A two-day bilateral summit is to culminate today (27 March) with the signing of a new accord that will see France help the UK develop a new generation of nuclear power stations.
March 2008
Given that Kyoto is not enforceable on its own terms (Article 18), those who argue that we must ratify it because “everyone is doing it” must face the difficult fact that, actually, they aren’t doing it. Europe hasn’t had to pay for its broken promises and shifting emissions-reduction targets. The U.S. is the only nation whose courts could have forced the government to meet the terms of the treaty. That threat surfaced thanks to an earlier decision by the Court — which caused great distress to conservatives — under which treaties were considered not merely on a par with domestic laws, but superior to them in cases where the two conflict. Under Medellin, it now seems feasible that the U.S. could ratify Kyoto and, if lawmakers lacked the political will to adopt implementing legislation, green pressure groups could not sue their way to compliance.
One might argue: if two-thirds of the Senate were to approve a Kyoto-type treaty, that would demonstrate the political will to actually impose the restrictions that such a treaty calls for. I suggest that these steps remain quite different animals: the first involves feel-good press releases announcing bold action to join an international consensus for the sake of our children and grandchildren; the second — the implementing legislation — involves pesky Congressional Budget Office public estimates of the extraordinary costs.
Remember, Congress has had the option of imposing Kyoto-type legislation sans treaty for a decade — and certainly for the past 14 months while a Democratic majority has held the reins. When they were in the minority, Democrats bayed incessantly about how hearings were an irresponsible delay tactic and waste of time and that we must act now! Their present-day muttering about test-votes and gestures in anticipation of next year speak for themselves.
Apologists claim that fear of a Bush veto is the reason for Congressional Democrats’ inaction on climate-change legislation — an argument I’ve answered here; their real fear is advertising the costs of their preferred climate action.
In sum, Medellin offers no threat and possibly some succor for us anti-Kyoto types.
Tuesday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by sociology professor Monica Prasad, "On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend," which singled out Denmark as a model for how the U.S. should proceed on carbon-dioxide regulation. I have watched Denmark’s policies with particular interest — since marrying a Dane, and now having two little half-Danes here and a host of family there — and have been a regular visitor to that country.
Denmark’s domestic press hangs its head quite a bit over the fact that the proudly “green” country (home to the European Environment Agency) is among Europe’s biggest Kyoto violators — a failure facilitated by the absurd promise made by Socialist minister Sven Aukend to match whatever reductions Germany promised (-21% below 1990, averaged over 2008-2012), despite the fact that Denmark did not have the luxury of shutting down filthy Jutland industrial capacity as Germany did, post-reunification.
Therefore certain of the piece’s claims struck me as a bit of a surprise — for example: “The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in emissions is Denmark"; and “Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”
Something smelled a little rotten in this cheerleading, as I know full well that the Danes benefit from Swedish nuclear power, despite also regularly banging on about how the Swedes need to shut down the reactor just across the Straight. Then again, who are we to begrudge them such hypocrisy, with California being so bossy while relying on atoms smashed and coal burned in other states?
So I turned to the World Nuclear Association. Suddenly the bloom falls off the morally superior rose.
"The 7.64 billion kWh [NB: that equals > 16% of how much electricity DK produces on its own, domestically] imported from Sweden in 2005 is almost half nuclear and half hydro, the power (5 billion kWh in 2003, 0.6 billion kWh in 2005) imported from Germany is largely generated by brown coal and nuclear power (Germany itself imports 15 to 20 billion kWh/yr from France, which is 80% nuclear)…
Conclusion:
Nuclear power provides an essential part of Denmark's electricity…Using 2005 data, with production of 36.3 TWh, consumption of 34 TWh, exports of 12.9 and imports of 10.4 from Germany and 0.7 from Sweden, it would seem that 3 TWh used is nuclear, about 9% of total."
So much for not relying on nuclear. The U.S. also relies on nuclear, for about twice Denmark's percentage of its electricity. But we also have not (yet) embraced Denmark’s windmill boondoggle, that after hundreds of millions of dollars leaves them “selling” wind to the Swedes for about 0 cents per Kwh.
What about this notion that a carbon tax caused Denmark’s emissions to drop? I turned to the European Environment Agency for a little straight talk — something you won’t hear me say very often. According to Denmark’s submission to the EEA, Denmark's main emissions-reduction strategy is to import electricity rather than create it.
About its "Past emissions: Denmark’s GHG emissions were 6.3 % below those of 2004 and 7.8 % below base-year levels in 2005. The main factor for decreasing emissions with regard to 2004 was a decrease of fossil fuel combustion in electricity and heat production partly due to higher electricity imports."
About their projected 2010 emission total of 20.6 MMT: "*The Danish Energy Authority estimates that approximately 5.0 of the 20.6 million tones CO2 annually will be offset by increased electricity exports based on the calculation assumptions of the climate strategy."
Ms. Prasad’s claim is false: a carbon tax didn't cause the Danes’ emissions to drop; almost the entire reduction came in one year and as a result of importing electricity, i.e., paying someone else to emit CO2.
It also turns out that the carbon tax Ms. Prasad praises is just one of five taxes cited in the seven "measures" Denmark cites: mineral oil tax, gas tax, coal tax, electricity tax, CO2 tax, (the sixth being Emissions Trading Schemea tax; and the seventh, the wealth transfer of buying JI and CDM credits). These come on top of a vehicle-registration tax touted as a GHG-reduction scheme that doubles the price of cars — the joke in Denmark is that it's a good thing that they don't have all the cars they've paid for; not to mention another GHG tax on HFCs, a weight- and volume-packaging tax, and a waste tax, among the other measures.
Meanwhile, of course, the European Parliament and Commission are busy trying to find ways to impose EU-wide taxation to install a “Kyoto tax” on top of all the other taxes that have, as we know, failed to reduce EU member-state emissions.
In truth, cap-and-trade means cap, trade and tax. Answering the NYT's false claims only confirms that.
A new report says New England is not on track to meet its targets for global warming pollution reductions – a commitment made back in 2001. New Hampshire had the greatest increase in emissions in the region between 2001 and 2005. Emissions rose by 26%, mainly because of an increase in electricity generation.
Unilateral sanctions against major polluters by countries applying stricter environmental standards would create serious political problems, the chief U.N. climate scientist warned Wednesday.
Earlier this March, CEI began a nation-wide advertising campaign to warn Americans that Al Gore’s climate policies would lead to global energy poverty. In order to remind us all that there are billions for whom reliable energy is not a given, the advertisement included footage of an Haitian villagers erupting in cheers upon the installation of their first street light.
That footage came from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a trade group that represents Rural Economic Coops, which are small utilities created during the New Deal to bring electricity to sparsely populated areas. By making the footage available on You Tube, NRECA was trying to demonstrate to the public the benefits of energy, which is the same point that CEI was trying to make in the Al Gore advertisement.
So we’re on the same team, right?
Wrong. The Association claims copyright infringement over the seven seconds of footage and a “takedown” notice by the association led to the ad being yanked off YouTube over the weekend (CEI has since put the ad on its own website).
Which begs the question: why would NRECA want to censor CEI?
The answer: NRECA would do anything to avoid losing its government privileges.
Rural electric coops depend on taxpayer money for their existence. The 2007 Energy Security and Independence Act included $6.5 billion in guaranteed, low cost loans to rural coops. Naturally, NRECA is loathe to rock the boat and upset the status quo; otherwise, it might ruffle feathers and risk the continuation of government handouts.
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Last year when Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. They focused on the north polar regions where the ice set record low levels. This summer when unprecedented anomalous cover continued in the Southern Hemisphere again no coverage. Then this report in the news today. You probably saw it on your favorite network or internet news site (pick one, anyone).
Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse – Latest Sign of Global Warming’s Impact Shocks Scientists
Andrea Thompson Livescience
A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming’s impact on Earth’s southernmost continent. Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events. Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles (37 square miles) that appeared to have broken away from the shelf. Scambos alerted colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that it looked like the entire ice shelf – about 6,180 square miles (about the size of Northern Ireland)- was at risk of collapsing. The region where the Wilkins Ice Shelf lies has experienced unprecedented warming in the past 50 years, with several ice shelves retreating in the past 30 years. Six of these ice shelves have collapsed completely: Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf. See MSNBC version of this story here.
Icecap Note: Let’s put this in perspective. The account may be misinterpreted by some as the ice cap or a significant (vast) portion is collapsing. In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979.
See full image here
The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far, like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.
See full image here
One Icecap reader points also to a paper (Glasser et al, 2008) identifying some of the other natural processes that can lead to these ice sheet breaks, in this case Larsen B.
The embarrassing truth is that the weak correlation between earth's temperatures and human-emitted greenhouse gases is rapidly worsening. The CO2 correlation with earth's thermometer record since 1860 is less than 22 percent. The correlation between earth temperatures and sunspots is 79 percent and strengthening. Singer and Avery have published extensively on the evidence of the moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle, which was discovered in the Greenland ice cores in 1984, and a few years later in the Vostok Antarctic glacier core — at the opposite end of the earth.
The disastrous hurricanes of recent years have become the poster children of global warming. But Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental policy expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wondered whether the billions of dollars of damage was caused by more intense storms or more coastal development. After analyzing decades of hurricane data, Pielke concluded that rising levels of carbon dioxide had little to do with hurricane damage. Rather, it boiled down to a simple equation: Build more, lose more.
What do Americans believe about global warming?
Evidently most don’t believe the globe’s small warming trend is a large problem. A recent Gallup poll said only 37% of Americans worry “a great deal” about global warming, less than last year. In fact, there are eight environmental issues that they are more worried about, including the pollution of drinking water, lakes, and reservoirs; loss of natural habitat for wildlife; and damage to the earth’s ozone layer.
And a NCPRR poll said that the majority of Americans wouldn’t even pay a penny more per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, 72% of Americans said that the recent price increases in gasoline has caused financial hardship for them or their household, according to a new CNN poll.
Likewise, the world is skeptical of global warming’s crisis status.
And yet our Congress is considering a bill that would cost each American around $1,375 per year by 2030 and cause a gas price increase of 53 cents per gallon, according to the EPA(page 4), to supposedly alleviate global warming.
If Congress believes that only $600 per taxpayer of “stimulus” can keep us out of a recession, wouldn’t a $1,375 cost per individual send us into one?
These polls confirm why Al Gore’s massive new $300 million dollar ad campaign is needed to move public opinion.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org 
