What Mitt Romney is saying today about climate change is pretty much what he’s been saying all along. First, here is what he said yesterday:
Over at Edge, a variety of scientists give their take on the Iceland volcano eruption and its impact on air travel. Two really stood out to me. The first also highlights the problem of defensive medicine; the second shows the downside to action dealing with global warming:
Here is what the POTUS told COP15:
I believe we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of a common threat. That’s why I come here today — not to talk, but to act.
OK, so the White House has greenlit the EPA to go forward with new rules, as the NYTimes puts it, “to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.” I think this lobbyist quotes in the article gets the politics right:
They may not know all the stats and numbers, but people instinctively don’t seem to want to pay a lot of dough to limit carbon emissions. Not even close. In fact, you can find plenty of climate experts who doubt they ever will, particularly in India and China. Betting on mitigation and technology seems the more realistic route. A bit from Bjorn Lomborg:
This is a smart summary: “Waxman-Markey is the climate policy equivalent of Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation, guaranteeing extensive new bureaucracy and substantial economic cost to the productive economy while achieving few of its stated objectives. And the “cap and trade” system at the heart of the bill is riddled with so many loopholes that it should be considered more of a “hairnet and giveaway.”
This long awaited U.S. government report sees U.S. temps rising as much as 10 degrees this century. Here is the exec summary. Unless this stuff comes with an economic cost-benefit anlysis of mitigation strategies, you are really only getting half the story