Today’s Washington Post breaking news announcing that the U.S. will be one of five nations leading the way on limiting methane and soot (see earlier post with link below) prompts me to re-publish Climate Change commentary on “All Things Considered” (MPR.org) - personal reflection on a day with Earl, the old oyster fisherman, on the “Skipjack” on the Chesepeake Bay.
A Washington Post story on Climate Change reports this breaking news:
“With global efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions stalled, the United States and five other countries are starting a new program to cut other pollutants — including methane, soot and hydrofluorocarbons — that contribute to global warming.
“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is set to announce the five-year initiative Thursday morning. Canada, Sweden, Mexico, Ghana and Bangladesh are also participating. The plan will be administered by the United Nations Environment Program, with a $12 million contribution from the United States for the first two years. Canada will add $3 million; contributions from the other countries are not known.”
It goes on to report, “Paul Bledsoe of the Bipartisan Policy Center noted that, in the United States, efforts to reduce methane and soot are far less politicized than efforts to reduce carbon dioxide. Even one of the most vehement congressional opponents of limiting carbon dioxide emissions, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), supports cutting soot emissions. Senator James Inhofe (R, OK), supports cutting soot emissions.”
I have to remind myself to celebrate small steps. This is one of them. My hope and prayer is that Senator Inhofe’s acceptance of scientific evidence supporting action on methane and soot will be one small step toward a saner discussion of global warming. I just asked the question of the Washington Post whether they know why Senator Inhofe is convinced by the scientific evidence re: methane and soot, and, likewise, what scientific evidence convinces him that we do not need to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Anybody know?