Features

Would the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) serve the U.S. national interest? If the State Department answers that question in the affirmative, TransCanada Corporation can finally begin building the pipeline, more than five and a half years after originally applying for a construction permit.

TransCanada recently submitted comments to State making the case for an affirmative “national interest determination” (NID). The comments are clear, comprehensive, accurate, and, in my opinion, compelling.

Inspired by those comments, I will attempt here to state the common sense of the issue in my own words.

The interminable controversy over the KXL is stunningly pointless. Do modern commerce and transport chiefly run on petroleum-based products? Yes. Are pipelines the most economic, efficient, and safe way to transport large volumes of petroleum? Yes. Is Canada our closest ally and biggest trading partner? Yes. Is Canada already the largest single source of U.S. petroleum imports? Yes. Would building the KXL enhance the efficiency of oil transport from Canada to U.S. markets? Yes. Would building the KXL support tens of thousands of American jobs and add billions to the GDP during the construction period? Yes. Would all the financing be private and not cost taxpayers a dime? Yes.

So how could building the KXL not be in U.S. national interest?

In 2012, TransCanada sought permission to build the “Gulf Coast Project” (the green line in the map below), the southern leg of the 1,700 mile pipeline it originally proposed to build from Hardisty, Canada to Port Arthur, Texas. State environmental agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted all necessary permits for the Gulf Coast Project by August 2012.

Construction began in August 2012 and the project commenced commercial service in January 2014. The earth did not shake, the sky didn’t fall, no one felt a “disturbance in the Force . . . as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.” [click to continue…]

Yesterday, the House Science Energy and Environment Subcommittees held a joint hearing on the “Science of Capture and Storage: Understanding EPA’s Carbon Rules.” EPA Air Office Acting Administrator Janet McCabe was the sole witness on the second panel. Her testimony begins about one hour and 54 minutes (1:54) into the archived Webcast. Although calm and non-ideological in tone, McCabe’s responses in the lengthy Q&A were terse, usually uninformative, and often evasive.

The hearing focused on carbon capture and storage (CCS), the technology new coal-fired power plants will have to install to meet the carbon dioxide (CO2) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in EPA’s proposed “Carbon Pollution Rule.” Under the Clean Air Act, NSPS are to “reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which . . . has been adequately demonstrated.”

Environment Subcommittee Chair David Schweikert (R.-Ariz.) kicked off the Q&A (1:59) by noting that the “Carbon Pollution Rule” assumes CCS technology is “robust and ready to go,” yet the “previous panel was pretty crisp, even from right to left, that there are still some real concerns on the technology itself.” He asked for “technical” information clarifying how EPA set the CO2 standards.

McCabe responded by explaining that the “Carbon Pollution Rule” does not actually mandate the use of CCS, it sets a performance standard based on CCS, and let’s covered facilities decide for themselves how to meet the standard. Okay, but that’s a distinction without a difference, since the only known technology that can reduce CO2 emissions from coal plants as much as CCS is CCS.

McCabe continued:

When it comes to the technology that we based those numbers on [i.e. 1,100 lbs. CO2 per MWh for new coal plants], we believe that if you look across all the information and data that’s available, that there is adequate and robust data showing that the various components that we based the standard on are in use, have been in use, and will be ready.

In other words, instead of providing technical information addressing the concerns raised during the previous panel, McCabe said, in effect, ‘Trust us, we’re the experts.’

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), noting GOP Members’ concerns about the cost of CCS, asked McCabe to discuss the “costs associated with the lack of action to address climate change and increasing emissions.” McCabe responded (2:10):

That’s a very good question. There are costs to our economy and to society from the impacts of climate change that is already happening. In 2013, there were seven extreme weather events. Which I think is a nice way of saying great, big, huge horrible storms that cost the economy over a billion dollars each. This is a real economic impact on our communities, our families across the country.

Prompted by Bonamici, McCabe went on to include “health care costs” and “disruption to families and whole communities” among the costs of inaction.

Whether deliberately or otherwise, McCabe blurs the distinction between climate risk and climate change risk. Hurricanes are not some new phenomenon unique to the Age of Global Warming. Huge, horrible storms have billion-dollar costs — that is the nature of the beast. Blaming hurricanes on CO2 emissions is unscientific. There has been no long-term trend in the strength or frequency of hurricanes, none in global accumulated cyclone energy, and none in hurricane damages once losses are adjusted to take into account increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest period on record with no major (category 3-5) hurricane landfall strikes.

Blaming hurricane damages on congressional gridlock (“lack of action”) is loopy. Even complete elimination of U.S. CO2 emissions via immediate and total shutdown of the economy would avert only a hypothetical 0.19°C of warming by 2100 — too small a reduction to have any detectable effect on weather patterns. Ergo, no lesser emission reductions that might have been implemented during the past decade or two could provide any meaningful protection to people or property even if one assumes all seven billion-dollar storms in 2013 were ginned up by climate change. [click to continue…]

Secy. of State John Kerry last week exhorted all State Department officials to conclude a new international climate change agreement, integrate climate change with other priorities, and, in general, “elevate the environment in everything we do.” In the same week, climate researchers produced two more studies undercutting Kerry’s opinion that climate change is “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

The studies address the core scientific issue of climate sensitivity — the question of how much warming results from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.

There are two types of sensitivity estimates. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is an estimate of the increase in ‘steady state’ surface temperature after the climate system has fully adjusted to a doubling of CO2 concentrations — a process assumed to take centuries or longer due to oceanic thermal inertia. Transient climate sensitivity (TCS) is the estimated increase in surface temperature during the 20-year period when CO2 doubling occurs, presumably during the final decades of this century.

ECS is the key variable in both climate model predictions of future global warming and model estimates of the “social cost of carbon” – the damage allegedly inflicted on society by an incremental ton of CO2 emissions.

The IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) estimated a “likely” ECS range of 2°C-4.5°C, with a “best estimate” of 3°C. Since 2011, however, the warming pause and the growing divergence of model predictions and observed global temperatures have been the impetus for several studies finding that IPCC sensitivity estimates are too hot.

Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger maintain a growing list of such studies, which totaled 18 as of February 2014.

The average sensitivity estimate of the 18 studies is just under 2°C. In other words, the AR4 “best estimate” of 3°C is 50% higher than the mean estimate of the new studies. That may be why the IPCC’s 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) declines to offer a “best estimate.”

A new “best estimate” of 2°C would deflate the scary climate change impacts featured elsewhere in AR5, but recycling the same old 3°C “best estimate” would deflate the IPCC’s claim to be an honest broker. So instead the IPCC chose to lower the low end of the “likely” sensitivity range. Whereas the “likely” range in AR4 was 2°C-4.5°C, in AR5 it is 1.5°C-4.5°C.

That small concession, however, does not dispel the growing challenge to consensus climatology. As indicated in the chart above, the average sensitivity of the climate models used in AR5 is 3.2°C. That is 60% higher than the mean of recent estimates (<2°C). Let’s take a quick look at three studies that have come out this year. [click to continue…]

U. S. Secretary of State John Kerry on 7th March 2014 issued his first official Policy Guidance to all Ambassadors and other heads of missions abroad.  It’s not about Russia’s aggressive takeover of the Crimea, a part of the sovereign state of Ukraine.  It’s not about China’s naval buildup.  It’s not about the implosion of Venezuela’s elected dictatorship.  It’s not about Iran’s ongoing program to build nuclear weapons.  It’s not about the continuing civil war in Syria.  It’s about what Secretary Kerry thinks is the major national security threat facing the United States—global warming!

Here is how Secretary Kerry introduces his Policy Guidance:

Leading the way toward progress on this issue is the right role for the United States, and it’s the right role for the Department of State.  That’s why I’ve decided to make climate change the subject of my first Policy Guidance as Secretary of State.  I have been deeply impressed by the way Secretary Clinton elevated global women’s issues as a top-tier diplomatic priority, and believe me, we’re committed to keeping them there.  When the opportunities for women grow, the possibilities for peace, prosperity, and security grow even more.  President Obama and I believe the same thing about climate change.  This isn’t just a challenge, it’s also an incredible opportunity.  And the Policy Guidance I’m issuing today is an important step in the right direction.

One thing’s for sure:  there’s no time to lose.  The scientific facts are coming back to us in a stronger fashion and with greater urgency than ever before.  That’s why I spoke in Jakarta about the threat of climate change and what we, as citizens of the world, can do to address it.  That’s why I raised this issue at our senior management retreat here in Washington, and why I’ll be raising it again at our Chiefs of Mission Conference next week.  This challenge demands elevated urgency and attention from all of us.

I’m counting on Chiefs of Mission to make climate change a priority for all relevant personnel and to promote concerted action at posts and in host countries to address this problem.  I’ve also directed all bureaus of the Department to focus on climate change in their day-to-day work.

[click to continue…]

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. The case is the first since Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) to examine the extent of the EPA’s Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Court is limiting its review to one question:

Whether EPA permissibly determined that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

In other words, the Court is reviewing the agency’s April 2010 Timing Rule.

According to the Timing Rule, regulation of any air pollutant under any part of the Clean Air Act automatically requires anyone seeking to build or modify a “major” stationary source of that pollutant to apply for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permit from EPA or a state environmental agency. The EPA began regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) when its greenhouse gas Tailpipe Rule took effect (Jan. 2, 2011). To qualify for a PSD permit, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed facility or modification will comply with “best available control technology” (BACT) standards.

Because of the narrow scope of review — the Justices have no intention of revisiting Mass. v. EPA, reviewing EPA’s greenhouse gas Endangerment Rule and Tailpipe Rule, or revisiting the Court’s opinion in American Electric Power v. Connecticut that EPA may adopt new source performance standards (NSPS) to regulate CO2 emissions from stationary sources — some observers conclude that UARG v. EPA is not very important and it really doesn’t matter what the Court decides. Not so.

Because BACT standards are facility-specific, they are more intrusive than NSPS, which apply to industrial source categories. Especially if the regulated “pollutant” is CO2, a byproduct of energy use, BACT is an invitation for bureaucratic micro-management of industrial design and operations. As I discuss in a recent Forbes column:

Because there are no bolt-on commercial technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from industrial processes, BACT for CO2 will consist mainly of facility-specific changes in work practices and equipment to improve energy efficiency. Thus, warns the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group, a petitioner in the case, BACT for CO2 will empower the EPA and its state counterpart agencies to meddle in “every aspect of a facility’s operation and design that affects either its emission of carbon dioxide or its consumption of energy, because the latter is the primary determinant of the former.” Options listed by EPA include everything from changing light bulbs in the factory cafeteria, to replacing draft fans and water heaters, to basic design changes that, in EPA’s words, “fundamentally redefine the nature” of the facility.

More importantly, overturning the Timing Rule could significantly narrow the scope and slow the pace of EPA regulation of CO2 from industrial facilities.

Consider how long it can take to adopt just one NSPS regulation. EPA committed to adopt CO2 NSPS for new coal-fired power plants and petroleum refineries in Dec. 2010. They still have not even proposed NSPS for refineries. Maybe they’ll finalize the NSPS (“carbon pollution”) rule for new power plants this year. But the rule is beset with legal problems (for example, it is based on the fiction that carbon capture and storage, a technology at least 10 years away from commercialization, has been “adequately demonstrated”). If litigants block the “carbon pollution” rule, then EPA won’t be able to move ahead with CO2 performance standards for existing coal plants.

So here’s the big practical difference. The NSPS route forces EPA to fight for regulatory turf one industry at a time. BACT permitting pursuant to the Timing Rule empowers EPA to impose CO2 regulation on “major” sources throughout the economy in one fell swoop.

The political significance is obvious. If the Court nixes BACT for CO2, EPA will be able to establish far fewer regulatory beachheads between now and Obama’s departure. That would facilitate efforts by future Congresses and the next president to halt or even roll back EPA’s greenhouse gas regulatory agenda. [click to continue…]

Yesterday was the deadline for filing comments with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the Obama administration’s social cost of carbon (SCC) estimates. I submitted a comment letter on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, CFACT, Freedom Action, FreedomWorks Foundation, Frontiers of Freedom, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Rio Grande Foundation, Science & Environmental Policy Project, and Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

We argue that carbon’s social cost is an unknown quantity; that SCC analysts can get just about any result they desire by fiddling with non-validated climate parameters, made-up damage functions, and below-market discount rates; and that SCC analysis is computer-aided sophistry, its political function being to make renewable energy look like a bargain at any price and fossil energy look unaffordable no matter how cheap.

One point we emphasize that may come as a complete shock to OMB is that there are potentially very large social costs of carbon mitigation.

Those include:

1. The public health and welfare risks of policies that raise business and household energy costs.
2. The economic, fiscal, and energy security risks of policies that endanger the shale revolution.
3. The economic development risks of policies that limit poor countries’ access to affordable energy.
4. The risks to international peace and stability of impeding developing country economic growth through carbon caps or taxes and carbon-tariff protectionism.
5. The proliferation risks of policies that increase developing country demand for fissile materials and nuclear technology.
6. The risks to scientific integrity when government is both chief funder of climate research and chief beneficiary of “consensus” science supporting a bigger role for government in economic decisions.
7. The risk to the democratic process when governments promote “consensus” climatology to justify bypassing legislatures and marginalizing opponents as “anti-science.”

Here I will excerpt* the discussion addressing point 7 — the risks climate policy poses to democratic self-government.

“Perhaps the biggest casualty [of the global warming movement] is science,” author Rupert Darwall opines. Climate models produce long-term forecasts that cannot be validated in our lifetimes. Inevitably, “consensus” and “expert judgment” displace reproducibility as tests of scientific validity. Government grants and appointments reward researchers whose findings support the consensus. Since the politicians and agencies funding the research and invoking “consensus” are the same ones seeking greater control over energy markets and energy production, researchers face continual pressure or temptation to cross the line between policy relevance and policy advocacy. Groupthink becomes the norm.

A related casualty is the democratic process. The Obama administration’s M.O. is to “enact” climate policies through regulations Congress has not approved and would reject if introduced as legislation and put to a vote. Such policies include the 54 mpg fuel-economy standard, application of best available control technology standards to major stationary greenhouse gas emitters, and a “carbon pollution rule” that effectively bans construction of new commercial coal generation. Administration officials and their allies invoke the “consensus of scientists” to explain why they “can’t wait” for the people’s representatives to act. [click to continue…]

In today’s Wall Street Journal, atmospheric scientists Richard McKnider and John Christy respond to Secy. of State John Kerry’s Feb. 16 pejorative-laden climate change speech in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Kerry lambasted so-called climate skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of anthropogenic climate change. He declared, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

McKnider and Christy note that they “embrace many of the facts” people like Kerry claim they deny (for example, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gas concentrations are rising due to industrial emissions). What skeptics deny is that there is solid evidence — scientific or economic — of an impending climate catastrophe. Many also argue that because global economic development is overwhelmingly fossil-fueled, abandoning carbon energy before commercially-viable alternatives are available is perilous and likely a “cure” worse than the alleged disease.

Kerry opines that “climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” Big picture data suggests otherwise. A century and more of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and global temperatures has also seen unprecedented improvement in the abundance of human life (population), health (average life expectancy), and per capita income.

Name-calling used to be considered beneath the dignity of the Secy. of State. But if it works for President Obama (“We don’t have time for a meeting the Flat-Earth Society”), who is Kerry to abstain from slinging snark?

The Flat-Earth hypothesis was once the “scientific consensus.” So who’s the real Flat-Earther in today’s climate debate? Someone, like Kerry, who exaggerates the “findings” of flawed climate models, or someone who is skeptical of climate models because of their growing failure to replicate climate reality?

McKnider and Christy post a chart that is one those pictures worth a thousand words.