Global warming on cusp of no return
by
Monday 24 January 2005 1:50 AM GMT

Global average temperatures have risen 0.8C since 1750

Global warming is reaching the point of no return, with widespread drought, crop failure and water shortages the likely result, a new international report says.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is to be spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics on Monday.

In 10 years or less, they predict, the catastrophic point of no return may be reached.

The new study, Meeting the Climate Challenge, has been timed to coincide with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy this year as head of both the G8 group of the world's richest nations and the European Union.

The report was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Centre for American Progress in the US and the Australia Institute.

It says the danger point will be signalled when temperatures rise by two degrees Celsius above the average world temperature in 1750, before the industrial revolution.

Getting closer

The report says that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8C since then, so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.


"There is an ecological time bomb ticking away"

Stephen Byers, report co-chair
The consequences of such a rise could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests, according to the report.

The researchers calculated the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and say it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.

Time bomb

The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, the report adds.

"There is an ecological time bomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, former British transport minister and a close Blair ally, who co-chaired the task force that produced the report with US Republican Senator Olympia Snowe.

The report urges all G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010.

AFP

What does this point of no-return lead to? 10 degree warmer temperatures? 20? I mean, CO2 levels will go back down, and the earth will go back to normal, assuming we just stop putting CO2 into the air- even if we do it in 500 years.

Global warming is a serious issue, but I don't see what's so scary or catastrophic here that merits calling it a "time bomb." I see lots of fear-provoking words; little evidence or statistics to back them up.

This article has been posted already to which I replied:

I have a solution to this problem. As long as the sea level is rising, we will build a huge number of canals all over tho globe to rechannel the excess water, and turn a few deserts into productive farmland, thus solving the drought problem as well. If it is salt water, we build many desalination plants. This will create tens of millions of jobs in the process!!

LeIbNiZ-
Tell me if this is something like what you are describling:
Water For All is a plan for the construction of public seawater aqueducts, pipelines and canals to distribute water from the ocean to arid and drought susceptible regions of the United States...

The idea is to bring seawater into the USA deserts and use the water for micro-algae ponds, and other energy projects. Ten million acres of micro-algae ponds could supply the bio-oil needed to produce enough biodiesel to supply 100% of our transportation fuel consumption.

That is not the project I was thinking about, but it looks like a good one as well. I was thinking of a project called NAWAPA.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/p...awapa_1983.html

Well, this article is actually fairly understated.

It was a mere 9 degree temperature change on Earth that brought about the last Ice Age.

If you educate yourself further on this subject, for instance on the web where there is plenty of accurate information, you will see that a 10-degree change worldwide would indeed be a catastrophe. It isn't just a matter of the weather all over being a little warmer--although that in and of itself would be very harmful to certain species whose reproduction, food, and shelter all rely on temperature.

A worldwide temperature change will alter the Gulf Stream, causing an eventual Ice Age that none of us would probably survive. And in the meantime, much more violent, destructive and costly weather is on the way.

As I've said before, anyone not worried about global climate change is either uneducated on the subject, driven by politics or greed, or just plain ol' dumb.

I am not worried one bit about global warming. Having a scientific background, I guess I just have more faith in Mans' ability to solve any problem that comes before us, than most people that have a non-scientific background, which, unfortunately, seems to be rampant among most in the environmentalist movement. So, call me just plain ol' dumb if you wish.

For anyone interested in an opposing viewpoint, here is an article for you. It is a PDF file.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti...bal_warming.pdf

Well, I admire your optimism on the subject. "Man" has known about global warming for over a decade and has done damn near next to nothing at all about it. As a member of the scientific community, where would you start on this problem?

science is nice, but it takes SURPRISINGLY long time for it to reach non-western cultures... meaning, most of the world will still have to face all the problems: even if you would discover/invent 'something' to save the day, it will take time to 'be applied' even in the 'west', not to mention the 'rest'... and the rest would have to start with facilities first, no matter the solution, and while the 'solution' is underway (the most optimistic term for now, when there is none yet), they will take the heaviest toll...

all issues look worse distanced from 'west'

science is good, but paraphrasing 'religion don't kill people, people kill people' you get 'science doesn't save the world, people save the world' - even if you DO find a miracle solution that will 'fix' all problems, IMPLEMENTING it will still take time - unless, of course the soln will be of same nature of miraculous healings, effective immediately

science hasn't been able to deal with hunger, pollution, wars, diseases now... what on earth could make you think it will, instantly, fix all effects of global warming???

Well, to fix it in time to avert something major, you'd need to cut greenhouse gases by an impossible amount. And pretty much every by-product of human exsistence is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat into the atmosphere. So, looks like we're cookin' for good now.

http://www.womens-institute.co.uk/publicey...velopment.shtml

Taking it on!

NFWI calls on government to stop talking and start acting on Sustainable Development

Responding to Taking it on! the consultation on a sustainable development strategy for the UK, the NFWI has warmly welcomed the Government’s clear commitment to building a coherent strategy for sustainable development. However, having long been at the forefront of calls for sustainable development and action on climate change, the NFWI has clearly expressed its belief that the time for rhetoric has passed. Urgent action is now needed, and the NFWI urged the government to demonstrate that it has the political will to take the necessary steps. The NFWI has called on the government to develop a strategy that:

* clearly sets down a framework for action that will lead to clear changes in behaviour and attitudes across government and society
* integrates a true regard for sustainable development into all areas of decision-making, particularly at government level
* regulates to ensure that business work from a level playing field towards truly sustainable business practices

Perhaps most importantly, the NFWI has argued that if the strategy is to be successful, it must challenge the economic myths that drive unsustainable development, and put forward proposals for putting the economy on a more sustainable footing. Current measures of economic growth fail to take into account the true cost of that growth in terms of the degradation of the planet’s finite resources, or the social and political impacts of social exclusion and widening inequalities in the UK. NFWI Chairman, Barbara Gill said, “We need to see clear leadership from government if we all to make the changes that will mean we can start living sustainably. However, when the government announces yet more road building for the UK, inevitably increasing emissions from traffic, I have to seriously question their commitment to taking the tough policy decisions needed to tackle climate change. Let’s hope that Taking it on! leads to action rather than just more words.

New report says Europe 'must adapt on climate'

Europeans must learn how to live with a changing climate as well as seeking to limit effects by cutting emissions, and it must happen soon, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA). An EEA report, Impacts of Europe's changing climate, says that melting meant Europe's glaciers lost a tenth of their mass last year, and harvests fell by almost a third. The EEA says the climate change under way now probably exceeds all natural climate variation for a thousand years. On present trends, the report forecasts that European average temperature could be between 2 and 6.3oc hotter in 2100 than in 1990.

The European Union says that action is needed to try to prevent temperatures rising more than 2oc above their 1990 level, an increase it regards as the highest sustainable level. The EEA says that this is likely to be exceeded in around 2050 on present trends. EEA executive director, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, said: "What the report shows is that, if we go on as we are, we have less than 50 years before we encounter conditions which will be uncharted and potentially hazardous."

The report is available from the EEA website at http://reports.eea.eu.int/climate_report_2_2004/en

For tips on how to reduce your energy consumption, visit: http://www.greenscore.org.uk Ergo Magazine also has useful advice, available from larger newsagents and at: http://www.ergo-living.com

I did educate myself on this subject. Last year, I helped write a 100 page term paper on the projected social, environmental, and economic effects of global warming on the Great Lakes Region. I don't have a PhD in meteorology, but I've at least done my "homework" on the issue.

The bottom line is that global warming isn't going to hurt Illinois and the rest of the Midwest that much. Farmers will have a bit of a harder time predicting the weather, and they may start growing warmer-weather crops, but it won't be the end of the world. Global warming will bring more mosquito-transmitted diseases to the region, but longer summers will also give people more of a chance to exercise. The result seems to be that we'll at least break even on diseases.

On the other hand, Lake Michigan and the other great lakes will come a lot closer to a beautiful salt-free version of the Gulf of Mexico. Global warming will actually save lives in the region, according to several studies.

Overall, the Midwest can expect a 10-15 degree increase in temperature and summer/winter temperatures similar to that of northern Texas in the worst case scenario predicted by the GCMs (computer models.). Yes, I got to read all of those reports by the Union of Concerned Scientists and NOAA. I'm still very concerned about global warming, but really paging through all of those reports made me a little less worried.

So yes, I'm concerned about global warming; that's part of the reason I'm a Democrat. However, I'm not as nervous as a Far-Right Security Mom would be about terrorism. I think that when one takes a careful look at the numbers, the studies done by environmentalists, and how the information was obtained, it doesn't seem quite as frightening as the media makes it out to be.

To be honest, the threat of a new Ice Age seems as plausible as the threat of cancer due to power lines. We're having a lot of trouble trying to get our current GCMs to agree on projections 100 years down the road, and I think we're going to have even more trouble accounting for all the factors required to start a new Ice Age. In theory, the side-effects of global warming could eventually bring global temperatures back to normal in 500 years. I'm more concerned about something we can predict- New York going underwater.

Maybe it's time for us to go back to making more reasonable claims that seem plausible to the typical, mildly skeptical, well-educated person, rather than trying to outdo the Christian Right by somehow trying to threaten something worse than the apocalypse.

My position on global warming (GW) is the same as the article I posted. Ironically, the very problem that the environmental movement is espousing regarding GW, is the very problem they are responsible for causing!! Had they not been so adamant against Nuclear Power plants, we could have had everything running on electricity, or on hydrogen fuel for cars for example, and we probably would have had Fusion energy by now. If I were in charge, here is what I would do. I would start a massive development program. First, I would implement the NAWAPA project, which will generate much needed electricity, and also turn some deserts into arable land once completed, while creating millions of jobs in the process. Second, I would build many nuclear power plants, probably something along the lines of HTGR technology, and I would start a "crash program" to develop Fusion power. (although I think cold fusion is possible, I am referring to hot Fusion here) Fusion power has many advantages. It has the potential for a much greater "energy flux density" than nuclear fission. It is non-polluting, and melt downs are impossible. Also with Fusion, due to the extreme temperatures, one can use almost anything to create resources, including plain rocks. Since these temperatures are so high, it can separate anything into its' constituent elements, which can then be separated and re-used. In other words, your plain old garbage that you throw onto the curb, will truly become a resource!! I am done for now.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/27...reut/index.html

Scientists predict rising global temperature range

Thursday, January 27, 2005 Posted: 2:18 PM EST (1918 GMT)

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Greenhouse gas emissions could cause global temperatures to rise by up to 11 degrees Celsius (20 degrees Fahrenheit), according to first results from the world's largest climate modeling experiment.

The top end of the predictions, which range from 2-11 degrees, is double estimates produced so far and could make the world dramatically different in the future.

"Our experiment shows that increased levels of greenhouse gases could have a much greater impact on climate than previously thought," said David Stainforth, the project's chief scientist, from Oxford University.

Without significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists estimate the Earth's temperature and sea level will rise, leading to increased flooding and drastic climate changes.

The temperature range predicted is based on assumptions of carbon dioxide levels double those found before the Industrial Revolution. Scientists estimate these levels will be reached by the middle of this century if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.

"This is really just the beginning of the process to try and understand the uncertainty and predictions of climate change," Stainforth added.
Processing power

From Uruguay to Uzbekistan and Sierra Leone to Singapore, 95,000 people from 150 countries are taking part in the climateprediction.net experiment to explore the possible impact of global warming.

By downloading free software from http://www.climateprediction.net/external link on their personal computers, participants run their own unique version of Britain's Met Office climate model.

While their computer is idle, the program runs a climate simulation over days or weeks and automatically reports the results to Oxford University and other collaborating institutions around the world.

Together, the volunteers have simulated more than 4 million model years, donated 8,000 years of computer time and exceeded the processing power of the world's largest supercomputers. The first results of the continuing experiment are reported in the latest edition of the science journal Nature.

"... it is entirely possible that even current levels of greenhouse gases, if stable and maintained for a long period of time, could lead to dangerous climate change," Stainforth told reporters.

The Kyoto protocol, the main U.N. scheme to reduce greenhouse gases, aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

"The danger zone is not something we are going to reach in the middle of this century. We are in it now," said Dr Myles Allen of the Met Office.

Climateprediction.net was conceived more than five years ago and launched in 2003. It is funded by Britain's Natural Environment Research Council.

Woot! Chicago's going to become the new California. People will be able to swim in Lake Michigan without turning blue!

No, seriously. You just love how they automatically focus on the 11 degrees. Do you know how many predictions of positive feedback had to be right- and how many predictions of negative feedback- had to be wrong in order to get that 11 degree figure? I'm willing to bet that, just based off of scientist's own educated guesses, it's more likely that I'll get struck by lightning this summer than it is that the 11 degree scenario comes to fruition.

I think that a more honest estimate of the "reasonable" high-end of that study would be a few degrees lower. (To be fair, the "reasonable" low-end of the study would be a few degrees higher.) And what is this "danger zone"? It sounds like something Stewart would worry about while bending down and holding his pants on Mad TV. I've never heard of a word like that.

It's important to at least have the ability to read and understand the studies. It really isn't that hard; it takes a college education, the ability to understand what "positive feedback" and a few other terms mean, some patience, and maybe a calculator.

For the record, I'm not saying global warming isn't an issue; it is. However, if we get carried away and start claiming the earth's temperature is going to increase by 50 degrees Celcius, nobody's going to believe us.

I find it interesting that in your posts, you refer only to climate change as it may directly affect humans, farmers for instance. If that were the only thing to worry about, I can see why you wouldn't.

But climate change, when it is consistent and growing increasingly worse, affects every ecosystem on the planet. Reproductive cycles of animals and plants, as well as their shelter, hibernation, food sources, and on and on. Humans are at the top of the food chain. We are not the entire food chain. Our environment, on which we depend totally (lest you think that your local grocery is a self-sustaining ecosystem itself) is completely interconnected, and if you start messing with the basics of survival for all those plants and animals on a global scale, you're messing with your own survival, make no mistake. Man cannot, and never has, lived completely independently of his environment. Climate change is threatening that environment, and your research hasn't penetrated into all the different aspects of that.

I care about the environment, too, but when it comes to issues like "intrinsic value" and "inter-connectedness", Engineers like me just don't get it. As long as the grass and trees are green, we know that ecosystems will eventually return to a stable and diverse configuration, and everyone will be happy.

"Man cannot, and never has, lived completely independently of his environment."

Apparently, you've never been inside one of those biospheres. If you only give me sunlight, I can give you an independant environment.

It's important to understand that changes to an ecosystem do not equate to its destruction. We might lose some pine trees, but heck; we'll pick up some palm trees to replace them. Nature always fills a vacuum.

The bottom line is that if humans can still grow their own crops to make their own food and survive independantly of the traditional ecosystem, the environment will take care of itself. It might generate a few nasty side-effects for humans, but it won't fall off the face of the earth.

I am an engineer (even worse than a scientist). To my knowledge, no one has factored in the effects of water vapor into the calculations. If the planet warms, there will be far more evaporation (in the tropics) creating more cloud cover which means more REFLECTION of incident solar radiation.This could result in Global Cooling!

Perhaps the reason no one has done this is that there is no easy way to model something that hasn't yet happened and that science doesn't understand enough to model.

So they just ignore it entirely.

I agree. The earth has gone through many cold and warming periods, and yet we are still here? Some species might die, but others will take their places. Man is the ONLY species that can WILLFULLY alter his environment, for the better, and also for the worse. Although I agree there are many things we are doing, that I disagree with, such as burning "fossil fuels" (I believe oil is abiotic) we can develop better technologies. I believe we are far off from "the worse".

I think one of the latest Hadley GCMs takes positive feedback from water vapor into account in its worst case scenario. I'll have to do some digging to figure out exactly what the worst-case is (I think it's between 5 and 9 degrees celcius.)

I think those who claim Global Warming is a natural phenomenon (rather than something caused by human activity) are basing their theory on atmospheric water vapor produced by increased solar activity. They say the influence of water vapor is far greater then CO2...
A number of scientists reject the idea that global warming is influenced by CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere:
“We believe that there is substantial doubt that carbon emissions are the cause of global warming (GW). Much of the warming effect attributed to carbon dioxide is in our view due to a natural increase in solar irradiance accompanied by a related increase in atmospheric water vapor levels. The latter is more effective as a GW forcing agent than carbon dioxide (we estimate its GWP = 1.75 compared to 1.0 for CO2) and is present in the atmosphere in far greater quantities. We therefore believe that water vapor, rather than CO2 is the dominant forcing agent in global warming (with a little help from the sun and perhaps from other greenhouse gases) and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is a secondary effect.”
-John R. Wilson, Ph.D.

Mike Briggs offers a rebuttal...
A rebuttal to John Wilson’s theory that global warming is caused by a natural increase in solar irradiance accompanied by a related increase in atmospheric water vapor levels:
The problem with John Wilson’s theory is that solar irradiance is not increasing - rather, it is decreasing. This is due to pollution reflecting sunlight back out into space. Incident sunlight on the atmosphere (before pollution has a chance to reflect it) hasn't had a general upward trend, as some greenhouse effect opponents want to claim. It has fluctuated, and there is a general correlation between that and temperature. Sunlight is the prime factor in earth's temperatures.

The increase in warming we've seen over the past 100 years simply cannot be due to these fluctuating sunlight levels, since there has not been a general upwards trend, and not nearly enough of an increase in sunlight (reaching the atmosphere) to cause the warming we've seen. Plus, pollution is reflecting more and more sunlight out, which would by itself result in a DROP in temperatures.

The question of how much of an impact CO2 has is still a wide open debate. But, it is undeniable that increasing CO2 levels DOES have an impact. How much is the question. Since it has to have an impact (since it essentially acts like an insulating layer to trap in heat), it is simply prudent to avoid increasing CO2 levels if possible.

Consider that if you sit in a parked car (with no air conditioning) in the summer, the temperature inside the car gets hotter when it's sunnier than when it's cloudy. So yes, of course sunlight levels have an impact. But, that doesn't mean rolling your windows up instead of having them down wouldn't trap in more heat. CO2 in the atmosphere essentially acts like having your windows up - as it traps in heat (while allowing visible light to pass through).

The fundamental flaw in logic used by most who don't agree that warming is being caused by CO2 is they want to argue that if we can find any one thing that does have a warming effect, that must mean it is the cause of ALL warming, and CO2 cannot therefore have an impact. The problem is that none of the causes they want to blame can come anywhere close to what we've seen. It's a combination of factors - with CO2 being one of them.
-Michael S. Briggs
UNH Physics Department

The following web page is written for the benefit of non-technical readers, so you engineers and science guys won't find anything new, but you may appreciate what it offers for those who need a less technical explanation:Global Warming

LeIbNiZ -
You say, we can develop better technologies. I believe we are far off from "the worse".

I hope you are right, because it will take 30-50 years to replace our fossil fuel dependent technology and infrastructure. I think science can do it, but will politics help or hinder? Apathy, greed and ignorance are the real barriers to progress.

Politics can help. It's so simple:


We DO have leverage, potential leverage at least, in a 2 sided tug-of-war, but only if we choose to use it. It costs the Saudis $1.00 to produce a barrel of oil at the wellhead, and since they have an "infinite" capacity, they effectively can control the price. If they flood the market, dropping the price to $10, other producers will drop out, thus lowering the available supply.

The knife can cut both ways. We could, as importers, agree to force down the percentage of money OPEC receives by heavily taxing oil price increases and using the money to aid mankind instead of funding arms sales to the Arabs or Madrassas.

Are we too stupid to have figured this out?

And what better way (after all the hissing and booing I'm sure to get) than to

MATCH OIL PRICE HIKES DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR WITH AN ENERGY TAX.

Offset, of course, by a concomitant reduction in FICA so the measure will be "revenue neutral" for the working stiff, but that same stiff will think twice before buying a SUV.

This is a process, folks, that could take 10 to 20 years, but if we don't start now, when will we ever?

BTW: A $1.00 per barrel increase in Crude = a $5 Billion tax on US motorists per year (only we give it to our GOOD, LOYAL, TRUSTED, FRIENDS the Saudis).

Wouldn't we be better off using that money for ourselves?

There was a period of Global Warming that began in the 10th century and peaked in the 13th. It was about a 5 to 7 degree C increase. During that time, the ice sheets retreated and people migrated to northern Europe where they were successful with farming and raising livestock.

Then, SUDDENLY, in the early 14th century, there was a rapid drop, causing a masive migration of peoples southward. The colder climate may have been responsible for the spread of the "Black Plague" which, when coupled with the sudden increased concentration of people in the cities, killed off about one third of europe.

In 1993, Mount Pinatubo blew its top. The earth's temperature dropped about 2 degrees C for the next 2 years.

I understand a similar condition occurred with Krakatoa in 1888.

Mother Nature has her own lifecycle. I'm not so sure we really understand how it works.

I agree - We are crazy to not tax oil. The problem is that both parties use the issue as a political football. If a Democrat proposes an oil tax, the Republicans will demagogue against it. If a Republican proposes an oil tax, the Democrats demagogue against it.

Making the other party look bad is more important than solving our nation's energy problems.

I entered a post in the energy independence sub-forum:
I would like to see a $5 per barrel tariff placed on all oil imported into the USA, if the oil is produced from anywhere outside of North America. That would help wean the United States from oil dependence without punishing Americans and local American business that depend on US oil production; including Canada and Mexico.

The oil tariff would give domestic biodiesel and other synthetic fuels an edge in the USA markets.

Then, I would like to see 100% of the revenue from the tariff invested in Dr. Smalley's R&D program. Our Energy Challenge

A $5 per barrel tariff would generate about Ten billion dollars per year. Invest that much in solar and electrical storage R&D, every year for the next 10-20 years and we would witness the discovery of new technology that we have not imagined yet.
target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ndpost&p=159048

Global average temperature is calculated from temperature readings around the Earth. While temperature does vary considerably at a daily level in any one place, global average temperature is remarkably constant.
According to analyses of ice cores, tree rings, pollen and other "climate proxies," the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere had varied up or down by only a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1000 AD until about 1900, when a rapid warming began. A global average temperature change ranging from 2.5°F (1.4°C) to 10.4°F (5.8°C) would translate into climate-related impacts that are much larger and faster than any that have occurred in recent pre-industrial times and any that have likely occurred during the 10,000-year history of civilization.

From scientific analyses of past ages, we know that even small global average temperature changes can lead to large climate shifts. For example, the average global temperature difference between the end of the last ice age, when much of the Northern Hemisphere was buried under thousands of feet of ice, and today's interglacial climate is only about only about 5°C (10° F).

the rammifications of major climate change is staggering. if the earth became how it was, say during the last ice age in a few short years, do you truely believe this would have no impact on our society? the ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising. if sea levels rose worldwide by JUST 16feet.... say goodbye to new york city, washington dc, and many other heavily polulated cities...

i HIGHLY SUGGEST YOU READ: http://www.undoit.org/what_is_gb_myth.cfm


there is something we can ALL DO right now... to help impact the future for the better!! please check out Climate Stewardship Act which was reintroduced to the senate... READ THE BILL ... SIGN THE PETITION!!
http://www.undoit.org/

more info on The Climate Stewardship Act :

GLOBAL WARMING BILL MEANS THOUSANDS OF NEW JOBS

Study Shows Trigger for New Energy Economy Increases Employment


WASHINGTON, DC (February 10, 2005) -- Major global warming legislation would add more than 800,000 new jobs in America by 2025, according to a new study released today. The bi-partisan bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in the Senate, and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and John Olver (D-MA) in the House, would trigger new development and investment in clean energy technologies, bringing much-needed employment to states and diverse job sectors across the country.

The Climate Stewardship Act, otherwise known as McCain-Lieberman, would set a nationwide standard for global warming pollution while creating a market-based system encouraging maximum technological innovation and profitable opportunities for companies to cut emissions. The study, Jobs and the Climate Stewardship Act: How Curbing Global Warming Can Increase Employment, evaluated the employment effects of the bill, released today at the Senate Radio-TV Gallery.

Among the findings of the study:

National increases of 510,000 new jobs by 2015; 602,000 new jobs by 2020; and 801,000 new jobs by 2025.


Largest job gains would occur in construction, wholesale and retail trade, and medical services and other service industries due to increased energy-efficiency and lower energy costs.


Energy and fuel industry losses are small relative to the economy and to job gains in other industries, and would likely be absorbed through annual turnover, and could be reversed through additional technology incentives.


Largest percentage job increases by 2015 would occur in Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.


The NRDC-commissioned study was conducted by economists from Redefining Progress, a national research group, Jan Mutl, an Economics Professor from Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitat of Frankfurt, German, and contributing authors from Tellus Institute, a non-profit research firm based in Boston, MA. The study used the same economic models employed by the Department of Energy and other federal agencies to analyze policy impacts on the economy and jobs.

To assess the employment impacts of McCain-Lieberman, the study used results from a Tellus Institute report that examined the effect of the bill and associated policies on energy demand, prices and costs, investment levels, permit prices, and other factors with the Department of Energy's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) augmented by other modeling tools. The authors then estimated the impact of these changes on labor demand by industry sector through the use of an input-output model developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Finally, they distributed the employment changes to states based on the relative importance of each industry sector in each state.

The major economic sectors that would be positively affected include non-energy manufacturing industries, which would see energy savings through the adoption of clean energy technologies, service industries, as consumers are projected to spend energy savings on goods and services, and agriculture, which would rise slightly under the current version of the bill. The energy and fuel industries would experience some job loss, mostly covered through normal turnover.

The analysis predicts some job losses in the coal industry, but those effects could be mitigated through policies to promote deployment of advanced coal technologies, as well as through transition assistance to displaced workers. McCain-Lieberman includes incentives for the deployment of advanced coal technologies to reduce emissions while helping to preserve jobs in that sector, and direct transition assistance for displaced workers and adversely affected communities.

Senators McCain and Lieberman today expressed their desire to add further technological incentives to the bill in energy industries, such as a higher investment to deploy advanced coal technologies which would reduce CO2 emissions while preserving employment





http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/csa/csainx.asp