76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a newly-released nationwide poll of African-Americans conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll’s release comes as the U.S. House of Representatives is planning a Friday vote on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill. The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming.

The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.

Among the key findings:

* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;

* 52% of respondents don’t want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;

* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.

* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.

“An overwhelming majority African-Americans want Congress to fix the economy before turning its attention to climate change,” said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, who directs the group’s Public Opinion Policy Center, which issued the poll.

“Significantly,” Ridenour continued, “not only were 80 percent of the respondents self-identified Democrats, but 67 percent self-identified as ‘strong Democrats.’ As African-Americans are a core constituency of the party, if the Congressional leadership ignores this, it does so at its own peril.”

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at:http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. 94% of its revenue is received through hundreds of thousands of small contributions; 1.5% from corporations and 4.5% from philanthropic foundations.

Visit the National Center for Public Policy Research’s website at www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.

The concept of using technology to cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6365586.html

Remember how Polar bears are drowning because the ice caps are melting? Remember how the ice caps are melting because of CO2 emissions? Well new research at NASA suggests that the ice caps may be melting not because of CO2, but because of the elimination of aerosol particle emissions. In other words, pollution controls put into place in the 70′s could be the cause of the polar ice caps melting.

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

On NASA’s site , Shindell continues:

In the modeling experiment, Shindell and colleagues compiled detailed, quantitative information about the relative roles of various components of the climate system, such as solar variations, volcanic events, and changes in greenhouse gas levels. They then ran through various scenarios of how temperatures would change as the levels of ozone and aerosols — including sulfates and black carbon — varied in different regions of the world. Finally, they teased out the amount of warming that could be attributed to different climate variables. Aerosols loomed large.

The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).

That makes sense, Shindell explained, because of the Arctic’s proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world’s aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.

http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/04/remember-how-polar-bears-are-drowning.html

Climate Change: An ice shelf in Antarctica begins to break apart, and the global warming hysterics immediately blame human activities for the crackup. Is it possible that there is some other cause?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324083725218923

http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf

Boston (MA) – Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

Americans for Prosperity Condemns Rogue Agency’s Proposed Regulation of Greenhouse Gases

WASHINGTON – Comments this week by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s senior energy advisor Jason Grumet offer a peek into the type of job-killing regulations an Obama Administration would champion to satisfy environmental extremists, the grassroots free-market group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) said today. If elected president, Sen. Obama would support proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations aimed at restricting greenhouse gas emissions as “dangerous pollutants” via manipulation of the 1990 Clean Air Act. The more than 1,000-page-long proposed regulations would affect over 30 regulatory programs and would cover an extensive list of items – from planes, trains, trucks, and farm equipment, to home lawnmowers and portable power generators.

“The EPA’s power grab is nothing short of outrageous,” said AFP President Tim Phillips. “No presidential administration should support efforts by unelected bureaucrats to reach into our homes and businesses with economy-crippling regulations.”

The proposed regulations would extend the Clean Air Act into nearly every aspect of American life, and includes plans to establish “Grass Mileage Standards” for home lawnmowers, require permits for farms with as few as 25 cows, and impose speed controls on the U.S. trucking fleet. AFP is leading the grassroots campaign to oppose the proposed regulation, which has so far included op-eds, talk radio interviews, and the submission of more than 1,500 comments from average citizens for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the EPA regulation.

Grumet said Obama would support the limits for power plants and manufacturers. However, once the EPA has made an “endangerment finding,” enforcement of the new restrictions by EPA regulators is not “discretionary.” This means extending the regulatory reach to include a whole list of items is only a few lawsuits away for environmental extremists, said AFP.

“The cost to consumers and businesses from these regulations would be staggering – and it would be imposed without so much as a vote of Congress,” said Phillips. “Support for this regulation is nothing short of putting environmental extremism of American jobs.”

The architect of the Clean Air Act, Rep. John Dingell, has criticized the proposed regulations for exploiting the original intention of the legislation. “We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country … This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the [Clean Air Act] legislation,” Dingell wrote.

EPA’s power grab would cover planes, trains, and automobiles. Even your home lawn equipment.

 Use this URL to submit comments to the EPA, if you haven’t already:

 http://capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=11825801&type=CU&show_alert=1

 –Tom

For Immediate Release – October 21, 2008
Contact: Annie Patnaude, (202) 349-5880

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is the nation’s premier grassroots organization committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

# # #

Discussions about addressing climate change (e.g., through a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax) often focus on the transportation sector. The brief argues, however, that most of the reduction in CO2 emissions would occur in other sectors (e.g., the electricity sector) and that the effects on vehicle emissions would be modest, especially in the shorter run.

To be sure, a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax would raise the price of gasoline, encouraging consumers to drive less and to buy more fuel-efficient cars– but the magnitude of these effects would be relatively small. For example, CBO has estimated that a price of $28 per metric ton of CO2 in 2012 would lead to a reduction of about 10 percent in total U.S. emissions compared with a no-action scenario. Vehicle emissions, though, would remain relatively constant in the short run, and even over time they would decline only by around 2.5 percent — much less than the 10 percent reduction in overall emissions.

Several factors account for the relatively small influence that a price on CO2 emissions would have on passenger vehicles and driving behavior. First, a CO2 price of $28 per metric ton would raise gas prices by about 25 cents per gallon, far less of an increase than consumers have recently born with little behavioral result. (Between 2003 and 2007, gas prices increased from $1.50 to more than $3.00 per gallon. Vehicle miles driven, driving speeds, and the purchase of larger vehicles have all responded only modestly despite the dramatic increase in prices.) An increase in gas prices of 25 cents or so per gallon is unlikely to generate massive changes in driving behavior.

In addition, recent changes to corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards will require substantial gains in fuel economy over the next dozen years. Especially over the longer term, gas price increases are not likely to have a large effect beyond what CAFE standards will require.

Finally, cultural, historic, and geographic considerations drive the extent to which Americans have become dependent on automobile travel, and their choices tend towards larger and more powerful (and less fuel efficient) automobiles. While dramatic increases in gasoline prices (or shifts in cultural norms) might eventually influence these considerations, the magnitude of gas price increases under most legislation under consideration would likely have little effect.

The brief was written by David Austin of the Microeconomic Studies Division.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=175