| May 7, 2009 |  |
Rep. Barton Cites Flawed Analysis on Waxman-Markey
WASHINGTON (May 7, 2009) — Opponents to climate and energy legislation continue to demonstrate they are out of touch with the science, economics and political reality of climate change, according to experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Today's example is a "dear colleague" letter from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that argues the United States, acting alone, could do little to reduce global temperatures. Rep. Barton cites an analysis from MasterResources.org a self-identified "free market blog" with ties to energy industry front groups. The analysis concludes that if the United States is the only nation that takes concrete steps to reduce heat-trapping emissions, global warming would be reduced only slightly by mid-century.
However, Rep. Barton conveniently failed to cite the second part of the analysis, which indicates that global action would significantly reduce global warming, and that global temperatures would stabilize at approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit above today's average global temperature. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, keeping the average global temperature increase at 2 degrees F or less likely would avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
"Even though this analysis is not a peer-reviewed study, its findings contradict Representative Barton's argument," said Brenda Ekwurzel , a UCS climate scientist. "The science is clear, and the United States needs to act and act quickly to cut heat-trapping emissions. The world is waiting for us to lead."
According to a study published last week in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, if developed nations cut emissions 80 percent by 2050, there would be a 50 percent chance that average world temperatures would not rise above the 2 degrees F threshold by the end of the century. If all nations collectively cut heat-trapping emissions 80 percent by 2050, there would be a much better chance—75 percent—of avoiding such a temperature increase.
In more concrete terms, the Nature article says that in order to avoid such a temperature increase, the world can only burn less than half of the proven oil, gas, and coal reserves between now and 2050.
The first scenario cited by Rep. Barton unrealistically assumes that no other countries would take action to address climate change and that clean technology deployed in the United States would have no impact on the rest of the world. In reality, many nations would benefit from U.S. innovation and would leapfrog toward cleaner technology, according to UCS. Additionally, if the United States acts, other countries are much more likely to make their own emissions reductions and are more likely to sign on to the next round of an international climate treaty.
Rep. Barton's misinformation comes from MasterResource.org, a Web site run by Roger Donway, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Energy Research (IER). IER is the research wing of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), which has taken out ads spreading false information about the cost of climate and energy legislation.
The AEA ads misstate the findings of an MIT study that estimates the amount of money the government could raise from polluters by auctioning emissions allowances under a cap-and-trade system. Congressional opponents and AEA deliberately mischaracterize the revenues raised as a "tax on households." John Reilly, a co-author of the MIT study, sent a letter to members of Congress asking them to stop misuing his analysis. Instead, opponents are now citing a discredited Weekly Standard article to continue to mischaracterize the MIT analysis.
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
