The Semi-Farce, the Energy Bill, is in the Senate! Will our Senators acknowledge science facts and straighten it out, or worsen it?

As we are now experiencing with the Energy Bill, when CHANGE is truly necessary (documented with science facts), and a new set of regulators initiate the change, the result is better than nothing, but still A NATIONAL SHAME. Why? Because it becomes obvious that politicians (Congress) allow themselves to be so controlled (bought, pushed, paid off?) by special interests that the change they make (passing the energy bill) is contrary to scientific facts. Examples:
Science facts published by the most prestigious research institutes demonstrated - - without any question of a doubt - - that there is an extreme urgency to reduce CO2 production; also acknowledged many times by President Obama. This culminates in an Oxford University study - - OP-ED section, LA Times, 6.25 - - that, with recent CO2 production levels, and without drastic CO2 reductions in the near future, "that we have a 90% chance of undoing the conditions on Earth that allowed and supported the development of human civilization."
Yet, included in the ENERGY BILL that was just passed in Congress, is to allow 24 new coal strip mining projects (that eliminate millions of trees), and coal use increase to such a degree that, by 2020, we will be burning MORE coal than we did in 2005. This is the result of special interests - - coal unions, and coal industry - - blatantly influencing members of the House.
When alerted to these facts, scientific ElToroPooPooers will proclaim fallacies like: “Nonsense! Trees and plants absorb CO2 and give off O2, and any excess of CO2 will be balanced by plants growing faster. Wrong!
Fact: UCSD studies have shown that, contrary to expectations, increased carbon dioxide does not accelerate plant growth. Previous research has also shown that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide expected to occur this century can cause leaf stomata (pores in leaves, Ca-dependent) to close by 20 to 40 percent in diverse plant species, thus actually reducing carbon dioxide intake.
Ocean’s capacity to balance CO2 - - oceans are already dying from extreme acidification (H2O + CO2 ---> H2CO3, carbonic acid) - - has further decreased by 10%.
The energy bill, while better than nothing, does not deliver what is truly needed, namely an immediate REDUCTION (instead of the opposite, an INCREASE) in coal burning because there is no other way to reduce CO2. CLICK HERE for "The Coal Problem by the numbers), and "Aren't you p----d off to the hilt,yet"
With continued warming, and disappearance of tundra permafrost areas, Methane (23 times more harmful to the atmosphere than CO2; locked in permafrost soil) is now being released at massive amounts.
The northern tundra (and the undersea methane ice) are all the result of massive amounts of biomass being converted to a simpler carbon form in an anaerobic environment. The frozen northern tundra has trapped some 400 gigatons of methane gas for tens of thousands of years. It is the release of this trapped methane that scientists worry about.
In one area 344 acres of tundra were blackened by burning methane. This black surface now absorbs more heat from the sun and causes a chain reaction of much more increased warming.
Lakes in Alaska, due to release of previously frozen methane (clathrates) look as if they were boiling.
Just last year scientists in Siberia were reporting lakes were boiling so violently from the release of methane gas that the lakes could not freeze even in the depths of winter. One scientist in Siberia who has been studying the Siberian bogs for 15 years has seen dramatic changes in the past few years.
Now this SEMI-FARCE of an energy bill is moving to the Senate. Which one of two major possibilities do you think will happen:
a) The bill will be worsened by more special interests?
b) Members of the Senate will acknowledge science facts and improve the bill by at least reducing coal usage, and preventing deforestation by coal strip mining, and other agricultural projects?
Can PEOPLE POWER - - all of us expressing our views to our Senators - - make a difference, A REAL CHANGE?

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!

Join this Ning Network

Comment by Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD on July 8, 2009 at 11:49pm: We'd be happy if there was ANY reduction of coal-burning - - - instead of the tremendous INCREASE (by 2020 more than we used in 2005, IN ADDITION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS CALLED STRIP-MINING.
LOOK AT THE NUMBERS; THERE IS SIMPLY NO LOGIC!
Some more data about the FUTURE dangers of methane.
According to the annual report from UNEP (UNEP YEAR BOOK 2008), new data show that the emission of methane from permafrost areas has been underestimated.
It is now estimated that each year somewhere between 150 and 250 million tons of methane are released into the atmosphere from wetlands. A third of the total output comes from arctic regions according to the UN climate panel. But, anywhere from 750 to 950 billion tons methane are trapped in the organic materials underground in the arctic permafrost regions; with permafrost being defined as ground that has remained frozen for more than two years.
One report estimates that a total of 50 billion tons of methane could be released from the Siberian wetlands alone. That would be a ten fold increase in the methane content of the atmosphere compared to the present.
Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - enough to start this chain reaction - and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Comment by Jim Martin on July 8, 2009 at 9:50am: I doubt that we can get a significant reduction in the use of coal put into this energy bill. Instead of trying to get too much, we should back passage of the first attempt to have a system that rewards reductions in carbon burning. Without this bill, we have no chance to negotiate with other countries to reduce carbon burning. Once we see that we can live with this bill, we can push for changes that will reduce carbon burning further.

Comment by WALTER REED on July 8, 2009 at 12:25am: Hi Dr. Kugler:

That's very interesting and on a subject having so many conflicting observations. The consequence of excess CO2 is remarkable, but man-made C02 contributions causing global warming, I still have reservations. I agree that the methane problem, much of which in not controllable by man-kind, is a major problem. Even the deep sections of our seas harbor incredible amounts just ready for eruption, give a undersea volcano or major earthquake. Consider the rash of volcanos, popping their cork over the past 20 years, dumping untold amount of toxic pollution and green house gases, Just the SiO2 and the hydro carbons are onerous, as well as the methane. Now that NASA has issued statements that with the settling of the Sun's solar flare cycle, that we are in for 20-30 years of earth cooling, as well as our solar system, and ending perhaps on the door step of the next mini-ice age (even more onerous for our grandchildren - look at history). None of us want pollution, and the Congress needs to be fired - the whole lot, and prudent steps toward reducing all pollution is important inclusive of green alternatives. Our country has been seriously weakened by the greed and corruption of Congress, the financial communities and Wall Street. Energy independence is job one as is re-establishing a manufacturing base in this country (Product supports Services in any sustaining economy). If CO2 is now at such critical stages, then why are not taking like measures such as seeding the dead areas of the oceans with iron dust to bloom algae - a voracious consumer of CO2? If extreme measures are needed, then we need to do them. Can you weigh in on such possible counter-measures?

Very interesting data that you posted,
Walter