There he goes again. Chad Livengood had a followup to his article on carbon sequestration and injury liability, which I commented on here. Most of the article is taken up by a discussion of legislative actions on the liability cap (dropped in the House, added in the Senate) but Livengood again completely flubs the facts when talking about global warming and the Obama administration’s efforts to stop it.
Livengood claims that “some scientists believe” that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. If by some scientists Livengood means an overwhelming consensus (over 90%) of scientists, especially climatologists (97% who publish believe humans contribute significantly to global warming) then I agree with him. But the average person reading the article isn’t going to read it that way. Small wonder that when reporters constantly distort the scientific consensus, less than a majority of Americans believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change.
And Livengood also falls into the “cap and trade tax” spin again. I’ll just point out again that cap and trade sets up a carbon market. If the Obama administration was going to go the tax route, they would have instituted a carbon tax.
One more thing I’d like to address, although I should make it clear that this has nothing to do with Livengood’s reporting. The utility companies say that carbon sequestration could be a way to reduce greenhouse gases. That’s true. But a far easier and cheaper way is to not burn fuels like coal to produce electricity! Carbon sequestration is expensive and complicated. If we were to use carbon sequestration as a primary method of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, we would have to pump into the ground the equivalent volume of every gallon of oil we are currently pumping out, with all the attendant infrastructure of transporting it to safe deposits. Like I said in my last post, not really a long-term solution.