2011-02-26 08:03:08The Obama Administration goes backward on this issue!
John Hartz
John Hartz

Program to Curb 'Black Carbon' Pollution on Obama's Chopping Block EPA 's budget eliminates a $60 million program to curb soot, as UN scientists report that tackling such pollutants is key to fighting climate change


2011-02-26 08:57:10


The Obama administration has no environmental agenda at this point. From now there are three words you should watch, jobs, jobs, and jobs. Obama played his ace cards too soon, burned fuel when he didn't need to. A serious strategic mistake, and if the price of oil goes to $4.0 + per gallon comes November 2012, he will be moving back to Chicago. If you read, http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2011/02/25/1/, you will see that are many other programs being slashed.

But...when it was to keep 3.5% Bush tax, he quickly made a deal with the devil, now state employees are being asked to take a 8% paycut. Some people in my previous company took a 12% paycut.


2011-02-26 16:18:42
Julian Brimelow

Hi Seaturtles,


Are you new here, I've not seen your moniker before?  If so, welcome.    I see by our monikers that we already have something in common ;)

Seriously though, this is not cheering news.

2011-02-26 17:24:09
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
My company made me & 1,900 other employees take a 100% pay cut, permanently.  :)
2011-02-26 22:30:52
Mark Richardson

Excellent realclimate post here.


I actually think that dealing with soot and methane now is a bad idea!


It is an effective way to reduce climate change, true. But it can be done at almost any point, and if we act on this now then climate change will happen at a slower rate. The climate deniers will be able to continue to delay action on CO2 and in 20, 30 years we'll be up shit creek.

However, if you don't do anything on soot and methane then global warming will happen more quickly. The climate deniers will be routed a lot more quickly and stronger action on CO2 can happen. Then we can cut methane/soot later on and end up with much less global warming than the first route.



And what's more, perhaps climate sensitivity is low. By not slowing down short lived forcings we increase the signal to noise ratio and can test this and see sooner. If it is low, then we can stop action much sooner. Most likely we'll find out that the deniers are wrong and the public will start to think 'oh shit, I don't like 10% a year inflation on food, maybe we should do something'.

2011-02-26 23:18:14


I've just discussed this on the other black carbon thread.  

Yes, I recognise that if climate is temporarily stabilised it will encourage politicians not to do anything about CO2. However, don't we need to stop the feedbacks immediately? Don't we need time to develop technologies?

It also seems to be a strange and dangerous strategy, reducing mitigation techniques simply to experiment with the climate!

2011-02-27 01:26:12More than just addressing climate change
John Hartz
John Hartz

The particulants emitted by diesel engines (the focus of thois post) have more negative environmental conseqences than just enhancing the greenhouse effect. If fact, the support for the program that the Obama Adminstration has proposed to eliminate had very little to do with reducing climate change.

PS -- When I posted my initial comment, I thought I was posting it to the "Black Carbon" thread that I had previously created. My bad.