Boxer gave Inhofe a few gifts. The first was a shirt printed with a gavel, reading “elections have consequences.” It was a reference to what she told Inhofe eight years ago shortly after she took the gavel, when she wielded her power by letting former Vice President Al Gore speak longer than Inhofe wanted him to.
Environmental reporter Coral Davenport was excited about the issue's political prospects for the Democratic presidential candidate (Hillary?), in Thursday's lead New York Times story, "In Climate Deal, Obama May Set a Theme for 2016."
Davenport eagerly cited polls showing most Americans think "climate change" is a problem that requires action. Yet her very own recent article mocking the GOP on its stance cited a Pew poll "showing that Americans rank climate change near the bottom of policy concerns."
Morano on Fox Business with Stuart Varney: 'They are implying – this is where it gets so far off the charts of science – they are implying that a carbon tax will somehow alter global temperature and future storms. That we can -- through a carbon tax --impact the climate. This makes absolutely no sense -- because carbon taxes, EPA regulations and cap-and-trade -- not only would they not impact global temperatures, they would not even impact global CO2 levels in any way even if you buy their science.
It’s pure symbolism. There is no method by which you could gauge whether they would have an impact on climate.'
U.S. action alone would have little to no effect on global warming, warned a former Republican EPA administrator.“Absent action by China, Brazil, India and other fast-growing economies, what we do alone will not suffice,” George H.W. Bush EPA administrator William Reilly testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Reilly did, however, say that the rules were “absolutely necessary if we are to have the credibility to negotiate with other countries, who typically fault the developed world for causing the problem and worry that carbon constraints will thwart their legitimate need for economic growth.”
The COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t all bad, a new Biden admin plan to fight climate change argues: It at least “highlighted major opportunities” to reduce travel demand and lower carbon emissions through “remote work and virtual interactions.” The plan—which President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency and Energy, Transportation, and Housing departments released in January—aims to “eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas emissions” from the transportation sector by 2050, mostly through a transition to electric vehicles. Also included in the plan, however, is a controversial call to reduce “commuting miles” through “an increase in remote work and virtual engagements,” including in education. ...
Jazz Shaw of Hot Air has a prediction: "I can’t shake the feeling that this brings us one step closer to a declared “climate emergency.” You people can all stay locked down in your homes voluntarily to save the polar bears or we can declare an emergency and lock you down like we did during COVID."
NY Post: Experts are now recommending that doctors reduce their use of certain kinds of anesthesia in order to combat the effects of climate change. Dr. Mohamed Fayed, a senior anesthetist at Detroit’s Henry Ford Health, made the suggestion during the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ annual conference last Friday in Orlando, Florida. “Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial,” he said. Dr. Fayed added, “No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice — such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas — without affecting patient care.”
Research notes that inhaled anesthesia accounts for up to 0.1% of the world’s carbon emissions, which are regarded as the primary driver of global climate change. An hour of surgery using an inhaled anesthetic is equivalent to driving as many as 470 miles, according to a 2010 study.
Flashback 2020 Study in American Cancer Society Journal in 2020 Fretted over ‘carbon footprint of cancer care’ - ACS Journal: "Climate change and cancer" - Excerpt: "To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care...The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care...Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality."
Climate Depot's Morano: "Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care possible?"
Researchers predict that by 2100, US case numbers will increase by 50 percent - Spread is due to global warming, meaning more hot areas for the fungus to grow. ... The fungus is endemic to the desert-like parts of the Southwest, and 97 percent of all American cases are found in Arizona and California. But a study in the journal GeoHealth predicted that, due to climate change, the endemic region of the fungus will spread north to include dry western states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. In a high-warming scenario, this would mean that by 2100 the number of affected states could rise from 12 to 17, while the number of cases could increase by 50 percent.