WASHINGTON
After four decades in the thick of efforts to strengthen and ready for battle the world's most powerful armed force, John Warner has taken on a dramatically different kind of fight.
In the final months of a his 30-year Senate career, the 81-year-old Virginia Republican is helping lead an ambitious campaign to persuade Congress and the Bush administration to restructure the nation's economy to attack global warming.
After months of lobbying and negotiation, the "Climate Security Act" co-authored by Warner faces a test vote as early as this afternoon in the Senate. The courtly Virginian is considered key to securing enough Republican support to get it passed.
Warner said his devotion to military matters is as strong as ever and is helping drive his new focus on climate change. He is convinced that natural disasters linked to global warming have huge implications for the nation's security.
But the real inspiration for his initiative started with the memory of a long ago trip west and a young man's first chance to make his own way.
In 1943, as war raged across Europe and the Pacific, Warner's father, a Washington physician, told him that soon it would be his turn to serve his country and that he needed to get ready.
"I'll pay your way one-way to go somewhere and work for 90 days," his father told him, "and you better make enough money to get home or you're going to stay there."
Warner ended up in northern Idaho, fighting fires and clearing trails for the U.S. Forest Service.
"It was a breathtaking experience.... Those forests were pristine," he said. "We used to fish in the streams and drink water out of the streams. I can see the trees. Just magnificent.
"I'm carrying those memories always."
Two years ago, on a political trip to Idaho, Warner recruited a Forest Service ranger to lead him back to the panhandle.
"I was absolutely devastated when I saw those forests," he said.
For mile after mile, the lush green countryside had been turned brown. The ranger told him the forests are being destroyed by beetles that once were kept in check by cold winters but now flourish year-round, Warner said.
His escort was a 25-year Forest Service veteran. He told Warner, "I do remember what you saw, but you can't find that in these forests today."
Warner returned to Washington resolved to delve deeper into climate change. As senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he claimed a seat as the ranking member of the global warming subcommittee. Its chairman was a moderate senator with whom he'd worked in the past on defense issues: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
In 2005, Warner had voted against a "cap-and-trade" plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by setting up a federally regulated market of emission allowances. He told Lieberman he'd like to work on a new proposal.
Then, in the spring of 2007, Warner began to hear warnings about global warning from retired generals and admirals. A group including former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan and Adm. Joe Prueher, a Virginia Beach resident who once commanded American forces in the Pacific, issued a study that cast climate change as a serious threat for the U.S. military.
The report warned of future wars over energy and water in areas where global warming has triggered droughts. It predicted that millions of people in coastal communities could be left homeless as melting polar ice raises sea levels. The military, particularly the Navy, would be hit hard by such disasters, with piers submerged and training areas reduced to marshland.
Sherri Goodman, a Pentagon official in the Clinton administration, directed the study and was among those briefing Warner on it.
"I think he was moved," she said. Warner came to see that "this is an issue too important just to be left to environmentalists."
As word of Warner's interest spread, he also began to hear more from a chorus of environmental groups that has been pressing for global warming legislation for years. And he got more encouragement from his two daughters, he acknowledged.
Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, puts Warner in a group of lawmakers, many of them regarded as conservatives, who are feeling pressure from children and grandchildren "to sort of get right" on the environment.
The bill Lieberman, Warner and California Democrat Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the environment committee, will present to senators today would put a cap on most greenhouse gas emissions beginning in 2012 and then gradually reduce the amount of those gases that could be discharged each year.
The bill focuses on electric utilities and other industries that are responsible for close to 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Beginning in 2012, they would be issued annual carbon allowances. Those could then be sold, permitting firms able to reduce their emissions below their annual limits to profit from their investment in cleaner plants and improved fuel efficiency.
At more than 500 pages, the legislation is complex and would create a new federal bureaucracy, Warner acknowledged. His Republican colleagues have given him a respectful reception, but some may find it hard to swallow, he said.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking Republican on the environment committee, is the bill's most vocal opponent. He has written that the legislation "would likely devastate national and local economies in addition to putting a severe strain on the American family."
There is considerable uncertainty about how the bill would affect the economy, Warner acknowledged, and that makes it tougher to sell to his colleagues. But he and Lieberman have built in safeguards, including giving future presidents the power to relax the emission caps if energy prices rise too high, he said.
Still, the Bush administration has signaled its opposition. In April, the president endorsed a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. But Bush wants to delay it until 2025 and warned that he would block any bill that would "raise taxes... or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy."
Proponents are expected to win today's test vote on a motion to proceed to a full debate on the bill. But neither Warner nor Lieberman is predicting they will get the 60 votes needed later to cut off debate and force a final vote.
Still, environmentalists say they are gratified to have gotten this far.
"Without Sen. Warner's leadership, we would not be having a debate in the United States Senate on global warming," said Jeremy Symons, director of the National Wildlife Federation's global warming program.
"I look upon this as a train in the station," Warner said. "And she's all ready to go, but the president and others have got hands on the brakes and won't let it go."
Action on climate change is "so important for America's image," he added. "We've got a terrible image around the world. We are the No. 1 polluter, the No. 1 consumer per capita of petroleum products. It's important that we show some leadership."
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Yeah ...nice bill for a lame duck maybe!
These are the possible results of that "climate friendly" bill:
* Various analyses show that Lieberman-Warner bill would result in higher prices at the gas pump, between 41 cents and $1 per gallon by 2030.
* The bill would represent the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
* The bill would be the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways.
* Science Applications International Corporation SAIC shows that up to 4 million jobs will be lost by 2030 in the U.S.
* Manufacturing jobs will be one of the hardest hit sectors as the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that manufacturing output will decline by up to 9.5% in 2030. This country has already lost 19% of its manufacturing since 2000.
* EIA estimates that this bill will result in the loss of nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs by 2020.
* The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that "most of that cost would ultimately be passed on to consumers."
* CBO says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
* Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), warned last week that Lieberman-Warner "c
Comparison to Hitler
It amazes me that anyone can compare anyone to Hitler. By doing so, you have no knowledge of Hitler whatsoever. Suggestion, read you history! J. Edgar Hoover must be alive and well!
timd
Could not agree more on the Hitler thing.
S.Rose
I agree that Gore is the face of this, which he put himself out as, and he gets what goes along with that, but I still do not believe that Gray, who has had his work debunked in this area, would be able to better present findings of scientists. If his beliefs in this area are fundamentally wrong (and don't take this an an endorsement of Gore),and he himself has not published his theories for peer review, why would we trust the direction he would be taking us in? Let me state however that I am no expert in this area, I just follow the debate from time to time. When I saw Gray's name in a post, touting him as an expert in this area, I remembered him as the guy that compared Gore to Hitler, and remembered thinking then that if that is where you start the debate, you will lose me every time.
This is where two well meaning people of
good intent can disagree with each other with civility. I never said Mr Gore claimed to be a scientist. Being trained in the scientific method myself, I see very little of it demonstrated in Mr. Gore's questionable work. My problem with Al Gore is that he seeks out studies that support his conclusions, when he would be better served by letting the methodology lead him to a truth. But this is probably because he is a politician not a scientist, and that is what politicians do.
As for him having "presented the findings of scientists who have better credentials than Dr. Gray", the irony here is that Dr Gray by training is greatly more qualified to select studies and present findings, than Mr. Gore.
If Al Gore were serious about finding out the truth concerning global warming, he'd do serious work in trying to understand it. I see him as more the photo-op fella, than "the guy" you go to with a problem.
re: Al Gore
Sorry Al Gore has zero grasp on the concept:
http://cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf
Al Gore
No, I believe he presented the findings of scientists who have better credentials than Dr. Gray. While I believe Gore probably has somewhat of a pretty good grasp on this issue (you may disagree with his stance), I do not believe that he has tried to present himself as a credentialed scientist, nor did I suggest in any of my previous posts that he did. You can reread them if you wish.
Wait a second.
Lemme get this straight. Al Gore, a politician with no scientific training, whose greatest contribution to the science of understanding global warming is that he narrated a movie, has better credentials than Dr. Gray?
re: It's science, not politics Orion
Ira,
Your "answer" does not resemble your vague (yes vague) question. Actually, your answer goes a long way to show how wrong you are. This is not politically driven by me. I have simply stated [several times] that these "scientists" do not use the Scientific Method in their conclusions. Let me educate you to the process of this method:
1) Identify a problem
2) Form a hypothesis
3) Design and perform experiments with your hypothesis
4) Collect and analyze the data from your experiments
5) Formulate a conclusion from the data
Now, you'll say, "They've done that!" Problem is their data is 120 years worth over a time period of over 300,000 years. NO conclusion can be scientifically formed with this little amount of data (see step 4), PERIOD.
Do you get it now?
GW is a liberal political ploy of income redistribution; I suggest you read your coveted Kyoto Protocol if you don't believe me.
Re: William Gray
I said he is known as an expert on hurricanes, and most who follow such things would agree. I don't know that being an expert on hurricanes necessarily makes you an expert on predicting how many hurricanes are going to occur in the coming season. My point is more that he is not to be a trusted source on the topic of climate change, because that is not his acknowldeged area of expertise.
It's science, not politics Orion
"How it relates (purposefully vague, Ira)? Well, 16% or so of our sea-level atmosphere is O2 (oxygen). Go up, oh, 12-18 miles, and you have O3 (ozone). Ozone, of course, was the media's last scare tactic (prior to GW) in that the Earth had several enormous ozone holes and UV radiation would infiltrate and fry us all. And it was all because of man’s use of fluorocarbons (which was never proven on a grand scale). Problem is, no one knows how long the holes have been there and the holes fluctuate in size, closing in some cases."
Wrong. I am not vague. We are on our 3rd version of our atmosphere. This version happens to allow humans to exist. If you change the chemical structure we cannot exist on this planet. Had you been able to answer you would have known that the conversion is a direct cause of man's emmisions(no doubts, no debates) The point of the question was for YOU to demonstrate the actual chemical damage and to show what the greenhouse effect really is. Alas, you cannot. It proves that this is a political issue for you(and many others) because you have no understanding of how life is suistained on earth. You cannot debate a subject you do not understand. You argue on th
re: Dr. William Gray
Dr. Gray's hurricane prediction is grossly wrong every year. I'd hardly call him a hurricane expert.
Follow the money...
So Venus and Mars are warming up also....why is that man's fault?
Alot of powerful people are making a lot of money over this brew-ha-ha.
I'm no scientist for sure
I was watching some Discovery Channel program about the climate changes over the past few hundred million years. In particular, it was in regards to carbon molecules that had been locked away by some other naturally occuring element that brought on the ice age. But something else came to my mind just recently regarding global warming. Unless I'm wrong (wouldn't surprise me), isn't there supposed to be a whole in the Ozone Layer over the South Pole? If that's the case, isn't it reasonable to think that some of the so-called trapped CO2 is at least escaping from there? From the looks of the hole on NASA's Ozone page, it spans practically the entire continent of Antacrtica. It's also predicted that in or by 2012, the magnetic poles will begin to switch. Does anyone think this may also attribute to the climate?
Dr. William Gray
While Dr. Gray is known as a hurricane expert, he is not recognized as an expert on climate change. In fact his "expertise" on the subject consists mainly of his attacks on Al Gore, including his infamous comparison of Gore to Hitler. Whatever notions he has dispensed regarding this subject have been debunked (which means you could say "He doesn't know what he's talking about"). So while he is someone who clearly despises Al Gore, and apparently disagrees with the notion of global warming, that hardly qualifies him as an expert who we should listen to on this subject. Those who deny/doubt global warming always stand up someone who may have credentials in one field of science (in Gray's case, hurricanes), and ignore the fact that they have little to no credentials in the area of climate change.
#1 Polluter, #1 Per Capita User of Fossil Fuels
Not that I've spent my life sitting around academia or engaged with the wiki and other blogs, but as for #1 Polluter, I can speak of the pristine countries I've seen all over this world. Japan was so pristine I got bronchitis after a week of being there, and Marseilles was so green the rats even took mass transit.
As for #1 per capita, I have also heard of this great country that successfully reduced consumption and perhaps we can follow suit of this great nation. If we legislate having only one child, perhaps we can become as green as this world leader.
Dang! I've missed all the fun!
That'll teach me to stay on the beach all day.
Short answer: Global Warming caused by man. Film at 11.
Evidence -
Hmm lets see,
1. The 1930's was the warmest decade on record, not the current decade.
2. The Arctic ice has formed faster and thicker this year than any year on record, as verified by NASA satellite photos.
3. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
4. I DISTINCTLY remember in the 1970's that the Scientits were all complaining that the earth was going through global cooling.
There is too much data showing that what is happening is a normal trend for the earth. Oh, and btw, a single volcanic eruption puts more contaminents and carbon dioxide in the air in minutes than over a decade of Man's machines can possible do.
Mandates are pointless
The main reason we dump so much CO2 into the air is that the same so-called environmentalists give us no other option. Nuclear energy burns no carbon, produces no "greenhouse" gasses, and is so safe that there has not been a fatal nuclear accident in US history. Yet because of environmental phobias there has not been a nuclear plant built in this nation in over 30 years. Furthermore, because of a 1977 mandate against reprocessing fuel rods, we dispose of uranium after only 1% of its usable potential extracted. The same so-called environmentalists who oppose nuclear power will not even allow us to build windmills because birds might fly into them. Solar would be a good option if we could bring the price down, but the money we could use researching that technology is being thrown away on ethanol subsidies, Politicians can mandate "no carbon" all they want to, but with nuclear and wind energy red-taped out of existence and solar under-researched we have no option but to keep burning coal. The politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists who make it impossible to build nuclear plants or even windmills have No right to complain about carbon.
Im sure you could use the
Im sure you could use the Kyota(sp Im sure) Accord to conclude that Global Warming is really about wealth distribution. I certainly believe it was. And one could reasonably conclude that global warming is about liberals hyperboly.
But I think it's in our best interst not to change our life style and tax ourselves to death, but to wean ourselves off petroleum products produced by otherwise third world countries. These countries offer nothing to the greater good of man/woman kind.
Drill in Alaska. Drill off the contenental shelf. Open new refineries. Open new nuclear power plants. Fund new battery / fuel cell technologies. More hydro-electric plants, more solar farms, more wind farms, ect.
Mandate homes to start gernerating a portion of thier own energy (see way below for my thoughts).
But, what about China, India and other developing countries. What will they do when the price of crude drop? They'll use more. So any of our savings will be off set by their consumption. Our emissions are at least regulated. Our thiers?
These issues are not our alone to solve our teirs to mandate to us.