You mean the Senate has some sense??? :-)

Seriously, the crunch will lie in section (b)(1) which can be
interpreted as business as usual and (b)(2) tell China that they have to
implement strict measures so that they become less competitive.

Maybe you can detect a tiny touch of cynicism.

I have done some back-of-envelope calculations and I estimate that GHG
emissions must be reduced by 55-60% just to maintain the status quo,
i.e., not to add to the damage already done. At 60% reduction, there
will even be a slight improvement over time, perhaps dropping from the
current 390-400 ppm CO2 to 325-350 ppm in 300 years (the pre-industrial
revolution figure was 280 ppm). The most rapid drop would be if we could
reduce methane emissions, which accounts for ~15% of GHG emissions. This
would mean drastically cutting down on natural gas, which, holistically,
is the worst fossil fuel, although it is the least polluting fossil fuel
in other ways.

I posted the following in another forum. It may be of interest:

[quote]... To put the church back to the middle of the village, please
allow me to re-state my credo for the nth time. I believe that carbon
emissions are the current greatest threat to mankind and this planet.
They must be reduced as drastically and as rapidly as possible. For
this, I foresee a four-pronged approach:
1. Conservation: using low-consumption appliances, cars etc. to the
maximum possible, maximal recycling of all resources, implementation of
efficient electrical mass transport schemes for persons and merchandise
at both urban and exurban (inter-city) levels
2. Fixed renewables: defined as renewables that can run 24/7/50 (2 weeks
for maintenance): generation and hot water from the incineration of
household garbage, HE where feasible (not much scope left in most parts
of the world), but only if there are no major environmental impacts (no
3-Gorges, for instance), some biomass (limited by inroads to food
production)
3. Variable renewables: wind, solar, tide, waves. Whichever, where
feasible and economically viable. I happen to live in the most
solar-oriented country of the world, with ~95% of habitations having
solar hot water heating, so I know what it can do. However, because of
its variability, this category is limited for electricity generation to
~20% of the peak demand; above that, grid instability is too dangerous.
4. Nuclear: this must be sized to satisfy peak demand (when no sun, no
wind etc.) and cranked down to actually, at any given moment, provide
the power that the other systems cannot.

I know of no other formula that will reduce carbon emissions
significantly without forcing the world back to a lower standard of
life. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on oil, coal or,
worse, natural gas and allow the remaining reserves to be used sensibly
so that our great-great-grandchildren can still profit from them.

Can you pick any real holes (based on science and technology and not on
perceived emotional responses) in this credo? [/quote]

Best regards,

Brian

Joe Fjelstad wrote:
> Senate Amendment 866, Sec. 16 was adopted after being submitted by Sen.
> Bingaman for himself and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Lamar
> Alexander (R-TN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Frank
> Lautenberg (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), James Jeffords (I-VT), John Kerry (D-MA),
> Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
>
> (a) FINDINGS. - Congress finds that -
>
> (1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average
> temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are
> posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric
> and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and
> droughts;
>
> (2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a
> substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and
>
> (3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse
> gas emissions into the atmosphere.
>
> (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE. - It is the sense of the Senate that, before the end
> of the first session of the 109th Congress, Congress should enact a
> comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on
> emissions of greenhouse gases, that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such
> emissions at a rate and in a manner that -
>
> (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and
>
> (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading
> partners and key contributors to global emissions.
>

--
______________________________________________
Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]