Salzman’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Assuming we haven't already exceeded that 2 degree C increase, the question is just why these groups did not demand that the Waxman/Markey energy bill policies and proposals be based on avoiding this increase. This of course would have required the bill to be based primarily on SCIENCE, not politics or economics. Under the circumstances the groups who signed this letter should be held accountable for THEIR failure to demand a science-based bill. Now it will be difficult to change the bill to meet the standards these groups are belatedly demanding. It is entirely possible that the Senate will kill the bill completely, and if so, it will be interesting to see whether these groups will take the tough stand that they should have taken from the beginning instead of grovelling before Waxman/Markey for the absurd feeble piece of legislation passed by the House. Most of these groups have been asleep at the switch for years. Will someone wake them up so they don't sleepwalk for another year?On 47 groups urge Obama to endorse 2-degree C warming threshold posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Podesta and his pal Joe Romm make me angrier each day. These guys KNOW that the Waxman/Markey bill doesn't come anywhere NEAR what science, the IPCC and expert climatologists tell us. Its 17% reduction in CO2 by 2020 condemns us to utter failure in heading off the worst impacts of climate change. If Podesta, Romm and all the other wusses had used their power on the side of Good instead of Mostly Bad, we might have had a bill that the public and the enviros could all support. But no, they sold out, their sold their souls, even as they crossed their fingers and hoped the worst won't happen. Had they at the very least demanded the removal of cap and trade, they might be excused on Climate Judgment Day. But they won't. They are standing steadfast ..except when we end up on the edge of the climate abyss, where they will take us all over the edge along with them. It will be no comfort for us to say to them "We told you so". In the end, these guys have sided with the enemies. They are not our friends. They have violated the public trust. They have sold their souls just so they can have access to power and exert, now and then, some influence. Contrast their pimping for Waxman/Markey with Jim Hansen getting arrest in West Virginia to stop coal. Hansen personifies courage, conviction, credibility and integrity. He is the hero of the day. Romm and Podesta will wear their black hats permanently. For shame!On Waxman-Markey: We’d better try to get what we need posted 5 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  As we all suspected, (see Agence France Presse article above), we will not get anything better than the 17% CO2 cut in Waxman/Markey. Not the EU's 20%; not the 50% by 2020; and certainly not the 80% by 2050. So what is all this malarkey (apologies to the Irish) about Waxman/Markey malarkey that it is a good "start", and we can improve on it "later". "Later" means of course "too late". Without a tough bill in this country, we can forget about influencing China or India or Brazil or any other country. I am not just disappointed and discouraged but outraged that people like Joe Romm and Paul Krugman and groups like EDF and NRDC have the audacity to deliberately hoodwink us into thinking that Waxman/Markey is the bee's knees . In effect they have bought the Democrats' specious argument that by opposing this bill we are somehow aligning ourselves with the congressmen who want no cap on CO2 and want to protect the coal industry in their states. This kind of smear is exactly what we are told at election time: support our candidate, support our agenda, or you are an enemy. One thing we are NOT is idiots, and I resent having a loaded gun pointed at my head telling me that it will be fired at me if I don't go along with the Democrats, and that if I DO go along , I won't have it fired at me for another few years. Thanks but no thanks, guys. I don't like your gun, I don't buy your excuses, and I don't buy your blackmail. Put your gun away and go home and come back with something I LIKE....and by the way, in 2010, and 2012, come back with some congressmen and a presidential candidate who can be trusted.On Top U.S. climate official says deeper emissions cuts unlikely posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What Gore and Hansen agree on has been rendered irrelevant by the Waxman/Markey bill. Were Gore sincere about decarbonizing by 2030, he would not be supporting the cap and trade regime, which will allow coal fueled plants to operate indefinitely. Nor would he accept the pathetic emissions reduction of 17% by 2020. Gore, by supporting this bill, has thrown climate science to the wolves. Hansen's proposals, on the other hand, are completely consistent and meaningful: stabilization of CO2 emissions at their present level, phasing out coal plants, a stiff carbon tax that prices carbon high enough to encourage serious energy efficiency and conservation and which spurs a faster transition by utilities to renewable energy as they phase out fossil fuels. The Waxman/Markey bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the science. The science tells us that we have to REDUCE CO2 concentrations back to 350 ppm (we are at 389 ppm now and will be at 400 within the coming decade at our present rate of energy consumption (many scientists say we are already at 400 ppm carbon equivalent, which counts other greenhouse gases in, not just CO2), at which point all bets are off and cutting back to 350 ppm will probably be impossible). There are a whole slew of treasonous groups and people responsible for the deceit of this energy bill, but all of us will bear the consequences. I hope I am wrong, but I believe that the passage of this bill has shut off, for all practical purposes, any chance of getting back to 350 ppm or decarbonizing by 2030, a date that is probably too late. In other words, we are already toast.On Gore vs. Hansen: Enviros take sides in debate over House climate bill posted 6 months ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have been arguing with these guys recently and over the past thirty years with all the nuclear proponents. THEIR motives are the ones to be scrutinized, not mine. This is all the more urgent given their misleading statements about nuclear wastes and proliferation. The 4th generation reactors they are promoting will both produce and utilize plutonium, which they propose to deal with by "burning" it in the reactor to shorten its 24,500 year half life. Unfortunately reprocessing is the filthiest part of the nuclear fuel cycle, contaminating workers, tools, premises irrevocably. This was done at the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in West Valley NY until it was closed due to high and wide contamination of Cattaraugus Creek and Lake Eric. The reactors the nuclear gang is promoting will, like all reactors, become highly radioactive and some technical sources say they would have to be completely replaced within a couple of decades. But all this is irrelevant given that a single reactor will cost $10 billion, a fact that Wall St. has recognized by refusing to invest in them. This has forced the nuclear industry to go hat in hand to congress, which has rewarded them with taxpayer's loan guarantees. OK, so you build one reactor. It takes ten years to come on line, and replaces one coal fired plant. But we need to replace coal entirely, right? So you need to build 100 reactors to replace all operating coal plants: a cool $1 trillion...which could buy all the wind turbines, photovoltaics, solar collectors and solar thermal plants we could need for the whole country, and which could come on line within two or three years, not ten. Clearly nuclear plants have NO potential for displacing coal plants or mitigating CO2 emissions within any time frame of relevance. This has been proven in an important report done at William and Mary College on why nuclear reactors are utterly USELESS in mitigating global warming. So the issue of safety becomes irrelevant to the discussion. So why do these guys keep on with this propaganda?On Gore vs. Hansen: Enviros take sides in debate over House climate bill posted 6 months ago 57 Responses