Texas Governor Declares Belief in Global Warming Theory
The GOP presidential frontrunner, George W. Bush, may have conceded the global warming debate to Vice President Al Gore. After having said that the “science is still out” on global warming, Bush has reversed himself saying, “I believe there is global warming.”
According to Governor Bush, “Ive had some briefings recently, and Im becoming more convinced that the science proves theres global warming” (Washington Times, May 21, 1999). This is good news for the Gore camp given that the Vice Presidents strident pronouncements on global warming and the need for a “wrenching” transformation to prevent it could be damaging fodder in the hands of his opponents.
Republicans see Green in Warming
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said, “Republicans will make climate change policy an issue in rural America for the 2000 election,” according to Greenwire (May 19,1999). The farm state Senator favors doling out $13 million over the next three years to the Agriculture Department to determine how farmers can cash in on the global warming bandwagon. The money would go to carbon cycle research to find evidence that North America farmland absorbs greenhouse gases.
Environmentalists oppose the research because they worry that the findings may be used by Kyoto opponents to argue against U.S. reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
U.S., Australia Attack EU Stand on Emission Trading
Both the U.S. and Australia have voiced their dismay at the EUs recent decision to restrict the use of emission trading under the Kyoto Protocol. On May 17 the EU approved a measure that would restrict the use of “flexible mechanisms,” such as emission trading and joint implementation, to make sure that most greenhouse gas reductions are domestic. The EU has always maintained that emissions reductions should occur primarily within the individual countries.
The U.S. accused the EU of changing the Kyoto agreement that makes no mention of limiting the use of flexible mechanisms. “This new action by the EU is an attempt to rewrite the Kyoto Protocol,” the State Department said in a statement. “The U.S. government is disappointed by (the) statement of the European Union seeking to restrict the use of emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol” (Agence France Presse, May 19, 1999). An Australian diplomat in Brussels said, “Australia feels that a decision along the lines the EU is talking about would restrict the flexibility mechanisms to the point that they would effectively be neutered” (Reuters, May 18, 1999).
EPAs Global Warming Web Site is Misleading
Many who have studied the global warming issue know that EPAs global warming web site is biased, and barely mentions the raging scientific debate over the issue. A comprehensive analysis of the web site, conducted by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), documents “how EPA presents the available body of science to the public.” The CRE finds that the information provided is misleading.
The EPA claims, for example, that its web site is based on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, notes the CRE study, the EPA does a poor job “of informing readers about important scientific caveats and major uncertainties” that are present in the IPCCs 1995 report.
The EPA, for example, quotes the IPCC as saying, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate,” but fails to quote the important caveats. For example, the IPCC states, “[The model results] cannot be considered as compelling evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earths surface temperature.”
The IPCC also argues, “our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long term natural variability.” The full report, How OMB Data Quality Regulations will Help Resolve Disputes over Global Warming, can be downloaded from www.TheCRE.com.
EPA and DOE Violated Federal Law
A congressional hearing, sponsored jointly by the Senate Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation Subcommittee, and the House National Economic Growth Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee, was held on May 20 to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies have overstepped their regulatory authority with regard to budget requests to address global warming.
GPRA Violations
According to Jerry Taylor, the Cato Institutes Director of Natural Resources, the administrations budget request for the EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are in violation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. In particular, “no concrete performance or results measures are provided for most of the DOE or EPA budget accounts in which the administration seeks increased appropriations to address global climate change.”
Those that do exist, said Taylor, “are founded upon dubious analysis and are without solid foundation.” Moreover, “they are disconnected from any assessment of their value to the national economy or to public health, rendering them of little use to the public.”
Taylor was particularly critical of the administrations Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). He argued that the administrations estimate that the EPAs CCTI activities would reduce carbon emissions by 354 million metric tons, and the DOEs activities will reduce emissions by 112 million metric tons “are so unrealistic that they cast doubt on the seriousness of the administrations attempts to comply with GPRA.”
DOEs own five labs study estimates that a “high efficiency” scenario for the economy would only reduce emissions by about 120 million metric tons. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) finds only a 79 million metric ton decrease in emissions under a high efficiency scenario.
Probably the most outrageous claims by the administration have to do with the cost-benefit analysis of global warming programs. An example is the claim that a 20 percent tax credit for residential electric heat pumps will be a net benefit for the economy. According to the EIA, a current model heat pump costs about $4,400 while one that would qualify for the tax credit would cost about $5,500. The tax credit would cover the $1,100 difference in cost. The total cost saving of such a purchase would be about $783, a net loss of $317 to the economy. Dividing the cost of the tax credit by the amount of greenhouse gases avoided puts the cost of reducing emissions at $349 per ton. Assuming a 10 percent discount rate puts the cost at $666 per ton.
Knollenberg Violations
Also testifying before the committees was William Lash, Professor of Law at George Mason University. He argued that the EPA is in violation of the Knollenberg Amendment that “prohibits implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification via regulation, rules, orders, or decrees by the executive branch.”
The EPA argues that it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under existing regulatory authority as long as the purpose of the regulation is not to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This, according to Lash, “is tantamount to saying that as long as the agency acts under the color of existing authority, and does not truthfully report what it is doing, it is in compliance with the Knollenberg Amendment.”
This interpretation of the Knollenberg language is incorrect, however. The Amendments legislative history clearly shows, “the author of the Amendment intended it to preclude regulations implementing the Kyoto Protocol, even if those regulations were promulgated under the color of existing statutory authority.” Lash also argues, “in light of the fact that EPA chooses to interpret the Knollenberg Amendment as a practical nullity, Congress should seriously consider strengthening the Amendment to give it more teeth.”
Lash also accused the EPA of crossing the line from educating the American public about global warming to advocating specific policy goals, such as the Kyoto Protocol, something that is prohibited under the Knollenberg Amendment.
EPA conferences about global warming are clearly biased towards Kyoto, and with few exceptions present no dissenting voices. According to Lash, “EPA documents such as Cool Facts About Global Warming fail to provide even passing reference to the uncertainties and conflicts within the scientific community regarding climate change.”