July 2002

State AGs Bash Bush with Climate Action Report

Attorneys General from eleven States sent a letter to President George W. Bush on July 17 calling on him to propose mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. They based their case on the administrations Climate Action Report 2002, which was sent to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in May.

The letter details a number of possible impacts of global warming for which there is little or no scientific evidence, but which are mentioned in Climate Action Report 2002. The chapter in that report on the impacts of climate change was based on the scientifically-discredited National Assessment, which was prepared by the Clinton Administration but later disavowed by the Bush Administration.

The Attorneys General note that several States have already passed legislation to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but add that “state-by-state action is not our preferred option.” Instead, they favor a federal cap-and-trade program. The letter also states that they are considering litigation to force federal action. Attorneys General from California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine, Alaska, and Vermont signed the letter.

Petitions Filed with Federal Agencies Based on Climate Action Report

The Bluewater Network, the environmental pressure group which wrote the bill passed by the California legislature to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles, has filed petitions with at least four federal agencies demanding that they begin to prepare for the impacts of climate change predicted by the administrations Climate Action Report 2002. Petitions dated June 27 were filed with the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Now that serious adverse impacts of global warming have been acknowledged officially by the administration, the Bluewater Network argues that these agencies are required by law to take these impacts into account in their resource protection policies and planning.

The petition to the Forest Service, for example, asks the service to, “Initiate a no tree-cut policy for all national forests, to sequester carbon, retain ground and forest moisture, and protect wildlife and ecosystems that are dependent on these resources.” The Network is apparently unaware that a nearly-no-cut policy has been in effect since the early 1990s, which has led to catastrophic fires over tens of millions of acres in 2000 and 2002.

It should be mentioned that the Bluewater Network is a project of the Earth Island Institute. Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institutes Journal, published a long commentary on September 13, 2001, in which he explained that the real reasons for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were “World Trade and U.S. Militarism.”

He also claimed that, “If we were to redirect our economy to operate on clean renewable energy…we would not only be on the path to mitigating climate change, we would also be on the path to eliminating one of the major causes of terrorism.”

Davis Signs CO2 Bill

As anticipated, California Governor Gray Davis signed “ground breaking legislation” on July 22 to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Davis wrote in and op-ed, “The federal government and Congress, by failing to ratify the Kyoto treaty on global warming, have missed their opportunity to do the right thing. So it is left to California, the nations most populous state and the worlds fifth largest economy, to take the lead” (Washington Post, July 22, 2002).

The law will require the California Air Resources Board to design policies to “achieve a maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” from cars and trucks by 2005. Davis noted that the “vigorous lobbying campaign by automakers was successful in Congress and nearly stalled Californias carbon emission law, but common sense prevailed.”

Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Washington Post (July 22, 2002) that the law will directly harm consumers. “You cant make one car for California and another car for Washington, D.C.,” he said. “California motorists are going to be extremely angry when they find they are going to lose access to SUVs, trucks and minivans.” Shosteck also noted that, “there are already 50 models that get more than 30 miles per gallon,” and “consumers dont want them. High mileage cars sit on dealer lots and dont sell.”

New York Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli (D) immediately announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would direct New York to adopt Californias standards. “Global warming and greenhouse gases pose serious health and economic risks,” DiNapoli said. “By acting now, we are acting responsibility to limit the pollutants that directly contribute to global warming and the degradation of air quality” (Detroit News, July 23, 2002).

Congress Looks at Kyoto and National Assessment

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Foreign Relations Committee held a joint hearing on the Kyoto Protocol and other international environmental treaties on July 24. Christopher C. Horner, counsel to the Cooler Heads Coaliton and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, testified along with, John Turner, assistant secretary of State, James Connaughton, chairman of Council on Environmental Quality, Maurice Strong, chairman of Canadas Earth Council Institute, and John Dernbach of the Widener University School of Law. Their written testimony is available at http://epw.senate.gov.

On July 25, the House Energy and Commerce Committees Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on scientific shortcomings of the National Assessment on the impacts of climate change. Testimony will be available at http://energycommerce.house.gov.

CO2 Dumping: Are They Joking?

Environmental pressure groups are succeeding in their efforts to stop scientific experiments with long-term deep-ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide. On July 2, an international consortium gave up on its application to 5,000 gallons of liquefied CO2 into ocean 3,000 feet below the surface off the island of Kauai in Hawaii. The purpose was to determine its dispersal and effects on ocean chemistry.

Jeff Mikulina, director of the Hawaii chapter of the Sierra Club, told the San Francisco Chronicle (July 2, 2002), “We are encouraged that carbon dioxide dumping did not find a warm reception among Hawaii residents. This experiment was hatched by the fossil fuel industry to allow them to continue their polluting ways.”

And Greenpeace has objected to a similar experiment proposed by the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, claiming that CO2 would fall under an international treaty prohibiting dumping of industrial waste (Greenwire, July 3, 2002). According to a Greenpeace spokesman, “The sea is not a dumping ground. Its illegal to dump nuclear or toxic waste at sea, and its illegal to dump CO2 the fossil fuel industrys waste.”

Discrepancy in Temperature Trends Explained

A new study appearing in Geophysical Research Letters (June 26, 2002) by Richard Lindzen and Constantine Giannitsis at MIT proposes an explanation for the discrepancy between surface and satellite temperature data. It also argues for lower climate sensitivity than is generally assumed.

Scientists have been puzzling over the difference in temperature trends between the surface layer of the atmosphere up to about 5,000 feet and the layer above that known as the troposphere. Since 1979, when scientists began using satellites to take the temperature of the troposphere, it appears that even while the surface has apparently warmed, tropospheric temperatures have remained steady. This is puzzling because greenhouse theory says that the troposphere should warm first, followed by the surface layer.

This scientific controversy even merited special attention from the National Research Council, which assembled a panel to assess the situation. It concluded that both the surface data and the satellite data are correct, but only speculated about the possible causes.

According to the study, “The surface data suggests a warming of about 0.25 degrees C, while the satellite data shows no significant increase.” Because the satellite data began in 1979, however, it has been noted that it is too short to “infer trends from any of the series since the trends estimated depend greatly on the subintervals chosen.” Fortunately, the close agreement between the satellite and weather balloon data, which also measures tropospheric temperatures, allows for a longer time period to be considered.

Looking at the balloon data the study notes that there was a pronounced jump in the atmospheric temperature of about 0.25 degrees C in 1976. The surface followed suit but at a slower pace, taking about ten years to catch up. The delay in the surface data is probably due to the heat capacity of the oceans, which is related to overall climate sensitivity. The delayed response also accounts for the discrepancy between the surface-based temperature data and that taken from satellites. Since the satellite data began in 1979 it missed the jump in 1976, which was documented in the slower surface warming.

More importantly, the rate at which the surface temperature caught up with the tropospheric temperature can be used to calculate climate sensitivity. The study finds that the surface temperature will rise about one degree C for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. This is significantly lower than predictions made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and provides empirical support to climate skeptics who argue that climate sensitivity has been significantly overstated.

The study concludes, “The longer series suggests that the increase in tropospheric temperature occurred rather abruptly around 1976, three years before microwave observations began. The suddenness of the tropospheric temperature change seems distinctly unlike what one expects from greenhouse warming, while the relative rapidity with which the surface temperature caught up with the troposphere, less than about 10 years, suggests low climate sensitivity for a wide range of choices for thermocline diffusion.”

New York Times Halfway Corrects Alaska Story

On June 16, the New York Times ran a story on the front page that claimed that average temperatures in Alaska had risen 7 degrees over the last thirty years. The figure was later repeated in a June 24 Times column written by Bob Herbert.

The article was criticized by scientists who keep track of Alaskas temperatures, prompting the paper to correct the story on July 11. The Times wrote, “A front-page article on June 16 about climate change in Alaska misstated the rise in temperatures there in the last 30 years According to an assessment by the University of Alaskas Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research, the annual mean temperature has risen 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over 30 years, not 7 degrees.”

But according to the Alaska Climate Research Center, this figure is still too high. Using data from temperature stations in Barrow, Fairbanks, Anchorage and Nome, which represent a cross section of Alaska from north to south, the researchers found that, “the value of 5.4 degrees F too great by a factor of two for the 1971 to 2000 period, the last 30 years.” These stations were chosen because they are professionally maintained and yield high quality, long term data.

Australias CSIRO Plays Games with Sea-Level Numbers

The Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization (CSIR) in Australia has published a brochure on sea-level rise in support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The brochure does make some good points, but it also presents a phony picture on sea level changes in Australia.

It notes, for instance, “No acceleration [in sea-level rise] has been detected during the 20th Century.” It also points out that, “If greenhouse gases are stabilized today, sea-level rise will continue for hundreds of years.”

When it comes to describing sea-level change in Australia, however, CSIRO only presents a small amount of the available data, which gives an erroneous picture of the true changes. The brochure states, “In Australia the rise in sea-level relative to the land (June 2001) at Fremantle is 1.38 mm/year with more than 90 years of data, and at Sydney 0.86 mm/year from 82 years of data. (Corrected for land motion, the rate of sea-level rise at these two locations is estimated to be about 1.6 to 1.2 mm/year respectively.)”

John Daly, who runs the Still Waiting for Greenhouse (www.john-daly.com) website, has pointed out that there are 23 long term tide gauges in Australia, not just two. Using all of the data, the National Tidal Facility of Australia has determined that there has been a sea-level rise of only 0.3 mm/year. Moreover, the two tide gauges cited by CSIRO are outliers due to land subsidence caused by ground water withdrawal.

CSIRO may have also erred in its calculation of land motion at the Fremantle site, says Daly. According to data from Perth, which is 20 miles away, the land has been subsiding at a rate of 2.08 mm/year since 1996. If that rate of land subsidence has been going on for some time, that would mean that there has actually been a lowering of sea-level at Fremantle of about -0.7 mm/year. Further support for this can be found by examining tide gauges on either side of Fremantle, Bunbury to the north and Geraldton to the south. These show a sea-level change of +0.4 mm/year and -0.95 mm/year, respectively.

In a presentation to the Cooler Heads Coalition in May, Daly noted the importance of Australia in determining rates of sea-level change since it is fronted by three oceans. The data from Australia suggest that there is little to no sea-level change. The CSIRO brochure is available at www.marine.csiro.au.


Thursday, July 25, is the fifth anniversary of Senate passage of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a 95 to 0 vote. Exercising its constitutional role of advising the president on international treaties, the Senate warned then-President Clinton not to negotiate a protocol to the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that would significantly harm the U. S. economy and that did not include significant participation by developing nations. The U. S. negotiating team took this position to Kyoto in late November 1997, but then-Vice President Al Gore flew to Kyoto in early December and successfully demanded that these two conditions be abandoned. Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol were concluded on December 11, 1997.

U. S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Declined in 2001

The Department of Energys Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on July 1 that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 1.1 percent in 2001. The decrease from 1,558 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCe) in 2000 to 1,540 MMTCe in 2001 was the first since 1991, when emissions dropped 1.2 percent. EIA attributes the decline primarily to the economic recession and to warmer winter weather, which lowered demand for heating fuel.

Not all sectors showed a decline, however. Residential sector emissions grew by 1.8%. EIA estimates that energy-related CO2 emissions have increased on average 1.2% per year since 1990.

Momentum Building for Air Fuel Tax

Margaret Beckett, a junior minister in the United Kingdoms environment ministry, has called for an international tax on aviation fuel in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And U. K. Environment Minister Michael Meacher told the Times of London (June 20) that opposition from the United States was the only obstacle to agreeing on such a tax. Meacher said, “The evidence that taxes or charges work is pretty clear. The ideal way to deal with this is to get agreement with all the Western countries in the International Civil Aviation Organisation. But that has proved difficult because the Americans are not prepared to reach agreement.”

European environmental groups are claiming that aviation fuel taxes are needed because airline fares are too low. A June 27 story in the Moscow Times quoted Nic Ferriday of the Aviation Environment Federation: “Some air fares have fallen so low, there may be some artificial demand being created. People are flying more and more. But how much of this is really necessary?”

UK “Green” Energy Prices Set to Rise

The price of renewable power in the United Kingdom is likely to rise steeply over the next five years because there wont be enough plants to meet the governments strict renewable energy targets, according to new industry research.

The proportion of power produced from renewable energy sources that suppliers sell must equal ten percent by 2010 under the governments new rule. To verify that they have met the obligation, suppliers receive renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) for each unit of renewable electricity they buy, which then must be submitted to the governments Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) at the end of the year. Plants that do not meet the target can purchase ROCs from plants willing to sell them. If the number of available ROCs is insufficient, then plants may pay a buyout price to OFGEM of 3 pence/KWh, which will then be awarded to those plants that meet their obligation.

According to new research by Platts and the Renewable Energy Association, “There is a strong chance that not enough new renewable energy projects are being planned for the Government to meet its 2010 target. This means that the price of ROCs could rise steeply over the next few years because demand for green power will not be met by supply.”

Electricity suppliers could be faced with having to pay up to $92 per MWh for ROCs by 2006-07, which is twice as much as the government has forecast, according to Dominic Maclaine, editor of Platts Power UK newsletter. Even under the most optimistic scenario, “where all green projects with planning permission are built and start on time, the value of certificates is estimated to be still worth around 40 MWh ($62) by 2006-07,” said Maclaine.

More CO2 Helps Plants, Not Bugs

Two studies appearing in the July issue of Global Change Biology have concluded that increasing CO2 levels will have negative effects on insects, but positive effects for plants. One report by Peter Stiling and colleagues found that, “More herbivores die of host plant-induced death in elevated CO2 than in ambient CO2” and these plant-eating insects are more likely to be attacked because they have to feed for longer periods of time to get the nutrients needed.

A second study by David Stacey and Mark Fellowes concluded that there is now “empirical evidence that changes in host plant quality by increased levels of CO2 can alter the outcome of interspecific competition among insect herbivores.” As Robert Balling of Arizona State University points out, both studies show that plants would benefit from higher CO2 levels. Balling states, “These two articles add to the evidence that elevated CO2 will benefit plants without giving herbivores any competition advantage over the plant.”

Climate Models Fail to Reproduce Natural Temperature Fluctuations

Climate models that serve as the basis for global warming predictions fail to reproduce correctly the fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures over time scales of months and years, according to new research appearing in the July 8 issue of Physical Review Letters.

The study explains that large-scale atmospheric and oceanic dynamics are solved in the models using highly sophisticated numerical solutions, but that there are also “subgrid-scale processes” that are too small to be modeled. These are handled by “parameterization schemes,” which amounts to little more than arbitrarily assigning a value to the particular process being considered. Some of these subgrid-scales includes, surprisingly enough, the roles of various greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and the effect of aerosols.

In earlier research, the authors discovered a universal mathematical relationship, known as a scaling law, which describes the correlations between temperature fluctuations. What they found was that temperature variations from their average values exhibit persistence that decays at a well-defined rate. “The range of this persistence law exceeds ten years, and there is no evidence for a breakdown of the law at even larger timescales,” according to the study.

Using this scaling law, the researchers tested seven general circulation models, including the U.S.-based model at the National Climate for Atmospheric Research, against historical atmospheric temperature data from six representative sites. What they found was that the models, “fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior observed in the real temperature records.”

The researchers explain that, “It is possible that the lack of long-term persistence is due to the fact that certain forcings such as volcanic eruptions or solar fluctuations have not been incorporated in the models.” But they cannot “rule out that systematic model deficiencies (such as the use of equivalent CO2 forcing to account for all other greenhouse gases or inaccurate spatial and temporal distributions of sulfate aerosols) prevent the [climate models] from correctly simulating the natural variability of the atmosphere.”

They conclude, “Since the models underestimate the long-range persistence of the atmosphere and overestimate the trends, our analysis suggests that the anticipated global warming is also overestimated by the models.”

More National Assessment Shenanigans

The National Assessment (NACC), a Clinton administration report on the possible impacts of climate change that has resurfaced in the Bush administration, has come under repeated and heavy criticism due to its sloppy research, absurd computer modeling, and political bias. Now it appears that the NACC involves scientific fraud as well. According to Tech Central Station at (www.techcentralstation.com, June 28, 2002), the U. S. Global Change Research Program altered the color scheme of the graphics used in the assessment to hide large discrepancies between the two models one from the Canadian Climate Centre and the other from the UK-based Hadley Centre that were used to make 100-year forecasts.

When the results from the two models were completed, they showed very different trends for future warming. Typically, when modelers show their results graphically, they use colors on a map to show temperature variations. The color scale goes from dark blue to lighter blues, which represent cooling, to green, yellow, orange and red to show progressively warmer temperatures. Dark blue sections represent about a 5 degree cooling, whereas red represents about a 15 degree warming.

Putting the two model results side by side, one could see that there were huge discrepancies between them. Several of the technical reviewers commented that the differences between the models cast doubt on the quality of the predictions. To “fix” the problem, the USGCRP changed the color scheme so that the scale used was mostly red and orange with a little blue at the bottom. Indeed, the orange extended all the way into the cooling part of the scale. The result was to eliminate blues, greens and yellows from the maps, which became nearly all orange or red, thereby obscuring the differences between the model results. The before and after pictures are available at the Tech Central Station website. A more detailed discussion of the changes can be found at www.john-daly.com.


At a press conference held by Environmental Media Services in Washington on July 2, it was claimed that U. S. businesses could be harmed by the Bush Administrations decision to reject the Kyoto Protocol. John Palmisano, whose company Evolution Markets advises corporations on how to trade and reduce emissions, asserted that even if global warming is not true, business will benefit through emissions trading becausewell, because they will have the ability to track emissions. Palmisano was previously a leading promoter of emissions trading at Enron Corporation.

Joseph Romm, of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions and a former Assistant Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration, said: “There is no type of business in this country that cannot make a profit through reducing carbon emissions.” Romm claimed that consumers prefer to buy products from “cool companies”, a sentiment echoed by Michael Marvin of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. Marvin claimed that both consumers and shareholders want emissions reductions.

Environmental Media Services passed out copies of a recent report by the Conference Board titled, “Global Climate Change: Fact or Fiction? It Doesnt Matterthe Issue is Here to Stay.” For those interested in basing public policy or investment decisions on fantasy, the report may be found at http://www.conference-board.org/ea_reports/EA_23.pdf.


The Cato Institute is sponsoring a lunchtime briefing on Global Warming: Rational Science, Rational Policy on July 19 in Room B-338 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The speakers will be Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and Cato and Jerry Taylor of Cato. Registration, which is required, may be accomplished by calling Julie Cullifer at (202) 789-5229 or online at www.cato.org/events.

California CO2 Bill Passes

The California legislature passed a bill on July 1 designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles. Governor Gray Davis must sign or veto the bill within 30 days. Davis said, “I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance, and that’s why I’m strongly inclined to sign it” (Sacramento Bee, July 4, 2002).

The legislation had been stymied for several weeks by intense opposition generated by the auto industry and unions through a major advertising campaign and direct lobbying. Supporters changed the bill number from AB 1058 to AB 1493 without notice, made a few changes to address criticisms, then rushed the bill through the Senate on Saturday, June 29. On Monday, July 1, the Assembly passed it on a 41-30 vote. Assembly rules require a minimum of 41 votes (out of 80) to pass legislation.

If enacted into law, AB 1493 would require the California Air Resources Board to design policies to “achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” from cars and trucks by 2005. The new regulations would first apply to the 2009 vehicle model year. AB 1493, unlike AB 1058, prohibits new taxes and would allow legislative review before any new regulations went into effect.

Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Arcadia) spoke of the “hypocrisy” of Democrats who supported the measure while listing the cars they drive, Chevy Suburbans and Jeep Cherokees among them (Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2002). Assemblyman Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murieta), told the New York Times (July 2): “This will cost lives. The reason it will cost lives is that it will price people out of the market. So they will keep their older cars, which do not have the safety features of newer cars.”

Hearings Will Review Administration Climate Policies

The House Science Committee is holding a hearing on July 10 to review President Bushs climate change policies. Witnesses scheduled to testify are: John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Jim Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Robert Card, Undersecretary of Energy.

On July 11, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Bush Administrations Climate Action Report 2002. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), who will chair the hearing, and Ranking Republican John McCain (R-Az.) have both used the administrations report to the U. N. to attack the administration for not doing enough to stop global warming.

Marburger and Mahoney are also scheduled to testify at the Senate hearing, plus Glenn Hubbard, Chairman of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers, and James Connaughton, Chairman of the Presidents Council on Environmental Quality.

In related news, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and three other members of the Bush Cabinet sent a letter on July 8 to the president with their recommendations on how to “improve and expand” the voluntary registry of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions managed by the Department of Energy and to create a voluntary transferable credit system for reductions.

President Bush had directed them in his February 14 speech on climate policy to propose improvements. The letter promises new guidelines for the registry by January 2004. The letter may be downloaded at http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases02/julpr/GreenhouseGasRegistryLetter.pdf.

Energy Bill Conference Begins, Administration Weighs In

House and Senate conferees on the energy bill, H. R. 4, held their first meeting on June 27, after nearly two weeks of bickering over whether it was the turn of the House or the Senate to chair the conference committee. It was finally agreed that Rep. Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, will chair the horse-trading sessions.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham sent a letter to Tauzin on June 27 detailing the Bush Administrations positions on most of the main provisions in the House and Senate versions. The administration opposes all three climate change titles in the Senate bill (Titles 10, 11, and 13) because they “are not consistent with the Presidents climate plan.” Several sources have told Cooler Heads that during administration deliberations only the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality were against opposing the Senates three climate titles.

The administration also opposes the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) passed by the Senate, but supports the Senates expanded ethanol mandate. The RPS would require privately-owned utilities to produce 10% of their power from non-hydro renewable sources by 2020.

Abraham re-iterated Bushs support for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which was approved by the House. However, while supporting a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the 48 States, the administration opposes the huge subsidies for it contained in the Senate bill.

Senate Committee Votes for CO2 Limits

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted out S. 556, the Clean Power Act, by a 10 to 9 vote on June 27. Although Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said that he would like to bring the bill to the floor this fall, it appears to lack the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and end a filibuster.

Chairman Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) was joined by eight committee Democrats and Republican Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in support of Jeffordss bill. Eight Republicans and Democrat Max Baucus, who faces a re-election campaign in Montana, voted against.

Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) offered an amendment based on President Bushs Clear Skies initiative. That and several other Republican amendments were offered and then withdrawn before a vote because they were unlikely to pass.

Senator Chafee noted that tourism was the chief source of income in Rhode Island and expressed concern that his states beaches would disappear because of manmade global warming. He cited the administrations Climate Action Report 2002 as evidence.

S. 556 would require electric power plants to reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides by 83 percent, sulfur dioxide by 83 percent, mercury by 90 percent, and carbon dioxide by 23 percent from today’s levels by 2008. This is the first piece of legislation marked up in Congress to contain mandatory CO2 emission reductions.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, told Environment and Energy Daily (July 10) that he hoped to have President Bushs Clear Skies plan introduced in legislative form before the end of this Congress. He also said that he still opposes regulating CO2 emissions and that he doubts that S. 556 will go anywhere while Bush is in office.