William Yeatman

Hockey Stick Critics Speak on Hill; Satellite Wars Rage On; Methane Emissions Leveling Off

by William Yeatman on November 11, 2003

in Science

Hockey Stick Critics Speak on Hill

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, authors of the paper that raises questions about the quality of the data underlying the IPCCs hockey stick graph of temperatures in the last 1000 years, briefed congressional staff on the issue at a meeting organized by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition on November 18.

McIntyre gave a compelling account of how he became interested in the hockey-stick controversy and then suspicious of the claim that the last decade was the hottest in the third millennium A. D. His experience in the mineral explorations business taught him that all data must be checked, so that is what he and McKitrick did in their paper.

The authors gave a chronological account of the charges made by the inventor of the hockey stick, Michael Mann, since their critique was published in Energy and Environment in late October. Mann first claimed that they had analyzed the wrong data sets, which had mistakenly been sent to McIntyre by one of Manns collaborators. Instead they should have used the data sets that had long been publicly available on an ftp site.

According to McIntyre and McKitrick, this criticism was irrelevant since they had rebuilt Manns 112 data sets from original sources. They then discovered that the data sets that they had been sent were the same as those on the ftp site. Mann has since deleted the data sets from his ftp site.

Mann then explained that McIntyre and McKitricks results showed a warm period in the fifteenth century because they had failed to include three key principal components. McIntyre and McKitrick replied that they omitted one because it double counted readings included in another component and updated another with newer data from the original source. This updated data changed the components effect considerably. McIntyre pointed out that the hockey-stick graph, at least for the 1400s, appears to be driven by only three of 112 principal components, which is a slender database upon which to base any conclusion.

McIntyre and McKitrick stressed throughout the presentation that they were not saying that they had proved the 1400s were warmer than today. What their statistical re-analysis had demonstrated was that it was not possible to conclude from the data Mann used that temperatures in the 20th century were unusual. Access to all the documents in the ongoing controversy can be found online at www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html.

Satellite Wars Rage On

Modellers at the Remote Sensing Systems firm continue to raise objections to the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite temperature readings of Roy Spencer and John Christy. In a new article in the Journal of Climate (published by the American Meteorological Association), they claim that a re-analysis of the dataset show[s] a global trend of 0.097 0.020 K decade−1, generally agreeing with the work of Prabhakara et al. but in disagreement with the MSU analysis of Christy and Spencer, which shows significantly less (0.09 K decade−1) warming.”

The article re-asserts the claim already made by RSS that their imputations from climate models are more reliable than the actual data from weather balloon radiosonde readings, which corroborate the findings of Christy and Spencer.

Although the finding was widely reported as confirming human influence on global warming, Christy told the New York Times (Nov. 18) that the evidence was pointing more firmly toward a modest impact from rising greenhouse gases, “We’ve had enough years of this human-induced forcing to get some boundaries on it, and it’s just not going in the dramatic and catastrophic direction.”

This view was confirmed in Newsweeks coverage of the same story (Nov. 23). In a remarkably candid paragraph, the magazine said, Recently scientists predictions [of future temperature increases] have begun to converge on a narrower range, and the forecasts have gotten more modest. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York has pointed out that in recent years the actual rise of greenhouse gases hasnt accelerated as fast as the IPCC predicted. Carbon-dioxide emissions increased 4.7 percent a year from 1945 to 1973, but since then, the average increase has been only 1.4 percent a year. The rate for methane, another powerful greenhouse gas produced in landfills and rice farming, is barely increasing at all. Hansen thinks that even if nothing is done, the planet would warm only 1.5 degrees by 2050.

It is a shame, then, that Newsweek followed this anti-alarmist finding with the distinctly alarmist suggestion that, If [developing nations] succeed in making the air cleaner, temperatures may soar-perhaps by as much as seven to 10 degrees Celsius.

Methane Emissions Leveling Off

Australian scientists have determined that atmospheric concentrations of methane have leveled off. Over the past four years there has been no growth in atmospheric methane concentrations compared to a fifteen percent rise over the preceding twenty years and a 150 percent rise since pre-industrial times, said Paul Fraser, a chief research scientist at the atmospheric research section of Australias Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (The Australian, Nov. 25).

The findings come from CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorologys gas monitoring station at Cape Grim in Tasmania. Methane (the principal ingredient of natural gas) is a potent greenhouse gas, but persists in the atmosphere for a far shorter time than does carbon dioxide.

According to the Australian, Dr. Fraser thinks that methane levels “would start to fall if this global decline in methane emissions continued. He speculated that emissions are declining due to better management of the exploration and use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and the increasing recovery of landfill methane.

Announcements

Cato Conference on Global Warming

The Cato Institute is holding a daylong conference on Global Warming: the State of the Debate, on December 12 at the institutes Hayek Auditorium, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C.

Speakers include: Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia and a Cato Senior Fellow), Robert Balling (Arizona State University), John Christy (University of Alabama at Huntsville), Michael Schlesinger (University of Illinois), Robert Mendelsohn (Yale University), and Indur Goklany (Department of Interior).

The complete program and registration information may be found on the internet at http://www.cato.org/events/gw031212.html.

“Provably False Statements” in Defense of Hockey Stick?; Antarctic Ice Expands while Arctic Contracts; The Next Ice Age is a Rea

by William Yeatman on November 11, 2003

in Science

“Provably False Statements” in Defense of Hockey Stick?

As mentioned last issue, the initial response by University of VIrginia Assistant Professor Michael Mann to the questions raised by Canadian analysts Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick over the data underlying the infamous “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the last 100 years (MBH98) was to allege that his critics had used an incorrect data set. Mann said that they should have used data available on a “public” FTP site.

McIntyre and McKitrick have now replied to this allegation. The summary of their detailed rebuttal (available at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html) states, “We refute suggestions by Professor Mann that collation in the proxy data set criticized in [our paper] were introduced in a special purpose Excel spreadsheet prepared for McIntyre in April 2003…. [W]e have determined that the uncollated series at the Mann FTP site are identical to the versions in the data set we examined and criticized in MM [that is, the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick].

“Accordingly, the criticisms of MM in respect to unjustified truncation and fills, use of obsolete data and geographical mislocations apply equally to the acknowledged MBH98 data archive.”

Referring to the detailed allegations made by Mann on the web site of freelance propagandist David Appell, McIntyre and McKitrick say, “It is self-evident that Mann’s comments are a pastiche of false statements. The rebuttal also relates how the contents of the FTP site were changed without notice between when MM were first informed of the site and Nov. 8.

McIntyre and McKitrick conclude that “Professor Mann’s public comments regarding MM contain many provably false statements.” They also point out that, as data he suggested were “meaningless” are identical to those contained in the FTP site, “Professor Mann himself has made a prima facie case for a new refereeing of MBH98.”

Antarctic Ice Expands while Arctic Contracts

New research from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center reveals that a 30-year satellite record of sea ice at the poles shows that while Arctic ice has melted, Antarctic ice has increased in recent years. Although the volume of Antarctic ice has decreased over the entire period, this was due to a dramatic loss of Antarctic sea ice between 1973 and 1977.

The researchers suggest that the greater loss of sea ice in the Arctic “may be due to a general warming trend in the Arctic as well as the influence of long-term oscillations or other changes in atmospheric pressure systems, which could pull in more warm air from the south.”

In the Antarctic, the researchers say, “The gradual advance of ice from the late 1970s may be related to long-term atmospheric oscillations in the Southern Hemisphere resulting in stronger westerly winds and cooler temperatures.”

Co-author Claire Parkinson of NASA said, “Trying to explain why these things happen becomes tricky. The temperature connection where warmer temperatures lead to greater melt is reasonably direct, but far from the complete story. Winds and waves move ice around, and consequently the ice can move to places where it is warm enough that it wouldn’t have formed.”

The lead author of the study, NASA’s Don Cavalieri, said, “It seems the two regions are responding to different hemispheric variations. What remains is to sift out and understand how these variations are driving the sea ice in each hemisphere.” (Eurekalert, Nov. 12)

More Problems for Hydrogen Technology

A New York Times article on November 12 pointed out that, “Even some hydrogen advocates say that use of hydrogen could instead make the air dirtier and the globe warmer.”

The paper points out that the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen involves the burning of coal, rather than using renewable energy sources, and quoted Ronald Kenedi, Managing Director of Sharp Solar, as saying, “It seems like hydrogen is the buzz word right now, with the president talking about it, and maybe putting some money towards it. But the first stop on the hydrogen trail will be coal.”

According to the article, carbon dioxide emissions are a problem: “According to the Energy Department, an ordinary gasoline-powered car emits 374 grams of carbon dioxide per mile it is driven, counting the energy used to make the gasoline and deliver it to the service station, and the emissions of the vehicle itself. The same car powered by a fuel cell would emit nothing, but if the energy required to make the hydrogen came from the electric grid, the emissions would be 436 grams per mile, 17 percent worse than the figure for gasoline.”

The Times also found the cost problematic: “Reuel Shinnar, a professor of chemical engineering at City College of New York, reviewing the options for power production and fuel production, concluded in a recent paper, ‘A hydrogen economy is at least twice as expensive as any other solution.'”

The Next Ice Age is a Real Problem

Continuing with our New York Times-theme issue, the Times’s Tuesday science section celebrated its 25th anniversary on November 11 by running short articles on “25 of the most provocative questions facing science.” Surprisingly, global warming was not on the list, but, “When is the next ice age?” was addressed by veteran Times science writer Andrew C. Revkin.

“The next ice age almost certainly will reach itspeak in about 80,000 years,” wrote Revkin, “but debate persists about how soon it will begin, with the latest theory being that the human influence on the atmosphere may substantially delay the transition.”

Since the next ice age would be a calamity for human civilization, “It would seem that human-driven global warming, although perhaps a disaster on the scale of centuries, may be a good thing in the long run if it fends off the next ice age.” So those who really care about, as former President Bill Clinton might have put it, their children’s children’s children’s descendant’s grandchildren should be burning a lot of gasoline in their Ford Excursions and GM Hummers.

Now Here’s a Really Scary Future

According to a former United Kingdom environment minister, environmental apocalypse is imminent and the solution is–a world environment court!

“The most important issue is enforceability…. What is really needed is a world environment court,” wrote Michael Meacher, MP, in London’s Guardian on October 25. Meacher served as environment minister in the Blair Government from 1997 until he was fired earlier this year.

Meacher continued: “The right to bring cases before such a court should not be confined to the governments of nation states, but should include public interest bodies, notably NGOs. The court should also have permanent specialist bodies to investigate damage to the global environment, whether inflicted or threatened, with powers to subpoena evidence and prosecute individuals and corporate bodies. This would only work if properly funded. However, if the fines imposed on corporate offenders were recycled, the court’s investigative and legal work would quickly become self-financing.”

Raise a Glass to a Warmer World

Many news outlets carried the story in early November that Southern Oregon University researcher Gregory Jones had ascertained that global warming would be good for wine harvests.

According to his press release, “Jones and his colleagues used records of Sotheby’s 100-point vintage rating scale data (where wines scoring over 90 are ‘excellent to superb’ and under 40 are ‘disastrous’) along with climate records dating back to 1950 to look for trends in wine quality or growing season temperatures. What they found was an average temperature rise of 2C rise over the past 50 years and higher vintage ratings.

“‘There were no negative impacts,’ Jones said of the apparent temperature rise in the world’s most renowned wine producing regions.”

IPCC’s “Dangerous Incompetence”; GAO Finds U. S. Climate Change Initiative has Little Effect

by William Yeatman on November 11, 2003

in Blog

IPCC’s “Dangerous Incompetence”

In a damning assessment in its November 6 issue, the Economist revisited the issue of the implausible economic scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to underlie its predictions on global warming.

The newspaper repeated the criticisms of distinguished critics Ian Castles and David Henderson, who argued that the methods used by the IPCC economic team gave an upward bias to the projections. The Economist called the emissions forecasts based on those “implausibly high” growth rates unsound.

Castles and Henderson’s critique had been met by catcalls from the IPCC team, who complained of “deplorable misinformation.” The Economist concluded that the reply “fails to answer the case… that the IPCC’s low-case scenarios are patently not low-case scenarios, and that the panel has therefore failed to give a true account of the range of possibilities.”

The analysis went on to mention, “Disaggregated projections published by the IPCC say that-even in the lowest-emission scenarios-growth in poor countries will be so fast that by the end of the century Americans will be poorer on average than South Africans, Algerians, Argentines, Libyans, Turks and North Koreans. Mr Castles and Mr Henderson can hardly be alone in finding that odd.”

The paper was unusually blunt in its assessment of the IPCC team’s economic abilities, mentioning that it relied on “strength in numbers (lacking though it may be in strength at numbers).” It summarized its concerns as follows: “The problem is that this horde of authorities is drawn from a narrow professional milieu. Economic and statistical expertise is not among their strengths. Making matters worse, the panel’s approach lays great emphasis on peer review of submissions. When the peers in question are drawn from a restricted professional domain-whereas the issues under consideration make demands upon a wide range of professional skills-peer review is not a way to assure the highest standards of work by exposing research to scepticism. It is just the opposite: a kind of intellectual restrictive practice, which allows flawed or downright shoddy work to acquire a standing it does not deserve.”

The Economist concluded by referring to the new head of the OECD’s economic policy committee, Gregory Mankiw, who is also President Bush’s chief economic adviser: “If Mr. Mankiw is asking himself what new work that body ought to take on under his leadership, he need look no further than the dangerous economic incompetence of the IPCC.”

GAO Finds U. S. Climate Change Initiative has Little Effect

The U. S. General Accounting Office has found that President Bush’s initiative to cut greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 18 percent between 2002 and 2012 would reduce the rate by just 4 percentage points more than if no such action were taken.

Intensity is measured by dividing the year’s emissions by that year’s economic output. The report found that, because economic output will rise faster than emissions, the intensity will dropeven while emissions rise.

The GAO report examined greenhouse gas emissions in ten countries-the United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, South Korea and France-that between them account for 59 percent of global emissions. It found that emissions will increase while emissions intensity will decrease in all ten countries. The report also found that intensity would decrease in the US by 14 percent even without government action. Emissions intensity reduction would continue, reaching 30 percent in 2025.

Hockey Stick Data Wrong?; Hockey Stick Crowd Dismiss Medieval Warm Period

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2003

in Science

Hockey Stick Data Wrong?

The “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the last thousand years was featured prominently in the IPCCs Third Assessment Report and the National Assessment on Climate Change and is a key component of the case for action on global warming. It shows an unprecedented spike in temperatures in the 20th century. That graph is based extensively on research by University of Virginia assistant professor Michael Mann and others in 1998 and 1999.

Now, however, two Canadians with expertise in statistical analysis, Stephen McIntyre and economics professor Ross McKitrick, have looked again at the source data, supplied to them by Manns research associate at his request, and found considerable errors in the way the data was collated. They were unable to replicate Manns results either by re-running his calculations once the errors were corrected or by constructing their own data set from the original sources. Their reconstruction of the Mann et al. data set from the original sources shows clearly that there was a period of greater warmth than the last century in the 15th century, and that the spike is not unprecedented. They have suggested that Mann should account for the discrepancies.

Manns initial response was that this was a “political stunt.” Further comments were published on the web log of freelance propagandist David Appell. They suggested that McIntyre and McKitrick (“M&M”) had used the wrong data set and that the correct data was publicly available. McIntyre and McKitrick responded with the e-mail exchanges that showed that Manns associate had sent them the data they used at Manns request. Mann also suggested that they should have used 159 proxies rather than the 112 they did. McIntyre and McKitrick responded with e-mails showing that Manns associate referred to 112 proxies (which accorded with references to 112 proxies in the original published research articles). The article has been published on the web by Energy and Environment (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm) , an English journal, and will appear in the November printed issue. Further details can be found at McKitricks website: (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html. No doubt there is much more to come before this controversy is settled.

Solar Frenzy

German scientists from the Max Planck Institute along with Finnish scientists from Oulu University have reconstructed sunspot activity over the past millennium. They conclude that the sun has been in what they term a “frenzy” since 1940, which may be a factor in global warming.

The research is based on amounts of the beryllium 10 isotope found in ice deposits in both Greenland and the Antarctic. The team also discovered a burst of activity between 1100 and 1250, which corresponds closely to the usually agreed extent of the Medieval Warm Period, but the scientists note that there were fewer sunspots then than today.

The scientists found that the current surge is 2.5 times as great as the long-term average and that solar activity closely matched average temperatures on Earth.

Spokesman Sami Solanki said that, despite discovering a new climate influence, the team still believed the recent surge in warming was caused by fossil fuel emissions. “Even after our findings,” he was reported as saying, “I would say the sharp increase in global temperatures after 1980 can still be mainly attributed to the greenhouse effect arising from carbon dioxide.” (News24, South Africa).

Hockey Stick Crowd Dismiss Medieval Warm Period

Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona (partners with Michael Mann in the research referred to above), together with Henry Diaz of NOAA, have written an article concluding that the Medieval Warm Period was not global. In “Climate in Medieval Time,” published in the Oct. 17 issue of Science, they argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that regional warm spells between 500 AD and 1500 AD occurred simultaneously.

The scientists concluded that medieval average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere “were not exceptional” because some regions cooled whereas other regions warmed. They also dismiss solar arguments, noting that recent modeling studies show that increased solar irradiance does not warm Earth’s surface at all locations. Instead, they say, ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation, warming the stratosphere and altering atmospheric circulation patterns. If such changes happened in the 12th century, they could well have altered large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns linked to the Arctic Oscillation, thereby warming some regions but not others. (Science Daily, Oct. 20)

EU Backs Away from Kyoto; Replacement for Kyoto Urged; talists Target BP and Shell

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

EU Backs Away from Kyoto

According to the Wall Street Journal Europe (Oct. 29), European Union diplomats are suggesting that some member governments are backing away from a promise under the Kyoto protocol to give aid to poorer countries. The EU had promised in 2001 to contribute 450 million ($523 million) from 2005 on to developing countries in order to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The dispute centers on how the cost will be shared, with Spain, Greece and Portugal wanting to contribute less than had been agreed. The southern EU member countries argue that they are poorer than northern countries and so should pay 20 million less each, but EU law requires that countries pay in proportion to their emissions rather than to their wealth.

Meanwhile, the Journal also reported that the European Parliament is delaying the first reading of a bill designed to regulate emissions trading, putting at risk a deadline of 2005 for implementing the legislation. The EU estimates that trading would reduce the 3.4 billion cost of implementing Kyoto by about 680 million.

The EU is currently on target to cut by emissions by 4.7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The Kyoto protocol requires an 8 percent reduction.

Replacement for Kyoto Urged

An article in Environmental Science and Technology (Oct. 13), the journal of the American Chemical Society, suggests that a global treaty focusing on intercontinental air pollution could be a better approach to controlling climate change than the Kyoto Protocol. The researchers claim that, by cooperating to reduce pollutants like ozone and aerosols, countries could address their own regional health concerns, keep their downwind neighbors happy and reduce the threat of global warming in the process.

The study, from researchers at Columbia, Harvard and Princeton universities, acknowledges a need to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but proposes that a treaty dealing with air pollutants, like ozone and aerosols, could be a better first step because it unites the interests of all countries concerned. As aerosols and ozone contribute to large-scale climate problems, the researchers argue, the implications of controlling them go beyond air pollution into the realm of climate change.

The researchers suggest a treaty based loosely on the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), which initially addressed acid rain deposition in Europe through voluntary participation. The convention has since been amended to cover a broad range of pollutants, and participants include countries from Western and Eastern Europe as well as the United States and Canada.

Expanding such a treaty to include Asia would give the United States even more incentive to participate, the researchers claim, since westerly winds spread pollution from that part of the world to North America. (Eurekalert, Oct. 15)

Environmentalists Target BP and Shell

Despite BPs image (“Beyond Petroleum”) as the most environmentally-friendly oil giant, it is coming under increased attack from environmental groups in the UK. Rising Tide — described by Londons Guardian on Oct. 23 as a “loose-knit group of green activists” — organized a rowdy demonstration at a talk given by BP chairman Lord Browne in London that day. The activities included a protestor interrupting Lord Browne during his speech with a series of accusations against the company.

Friends of the Earth also confirmed that it was “re-evaluating relations” with BP and Royal Dutch Shell because of their “apparent failure to turn rhetoric into action.”

A climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth, Roger Higman, told the Guardian, “ExxonMobil is still the bad guy, but we are getting increasingly frustrated with BP and Shell, which talk about climate change but put their money into [oil and gas] developments in places such as Russia and the Middle East rather than renewable schemes. We are not going to be cosy with them because they are doing bad things.”

Rising Tide claims BP invests less than 1 percent of its annual budget on solar and other renewable energy sources, which it points out is much less than they spend on advertising and public relations. It said, “Don’t be fooled by oil company public relations that the only people opposing their destructive agenda are privileged western environmentalists. In fact resistance to big oil’s constant need to find new oil-rich frontiers is most determined amongst some of the world’s poorest people.”

Senate Defeats Lieberman-McCain Bill to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Attorneys General Appeal EPA Decision on CO2; Reactions to

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

Senate Defeats Lieberman-McCain Bill to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The U.S. Senate defeated a scaled-down version of Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCains (R-Az.) Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139, on October 30 by a vote of 55 to 43. Forty-five Republicans and ten Democrats voted against the measure. Thirty-seven Democrats were joined by six Republicans in favor.

The Democrats voting against were: Baucus, Breaux, Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Landrieu, Levin, Lincoln, Miller, and Pryor. Republicans voting for were: Chafee, Collins, Gregg, Lugar, McCain, and Snowe. Democrats Edwards and Ben Nelson missed the vote.

Lieberman and McCain gained some additional support for their cap-and-trade bill by making special deals for some sectors of the energy economy and by offering only the phase one target of cutting emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. The obvious hypocrisy of this ploy became apparent during the floor debate. The initial emissions cap will do nothing to address the alleged potential problem of global warming, so further, much more expensive reductions would be necessary. S. 139 would create the structure and incentives necessary to make those further reductions. This goal is made explicit in the section on “Ensuring Target Adequacy,” which would require the Under Secretary of Commerce to review the emissions reduction targets in relation to the aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas levels at a safe level.

Senator McCain warned repeatedly that they would be bringing the bill back to the floor again and again. However, immediately after the vote, Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.), who led the opposition to the bill, moved that S. 139 be referred back to the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs. S. 139 was discharged from the committee to the floor as part of the unanimous consent agreement to pass the energy bill in July. It lacks the votes to be voted out of committee

Attorneys General Appeal EPA Decision on CO2

An article in Environmental Science and Technology (Oct. 13), the journal of the American Chemical Society, suggests that a global treaty focusing on intercontinental air pollution could be a better approach to controlling climate change than the Kyoto Protocol. The researchers claim that, by cooperating to reduce pollutants like ozone and aerosols, countries could address their own regional health concerns, keep their downwind neighbors happy and reduce the threat of global warming in the process.

The study, from researchers at Columbia, Harvard and Princeton universities, acknowledges a need to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but proposes that a treaty dealing with air pollutants, like ozone and aerosols, could be a better first step because it unites the interests of all countries concerned. As aerosols and ozone contribute to large-scale climate problems, the researchers argue, the implications of controlling them go beyond air pollution into the realm of climate change.

The researchers suggest a treaty based loosely on the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), which initially addressed acid rain deposition in Europe through voluntary participation. The convention has since been amended to cover a broad range of pollutants, and participants include countries from Western and Eastern Europe as well as the United States and Canada.

Expanding such a treaty to include Asia would give the United States even more incentive to participate, the researchers claim, since westerly winds spread pollution from that part of the world to North America. (Eurekalert, Oct. 15)

Reaction to Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putins decision to put off ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has led to a variety of confused reactions from the climate change industry and their backers.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri was only able to assert, “I don’t think a negative decision on Kyoto would be in Russia’s interest overall.” He went on to say: “Russia is a large country with a rich history and has ambitions to emerge once again as a global power. It cannot, therefore, gain in standing politically if it does not join hands with other countries in doing what is required to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases.” (Reuters, Oct. 17).

EU ministers responded by merely restating their position as held before the Moscow conference. The environment ministers of Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement concluding, “Climate change is a real problem. Over the last few years, we have begun to experience more extreme climatic phenomena. This summer, parts of Europe faced an exceptional heat wave and drought that caused deaths and illness among older age groups, heat stress to livestock, forest fires, and damage to crops.”

They went on, “The scientific community has gathered convincing evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Extreme events, such as heat waves or heavy precipitation, will be more frequent, more intense. What we experienced this summer is effectively an illustration of what we are likely to see more frequently in the not too distant future. The international community needs to act with determination to deal with this problem. . . There is no credible alternative to [Kyoto] on the table. We call upon Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.” (BBC News Online, Oct. 23).

The David Suzuki Foundation in Canada alleged that Putin was being “leaned on” by President Bush and could not have come up with his decision independently (http://www.davidsuzu ki.org/files/Climate/Ontario/Oct03Russia.pdf).

The World Wildlife Federations representative in Moscow, meanwhile, concluded that the current position was irrelevant: “But the Kyoto accord is a win-win proposition for Russia. One can expect the government and legislature to move ahead with ratification next summer, when the elections are over and they can return to considering Russia’s long-term interests.” (International Herald Tribune, Oct 28).

Kyoto Ratification Latest; Prebon Reads Writing on the Wall; Wind Farms in UK Raise Environmental Objections

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

Kyoto Ratification Latest

Since March of this year, eleven more countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol: Botswana, Ghana, Guyana, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Namibia, Moldova, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands, and Switzerland. Of these, Switzerland is the only Annex I country subject to emissions controls under the pact, responsible for 0.3 percent of the emissions concerned.

Switzerland’s ratification brings the total percentage of Annex I emissions belonging to countries that have ratified the protocol to 44.2 percent. The USA (36.1), Australia (2.1) and Russia (17.4) together make up 55.6 percent, meaning that as long as either Russia or the U. S. fails to ratify the protocol, it cannot go into effect.

Prebon Reads Writing on the Wall

Prebon Energy, a leading global energy broker, has got out of the emissions trading business. The following is the statement from the company’s president explaining the decision:

“To our Emissions Customers,

After careful consideration, Prebon Energy has decided to exit the air quality trading markets effective immediately. Given current market conditions, we have decided to focus our energies in other areas where we believe we can offer value to our customers; including, but not limited to, the natural gas and electricity markets. Staff will be available to handle any queries regarding emissions trades that have either been consummated or are pending.

Sincerely, Edward Novak, President, Prebon Energy.”

Emissions trading prices in Europe have failed to hit the levels predicted, while the voluntary exchange in the US has suffered from a dearth of buyers.

Wind Farms in UK Raise Environmental Objections

A long article in London’s Observer on October 5 pointed out the many and varied objections locals and environmentalists are raising against the wind farms springing up around the country in an effort to meet the United Kingdom government’s target of generating 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

Self-professed ‘left-wing environmentalist,’ Martin Wright, told the paper: “Since the Second World War, there’s been a consensus that landscape matters…. That’s broken down here. If people in London knew the place, they would be appalled. And yet we’re portrayed as nuclear-loving nimbies in the press…. Wind turbines are a good idea in the right place…. But sticking hundreds of them on wild land is not a good idea. For a small, heavily populated country we have some stunning landscapes, but they’re under threat of industrialization.”

The article also points out the threat to local avian wildlife: “Research shows, however, that wind farms are killing far more birds than the public realizes. A five-year study in California revealed that the Altamont Pass wind farm kills an average of 40 to 60 golden eagles a year, along with ‘several hundred’ hawks, falcons and other birds of prey. In Spain, a report commissioned by the regional government of Navarra concluded that 368 turbines at 10 sites had killed nearly 7,000 wild birds in a single year, including 409 vultures, 24 eagles and 650 bats.

“In Germany, studies show turbines have killed dozens of rare red kites…. Red kites are a conservation success story, brought back from the brink of extinction in this area [of the UK], but two were killed at this small site alone last summer. Other rare British birds are also under threat as the turbines proliferate…. A farm of 27 turbines, each 325ft high, at Edinbane on Skye has planning consent, despite RSPB objections that the site was too close to sea eagles and several breeding pairs of golden eagles, as well as merlin and hen harriers. All four species have the highest possible legal protection.”

Finally, energy consultant and TV personality Professor Ian Fells pointed out that, “To meet the 2010 target, Britain will have to build 400 to 500 turbines each year. Each will be a 3MW machine, bigger than anything yet seen. ‘I think they’ll be doing well to get there by 2020,’ Fell says. ‘There’s some wishful thinking in the latest White Paper. And wind power is not completely clean. You have to build huge concrete foundations and service roads and so on.'”

Return of Malthus; Lindzen Meets the Mayors

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2003

in Science

Return of Malthus

In an inversion of the way Malthusian arguments usually run, a team of Swedish geologists has said that constraints on fossil fuel resources mean that there is not enough oil and gas available to fuel the doomsday scenarios of greenhouse gas production envisaged by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Geologists Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University say there is not enough oil and gas left for even the most conservative of the 40 IPCC scenarios to come to pass. Their research suggests that the combined reserves of oil and gas amount to barely 3500 billion barrels of oil, which is considerably below the 5000 billion barrels assumed by the “best-case” IPCC scenario. The “worst-case” assumes 18,000 billion barrels, a level Aleklett calls “completely unrealistic.”

Nebojsa Nakicenovic of the IPCC team counters that their scenarios included a much broader and more internationally accepted range of estimates than the “conservative” Swedes put forward and told New Scientist (Oct. 3) that coal could be used to make up the difference. Aleklett conceded that coal could fill the gap, and both agreed that its use in such an eventuality would be “disastrous.”

Lindzen Meets the Mayors

In response to steps taken by the Mayors of Newton and Worcester, Mass., to mitigate the effects of climate change on their townships, Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published an open letter in The Washington Times on October 9.

He concluded, “Capping CO2 emissions per unit electricity generated will have a negligible impact at best on CO2 levels. It certainly will, however, increase the cost of electricity, and place those states pursuing such a path at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Why would any elected official want that, even at the admittedly severe risk of appearing politically incorrect?

“It is important to understand that the impact of CO2 on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30 percent over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man-influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75 percent of what one expects from a doubling of CO2. “Assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so-about 1 degree F-is due to added greenhouse gases-a very implausible assumption-the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-to-3) than models predict.

“If we are, nonetheless, to believe the model predictions, the argument goes roughly as follows: The models are correct, but some unknown process has canceled the impact of increasing greenhouse gases, and that process will henceforth cease. Do we really want to put the welfare of the nation, much less any one community, at risk for such an argument? I for one would hope for greater prudence from my elected officials.”

Moscow Conference Casts Doubt over Kyoto’s Future; Schwarzenegger’s Campaign Cheers Environmentalists

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

Moscow Conference Casts Doubt over Kyoto’s Future

The United Nations’ World Climate Change Conference, which concluded in Moscow on October 3, ended without reaching a consensus on the issue. A senior economic adviser to President Putin stated that he found the answers from the scientific organizers to his detailed questions over climate change science (which for the most part simply quoted from the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report issued two years ago) were unconvincing. When the debate was opened up to the floor on the final day, conference chairman Bert Bolin was forced to admit that nine out of 10 questions from the floor questioned the “consensus” on anthropogenic climate change.

After the conference, Russian advisers were at pains to stress that their skepticism towards Kyoto was based on genuine misgivings over the treaty’s scientific basis and the effects of climate change on Russia rather than simply a negotiating tactic to extract more concessions from the west. An unnamed source told Reuters Oct. 14, “I do not know how clearly what [the senior adviser] said was translated, but judging by the commentaries that appeared the words were interpreted as brinkmanship…. This is not a game, it is a very serious question…about the theory that (the protocol) is based on, and a number of other questions such as the economic issue.”

At time of writing, there has been little official reaction to the conference’s outcome from Kyoto-supporting governments or environmental lobby groups. Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, who attended the conference, alleged to Greenwire (Oct. 15) that, “Scientists and economists who spoke in favor of Kyoto often found their microphones cut off and were not allowed to speak until the last day of the conference.”

However, sources suggest that high-level officials preparing for the UNFCC’s ninth Conference of the Parties in Milan in December are bowing to the inevitable. BNA’s Daily Environment Report reported (Oct. 10) that, “For the first time since its drafting, official discussions will include the possibility of combating climate change without the Kyoto Protocol, although talks will focus more on other issues that include the use and transfer of new technologies, capacity building in developing countries, and sustainable development.”

Schwarzenegger’s Campaign Cheers Environmentalists

According to Greenwire (Oct. 15), California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “policy agenda reads like an environmentalist’s wish list.” He has set a target of reducing “air pollution by up to 50 percent, through incentives for clean fuel usage, and build hydrogen car fueling stations along California highways. The governor-elect also supports the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which would require that 20 percent of the state’s power come from solar and wind power by 2017.”

In addition, he has promised to defend the state’s greenhouse gas legislation against legal challenges, saying, “California’s landmark legislation to cut greenhouse gases is now law, and I will work to implement it and to win the expected challenges in court along the way.”

Schwarzenegger’s campaign was not wholly attractive to the environmental lobby, which reacted badly to his suggestion that he might want to close down the state’s environmental protection agency as part of his campaign against government bureaucracy. However, Terry Tamminen, an unpaid adviser to Schwarzenegger on environmental issues, and executive director of Environment Now, told Greenwire that he hoped the new Governor would be able to work more closely with the White House than Gov. Davis did on issues like global warming and air pollution, saying, “As a Republican governor, Arnold is much more likely to be able to work with the Bush administration to resolve differences…. California could persuade the federal government to take another look at those policies.”

Deal on Energy Bill “Close”

Progress on the energy bill conference stalled over recent weeks, but Republican conference leaders are now confident they are ‘close’ to a deal on the outstanding disagreements over electricity, tax, and MTBE issues. Those disagreements are over whether merchant power generators should have to pay for transmission upgrades and issues surrounding liability protection for and a federal ban on the fuel additive MTBE. Sources suggest that one of the issues (it is not known which one) has been sent to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) to try to reach some resolution. The package of tax incentives has not been finished, either. The conferees have agree to drop the Senate’ bill’s three climate titles and the 10% renewable porfolio standard for electric utilities. There is confusion over whether the provisions for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and for an inventory of oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf have been dropped. Sen. Joseph Liebermen (D.-Conn.) had issued a press release congratulating Republican conference leaders for removing the provisions, but retracted his statement when no announcement was forthcoming.

Collusion Charges “Absurd”

Following an allegation by the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Maine that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, had colluded with administration officials to sue the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Data Quality Act over its dissemination of the junk-science based Climate Action Report 2002, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.) has written to the White House asking officials to release to him any documents relating to the alleged collusion.

CEI rejected the charge as preposterous. “This started as a suit against a Clinton administration global warming report,” CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. said in a press release. “The accusations of collusion are absurd and just an attempt to divert attention from the real issue-that junk science is being used as the basis for climate change reports, which could lead to policies that cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars with little, if any, benefit.”

CEI’s legal action began against the Climate Action Report’s predecessor, the National Assessment on Climate Change, in October 2000.

Energy Conference Steers Clear of Climate Change So Far; Russia Unlikely to Ratify Kyoto This Year Despite EU Bribes

by William Yeatman on September 16, 2003

in Politics

Energy Conference Steers Clear of Climate Change So Far

House and Senate conferees working to produce a comprehensive energy bill have made some progress in various areas. So far they have released draft language on the subjects of hydrogen, clean coal technology, the Alaska natural gas pipeline, energy efficiency and personnel. No mention has yet been made of any climate change provisions.

On hydrogen, the joint conference chairmen, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), said that the “provisions include the full range of research, development and deployment actions required to advance the nation toward significant use of hydrogen as soon as possible.” The language does not mandate specific goals for utilization of hydrogen-powered vehicles by specific dates, as was required in the Senate bill. Instead, it sets a broad target that hydrogen-powered vehicles should make “significant inroads” into the market by 2020. The draft language sets aside $2.15 billion for the purpose by 2008, less than the Senate bill, but more than the House bill.

According to Greenwire (Sept. 10), “Conference leaders have expressed a desire to expedite the work of the conference committee by using as many of last year’s agreements as possible before working on the more controversial issues such as those dealing with electricity policy and market structure, climate change, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, renewable portfolio standards, taxes, ethanol mandates and hydropower reform.” CAFE standards are not regarded as controversial because the House and Senate bills treat the issue in similar fashion.

Russia Unlikely to Ratify Kyoto This Year Despite EU Bribes

The European Commission has allocated EUR2 million ($2.3 million) to Russia to support the Kyoto Protocol program. Jorge Moreira da Silva, permanent European Parliament Rapporteur on Climate Change, announced that Russian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would lead to large investments from European companies, desperate to buy credits to enable them to continue operating without having to cut their emissions levels. Deputies of the Russian Parliament, however, have indicated that they will not be ratifying the protocol soon, despite statements from the environment ministry that they would do so. The parliamentarians seem to have sided more with Russia’s economics ministry, saying that Moscow needs to approach the issue gradually after examining its impact on the Russian economy. In a statement, deputies from parliamentary committees dealing with ecological and economic issues said, “It is necessary to examine the whole problem of Kyoto ratification, not just in its ecological aspect, but also studying the economic interests of the country.” (Russiajournal.com, gateway2russia.com)

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →