expect the program to =
provide incentives to fossil energy producers and users to reduce their =
carbon dioxide emissions through improvements in energy effi=ADciency, =
expanded use of energy sources with fewer or no carbon emissions, or new =
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies that allow such =
emissions to be stored underground rather than released into the =
atmosphere.
By contrast, critics of cap and trade fear that many of the =
necessary advances are decades away from being technologically and =
economically viable and that, in the interim, the approach in the =
Lieber=ADman-Warner bill can be met only in ways that will drive up =
energy costs significantly-for all practical purposes, a massive energy =
tax. The economic anal=ADysis of our study largely confirms these fears.
Proponents of the bill point to the success of a sim=ADilar =
cap-and-trade program in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments to restrict =
sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. This program led =
to emis=ADsions reductions at a lower cost than initially =
antici=ADpated. Critics question the relevance of this program to the =
far more challenging task of regulating green=ADhouse gases, which would =
require widespread deployment of costly and unproven technologies.
Critics also point to the substantial difficulties experienced by =
the European Union since initiating its greenhouse gas program in 2005 =
in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty on =
emissions that the United States declined to ratify.[3] Most nations =
that did sign the treaty are not on track to meet their targets.[4] =
Indeed, emis=ADsions in many of these countries are rising faster than =
those in the U.S.[5]=20
Assumptions in the CDA Report
The CDA report spells out the cap-and-trade specifics of =
Lieberman-Warner: the overall targets and timetables, the types of =
emissions and eco=ADnomic sectors covered, the method of allocating =
allowances, the measures designed to add flexibility, the provisions =
affecting trade, and many others that will determine the extent and =
distribution of the costs and, indeed, whether the goals are =
realisti=ADcally achievable.[6]
Several assumptions about the future also affect the projected =
impact of Lieberman-Warner. These include assumptions about:
a.. The pace of technological advances, especially those =
regarding the CCS breakthroughs that will be necessary for the continued =
use of coal, the highest-emitting energy source and the one that =
currently provides half of the nation's electricity;=20
b.. New nuclear power, an electricity source with minimal =
greenhouse gas emissions but one that continues to face political and =
public opposition;=20
c.. America's economic growth and concomitant energy needs; and=20
d.. The effect of previously enacted energy legisla=ADtion, =
particularly the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).[7] =
Care was taken not to overstate costs attributable to =
Lieberman-Warner. For example, EISA contains a number of costly =
provisions-new fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles, =
requirements that renewable fuels be mixed into the motor fuel =
sup=ADply, and efficiency standards for certain appli=ADances-that =
nonetheless will help carry the load toward meeting the emissions =
reduction targets in Lieberman-Warner. In order to measure solely the =
costs of Lieberman-Warner, our analysis does not attribute any of the =
costs of EISA or any other laws to the bill.[8] We also assume full =
compliance with EISA, though the substantial costs in meeting its 9 =
billion-gallon renewable-fuels mandate thus far in 2008 leave reason to =
doubt that the 36 billion-gal=ADlon mandate by 2022 is realistic.[9]=20
We also assume that the bill will work as designed, although the =
European experience with cap and trade has been fraught with =
sub=ADstantial implementation problems and unin=ADtended =
consequences.[10]
Our analysis used two sets of assumptions. One generously assumes =
that the economic, technologi=ADcal, and legal challenges to full =
compliance with Lie=ADberman-Warner are all resolved in a timely manner. =
Specifically, the generous case assumes that CCS is available by 2018, =
while the more realistic case assumes that it is still not available by =
2030, the end date for our analysis.[11]
Economic Costs of Lieberman-Warner
It is hard to think of any economic activity that does not involve =
energy, and there is not one that would not be made more expensive by =
Lieber=ADman-Warner. No matter how mea=ADsured, the impacts of the bill =
on the American economy overall as well as on individuals and households =
would be substantial and hardly dif=ADferent from a massive energy tax.
The impact on the overall econ=ADomy is reflected in cumulative =
gross domestic product (GDP) losses esti=ADmated at $1.7 trillion (with =
generous assumptions) to $4.8 trillion (with more realistic assumptions) =
by 2030. The single-year GDP losses would range from $111 billion to =
$436 bil=ADlion, or $949 to $3,726 per house=ADhold for each of the =
nation's 117 million households. (See Chart 2.) Thus, the annual costs =
of the Climate Security Act would significantly exceed the Department of =
Homeland Security's 2007 expenditures of $43 bil=ADlion and could also =
exceed the $155 billion spent on highways at all levels of government in =
2005.
After-tax incomes decline by $47 billion to $120 billion in 2015, =
or $402 to $1,026 per household. Declines in consumption average $54 =
billion to $113 billion over the forecast period, or $462 to $966 per =
household annually. (See Chart 3.)
America's Climate Security Act would spark a temporary increase in =
employment in the first few years as regulated companies invest heavily =
to comply. After that, however, the bill causes job losses that are =
expected to exceed 500,000 before 2030 even under the most optimistic =
assumptions. (See Chart 4.) It should be noted that these are net job =
losses after the jobs created by the Climate Security Act are taken into =
account. Particularly hard hit are manufacturing jobs as higher energy =
costs dampen several energy-intensive sectors. (See Chart 5.)Some of the =
lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while oth=ADers will be outsourced =
to nations like China that are unlikely to place similar, if any, =
constraints on their emissions.
While the Lieberman-Warner bill lowers many household incomes, it =
raises the cost of living, par=ADticularly by raising energy prices. To =
meet the bill's targets, consumer energy demand must be driven down, =
which is achieved through higher prices. The price per gallon of =
gasoline is expected to increase by at least 29 percent by 2030: about =
$1.10 more per gallon based on current prices. By 2030, average =
household electricity costs are also expected to increase by $647 =
annually, and natural gas is expected to increase by $303. (See Chart =
6.)
As noted, Lieberman-Warner operates like an energy tax, and since =
low-income households spend a larger percentage of income on energy, the =
tax is very regressive.[12] Some of the proceeds from the =
Lieberman-Warner bill are directed toward pro=ADgrams to help energy =
consumers and low-income households in particular, but it is unclear how =
well these income-redistribution schemes will work. In any event, it is =
unlikely that they could make much of a dent in the damage caused by the =
bill.
Costs vs. Benefits
Lieberman-Warner is expensive, but what are the benefits? This =
bill is a solution only to the extent that global warming is a problem =
in the first place and only to the degree to which the bill reduces that =
problem. There are reasons to question both.
While a full discussion of global warming science is beyond the =
scope of this analysis, it is worth not=ADing that science is now taking =
a turn away from alarmism.[13] The release of carbon dioxide, a natural =
constituent of the atmosphere and a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, =
has at least some warming effect on the planet,[14] but the reality of =
global warming falls well short of being a crisis. Both the seriousness =
and the imminence of the threat have been overstated by =
environmentalists and politi=ADcians alike.
In particular, there is a growing realization that the extreme =
claims popularized in the media- most notably that a rise in sea level =
will inundate vast coastal areas and that deadly hurricanes like Katrina =
are linked to global warming and have become more common-are not well =
supported. The World Meteorological Organization[15] and many scientists =
dispute such claims, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on =
Cli=ADmate Change (IPCC) projects a sea-level rise of approximately =
seven to 23 inches over the next cen=ADtury, not the widely publicized =
18 to 20 feet in former Vice President Gore's book and documen=ADtary An =
Inconvenient Truth.[16]
Furthermore, no matter how great a problem global warming may be, =
the Lieberman-Warner bill, assuming that it works as intended, would =
alle=ADviate only a small fraction of that problem. America was by far =
the 20th century's largest greenhouse gas-emitting nation and at one =
point was responsi=ADble for 25 percent of global emissions, but its =
share is declining. China already has overtaken, or soon will overtake, =
America as the world's largest emitter, and its emissions growth is =
several times greater than that of the U.S.[17] Add to that India and =
other rapidly developing nations, none of which have shown any =
willingness to risk continued growth by cracking down on carbon dioxide =
emissions. Also add the upward trends in emissions from most of the =
developed nations that have signed onto Kyoto but have failed to comply.
Thus, the impact of Lieberman-Warner on over=ADall emissions =
trends is modest, given global emis=ADsions growth. By most accounts, =
even in the unlikely event that America meets the targets of this bill, =
worldwide emissions would continue to increase, only at a slightly =
slower rate.[18]
An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of previously proposed =
less-stringent cap-and-trade bills calculates that the future =
concentration of carbon dioxide would be modestly reduced from 718 parts =
per million (ppm) in 2095 to 694 ppm that same year, still much higher =
than the 354 ppm in 1990.[19] Thus, the most these bills could achieve =
is to reduce concen=ADtrations by about 3 percent by century's end. By =
one estimate, Lieberman-Warner is about 25 percent more stringent than =
these previous measures and would result in only a 4 percent decline in =
atmo=ADspheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below what they would =
otherwise have been in 2095.[20]
The Kyoto Protocol, assuming full global compli=ADance (which has =
not been the case), was estimated to reduce the Earth's temperature by a =
scant 0.07 degrees celsius by 2050.[21] This is an amount too small even =
to verify and one for which any resulting benefits would be =
inconsequential. It is unlikely that Lieberman-Warner would be much =
different.
In sum, America's Climate Security Act of 2007 promises =
significant economic pain for little envi=ADronmental gain.
The costs are simply out of line with the benefits. Our analysis =
puts the cost of preventing carbon dioxide emissions at $49 per ton in =
2015 and $68 to $88 by 2030, amounts that are generally in line with =
five other analyses of this bill. (See Table 1.)But according to several =
prominent resource econo=ADmists, that is more than the dollar value of =
the harm that each ton does to the environment in the form of increased =
global warming.[22] One analysis puts the cost of damage at $7.4 per =
ton of carbon dioxide and rising by about 2.5 percent per year, a =
fraction of what Lieberman-Warner costs per ton.[23] If true, this bill =
would prove a textbook example of a solu=ADtion that is worse than the =
problem.
Conclusion
Lieberman-Warner puts the cart before the horse by requiring =
significant emissions reductions before the technologies capable of =
achieving them in an affordable manner are available. At the same time, =
the science points away from a dire need to act precipitously and impose =
such a dramatic slowing of the American economy in such a tight =
timeframe. The compliance costs of Lieberman-Warner are likely to be far =
out of proportion to its benefits.
Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the =
Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies =
at The Heritage Foundation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
[1] William W. Beach, David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Ben Lieberman, and =
Nicolas D. Loris, "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate =
Change Legislation," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report =
No. 08-02, May 12, 2008, at =
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm.
[2] This bill was announced by the Senate Committee on Environment =
and Public Works last December and awaits consideration by the full =
Senate.
[3] Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions =
Trading Scheme Isn't Working," August 2007, at =
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf (May 29, 2008).
[4] European Environment Agency, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends =
and Projections in Europe 2007," November 2007, p. 24, at =
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2007_5/en (May 29, 2008).
[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy =
Outlook, 2007.
[6] Beach et al., "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner =
Climate Change Legislation," pp. 10-13.
[7] Ibid., pp. 7-10.
[8] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[9] Ben Lieberman and Nicolas Loris, "Time to Repeal the Ethanol =
Mandate," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1925, May 15, 2008,at =
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1925.cfm.
[10] Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret," pp. 16-18.
[11] Beach et al., "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner =
Climate Change Legislation," p. 11.
[12] Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, =
"Approaches to Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions," testimony before the =
Committee on the Budget , U.S. House of Representatives, November 1, =
2007, p. 8, at =
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8769/11-01-CO2Emissions.pdf (May 29, =
2008).
[13] See S. Fred Singer, "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the =
Climate," Heartland Institute, Science and Environmental Policy Project, =
April 2008, at http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf; Roy W. =
Spencer, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad =
Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor =
(New York: Encounter Books, 2008); Bjorn Lomborg, Cool It: The Skeptical =
Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (New York: Knopf, 2007).
[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group 1, =
"Summary for Policymakers," 2007, at =
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf (May 29, =
2008).
[15] World Meteorological Organization, "Statement of Tropical =
Cyclones and Climate Change," 2006 at =
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/arep/tmrp/documents/iwtc_statement.pdf (May =
29, 2008).
[16] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Summary for =
Policymakers," p. 13 .
[17] Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, "China Now No. 1 =
in CO2 Emissions; USA in Second Position," at =
http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/
Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html (May 29, 2008). =
S. 2191 would further accelerate China's emissions growth, as American =
manufacturing jobs and related emissions would be outsourced there.
[18] Anne E. Smith, "Documentation of Scenarios Used in Dr. Anne =
E. Smith's Testimony of November 8, 2007 before the Senate Environment =
and Public Works Committee Regarding the Economic Impacts of S. 2191," =
December 3, 2007, at (May 20, =
2008).http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/RELATING_MATERIALS/
Publications/Consultant_publications/Smith,_A/files/ Response%20
to%20Lieberman%2012-3-07.pdf (May 20, 2008).
[19] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Analysis of =
Bingaman-Specter Request on Global CO2 Concentrations," October 1, 2007, =
at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s1766analysispart1.pdf =
(May 29, 2008).
[20] Margo Thorning, American Council for Capital Formation, "The =
Economics of Climate Change Policy," May 2, 2008, at =
http://www.accf.org/PPT/buckeye.ppt (May 29, 2008).
[21] T.M.L. Wigley et al., "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and =
Climate Implications," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 25, No. 13 =
(1998), pp. 2285-2288.
[22] William Nordhaus, "The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic =
Models and Environmental Policy," July 24, 2007, at =
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf (May 29, 2008); =
Richard Tol, "The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An =
Assessment of the Uncertainties," Energy Policy, Vol. 33 (2005), pp. =
2064-2074, at =
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/tol/enpolmargcost.=
pdf (May 29, 2008).
[23] Nordhaus, "The Challenge of Global Warming," p. 23.
=20
Cheryle Sytsma
Vilonia
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
----DELETED image/gif MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Arkansas Birder Videos
From: Dennis Braddy <dmbraddy(AT)MAC.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 6:23pm
--Boundary_(ID_xdZ/olbRJKBy0HZz4FzdDA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
We've added a new Video section to the Arkansas Birder website which
has links to Cornell Lab of Ornithology Macaulay Library (CLOML)
videos for almost all Arkansas birds. The implementation is similar to
the Audio page. (The CLOML video pages are embedded in the Arkansas
Birder page instead of a separate window.)
All the same fine print that I posted regarding Audio applies to
Video. You don't have to type the bird name, so no worries about typos
or library entries indexed by an obsolete common name or by scientific
name only.
We spent a solid week auditioning the multiple entries that exist for
most species and selected the one video for each bird most helpful for
learning to identify them as they appear in Arkansas - correct
plumage, age, subspecies, etc. (The fact that Macaulay Library
searches sorted by video quality don't usually put the videos first is
a bit of a pain.)
One problematic issue you can avoid by using Arkansas Birder Video is
that many of the CLOML videos are misidentified or mislabeled. For
example, a search for Golden-crowned Kinglet returns 11 videos labeled
Golden-crowned Kinglet. Only 2 are actually Golden-crowned Kinglets. 8
are Ruby-crowned Kinglets and one is a Tufted Titmouse.
Give the Video page a try and let us know which species we've
misidentified. :-)
Dennis and Patricia Braddy and Skip
Little Rock, AR
http://www.arkansasbirder.net
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's
too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
--Boundary_(ID_xdZ/olbRJKBy0HZz4FzdDA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
----DELETED HTML-ENCODED SECTION----
--Boundary_(ID_xdZ/olbRJKBy0HZz4FzdDA)--
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Least Tern/ straggling sandpipers at Centerton
From: Jacque Brown <bluebird2(AT)COX.NET>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 7:39pm
Good Afternoon all,
--Mike Mlodinow and I went to Centerton Fish Hatchery today to see what
shorebirds the weather might have blown in. It's getting late for some
shorebirds in our part of the state but among the Semipalmated and White-rumped
Sandpipers Mike spotted:
1 Least Sandpiper
1 Pectoral Sandpiper
2 Baird's Sandpipers one with only a partial leg.
1 Pied-billed Grebe
1 Hooded Merganser
There was a Least Tern, too. It flew around enough I was able to get some nice
soaring photos and a sitting one too.
Before Centerton we stopped at Lake Fayetteville and took a trail we usually
didn't. Mike was hearing Kentucky Warblers but It took a while to see the
pair. One was carrying a caterpiller and they were doing their best to lead us
away from what had to be their nesting territory.
No new birds for me today but I still had a good time. Jacque
Jacque Brown
Bella Vista,
Benton, Co AR,
bluebird2(AT)cox.net
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and
people
From: Jack and Pam <jackstewart_us(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 7:58pm
Cheryle and ARbirders.
On a day when the stock market plunged 400 points, unemployment hit a more than
twenty year high, oil prices hit another all time record, and extreme climate
conditions continued around the World it is hard to take the "let's not do
anything" crowd seriously. This should not be a political discussion. The
Heritage Foundation takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign entities
every year (such as Taiwan and South Korea) and has a strong neo-conservative
bias.
It is unfortunate that the Climate Security Act failed because it contained good
provisions for wildlife, especially birds. WHAT THIS COUNTRY DECIDES TO DO
ABOUT ITS ENERGY PROBLEM, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE IT WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING SOON,
WILL HAVE ENORMOUS IMPACT ON HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE. This should not be made
into a left vs right issue. Remember both John McCain and Barak Obama supported
the Climate Security ACT.
Jack Stewart
Newton County
on the Buffalo National River
--- On Fri, 6/6/08, Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM> wrote:
> From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
> Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and people
> To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 5:29 PM
> I wanted to mention the effects on Arkansas (& the
> nation) by this bill,
> should it pass:
>
> The Senate's leading climate-change bill, while aiming
> to combat global
> warming by reducing carbon dioxide in the air, actually
> poses "extraordinary
> perils" for Americans and the economy, according to a
> new study from The
> Heritage Foundation.
>
> The study, produced by Heritage's Center for Data
> Analysis (CDA), forecasts
> severe consequences-including crushing energy costs,
> millions of jobs lost
> and falling household income-if Congress enacts the
> so-called
> Lieberman-Warner bill.
>
> May 20, 2008
> How Arkansas Would Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner
> Climate Change
> Legislation
> by William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
> and Nick Loris
>
> a.. Table 1: Estimated Economic Impact of S. 2191
> b.. Table 2: Changes in Household Energy Prices Due
> to S. 2191
> c.. Chart: Economic Impact by Congressional
> District
> Workers and families in the state of Arkansas may be
> wondering how
> climate change legislation before Congress would affect
> their income, their
> jobs, and the cost of energy. Members of Congress are
> considering a number
> of bills designed to address climate change. Chief among
> them is S. 2191,
> America's Climate Security Act of 2007, introduced by
> Senators Joseph
> Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).[1]
>
> The Lieberman-Warner legislation promises
> extraordinary perils for the
> American economy, should it become law, all for very little
> change in global
> temperature--perhaps even smaller than the .07 of a degree
> Celsius drop in
> temperature that many scientists expected from worldwide
> compliance with the
> Kyoto climate change accords. S. 2191 imposes strict upper
> limits on the
> emission of six greenhouse gases with the primary emphasis
> on carbon dioxide
> (CO2). The mechanism for capping these emissions requires
> emitters to
> acquire federally created permits (called allowances) for
> each ton emitted.
>
> Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple
> untested and undeveloped
> technologies will lead to severe restrictions on energy use
> and large
> increases in energy costs. In addition to the direct impact
> on consumers'
> budgets, these higher energy costs would spread through the
> economy,
> injecting unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every
> stage of production
> and consumption.
>
> Implementing S. 2191 would be costly in Arkansas,
> even given the most
> generous assumptions. Notable costs are listed in Table 1.
>
>
>
> Consumers would be hard hit. Table 2 shows the
> expected increases in
> retail energy prices (adjusted to 2006 dollars to eliminate
> the impact of
> inflation) in 2025 for Arkansas. Between 2012, when the
> restrictions first
> apply, and 2025, the prices of electricity, natural gas,
> and gasoline could
> rise by nearly 20 percent nationally when compared to
> prices in a world
> without S. 2191.
>
>
>
> In addition to taking a bite out of consumers'
> pocketbooks, the high
> energy prices throw a monkey wrench into the production
> side of the economy.
> Contrary to the claims of an economic boost from
> "green" investment and
> "green-collar" job creation, S. 2191 reduces
> economic growth, gross domestic
> product (GDP), and employment.
>
> William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data
> Analysis; David W.
> Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy
> Economics and Climate
> Change in the Center for Data Analysis; Ben Lieberman is
> Senior Policy
> Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe
> Institute for
> Economic Policy Studies; and Nicolas D. Loris is a Research
> Assistant in the
> Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation.
>
>
>
>
> Information we should also consider.
>
> Cheryle Sytsma
> Vilonia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack and Pam"
> <jackstewart_us(AT)YAHOO.COM>
> To: <ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:26 AM
> Subject: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds
> and people
>
>
> > fyi
> >
> > The Climate Security Act has just failed in the
> Senate.
> >
> > The good news is that both of our Arkansas Senators
> voted for the act and
> > they had originally been opposed to it. Also good is
> the fact that far
> > fewer Senators voted against the bill than have done
> so in the past on
> > similar legislation. There is clearly momentum
> building for the United
> > States to restore its leadership position in the
> world, decrease
> > dependence on foreign sources of energy and use its
> technology to reduce
> > carbon emissions.
> >
> > If you called our Senators about this issue, thank you
> for taking action.
> > It seems to have helped. You might also consider
> sending an email or
> > phone message of thank you to Senator's Lincoln
> and Pryor.
> >
> > Jack Stewart
> > Newton County
> > on the Buffalo National River
> >
> >
> >
> >
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Recent postings--three challenges
From: "Graves, Gary" <GRAVESG(AT)SI.EDU>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 8:30pm
Three recent postings on ARBIRD caught my eye.
"Cory's" Least Bittern--David Arbour reported one at Red Slough. Described as a
separate species in the late 19th century, "Cory's Bittern" (formerly
"Ixobrychus neoxenus") is now considered to be a chestnut color morph of the
Least Bittern. This genetic variant was formerly more common, particularly in
southern Ontario and several other locals. Recent records (past 50 years) are
rare. Photographic evidence is even rarer. Photographic documentation of the
Red Slough bird should be a very high priority this breeding season.
Veery--Herchel Rainey reported two during the last few days of May or the first
day of June on Mt. Magazine. Odds are these represent late migrants as suggested
by Herschel. However, two other records suggest that the Veery may be a rare
breeder in Arkansas, particularly Bill Shepherd's record (6/17/1995) from Pelsor
(Pope County) in the Ozarks. Where should one look? Adventuresome birders
should search well-watered ravines on north-facing slopes above 1500 ft (457 m).
Males sing most frequently from dawn until 8 am and from 6 pm til dark.
Documentation of breeding in Arkansas would be a great prize.
American Avocet--It appears that a pair of avocets is consorting with breeding
Black-necked Stilts at Bald Knob NWR. Bald Knob supports fairly decent "avocet
habitat" in many years but the presence of breeding stilts may provide an
additional breeding stimulus this year. Breeding is an exciting possibility. I
highly recommend investing time scanning the ponds for juvenile avocets this
month (photograph any evidence of breeding). Ornithological speaking,
documentation of a new breeding species for the state is far more significant
that the sighting of vagrants.
Gary Graves
Smithsonian Institution
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of us!
one way or another
From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 9:28pm
Jack...
I too am concerned about our wildlife, birds and plants as well...
But I think we also need to make certain what we are doing is correct and
not brought about by hysteria, as there are a few people who are able to
have much impact by what they say, regardless of accuracy...which the media
throws about as if it is true...
There are many scientists who disagree with much of this "hysteria"...
again, accuracy is called for, not by the media and unscientific
propositions...
May I ask, does being "conservative" make the Heritage Foundation
inaccurate, while being "liberal" causes one to be the only stance which is
accurate?
From the Heritage Foundation website: "Founded in 1973, The Heritage
Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose
mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on
the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom,
traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
Personally, I do not find a problem with wanting free-enterprise, limited
government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong
national defense. I grew up believing in these values...values I thought
were the values shared by all Americans; until I began to see that people do
not now want the foundation of our nation as was first established by our
founding fathers.
Times have indeed changed, Jack, with many people seeing, or looking, only
on a superficial level...we must look ahead at what is behind the actions
taken by congress, and by laws which might be passed which continually
remove the rights of the citizen. Certain actions taken might be good, but
what about the "attachments" to bills which are not good for "our" welfare.
May I ask you, Jack...did you read all of the article concerning the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act, which I posted? If so, how do you
disagree with these statements?
You mentioned the "let's not do anything" crowd. I do not believe that
finding accurate information is doing nothing.
(Often bandying about these cliches is detrimental in a discussion. I am
attempting to stay on target here and not open this discussion up...as I
might find that easy to do.)
I find your statement "this should not be a political discussion"
interesting, as we are discussing a political issue regarding this Climate
Security Act...
I only posted that both sides might be seen by everyone. When we only see
from one viewpoint we may miss some important parts of an issue...I want to
see as clearly as possible in order to make an informed decision.
Cheryle Sytsma
vilonia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack and Pam" <jackstewart_us(AT)yahoo.com>
To: <ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>; "Cheryle Sytsma" <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and people
> Cheryle and ARbirders.
>
> On a day when the stock market plunged 400 points, unemployment hit a more
> than twenty year high, oil prices hit another all time record, and extreme
> climate conditions continued around the World it is hard to take the
> "let's not do anything" crowd seriously. This should not be a political
> discussion. The Heritage Foundation takes hundreds of thousands of
> dollars from foreign entities every year (such as Taiwan and South Korea)
> and has a strong neo-conservative bias.
>
> It is unfortunate that the Climate Security Act failed because it
> contained good provisions for wildlife, especially birds. WHAT THIS
> COUNTRY DECIDES TO DO ABOUT ITS ENERGY PROBLEM, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE IT
> WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING SOON, WILL HAVE ENORMOUS IMPACT ON HABITAT FOR
> WILDLIFE. This should not be made into a left vs right issue. Remember
> both John McCain and Barak Obama supported the Climate Security ACT.
>
> Jack Stewart
> Newton County
> on the Buffalo National River
>
>
> --- On Fri, 6/6/08, Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM> wrote:
>
>> From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
>> Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to birds and people
>> To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>> Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 5:29 PM
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Chimney Swifts Are Back
From: James McHaney <canisgrump(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 9:55pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
The chimney swifts are back at the State Capitol. Unlike last year, when
they were roosting in the air shaft on the Big Mac building as then reported by
Bill Shepherd, the birds are roosting in the big chimney next to Third Street.
(My wife, Carmen, thought she had seen some swarming at Dillard's headquarters
when she left work around 6 p.m. today.) We arrived at Old World Pizza at 7:55
p.m. They started to swarm about 8:20 and were finished at 8:40. Saw
approximately 125 going down the chimney.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of
us! one way or another
From: Jack and Pam <jackstewart_us(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 10:30pm
Cheryle,
Sorry, I have to admit I didn't read all of your posting the first time! Now
that I have slowed down long enough to read it more carefully, I still don't
agree with you! The parts I didn't read the first time were the charts.
Kindly send me links to articles in peer reviewed scientific publications by
scientists who question the basic ideas surrounding climate change, then I will
be able to lend some credence to your statement that "many scientists
disagree..."
The fear many of us have, in addition to the issue of climate change, is that by
clinging to fossil fuels for our energy sources, this country will continue
to have a distorted foreign policy and will be forced to look for every last
drop of domestic oil. If you read science based books such as "The View From
Hubert's Peak" and many other reports, it is clear that world oil production has
passed the peak and will start to decline just as demand is rising. The
pressure to drill in ANWR, for example, will build, we will get a limited amount
of oil from that source and when it is depleted we will be right back where we
are now only with a degraded environment.
We have known about this problem for years. We should not be fooled by the idea
that we need more study. Of course we want free enterprise etc. etc.,but an
increasing number of American corporations are calling for Federal action. Why?
Because enlightened States and municipalities are filling the leadership void by
enacting their own rules. It will not be helpful for business to have a
patchwork of regulations. What State has the strongest economy? I believe it is
California, which is also the State with the strictest environmental laws.
If you run across solutions to our energy and climate change problems that seem
like they might work, please send them to me. I promise to read them before
responding!
Jack
--- On Fri, 6/6/08, Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM> wrote:
> From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
> Subject: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of us! one way
or another
> To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 9:29 PM
> Jack...
> I too am concerned about our wildlife, birds and plants as
> well...
> But I think we also need to make certain what we are doing
> is correct and
> not brought about by hysteria, as there are a few people
> who are able to
> have much impact by what they say, regardless of
> accuracy...which the media
> throws about as if it is true...
> There are many scientists who disagree with much of this
> "hysteria"...
> again, accuracy is called for, not by the media and
> unscientific
> propositions...
>
> May I ask, does being "conservative" make the
> Heritage Foundation
> inaccurate, while being "liberal" causes one to
> be the only stance which is
> accurate?
>
> From the Heritage Foundation website: "Founded in
> 1973, The Heritage
> Foundation is a research and educational institute - a
> think tank - whose
> mission is to formulate and promote conservative public
> policies based on
> the principles of free enterprise, limited government,
> individual freedom,
> traditional American values, and a strong national
> defense."
>
> Personally, I do not find a problem with wanting
> free-enterprise, limited
> government, individual freedom, traditional American
> values, and a strong
> national defense. I grew up believing in these
> values...values I thought
> were the values shared by all Americans; until I began to
> see that people do
> not now want the foundation of our nation as was first
> established by our
> founding fathers.
>
> Times have indeed changed, Jack, with many people seeing,
> or looking, only
> on a superficial level...we must look ahead at what is
> behind the actions
> taken by congress, and by laws which might be passed which
> continually
> remove the rights of the citizen. Certain actions taken
> might be good, but
> what about the "attachments" to bills which are
> not good for "our" welfare.
>
> May I ask you, Jack...did you read all of the article
> concerning the
> Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Act, which I posted? If
> so, how do you
> disagree with these statements?
>
> You mentioned the "let's not do anything"
> crowd. I do not believe that
> finding accurate information is doing nothing.
> (Often bandying about these cliches is detrimental in a
> discussion. I am
> attempting to stay on target here and not open this
> discussion up...as I
> might find that easy to do.)
>
> I find your statement "this should not be a political
> discussion"
> interesting, as we are discussing a political issue
> regarding this Climate
> Security Act...
>
> I only posted that both sides might be seen by everyone.
> When we only see
> from one viewpoint we may miss some important parts of an
> issue...I want to
> see as clearly as possible in order to make an informed
> decision.
>
> Cheryle Sytsma
> vilonia
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack and Pam"
> <jackstewart_us(AT)yahoo.com>
> To: <ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>; "Cheryle
> Sytsma" <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital importance to
> birds and people
>
>
> > Cheryle and ARbirders.
> >
> > On a day when the stock market plunged 400 points,
> unemployment hit a more
> > than twenty year high, oil prices hit another all time
> record, and extreme
> > climate conditions continued around the World it is
> hard to take the
> > "let's not do anything" crowd seriously.
> This should not be a political
> > discussion. The Heritage Foundation takes hundreds of
> thousands of
> > dollars from foreign entities every year (such as
> Taiwan and South Korea)
> > and has a strong neo-conservative bias.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that the Climate Security Act failed
> because it
> > contained good provisions for wildlife, especially
> birds. WHAT THIS
> > COUNTRY DECIDES TO DO ABOUT ITS ENERGY PROBLEM, AND
> MAKE NO MISTAKE IT
> > WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING SOON, WILL HAVE ENORMOUS
> IMPACT ON HABITAT FOR
> > WILDLIFE. This should not be made into a left vs
> right issue. Remember
> > both John McCain and Barak Obama supported the Climate
> Security ACT.
> >
> > Jack Stewart
> > Newton County
> > on the Buffalo National River
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 6/6/08, Cheryle Sytsma
> <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Cheryle Sytsma <shalom(AT)CYBERBACK.COM>
> >> Subject: Re: Climate Security Act of vital
> importance to birds and people
> >> To: ARBIRD-L(AT)LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> >> Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 5:29 PM
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: The Climate Security Act is vitally important to all of
us! one way or another
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf(AT)SWBELL.NET>
Date: 6 Jun 2008 10:50pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Cheryle,
I'm interested in this:
>There are many scientists who disagree with much of this =
"hysteria"...
Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean by "many" =
scientists, or what kind of scientists they are, or what their names are =
and who pays their salaries, or what you mean by "hysteria".
Just yesterday I heard someone from the Wall Street Journal say =
authoritatively that "thousands of scientists" disagree that humans are =
causing climate change, and/or that the planet is warming at all. I was =
quite astonished. Who are these "many" (your word) or "thousands of" =
(WSJ) scientists? Are they climate scientists? Not that I can find. =20
In contrast, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) =
really does consist of hundreds of climate scientists/experts whose =
names and reports are public, and who use nothing but peer-reviewed =
science to create those reports---and the reports themselves undergo =
exhaustive peer review before they're released. =20
Since you don't object to the word "politics", I have to say that as =
far as I can tell, virtually the only people who disagree that a) the =
planet is warming significantly faster than even the "most likely" =
scenarios presented by the IPCC last year; and b) humans are =
contributing greatly to that warming, are those who are politically, =
rather than scientifically, motivated.=20
The scientific consensus is clear, and the proportion of climate =
experts who agree, based on peer-reviewed data and analyses, is =
overwhelmingly large.
Then we go to part c), the likely results of climate change. Those =
are being studied by a wide array of scientists---thousands of =
them---geologists, chemists, ecologists, ornithologists, marine =
biologists, and dozens more -ists. Most of the studies show dramatic =
and accelerating changes. The extrapolated effects on countless =
species, including ourselves and "our" birds here in central Arkansas =
(e.g., emerging tropical diseases and epidemics; exotics affecting the =
entire food chain) are gut-wrenching.
So one considers what is incontrovertibly happening now, and what the =
likely effects will be as it continues/accelerates; and then one asks =
what, if anything, we ought to do to change the situation. In risk =
analysis, the greater the risk, the less certain an outcome needs to be =
in order for preventing it to be worthwhile. But in this situation, =
both factors are large. The risk---e.g., enormous suffering and =
widespread extinctions---is surely huge. And the probability of major =
disruptions to the ecosystem are very high; alarming and accelerating =
effects are already being observed on many fronts. =20
Thus, one might well argue that the need for strong action is urgent =
and compelling. =20
Weighing what to do and how to do it is, of course, in the purview of =
politics. I did read your post, and I assure you that there are other =
organizations with excellent reputations for objectivity (which the =
Heritage Foundation doesn't even pretend to possess) that bring much =
more evidence to bear, and reach vastly different conclusions, than =
those found in the report you posted.
But before going to policy-making, one has to assess the evidence. If =
one is really interested in, as you say, "accuracy", science is the =
singular human pursuit in which objective truth, verifiable by anyone =
else who performs the same experiment, is paramount. Science is surely =
the place to start, and the basis on which policy should be made.
Sincerely,
Janine
Janine Perlman, Ph.D.
Alexander Mt., Saline Co.
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
US:South
ARBIRD-L
CarolinaBirds