Blog

NY Times Accuses White House of Censoring EPA Report; Energy Bill Update; Automakers Oppose Hydrogen Target

by William Yeatman on June 24, 2003

in Politics

NY Times Accuses White House of Censoring EPA Report

In a front-page story on June 19 and an editorial the following day, the New York Times accused the White House of partisanship and censoring science during the normal editing process of the State of the Environment report unveiled on June 23. The administration had moved to correct certain statements about the state of climate change science. In response, the EPA deleted the section on climate change entirely.

Much of the criticism centered on two issues. First, the replacement of the sentence “Climate changes has global consequences for human health and the environment,” with the statement, “The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future. Because of these complexities and the potentially profound consequences of climate change and variability, climate change has become a capstone scientific and societal issue for this generation and the next, and perhaps even beyond.” The NY Times summarized this alteration as “replacing statements about the risks of global warming with remarks that stress uncertainty.”

Secondly, the paper criticized the administration for deleting references to the National Assessment on Climate Change, a widely discredited document that relies on models that have been proven to have no better predictive power than tables of random numbers.

Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Foundation, was quoted as charging that “Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science.” This would seem to refer to the White House adding reference to the recent study by Willie Soon et al. that found worldwide evidence of extensive natural temperature variation during recorded history and beyond.

The Times pointed out that the Soon study had been “partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute,” but neglected to point out that 90 percent of the studys funding came from three government agencies the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. New Yorks paper of record did not address the question of whether leaving out reference to the Soon study might have been regarded as censorship.

Energy Bill Update

Since the beginning of June, the Senate has passed eight amendments to S. 14, the comprehensive energy bill.  Two, numbers 840 and 860, were sponsored by Senators Domenici (R-N.M.) and Bingaman (D-N.M.), and re-authorized Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding.  Two, Bingaman no. 867 and Alexander (R-Tenn.) no. 880 were adopted to ensure the availability of natural gas and to instruct the Secretary of Energy to report on natural gas supplies and demand. 

Others included an amendment by Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.) to promote the use of cellulosic biomass ethanol from agricultural residue, and an amendment sponsored by Domenici for the elimination of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE an additive used to increase oxygen in gasoline) from the fuel supply, and an amendment sponsored by Mary Landrieu (D-La.) aimed at reducing dependence on foreign oil, which passed 99-1, with Jon Kyl (R-Az.) being the lone dissenter who realized oil prices are set in a global market.

Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.) proposed an amendment to strike the provision relating to deployment of new nuclear power plants. The provision allows the government to aid in the creation of new power plants through loan guarantees and purchase agreements. Wyden and Sununu claimed that the provision amounted to $16 billion of high-risk loans. Their amendment was defeated on June 10, 48-50.

The Senate will probably take up the energy bill again some time in late July. Sen. Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has expressed determination to make the deals necessary in order to pass the bill before the August recess. There have also been persistent rumors that Senate Democrats intend to drag out debate until next year.

Automakers Oppose Hydrogen Target

At the Energy Efficiency Forum in Washington in mid-June, automakers claimed that Californias zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) program should be a warning to law-makers to avoid future mandates on fuel alternatives. Toyota, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors were referring to the California Air Resources Boards change in policy, switching from an electric vehicle mandate to one focusing on gas-electric hybrids and then fuel cell-powered vehicles. The failure of the electric vehicle mandate is blamed on high and rising costs and very low consumer demand.

One specific piece of legislation with which automakers disagree was Sen. Byron Dorgans (D-N.D.) bill, which would require hydrogen fuel cell vehicle accumulative sales reach 100,000 by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020. GM and other automobile manufacturers are already trying to find ways to sell hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by lowering costs and improving performance, but are still having problems with storing the fuel.

Also at the forum, U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman spoke about the Climate Leaders Program, which added 11 partners, making the total 41. The Climate Leaders Program is a voluntary initiative on climate change aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists are unhappy with the program, claiming that the goals are too low. (Greenwire, June 13).

Hydrogen Poses Risks to Ozone Layer; Atmospheric Mercury Declining; Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

by William Yeatman on June 24, 2003

in Science

Hydrogen Poses Risks to Ozone Layer

A report in the June 13 issue of Science entitled “Potential Environmental Impact of a Hydrogen Economy on the Stratosphere” suggests that hydrogen fuel cells could pose environmental risks.

The study theorizes that systems of molecular hydrogen (H2) production, storage, and transport will almost certainly involve some of the hydrogen escaping into the atmosphere. Current losses suggest that 10-20% of all H2 will escape, which implies that if all oil or gasoline combustion technologies were replaced with hydrogen fuel cells, anthropogenic H2 emissions would increase four to eight times.

The researchers suggest that the H2 would move up to mix with air in the stratosphere, where it would oxidize to form water vapor. This would result in a cooling of the lower stratosphere and would also enhance the chemical practices that destroy ozone. A fourfold increase in the amount of H2 in the stratosphere would lead to a stratospheric temperature decrease of about 0.25 C and ozone depletion of around five percent. These effects would rise to a 1 decrease and over 15 percent depletion with a sevenfold increase in H2.

The researchers also suggest that an increase in water vapor in the mesosphere could lead to an increase in noctilucent clouds, potentially affecting the earths albedo.

Atmospheric Mercury Declining

A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters (May 22) has found that total gaseous mercury levels have declined since their peak in the early 1980s. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry measured mercury levels in eight locations in both hemispheres as well as eight trans-Atlantic cruises over the course of more than twenty years. The study found that total gaseous mercury levels have declined since their peak in the early 1980s.  The findings correlate well with earlier research that found decreasing levels of mercury deposition dating back as far as fifty years. 

The study called into question the reliability of mercury models, saying that either “the area of man-made to natural emissions (including re-emissions) has been underestimated or the natural emissions undergo large temporal variations.”  If the discrepancy were natural, it would indicate a far greater degree of natural fluctuation than previously believed.

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

A June 17 story in the Independent of London was headlined, “Global warming may wipe out a fifth of wild flower species, study warns.” The actual study (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), however, suggested rather less.

The scientists looked at the effects of increased temperature, CO2, precipitation, and nitrogen on a small patch of California meadow, divided into plots of approximately one square yard. They found that under certain conditions, including increases in all four factors, the average number of forb species in the plots (small flowering plants like buttercups) decreased from about 4 to 3.2 over three years. This did not mean that the plots became less diverse, however, as other plant species took their place, leading in some cases to an increase in biodiversity.

The studys authors acknowledged that not all areas would respond to the effects of climate change like California meadows, something that did not make it through to the Independents coverage.

Global Warming Caused Permian Mass Extinction, Researcher Warns

A new book from Michael Benton, head of earth sciences at Bristol University in England, suggests that the mass extinction at the end of the Permian era, 250 million years ago was caused by a global warming of about 6 C. When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time suggests that a series of volcanic explosions caused a runaway greenhouse effect that led to the death of the vast majority of the species alive at the time.

Professor Benton told the Press Association: “The Permian crisis nearly marked the end of life. It’s estimated that fewer than one in 10 species survived. Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand how and why so many species died out so quickly.”

An advisor on the science behind the award-winning TV series Walking with Dinosaurs, Professor Benton is also the author of the Encyclopedia of Awesome Dinosaurs. (Sydney Morning Herald, June 20).

Scientists Revive Debate in Canada; Administration Aids State AGs Lawsuit; Mercury Numbers Look Shaky

by William Yeatman on June 10, 2003

in Politics

Scientists Revive Debate in Canada

An open letter published in Canadas National Post on June 4 urges Paul Martin, MP, Canadas Prime Minister in waiting, to undertake comprehensive scientific consultations on the Kyoto Protocol when he takes office following Jean Chretiens likely retirement. The letter was inspired by reports that Martin felt that Canadian ratification of Kyoto proceeded without adequate consultation with the provinces.

The letter was signed by 35 scientists, of whom 16 are Canadian. Tim Ball, for 28 years professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and one of Canadas first climate scientists, coordinated the letter. Also among the signatories was Freeman Dyson, emeritus professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, who has expressed strong skepticism about climate modeling.

The letter criticized Prime Minister Chretien for acting to ratify the protocol on the basis of a “gut feeling.” It provoked a reply from the Minister of the Environment, David Anderson, published in the National Post on June 9. Anderson called the signatories “dead wrong.” He argued for Chretiens “gut feeling” on the basis that there will never be absolute scientific certainty on climate change and so leaders need to act in order to avoid “analysis paralysis.”

Dr. Ball replied, “The real threat in all this is Mr. Andersons dogged determination to take draconian action on climate change without a proper assessment of the relevant science.”

The letter has been posted at www.sepp.org.

Administration Aids State AGs Lawsuit

On June 4, the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency for refusing to initiate a process for regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

Their suit, naming outgoing EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman as defendant, seeks to force the agency to apply National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to CO2 despite the fact that the Clean Air Act does not authorize regulation of CO2 or any climate-related programs.

According to Greenwire (June 4), the plaintiffs base much of their case on the idea that the EPA has “made clear its understanding of the possible scenarios that could result from unchecked carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, the AGs point to the administration-approved Climate Action Report released last June that said recent climate changes are likely due mostly to human activities and that predicted increases in temperature and weather variability could have serious negative ramifications, including major ecosystem transformations, diminishing water supplies, a 4-inch to 35-inch rise in sea levels and increased outbreaks of insect-borne diseases.”

Climate Action Report 2002 (actually issued in May) and the National Assessment on Climate Change have theoretically been disowned by the current administration, with the President stating that it was “put out by the bureaucracy.” However, various agencies continue to disseminate the documents on their web sites.

Christopher C. Horner, acting on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has petitioned under the Federal Data Quality Act to have the document removed from further dissemination, but is meeting resistance from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (see article in the DATE issue). The State Attorneys General lawsuit illustrates exactly how this obstinacy is creating problems for the administration itself.

State Legislative Update: New York, Illinois, Oregon, and New Jersey

Legislative activity continues in many States aimed at curbing CO2 emissions. Activity is currently at its most intense in Illinois, Oregon, New York and New Jersey.

In Illinois, HB 2563 aims at directing marine and rail terminals to operate so that trucks do not idle with their engines running for more than 30 minutes, on pain of a $250 fine. The bill is currently with the House Committee on Rules. SB 0143 would create a renewable energy portfolio standard law. It is currently before the Senate Committee on Rules.

In New Jersey, AB 2095 would increase fines for non-compliance with the renewable portfolio standard up to $10,000 to $100,000. AB 3238 would make the adoption of an emissions portfolio standard for power generators mandatory. Current law already requires power generators to track emissions in lbs per MWh of SO2, CO2 and NOx. The bill is currently before the Committee on the Environment. AB 3491 would prohibit diesel trucks from idling at marine terminals, and is currently before the Committee on Transportation.

In New York, AB 04082 would adopt Californias vehicle greenhouse gas regulations by 2009. It has been through the Committees on Environmental Conservation and Codes and was amended in the Assembly during May. AB 05933 would set performance standards for NOx, SO2, CO2 and Hg, and has passed the Assembly. It is currently before the Senate Committee on Environmental Conservation.

Also in New York, AB 06428 would set an emissions standard for NOx, SO2, Hg and CO2 based on lbs per MWh generated. It would make a CO2 emissions cap permanent by 2007 that is seven percent less than 1990 levels and also establish a credit trading program. The bill passed the Assembly in March and is currently before the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications. SB 00899 would set a clean energy requirement that 1.5 percent of each utilitys electricity supply comes from renewables, increasing by 0.5 percent each year until the requirement reaches six percent, after which it would increase by one percent annually until the requirement stands at ten percent. This bill is also currently before the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications.

In Oregon, HB 2788 would impose a tax on each fuel supplier and utility based on the amount of carbon in fuels sold to consumers or used to produce electricity. It would also create a renewable energy resources account fund for development of renewable energy resources. The bill was introduced in March.

Mercury Numbers Look Shaky

On June 5, the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety held a hearing on the Clear Skies Act, S.485, that focused on mercury. Reducing mercury emissions has been seen as a potential indirect means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions because it could force utilities to close coal-fired power plants.

Incidental mercury reductions, which the EPA initially anticipated would produce a decrease of 22 tons by 2010, will actually result in a reduction of only 2 to 14 tons from its current level of 48 tons per year according to Dr. Randall Kroszner, acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

According to Dr. Larry S. Monroe of the Electric Power Research Institute, the Clear Skies Acts mercury reduction scheme would reduce the fraction of the population above the reference dose for mercury by only 0.064%, at an estimated cost of 6 billion dollars.

Dr. Richard Bucher, on behalf of W.L. Gore and Associates, the makers of GORE-TEX fabrics, reported a breakthrough by his company in using their synthetics to capture mercury at rates higher than any commercially available products. According to Bucher, “Coal burning trial results . . . indicate mercury capture rates consistently in excess of 90%.” However, the technology is still in the testing stage and may not be available to power suppliers for years.

Earth Greening Rapidly Since 1980; Hazy Aerosol Picture Continues

by William Yeatman on June 10, 2003

in Science

Earth Greening Rapidly Since 1980

Something remarkable happened between 1980 and 2000. Researchers from a variety of institutions published a study, funded by NASA and the Department of Energy, in the June 6 issue of Science that found that, “Global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% globally.” The Amazon rain forests accounted for 42 percent of the observed increase in plant growth.

The Christian Science Monitor (June 6) related how unexpected this result was: “The surprise was twofold. The growth rate far exceeded what most scientists expected. Many models indicated that additional growth in the tropics would be minimal, given the fairly constant temperatures from one season to the next. In addition, many researchers had held that any increased productivity in the tropics would largely be driven by a rise in atmospheric CO2 rather than changes in climate itself.”

The scientists found that this increase was not necessarily due to the direct impact of increased take up of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 fertilization). According to Roger Highfield, writing in Londons Daily Telegraph (June 6), “In general, where temperatures restricted plant growth, it became warmer; where sunlight was needed, clouds dissipated; and where it was too dry, it rained more. In the Amazon, plant growth was limited by sun-blocking cloud cover, but the skies have become less cloudy. In India, where a billion people depend on rain, the monsoon was more dependable in the 1990s than in the 1980s.”

Commenting on what the study means for claims about deforestation, the lead author, Dr Ramakrishna Nemani, of the University of Montana, told the Telegraph that “the role of deforestation may have been overplayed a bit,” although he added that he felt that current forests ought to be preserved. Other team members expressed cautionary notes about the study, noting that the sustainability or otherwise of increased vegetation growth had not been assessed.

However, the most interesting comment on the study from one of its authors came from Dr Charles Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who told the Telegraph that, “The 36 per cent increase in global population, from 4.45 billion in 1980 to 6.08 billion in 2000, overshadowed the benefits that might have come from increases in plant growth.”

Hazy Aerosol Picture Continues

Confusion appears to reign over what the various recent reports on aerosols mean for the debate over global warming (see the past two issues). New Scientist (June 4) reports that “top atmospheric scientists got together, including Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, former chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” at a workshop in Berlin in late May to assess the implications of Anderson et al.s Perspectives piece for Science magazine, which cautioned that the sulfate aerosol cooling effect may be greater than models predict.

The Perspectives piece had said that this might mean either that the earths temperature is more naturally variable than thought or that the climate is more sensitive to forcing than thought. The Berlin workshop settled on the latter, and produced the prediction that, when sulfate aerosol production wanes, the earth might warm between 7-10 C based on the IPCCs worst-case scenario. Readers may remember that the worst-case scenario is based on the assumptions that the entire world will raise itself above the current economic output levels of the United States, population will continue to increase rapidly, and there are no major technological advances.

New Scientist admits that the calculations on which these dire predictions were based were “back-of-the-envelope” figures. Despite this extreme uncertainty, Will Steffen of the Swedish Academy of Sciences was quoted as saying that, “The message for policy makers is clear: We need to get on top of the greenhouse gas emissions problem sooner rather than later.”

Greenspan Testifies on Economics of Natural Gas; Utilities Back Emissions Caps

by William Yeatman on June 10, 2003

in Blog

Greenspan Testifies on Economics of Natural Gas

Prices of natural gas have risen dramatically as a result of environmental regulations that prohibit drilling in many areas and limit infrastructure development, according to witnesses testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 10. The availability and price of natural gas is of interest because most strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions assume large-scale fuel switching from coal to gas.

The American Gas Associations representative, Carl English, cited land access restrictions as the greatest difficulty in lowering prices that have more than doubled on average since July 2000. Jeffery R. Currie on behalf of Goldman Sachs requested public investment in infrastructure projects to reduce volatility, which has rocked the chemical industry, but was contradicted by Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan urged a market-based resolution to the problem and advised the committee to allow the free market greater access to world markets of liquefied natural gas as a way to reduce prices.

The Fed chairman assured members that LNG technology has grown to be very reliable and safe over the past decades. Currently only one percent of Americas natural gas supplies comes from overseas, but according to Greenspan the potential for growth in world natural gas markets is vast.

Utilities Back Emissions Caps

A coalition of eight electric utilities, energy investors, and environmentalist groups has urged the Federal Government to back mandatory caps on CO2 emissions. Their report, Electric Power, Investors, and Climate Change: A Call to Action, argues that greenhouse gas emissions will inevitably be regulated in the US, and that companies benefit by knowing when and how they will be limited. Furthermore, the current “patchwork of regulations and continued uncertainty” discourage investment and limit growth in the energy sector. Mandatory caps are seen as the answer to this uncertainty.

The utilities involved in the consortium stand to gain over their competitors if mandatory caps are introduced. They include: Calpine, the worlds largest producer of geothermal energy; Con Edison, the New York City utility which has divested itself of its generators in accordance with New York regulations and has recently asked FERC to “institute programs aimed at preventing unreasonably high energy prices and ensuring that consumers are protected from potential market abuses by power generators and marketers;” and KeySpan, a New England based utility which also has significant holdings in Canadian natural gas production.

The utilities report may be found on the web at www.ceres.org/newsroom/press/electricrecs.htm.

Energy Bill Prompts Rash of Proposals; Christy Testifies to House Resources Committee; Russia Cools on Kyoto

by William Yeatman on May 27, 2003

in Politics, Students

Energy Bill Prompts Rash of Proposals

The Senate energy bill, S. 14, when published in draft form contained a climate change title. Three specific provisions raised alarm bells for many the requirement for a national strategy to “stabilize and over time reduce net U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases,” including annual reports; a revival of the Clinton-Gore Administrations White House climate czar and office; and a program to award credits for early action in reducing emissions.

Following protests against the title, such as a letter to Sen. Pete Domenici (R.N.M.), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and sponsor of the bill, signed by representatives of 21 nonprofit organizations including members of the Cooler Heads Coalition, the title was dropped from the draft bill. Nor does the bill contain any reference to a higher CAFE standard, a Renewable Portfolio Standard for utilities, or an expanded ethanol mandate.

These omissions have led to a rash of proposed amendments. The Environment and Public Works committee has passed out an ethanol mandate similar to last year’s 5 billion gallon per year mandate with some slight improvements. The mandate will ban the current most popular additive MTBE, which has been accused of contaminating groundwater. Ethanol, however, has environmental problems of its own, as more emissions are generated in the production of the added ethanol than in the burning of the gasoline it replaces. Sens. Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer have signaled that they will again try to defeat the ethanol mandate, but are unlikely to succeed.

The Senate is scheduled to resume floor debate on the bill on Monday 2 June and will continue debate throughout the week. Several Senators are likely to propose amendments reinstating climate change provisions to the bill. It is probable that the Energy and Natural Resources Committees ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D.N.M.), will offer language similar to that approved in Titles X, XI and XIII in last years Energy bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Daschle (D.S.D.).

Other possibilities include climate change proposals sponsored by Sens. McCain, Lieberman, Jeffords, Carper, Gregg and possibly others. Any proposal to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for automobiles is likely to be defeated following last years lopsided vote against them.

Further developments will be featured in the next newsletter.

Christy Testifies to House Resources Committee

The House Resources Committee held a field hearing in Saint Clairsville, Ohio on May 13 on the potential economic effects of Kyoto-style policies on coal-dependent communities. A bleak future for Ohios coal communities if CO2 emissions are limited was described in testimony by Robert Murray, a major independent coal producer, Eugene Trisko, representing the United Mine Workers of America, Gary Obloy of the Community Action Commission of Belmont County, and others.

Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, described the shaky scientific basis for global warming alarmism. He then widened the discussion of the negative social and economic effects of energy-rationing policies by drawing on his experiences as a missionary in east Africa.

Christy expanded on his comments in a May 22 letter to the chairman of the Resources Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo (R.Calif.), in which he wrote:

“I’ve always believed that establishing a series of coal-fired power plants in countries such as Kenya (with simple electrification to the villages) would be the best advancement for the African people and the African environment.

“An electric light bulb, a microwave oven and a small heater in each home would make a dramatic difference in the overall standard of living. No longer would a major portion of time be spent on gathering inefficient and toxic fuel. The serious health problems of hauling heavy loads and lung poisoning would be much reduced.

“Women would be freed to engage in activities of greater productivity and advancement. Light on demand would allow for more learning to take place and other activities to be completed. Electricity would also foster a more efficient transfer of important information from radio or television. And finally, the preservation of some of the most beautiful and diverse habitats on the planet would be possible if wood were eliminated as a source of energy.

“Providing energy from sources other than biomass (wood and dung), such as coal-produced electricity, would bring longer and better lives to the people of the developing world and greater opportunity for the preservation of their natural ecosystems.

“Let me assure you, notwithstanding the views of extreme environmentalists, that Africans do indeed want a higher standard of living. They want to live longer and healthier with less burden bearing and with more opportunities to advance.

“New sources of affordable, accessible energy would set them down the road of achieving such aspirations. These experiences made it clear to me that affordable, accessible energy was desperately needed in African countries.

“As in Africa, ideas for limiting energy use…create the greatest hardships for the poorest among us. As I mentioned in the Hearing, enacting any of these noble-sounding initiatives to deal with climate change through increased energy costs, might make a wealthy urbanite or politician feel good about themselves, but they would not improve the environment and would most certainly degrade the lives of those who need help now.”

Russia Cools on Kyoto

Following Americas decision not to move forward with the Kyoto Protocol, environmentalist attention has switched to Russia, as the protocol cannot become international law without Russian ratification. Russia had been expected to ratify the protocol this year as its ailing economy had already met emissions targets thanks to the forced closure of so many emissions sources.

However, following several years of strong economic growth, moves to ratify the protocol have slowed. German Gref, Minister for Economic Development and Trade, has been accused by the World Wildlife Fund of blocking ratification by failing to move the process forward. Speaking at the G8 meeting at the end of April, the junior Minister for Natural Resources, Irina Ossokina told Agence France Presse, “I would like to underline that we at the Ministry of Natural Resources are wholly and truly for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol but unfortunately we have a difference of opinion within the country We were hoping to ratify this summer but we were having difficulties with our economic advisors.”

Meanwhile, Russian scientists are playing a large role in organizing a major International Conference on Climate Changes, scheduled to take place in Moscow this fall. The chair of the conference, Yuriy Izrael, told Russian reporters, “We are looking forward to serious, interesting discussions We are not going to create new contradictions but … find out what is really going on on this planet – warming or cooling.”

Izrael went on to say, “The most important issue, whether [ratifying the Kyoto Protocol] will bring about an improvement of the climate or its stabilization, or its worsening, is not clear.” (AFP, April 27, St Petersburg Times, 13 May).

Effect of Land Use Change on Climate Greater than Thought; Hazy Picture over Aerosols

by William Yeatman on May 27, 2003

in Science

Effect of Land Use Change on Climate Greater than Thought

Last year, Roger Pielke, Sr., of Colorado State University added another complicating factor to the debate over what causes rising surface temperatures when he coauthored a major study that found that land use changes may be at least as important as greenhouse gas emissions in accounting for climate change. Growing urban areas, deforestation and reforestation, agriculture and irrigation can have strong influences on regional temperatures, precipitation and large-scale atmospheric circulation.

Now, new research from Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai of the University of Maryland backs up Pielkes conclusions. By comparing observed surface temperatures with a reconstruction of global weather over the past 50 years, they were able to estimate the impact of land-use changes on surface warming.

They concluded that there had been an average increase of 0.27C in surface temperature per century attributable to urban and other land-use changes. This represents half the observed change in the range of daytime temperatures, and is twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone. (Nature, May 29)

Hazy Picture over Aerosols

Coming hard on the heels of the findings that soot may be responsible for more atmospheric warming than was previously thought (see previous issue), a team of researchers has looked again at the question of how much the atmosphere might be cooled by the presence of sulfate aerosols.

Their research, published in the Perspectives section of Science magazine, compared the likely cooling effects of aerosols worked out from first principles with the likely effects predicted by climate models. They found a discrepancy between the two that they were unable to explain.

The authors argue that their findings suggest that anthropogenic activity will certainly lead to a strong “forcing” of the Earths climate between 2030 and 2050. However, they also admit that the discrepancy means that “the possibility that most of the warming to date is due to natural variability must be kept open.” (Science, May 16)

Etc

Point / Counterpoint

“[Kyoto] is about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.”

–– EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, (quoted in the Independent, Mar. 19, 2002)

“Of course its about money, about rubles. They are trying to calculate how much [the Kyoto protocol] will give.”

–– Wallstrom, in response to Russian reluctance to ratify the protocol, (quoted by Reuters, May 12)

Pew Center Reports Back Mandatory Limits on Emissions; European Emissions Trading Price Lower than Expected

by William Yeatman on May 27, 2003

in Blog

Pew Center Reports Back Mandatory Limits on Emissions

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change released two reports on May 15 analyzing what it viewed as the best options available to tailor a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions program for the U.S.A.

The first report, “Emissions Trading in the U.S.: Experience, Lessons and Considerations for Greenhouse Gases,” (lead author, Danny Ellerman of MIT) examines the history of emissions trading in respect to other environmental concerns such as acid rain. Ellerman argues that a well designed program can “provide a framework to meet emissions reduction goals at the lowest possible cost.” Trading programs provide incentives by motivating those who can reduce emissions at low cost to reduce emissions more than under a command and control mechanism. The authors find that the historic programs have succeeded in lowering the cost of meeting targets for emissions reduction and at the same time have “enhanced not compromised the achievement of environmental goals.”

The authors also examined voluntary features and concluded that they may merit inclusion in any greenhouse gas emissions trading program, but caution that their role should be “determined by weighing the cost savings benefit against the emissions increasing potential.”

The second report, “Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the U.S.”, examines three options for such a program: cap and trade (in several forms), a greenhouse gas tax, and sectoral hybrid programs. The examination of cap and trade programs looked at a conventional program, a “downstream” program where the sources of greenhouse gas emissions are required to surrender allowances equal to their emissions, and an “upstream” program that applies to fuel suppliers, requiring them to surrender allowances equivalent to the carbon content of the fuels they distribute.

The authors found that a downstream program would be “unadministrable” while an upstream program would raise the costs of gasoline and home heating unacceptably. A greenhouse gas tax would be politically infeasible. The authors therefore argue that a hybrid scheme combining a downstream program with product efficiency standards that would aim to reduce emissions from automobiles and appliances.

The authors admit that their preferred scheme would be more costly and administratively complex than other proposals, but “may score better on political acceptability because it constrains domestic greenhouse gas emissions while largely shielding consumers from fuel price increases.” Consumers, in other words, will not associate the rise in their cost of living with Greenhouse Gas Reduction efforts.

European Emissions Trading Price Lower than Expected

European investment bank Dresdner Bank has estimated that the right to emit a ton of carbon dioxide will probably trade at a price of around 10 ($11.69) in the European emissions certificates market in 2005.

The estimate is based on approaches from interested brokers. The head of Dresdners corporate sustainability division, Armin Sandhoevel, told reporters that the upper bound of trading would probably be around 20.

This estimate is considerably below the price range assumed by the European Commission of 20-33 during the first period of trading, scheduled for 2005-2008.

This news will be a blow to Germany, whose ailing economy contains most of the companies liable to sell high-value emissions owing to the shutdown of heavy industry in East Germany following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Spain, Austria and the Netherlands are the likely beneficiaries. (Reuters, May 26)

Making the Data Fit the Model; Soot May Pose More Problems than Previously Thought

by William Yeatman on May 14, 2003

in Science

Making the Data Fit the Model

Science magazine claimed, “A stubborn argument against global warming may be discredited by a re-analysis of the data central to its claims,” when it published, via Scienceexpress.org, a paper by Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California on May 1. Santers team was tackling the well-known argument that atmospheric temperature data from satellites fail to show the warming trend found in surface level observations. By comparing a new dataset to a model that predicts warming in the troposphere, he was able to claim that his team had detected a warming trend of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade.

This is considerably above the level of +/- 0.05 degrees C per decade previously accepted as demonstrated by the satellite data. The standard dataset is produced by a team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), led by John Christy. The new dataset, produced by Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) of Santa Rosa, California, is based on the idea that variations between satellites and their orbits can cause variations in the data that need to be accounted for. The RSS data remain unpublished, however, and Christys team has amended its data to account for the factors highlighted by Wentz.

The new study by Santer is based on the idea that there must still be something wrong with the UAH dataset because it fails to match the consequences for the troposphere proposed by the climate model Santer uses. That model appears to predict consequences for the stratosphere quite accurately. Because the RSS data match the predicted warming trend better, Santer suggests that the failure to find a warming trend in the UAH data may be due “an artifact of data uncertainties.”

Christy, however, was already undertaking a rigorous analysis of the UAH data to estimate its error range. His re-examination was published in the May 2003 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. By comparing the satellite data to independent data obtained from weather balloons, he was able to re-affirm the reliability of the UAH data. Santers paper suggested that there might be a problem with the balloon data as well.

Christy cast doubt on the reliability of Santers model, telling Reason magazine science correspondent Ron Bailey, “Its a lot easier to model the stratosphere because you only have to consider radiational effects. The troposphere is much messier. It contains complicated things likes clouds, convection, moisture and dust.”

He went on to tell the Oakland Tribune, “It does not bother me that our data do not agree with their virtual model of the world Its a curious way to do science, to use a model to verify data rather than the other way around. If you follow this too far down that road, youre in danger of saying, Its my theory thats correct and the real world thats wrong.” (Ron Bailey, Tech Central Station, May 1).

Soot May Pose More Problems than Previously Thought

The IPCCs Third Assessment Report issued in 2001 argued that “sulfate aerosol” emissions from burning coal helped cool the atmosphere, accounting for the lower than expected warming trend so far detected. Further research, however, from such individuals as James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, suggested that the presence of “black carbon” aerosols soot raises atmospheric temperatures as the particles absorb solar radiation. It was initially thought that the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols and the warming effect of black carbon cancelled each other out.

Hansen and his colleagues published further research on the subject in the May 13 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper looked at how smoke and other black carbon in the atmosphere interacts with sunlight and chemicals to contribute to climate change. The research team, from NASA, Columbia University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found that “a rapid rise in worldwide temperatures over the last 50 years may be largely due to smoky particles in the air.”

Co-author and NASA scientist Dorothy Koch told the Los Angeles Times, “All black carbon does is absorb sunlight If you put more into the atmosphere, you increase the warming.” Other experts, like Stanford University climatologist and leading global warming alarmist Stephen Schneider, urged caution.

The study speaks directly to one of the central issues surrounding the adoption or rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. One reason the administration has given for rejecting the deal is the large accumulation of atmospheric pollutants over southern Asia known as the “Asian Brown Cloud.” The presence of the two-mile thick phenomenon appears to be due to forest fires, the burning of wood and dung in stoves and in the increased use of fossil fuels in developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol exempts developing countries from having to reduce their emissions from such sources. (Greenwire, May 6 2003).

Announcement

With this issue, Iain Murray becomes Managing Editor of Cooler Heads. He has also joined CEI as a Senior Fellow in Environmental Policy. Iain was formerly Director of Research at the Statistical Assessment Service, where he examined a wide range of scientific problems in public policy and the media.

Iain writes regularly for Techcentralstation.com and for United Press International. As a British citizen, he worked for the UK Department of Transport on railroad privatization before coming to the US in 1997. He holds an MA from Oxford University, an MBA from London University, and the Diploma of Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine.

Menendez Amendment Threatens State Department Bill; Competing Lobbies Argue Over CO2 Caps in Senate

by William Yeatman on May 14, 2003

in Politics

Menendez Amendment Threatens State Department Bill

On May 7, the House International Relations Committee approved an amendment to the State Department reauthorization bill that says the United States should “demonstrate international leadership” in climate change issues. The resolution, added to H.R. 1950 during a markup session and proposed by Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), contains language similar to that added to the Senate version of the bill by the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman on April 9.

The amendment was approved by the committee by 21 votes to 18, with Republicans Jim Leach (Iowa) and Chris Smith (N.J.) voting in favor alongside 19 committee Democrats (two Democrats missed the vote). Six Republican members of the committee were not present for the vote. They were: Elton Gallegly (Calif.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Amory Houghton (N.Y.), Nick Smith (Mich.), Jo Ann Davis (Va.) and Katherine Harris (Fla.).

The amendment commits Congress to agreeing that “manmade greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change” and accepts the conclusion of the IPCC that “most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Menendezs amendment also expresses concern over rising sea levels, changes in crop yields, and the spread of tropical infectious diseases.

Although Rep. Menendez said that he was “not here to advocate the Kyoto Protocol,” the amendment advocates Kyoto-style energy rationing mechanisms and urges the United States to rejoin the Kyoto negotiations in order to negotiate a second protocol.

The committee passed a similar amendment proposed by Rep. Menendez during the last Congress. It was removed during the conference stage owing to the efforts of then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Fears that the House leadership might not send the bill to the floor if it contains the language were reflected by Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who said that he felt the amendment was unnecessary, given the administrations commitment to spend $1.7 billion on climate research this year.

The committee voted for the amendment despite a strong effort mounted by opponents. A joint letter criticizing the amendment was sent to the committee members by 33 non-profit groups. Signers included 12 members of the Cooler Heads Coalition: Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Frontiers of Freedom, American Legislative Exchange Council, 60 Plus Association, National Center for Public Policy Research, Center for Security Policy, Small Business Survival Committee, American Policy Center, Heartland Institute, and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Another joint letter from trade associations was organized by the National Association of Manufacturers. A detailed and exhaustively footnoted refutation of the amendments was produced and circulated by the Center for Science and Public Policy and CEI. (Greenwire, May 8, 2003)

Competing Lobbies Argue Over CO2 Caps in Senate

As the Senate begins debate on the energy bill, S. 14, a coalition of nine energy companies is supporting a bipartisan plan to reduce air emissions from electric utilities in preference to the competing Clear Skies plan supported by the Bush administration.

The Clean Energy Group (CEG), consisting of Conectiv, Consolidated Edison, Entergy Corp., Exelon Corp., KeySpan, PG&E National Energy Group, Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., and Sempra Energy, dissents from the Bush administration’s suggestion that mandating carbon dioxide (CO2) controls from power plants is too costly and will wreak economic havoc.

CEG argues that the Clean Air Planning Act (CAPA), introduced by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Judd Gregg (R-NH), reduces pollution far more than the administration’s Clear Skies legislation, including CO2 reductions omitted by Clear Skies, at only slightly greater cost $66.7 billion as against $65.4 billion over twenty years from 2005 to 2025. The Carper-Gregg Bill presents tougher standards and shorter timetables than Clear Skies. The EPA is preparing its own comparison of Clear Skies and the Carper bill, following Carpers request for an agency comparison at an April 8 Senate committee hearing.

The group also argues that the even stricter bill introduced by Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) with the support of environmental groups is far more costly than the Carper bill. A 2001 EPA analysis of an earlier Jeffords proposal to reach those same emission targets by 2007 concluded that overall costs would be between $13 billion and $30 billion annually.

Some voices in the Senate suggest the CEG analysis is tainted as the group includes members of the nuclear industry. The Carper bill would allow the nuclear industry to sell emission credits to coal-powered utilities at a profit, because the industry does not emit CO2. One lobbyist backing the Clear Skies plan says the Carper plan would provide “free money” to the nuclear industry.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →