Iain Murray

The environmental left is in some disarray following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  After all, BP had trumpeted for years the idea that it was ‘Beyond Petroleum.’  Shell and ChevronTexaco had mounted similar campaigns.  All had collected numerous awards for their commitment to sustainability and other objectives of the green lobby.  Yet here was BP responsible for worst environmental disaster many people had seen.  The hand-wringing is palpable among the Corporate Social Responsibility mavens.  Here’s the conclusion of one group, EthicalCorp:

Many in the CSR community have discussed the disaster in the context of the oil industry at large. BP, they reason, was certainly ahead of its competitors in discussing the responsibility of an energy company to address climate change and invest in alternative energy.

But it’s critical to remember that being “best in class” when your industry’s core products and services are fundamentally unsustainable, is a total misnomer. There is no such thing as an ‘eco-friendly’ oil company.

The remedy, it seems, is ideological purity:

Let’s start with the term ‘CSR’ itself. Like ‘sustainability’, it’s clearly lost a lot of its meaning and needs to be rethought—and possibly thrown out altogether. Continuing to frame corporate efforts on sustainable development as ‘CSR’ also keeps those efforts in the CSR department, instead of driving their integration into core business operations.

But what about ethical rankings and indices? If they actually worked well, they could have a significant impact on investment decisions. As Innovest concluded in its 2000 oil industry risk report—which ranked BP #2 out of the 13 oil companies on the S&P 500 for its “superior environmental management program”—investors could use the ranking as “a valuable indicator of future performance in the oil industry based on environmental criteria.”

Firstly, no oil company should be found on any of these ethical, CSR or sustainability-related lists.

And it shouldn’t require the biggest ecological disaster in American history, for example, to displace BP from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

Secondly, ranking and index criteria need to be made more visible and more robust. Yes, most tell us they are based on publicly available data. But most of them also rely on sourcing that data from corporate commitments—what companies say they are doing or plan to do.

Some are even based solely on information found in the CSR reports of those companies. All rankings and indices need to be driven by externally verified data from a solid variety of sources.

And what about marketing? The high-profile communications campaigns from the energy industry need to be automatically subject to greater scrutiny, and more robust regulation.

Shell’s new CSR campaign, “Let’s Go”, bears an uncanny resemblance to “Beyond Petroleum”, focusing on broad claims such as “Shell is helping to deliver cleaner-burning natural gas to more countries than any other energy company.”

The viewer of these ads is given no context for the claim—what other energy sources natural gas burns cleaner than, for example, or how delivering the gas to “more countries” is a relevant metric for sustainability leadership. This is unacceptable.

It seems that companies’ green marketing materials will no longer be enough for the CSR industry.  They will require much more to deliver their seal of approval – so much, it appears – that energy companies will no longer be able to achieve them without completely divesting themselves of their most profitable activities.

As it happens, the oil companies realized this a few years ago.  Tom Bower’s book Oil reveals how BP, Shell and others quietly shelved their environmentally-focused campaigns after the release of An Inconvenient Truth.  as bower characterizes the thoughts of Shell’s Chief Executive, Jeroen van der Veer, “Posturing for publicity purposes was harmless, but relying on the profitability of renewables was foolish.”

It’s taken several years for the CSR types to notice.  If they are now openly hostile to energy companies, then ‘posturing for publicity purposes’ is really no longer an option.  The cry of “hypocrite” is a powerful one.

So what is left?  We at CEI have been arguing for years that corporations need to do what they did en masse in the 1930s, the last time corporations came under as heavy attack as they are now, and legitimize their activities.  They need to point out the good that they are doing, how oil creates opportunities and wealth we would not have without it, for instance.  Apologetic advertising or pretending to be something they are not needs to be a thing of the past.

Truth in advertising, indeed.

One of the central insights of Free-Market Environmentalism is that people treat the environment as a luxury good.  They are willing to pay for it when they have spare money, but not when they don’t.  That’s why treating the environment as a tax, which is how statist environmentalism works, arouses resentment, while treating it as a privately-owned asset, like FME does, promotes stewardship and conservation.

There’s more evidence for this view from a new study, Environmental Concern and the Business Cycle: The Chilling Effect of Recession.  Here’s the abstract:

This paper uses three different sources of data to investigate the association between the business cycle—measured with unemployment rates—and environmental concern. Building on recent research that finds internet search terms to be useful predictors of health epidemics and economic activity, we find that an increase in a state’s unemployment rate decreases Google searches for “global warming” and increases searches for “unemployment,” and that the effect differs according to a state’s political ideology. From national surveys, we find that an increase in a state’s unemployment rate is associated with a decrease in the probability that residents think global warming is happening and reduced support for the U.S to target policies intended to mitigate global warming. Finally, in California, we find that an increase in a county’s unemployment rate is associated with a significant decrease in county residents choosing the environment as the most important policy issue. Beyond providing the first empirical estimates of macroeconomic effects on environmental concern, we discuss the results in terms of the potential impact on environmental policy and understanding the full cost of recessions.

The paper’s authors are obviously concerned that the recession means that statist environmental policies are less likely to be enacted.  It would be helpful if, instead of thinking so linearly, environmental academics could think what opportunities this gives to advance free-market environmentalism.  It is clear that low-cost environmentalism is much more likely to be supported during a recession than high-cost environmentalism.  because free-market environmentalism shifts the burdens of environmental protection from the masses to those who are willing to pay, it should be much more attractive to people during a recession.  It is indicative of the ideological blinkers of the environmental establishment that this possibility does not occur to the authors.

Senator Kerry just said during the debate on SJRes 26, the “Murkowski resolution” to disapprove EPA’s rule relating to greenhouse gas regulation that the USA pays President Ahmadinejad of Iran $100m a day for oil.

This is absolutely, unequivocally false.  Iran is subject to sanctions that specifically target the Iranian oil industry.  This is from the Energy Information Administration’s website:

As per the Iran Transactions Regulations, administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), U.S. persons may not directly or indirectly trade, finance, or facilitate any goods, services or technology going to or from Iran, including goods, services or technology that would benefit the Iranian oil industry. U.S. persons are also prohibited from entering into or approving any contract that includes the supervision, management or financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran. See OFAC’s Iran Transactions Regulations page for more information.

Add another one to the list of patently false objections to the resolution.

The Climategate scandal showed how several of the world’s top climate scientists were hell bent on keeping “skeptical” views out of the scientific literature and in particular, the IPCC reports.  If you wanted an illustration of how this actually worked in practice, then economist Ross McKitrick has a doozy for you.

Ross realized that one of the IPCC’s central claims, one that could be regarded as foundational, was fabricated and provably false.  He wrote a paper demonstrating this and proceeded to be given the run-around by every climatic journal he submitted it to, despite mostly positive reviews.  In the end he had to publish it in a statistical journal, where it will likely be ignored by the climate science clique community.

Ross concludes:

In the aftermath of Climategate a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public. The public seems to believe that climatology is beset with cliquish gatekeeping, wagon-circling, biased peer-review, faulty data and statistical incompetence. In response to these perceptions, some scientists are casting around, in op-eds and weblogs, for ideas on how to hit back at their critics. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point.

Read the whole thing by downloading Ross’s paper here (PDF link).

Roger Pielke Jr agrees with Ross here, noting:

This is exactly the situation that has occurred in the context of disaster losses that I have documented on numerous occasions. In the case of disaster losses, not only did the IPCC make stuff up, but when challenged, went so far as to issue a press release emphasizing the accuracy of its made up stuff.

Cartoon from Cartoons By Josh.

As threatened, the new CAFE standards have arrived, with the EPA muscling in on territory reserved by statute to the Transportation Department. As Marlo Lewis and I have noted repeatedly, this is an unconstitutional
step on a road to economic devastation.

However, in the light of recent events, this quote in particular caught my eye:

Gloria Bergquist, vice president at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said . . . “We have a hill to climb, and it’s steep, so we will need consumers to buy our fuel-efficient technologies in large
numbers to meet this new national standard.”

Even with very high gas prices, Americans have been unwilling to buy fuel-efficient vehicles in the same numbers as Europeans, because they rightly regard them as less safe. When the president talks about how
vehicles have not become more efficient over the past few vehicles, he is being disingenuous, because they have actually become much more efficient at providing more horsepower and more mass for the same amount of fuel. That’s what consumers want and in many cases need, but that’s also what makes this a particularly steep hill for the auto manufacturers to climb.

With the principle that the Federal Government can mandate that individuals purchase something now established with the Obamacare Act (although that too is unconstitutional, as my colleague Hans Bader explains), how long before we see an act of Congress aimed at forcing Americans to buy unsafe but fuel-efficient vehicles?

A chicken in every pot and a fuel-efficient car in every garage . . . or else!

Cross-posted from The Corner.

The UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has issued its report into the so-called Climategate scandal.  As might be expected, it’s pretty much a whitewash, except as detailed below.  Only one MP dissented from its conclusions.  There seem to me to be some serious errors and omissions in the reports, but I’m not the only one.  For instance, Fred Pearce of New Scientist and The Guardian has some pretty serious things to say in his story, Hacked climate email inquiry cleared Jones but serious questions remain:

in their rush to judgment before parliament is dissolved for the general election, Phil Willis and his team avoided examining more complex charges, including those raised by the Guardian in its investigations in February.

Even so, they sometimes get confused. The MPs accept Jones’s claim that CRU’s habit of keeping secret much of its data, methodology and computer codes was “standard practice” among climate scientists. Yet they also note that Nasa scientists doing similar work are much more open. Not so standard, then.

And whatever standard practice may be, surely as one of climate science’s senior figures, Jones should take some responsibility for its misdemeanours? Jones has worked for the CRU for more than 20 years and been its director for six. The MPs found there a “culture of withholding information” in which “information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure.” It found this “unacceptable”. Doesn’t its director take responsibility?

The MPs kept their criticism for the university. Its “failure to grasp fully the potential damage [from] non-disclosure of FOIA requests was regrettable”.

Also possibly illegal, it might have added.

While Pearce is good on this point – essentially that Phil Jones fostered a culture of anti-scientific secrecy and collusion as head of the CRU – he is less good on the meaning of the “trick” by which jones aspired to “hide the decline” in one particular temperature series.  Bishop Hill is right on the money here:

Mike’s Nature Trick (66) – The committee’s
conclusions are eyewatering:

66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the
words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to
hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is
predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published
papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the
science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand
for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect
that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.

I’m struggling to say something polite about this.  By way of an
illustration, can you imagine the reaction if a scientist reported in
the safety literature that there was a critical flaw in the design of a
nuclear power station, but told policymakers that everything was fine?
Do the committee really think it’s fine to hide important information
from policymakers so long as you report it in the literature?
Astonishing.

Indeed.  Did anything good come out of the report?  Well, as Roger Pielke Jr points out, a broad reading of the report reveals an indictment of the state of climate science:

Reputation does not, however, rest solely on the quality of work as it
should. It also depends on perception. It is self-evident that the
disclosure of the CRU e-mails has damaged the reputation of UK climate
science and, as views on global warming have become polarised, any
deviation from the highest scientific standards will be pounced on. As
we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate science
are a key issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with
the rest of climate science, the question would arise whether climate
science methods of operation need to change. In this event we would
recommend that the scientific community should consider changing those
practices to ensure greater transparency. . .

. . . A great
responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the
planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our
future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these
decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so
large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had
better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

And, as Climategate and the multiple subsequent revelations about the shoddiness of the IPCC’s science have shown, the science is in no way irreproachable as it stands.  Yet in the end, Prof. Frank Furedi is right about what the Committee meant in this segment:

In other words, the CRU’s real failing was to dent the authority of the
climate-change morality tale, with its idea that, with the end of the
world fast approaching, there is an urgent need to monitor people’s
behaviour and lower their horizons. A cynic might conclude that when
moral entrepreneurs say that the ‘prices to pay are so large’, their
investigations into public controversies will inevitably have a
perfunctory character, since there is allegedly a higher, more pressing
truth to be defended.

Which is exactly what happened here.

For many years, the climate alarmist movement pushed the development of corn ethanol as the “fuel of the future” on the grounds that it would decrease fossil fuel emissions. As I detail in my book, The Really Inconvenient Truths, massive efforts were devoted to promoting this technology, with a textbook baptist-bootlegger alliance between green groups and Big Corn (most notably Archer Daniels Midland).  Politicians joined in happily, with Al Gore stumping for Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar because of her support for ethanol and countless Presidential candidates in Iowa talking up the fuel.

The result of that push has, it seems, been an increase in fossil fuels.  For the latest on this, see Corned grief: biofuels may increase CO2 at Watts Up With That?

The indirect effects of increasing production of maize ethanol were first addressed in 2008 by Timothy Searchinger and his coauthors, who presented a simpler calculation in Science. Searchinger concluded that burning maize ethanol led to greenhouse gas emissions twice as large as if gasoline had been burned instead. The question assumed global importance because the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act mandates a steep increase in US production of biofuels over the next dozen years, and certifications about life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are needed for some of this increase. In addition, the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires including estimates of the effects of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions. The board’s approach is based on the work reported in BioScience.

Hertel and colleagues’ analysis incorporates some effects that could lessen the impact of land-use conversion, but their bottom line, though only one-quarter as large as the earlier estimate of Searchinger and his coauthors, still indicates that the maize ethanol now being produced in the United States will not significantly reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, compared with burning gasoline. The authors acknowledge that some game-changing technical or economic development could render their estimates moot, but sensitivity analyses undertaken in their study suggest that the findings are quite robust.

Promotion of technologies based on theory rather than practice has been a hallmark of the green movement. Every indication seems to be that their foolish promotion of ethanol has been written out of their history, rather than being treated as a cautionary tale to learn from.

For many years, the climate alarmist movement pushed the development of corn ethanol as the “fuel of the future” on the grounds that it would decrease fossil fuel emissions. As I detail in my book, The Really Inconvenient Truths, massive efforts were devoted to promoting this technology, with a textbook baptist-bootlegger alliance between green groups and Big Corn (most notably Archer Daniels Midland).  Politicians joined in happily, with Al Gore stumping for Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar because of her support for ethanol and countless Presidential candidates in Iowa talking up the fuel.

The result of that push has, it seems, been an increase in fossil fuels.  For the latest on this, see Corned grief: biofuels may increase CO2 at Watts Up With That?

The indirect effects of increasing production of maize ethanol were first addressed in 2008 by Timothy Searchinger and his coauthors, who presented a simpler calculation in Science. Searchinger concluded that burning maize ethanol led to greenhouse gas emissions twice as large as if gasoline had been burned instead. The question assumed global importance because the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act mandates a steep increase in US production of biofuels over the next dozen years, and certifications about life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are needed for some of this increase. In addition, the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires including estimates of the effects of indirect land-use change on greenhouse gas emissions. The board’s approach is based on the work reported in BioScience.

Hertel and colleagues’ analysis incorporates some effects that could lessen the impact of land-use conversion, but their bottom line, though only one-quarter as large as the earlier estimate of Searchinger and his coauthors, still indicates that the maize ethanol now being produced in the United States will not significantly reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, compared with burning gasoline. The authors acknowledge that some game-changing technical or economic development could render their estimates moot, but sensitivity analyses undertaken in their study suggest that the findings are quite robust.

Promotion of technologies based on theory rather than practice has been a hallmark of the green movement. Every indication seems to be that their foolish promotion of ethanol has been written out of their history, rather than being treated as a cautionary tale to learn from.