Blog

Cold Winds Blowing in Canada; EPA: Clear Skies Initiative Would Increase Coal Use

by William Yeatman on April 16, 2002

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Cold Winds Blowing in Canada

Canadian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol continues to recede into the future, as provincial opposition led by Alberta increases. The Chretien government had pledged to ratify before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in lat August, but it appears unlikely that it will meet that target. Prime Minister Jean Chretien said that, “I think its important for Canada to position itself so as to sign Kyoto one day” (The Globe and Mail, April 16, 2002).

Environment Minister David Anderson admitted in an interview for the first time that meeting its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by to 6 percent below 1990 levels could cost about $10 billion (US$6.35 billion) per year. But, said Anderson, that is a worthwhile cost in a $1.1 trillion (US$ 700 billion) economy. He also pointed out that Canada spends $12.5 billion (US$ 7.94 billion) per year on national defense (The Globe and Mail, April 5, 2002).

In a last-ditch effort to make a deal that would assuage internal opposition, Anderson tried to secure concessions from the European Union at the recent meeting of the G-8 environmental ministers that would allow Canada to receive emissions credits for exporting natural gas and oil to the U.S., arguing that by selling these “cleaner” fuels to the U.S. Canada is actually contributing to greenhouse gas reductions.

The European Union rejected the proposal out of hand. Margo Wallstrom, the EUs environment commissioner, responded that, “To count credits from trading with the United States, (which) has chosen to stand outside the protocol, would undermine the fundamentals and principles of Kyoto” (The Toronto Star, April 13, 2002).

Unlike Japan and Russia, Canadas ratification is not essential to meet the legal threshold to bring the protocol into force. Thus, while Japan and Russia have succeeded in extracting huge concessions from the EU, Canada is negotiating from a position of weakness.

“Canada does not want to sign up to Kyoto but it also wants to avoid the image problems which that would cause,” said one senior EU delegate at the G-8 meeting (Reuters, April 15, 2002).

Under Canadas federal system its national government has authority to ratify treaties. However, implementing domestic measures to satisfy international commitments, such as the Kyoto Protocol, requires provincial co-operation. Alberta Prime Minister Ralph Klein now appears determined that his provinces vast oil, gas and oil sands reserves will not be locked up or devalued by the Kyoto Protocol.

EPA: Clear Skies Initiative Would Increase Coal Use

An analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency claims that under President Bushs Clear Skies Initiative the amount of coal burned for electric power will increase by 7.3 percent over 2000 levels by 2020, or by about 79 million tons per year.

“Fuel diversity is maintained under the Clear Skies Initiative,” according to the EPA document. “Without legislation, generation from coal would likely be a smaller portion of the total fuel mix in 2020.”

Even with Clear Skies, however, the proportion of coal use in the production of electricity will fall from over 50 percent to under 45 percent. Moreover, “Enactment of Clear Skies will result in a slight increase in the number of coal mining jobs projected in 2020 relative to not enacting Clear Skies,” said the document.

Frank ODonnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, claims that the real motive behind the administrations Clear Skies Initiative is “to protect the coal industry.” Environmental activists are also concerned that the initiative would wipe away many existing Clean Air Act provisions and actually lower the emissions reduction required under law. They favor the Jeffords bill that has tougher emissions cuts under shorter timetables and would force more switching from coal to natural gas.

The National Mining Association disagrees with the EPAs assessment, however. According to their own analysis, based on Department of Energy numbers, coal use will increase by 300 million tons by 2020 under the existing Clean Air Act. Clear Skies, on the other hand, would lead to much smaller increases in coal use (BNA Daily Environment Report, April 17, 2002).

EU Wants an Air Tax; British Emissions Scheme Flawed; Multi-pollutant Bills are “Cutting Edge” of Kyoto Agenda

by William Yeatman on April 16, 2002

in Blog

EU Wants an Air Tax

A European Union plan to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from commercial flights would force air passengers to pay up to $72 per ticket. As noted by Londons Times (April 4, 2002), “The charge could be imposed on all airlines within two years, adding 50 [$72] to the cost of flying from London to California, 35 [$50] to flights to New York and between 5 and 10 [$7 and $14] to flights within Europe.”

Previous attempts to tax airlines were frustrated because airlines simply threatened to change their routes to “fill up” in countries where there is no tax. But the new plan would be implemented throughout the EU to encourage airlines to purchase more fuel efficient airplanes and to discourage people from flying.

Tim Johnson, of the Aviation Environment Federation coalition of environmental groups, said the levy would simply discourage nonessential flights. “Offering flights to Dublin for 8 [$11.50] return is creating demand that wouldnt be there if the price was more realistic.”

But Greener by Design, a lobby group that opposes the tax, said, “This is nothing other than a holiday tax on poor people and those who pay fares out of pocket would suffer the most.”

British Emissions Scheme Flawed

Serious questions are being raised about the validity of greenhouse gas reductions under Great Britains new emissions trading scheme. The program got underway with an auction in which the government offered a price for each ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) reduced. Participating companies then bid by offering greenhouse gas reductions at the offered price.

According to a report by UK-based Environmental Data Services, however, “There are strong grounds for suspecting that at least half and possibly much more of the claimed emission reductions are either not real, or would have been delivered anyway.” What this means is that some of the companies involved in the program may be the beneficiaries of huge financial windfalls without doing a thing.

Under the program, a companys baseline from which it must reduce emissions to get credits is calculated from its average yearly emissions from 1998, 1999, and 2000. The program also attempts to eliminate credit for “hot air” reductions by only taking into account actual emissions that exceeded existing regulatory caps. But according to the report, “DEFRAs [Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] rules are poorly thought through and, when combined with the shortcomings in the Environment Agencys regulatory controls, have failed to prevent a huge injection of hot air into the scheme.”

An egregious reported example is that of Ineos Fluor, a company that makes refrigerants that are also greenhouse gases. The global warming potential of HFC-23, for instance, is 11,700 times that of CO2. In 1999, Ineos installed a 6 million incinerator to reduce its HFC-23 emissions, which fell from 864 tons in 1998 to 304 tons in 1999 and 45 tons in 2000.

HFC-23 emissions were already regulated, but only as part of an overall rule that limited the collective release of all volatile organic compounds. This was the figure applied by DEFRA when it calculated Ineoss baseline.

According to the report, “The baseline would be 148 tons of HFC-23. But if emissions continue at the 2000 level of 45 tons, Ineos is already more than 100 tons or 1.2mtCO2e [metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent] below its baseline.

On this basis, the company could easily meet its final emission reduction target of 0.8mtCO2e and have a massive surplus of credits to sell in the schemes early years when its targets are less tight.” Ineoss incentive payment was worth 43 million, a pretty good return on its 6 million investment.

Other participants that appear also to be in line for such windfalls under differing circumstances are the chemical companies Dupont and Rhodia, oil companies Shell and BP (Beyond Petroleum), and British Airways.

Multi-pollutant Bills are “Cutting Edge” of Kyoto Agenda

A new study published by the American Legislative Exchange Council takes a look at the various multi-pollutant bills being considered by the U.S. Congress and finds that they are wasteful and largely devoid of benefits.

The study notes that, “Senator James Jeffordss (I-VT) “Clean Power Act” (S. 556) and Representative Henry Waxmans (D-CA) “Clean Smokestack Act” (H.R. 1256) are the Kyoto agendas cutting edge in the 107th Congress. These bills would require substantial reductions in power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury, and carbon dioxide (CO2), the principle greenhouse gas targeted by the Kyoto Protocol.

The author, Dr. Marlo Lewis, Jr., a former staff director for Representative David McIntoshs House Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and currently a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, presents several reasons why pursuit of these policies would be folly:

  • The Jeffords-Waxman bills are based on the false premise that reducing fossil fuel use is a prerequisite to reducing air pollution. History shows dramatic air quality improvements paralleling large increases in energy consumption, population and GDP.

  • The bills include CO2 reductions as a component of air quality management even though the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on air quality.

  • Including CO2 in an air quality management bill is “horrendously wasteful.” As noted by the Energy Information Administration, “Reducing NOX and SO2 emissions 75 percent below 1997 levels by 2005 would cost $6 billion. Reducing CO2 emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2005 would cost $77 billion.” Integrating the two reduction strategies would also cost $77 billion, which would get the same “air quality” results that could be obtained for $6 billion.

  • These bills would be completely useless in averting global warming. If fully implemented, the Kyoto Protocol would prevent a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2050 too little to detect. A domestic program would do even less. To obtain a copy of the study, contact Bob Adams at (202) 466-3800.

Study Shows Large Natural Warming

by William Yeatman on April 2, 2002

in Science

A period of high global temperatures near the beginning of the last millennium closely matches the warming witnessed, about one degree Fahrenheit, during the 20th century, according to a new study in the March 22 issue of Science.

The studys authors, Drs. Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber at the Swiss Federal Research Institute, and Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, state that “Much of the current debate on the Earths climate variability is driven by the observation of a modern, century-long temperature increase, culminating with the last decade of the 20th century as the warmest since 1856.”

Using tree ring data from 14 different sites on three different continents in the Northern Hemisphere, the researchers constructed a temperature record of the last 1000 years. What they found was that the “MWP [Medieval Warm Period] was likely to have been a large-scale phenomenon in the NH [Northern Hemisphere] extratropics that appears to have approached, during certain intervals, the magnitude of 20th-century warming, at least up to 1990.”

This finding contradicts an earlier study by Mann, et al. that appeared in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. That study combined tree ring data and the instrumental temperature record and “shows an almost linear temperature decrease from the year 1000 to the late 19th century, followed by a dramatic and unprecedented temperature increase to the present time,” according to Esper, et al. That study served as the basis for claims in the Third Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the current warming is greater than at any other time in the last 1000 years.

A commentary that accompanies the study notes that, “The warming of the 20th century is seen more clearly as a continuation of a trend that began at the start of the 19th century, not the early 20th.” It also notes that, “the curve of Esper et al. provides evidence for greater climate variability in the last 1000 years than has yet been generally accepted.”

“We dont use this as a refutation of greenhouse warming,” Edward Cook told CBS News. “But it does show that there are processes within the Earths natural climate system that produce large changes that might be viewed as comparable to what we have seen in the 20th century. Greenhouse gases were not a factor back in the Medieval Warm Period.”

Alberta to Propose Kyoto Alternative; Americans Mostly Unconcerned About Global Warming

by William Yeatman on April 2, 2002

in Politics

Alberta to Propose Kyoto Alternative

The province of Alberta, Canada will propose a greenhouse gas reduction plan as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, according to its Environment Minister, Lorne Taylor. The plan will resemble the one proposed by President George W. Bush, in that it will rely on financial incentives to develop technologies that would emit fewer greenhouse gases.

Taylor argues that the early numbers from a joint federal-provincial group analyzing the potential economic impact of Kyoto show the costs to be unacceptable. He told the National Post (March 28, 2002), “My understanding is that the numbers that will come out of that process will be higher than Ottawa has expected and so [Ottawa is] looking outside that process now at other studies to see what they can find.”

The studys preliminary findings are similar to those from a study that Albertas provincial government conducted last year, said Taylor. That study found that the cost of Kyoto to the Canadian economy would be about two to four percent of GDP, or about $20 to $40 billion per year. The alternative plan is designed to help persuade the federal government not to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to give it another acceptable option.

According to Taylor, the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and New

Brunswick support Albertas stance on Kyoto, while Quebec, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are opposed.

The National Post also reported on March 29 that Prime Minister Jean Chretien “appeared to be softening his commitment to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.”

Americans Mostly Unconcerned About Global Warming

A new Gallup Poll to measure the publics attitudes towards global warming has found that a plurality of the public, 40 percent, are either “only a little” or “not at all” worried about global warming. Twenty nine percent said they are worried a “fair amount” and another 29 percent said they are worried a “great deal.”

The number of Americans worried a great deal about global warming has fallen from 40 percent in 2000. As an issue, however, it has always ranked near the bottom of a list of the top ten environmental problems that Americans worry a great deal about, with only acid rain ranking lower.

Asked whether they understand the issue of global warming only 17 percent said they understand the issue “very well.” Another 52 percent said they understand if “fairly well” while the remainder of those polled said “not very well” or “not at all.”

The public is evenly split over its perceptions about media coverage of global warming. Thirty one percent believe that the medias reporting of the problem is “generally exaggerated,” while 32 percent believe it is “generally correct” and 32 percent believe it is “generally underestimated.” The full analysis of the poll can be found at www.gallup.com.

Global Warming Bill Progresses in California Senate

On April 1, the California Senates Environmental Quality Committee approved a bill that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from car tailpipes on a 5 to 2 party-line vote, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans against. The bill passed the California Assembly on January 31.

According to the Los Angeles Times (April 2, 2002), “The bill, AB 1058, by first-term Assemblywoman Fran Pavely (D-Agoura Hills), would require the state Air Resources Board to adopt regulations by 2005 that would reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide from passenger cars and light trucks and other noncommercial motor vehicles.

The actual implementation of the rules would not apply to cars and trucks made before the 2008 model year.” Pavely argues that “We [California] need to do our fair share as the fifth-biggest economy in the world,” especially since President Bush has refused to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

According to the Fresno Bee (April 1, 2002), carmakers say the “technology doesnt yet exist to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike previous bills to regulate toxic emissions such as ozone and diesel soot, the bill requires carmakers to begin limiting natural byproducts of the internal combustion engine.”

Watson Out as IPCC Chairman?

The U.S. State Department has decided not to renominate Robert T. Watson for the chairmanship of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to a story in the New York Times (April 2, 2002).

The story says that Watson is “highly regarded as an atmospheric chemist by many climate scientists.” In reality Watson is a career bureaucrat who hasnt been a working scientist for decades. The story also characterizes Watson as an “outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions mainly burning oil and coal are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals.”

Many critics have complained that the biggest problem with the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which was completed under Watsons chairmanship, is advocacy and not science.

As Dr. David Wojick noted in his analysis, The UN IPCCs Artful Bias, “It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles.” In our last issue of Cooler Heads we quoted Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Moerner, a professor at Stockholm University and president of the INQUA (International Union of Quaternary Research) Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, who said of the report, “It is absolutely remarkable how inferior and one-sided this report is.” That is the product of advocacy, not science.

The U.S. has officially thrown its support behind Indian nominee, Dr. Rahendra K. Pachauri, an engineer and economist. The State Department received an e-mail from Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist who is currently serving as the chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, urging it to at least replace Watson with another atmospheric scientist. But, since the position is entirely administrative, its not clear why it must be filled by an atmospheric scientist.

The New York Times noted that, “Some climate panel scientists said that other countries were planning to push for Dr. Watson to remain, and that it might be possible to craft a compromise in which the two scientists served as co-chairman.”

Russians Pressure Japan, EU to Buy Credits; Renewable Energy Seeks Charity; Shareholder Resolutions On The Rise

by William Yeatman on April 2, 2002

in Blog

Russians Pressure Japan, EU to Buy Credits

Russia is demanding that it receive guarantees from the European Union and Japan that they will buy Russian carbon dioxide credits before it will agree to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, according to the Japanese newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun (March 28, 2002). Kyoto supporters want the protocol to come into force before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in late August.

Vsevolod Gavrilov, head of the department of natural resources at the Russian Economic Development and Trade Ministry, said, “We will try to ratify the pact within a year, but we cannot make it by the time the World Summit on Sustainable Development is held.”

He added that, “We cant accept selling the [carbon dioxide] credits cheaply to the EU.” Aleksander Popov, head of the environment department at the Fuel and Energy Ministry, said, “It will depend on how Japan responds. If we cannot secure buyers it will be meaningless.”

Yomiuri Shimbun noted that, “Observers said that Russias attempt to gain a promise from Japan to buy Russias emission credits before agreeing to sign the protocol is taking advantage of Japans situation. Japan is not likely to meet its reduction targets by domestic means. It is believed that Russia intends to try to sell the emission credits at high prices. However, EU countries do not plan to buy emission credits from non-EU countries and it is likely that Japan will become the sole buyer of Russias emission credits.”

A member of Russias Duma, Vladimir Grachev, told the BBC (March 22, 2002) that, “The Kyoto Protocol for industrial gas emission cuts has turned into a smoke screen for diktat in international trade and it no longer promotes improvement of the ecological situation in the world.”

He also said that, “One might get the impression that countries of the European Union believe that Russia is simply obliged to ratify the protocol but this position is deeply erroneous. Russia had already cut its greenhouse emissions by 41 percent. I believe that the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is possible only after negotiations are held with the European Union to which certain terms should be set. In particular, Russia objects to the fact that the European Union might easily adapt to clauses of the protocol in order to exercise pressure in the field of international trade. If the European Union does not change its politics, Russia will not agree to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.”

Renewable Energy Seeks Charity

The renewable electric power division of Lincoln Electric System in Nebraska is facing mounting financial losses, according to Electricity Daily (March 26, 2002).

Under the current program, those who wish to buy power from wind turbines pay a $4.30 per month premium for three years. Due to the lack of significant participation, the program is currently losing about $12,000 per month.

To keep the program going, the municipality has turned to asking for charity. “Under the new charitable program,” reports Electricity Daily, “four levels of participation are offered: Friend of the Environment for $4.30 to $20 per month; Supporter of the Environment for $21 to $60; Conserver of the Environment for $61 to $125, and Protector of the Environment for a whopping $126 or more per month. LES declined to comment on whether these donations are tax deductible.”

Shareholder Resolutions On The Rise

A major weapon in the arsenal of environmental activists over the last eight years has been the shareholder resolution. The Wall Street Journal (April 3, 2002) reports that the number of global warming resolutions originating from activists is increasing significantly in 2002. Already 18 resolutions have been filed, more than twice the amount filed in any other year in the previous eight years.

“Most resolutions,” says the Journal, “ask corporations to disclose estimated greenhouse gas emissions from their operations, as well as the products they make, and ask for an assessment of the costs of reducing those levels.” One resolution that targets Exxon Mobil Corporation, demands that it separate the positions of chief executive and chairman, saying that Exxon Mobils CEO and Chairman, Lee Raymond, is endangering shareholder value by his stance on global warming.

The groups behind most of the resolutions are the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, an association of 275 religious institutional investors, and the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, a coalition of 70 groups that includes “environmental activists and investors, managers and analysts representing $300 billion in assets.”

No Link Between Global Warming and Malaria; Abrupt Climate Change and the Thermohaline Circulation; A Warmer Climate Means Less

by William Yeatman on March 5, 2002

in Science

No Link Between Global Warming and Malaria

A new study in the February 21 issue of Nature tests the proposition that higher incidences of malaria in the East African highlands are caused by global warming. The studys authors, led by Simon Hay at Oxford University, could not find a link between the two phenomena.

The study examines the long term trends in meteorological data from four East African sites that have recently experienced a significant resurgence in malaria cases. As noted in the study, “The suitability of each month for Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission depends on a combination of temperature and rainfall conditions.” The researchers looked for changes in these climate variables that might explain changes in the incidence of malaria.

What they found was that “Temperature, rainfall, vapor pressure, and the number of months suitable for P. falciparum transmission have not changed significantly during the past century or during the period of reported malaria resurgence.” These findings are not “consistent with the simplistic notion that recent malaria resurgences in these areas are caused by rising temperatures.”

The studys authors explain that there are several other factors that have contributed to the resurgence of malaria in East Africa, including antimalarial drug resistance, population migration, and breakdowns in public health and vector control operations. Thus, according to the authors, “Economic, social and political factors can therefore explain recent resurgences in malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases with no need to invoke climate change.”

Abrupt Climate Change and the Thermohaline Circulation

Two recent studies cast doubts on the claim that global warming could lead to increased climate variability and to the cessation of the climatically important thermohaline circulation (THC). The THC is a conveyer-like circulation in the Atlantic Ocean where “Near-surface currents bring warm, saline waters from the subtropics to high northern latitudes where they are cooled by the atmosphere, sink to depths between 2,000 and 3,000 meters, and flow back south as a deep western boundary current,” according to the study in Science (February 22, 2002).

This circulation is important because, “The ocean affects climate through its high heat capacity relative to the surrounding land, thereby moderating daily, seasonal and interannual temperature fluctuations, and through its ability to transport heat from one location to another,” as noted in the study appearing in Nature (February 21, 2002). If the THC were to cease, it would lead to dramatic cooling in Europe.

The Nature study states that, “Most, but not all, coupled GCM [global circulation model] projections of the twenty-first century climate show a reduction in the strength of the Atlantic overturning circulation with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases if the warming is strong enough and sustained long enough, a complete collapse cannot be excluded.”

But due to model deficiencies and uncertainties about how the climate system responds to greenhouse forcings, it is difficult to determine the likelihood of future changes in the THC. To remedy this problem, the authors believe that scientists should examine the palaeoclimate record, which “provides the fundamental basis for evaluating the ability of models to correctly simulate behavior of the THC.”

What the palaeoclimate record shows us is that abrupt climate changes due to changes in the THC are not characteristic of the current warm interglacial period known as the Holocene. But such changes “were characteristic of the last glaciation.” The authors conclude that, “The palaeoclimate data and the model results indicate that the stability of the thermohaline circulation depends on the mean climate state.” Since abrupt changes are confined to glacial periods and not characteristic of interglacial periods it is unlikely that global warming will have any effect on the THC.

The study appearing in Science attempts to find an explanation for abrupt climate changes that have been discovered in the palaeoclimate data. The study notes that, “In contrast to the relatively stable climate of the past 10,000 years, during glacial times the North Atlantic region experienced large-amplitude transitions between cold (stadial) and warm (interstadial) states.”

Using climate models, the authors determine that “reduced calving of icebergs into the North Atlantic after a widespread ice sheet surge constitutes a trigger for the rapid glacial warming events,” which follow a few hundred years later.

In other words, ice sheet surges during glacial periods are characterized by rapid calving of icebergs that inject fresh water into the North Atlantic, reducing salinity. The resulting fall in sea water density prevents sinking, which then stops the THC.

The rapid calving that follows the ice sheet surge causes the ice streams to retreat from the coastline, and calving eventually ceases. Over time, the absence of freshwater input leads to greater salinity and the THC starts up again leading to an abrupt warming.

Both of these studies demonstrate that, contrary to climate model predictions, a warmer climate is more stable and that colder glacial climates are subject to significant climate variability and more extreme weather events.

A Warmer Climate Means Less El Nio Activity

Another issue related to global warming and climate variability is the claim that a warmer climate will lead to greater El Nio activity. A study in the February 22 issue of Science shows that a warmer climate will likely lead to lesser rather than greater El Nio activity.

The authors examine the oxygen isotope profiles of excavated otoliths “aragonite structures in fish used for acoustic perception and balance” from Peruvian sea catfish. Because the oxygen that is incorporated into the otoliths is in isotopic equilibrium with the seawater, scientists can use them to derive past sea surface temperatures.

What they found was that during the mid-Holocene, from around 6,000 years ago, sea surface temperatures were three to four degrees C higher than they were over the decade of the 1990s. The authors cite several studies that show that El Nio conditions did not exist prior to 5,000 years ago, which mean that warm sea surface temperature are likely to reduce El Nio activity rather than heighten it.

Etc.

Canadas environment minister, David Anderson, recently requested that his colleagues in the cabinet begin driving small, more fuel efficient cars. According to the Guardian of London (March 4, 2002), “His fellow cabinet members ignored him, or muttered about the symbolic importance of being chauffeured around in big (meaning prestigious) cars.”

“The Liberal government talks the talk, but will not drive the drive,” said acting Canadian Alliance leader John Reynolds in the House of Commons. “How can the prime minister or the minister of the environment expect Canadians to sacrifice so much for the sake of Kyoto when his own ministers will not even trade their taxpayer-funded cars for environmentally-friendly vehicles?”

Kyoto Too Expensive for Canada

by William Yeatman on March 5, 2002

in Kyoto Negotiations

It is unlikely that Canada will be able to achieve its Kyoto targets without significant harm to the economy, Nancy Hughes Anthony, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said at a press conference on March 4.

Hughes accused the Canadian government of being less than honest with Canadians. “They are leaving the impression,” said Hughes, “that all it will take is for businesses to readily adopt new processes and for consumers to change their behavior overnight. Then Canada could meet its commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 30 percent by the year 2012.”

Hughes noted that the governments Climate Change Website claims that consumers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by buying energy efficient appliances and conserving on home heating. But this is deceptive, says Hughes. “Consumers will be asked to do a lot more.”

The burden on industry will be enormous, according to Hughes. “As Canadian industries bring in new technologies and fuel sources, it just isnt feasible to get them broadly in place by 2012.” Many of the technologies, such as fuel cells, that the government is relying on to meet its targets are still “mostly pilot projects,” said Hughes.

“It is unlikely that we will see fleet replacement with fuel cells in ten years when only prototypes are available now,” she said. “The technology is still being developed. Then we will need to allow companies time to retire existing fleets of trucks and cars. Then there is the infrastructure to support this new fuel source.”

Moreover, forcing companies to accelerate the retirement of plants and equipment will leave them with stranded investment costs that will be passed on to consumers and shareholders.

A major obstacle to Canadas compliance with Kyoto is its trade relationship with the U.S. Hughes pointed out that the U.S. has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by importing natural gas and nuclear- and hydro-generated electricity from Canada. “Yet the generation and production of these increases Canadas overall emissions.” Even though the federal government has lobbied to receive credit for clean energy exports, “It is not clear when or if this will be successfully achieved.”

She also pointed out how competitively devastating it would be for Canada to ratify the treaty, while the U.S., which buys 87 percent of Canadas exports, stays out.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce calculates that Canadas cost of complying with Kyoto would be a loss of about $30 billion per year in GDP, or a reduction of 2.5 percent. That comes to about $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

All these factors led Hughes to conclude that, “Canada cannot achieve its Kyoto targets and therefore, it would be foolish for Canada to ratify Kyoto at this time.”

European Union Agrees to Ratify Kyoto

by William Yeatman on March 5, 2002

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

The European Unions environment ministers agreed on March 4 to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In 1997 the EU agreed to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases to eight percent below 1990 levels, but so far has not ratified the agreement.

Although the move is being hailed as a major step forward, “The impact of the announcement was marred when EU member governments failed to set their own emission levels to meet Kyoto targets,” according to the Guardian (March 5, 2002). “Individual targets will now be decided by the European Commission.”

The commission also took the opportunity to call for renewed U.S. participation in the Kyoto process. “By taking this decision, the EU has reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing multilateral solutions to issues of global concern,” the commission said. “The EU continues to call for the United States to participate in the global framework for addressing climate change.”

The move clears the way for the EU formally to approve Kyoto at its summit in Barcelona in a couple of weeks. As noted by Radio Free Europe (March 4, 2002), “Todays decision also commits all 15 EU member states to deposit their individual ratification instruments with the United Nations together with the communal EU decision by June 1.” It remains to be seen whether the countries will follow through with the commitment made by their respective environment ministers.

The Netherlands is the only EU country to begin the ratification process, successfully piloting Kyoto through the lower house of parliament, but still needs to push it through the upper house for full ratification. The only Annex I countries to submit their ratification instruments to the United Nations are Romania and the Czech Republic.

Britain Debates Energy Policy

by William Yeatman on February 19, 2002

in Blog

A new British government-commissioned report by the Performance and Innovation Unit says that the country should increase the amount of energy supplied by renewable sources by 2020. It also suggested that the government keep its nuclear power options open (Reuters, February 17, 2002).

British industries are not convinced, however. According to them, increased use of renewable energy sources would be harmful to Englands economic prospects. “If the cost base to industry increases as a result of a shift towards green power that will damage Britains global competitiveness,” said Ruth Lea, head of the policy unit at the Institute of Directors (Reuters, February 18, 2002).

The beneficiaries of a renewable energy mandate are already saying that its not enough. Nick Goodall of the British Wind Energy Association said, “This (20 percent by 2020) target is far too modest,” claiming that, “companies are already gearing up to generate this much from wind power alone.” If thats the case, then why the need for government mandates?

According to a U.S.-owned utility, TXU Europe, Great Britains current renewable energy mandate of providing 10 percent of the nations energy through renewable sources, would cost about 20 million pounds or $28.5 million in the first year alone (Reuters, February 18, 2002).

Bush Offers Lukewarm Plan; Reaction is Two Thumbs Down; Canada Still Hesitant to Ratify Kyoto

by William Yeatman on February 19, 2002

in Politics

Bush Offers Lukewarm Plan

President George W. Bush outlined his Global Climate Change and Clear Skies Initiatives in a speech on February 14 at the NOAA Science Center in Silver Spring, Maryland. The bulk of the climate plan is warmed-over policies from the Clinton Administration, but with a few significant new twists and considerably more federal funding, while the Clear Skies plan would require cuts in three major air pollutants of approximately 70% by 2018.

Bush set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18% by 2012. This translates into producing one million dollars of economic output per 151 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions (or equivalent) compared to 183 metric tons today.

This voluntary goal appears to be achievable on current trends. Reducing carbon intensity by 18% over the next decade would be one-fifth more than the 15% reduction in the 1990s.

Bush called for a major review of progress in 2012, that is, several years after he leaves office, and said that at that time mandatory emissions reductions may be appropriate. The promise, or implied threat, of future mandatory limits makes workable a major feature of the presidents planawarding tradeable credits for emissions reductions made voluntarily now.

According to the White Houses Fact Sheet, “The President will direct the Secretary of Energy to recommend reforms to: (1) ensure that businesses that register voluntary reductions will not be penalized under a future climate policy; and (2) give credit to companies that can show real emissions reductions.”

It appears that the motive for creating and buying these “early action credits” is the prospect that they will have value once the scheme is made mandatory. As part of this effort, the president also directed Secretary Abraham to improve the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Sequestration Registry in unspecified ways. The Global Climate Change Initiative calls for higher federal funding for the whole range of climate programs, domestic and international. Most notable, perhaps, is $4.6 billion over five years for tax incentives for renewable energy, cogeneration, and purchasing hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Possible higher CAFE standards are also mentioned.

Much of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions may come from the Clear Skies Initiative. The large cuts proposed for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury may force utilities to close some of their coal-fired power plants. A cap-and-trade program is proposed for the three pollutants.

Reaction is Two Thumbs Down

Initial reaction to President Bushs new global warming package was almost uniformly negative from environmental groups, conservative groups, major newspapers and networks, and world leaders. Several industry trade associations and the Australian and Japanese governments reacted at least mildly favorably.

From abroad, German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin called the plan “disappointing,” according to Reuters (February 18, 2002). “The goal has to remain to re-integrate the worlds biggest polluter into this system. The door should not be closed to an eventual U.S. return to the Kyoto framework,” Trittin said. British Environment Minister Michael Meacher judged that the European Union would not be “satisfied” by Bushs plan (Reuters, February 18).

At a United Nations environmental conference in Cartagena, Colombia, officials from many nations demanded more action from the U.S. Among these was Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson (Reuters, February 18), who noted the serious effects that global warming was already having on Canadas northern regions.

In Japan, the official reaction from the new Environment Minister, Hiroshi Oki, was initially critical, but that changed as soon as President Bush landed in Tokyo. At a joint press conference with Bush, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said that, “The United States has come up with a very positive proposal (Reuters, February 19).

Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearly views Bushs program as offering a way out of Kyoto for Australia. He said, “Our positionis much closer to that of the United States than the attitude of the European countries. I do think that what the president indicates in his speech will lead to an alternative to simply saying no to the Kyoto Protocol, and I welcome that” (Reuters, February 18).

At home, Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said, “Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is using Valentines Day to give a sweetheart deal to the corporate polluters that funded his campaign.” Jennifer Morgan, director of the World Wildlife Funds Climate Change Campaign, accused the President of delivering “a Valentines day present for the coal and oil industry.”

Conservative groups were a little more original in their comments, but no less critical. For example, Consumer Alert wrote that, “The President’s plan would undermine the very economic growth which, as he has pointed out, facilitates the advances that lead to cleaner air and more efficient technologies. Starving the US economy of energy, whether it’s called Kyoto or something else, will only harm consumers.”

Among many editorials criticizing the plan, the Washington Post wrote that, “There was more air than substance in the global warming policy President Bush outlined last week, a disappointing program that aims too low, asks too little and waits too long to assess the need for tougher action.”

On the other side of the political spectrum, James Glassman in the Wall Street Journal (February 14, 2002), wrote that Bushs “new position on global warming is clearly a disingenuous attempt to appear concerned about the environment for the sake of empty plaudits from domestic and foreign audiences. It hurts his credibility, and, frankly it wont work because the opposition wont buy it.”

On February 14, ABC News provided plenty of air time to environmental critics of the plan, quoting extensively an e-mail from former Vice President Al Gore.

The Houston Chronicle (February 15, 2002) pulled out the heavy guns, quoting several scientists who claim that Bushs plan falls well short of what is needed to stop global warming. “I think this thing (global warming) is very serious and government must get serious about doing something about it,” said Gerald North, head of the department of meteorology at Texas A&M. “We need to be more serious than a voluntary program.”

Canada Still Hesitant to Ratify Kyoto

The Canadian government insists that it still wishes to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but must consult with the provinces first (Reuters, February 20, 2002).

“Thats what we have to do before we make a decision to ratify,” said Environment Minister David Anderson. Nine of the ten provincial premiers signed a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, expressing reservations about the wisdom of ratifying the treaty.

“We are concerned that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and Canadas response to climate change could impact competitiveness and, in turn, employment, economic growth and investment opportunities across Canada,” said the letter.

Although the provinces do not have veto power over whether to ratify Kyoto, it would present a dilemma if they were opposed to it. “Thats a decision well have to come to,” said Natural Resources Minister, Herb Dhaliwal.

Anderson made it clear, however, that Canada would not consider complying with the treaty without ratifying it.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →