William Yeatman

“Slouching Towards Kyoto” from Down Under; Australia Courts Japan, Attacks Germany; Scientists Feel Political Pressure

by William Yeatman on September 2, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

“Slouching Towards Kyoto” from Down Under

The two most influential lawmakers in Congress on climate change issues traveled half way around the world to the capital of Australia to assail the climate treaty being readied for Kyoto.

“Let me make it very clear,” stated Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), “I believe we are headed down the wrong path in the negotiations for any global climate treaty to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, this December.” Hagel is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on International Economic Policy, which has jurisdiction over international environmental treaties that come to the chamber for ratification. “In its current form, the global climate treaty would face a resounding defeat in the United States Senate” he told his audience, a conference entitled “Countdown to Kyoto,” sponsored by the Australian APEC Study Center and the Arlington, Virginia-based Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, assured the conference that Republicans are not alone in their misgivings: “We may be slouching towards Kyoto with only the barest appreciation of what we are doing and how it will affect us.”

The Canberra conference was attended by prominent Australian officials, who are watching closely both the White House negotiating stance and the Senates reaction to it. Australia, a major coal exporter, also depends on fossil fuels for 94 percent of its energy supplies. The Australian government has already expressed staunch opposition to the European Unions proposal for binding emissions targets. In his address to the conference, Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer stated that “we are going to need some growth in our emissions above 1990 levels.”

Greenpeace led a protest against the conference in which 20 demonstrators were arrested. The activists are hoping to salvage a treaty which, in Sen. Hagels judgment, “has the potential of bringing under direct international control virtually every aspect of a nations economy.”

Australia Courts Japan, Attacks Germany; Germany and Japan Get Together

Australias federal government has asked Japan to join them in opposing binding greenhouse gas emission limits. Australia is supporting a policy of differentiation where each country would agree to voluntary limits based on its marginal cost of abatement. Australias Primary Industries Minister, John Anderson, argues that “Our economic analysis shows that it is in both Australia and Japans interests to stand firm against global pressure and oppose binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in Kyoto.”

Anderson argues that Australia is well positioned to meet Japans future massive increases in energy demand: “Over the next decade, Australia should emerge as easily the biggest supplier of primary energy to Japan. . . . We must be able to convince Japan that we can, and will, remain a reliable, competitive and secure supplier” (AAP Newsfeed, August 27, 1997).

Meanwhile, Australias Foreign Minister Alexander Downer accused Germany of pushing an international campaign to isolate Australia: “Its unfair for people from Germany to ask Australia to sacrifice more jobs and more living standards than they themselves are prepared to sacrifice,” Downer said. “The European Union is asking us to make a grossly unfair contribution. . .we completely reject that.”

Downer argues that setting binding greenhouse gas limits on industrial countries will cause energy intensive industries to move to the developing world. “What people in Germany dont seem to have grasped is that if you close down energy industries in environmentally sensitive Australia they will move abroad to countries less sensitive” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, August 29, 1997).

Germany and Japan, however, have signed an agreement on environmental cooperation. The two countries agreed to exchange personnel and information and hold seminars to discuss greenhouse gas abatement strategies, prevention of ozone destruction and conserving endangered species. They will also set up a joint committee which will meet once a year (AP Worldstream, August 26, 1997).

Scientists Feel Political Pressure

An article in the Financial Times (London, August 28, 1997) begins, “Leading scientists are expected to respond today to pressure from politicians to clarify the threat of climate change to specific parts of the world.” Roger Newsom, head of climate modelling for the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), stated, “Theres a lot of pressure,” on the scientists to “clarify and specify what action must be taken so we can . . . give better answers on mans effect on climate.”

The U.S. Senate has opposed a treaty that would cause economic harm to the U.S. especially when the scientific evidence for climate change is so sparse. Michael Grubb, a member of the IPCC, urged politicians to “grow up and understand that we are dealing with uncertainty. . . Nobody in their right mind thinks uncertainty means do nothing.”

In a statement at the end of the meeting the WCRP called for more political support to further its future work on global warming. G.O. Obasi, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said, “I believe the time has come for all nations to heed the advice of the scientific community and to allocate more resources to global monitoring, research, and the important activities being provided by the national meteorological and hydrological services. It is a small investment to make to ensure the future safety and well-being of our planet” (BNA Daily Environment Report, September 2, 1997). Is it any surprise that when politicians ask scientists what must be done about global warming, their answer is give us more money?

Senators to Track Developments in Kyoto

Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has appointed twelve senators to monitor the upcoming talks in Kyoto, Japan in December. Named to the Global Climate Change Observer Group are Sens. Spence Abraham (R-Mich), Max Baucus (D-Mont), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Byrd (D-WVa), John Chafee (R-RI), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Kerry (D-Mass), Carl Levin (D-Mich), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan). The senators will report periodically to Sen. Lott on the negotiations (BNA Daily Environment Report, August 29, 1997).

UN Conference in Bonn; Greenhouse Deal Not Likely

by William Yeatman on August 27, 1997

in Politics

UN Conference in Bonn

The United Nations recently ended a negotiating session in Bonn, Germany to lay the groundwork for the upcoming conference in Kyoto, Japan where countries will negotiate binding emission targets on greenhouse gases.

Unlike past conferences, all negotiations at Bonn were closed to the public. NGOs were allowed to address the delegates at the start of the conference, though the AFL-CIO was prohibited from speaking, since, according to UN officials, they are a U.S. interest group and do not represent an international constituency.

Judging from hallway conversations the mood of the conference was one of lowered expectations. What may come out of Kyoto is a fill-in-the-blank treaty with no targets and timetables but a mandate to fill them in within two years.

Greenhouse Deal Not Likely

Apparently climate change treaty negotiators are not confident of a deal being made before the Kyoto conference in December. According to an unnamed source close to the negotiations, participants are still “far apart” on many issues revolving around the climate change issue.

Most notable is the Byrd/Hagel resolution which passed the U.S. Senate 95-0. It calls for binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions on the developing countries. The U.S. gave copies of the resolution to representatives of the developing countries and, according to the source, “We made it very, very clear that we would have to see some kind of action by them that was consistent with the kind of action that we were taking. . . . We’re going to have to have binding targets and timetables out of them in time frames roughly consistent with our budget.”

With only two weeks of formal negotiating left, one in October and one in December, the source is not optimistic. “Do I think there’s going to be a deal? Probably not” (The White House Bulletin, August 11, 1997).

Linking Clean Air to Hot Air

The EPA will create a subcommittee of its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to look at integrating Clean Air Act implementation with programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The subcommittee will:

  • “Consider a comprehensive strategy for meeting air quality standards that encompasses the interaction of clean air, energy and climate change;

  • Consider the interaction of clean air issues and state and federal restructuring initiatives;

  • Consider various options on climate change policy and negotiations, and provide advice on scientific, economic and policy issues that affect the administration’s positions in international negotiations over a new agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases” (The Electricity Daily, August 14, 1997).

Pressure on Australia

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has called for the government of Australia to convene a greenhouse summit to resolve the controversy over Australia’s position on greenhouse gas emission targets. Australia has been resistant to targets and timetables that would severely injure their energy industry. New projections show that greenhouse gas emissions from Australia’s energy sector will rise between 20 and 65 percent by 2010 under current policies.

Jim Downey, director of ACF, explained, “The principal purpose of a summit would be to achieve agreement by industry, government, and the community sector about the policies and measures necessary to achieve emission reductions” (AAP Newsfeed, August 19, 1997).

Climate Change in Perspective; Warming May Thicken Ice Shelves; Emission Reduction Proposals Will Be Ineffective

by William Yeatman on August 27, 1997

in Science

Climate Change in Perspective

The Washington Post with its publication of “The Little Ice Age: When Cooling Gripped the World” (August 13, 1997) has finally put climate change in perspective. Alan Cutler, visiting scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, portrays the history of climate change as a primarily natural phenomenon. The Little Ice Age, which began about 500 years ago, was a climate phenomenon which ended sometime between 1850 and 1900, before the industrial revolution. Indeed, most of the warming of the past century occurred before the industrial revolution and is most likely a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

More importantly, however, the article points out that climate change has occurred frequently and rapidly in the past before man began to burn fossil fuels. Throughout history, ecosystems as well as human communities migrated to compensate for climate changes. Between 1000 and 1300 AD, for example, grapes were grown in England 300 miles further north than they are today because of warmer temperatures. During the Little Ice Age, however, the British celebrated the freezing of the Thames river with “Frost Fairs,” while in the United States one could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island on the frozen New York harbor.

There are two possible explanations for the Little Ice Age. Researchers have found a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature. The Little Ice Age occurred during a time of low sunspot activity, known as the Maunder Minimum. The sun’s energy output was about one quarter of one percent dimmer during that period.

Other researchers have examined the possibility of volcanic eruptions as a cause of colder periods. The “Year Without Summer,” for example, followed the eruption of Tambora which put ten times as much ash into the atmosphere as the Krakatoa eruption. One thing is for certain: climate change is a common phenomenon and will occur again regardless of man’s actions. The question is should man raise his puny arm to avert such changes or should he make himself more able to adapt to the inevitable change?

A sidebar to the article begins; “Although it often is claimed that global air temperatures are the warmest ever and that a warming trend in the last 20 years is unprecedented, climatologists know better.”

The warming we have experienced is small compared to the warming after the Little Ice Age which began in 1850 and occurred entirely from natural causes. That warming trend was interrupted by a 35 year cooling between 1940 and 1975 which had some climatologists predicting another ice age. What scientists are trying to decide is whether current warming is a result of increased atmospheric CO2 or whether this is just “part of a natural climate change of the sort that has been routine for millennia.”

Warming May Thicken Ice Shelves

According to a study in Nature (“Predicted reduction in basal melt rates on an Antarctic ice shelf in a warmer climate,” July 31, 1997), “A moderate warming of the climate could . . . lead to a basal thickening of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, perhaps increasing longevity.”

Though smaller ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula may be shrinking from warming, the larger shelves further south may actually thicken as a result of warming. For now, conditions in the far south are so cold that any warming that has or may occur presents no threat in the immediate future.

Anomalous Heat Wave

Two years ago Chicago experienced an unprecedented heat surge which lead to many deaths. Environmentalists blamed global warming. And the Clinton administration, to this day, cites the heat wave as evidence of the potential impacts of climate change.

A study by Thomas Karl and Richard Knight (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(6), 1997) counters this view. The researchers found an increasing trend in apparent temperature between the years 1948 and 1995 in Chicago. However, when they accounted for changes in temperature measuring devices (which measure higher maximum and minimum temperatures) they found the trend to be “essentially close to zero.” The urban heat island effect also played a role since the researchers found that Midwestern stations surrounding the Chicago area did not have the same apparent temperature trend.

CO2 Effects on Biomass

In an article for Nature (“CO2 increases oceanic primary production,” August 7, 1997), researchers have found that increases in CO2 concentrations spurs primary production of biomass in the Earth’s oceans, which constitutes 40 percent of total primary production on Earth.

By manipulating CO2 concentrations at 18 stations in the Atlantic Ocean the researchers found that at elevated levels primary production in surface waters was 115 percent of the ambient level, and 119 percent of ambient levels in deeper chlorophyll-rich waters. The levels of CO2 used correspond roughly to those predicted by the IPCC’s “business as usual” scenario.

Another article in the same issue of Nature (“The fate of carbon in grasslands under carbon dioxide enrichment”), researchers found that a doubling of CO2 increased carbon uptake in grasslands, though they warn that the sequestration potential of grasslands has been overestimated. This is due to the fact that elevated CO2 concentration “causes a greater increase in carbon cycling than in carbon storage in grasslands.”

Emission Reduction Proposals Will Be Ineffective

Research conducted at the University of Illinois has shown that of the many short-term targets proposed for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, none of the proposed reductions “will lead to stabilization of carbon dioxide concentrations.”

According to climate researcher Atul Jain, computer simulations “show that the projected rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from the year 1995 to 2010 is much larger than the projected effects of the proposed emission reductions. We also found that the effects of emission reductions on global-mean temperatures and sea level will not be measurable by the year 2010” (Agence France Presse, August 13, 1997).

High Costs Projected for Climate Treaty; Natural Gas to Reap Benefits from Climate Change Treaty?

by William Yeatman on August 27, 1997

in Blog

High Costs Projected for Climate Treaty

According to a study by Resource Data International, Inc., the potential costs of reducing electricity use in the U.S. are very high. By examining how growth in the U.S. electricity supply affects economic growth as measured by GDP the study shows that a $100 carbon tax, required to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, would reduce GDP growth by $1.314 trillion, or 14 percent by 2010, and up to $16.823 trillion over a 10-year period.

The economic impact of a reduction in the growth of electricity use would fall most heavily on the Midwest. The Midwest lacks alternative electricity generating resources such as hydroelectric and nuclear power and rely on inexpensive coal which generates 72 percent of their energy, compared to only 35 percent in the Coastal regions.

Moreover, energy-intensive industries are more heavily concentrated in the U.S. interior, whereas seaboard economies are more service oriented. The Clinton administration has stated that the primary method to reduce CO2 emissions will be to reduce coal use. Finally, the study argues that a CO2 emission trading scheme would not be a panacea. The success of the SO2 trading scheme in the U.S. primarily results from switching from high to low sulfur coal. The study notes that there is no such thing as low carbon coal.

The study concludes that “no single alternative resource or combination of natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric and renewables such as solar or wind, can replace coal to generate electricity and sustain current levels of U.S. economic growth to meet even the most modest climate treaty proposal that would stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels.” The study is available by calling (314) 342-7554 or via the internet at www.peabodygroup.com.

Natural Gas to Reap Benefits from Climate Change Treaty?

At a Colorado Oil and Gas Association conference, Energy Secretary Frederico Pena promised natural gas producers to help “cut red tape that delays drilling and transportation of natural gas as part of a national effort to combat global warming.” Pena promised to convince Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to go ahead with a plan to reduce gas royalties by 1 to 2 percent in exchange for environmental improvements by gas firms. It is doubtful whether favorable treatment to natural gas interests will significantly reduce greenhouse gases, given that natural gas is also a fossil fuel which emits CO2 when burned (Greenwire, August 13, 1997).

Clinton’s Public “Education” Campaign; Green McCarthyism

by William Yeatman on August 7, 1997

in Politics

Clinton’s Public “Education” Campaign

On July 24 President Clinton began his promised campaign to alert the American people to the dangers of climate change by bringing seven scientists to the White House to discuss the issue. Clinton stated that, “It is no longer a threat, but now a fact that global warming is for real,” warning that, “The longer you wait, the more disruptive the ultimate resolution will be.”

Though supposedly an educational exercise it became rapidly apparent that the meeting was a propaganda campaign meant to scare the American people. Clinton warned that failure to cut emissions could cause “widespread ecological disasters including killer heat waves, severe floods and droughts, and increase in infectious diseases and rising sea levels that could swamp thousands of miles of coastal Florida and Louisiana” (The Washington Post, July 25, 1997). Clinton urged the American people to look at the scientific evidence, advice he should follow himself, given that there is no scientific evidence for the disasters he predicts nor are they predicted by the computer models used by climate scientists.

When Al Gore asked biology professor, Stephen Schneider, if recent floods in the upper Midwest, Ohio, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Northwest could be due to climate change, he replied that this was consistent with climate change (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 25, 1997). What Schneider didn’t mention was that the spring runoff that caused the North Dakota, Red River flood (the upper Midwest), for example, was due to greater snowfall as a result of colder temperatures. In the middle latitudes colder temperatures are correlated with greater snowfall (World Climate Report, v. 2 no. 17).

Of course, Clinton didn’t promise to tell the facts, just to convince Americans to support an economically painful treaty.

Green McCarthyism

The following is a portion of a transcript from an interview with Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt on the Diane Rehm Show (WAMU-FM, July 21, 1997):

Secretary Babbitt: “Let me suggest that we have a really big opportunity coming up this year, in 1997. Climate change is underway. We have already changed the atmosphere through fossil fuel emissions. That’s a scientific fact beyond denial. The effects are starting to show up. And there’s going to be a treaty negotiation in Kyoto, in Japan, at the end of this year to try to set national plans to control global warming.”

“But it’s an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts, and then begin raising political arguments that are essentially fraudulent, that we can’t do this without damaging the economy, the same kinds of arguments they used against acid rain, they used against the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. This time I think it’s especially unfortunate, and I think that the energy companies need to be called to account because what they’re doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people.”

Host Diane Rehm: “And keeping the issue alive. I mean keeping the question as to whether climate change is actually occurring, keeping the question in people’s minds [unclear] it’s supposed to, assuming that there is something happening.”

Babbitt: “That’s absolutely true. There was an article by the president of Chrysler Corporation in The Washington Post last week. It’s an outrageous distortion of existing science [note: the editorial (July 17, 1997) merely stated that the science is still uncertain, a statement wholly supported by statements made by IPCC scientists] that is reflective of what’s going on in the energy industry. And I don’t thinks it’s too strong to say that it is a deliberate attempt to distort the facts and to mislead and simply stall any kind of progress for their own short term advantage with possibly really catastrophic effects in the long run.”

Bruce Babbitt, the Joe McCarthy of the environmental movement.

The Climate Change Debate; Soaking Up Greenhouse Gases; Warming Occurs Mostly at Night

by William Yeatman on August 7, 1997

in Science

The Climate Change Debate

In an article highlighting climate change skeptics, the New Scientist (“Greenhouse Wars,” July 19, 1997) shows that there is still significant uncertainty concerning the validity of global warming predictions. One of the most important issues currently debated is the role of water vapor in the atmosphere (see below). One thing that the satellite data have shown is that the temperatures of the surface and free troposphere move in different directions. Computer models have them moving in the same direction. According to David Parker of the British Meteorological Office, “The surface and mid-troposphere appear to be much less coupled than the models assume . . . . If the models don’t get tropospheric heating right, we are in trouble.”

If coupling of the surface and atmospheric temperatures is modeled incorrectly, then it is very likely that the models incorrectly handle the way water vapor moves between the surface and the free troposphere. This means that the positive feedback from water vapor – which turns “the greenhouse effect from a benign curiosity into a potential apocalypse. . .” – may not even exist. Simon Tett, a modeler and IPCC author, concedes, “the upper troposphere is probably drier than the models suggest.” Though there is, to date, little evidence for a negative feedback mechanism, things are moving in the direction of the skeptics.

The bottom line, though, is that the modelers and skeptics are not far apart. The skeptics concede that that a doubling of CO2 may raise temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 degrees C, the lower end of the modelers’ predictions. However, as Patrick Michaels, a climatologist with the University of Virginia, says, “You can’t make a case for a global apocalypse out of 1.5 degrees C warming.”

Assumption Dries Up

According to a paper appearing in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (June 1997), the tropical free troposphere, the layer of air between 25,000 and 50,000 feet, is much dryer than climate modelers previously thought. Using west Pacific radiosonde data and infrared and microwave satellite data, Roy Spencer of NASA and William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation were able to verify the skeptics’ assertion that the climate models have too much moisture present in the upper atmosphere, increasing warming estimates by 100 percent. If Spencer and Braswell’s data are correct, warming estimates will need to be revised downward from 2 degrees C warming over the next one hundred years to 1 degree C.

Soaking Up Greenhouse Gases

For many years scientists have been puzzled by carbon dioxide that seems to disappear each year without a trace. When comparing total carbon dioxide releases with known sinks, researchers cannot account for approximately 1 to 2 billion metric tons of the greenhouse gas. Recent scientific evidence, however, has shown that forests store much more carbon than previously thought. In the past scientists believed that the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered by trees was roughly equal to the amount given off through respiration. One of the reasons for underestimating the carbon-capturing potential of forests is that researchers did not include the carbon stored in peat and other organic matter in soils, which accounts for about two-thirds of the carbon stored by forests. Also, forests are expanding in many areas of the world.

One study, done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Laboratory, found that, “the increase in biomass and organic matter on U.S. forest lands over the last 40 years has stored enough carbon to offset 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for that period.” Other studies have shown that tropical forests sequester up to 200 metric tons of carbon dioxide per hectare.

A computer model at the Environmental Sciences Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee suggests that harvesting and replanting fast-growing forests is more effective than storing carbon in mature forests. When harvested trees are used in construction it takes carbon out of circulation. The New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd., found that a radiata pine plantation takes 112 metric tons of carbon out of circulation each time it is harvested and replanted (Science, “Resurgent Forests Can Be Greenhouse Gas Sponges,” July 18, 1997).

Warming Occurs Mostly at Night

A study appearing in Science (July 18, 1997), shows that the warming over the last half century has occurred primarily at night. Between 1950 and 1993 nighttime warming has closed the gap between maximum and minimum temperatures. The global average minimum temperature has risen by 0.186 degrees C while the global average maximum increased by 0.088 degrees C. In some places, such as the Southern United States and Eastern Canada, daytime maximum temperatures have dropped, reducing the gap even further in those areas.

Possible beneficial effects from nighttime warming include lower heating costs for homeowners and longer growing seasons for farmers. Adverse effects may include greater growth of harmful insects and weeds and lower yields by causing plants to expend energy faster at night. Winter wheat yields may also be lower (Science News, July 19, 1997).

Etc.

Gelbspan, Feeling the Heat

Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat is On, is feeling the heat himself. In the book he attacks the integrity of several well-known greenhouse skeptics. His own integrity, however, is now in question. The dust cover on his book touts him as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, for his contribution to a series of stories for the Boston Globe in 1984.

Gelbspan, though, has never won the Pulitzer Prize. He was just an editor involved with the series of articles for which seven Boston Globe staff writers won the award. An internet search (www.pulitzer.org/search/searchform.html) of past winners confirms that Gelbspan has not won the award. However, in an article about the prize, the Globe did include a profile of Gelbspan and another editor involved in the project as well as a profile of the executive editor John Driscoll.

When asked if claiming a Pulitzer Prize under these conditions was acceptable, John McCaughey, a veteran Washington reporter, said “I wouldn’t do it, would you? It’s what the English call ‘sharp practice’ and others call ‘resume inflation'” (The Electricity Daily, July 31, 1997). For further information on Gelbspan, see the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s web page at www.his.com/~sepp.

International Trading Scheme Would Transfer Wealth; 1996 Greenhouse Gas Data; Voluntary Programs Not So Great

by William Yeatman on August 7, 1997

in Blog

It’s About Time

After burying it for over six months the Clinton Administration finally released a Department of Energy report on the economic impacts of proposed energy regulations. The report finds that rising energy prices resulting from climate change policies would be devastating to the chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum refining, aluminum, paper and allied products, and cement industries. Based on a carbon tax of between $100 and $140 per ton of carbon dioxide phased in between 2000 and 2010 the report forecasts an increase in the cost of coal of $70 to $90 per ton. Electricity prices would rise by 25 to 35 percent, No. 2 fuel oil would rise by 60 to 90 percent, and natural gas by 50 to 60 percent.

Clinton Administration greens were not pleased. A memo released with the report, written by Marc Chupka, acting assistant secretary of DOE’s Office of Policy and International Affairs, called the assumptions used in the study “outdated” because they did not take into consideration the Clinton Administration’s own opinions. Specifically, the Administration believes that proposals such as an international trading system for greenhouse gas emissions and joint implementation programs will lower abatement costs.

Regardless, Chupka argues that the study is still valuable in instructing policy makers as to the dangers of increasing energy costs. It also makes clear to industrial countries the danger of unilaterally imposing binding emission reduction targets. According to the study, this policy would cause a massive transfer of manufacturing in the six industries listed above from the industrialized world to the developing world (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 15, 1997).

International Trading Scheme Would Transfer Wealth

A Brookings Policy Brief (“A Better Way to Slow Global Climate Change,” No. 17) argues that an international emissions trading scheme – which would allow for the most abatement to occur where it is cheapest – would result in a large transfer of wealth from the industrial countries. A tradable emission system would increase the U.S. trade deficit by $27 billion to $54 billion every year, a 24 to 47 percent increase. Most of this wealth would go to the developing countries, dwarfing the $17 billion in foreign aid the U.S. sends abroad each year.

The authors, Warwick J. McKibben and Peter J. Wilcoxen, propose an internal trading scheme where each nation will receive permits based upon historical emission levels. Each national government could distribute the permits as it saw fit. Trading would occur entirely within the nation, avoiding the international wealth transfer problem. Of course, an obvious weakness of this plan is the difficulty in verifying whether governments are enforcing emissions reductions within their own countries (Brookings’ webpage www.brook.edu/ES/POLICY/Polbrf17.htm).

In a speech at the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s “Costs of Kyoto” conference on July 15, economist Brian Fisher of Australia’s ABARE projected that by 2010, 12 percent of the former Eastern bloc’s GNP would come from income transfers, assuming a climate treaty covering industrialized countries with a tradable emission scheme. He wondered aloud whether the U.S. Senate would be comfortable with that.

1996 Greenhouse Gas Data

According to the World Energy Council (WEC), global carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise in 1996, with the highest increase of 5.5 percent, occurring in India, China, the newly industrializing Asian tigers and the Middle East. U.S. emissions increased by 3.1 percent while the European Union experienced a 2.3 percent rise in its second consecutive year of greenhouse gas increases, most of which can be attributed to Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark.

Rapid increases in the Asian-Pacific countries could heighten pressure to impose binding emission targets on developing countries. Increases in the U.K. and Germany erode their moral credibility and raise doubts about their ability to reach the stringent targets proposed by the two countries at the Rio Plus Five conference. According to Michael Jefferson, the WEC’s deputy secretary general, the honeymoon of closing polluting industries is over for the U.K. and Germany. They must now deal with the economic realities that the rest of the world faces in terms of emissions reduction (Nature, July 17, 1997).

Voluntary Programs Not So Great

A General Accounting Office (GAO) report argues that EPA predictions about the greenhouse gas reducing potential of three voluntary programs are overly optimistic. The EPA estimates that the Green Lights program will save 3.9 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE), the Source Reduction and Recycling Program 1.9 to 6.7 MMTCE, and the State and Local Outreach Program 1.7 MMTCE. But the GAO argues that the EPA’s projections “are not consistent with experience to date.” The GAO also argued that much of the future reductions attributed to the outreach program might happen regardless of EPA’s actions (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 21, 1997).

The Consequences of Climate Change Policy

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (July 25, 1997), Jack Kemp identified three major economic consequences of proposed limits on greenhouse gases. First, production costs would increase for virtually all U.S. industries, making American products less competitive abroad and less affordable at home. Second, as much as 250,000 high paying jobs could leave the U.S. as American companies struggle to remain competitive in world markets. Finally, Americans would face higher energy bills which could increase as much as 50 percent.

As the AFL-CIO has indicated, carbon taxes “. . . are highly regressive and will be most harmful to citizens who live on fixed incomes and work at poverty level wages.”

The pain involved is not justified, however. As Kemp points out, a treaty excluding the high growth developing nations such as China, South Korea, and India, would do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And if climate change is not happening anyway, as Kemp indicates in the article, then why should anyone implement all pain, no gain policies?

Ecological Imperialism; Baby Steps to Lower Greenhouse Emissions; Canada Could Be Divided

by William Yeatman on July 29, 1997

Ecological Imperialism

In a paper delivered at “The Costs of Kyoto” conference, sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Deepak Lal, James S. Coleman Professor of International Development Studies, UCLA, argued that “At Kyoto Third World countries are going to face their first serious confrontation with the growing ecological imperialism of the international green movement . . .”

Though treaty proponents initially proposed restrictions only on the industrialized countries, the Clinton administration has stated “that the Kyoto accord must include ‘language that makes it clear’ that developing country obligations under the pact will increase over time ‘and will include binding targets.'”

Lal cited a study by Thomas Schelling which shows that a delay in doubling of CO2 emissions for four decades would lead to a loss of 2 percent of gross world product in perpetuity. Though this will harm the industrial countries it could be devastating for the Third World.

Lal points out that it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that it became possible to eradicate “mass structural poverty.” “So” concludes Lal, “I look upon the green agenda . . . as ultimately trying to stop growth in the Third World. And if you’re saying you’re going to stop growth in the

Third World, you’re really going to say that you’re willing to condemn three-quarters of the world’s population to continuing poverty.”

Ignorance is Bliss

The Clinton administration has decided to dispense with using three economic models to analyze policy options to reduce greenhouse gases. Timothy Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, argued that the economic models were unable to produce an “honest result” in predicting the economic effects of climate change policy.

A draft report by the interagency team, that will not be completed, showed that a reduction in greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2010 would require a $100 per ton carbon tax increase the price of gasoline by 26 cents per gallon, $1.49 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas, $52.52 per ton of coal, and 2 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity.

Janet Yellen, chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, told a House subcommittee that the administration would do economic analyses, but will “preclude . . . detailed numbers.” Not to worry, the administration will tell the public what it believes the impact of climate change policy will be: “Any policy the president endorses on climate change will be informed by his commitment to sustaining a healthy and robust economy” (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 16, 1997).

Real Action Not Likely

According to Robert J. Samuelson, “Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the next century, but – regardless of whether it is or isn’t – we won’t do much about it.”

To do something effective Congress would have to impose something equivalent to a $100 carbon tax, which would raise gasoline prices by 26 cents per gallon and electricity and natural gas rates by about 30 percent.

Because of the great amount of uncertainty surrounding the likelihood or magnitude of global warming, Congress is not likely to pass a tax that would put the economic screws to the American people.

The best way to cope with potential warming, according to Samuelson, is to adapt to it. To sign a sweeping treaty that would ultimately lead nowhere would make global warming “a gushing source of national hypocrisy” (Washington Post, “Dancing Around a Dilemma,” July 9, 1997).

Baby Steps to Lower Greenhouse Emissions

In hearings before the Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee, the panel of four scientists and one economist generally agreed that moderate steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse emissions. Harvard University Economics Professor Dale Jorgenson, argued that the U.S. should eliminate energy subsidies and adopt a tax based on carbon content of fuels. The proposed tax would lead to an increase of 5 cents per gallon of gasoline by 2025, starting at $5.29 per ton of CO2 and rising gradually to $10 per ton.

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and well-known skeptic of the global warming hypothesis, argued that Jorgenson’s proposal would have no effect on climate change. Both John Christy, associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Hunstville, and Eric Barron, director of the Earth System Sciences Center at Penn State University, endorsed modest emissions reductions that would improve energy efficiency and provide overall benefits to the economy (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 11, 1997).

There is one problem with such modest proposals. If human-induced climate change is a major problem then modest proposals will do nothing to avert it. If it isn’t a problem, then why do anything at all?

Canada Could Be Divided

According to the study by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE), a treaty to restrict greenhouse emissions would be devastating to Alberta’s oil, coal and gas industries as well as to Ontario’s iron and steel sector. Additionally, governments of the Atlantic provinces are counting on growing offshore oil and gas production to spur further economic growth. On the other hand, Central Canadian manufacturers will benefit by absorbing labor and capital driven out of the oil producing sector. Overall, Canada will experience a 0.5 percent reduction in output by 2010.

Chris Peirce, vice president of strategic planning with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said, “You can kind of gloss over the really difficult issue that people would have to deal with by saying, ‘Well, the overall number [for the economic cost] is only 0.4 percent of gross domestic product’ . . . . When you look beneath that surface at what it’s going to do within the sectors, it’s quite a different matter” (The Financial Post, July 5, 1997).

Etc.

NATO Soldiers to Fight Climate Change?

According to the Washington Post (“Clinton’s NATO Effort Risky; President’s Vision Rests on Historic Rationale,” July 8, 1997) the Clinton administration envisions a new role for the expanded NATO alliance.

“The administration argues that the new NATO will be the cornerstone of a new system of international security dealing with a much wider array of threats than was the case during the Cold War. ‘Unlike Marshall’s generation, we face no single galvanizing threat,’ [Madeleine] Albright said at Harvard. ‘The dangers we confront are less visible and more diverse – some as old as ethnic conflict, some as new a letter bombs, some as subtle as climate change, and some as deadly as nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands” (emphasis added).

Investor’s Business Daily (“Our Rain Forest Rangers,” July 7, 1997) reports that the administration’s Quarterly Defense Review claims that, “The most serious security problems are . . . those threats to the ‘international community’ stemming from ‘instability’ caused by ‘transnational problems’ such as poverty, disease, terrorism, global climate change, migration, and integration into a global economy” (emphasis added).

The United Nation’s Windbags

In a scathing editorial in the Village Voice (“When Smog Snobs Meet: Saving the Earth From Windbags,” July 8, 1997), Linda Stasi asks, “What do you call it when billions of tons of hot air per second are released into the atmosphere by gigantic gas bags? How about Rio Plus Five – the recent UN conference on the environment?”

Stasi continues, “Last week, world leaders and assorted international windbags from 60 – count em – 60 countries arrived here to whine about pollution while simultaneously causing massive traffic jams, which in turn caused massive pollution.”

Stasi is skeptical whether anything will come of the conference; instead she suggests, “maybe we’d have a better environment if they just shut down the UN altogether – it would be years before anybody even noticed that nobody was there.”

Senate Resolution Passes 95-0; Japan to Propose Climate Change Legislation; Nuclear Power, Anyone?

by William Yeatman on July 29, 1997

Senate Resolution Passes 95-0

The Byrd-Hagel Resolution (SRes 98) passed on July 25 by a margin of 95-0 (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 28, 1997). The resolution states that the U.S. Senate will not ratify any treaty signed at Kyoto that:

  • Would impose binding limits on the industrialized nations but not on developing nations within the same compliance period.

  • “Would result in serious economic harm to the economy of the United States.”

Senator Robert Byrd argued during the floor debate that climate change is a global problem requiring global action. He hopes that the resolution will give U.S. negotiators the clout they need to complete a truly global treaty.

Japan to Propose Climate Change Legislation

Japan’s Environment Agency will propose binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions to avert global warming. A carbon tax is under consideration. Other ideas include stricter fuel economy standards for cars, restrictions on energy use for domestic electrical machinery, and environmentally friendly tax and fiscal systems.

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) has, to date, opposed binding targets on emissions. “We haven’t yet judged whether such ideas will be needed after the Kyoto conference,” stated an MITI official (Japan Economic Newswire, July 7, 1997).

Nuclear Power, Anyone?

At a gathering in Santa Fe’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, fifty energy experts from the United States and Japan urged greater use of nuclear power to combat global climate change.

According to Dr. Chauncy Starr, president emeritus of the Electric Power Research Institute, “a strong consensus emerged that nuclear energy is an important power source that must be supported and expanded if the world is to address the environmental, security and economic well-being of its people” (U.S. Newswire, July 9, 1997)

Also, at the UN environment conference Hans Blix, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, argued against a report by the UN Development Program which concluded that nuclear power is not necessary to meet future energy needs. According to Blix, nuclear power is essential if the developing nations are to meet their energy demands without significantly raising greenhouse emissions (Greenwire, July 7, 1997).

Nebraska Coalition Opposed to Treaty

A coalition of farm organizations, the AFL-CIO and the State Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nebraska held a press conference opposing a treaty that would discourage fossil fuel use. The coalition argued that there are still serious doubts about the magnitude and effects of climate change, claiming that precipitous action will lead to higher home heating and transportation costs, taxes on fuel and fertilizer for farmers as well as planting controls and limits on livestock production. Factories will be forced to relocate to countries with fewer energy restrictions, taking American jobs.

The coalition stated, “Rather than rushing into policies that would lower our standard of living and force unwelcome changes in personal lifestyle we believe it would make far more sense to concentrate on improving the scientific research on climate issues and on developing new, cost-effective technologies for use in the United States and around the world” (Omaha World-Herald, July 8, 1997).

What About Clouds?; Melting Icecaps, Schmelting Icecaps; Early Humans Experienced Rapidly Changing Sea Levels

by William Yeatman on July 29, 1997

in Science

What About Clouds?

According to the Anchorage Daily News (July 10, 1997) the U.S. Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program is going to fund a 10-year, $10 million study to “track how clouds soak up or reflect the sun’s energy in the Earth’s polar regions.” The effect of clouds on climate change is still a mystery for scientists. Sometimes clouds cool the earth, at other times they keep it warm.

Knut Stamnes, a researcher at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, asks, “Are increased greenhouse gases going to have an effect or not?” His answer? “To understand that, we need to understand what clouds do.”

Sensors located Alaska’s North Slope, Oklahoma and Guam will provide new information that will lead to a greater understanding of how clouds affect global climate change in polar, midlatitude and tropical areas. According to Martha Krebs, director of DOE’s Office of Energy Research, “The question is whether or not the use of energy is going to cause a major impact on our environment . . . . That requires more data, and better and more accurate models.”

Melting Icecaps, Schmelting Icecaps

According to David Vaughan, a British Antarctic Survey member, “At current warming rates it will take 200 years before the problem in the Antarctic became serious . . . . And it is very unlikely that the warming trend in the Antarctic Peninsula could be sustained for that length of time without very major changes elsewhere which would make this issue rather irrelevant.”

Warnings of rising seas that will flood island states are overblown and, according to Vaughan, it is very possible that the “effects of oceanographic conditions on the ice shelves could thicken them” (Daily Mail, July 10, 1997).

Birds of a Feather Arrive Early Together

Ecologists are puzzled by the return of some species of birds earlier in the spring than usual. According to records kept by ornithologist Elizabeth Browne Losey, birds are returning to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula 21 days earlier than they did in 1965, suggesting that spring’s arriving earlier than before.

Though a report by the World Wildlife Fund recently warned that, “The first signs of climate change have been detected and can be seen in our own back yards,” ecologists are more cautious about blaming ecological changes on human-induced climate change since “North America’s ecological systems have always been in flux.”

Eighteen thousand years ago ice sheets two miles thick covered the northern half of the American continent. Also, the mid 19th century saw the Little Ice Age with temperatures a few degrees colder than now. In fact, the warming we have experienced over the last one hundred years may be a natural recovery from that cooler period.

Dan Fagre, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division, said, “Our goal is not necessarily to say human-induced climate change is responsible as much as to say that things are changing.”

Regardless, some ecologists are worried due to melting glaciers in Glacier National Park, warmer waters off the coast of California, declining bird and salmon populations, and other changes. Ken Cole, a government ecologist based in Flagstaff, Arizona says, “I think we can eventually do it but I’m not ready to commit myself and say that these changes are due to climate change and not these other causes.”

David Peterson, professor at the University of Washington states, “Change is natural and normal. The question at this point is: Are the changes that we’re seeing really natural or are they human-caused? And that poses some really tough questions” (Associated Press, July 7, 1997).

New and Improved Climate Modeling Computers

Japan’s Science and Technology Agency will develop a new computer system called the Earth Simulator to model regional climate variations with greater precision. To date limitations on computer power have frustrated the ability of scientists to accurately model the earth’s climate systems.

What will become the world’s fastest dedicated parallel-processing computer, the Earth Simulator will be able to model temperature variations on a grid 100 times finer than current advanced simulators. The Earth Simulator will allow scientists to better understand the regional effects of climate change (The Nikkei Weekly, July 7, 1997).

Early Humans Experienced Rapidly Changing Sea Levels

According to a study by Heiner et. al. appearing in the journal Science (“Early Humans and Rapidly Changing Holocene Sea Levels in the Queen Charlotte Islands – Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada,” July 4, 1997), humans during the Holocene era experienced rapidly changing sea levels.

Marine cores from the continental shelf edge of British Columbia, Canada show that sea level varied from -153 to +16 m between 14,600 and 10,100 calendar years B.P. Using marine core data and archeological evidence, researchers were able to determine that local sea levels rose rapidly (five centimeters per year) during the period of early human occupation.

To put this in perspective, climate change catastrophists are predicting a 2 foot increase in sea levels from global warming over the next 100 years. A five centimeter per year rise, however, would increase sea levels by about 19 feet.

“In this context,” states the researchers, “it is interesting that the Gwaii Haanas Haida Indian oral history abounds in legends of rapidly rising seas.” It is also interesting to note that sea levels changed by magnitudes far exceeding anything predicted by climate change proponents in the absence of anthropogenic influences.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →