June 2009

Looks like public hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, will have to cut patient services in order to comply with global warming laws established by the provincial government. The Surrey Leader reports:

The Lower Mainland’s health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.’s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.

Critics say the payments mean the government’s strategy to fight climate change will further exacerbate a crisis in health funding.

“You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government-owned agency,” NDP health critic Adrian Dix said.

“That just doesn’t make sense.”

The Fraser Health Authority will pay $616,000 in carbon tax this year, rising to $821,000 next year, officials there said.

And by 2010 Fraser will also be paying $1.3 million a year to the province’s Pacific Carbon Trust to offset its projected 52,600 tonnes of carbon emissions released….

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority also expects its costs will be close to $2 million next year in combined carbon tax and offset payments.

And while human life is threatened, of course, the stated objective of global warming kooks is once again undermined:

Dix warned that some of the potential cuts – such as closing the ER at Mission Memorial Hospital – would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield.

“Obviously when you shut down regional centres it makes people travel farther to get to their health care facility,” he said.

Meanwhile a hospital executive states his greater concern for plant life than heartbeats:

Vancouver Coastal chief financial officer Duncan Campbell said his health authority believes the payments are appropriate and isn’t asking for any exemption from Victoria.

“For us to go back and ask for an exemption wouldn’t fit in well with our green care plans,” he said.

Did they hire this guy away from Planned Parenthood?

The Congressional Budget Office released a report on June 5th detailing the costs and revenues of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, before the House. Noticeably absent, however, is analysis of the effects of Renewable Electricity Credits (RECs) and the domestic and international offset credits. These should force up costs for consumers and therefore reduce economic growth and federal revenues.

Highlights:

The bill gives away over three-quarters of the rationing coupons, auctioning off just 18 percent until 2020. CBO estimates in the first ten years, the bill would bring in revenues of $845.6 billion, but increase federal spending by $821.2 billion—a $24.4 billion net gain over ten years.

CBO estimates that the cost of mandates in the bill would well exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates. One of these mandates is requirement for States’ to establish greenhouse gas registries plus about $1 billion annually for public entities to comply with the greenhouse gas program.

The program would start with 4,627 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent (MT-CO2e) coupons in 2012 and over the next four years grow to 5,482 million MT-CO2e. Then they would decline by 100 to 150 million MT-CO2e per year to 2,035 million MT-CO2e in 2050, about 14 percent of projected emissions from business-as-usual projections.

The amount of coupons auctioned actually drops from 29.6% in 2012 and 2013 to 17.5% through 2019, while the free allocations (i.e,windfall profits) increase to 82.5%.

The new carbon market would exceed $60 billion by 2012.

The banking of coupons in the bill increases allowance prices by 13 percent by 2019.

CBO estimates that covered entities would use 230 million domestic offsets (230 MT-CO2e) in 2012 and 300 million in 2020, plus 190 million international offsets in 2012 and 425 million in 2020.

CBO expects that some regions of the country—particularly the southeast—would probably not generate sufficient RECs to satisfy the federal standard, and therefore, would choose to make compliance payments.

CBO estimates $8.2 billion in federal agencies’ administrative costs from 2010 to 2019.

Global Warming Book Review
Myron Ebell, Standpoint Magazine, 10 June 2009

Both these books look comprehensively at global warming and cover much the same ground in much the same order. There the similarities end. First published last year, Lord Lawson’s Appeal is the best short book on the entire range of issues in the global warming debate that is available from a British publisher. This paperback edition with a substantial new afterword is therefore most welcome. Lawson is lucid, thoughtful and fair-minded. The book’s highly useful footnotes and bibliography attest to Lawson’s familiarity with the wide range of scholarship on the many scientific disciplines that contribute to understanding the climate and with the major economic analyses of the energy-rationing policies proposed to deal with warming.

CO2 Is Hot Air
Chris Horner, Washington Times, 10 June 2009

Your Tuesday story “GDP hit found with cap, trade” (Nation, Politics) states: “A cap-and-trade system would decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to a level that researchers say is safe.” The piece cites no such researchers making any such claim because no researcher on record says any such thing.

The EPA’s Protection Racket
Angela Logomasini & Jeff Stier, National Review, 9 June 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency is making “significant strides” on issues such as “protecting children’s health” and “confronting climate change,” says a memo from EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Not surprisingly, the agency has requested a 37 percent budget increase for fiscal year 2010.

Behind the Cap-and-Trade Curtain
Max Shulz, National Review Online, 9 June 2009

Proponents of a cap-and-trade program to combat global warming face an uphill fight. For all their attempts to spin it as a solely environmental issue about saving the planet from extinction, the reality is that it’s a political question that ultimately comes down to economic tradeoffs.

Plan To Fight Global Warming? Pie in the Sky
Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times, 9 June 2009

The latest example of anthropogenic-lunar empowerment is global warming. Al Gore and Barack Obama routinely cite the Apollo program as proof that we can make good on the president’s messianic campaign pledge to stem the rising ocean tides and hasten the healing of the planet.

The Carbon Offsets Con
William Butier, Financial Times, 4 June 2009

In my discussion of the Cap & Trade scheme for carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) emissions (greenhouse gases) proposed by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass. (the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009), I argue that the two key issues are (1) the size of the overall quota and (2) the enforcement of the rule that without a permit, you cannot emit.

Global Warming vs. the Real World
Christopher Booker, Telegraph, 7 June 2009

It might well be called “the tale of two planets”. On one planet live all the Great and Good who have recently been trying to whip up an ever greater panic over global warming, as the clock ticks down to next December’s UN conference in Copenhagen when they plan a new treaty to follow the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

Side Effects of Greenie Alarmism
Jay Ambrose, Orange County Register, 7 June 2009

Eternal vigilance – that’s the only answer I can think of in the fight against a certain style of extreme environmentalism that, first off, would mendaciously fill you with fear to win your support for a cause, and then turn around and do something worse. It would deny the enormous human costs of causes it endorses.

Scientists: Think Twice about Green Transport
Breitbart.com, 7 June 2009

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint — the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

Announcements

CEI’s Iain Murray and H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, this week released a new report, “10 Cool Global Warming Policies,” on measures that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase wealth creation. To read NCPA’s report, click here.

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present a comprehensive and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals. Click here to get the report.

The Science & Public Policy Institute has released a series of state climate change policy papers. Each study examines an individual State and addresses four topics: observed climate change over time; impacts of climate mitigation measures; costs of federal mitigation legislation; and a list of state scientists who reject the man-made global warming hypothesis. To read more, click here.

In the News

Climate Conspiracy
Christopher Monckton’s Speech to the Heartland Institute’s 3^rd International Climate Conference in Washington, D.C., 2 June 2009

Climate Bill Sparks Lobbying Frenzy
Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 5 June 2009

Little Chance the U.S. Will Sign a Climate Treaty
L.A. Times editorial, 4 June 2009

Green with Guilt
George Will, Washington Post, 4 June 2009

Steep Cost of Renewables
Paul Chesser, GlobalWarming.org, 4 June 2009

Politics, Economics and Green Jobs
J.T. Young, American Spectator, 3 June 2009

Clean Air Act Regulation of CO2: Rough Road Ahead
Marlo Lewis, MasterResource.org, 3 June 2009

Gore-Backed Hara Sees Big $$ in Climate Policy
David Lawsky, Reuters, 1 June 2009

Pelosi’s Chinese Climate Change
Wall Street Journal editorial, 1 June 2009

Cap-and-Trade: All Cost and No Benefit
Martin Feldstein, Washington Post, 1 June 2009

Indiana Wants No Part of Energy Tax
Elisabeth Meinecke, Human Events, 1 June 2009

Now the World Faces Its Biggest Ever Bill
Christopher Booker, Telegraph, 23 May 2009

News You Can Use

Gore Hijinx

Reuters reported this week that Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins invested $6 million in Hara, a “one stop shop for greenhouse gas management,” with the endorsement of former U.S. Vice President Gore, who is a partner at the firm. Gore has lobbied for the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act, a major climate change mitigation bill that would create a market for Hara’s services.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Bingaman Moves Forward with Senate Anti-Energy Package

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week held another mark-up of Chairman Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) comprehensive anti-energy bill. Bingaman plans to finish next week. The title on energy efficiency standards was amended to provide more financial assistance for retro-fitting historic buildings with energy-saving features. The title would require States to adopt building codes that would reach 30 percent energy savings through 2010 compared to 2006 standards, and then 50 percent by some future date to be determined later.

A number of amendments were offered to the renewable electricity standards title, but most were defeated on an 11 to 12 vote. The title would require that 15 percent of electricity must be generated by defined renewable sources by 2021. The committee wrangled over how nuclear power should be treated. An amendment to take new nuclear power out of the baseline from which the 15 percent is calculated was approved. Thus nuclear does not count as renewable, but new nuclear power plants will not increase the requirement to produce other renewables.

Waxman-Markey Heads to Floor?

The House Democratic leadership had a different story to tell every day this week on the schedule to bring H. R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill, to the floor.  Their intentions may change again several times, but right now it looks as if they plan to debate and vote on the bill before leaving for the Fourth of July recess. I think Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) have come to the same conclusion I did: their chances of passing it are better sooner rather than later.  To rush such a huge and momentous piece of legislation to the floor in a month is going to take a huge effort. It could easily slip to July or even past the August recess. But for now, we should expect a weeklong floor debate the week of 21st June.

The Alternative to Waxman-Markey

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on 7th May introduced what can be seen as the comprehensive alternative to Waxman-Markey.  Rather than rationing energy in the name of saving us from global warming, the American Energy Innovation Act would increase access to all kinds of energy, especially on federal lands and offshore areas. Bishop, the chairman of the Western Caucus, was joined by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, in introducing the bill. H. R. 2300 currently has 59 co-sponsors. Price and Bishop have both written articles promoting this joint effort of the Western Caucus and the Republican Study Committee and contrasting it with the Waxman-Markey bill. The American Energy Innovation Act is too big a bill with too much in it to be perfect, but it’s a good start toward rational (rather than rationing) energy policy. It’s going to be a long journey to get even halfway there.

Heartland’s Climate Conference

The big event in Washington this week (besides the unveiling of the Reagan statue in the Capitol’s Rotunda) was the Heartland Institute’s International Climate Conference.  All the talks will soon be posted here. A good place to start will be with Professor Richard Lindzen’s excellent opening address. Lindzen’s analysis of the politics of global warming in the scientific community is most perceptive, and his demonstration that the climate is not nearly as sensitive to CO2 levels as the climate models assume looks definitive.

GE: General Extortion

Julie Walsh

GE, currently the 22^nd largest company in the world-down from 10^th last quarter-has been lobbying for Cap and Tax. Julia Seymour at Business and Media Institute in her piece “Networks Ignore Trillion-Dollar Price Tag of Climate Cap Bill“ writes:

GE is the largest wind turbine generator maker and according to an “O’Reilly Factor” investigation the company “stands to make billions” from cap-and-trade.

And Vladimir at Redstate has a continuation on Tim Carney’s expose on the lobbying of General Electric:

GE also controls the message through its ownership of the media. That includes NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Universal Studios, 10 major-market NBC affiliate stations, 16 Telemundo stations, plus many of the popular cable TV networks: A&E, History Channel, Sundance Channel, Weather Channel (my emphasis), Bravo, USA Networks, on and on. Have you noticed how hard the Green Agenda is being pushed in all the media?

A savvy capitalist hedges his bets. GE is one of the biggest players in the high-return business of energy lending – financing the capital needs of oil and gas firms.

No wonder the real story on the costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill isn’t getting out.

Around the World

Bonn: New Conference, Same Deadlock

Delegates from 180 countries met in Bonn this week for negotiations in advance of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change this December in Copenhagen, where the UN hopes to adopt a successor global warming treaty to the failed Kyoto Protocol.

According to the International Energy Agency, it would cost $45 trillion through 2050 to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. U.S. President Barack Obama wants rapidly developing nations such as China and India, which will account for the preponderance of future increases in global emissions, to share this tremendous economic burden. His top climate envoy, Todd Stern, told the Associated Press, “I would not say that the United States is going to race forward with major players like China on the sidelines.”

Under the Kyoto Protocol, however, rapidly developing nations are exempt from binding emissions cuts that would slow poverty reduction by making energy much more expensive. Delegates from these nations want to maintain this “right to develop,” so they reject Stern’s logic. China’s climate ambassador Yu Qingtai told Reuters, “Instead of introducing new concepts, controversial concepts, unfair concepts, the world would be better served if we could focus on what is already agreed upon…”

The deadlock in Bonn is nothing new. For two years, the climate negotiators have been meeting at five star resorts around the world, and they have made no progress on the core dispute: the U.S. won’t act on climate change without China, which won’t act under any circumstance. Thankfully, this impasse appears to be intractable.

Bonn Bombshell

Besides deadlock, the only other news out of Bonn was the European Union’s apparent reversal on its unilateral pledge to reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. On Monday, German environmental minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters that, “If the others don’t join in, we cannot uphold this target.”

Earlier this week our Climate Depot pal Marc Morano caught an anonymous blogger for Talking Points Memo, who calls himself (or herself) “The Insolent Braggart” (with the URL extension “crazedandconfused”), with a post that called for the jailing or execution of “global warming deniers.” The post’s entire text:

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing f***tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?

The same day I read that post, I checked out “Insolent Braggart’s” archive page at TPM, where several of his previous posts were listed. Today his page remains, but all previous record of his posts have been scrubbed from the site. Apparently the call for a skeptics’ gallows was too much even for the brash clan at TPM.

Take a look at the Environmental Defense Fund’s last two IRS tax returns, Form 990s, available from the nonprofit archiver Guidestar (subscription required). You can see from clips that in fiscal year ending September 2007 (PDF) the group took in more than $85 million in total revenue (with $23.7 million spent on global warming initiatives), and in 2008 (PDF) EDF received almost $123 million in revenue ($34.8 million spent on global warming initiatives).

You’d think with these massive resources that this litigative behemoth could put together a reasonably legible report to the IRS, but you’d be wrong. If you read EDF’s 2007 and 2008 statements of primary exempt purpose and program service accomplishments, you find that they deliver the information in a manner that is the bane of every grade school english teacher’s existence: in one long, multiple-page run-on sentence. In fact, it’s not even a run-on sentence — it’s a mish-mash of comments and claims about accomplishments that is almost completely devoid of punctuation. And it has no paragraph breaks.

Clearly EDF does not want anybody to read what they’ve been up to, whether it’s people like me who scrutinize people like them, or IRS agents. I can just picture some poor bureaucrat who reviews these things all day long, taking a look at their juvenile reporting and saying “Forget it!” Instead the IRS ought to send back their 990s and say, “We expect better. Do it over.”

Chief Financial Officer Peter Accinno, who almost certainly earns in the same six-figure salary neighborhood as his fellow EDF executives, should be embarrassed for signing off on such an unprofessional report.

June has arrived and so has the nation’s official hurricane season. The New York Times called attention, last week, to the political battles associated with hurricanes and the increasing cost of homeowners insurance. Daniel Sutter, professor of economics at the University of Texas Pan American, published a timely paper with CEI yesterday that examines the relationship between climate change, government regulation of homeowners insurance, and property damage caused by hurricanes. Sutter’s important findings show that the increasing cost of homeowners insurance, and increasing costs of property damage caused by tropical storms, has more to do with the unintended consequences of government policy than with global warming:

“Existing public policies—including insurance regulation, government-subsidized flood insurance, improper mitigation, and faulty building code enforcement—contribute to unnecessarily risky and inefficient development along coastal areas by shifting the cost of hurricane damage ultimately onto third parties—mainly taxpayers. Poor policies lead to excessive vulnerability to hurricanes and would exacerbate the cost of any increase in storm activity, whether due to climate change or any other factor.”

Sutter’s paper is especially noteworthy right now as Congress debates whether to bailout beach house owners at U.S. taxpayer expense.