Estimates of Climate Bill Cost

:clphnds::yelcl ap:

Ha! I could be doing so many other more constructive things . . like put that laundry away!


steph

A little bit of OT-but-a-little-related context:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/...men/index.html

"Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009 13:45 PDT
The Chamber of Commerce is mad as hell


The last few months have not been kind to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The president of the United States called the organization out for its "completely false" advertisements. It has been hammered by weeks of bad press as blue-chip Fortune 500 companies abandoned its standard, citing its troglodyte stance on climate change. The slings and arrows of a cacophony of online critics, mocking its August call for a Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century to disprove the science of human-caused global warming, have been relentless.


But none of those indignities compare with the worst humiliation: Being made fun of.


In one of the more well-executed and sophisticated pranks in modern memory, the Yes Men faked a press conference on Oct. 19, announcing that the Chamber had changed its position on climate change. Some big-name news organizations, including the New York Times and Reuters, fell for the stunt. The result: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spitting mad, and on Monday the organization filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., seeking redress for 'the Defendants' fraudulent acts and misappropriation of its valuable intellectual property.'" -- by Andrew Leonard


And from a different site, also progressive:


http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08...climate-change



"US Chamber of Commerce calls for ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ on climate change.



The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the 97-year-old organization that bills itself as the “voice of business” — wants to put climate science on trial. As the Environmental Protection Agency nears a final ruling that manmade global warming endangers the public health and welfare, “the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing” on the science of climate change is needed to “make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science.” William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the Los Angeles Times this hearing would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century“


I think both of these guys these guys draw some interesting connections.

Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the effects of Waxman-Markey, concluding that in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income. That’s roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day.

This is more on-topic than my last post here ... I don't know how the Dems, particularly, justify the legislation ... but this is a short digest of the reason why I support taking some national responsibility for trying to prevent/slow down further environmental degradation. It's time we paid a fair price for the resources we use ... and that includes the cost of the damage caused by our use.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/berke...-us-22323.html

A short exerpt from that article:

"A Drier California

Decline in precipitation and water supplies will likely be one of the most prominent effects of climate change in California and other states of the southwest (Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico). The report suggests that runoff will decline from 10 to 40 percent in 2040 to 2060 relative to the 1901-1970 baseline, and warns that scarce water supplies will call for trade-offs among competing uses.

"Floods and droughts are likely to become much more common and intense as regional and seasonal precipitation patterns change and rainfall is more concentrated into heavy events with longer dry periods in between," it states.
There will likely be less snow, with more winter precipitation falling as rain, and the wet areas will get wetter as dry areas get dryer. The region will likely see declines in the mountain snowpack, and runoff will shift to earlier in spring, reducing water flows later in the year in the summer. California is strongly dependent on spring and summer runoff to supply water for residential, commercial and agricultural uses.

Agriculture in California will likely face increasing stress from the decline in runoff and drought, as well as increasing air temperatures, and the probable rise in agricultural pests and weeds expected in a warmer climate. Flooding and storm surges are threats to coastal regions.

Forest growth in the west will likely decrease because of the decreasing availability of water. This will also put additional stress on salmon, trout and other coldwater fish. Superinfestations of insects will likely cause ecological and economic damages to timberlands.

A Hotter California
Increasing air temperatures attributed to global warming are expected to cause a rise in the number of heat-related illnesses in the 2080 to 2099 timeframe. In parts of southern California, the state's southern Central Valley, and western Arizona, for instance, the number of days in which the temperature exceeds 100°F could exceed 120 under the report's higher emissions scenario.

Changes in the nation's population and distribution could combine to amplify the probability of increasing heat-related disease. As the nation ages, its older members move to warmer areas of the country including the desert southwest.


Another effect of these higher temperatures will be increased energy demand. The report predicts "increases in demand for cooling energy" in California as well as elsewhere, which will result in "significant increases in electricity use and higher peak demand in most regions." Mills contributed analysis to the report of the strongly rising role of extreme weather events in causing electric power disruptions, while non-weather-related events show no upward trend."


Admittedly, it's dicey to predict the future, even with fancy computer models. To make it even more difficult, notice the dates ... 2040, 2099 ... I'll be dead then, as will many - if not most - of the people arguing about the issues now. But my son probably won't be ... and my grandchildren are highly likely to be living at the turn of the next century.


We pay for what we use now ... or they pay in 75 years for our inability to take responsibility for our own behavior.

I recently saw a 60 Minutes segment on megafires in the Pacific Northwest. I am trying to find more information on the problem ... beginning with whether the problem really exists in the first place.

Anybody know more?