New York Times – As Climate Meeting Starts, a Revival of Skepticism
As the big shots of the climate world get together in Copenhagen for the U.N. global warming summit, they are finding that rather than the apotheosis of what I call in my column today the new state religion of Europe, the event has turned into something of an awkward moment.
Writers Andrew Revkin and John Broder explain that just as the elusive consensus was about to be reached, the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit have given skeptics plenty of ammunition to shoot holes in the idea that Western developed should spend and sacrifice trillions of dollars on the effort to change the earth’s temperature.
One quibble with Revkin and Broder, though. The most important debate isn’t whether the earth is warming but whether the course of action recommended by the United Nations is wise.
The climate establishment has taken an approach more prone to spiritualists than scientists — telling skeptics to prove that something isn’t happening.
“‘The physics of the greenhouse effect is so basic that instead of asking whether it would happen, it makes more sense to ask what on earth could make it not happen,’ said Spencer Weart, a physicist and historian. ‘So far, nobody has been able to come up with anything plausible in that line.’”
Wall Street Journal — Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule
With the chance for a global treaty on carbon dioxide looking unlikely and the U.S. Senate not interested in taking up the president’s cap and trade plan, the Obama administration is about to take the next step in regulating greenhouse gasses in the same way they restrict emissions of mercury and other toxic substances.
Writers Jeffrey Ball and Charles Forelle look at the EPA’s move to finalize it’s carbon-dioxide “endangerment” finding today or Tuesday, a move that advances the policy business people see as the worst possible outcome.
“The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be “very strong,” and that when it is published, “we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing” the decision.
EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.”
New York Times — Push for Deal on Public Health Plan
Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio points out that a vote today on an amendment that would apply a strict ban on federal subsidies for insurance policies that cover elective abortions could permanently derail the Senate version of the president’s health plan.
Writers Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn look ahead to the looming battle over the president’s proposal for a new health insurance entitlement program.
The latest idea is to let all Americans buy into a version of the insurance offered to federal employees. It has appeal to moderates if participants pay almost all of the costs. It has appeal to liberals only if taxpayers heavily subsidize the policies.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, whose public availability the day after admitting he tried to make his girlfriend the top federal prosecutor in Montana ought to be studied by PR pros, likes the idea. But like everything else on the public option, the details are deadly.
President Obama tried to rally senators the same way he revved up Democrats in the House. But no one was chanting “Fired up! Ready to go!” when Obma left the upper chamber Sunday.
“Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who opposes creation of a public insurance plan, said he was pleased Mr. Obama did not mention it once on Sunday. Mr. Obama did praise other provisions of the bill that would provide coverage to more than 30 million people, regulate the insurance market and slow the growth of health costs, Mr. Lieberman said.
The Senate on Sunday rejected two proposed amendments to the health care bill. One, offered by Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, would have limited the tax deductions that health insurance companies could take for compensation paid to top executives.”
New York Times — No Firm Plans for a U.S. Exit in Afghanistan
Quick pullouts on Afghanistan have so far been limited to the abandonment of the 18-month timetable President Obama set for his 30,000 troop surge.
Secretaries Clinton and Gates made very clear that the president’s targeted 2011 start for the withdrawal from Afghanistan was more of a best-case scenario than a hard target.
As writer Mark Mazzetti points out, the administration’s mixed messages create a double political disadvantage – the majority of Americans favor the surge but deplore the timetable, but an influential minority opposes the surge but now doesn’t believe the president on the timetable.
“The announcement of the July 2011 benchmark was also greeted with concern during private conversations among American officials and their counterparts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and administration officials in recent days have acknowledged that they were surprised by the intensity of the anxiety among Afghan and Pakistani officials that the United States would beat a hasty retreat from the region.
Since the White House strategy was announced, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has publicly pledged to work with the United States to bolster Afghan forces. But he asked for patience and indicated that his country’s military might not be ready in 18 months to take responsibility from American troops.”
Los Angeles Times — U.S. sees homegrown Muslim extremism as rising threat
Writer Sebasian Rotella provides an unsettling litany of attacks and near misses on America soil by Islamist radicals in the past year.
“‘Radicalization is clearly happening in the U.S.,’ said Mitchell Silber, director of analysis for the Intelligence Division of the New York Police Department. ‘In years past, you couldn’t say that about the U.S. You could say it about Europe.’
Europe has suffered a militant onslaught: transport bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, an assassination in the Netherlands in 2004, and close calls such as the fiery failed attack on the Glasgow airport in 2007.
Hard borders have helped the U.S. ward off the threat. But experts also said that Islamic radicalization is more widespread in Europe. Crime, alienation and extremism roil Muslim immigrant communities in places like tiny Denmark and the vast slums of France.”
–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.
