Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

EPA issues new climate report

By Juliet Eilperin

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new report Tuesday, "Climate Change Indicators in the United States," examining 24 key indicators of global warming's effects on U.S. citizens.

Among the findings:
-- U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased 14 percent between 1990 and 2008.
-- Tropical cyclone intensity is on the upswing, with six of the 10 most active hurricane seasons taking place since the mid-1990s.
-- Sea levels are rising, with an increase between 1993 and 2000 that's twice as fast as the long-term trend.
-- The rate of glacier loss has accelerated over the past decade.

"These indicators show us that climate change is a very real problem with impacts that are already being seen," said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. "The actions Americans are taking today to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will help us solve this global challenge."

Well, at least the actions of those Americans who didn't contribute to the 14 percent boost in the nation's emissions over the past 18 years.

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  April 27, 2010; 2:12 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Graham drama continues | Next: Salazar to approve Cape Wind development

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Eilperin again??? Give me a break. She keeps misunderestimating how truly uberignorant and arrogant the Gorebal Whining crowd is, and just how wrong they are. The worst part is she doesn't ask any hard questions, doesn't ask any skeptical questions, and just lines up like a duck. It would be nice if she would act like a journalist and ask a few tough questions of the Albore crowd.

Posted by: A1965bigdog | May 3, 2010 2:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

M. Eilperin, in my previous post, I forgot to encouraqe you to be your own scientist and debunk the theory that global warming is man-made, caused by the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 in the atmosphere is growing, no question. Now, be your own scientist:

From a reliable source (you choose), get a line chart of the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 100 years. Then, from a reliable source (you choose), get a line chart showing global temperatures over the past 100 years. Lay the one line chart on top of the other and, AMAZINGLY, THERE IS NO CORRELATION. NONE.

Now, get a chart of solar irradiance from a reliable source (you choose) and lay it on top of the temperature chart. STUNNINGLY, THERE IS A VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOLAR IRRADIANCE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. It looks like we would have learned from staying out in the sun too long -- and getting sunburned -- that there is a close relationship between the sun and the earth's temperatures. End of science class, M. Eilperin. Now, I expect you to be a little more objective and not a promoter of the EPA in the future.

Posted by: RonKH | April 28, 2010 7:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

M. Eilperin, stop confusing scientists with alarmists. The EPA is trying to build up its budget and empire by scaring the hell out of folks. Look at the facts: The problem really grew very rapidly after the UN published their 2007 report on climate change (nee global warming). That report said that the world was warming at an alarming rate and the cause is "man-made" because of the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The temperatures reported in the 2007 report were gathered by the Climate Research Unit (CRU)of the University of East Anglia in England. Phil Jones was the Research Director of CRU then. Later, someone leaked/hacked emails and posted them on the Internet -- which revealed that the data Jones was collecting from around the world was "tricked" or increased to suit the claims of the UN alarmists.

Under pressure, Jones resigned and later reported to the media that "there has been no appreciable global warming for 15 years." Of course, this statement blew a gigantic hole in that 2007 UN report being used as an alarmist's handbook by Gore and others.

When asked by the media if he would furnish the original data to independent scientists to analyze, Jones said that it was "lost." If you believe that, you probably also believe the schoolboy who claimed that "the dog ate my homework." The only reason there was no legal investigation was because the British "statute of limitations" had expired.

So, please stop proclaiming that the EPA dogma is true. Think for yourself.

Posted by: RonKH | April 28, 2010 6:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

David65,

I know of no reason why the US needs clean energy. The energy sources that we have are clean enough. If you will read the stuff that EPA publishes and think about it, you will discover that even when they imply that they are telling you about a major problem, they are actually debunking their own hysteria. One of my favorites was the EPA revelation that air pollution in the worst-polluted city in the US contributes 60 cancers per lifetime to the exposed population. If you consider the obscenely conservative measures that go into their risk assessments, you would discount that number by a factor of 100 or so. Even if you do not discount their obscene overestimates, you have to consider that they are talking about an increase in lifetime cancer risk from 300,000 per million to a risk of 300,060 per million. That is an increase of 0.02%. Why does the EPA even pretend that their risk assessment procedures are that precise and accurate? It is a fantasy, as are all EPA risk assessment numbers.

Furthermore, the alternative energy sources that you are suggesting are inefficient and costly relative to existing conventional energy sources. I think that we should let the Chinese et al. build those expensive devices and waste their resources paying for them, while we continue what we are doing right. That will build our strength just fine.

Where did you ever get the idea that 9 out of 10 climate scientists believe the IPCC? That too, is a fantasy. The polls tell us that percentage that is skeptical approximately equals the percentage that believes it. I have read articles by both sides of the debate and have become convinced that the IPCC has greatly overestimated the risk of climate warming. You should read more and make your own assessment.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | April 28, 2010 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Regardless of views concerning climate science, the US economy needs clean energy. China, Germany and other export rivals are investing in clean energy. We should not be left behind. Please review the facts concerning our budget and trade deficits, including the direct and indirect subsidies coal receives and the amount of oil we import from countries that either directly or indirectly support policies contrary to core US interests.

Lets get conservatives and environmentalists to work together on a simple idea: Tax pollution more and tax income less.

Lets build a stronger US.

Oh, and regarding climate science, if 9 of of 10 doctors said one of your children had a serious but curable health problem, would you believe the 9 or the 1.

Posted by: david65 | April 28, 2010 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

rchaa27aa,

Because it is fun to poke holes in the WaPo mythology. Also, it is possible that you might influence someone who has not yet over-consumed the Kool Aid

Posted by: snorbertzangox | April 28, 2010 12:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, this just looks like an extension of the WaPo liberal bent. Tell me, why would a Republican or Conservative come to a liberal site like this?

Posted by: rchaa27aa | April 28, 2010 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, it is and necessary for us to know these information about out environment and the world. People may realize how worse things have turned to. It is unfair to deny what the EPA's work. Do things will certainly turn better if we just change another agency? Of course not! We should not just blame the departments of the government. Or just be pessimistically. What we should do is to take quick and effective actions to change the present condition and improve our environment..

Posted by: lyflylxhmama | April 28, 2010 2:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is hard to believe. It is like a Religion, some believe, some do not.
But, in this instance, all people, believers and non-believers alike, will, oddly, literally go to a hellish hot Earth. Yes, some blame Democrats and ignore science, did they learn nothing about truth and science? Perhaps, their teachers never brought up the subject. Well, now, it is too late to fix schools.
About the time Health Care is available to all, starvation in Central Asia will be evident and Iran will try to switch from oil to Nuclear Power, really, this time.
Too Bad, it will all be too late.
There is no theoretical possibility of removing all the GW moleculres, they will continue heating the Earth until it reaches the temperature of Venus, 845 Deg Fahrenheit. Twice the oven temperature in Auschwitz. You say you are not Jewish? Well, the neighbors that did this to us, and our children, never intended that, they were well-meaning, ignorant, but well meaning. May God have mercy on them!

Posted by: MikeSar | April 27, 2010 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sarasota1

I do not believe that it is as benevolent as your post implies. The EPA is not pushed by its handlers; the EPA is populated with radical environmentalists who resist pressure from politicians to moderate their extreme views. I believe that we must dismantle the EPA and start over with another agency that will be more responsive to real world issues.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | April 27, 2010 8:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The EPA is just spewing out useless info that its handlers tell it to. I guess Albert Gore and company are going to push as hard as they can on this issue until it comes crashing down around their heads!! The global warming hoax is over and the pushers of this lie are on the verge of "being eaten for breakfast"!! They can smell all that "cap and trade" money a mile away but we will NOT let them partake of this UN-holy feast!!

Posted by: sarasota1 | April 27, 2010 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This CO2 is probably coming from the trees that greens prevent from being cut down to make wood for the housing construction market.
Good news is these same trees produce more oxygen through photosynthesis that helps human life.
So what is the reason we need a carbon tax again?

Posted by: rteske | April 27, 2010 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Again, it's Bush's fault.

Posted by: kash1 | April 27, 2010 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

nkirk15 - just a thought - go eat some butter and eggs! You won't get the joke but that's the point!

Posted by: RealityBitesBQ | April 27, 2010 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks AGWsceptic99! I couldn't have said it better! Give the people facts - not political BS spin! The people deserve better no matter who your paycheck comes from!

Posted by: RealityBitesBQ | April 27, 2010 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So EPA (Environmental Politics Agency) is at it again, what else is new?

"US greenhouse gases (alleged greenhouse gases) have increased 14% since 1995." Meanwhile, even Phil Jones, late of the CRU at UEA, agrees that the climate temperature has not changed since 1995. Perhaps something other than carbon dioxide is going on.

"Tropical cyclone intensity is on the upswing." The recent consensus among cyclone experts is that there is no relationship between cyclone intensity and climate temperature, cyclone intensity is cyclical and the cycles are unchanged.

The IPCC acknowledges that the rate of rise of sea level has not changed since the end of the last ice age.

Some glaciers recede, other glaciers advance. No one inside or outside of IPCC has demonstrated a relationship between glacier behavior and carbon dioxide. The glaciers, too, started loosing ice about 10,000 years ago. Remember from high school when they told you about the origin of the Finger Lakes in upstate New York. Those glaciers certainly receded.

There is no evidence that the ongoing warming is unusual or caused by anything other than natural cycles.

Whom are you going to believe, climatologists, geologists, archaeologists, and other scientists with no axe to grind or EPA? I am tired of EPA using my tax dollars to make up propaganda.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | April 27, 2010 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It amazes me how people can be so deaf, dumb and blind as to ignore the science of climate change. I assume you believe air pollution does not exist. Trying sucking on the tailpipe of your car while it's running for a few hours.

Posted by: nkirk15 | April 27, 2010 3:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Don't you just love the way the folks who believe that CO2 will cause humans great harm continue to spin the data?

Sea level rise between 1993 and 2000 was just fractionally over one inch. That was probably faster than some unspecified previous period. Is the inch really all that important and does the seven year measurement period allow EPA and the rest of the global warmers to declare an emergency? If the next fifty years showed a decline of an inch or two would we have the opposite emergency?

Hurricanes have become more damaging due to intensive built up areas on the seacoast, but there were many recorded periods where there were more hurricanes and more intense hurricanes. Why continue to spin this basically untrue statement?

There is more CO2 being released into the air each year, and likely that will be the case until nuclear energy or other new technologies replace oil and coal. There is really not much evidence that this CO2 is causing the currently warmer temperatures. There were warmer temperatures during Roman times, during the Medieval Warm Period, and during the 1930s. None of those warmer times were likely to have been caused by CO2, and civilization didn't come to an end.

The EPA also declared polar bears to be an endangered species. Now there are so many of them that villages near the arctic circle need to stand guard with high powered rifles whenever the children go out to play. There are more than four times the number of polar bears now versus fifty years ago. The polar ice is not melting away and has actually returned to average versus the last thirty years.

It would be nice if the EPA practiced science rather than religiously based politics, but possibly the ongoing law suits will force them to change direction on CO2 as a hazardous gas. Bush was constantly criticized for replacing science with politics; maybe it was too much to hope for actual 'change' with the new Administration.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | April 27, 2010 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company