October 2007

The Global Subsidies Initiative has updated its 2006 study of government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States. GSI estimates that “under existing policies,  the biofuels industry will, in aggregate, benefit from support worth over $92 billion within the 2006–2012 time frame.” Energy provisions in the FY 2007 Farm Bill would add billions more, as would enactment of either President Bush’s 20 in 10 program (mandating 35 billion gallons of biofuel in the nation’s motor fuel supply by 2017) or the Senate energy bill’s mandate of 36 billion gallons by 2022.

GSI’s 2006 study is available here. The 2007 update is available here. GSI’s press release announcing the updated study is reproduced below.

Economics is "the dismal science," in part because it puts a price tag on the pleasure of moralizing. This is pertinent to the crusade, often masquerading as journalism, aimed at hectoring developed nations into taking "strong" actions against global warming. For such nations (developing nations have more pressing priorities), the question, plainly put, is: How much are they willing to pay—in direct expenditures, forgone economic growth, inefficiencies and constricted freedom—in order to have a negligible effect on climate change?

Some of the price rises are the result of temporary problems, such as drought in Australia, and diseases, such as blue-ear in Chinese pigs. But there is a more permanent increase in demand from Asia, as richer populations in China and India demand more protein, and from the biofuel industry, which is on course to consume about 30 per cent of the US corn crop in 2010 – developments that will underpin prices for the medium term.

I just received this email from a professor in Spain, Dr. Gabriel Calzada who is also of the Instituto Juan de Mariana (and who translated and adapted my book for Spain, where it was released a fortnight ago):

 "[Opposition leader Mariano] Rajoy said yesterday that there is no consensus on climate change and that it is not the most important problem that faces human beings. This has been enough to start a huge national debate."

Ministers are planning a U-turn on Britain's pledges to combat climate change that "effectively abolishes" its targets to rapidly expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

Junkscience.com:

Groan!

"Carbon Dioxide Levels Up Faster Than Thought – Study" – "LONDON – Humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an increasingly quicker pace while natural reservoirs such as oceans and trees are soaking up less and less of the greenhouse gas, researchers said on Monday." (Reuters)

Um, nope! Levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as the IPCC's absurd 1%/yr, nor any of their alarmist 'storylines'. This despite humans mining and using carbon at record rates for the last 5 years or so…(follow link for entire story)

Dr Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP:

As we showed in an earlier blog, though estimates of man’s output of carbon dioxide have increased in the last two decades, the rate of increase in the atmosphere has not increased, implying the opposite, a “missing sink” or underestimated ability of nature…(follw link for entire story)

The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.

World Wildlife Fund has praised Sony, Nike, and French cement maker Lafarge for demonstrating that business can make "reasonable and meaningful" changes to stem global warming.  Carbon emissions from all three companies have been rising, though. Interestingly enough,  Lararge is also paying the WWF about $6 million over three years to help fund environmental programs–not win the environmental group's support, the company says.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, we will spend a special hour on climate change. We call it "Keeping Them Honest: The Truth About Global Warming."
Al Gore just won a Nobel Prize for his work warning the world about it. But what are the facts? We will set the record straight.