Tag Archives: house-energy

Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: “Count.”

Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: “Count.”

Shutterstock

Basic math.

For the sake of any slow ones in the room, how can we be so sure that humans are responsible for climate change?

Basic mathematics is a good place to start.

That’s how Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explained his confidence that humanity is to blame for climate distruption. He was addressing Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), a climate skeptic, during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Thursday. McKinley was questioning whether humans or natural cycles were “primarily” responsible for climate change.

“The rise in CO2 emissions in the last half century is clearly tracked to our global increased energy use,” Moniz replied. “I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere.”

Counting, hey? Radical stuff. It sounds suspiciously like science — something that climate skeptics aren’t much into. But McKinley decided to share his views on how science should work nonetheless, deriding the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming.

“I think consensus has a place in politics, but consensus doesn’t have a place in science,” McKinley said.

“My judgment is based on numbers,” Moniz replied, “on data, and not on the consensus.”

Here is video of Moniz’s remarks:

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original article: 

Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: “Count.”

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: “Count.”

RFS & Environmental Benefits: Our Response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee White Paper

back

RFS & Environmental Benefits: Our Response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee White Paper

Posted 24 May 2013 in

National

The bottom line:

Changes to the RFS will only destabilize the current investment environment, slow the development of renewable fuel, and protect the oil industry from competition, effectively locking in our current greenhouse gas emission profile from the transportation fuel sector for decades to come.

According to the EPA, greenhouse gas emissions attributed to transportation accounted for about 31 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2010, with nearly 65 percent of those emissions stemming from gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use.
Renewable fuel has already displaced petroleum in 10 percent of our gasoline supply, with 13 billion gallons in 2012
In 2012, the use of renewable fuel slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 33.4 million metric tons
The RFS will do even more to reduce oil in our transportation fuel supply and bring increasingly low carbon alternatives to market, so long as it remains in its current form, particularly as the production of cellulosic and advanced renewable fuel increases

Read the full letter to Reps. Upton and Waxman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee on the environmental benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
More – 

RFS & Environmental Benefits: Our Response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee White Paper

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on RFS & Environmental Benefits: Our Response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee White Paper