Blog

More evidence of weak relationship between temperatures and malaria

by William Yeatman on July 6, 2004

in Science

A recent study conducted by G. Zhou and colleagues (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 2004) suggests once again that no strong correlation exists between global warming and malaria outbreaks. This stands in stark contrast to the oft-repeated claims of self-described malaria experts, such as the physician Paul Epstein.

In seven study sites conducted in the East African Highlands, Zhou et al. found that “malaria dynamics are largely driven by autoregression and/or seasonality” and that “the observed large among-site variation in the sensitivity to climate fluctuations may be governed by complex interactions between climate and biological and social factors,” including “land use, topography, P. falciparum genotypes, malaria vector species composition, availability of vector control and healthcare programs, drug resistance, and other socioeconomic factors,” among which are “failure to seek treatment or delayed treatment of malaria patients, and HIV infections in the human population,” which they say have “become increasingly prevalent.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the scientific consensus of malariologists, rather than climate change “experts,” is that climate is a minor factor in the recent spread of vector-borne diseases.

What consensus on sea level rise?

by William Yeatman on July 6, 2004

in Science

Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science panel on June 15 (see last issue), Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University and former holder of the Barbra Streisand Chair in Environmental Studies at Environmental Defense, told the audience, “The sea-level rise over the past century appears greater than what the model says it should be,” and that, “The [Greenland and Antarctic] ice sheets may be contributing more than the models predict.”  These statements completely contradict the latest scientific evidence on this topic.

Publishing in Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 31, 2004), Cambridge Universitys Peter Wadhams and Scripps Institution of Oceanographys Walter Munk described their careful calculations of the known contributions to sea-level rise (ocean warming, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and mid-latitude glaciers) over the last century. Their conclusion was, “We do obtain a total rise which is at the lower end of the range estimated by the IPCC.”

They also commented, “One interesting consequence is that the continental run-off which is allowed after subtracting the effect of sea ice melt is considerably lower than current estimates of sub-polar glacier retreat, suggesting a negative contribution from polar ice sheets (Antarctica plus Greenland) or from other non-glacial processes.” That is, as previous studies have concluded, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are probably thickening rather than melting.

Satire: New alternative-fuel SUV will deplete world’s hydrogen by 2070

by William Yeatman on July 6, 2004

in Science

DETROITFord announced a Sept. 3 rollout date for its new Ford Foresight, a hydrogen-powered SUV that, if it reaches sales projections, will deplete the earth’s supply of hydrogen by 2070. “America has asked for a car that does not use fossil fuels, and we’ve delivered,” Ford CEO William Ford Jr. said Monday. “With an engine nearly 20 times as powerful as that of our gas-burning SUV, the 11-ton Foresight will be unaffected by the price-gouging whims of OPEC, as it uses water electrolysis to gather fuel from the oceans and the fresh mountain air.” Ford acknowledged that, when hydrogen supplies are depleted, the usefulness of the Foresight, as well as life on earth as we know it, will end. (The Onion, Americas leading parody news source, found on the web June 15).

Second Senate vote on Kyoto-lite bill is delayed again

by William Yeatman on July 6, 2004

in Politics

The attempt by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Az.) to get another floor vote on their proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions has been delayed yet again. McCain said that they intended to offer part of their energy rationing proposal as an amendment to the class action liability reform legislation before the Senate this week. However, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) warned that he was determined to keep non-germane amendments from encumbering the bill and then on July 7 filed a cloture petition to end debate and bring the measure to a vote.

If cloture fails, then the Senate will drop consideration of the bill and move on to other bills that are less suitable vehicles for the Lieberman-McCain amendment. If cloture is invoked, then the rule will not allow the amendment. It is quite possible that no vote will occur before the August recess and the Senate may be too busy with appropriations bills in the fall to have time to consider it.

S. 139, the so-called Climate Stewardship Act, would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010 and at 1990 levels by 2016. The amendment would likely include only the first phase of reductions. A similar amendment was defeated on October 30, 2003 by a 55 to 43 vote.

Greenwire reported on July 7 that, “In pursuing the vote, McCain is following the same strategy he used to ultimately secure passage of campaign finance legislation after a bruising struggle that lasted nearly a decade. The goal, he said, is to keep the issue alive and make sure we get everyone on record.” McCain added, “It’s an old strategy of mine: Force votes on the issues. Ultimately, we will win.”

However, currently it appears that the measure would be lucky to get 43 votes in a second vote. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) missed the first vote, but has announced that he will vote no. Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) missed the first vote and is likely to miss a second now that he is campaigning for vice president. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), voted yes last fall, but is likely to miss a second vote as well. That puts the status quo at 56 to 42.

Several environmental groups are conducting major grassroots lobbying efforts to pressure several Senators to change their votes. Environmental Defense has a special fundraising appeal on its web site to “keep the heat on” called the 51 Club, which has raised $752,644 as of July 7. Targeted Senators include Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), David Pryor (D-Ark.), and Ben Nelson.

Californias auto emissions plan has costs but no benefits

by William Yeatman on July 6, 2004

in Politics

The Competitive Enterprise Institute submitted comments on July 7 to the California Air Resources Board (CARB)s draft proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles in the State. Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at CEI, argues first that the proposals are fuel economy regulation by the back door:

“The main greenhouse gas emitted by motor vehicles is carbon dioxide (CO2), an inescapable byproduct of the combustion of gasoline and other carbonaceous fuels. Because commercially proven technologies to filter out or capture CO2 emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles do not exist, the most feasible way to implement AB 1493 is via regulations increasing vehicle miles traveled per unit of fuel consumedin other words, via fuel economy regulations.

“However, as CARB is surely aware, the federal Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 preempts state action in the field of automobile fuel economy regulation. A law that effectively and significantly requires automakers to increase fuel economy is a fuel economy mandate, however named.”

Lewis also argues that the proposals impose costs without benefits: “The “maximum feasible” greenhouse gas reductions contemplated by AB 1493 are also supposed to be “cost-effective.” However, no regulation devised by CARB can be cost-effective, because no statewide program can effectively address the alleged problem of global warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

“Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research calculated that full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all industrialized countries, including the United States, would avert only 7/100ths of a degree C of global warming by 2050too small an amount for scientists reliably to detect. Any greenhouse gas reductions from a single sector within a single State would have even less effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations and, hence, on global climate change. Therefore, a CARB-administered AB 1493 program can have no discernible benefit to people or the planet. Yet the program will have measurable costs: up to $1,047 in additional expense for category 1 passenger car/light duty trucks and $1,210 for category 2 light duty trucks, according to CARB [page iii]. A program with substantial consumer costs and no detectable benefits is not cost-effective.”

Finally, CEI points to the cost imposed by the proposals on the consumer: “To help policymakers design “climate friendly” transportation systems, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change recently published a report, by David L. Greene of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Andreas Schafer of MIT, entitled Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation. The Pew report openly calls for fuel economy measures to reduce greenhouse gas reductions. However, the authors reveal that fuel economy mandates tend to impair consumer welfare.

“Citing the NRC fuel economy report and other relevant literature, Greene and Schafer estimate that the “present value of fuel savings for a typical passenger carincreases to $1,000 at $34 mpg and $2,000 at 44 mpg” over a “14-year vehicle life cycle.” However, fuel economy improvements also increase the sticker price of new cars, so much so that the “net value to the consumer (fuel savings minus vehicle price increase) is relatively modest, increasing to a maximum of about $200 at 33 mpg and decreasing to zero at 39 mpg.” But, that modest gain occurs only over the cars full 14-year life cycle. Most people sell or trade in their cars before 14 years. The survey literature suggests that most consumers will not invest in higher fuel economy unless they expect a payback in 2.8 years. Thus, for most consumers “no net savings are available from increasing fuel economy.” Indeed, Figure B on page 15 of the Pew report indicates that, as fuel economy increases to 37 mpg, the typical consumer loses $500 in net value.”

Lewis concludes by urging CARB to “brief Governor Schwarzenegger and the California legislature on the practical and legal impossibility of carrying out its mandate.”

No realistic way to stabilize CO2

by William Yeatman on July 1, 2004

in Politics, Science

Sir,

“Energy rationing without tears”that should have been the title of Lord Browne’s column (“Small steps to limit climate change”, June 30). He imagines that the world’s nations, via a series of “small steps”, could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) at 500 to 550 parts per million by 2050 “without doing serious damage to the world economy”.  This is pie in the sky.  A study in the November 1, 2002 issue of the journal Science, co-authored by 18 energy and climate experts, including several who worry about global warming as much as Lord Browne, examined possible technology options that might be used in coming decades to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations, including wind and solar energy, nuclear fission and fusion, biomass fuels, efficiency improvements, carbon sequestration and hydrogen fuel cells.

The authors found that “all these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilise global climate”.  They specifically took issue with the claim by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric CO2 stabilisation levels, such as 550 ppm, 450 ppm or below over the next 100 years”.  As noted in the study, world energy demand could triple by 2050.  Yet “energy sources that can produce 100 to 300 per cent of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or as pilot plants”. The bottom line: ” CO2 is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away.”

Given current and foreseeable technological capabilities, any serious attempt to stabilise CO2 levels via regulation would be economically devastating and, thus, politically unsustainable.  Lord Browne’s policy agenda is a dead end.  A small step on a journey one cannot complete and should not take is not progress; it is misdirection and wasted effort.

Dr. Margo Thorning on the economic impact of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act

by William Yeatman on June 29, 2004

in Small business



Dr. Margo Thorning
American Council for Capital Formation

Dr. Margo Thorning is senior vice president and chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation and director of research for its public policy think tank. Dr. Thorning also serves as the managing director of the International Council for Capital Formation. Thorning is an internationally recognized expert on tax, environmental, and competitiveness issues. She writes and lectures on tax and economic policy, is frequently quoted in publications such as the Financial Times, Suddeutsche Zeitung, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal, and has appeared internationally on public affairs news programs.


Dr. Thorning’s study on the economic impact of McCain/Lieberman on the U.S. and on several individual states is available at ACCF.org and UnitedForJobs2004.org.


Full Biography

The chat will begin at 2pm EDT on Wednesday, June 30.  You can send your questions now to chat@globalwarming.org .  Questions and answers will be posted as Dr. Thorning answers, beginning at 2pm.  Refresh your screen regularly to see questions and answers.

Moderator: Let me start by asking you, Dr. Thorning, to tell us a little bit about your study and summarize the results.

Dr. Thorning: The ACCF’s study (see www.accf.org) on the impact of the McCain/Lieberman legislation to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. shows significant negative impacts on the U.S economy and on individual states.  As a result of higher prices for energy, job losses could  be as much as 610,000 by 2020 and low income and the elderly bear a larger burden than high income and younger individuals.

Moderator: Katherine in Maryland wants to know —
Why would policymakers support a bill that causes substantial job
losses?


Dr. Thorning: If policy makers have not seen credible estimates using appropriate economic models the lost GDP and reduced employment they might think that meeting the McCain-Lieberman carbon emission reduction targets is virtually costless.  

The new ACCF study demonstrates the high costs to the US and to individual states.
Another possibility is that Senators from states that do not use much fossil fuel for industry may hope to gain a competitive advantage if other states are forced to curb energy use and switch fuels.


Moderator: Arthur in Pennsylvania asks —
Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company and second-largest insurance company, argues that, “Continued climate change will almost inevitably yield increasingly extreme natural events and large catastrophic losses.  This may make some vulnerable regions uninsurable.”  Even if most areas of the U.S. remain “insurable,” many risk management specialists have predicted that global warming
will cause significant increase in all types of insurance costs — disaster, auto, health.  Insurance prices are obviously just one area in which global warming could impact the economy.  What studies have been conducted on climate change’s costs to businesses?  


Dr. Thorning: Tech Central Station has posted responses to the Munich Re study.  One criticism is that the study does adjust for the rising value and increased building along coastal areas so that the apparent increase in damages over time are biased upward.


Moderator: Lucas in Virginia asks —
With oil prices relatively high due to the international situation, would the McCain/Lieberman bill help us to be less reliant on foreign oil?


Dr. Thorning: Given the restrictions on oil and gas drilling in the U.S. both onshore and offshore, and slow progress on new pipelines, it is unlikely that M/L legislation would reduce imports significantly. We will still find foreign oil cheaper so will not likely reduce our imports. In fact, the US might increase oil imports since foreign producers won’t be saddled with the carbon taxes or permit fees  contained in McCain Lieberman approach.


Moderator: Judy from Virginia wonders —
Do you think policymakers know what economic costs would be incurred? 

Dr. Thorning: Many probably do not as there has not been much debate yet about what the different  credible models say about the economic burden of ML legislation. The new ACCF report helps close this gap.


Moderator: Bill in DC asks —
In your analysis, what data and assumptions did you make regarding energy efficiency potential in the end-use and power generation sectors, and what cost assumptions did you make for those resources?


Dr. Thorning: In the high cost case, backstop technology is assumed to decline over time from $300 per tonne to $100 per tonne by 2050; in the low cost case the cost stays at $300 per tonne permanently. There is more reliance on combined heat and power, more nuclear and other technological progress that reduces energy intensity.

Moderator: Another question about foreign oil, this from Brian in DC —
SA 2028 hopes to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Is this possible?  Is this desirable?

Dr. Thorning: S.2028 might well increase dependence on foreign oil since producing domestically will become even more costly due to the need for producers to pay for the right to emit carbon as they produce oil, gas and coal.

Moderator: Richard in West Virginia asks —
What inspired McCain and Lieberman to introduce this act?


Dr. Thorning: It is not clear.
Sen. McCain voted against a BTU energy tax in the early 1990’s and Arizona is a big user of coal to produce electricity. Arizona would be negatively affected by the bill. Sen. Lieberman’s state, Connecticut, would not be as hard hit as many other states because of its fuel mix so perhaps the incentive was to gain competitive advantage for Connecticut.

Moderator: Katrina wonders —
How do you reconcile your findings regarding McCain Lieberman with those of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which states that there will be no negative employment effects and a reduction of natural gas demand and prices by 4 percent from reference case projections by 2020 due to incentives for greater energy efficiency?

Dr. Thorning: The MIT model ignored the impact of “foresight” on investors decisions about where to invest when they realize that carbon reduction targets will be tightening as time goes on. MIT also assumed households would not reduce the amount of labor supplied once they realize their real wages are falling.  Thus, MIT results understate the loss in GDP, investment and jobs compared to the model used in the ACCF analysis. See “Comparison of Models” at  www.accf.org for more details .

Moderator: Fran from Louisiana wants to know —
In which states will consumers be hit the hardest?

Dr. Thorning: Louisiana is one of the hardest hit, households lose as much as $2800 annually in 2020 under the tighter target case.

Moderator: Bill in DC has another question —
In other US cap and trade programs, such as the Acid Rain program, compliance costs on a per-ton basis fell rapidly below pre-program estimates.  In your analysis, have you run any scenarios that model such declines in the cost of emission reductions?

Dr. Thorning: The simulations assume an efficient trading system where the marginal cost of reducing emissions is the same across all sectors of the economy.

The analysis shows carbon taxes or the cost of permits rising as targets get harder and harder to achieve with growth in the economy and in population.

Moderator: Thomas from New York asks —
Would the bill hurt U.S. international competitiveness or would vulnerable sectors be excluded?

Dr. Thorning: About 85 percent of U.S. emissions are covered. Agriculture receives special treatment but would still face higher fuel cost.

U.S. competitiveness is affected due to higher prices for U.S. goods and services stemming from increased fuel and electricity costs.

Moderator: Thanks to everyone for their questions; that will conclude today’s live chat.  Check back regularly at www.globalwarming.org to find out about our next event.

Facing up to the true costs and benefits of wind energy

by William Yeatman on June 23, 2004

in Science

This paper [PDF] places the past (1950-2000) and prospective (2010-2025) contribution of wind energy in the context of overall US energy consumption and US electricity generation.  The paper demonstrates that the contribution of wind has been and will be tiny — despite the massive subsidies and mandates being provided, unwisely, by federal and state governments.

 The paper notes that the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) — using our tax dollars — has been highly successful in misleading the media, public, Congress and other federal and state regulators and legislators about the costs & benefits of wind energy.  The advocates have grossly overstated the benefits of wind energy, and greatly underestimated the environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value costs of wind energy.

 The false and misleading claims by the advocates have led to government policies, programs and regulations that are detrimental to the interests of consumers and taxpayers.

 The paper also admits that it is difficult, given the success of the advocates’ propaganda, to reverse bad federal and state wind energy policies, programs and regulations.  However, it notes that emerging citizen-led efforts around the world (e.g., US, UK, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand) are beginning to be effective in bringing the TRUTH about wind energy to the attention of the media, public and government officials.

Emissions still rising in Japan

by William Yeatman on June 22, 2004

in Politics, Science

Last month the Japanese government reported that greenhouse gas emissions for fiscal 2002 were 7.3 percent higher than the 1990 level. The Environment Minister Yuriko Koike said the Japanese government will now have to come up with very drastic measures in order to meet Japans Kyoto protocol target of cutting emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Government figures indicate that household and office emissions have increased.  This may have resulted from expanded home ownership and a burgeoning service sector.  Even while the energy efficiency of air-conditioners and automobiles has increased dramatically, Chiho Mito of the Energy Conservation Center, Japan, said, The energy saved by new technologies is offset by the increase in the number of [them].

Carbon dioxide emissions from the industrial sector have declined slightly.  Nevertheless, Hirata of Kiko Network stated this was largely the result of a stagnant economy, a trend that could easily reverse.  Hirata said the government may need to track emissions data for businesses and mandate reductions as they see necessary.  This would curtail economic production by restricting the amount of energy that companies expend (Japan Times, June 17).

Climate modeler admits to being often wrong

by William Yeatman on June 22, 2004

in Science

Two years after beginning a $20 million study of the effects of cirrus thunderhead clouds on the climate, NASA researchers have discovered that they play a significant part in determining how much sunlight is reflected back into space.

The studies directly contradict assumptions inherent in climate models, meaning that the role of cirrus formations in predicting climate will have to be reconsidered.

Weve got some amazing results that no one anticipated, says Anthony Del Genio, a climate modeler with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York, told the Christian Science Monitor (June 24). It’s humbling to find out how often you’re wrong.

The Monitor summarized, One of the most fundamental questions surrounds the size of the ice crystals that make up tropical cirrus clouds. A team led by Timothy Garrett at the University of Utah found that the ice crystals in anvil cirrus over south Florida are smaller and reflect light more effectively than most models assume. The results suggest that when the clouds are thick as they first form over the top of a thunderhead, they reflect substantially more light back into space than models currently show.

The researchers also found, however, that the ice crystals carried nitric acid, which acted as antifreeze, so therefore allowing more water present as vapor.  Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas.  In one case, the ice crystals were formed around dust from a plume that blew across the North Atlantic.  Again, this effect had not been accounted for in climate models.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →