What can be done (climate change debate)?

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Now there is a real first step towards doing something.

As pointed before, even in the last conference efforts were done to make that conference carbon neutral.

As for doing something: personal contact is the main reason why conferences are made. One has to consider that in the real world many businesses are reporting that teleconferencing is not a very effective to start the dialog for an eventual agreement, so it is in government. The “common” assessment that conferences like that are useless ignores that the conversation is progressing and the framework of what will be done is taking shape. Sure, not at the speed is needed IMHO but once the problem becomes more serious that framework will be a guide for what will be set for the future.

BBC News - What did the Copenhagen climate summit achieve?

What Copenhagen changed:

With 110 world leaders present and a single issue on the agenda, there has never been a meeting like this. The countries that brokered the text, the US, China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the EU, also reflects a world in which the balance of power has significantly changed in the last 20 years.
At a fundamental level, the conference redefined the debate between countries in terms of awareness of climate science and support for action. There is no longer any question that climate change is central to the political thinking of every country on the planet.
Public awareness has also massively increased. The vast campaigns run around the world in the run-up to Copenhagen by governments, NGOs and business and the media coverage of the issue and the summit have made addressing climate change widely understood and discussed from the pubs of rural England to the bars of Beijing.
The other very important change is that green growth is now the prevailing economic model of our time. **The idea that addressing climate change is bad for business was buried at Copenhagen**. Countries from both developed and developing worlds have announced low-carbon economic plans and are moving forward. 

[FXMastermind]

The next step is to outlaw anyone from posting about global warming, unless they use solar, wind or nuclear power to use internet. Or hook up a bike to charge your batteries.

No more fossil fuel powered global warming discussions.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

The next step is to outlaw anyone from posting about global warming, unless they use solar, wind or nuclear power to use internet. Or hook up a bike to charge your batteries.

No more fossil fuel powered global warming discussions.

Nothing like that was reported from the conferences.

[Sam_Stone]

What a surprise that the Copenhagen conference would conclude that ‘green growth’ is the prevailing economic model of our time. And of course they ‘buried’ the idea that addressing climate change is bad for business. What were you expecting, that a green conference would come out with a statement that their ideas would hurt the economy?

‘Green growth’ is not our prevailing economic model. That’s just silly. ‘Green Growth’ is little more than a talking point. Just like all those ‘green jobs’ that were going to transform the American economy. Remember those?

The fact is, environmental protection costs money. It may be worth the cost, but it’s ridiculous to claim that it’s a way to grow an economy.

Meanwhile, the Global Energy Initiative surveyed a bunch of economists for their views on what can be done about climate change, and what do you know, most of them pretty much agree with what I’ve been saying:

The Economist’s Solution to Climate Change

@Larry Summers

My sense is that cap and trade is not the route to the future. It did not make it politically in the US at a moment of great opportunity in 2009. And European carbon markets have been plagued by constant problems. And globally it’s even harder. My sense is that the right strategy has three major elements. First, as the G20 vowed in 2009, there needs to be a concerted phase out of fossil fuel subsidies. This would help government budgets, drive increases in economic efficiency and substantially reduce global emissions. Second, there needs to be assurance of adequate funding for all areas of basic energy research. As a practical matter my guess is the world will produce non fossil fuel power in the next 25 years at today s fossil fuel prices or it will fail with respect to global climate change. Third, there is a strong case for concerted carbon taxes to further discourage greenhouse gas emissions. But this is a follow-on step for after the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

He’s for a carbon tax, but not until other issues are addressed. And he admits that cap and trade markets have problems, so I’m not sure why he thinks a carbon tax will work much better. I am TOTALLY in agreement with the need to phase out subsidies of fossil fuels. But that seems almost politically impossible.

Ask yourself: If you can’t even get countries to agree to stop subsidizing the burning of fossil fuels, what do you think your chances are of getting them to impose a tax on them?

@Otaviano Canuto

The economist’s solution to climate change can be summarized in a single statement: “get the prices right!” This means taxing fossil fuels proportionately to the amount of carbon they release, in order to correct the problem that corresponding negative spillovers of their use are not reflected in their market prices. Incentives in favor of more climate-friendly technological innovations would also be reinforced. Subsidies to these innovations, as well as to avoid deforestation would also help, as potential benefits of these mitigating factors would in turn become appropriately embedded in their reduced costs.

This is the simplistic economist’s answer. Getting the prices right is indeed a worthy goal, except for several problems: 1) we don’t know what the right price is, and 2) for that to work you need everyone to go along with you. It’s a fungible global commodity, so you need a global pricing structure. The market provides one today. To replace it by fiat you need all the participants in the market to agree, or you just wind up with a system of one-sided tariffs with all the problems I mentioned earlier. Since that’s not going to happen, I don’t think this one is possible.

@Alex Tabarrok

Neither the developed nor the developing world will accept large reductions in their standard of living. As a result, the only solution to global climate change is innovations in green technology. A carbon tax will induce innovation as people demand a way to avoid the tax. A carbon tax, however, will be more politically acceptable if technologies to avoid the tax are in existence before the tax is put into place. Prizes for green innovations can blaze a path down a road that must be traveled, making the trip easier. The L-prize successfully induced innovation in LED technologies, the X-Prize put a spacecraft into near space twice within two weeks and Google’s Lunar X prize for putting a robot on the moon is close to being awarded. Prizes have proven their worth. To speed both the creation and diffusion of green technology, green prizes should be awarded at the rate of $100-$200 million annually.

This is closest to the right answer, in my opinion. The major focus has to be on finding a way to make alternative energy sources cheaper - and not by subsidizing it. That just shifts the cost to another sector. Once you have a cost-competitive technology, THEN you can start think of carbon taxes and alt-energy subsidies as a way to encourage the changeover to the new technology. But taxing energy before we have an alternative will not happen as it would destroy wealth and would merely act as a wealth transfer from compliant countries to non-compliant countries.

Alex also has the right idea for how to stimulate R&D: You don’t let government pick winners and losers. Not only are they not competent to do so (no one is, since it’s a process of discovery and no one knows where the breakthroughs will come from), but that just opens the door for corruption and rent-seeking. That’s what happened with the Ethanol mandate and with Obama’s ‘green energy’ initiatives. They picked the people they thought should get the money, and that turned out to be a failure. Prizes can instead be used to change the cost-benefit equation to stimulate research, without disrupting the stochastic innovation model of the marketplace.

@Tyler Cowen

This is a problem we are failing to solve. Keep in mind it is not just about getting the wealthy countries to switch to greener technologies, but we also desire that emerging economies will find green technology more profitable than dirty coal. A carbon tax is one way forward but the odds are that will not be enough and besides many countries are unlikely to adopt one anytime soon. Subsidies for technology could occur at a very basic level and we could make a gamble that nuclear fusion will finally pay off. We also need version of green technology that will fit into existing energy infrastructures and into countries which do not have the most reliable institutions. The most likely scenario is that we will find out just how bad the climate change problem is slated to be.

The most pessimistic take: Carbon taxes would be a good idea, except that no one will accept them. So, time to start mitigating. But Tyler also supports research into new technologies.

@Jun Zhang

I think in the long run decelerating the change in climate is possible amidst accelerating the global industrialization, urbanization and economic growth. Created incentives for clean energy, appropriate tax and pricing policy for energy use and emissions, as well as rapid structural change and productivity growth in economic development, are all remarkable contributors.

There’s one guy who’s for carbon taxes, but he’s also for ‘rapid structural change’ whatever that is, and ‘productivity growth in economic development’, which is somewhat confusing but also inconsistent with taxing people more for their energy.

@Bjorn Lomborg

The only way to move towards a long-term reduction in emissions is if green energy becomes much cheaper. If it cost less than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, including the Chinese. This, of course, requires breakthroughs in green technologies and much more innovation.

At the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate (fixtheclimate.com), a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, found that the best long-term strategy to tackle global warming was to increase dramatically investment in green research and development. They suggested doing so 10-fold to $100bn a year globally. This would equal 0.2% of global GDP. Compare this to the EU’s climate policies, which cost $280 billion a year but reduce temperatures by a trivial 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

So basically, the way out is to make alternative energy cheaper than fossil fuels, so that the world willingly switches over. I can get behind that. I can even get behind increased government funding of alternative energy research, so long as it’s done in a way that doesn’t substitute central planning for market innovation.

[watchwolf49]

@Sam_Stone

<snip>

{ex-PFC Wintergreen …}

I don’t agree with every little detail of your two posts, but I certainly understand them. You’ve taken ordinary evidence and made ordinary claims. If I should wish to debate you on these few disagreements, then it is my case to make.

“Reducing regulatory barriers to nuclear power would be a good start.” Depends on which regulations we’re talking about. Any of the trivial rules aren’t slowing the process down, it’s the big expensive and time consuming regulations that slow the process. Environmental Impact Studies, quadruple redundant safety systems and containment structures are required for very good reasons. Diablo Canyon in California is designed to withstand the largest tsunami, the strongest earthquake and the most powerful Pacific storm … all at the same time. This is cheaper than splitting open just one of the reactor vessels and dumping it into the ocean. Sacrificing safety for timeliness is a poor tradeoff.

“How nice for you. It’s always easy to get behind a movement when it doesn’t cost you anything.” Do you honestly believe someone came by and gave us a wind farm. That’s nuts … these people expect a profit … a return on investment. When they were receiving tax credits, we were taking textbooks out of the hands of little children. It’s called “investing in the future”. I have no idea why the rest of the world is surprised by all this, we’ve known it here for the past forty years. I’m not the only one who has lived their entire adult life being conscience of my effect on the environment. Admittedly, we started this when the Alarmists were screaming “peak oil, peak oil”. It was truly a miracle from God that we found centuries worth of reserves and even more miraclous that Big Oil just happen to have the exact technology at hand to exploit these new found reserves. I hope that new Pope is thinking about sainthood for these Oil executives. Communities have to invest their own money if they want clean energy.

<hijack>“Stop subsidizing water usage in California”. This totally confuses me, why shouldn’t Californians be allowed to subsidize their own water?</hijack>

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

‘Green growth’ is not our prevailing economic model. That’s just silly. ‘Green Growth’ is little more than a talking point. Just like all those ‘green jobs’ that were going to transform the American economy. Remember those?

Sure I remember, last time we had that conversation it was clear that a lot of those jobs failed to come thanks to what the Republicans are doing by preventing the funding of those jobs. Even so, there has been a lot of progress in that area.

Expansive definition helps "green" jobs outnumber oil and gas jobs in U.S.

Baldwin said: “Over 3 million Americans are employed in the growing green-collar workforce,” which is more than the number “of people working in the fossil fuel industry.”

The latest estimates are for 2011. The federal government says there were 3.4 million green jobs, while a national oil and gas trade group says there were 2.59 million oil and gas jobs.

We rate Baldwin’s statement True.

[Deeg]

@Sam_Stone

This is the absolute bottom line:

Every ounce of fossil fuel we can reach s going to be burned for energy until it is too expensive compared to the alternatives.

I don’t disagree but that doesn’t mean that looking into alternatives is wrong. It’s possible that full-scale nuclear power could become cheaper than extracting fossil fuel out of the ground, especially if we find a way to tax carbon. I also think there is a benefit to creating the carbon over a longer period of time, if only because it gives us more time to come up with other alternatives.

I think taxing carbon can be done. We could, for example, tax carbon on imports. It won’t be easy but if the US, EU, and Japan all agree then emerging manufacturers like China would have to at least consider going along.

[watchwolf49]

@Deeg

I don’t disagree but that doesn’t mean that looking into alternatives is wrong. It’s possible that full-scale nuclear power could become cheaper than extracting fossil fuel out of the ground, especially if we find a way to tax carbon. I also think there is a benefit to creating the carbon over a longer period of time, if only because it gives us more time to come up with other alternatives.

I think taxing carbon can be done. We could, for example, tax carbon on imports. It won’t be easy but if the US, EU, and Japan all agree then emerging manufacturers like China would have to at least consider going along.

… and using the tax revenues to subsidize carbon-neutral power generation. If it works, and we reduce our carbon emissions, do we increase other taxes to continue the subsidies, or reduce the subsidies and hope the power stations can survive in the open market?

How much truth is there in the statement “The true cost of a gallon of gasoline is double what we pay at the pump”? Just how much tax money is used to subsidize Big Oil? My own Congressman has no idea, it’s so complicated and convoluted there’s no way he has time to figure it out.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Deeg

My thoughts for the US:

1. Make nuclear power a national focus.
2. Begin phasing in higher (ultimately much higher) Federal gasoline prices. Potentially balance those with lower income taxes.
3. Seriously consider carbon taxing.
4. Did I mention nuclear power?
5. Investigate geoengineering as a last resort.

I don’t believe we can reverse AGW but we can hopefully mitigate it enough to keep it from causing major problems.

#2 and 3 would jsut push us into a depression.

Noone is going to trade theoretical harms in the distant future for current economic harm.

I suspect we will have econmically viable alternative energy before gasoline starts to approach the sort of prices you see in the UK.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

#2 and 3 would jsut push us into a depression.

Not really.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEsQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fearththeoperatorsmanual.com%2Fannotated_script%2FPDF%2FETOM_Script_PTP.pdf&ei=974gU_Yf5ozIAZfIgOAG&usg=AFQjCNGnFmt-HAzmYXmEzneiqXdi597VRw&sig2=wKqdL1HvoOAKtoJGcK1WDA&bvm=bv.62788935,d.aWc&cad=rja
(PDF file)

The revolution in hygiene involved an extensive “infrastructure” of toilets in homes, sewers underneath our cities, water treatment plants. Today we might call it the sanitation “smart grid.”

So how much did all this cost? Not that much, if you consider the millions of lives saved with clean water, prevention of diseases like cholera and typhoid— something like 1% of the economy, in very round numbers. And that’s more or less the estimated cost of switching the world to a sustainable energy system that doesn’t dump fossil fuel CO2 into the public space.

For more on the revolution in public health, see Earth: The Operators’ Manual (the book), chapter 16, “Toilets and the Smart Grid,” page 209 ff, and the discussion of the science and statistics that led to the conclusion that cholera and bad water supplies were linked.

Richard writes, “The optimal economic path outlined in chapter 15 would cost well under 1% of the world economy per year, with benefits outweighing the costs. But that path allowed a lot of warming to occur. Enhanced national security, insurance against disasters, and fairness to others were among the additional arguments that favored more action sooner.

Several groups …have attempted to estimate the costs of stabilizing the climate while still supplying abundant energy. These estimates generally ignore the benefits of avoiding climate change and present only the costs. Those costs depend a lot on how rapidly the stabilization is made. For plans that stop the warming at no more than a few degrees within a few decades, costs generally are in the neighborhood of 1% of the world’s economy (gross domestic product, or GDP.)”

@Damuri_Ajashi

Noone is going to trade theoretical harms in the distant future for current economic harm.

There is evidence that the warming is already affecting the intensity of extreme weather events like hurricanes, precipitation events, droughts and others.

@Damuri_Ajashi

I suspect we will have econmically viable alternative energy before gasoline starts to approach the sort of prices you see in the UK.

And a lot of it is already available, but instead of a concerted effort to make the situation less onerous in the future we have groups (specially in the political sphere) that are only pushing for inaction.

[watchwolf49]

@Damuri_Ajashi

#2 and 3 would jsut push us into a depression

I think “phasing in” is the operative words here. We can increase the carbon tax, say, 2.6¢ per gallon, per year, for 100 years. This would only result in chronic recession. As noted above, trucking companies are running razor thin margins, so we’ll have to exempt trucks hauling food, or food prices will go up. Ambulances and medical supply deliveries will have to be exempt, health care is already too expensive. Government vehicles (including military) are either exempted, or we increase income taxes to cover. Eventually, we’ll get to dark grey Toyota Tacomas because only nice people drive those. The extra 5,000 pages of tax code won’t even be noticeable … honest …

[Deeg]

@Damuri_Ajashi

#2 and 3 would jsut push us into a depression.

I disagree. The EU survives quite well on much higher taxes. I agree that it will hit the economy because the economy obviously believes hydrocarbons to (currently) be the most efficient source of power. I just don’t think it will be a major problem if we can ramp up nuclear power to take its place. Taxing oil and carbon has to be done in conjunction with implementing another power source.

[wolfpup]

This risk with any taxes, carbon or otherwise, is that they will be squandered. Making fossil fuels more expensive to more closely reflect their environmental cost is at best only half the solution. The other half is to compartmentalize those funds and use them only for green research and the subsidy of green energy, so that consumers actually have alternatives. It’s gratifying that with relatively little incentives we already have products like the Chevy Volt and the Tesla. Tesla already has plans to move from the current paradigm of relatively high cost and limited production into mass production and low cost within about the next two years.

[Chief_Pedant]

@wolfpup

This risk with any taxes, carbon or otherwise, is that they will be squandered. Making fossil fuels more expensive to more closely reflect their environmental cost is at best only half the solution. The other half is to compartmentalize those funds and use them only for green research and the subsidy of green energy, so that consumers actually have alternatives. It’s gratifying that with relatively little incentives we already have products like the Chevy Volt and the Tesla. Tesla already has plans to move from the current paradigm of relatively high cost and limited production into mass production and low cost within about the next two years.

What does it mean to compartmentalize taxes? All the money ever raised from taxes is spent, plus some percentage more (that’s why raising taxes never balances a budget).

If I compartmentalize lottery money for education, all that happens is that money which would go to education from other sources is now freed up to be spent elsewhere.

Not to mention the complexities of who actually gets the money. If green energy gets cheaper than fossils, it’s a pretty straightforward bet Exxon will get more deeply into the green energy business…

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

Well, the place where one of the last conference took place (Copenhagen) is becoming carbon neutral. And the country has a plan to become energy independent with mostly renewable energy by 2050.

http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/

Hey, is that splash photo in the link Denmark or Cape Wind?

[Der_Trihs]

@XT

What I’m looking for is…what can we reasonably and realistically do about it? I’m looking at this from a global perspective. Given the attitude of both the public in the various countries and the various governments around the world (especially the large, powerful countries such as China, India, the US, the powerful European and other Asian nations, etc), what can actually and realistically be done to change the outcome?

Nothing. The rich and powerful don’t want anything to be done, so nothing of significance will be done. After all, if millions die in famines and millions more are driven into poverty what do they care? They’ll still be safe and comfortable in their estates and gated communities.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

Well, the place where one of the last conference took place (Copenhagen) is becoming carbon neutral. And the country has a plan to become energy independent with mostly renewable energy by 2050.

Nonsense, what they claimed is they have a plan.

The Danish government recently presented a strategy on how to achieve independence from fossil fuels by 2050

If you want to really change the world, pick one farm, one house, a barn, the tractors and trucks, and show us how to make it run with out fossil fuels. You can even hook it up to a nuclear power grid, to make it easier.

Show the world, do just one farm and household. Same goes for any other country, group or idealistic visionary who wants to do something about “the problem”.

Throw a million dollars at the problem, and show us how to a modern business and home can run with out fossil fuels.

I know of a man who already did this, on his own. He spent 100,000 dollars US to be able to meet all his energy needs, with zero fossil fuels. With out giving up a single modern luxury. Except for fertilizer of course. Cement and fertilizer are the two big issues. Because it’s already possible to meet all your energy needs with out fossil fuels.

Cement making, steel production, growing food and raising animals, along with trucking and shipping are the things nobody has solved yet, but of course people are working on it.

But it’s like phosphate. With out a cheap source to mine, just like phosphate, making nitrogen is the limiting factor for modern food production. And you can’t do it with out burning fuels.

Certainly the carbon removed by agriculture offsets some of it, especially if the carbon is left in the ground to nurture the soils.

But if fossil fuels just vanished tonight, almost everybody on the planet would start to starve in some way. In weeks, not months.

If The Danish government has a plan to poiduce fertilizer with out fossil fuels, the world wants to know what it is.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Nonsense, what they claimed is they have a plan.

:rolleyes:

Repeating what I said and attempting to make is sound like if it was something else or not to the point is really silly.

@FXMastermind

If The Danish government has a plan to poiduce fertilizer with out fossil fuels, the world wants to know what it is.

Well, I guess it is just me, but I think one simple tool to use is the scroll down button on the browser, more details about what Denmark is **planing **and **doing **is there in the page that was cited.

Wind Energy

Wind is a major industry in Denmark employing around 25,000 people, and wind energy supplies more than 25 per cent of the electricity consumed in Denmark.

Copenhagen - the first carbon neutral capital in the world

Mayors, town planners and politicians from all over the world have often visited Copenhagen in recent years to study its bicycle traffic, district heating system or its waste management. In various respects Copenhagen is a role model for many of the world’s big cities when it comes to sustainable town development.

Strategies and policies
Do you want to know more about Denmark and its efforts on climate and energy? Take a closer look at the following strategies and policies.

Danish strategy for adaptation to a changing climate

Climate change is a reality. In the years to come, we can expect more extreme weather incidents such as droughts, flooding, storm surges, tornados and rising sea levels. These changes mean that society must adapt within a number of areas.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Der_Trihs

Nothing. The rich and powerful don’t want anything to be done, so nothing of significance will be done. After all, if millions die in famines and millions more are driven into poverty what do they care? They’ll still be safe and comfortable in their estates and gated communities.

Wait…I thought that in the US the 99% also had 99% of the vote…

Also, under what scenario does ACC cause famine and poverty, and what is the confidence level with which that prediction is made?
I’m personally hoping for longer growing seasons in places that are good at growing stuff, and better yields with higher CO2 levels (low confidence at this point b/c we are so crappy at predicting, but I am Hoping for that Change).

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

Wait…I thought that in the US the 99% also had 99% of the vote…

The merchants of doubt are not just dedicated to FUD, they also fund and help elect people to congress that are not really representative of what most of the people do think about the issue.

Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE

Sen. JOHN KERRY (D), Massachusetts: Well, American politics is being completely defined by huge sums of money. We had really a very broad coalition of people who believed that we ought to move forward and do something. But as the campaign and the fear built up, people began to retreat.

They spent huge sums of money in a campaign of major disinformation that had an impact, had a profound impact. And it has now made many people in public life very gunshy because they’re afraid of having those amounts of money spent against them.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] This is what they fear, what happened in 2010 to six-term South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican who once thought he was a safe incumbent in his solidly red state.

BOB INGLIS (R), Fmr. Congressman, South Carolina: You know, I’m pretty conservative fellow. I got a 93 American Conservative Union rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, 100 percent National Right to Life, A with the NRA, zero with the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, and 23 by some mistake with the AFL-CIO. I demand a recount. I wanted a zero.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: But Inglis does accept the scientific consensus on global warming and favors legislation to curb the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. He faced a tea party rebellion in his primary.

BOB INGLIS: I had a big tent gathering in Spartanberg County, a bunch of Republicans underneath a great big tent. Comes a question to me, “Yes or no, do you believe in human causation on climate change?” Well, I had a bad habit of answering questions, so I said yes. Boo, hiss, comes the crowd. I was blasted out from underneath the tent. And so— I mean, there were a couple of hundred, 300 people there. I mean, it was intense.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: He was pounded in commercials and on talk radio.

BOB INGLIS: It became an oft-repeated theme on talk radio, and that is a major source of information, of course, for Republican primary voters. They were hearing, “Inglis has left the reservation. He’s over there somewhere with Al Gore.”

So how are things around here?

STORE OWNER: Slow. The economy’s way off and—

BOB INGLIS: When you get the financial collapse going, that’s what made it possible for some well-spent money to blow doubt into the science because, you know, the bankers failed us, the federal government is failing us, it’s spending too much money, and these scientists who are funded by that federal government, they’re probably in it, too. And besides, they’re godless liberals.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Inglis was defeated.

MYRON EBELL, Competitive Enterprise Institute: Bob Inglis was defeated in a Republican primary 79 to 21 percent. Now, how many times has an incumbent who isn’t in prison or facing a prison sentence lost his own primary by 79 to 21 percent? This was overwhelming. But what’s happened is—

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [on camera] The smile on your face suggests, “Man, we won one.”

MYRON EBELL: Of course we won one!

Rep. BOB INGLIS: We’re on the record. And our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren are going to read—

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: This climate hearing in the lame duck Congress was Inglis’s last.

Rep. BOB INGLIS: Your child is sick, 98 doctors say treat him this way, two say, “No, this other is the way to go.” I’ll go with the two. You’re taking a big risk with those kids.

Rep. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: That was a very key factor in 10 to 15 congressional districts in the 2010 election, where strong supporters of climate change legislation ended up being defeated.

What it needs to be done is also clear, it is not just to follow examples like what they do in Denmark and other countries that are making good efforts, but also to let most of the independents and moderated republicans out there that the current crop of Republican congress critters are not really representing them in a very important issue.