Blog

Norways Government Falls on Anti-Kyoto Vote; Cooler Heads Sues EPA; Can EPA Regulate CO2 Emissions?

by William Yeatman on April 1, 2000

in Politics

Norways Government Falls on Anti-Kyoto Vote

After a vote of no confidence on March 8, Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik announced the resignation of his government. The vote was called after a controversy erupted over whether to construct natural gas fired power plants. The government, which opposed the construction, argued that the plants would release too much CO2 and said that construction should be delayed until cleaner technology becomes available.

The opposition, a coalition of conservatives and Labour, favored immediate construction of the plants. They argued that other alternatives, such as further hydroelectric development or importing electricity produced by coal or nuclear power, were unsatisfactory. Environment News Service reported on March 9 that a leading Oslo newspaper, Dagsavisen, had revealed that the government had appointed a secret committee to explore the possibility of electricity rationing if voluntary conservation measures failed. Norways government is the first to fall over its support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Cooler Heads Sues EPA

The Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of two dozen policy institutes and other non-profit organizations, filed suit on March 13 against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the EPA from continuing to withhold documents in its possession, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Cooler Heads FOIA requests date back to the early summer of 1999 and seek documents relating to apparent “backdoor implementation” of the Kyoto Protocol. The Cooler Heads specifically sought information relating to EPAs “global warming” and “climate change” policies, the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future, Climate Change Initiative, emissions trading schemes, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. These FOIA requests seek paperwork documenting the EPAs efforts to circumvent agency authority and congressional intent.

Cooler Heads Counsel Christopher C. Horner alleged in the complaint that EPA delayed acting on the Coalitions request for a fee waiver for seven months, even though such requests are routinely granted to non-profit organizations. Horner discovered through other FOIA requests that the only fee waiver requests rejected during 1999 were those sought by the Cooler Heads.

EPAs attempts to withhold the requested information, said Horner, indicates that it is well aware that its actions may well violate the Knollenberg restrictions, a limitation placed upon federal agencies that they take no actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

“Given that the Administration has signed Kyoto but shown no interest in permitting the Senate to debate it, it would appear EPA would prefer to continue these impermissible activities, effectively usurping the Senates constitutional duty of advice and consent regarding the implementation of international treaties,” said Horner.

Can EPA Regulate CO2 Emissions?

For two years, the Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional oversight committees have argued over whether the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In a recent letter, Congressmen David McIntosh (R-Ind.) and Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) told EPA General Counsel Gary Guzy that, “We are more convinced than ever that the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate CO2.”

The EPA has asserted that it does, however. Former EPA General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon said in a memorandum that “pollutants” that fall under EPAs jurisdiction include “any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive substance or matter that is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” Congress was understandably concerned that the EPA had assumed de facto authority to implement the Kyoto Protocol under this definition.

Congressmen McIntosh and Calvert countered saying that, “The term air pollutant does not automatically apply to any substance emitted into the ambient air. Such a substance must also be an air pollutant agent” and “EPA has never determined that,” they said.

“Furthermore, in view of the well-known fact that CO2 is a benign substance and the foundation of the planetary food chain, we are appalled by the Administrations insistence that EPA might be able to regulate CO2 as a toxic or hazardous air pollutant” (www.weathervane.org).

Kyotos Economic Effects on Developing Countries

by William Yeatman on April 1, 2000

in Blog

Developing countries have been eager to see the Kyoto Protocol put into effect, especially since all of the required emission reductions would occur in the developed countries. The developing countries economies will be effected by the Kyoto Protocol, even though they dont have any emission reduction targets, according to a new report by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE).

The economic effects of the Kyoto Protocol on developing nations will be mixed, says the report. On the one hand, there will be a lowering of world demand for fossil fuels, much of which originates in developing countries. On the other hand, developing countries will experience an increase in competitiveness, especially in the production of emission-intensive goods.

The production and exportation of goods that use a lot of energy such as iron and steel and nonferrous metals will substantially shift to developing countries. This is due to the “carbon leakage” that would occur under the Kyoto Protocol. For every 1000 tons of carbon equivalent reduced in the developed countries, emissions in developed countries are expected to rise by 92 tons, according to the report. The South Korea iron and steel industry, for instance, would experience significant gains in competitiveness if Kyoto is implemented.

Countries that are major exporters of fossil fuels, on the other hand, will see a significant decline in revenues. Middle Eastern countries, Indonesia, and Latin American oil exporters will be hurt as a result of Kyoto. The report notes, for instance, that “The Mexican and Latin American oil industries rely heavily on exports to the United States, where oil consumption is projected to decline by around 15 percent.” Southern Africa will also be severely hurt, “where coal export revenue is projected to fall by US$529 million.

Overall, concludes the report, the net economic effects on the developing world will be positive, but effects will vary from country to country. Southern Africa, China, Brazil, India and Korea would be net beneficiaries under Kyoto, while Venezuela, the Middle East, Colombia, Indonesia and Mexico would be hurt on net. The report notes that the adverse effects of the Kyoto Protocol would be blunted under an international emissions trading system. But the potential benefits would also be reduced under emission trading. The report can be found at www.abare.gov.au.

Global Temperature Update; Climate Changes Linked to the Suns Magnetic Activity; Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

by William Yeatman on March 11, 2000

in Science

Global Temperature Update

Warm February temperatures in the U.S. gave the press plenty of ammunition for the global warming scare mill. It turns out that U.S. temperatures and global temperatures were going in opposite directions.

According to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who compiles the satellite temperature data with Dr. Roy Spencer at NASA, “While North America showed extremely warm departures from the 20 year average, the globe as a whole was cooler than normal by almost one-tenth of a degree (Celsius).”

“Virtually all of the tropical belt remained cooler than normal, due to the continuing cold (La Nia) phase of the ENSO (El Nio/Southern Oscillation) cycle.” Christy noted that, “February was a good example of how local regional temperature patterns give little information about the globe as a whole.”

In a related matter, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose by a mere 0.5 percent in 1998 (BNA Daily Environment Report, March 6, 2000).

Climate Changes Linked to the Suns Magnetic Activity

A new study published in the February 23 issues of New Astronomy could have important implications for our understanding of changes in the Earths climate. The study shows that the sun may have a significant impact on the Earths temperatures.

According to the authors, solar physicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, climatologist Eric Posmentier of Long Island University, and physicist Pius Okeke of the University of Nigeria, changes in the suns magnetism are closely correlated to temperatures in the Earths lower troposphere as measured by satellite-borne instruments called microwave sounding units.

The data show, for instance, that as the Suns magnetic activity weakens there is a distinct drop in the atmospheric temperature. This is due to the corresponding expansion of coronal holes in the Suns outer atmosphere, which in turn increase the amount of hot, supercharged particles striking the Earths atmosphere. These particles may increase cloud cover, lowering the Earths temperature. Greater magnetic activity, on the other hand, warms the Earth.

The study concludes that, “Variable fluxes either in solar charged particles or cosmic rays modulated by the solar wind, or both, may influence the terrestrial tropospheric temperature on a timescale of months to years.”

New York Times Gives Skeptics a Fair Shake

The New York Times environment reporter, William K. Stevens, has been suspected of bias in his reporting of global warming issues. Recently, however, his reporting has tended to be balanced, making some concessions to those who are not convinced that global warming is a serious threat. His most recent article, “Global Warming: The Contrarian View,” is devoted entirely to the global warming skeptics.

Featured in the article are atmospheric scientists, Dr. William Gray, of Colorado State University, Dr. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, and Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia.

Although Stevens gives fair play to the skeptics veiws, he also finds it difficult to avoid using terms such as “mainstream” when referring to the views of global warming believers. He cites Michael Oppenheimer an atmospheric scientist with Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund) as representative of the mainstream (New York Times, February 29, 2000).

Oppenheimer himself seems to give up a great deal of ground to the skeptics when he says in the article, “There is no compelling evidence to allow us to choose between the low end, or the high end, or the middle.”

As for what constitutes “mainstream,” Dr. Singer, who circulates widely among the scientific community, noted that, “Stevens fails to mention that there are dozens if not hundreds of contrarians out there besides the half dozen he mentions in his article” (The Week That Was, www.sepp.org, March 4, 2000). Indeed, the Cooler Heads Coalition has sponsored several congressional briefings featuring some of the other contrarians.

Is Global Warming Speeding Up?

According to a paper published in the March 1 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters, during the sixteen month period from May 1997 to September 1998, “Each month broke the previous monthly world average temperature record,” reported the New York Times (February 23, 2000).

The research team led by Dr. Thomas R. Karl of the National Climatic Data Center calculated that there is a 1-in-20 chance of such a string of record breaking months occurring. “It raises a flag because it was such an unusual event that we need to watch very carefully in the next several years, because, indeed, it could be a signal of an increased rate of temperature increase,” said Karl.

Dr. John Christy, of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, urges caution in linking the unusual event to global warming, however. The powerful El Nio of 1997-98 is at least partly to blame for the temperature spike, said Christy. Karl agrees, but he said, “Its important to keep in mind that El Nio is a natural phenomena but not necessarily unrelated to the forcing of man on the climate.”

That may be true, but an article that appeared in Nature on May 28, 1998, showed that there have been several powerful El Nio events long before the buildup of manmade greenhouse gases and when temperatures were much cooler. There appears to be no correlation between the frequency or magnitude of El Nio events and global temperatures.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, of the University of Virginia, also takes exception to the studys interpretation of the data, noting that it uses “16 months of data to forecast the next 100 years” (Washington Times, March 7, 2000).

Carbon Tax in England; India Should Oppose Emission Targets, Says Environment Group; EPAs Underhanded Regulation

by William Yeatman on March 11, 2000

in Politics

Carbon Tax in England

Great Britains Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that his country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period, a larger commitment than that agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol. To meet that target, the Blair government proposed the Climate Change Levy that would tax the use of fossil fuels. The tax has met with stiff opposition from industry, which has either opposed it outright or asked for special exemptions.

The Confederation of British Industry, for example, has noted that the Labour government has raised taxes on business by about 5 billion pounds per year since it took office in 1997. “The priority of this Budget [should be] to ease business worries over pressures such as the Climate Change Levy and the road fuel duty escalator,” said CBIs president, Sir Clive Thompson (Times of London, March 3, 2000).

To resolve the controversy, Blair has introduced a CO2 emissions trading scheme, but businesses have said that they will not participate unless there is a reward, such as an exemption from the Climate Change Levy or a cut in other taxes. “For a trading system to work, there has to be an incentive for companies to put themselves on the block by agreeing to targets. Without incentives, it will be very hard to get a system going,” said Chris Fay, chairman of the governments advisory committee on business and the environment (Financial Times, February 28, 2000).

India Should Oppose Emission Targets, Says Environment Group

A new report, “Green Politics: Global Environmental Negotiations,” by the Centre for Science and Environment, has been presented to Indias President Narayanan. The India-based environmental group, argues that international environmental agreements are “skewed” in favor of developed countries.

The Centres director, Anil Aggarwal, argues that the developed countries only focus on issues that concern them in international environmental treaties while ignoring the interests of developing countries. “Not a single government agency, environmentalist or academician has a full picture of what is happening at these environmental negotiations,” said Aggarwal.

President Clinton will be visiting India this spring, and he is expected to raise the issue of Indias participation in the Kyoto Protocol. Aggarwal advised President Narayanan to reject all offers from Clinton, “Since it would compromise development in Third World countries” (Times of India, March 3, 2000).

EPAs Underhanded Regulation

On November 3, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency filed suit against several electric utilities and the Tennessee Valley Authority, claiming that they were guilty of violations of the Clean Air Act at 17 power plants dating as far back as 1979.

Under the CAAs New Source Review (NSR), power plants that make major modifications are required to install pollution control devices. Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement are excluded from the NSR provisions, however. Moreover, EPA has assumed a life span for utilities of 55 to 65 years during which the NSR provisions would not apply. The utilities argued that the actions for which they have been cited were indeed routine maintenance and repair, and until now were treated as such by the EPA. They feel that the EPA has arbitrarily reinterpreted of its own rules.

Congressman David McIntosh (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, agrees with the utilities. An aide for McIntosh pointed out that power plant equipment is “used at high temperatures and under extreme pressure with chemical compounds that are corrosive, and it is not surprising that the equipment needs maintenance or replacement.” It would be bad practice it these utilities “did not replace the worn-out equipment with parts that rectify the design flaws of the original equipment,” he said (BNA Daily Environment Report, March 8, 2000).

McIntosh has submitted a letter with questions to the EPA to determine whether its “actions against the utilities may conflict with EPAs own understanding of the CAA and its regulations.” McIntosh expressed concern “that EPAs actions may be motivated by what might be called the Kyoto agenda and ideological animus against coal.”

Alternative Fuel Bill Fails to Meet Goals

by William Yeatman on February 25, 2000

in Politics

Alternative Fuel Bill Fails to Meet Goals

Replacing gasoline with alternative fuels as a major automobile fuel has been touted as a major component of any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 1992, which requires a 10 percent reduction in the use of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and a 30 percent reduction by 2010. The Government Accounting Office has just released a report stating that those goals will not be reached.

This is because, “Drivers find alternative fuels such as ethanol and natural gas too costly and difficult to find,” according to Reuters (February 15, 2000). The report states, “The costs for alternative vehicles are often higher because consumer demand for them is not large enough to achieve economies of scale in production.”

Reuters also notes that, “While gasoline prices are at record highs, the GAO said that even if crude oil prices reached $40 a barrel, alternative fuels share of the market for transportation fuels would not increase.”

Alternative Fuel Bill Fails to Meet Goals

by William Yeatman on February 24, 2000

in Blog

Replacing gasoline with alternative fuels as a major automobile fuel has been touted as a major component of any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 1992, which requires a 10 percent reduction in the use of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and a 30 percent reduction by 2010. The Government Accounting Office has just released a report stating that those goals will not be reached.

This is because, “Drivers find alternative fuels such as ethanol and natural gas too costly and difficult to find,” according to Reuters (February 15, 2000). The report states, “The costs for alternative vehicles are often higher because consumer demand for them is not large enough to achieve economies of scale in production.”

Reuters also notes that, “While gasoline prices are at record highs, the GAO said that even if crude oil prices reached $40 a barrel, alternative fuels share of the market for transportation fuels would not increase.”

More Backdoor Implementation; A First Glimpse at the National Assessment; World Business Leaders Concerned about Global Warming

by William Yeatman on February 24, 2000

in Kyoto Negotiations, Science

More Backdoor Implementation

The Clinton-Gore Administration has publicly stated on several occasions that it has no intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification. Behind closed doors, however, it continues to lay the groundwork for implementation as well as propose policies that would have the effect of implementing the protocol. Such actions are in direct violation of the Knollenberg provision, which the President signed into law.

On February 2-3, several federal agencies participated in a workshop, “Sustainable Climate Protection Policies: Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Completing the Kyoto Protocols,” in Germany. The event was coordinated by a German foreign policy research institute, funded by the German government, and the office of Frank E. Loy, under secretary of state for global affairs. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy were also represented at the workshop.

Rep. Joe Knollenbergs (R-Mich.) attempts to find out more about the meeting have been met with silence from the U.S. delegation. The Knollenberg provision, attached to six appropriations bills, states in part, “None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol” (emphasis added).

In addition to requesting information about the German meeting, Knollenberg asked the inspectors general of the State Departement, EPA and DOE to provide “a thorough review of any other meetings, conferences, or related department work, where funds have been or are planned to be expended for implementing Kyoto mechanisms in direct violation” of the Knollenberg provision (Electricity Daily, February 22, 2000).

A First Glimpse at the National Assessment

In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Global Change Assessment Act that established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and instructed Federal agencies to cooperate in developing and coordinating “a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural process of global change.” The bill also required the USGCRP to submit an assessment to Congress and the President of the “Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the United States.”

According to Michael C. MacCracken, director of the National Assessment Coordination Office of the USGCRP, that first assessment is near completion. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Washington, D.C. on February 17-22, a panel of scientists discussed the assessment preliminary findings. A Knight Ridder (February 21, 2000) story summarized MacCrackens comments thus, “Global warming is so real and hard to stop that America has to learn to cope with a hotter and quite different lifestyle in coming generations.”

“If youre smart,” said MacCracken, “you can try to avoid the worst consequences” of global warming, but “you cant stop climate change given what were doing right now.” Donald Boesch, president of the University of Marylands Center for Environmental Science told the attendees that the assessment is “really intended to be an announcement that things are going to happen or are already beginning to happen and were going to have to deal with them.”

The panelists engaged in a litany of speculations, apparently based on the forthcoming National Assessment, about what global warming may mean to the U.S. Boesch warned that rising sea levels could devastate coastlines. Jonathan Patz, a public health professor at John Hopkins University, said that global warming could cause more heat-related deaths further north and possibly increase diseases spread through mosquitoes, rats, and food and water. He admitted, however, that very little research has been done on the link between global warming and disease.

In the South, according to Steven McNulty, a U.S. Forest Service program manager in North Carolina, higher temperatures would help the trees at first but eventually would kill forests. He also said that southern forest fires would increase by 25 to 50 percent.

Finally, Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, said that in the West, “Were likely to get the worst of all possible worlds.” There will be less snow and more rain in the winter months, leading to winter flooding and more summer droughts. Also, “Western alpine forests can completely disappear by the next century, replaced by southern hardwoods.”

“MacCrackens national assessment which is all peer reviewed by scientists is being attacked by the small but well-funded group of global warming skeptics,” according to the Knight Ridder article.

World Business Leaders Concerned about Global Warming

World business leaders met in January at the World Economic Forums Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland to discuss issues relevant to the global economy. After listening to speeches from “five of the worlds leading thinkers,” the attendees voted on what they believed was the “greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of the century.”

The winner was global warming. According to a press release from the conference, “Not only did the audience choose climate change as the worlds most pressing problem, they also voted it as the issue where business could most effectively adopt a leadership role.”

NRC Report Clarification; Tropospheric Temperature Change; Research Group: Polar Ice Sheets to Remain Stable

by William Yeatman on February 24, 2000

in Science

NRC Report Clarification

The recent National Research Council report on the discrepancy between the surface-based and satellite-based temperature records received a lot of press attention. Most of it was wrong, according to John M. Wallace, chairman of the panel, and John R. Christy, a member of the panel. “When the report hit the streets, several news outlets across the country cited it as one more piece of definitive evidence that greenhouse gases were causing the Earth to warm,” they said. “Policy makers rushed to announce initiatives to combat the problem.”

Wallace and Christy chastise those who try to turn global warming into a “pro” or “con” issue. “To really understand long-term global climate change, we have to pay attention to what the science tells us,” they said. “And like it or not, the evidence to date is telling us that while were making great strides, we still dont have all the answers.”

Wallace and Christy conclude, “Despite differences in the two sets of temperature data, the Earths surface is in fact warming. Our panel did not address whether greenhouse gases have led to the temperature increases of the past two decades.

Unfortunately, the important distinction between greenhouse warming and global warming was all but ignored by some policy makers and interest groups who seized on our findings to further their own agendas. Many scientists do believe that increasing greenhouse gases or other human-induced changes are responsible for the warming, but some still have reasonable doubts” (HMS Beagle, www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle, February 18, 2000).

Tropospheric Temperature Change

With the release of the NRC report, there has been a lot of discussion about the discrepancy in temperature trends as measured on the surface and in the layer of the atmosphere known as the troposphere. Two new papers in Science (February 18, 2000) address the issue. Both papers confirm the accuracy of the satellite temperature data.

One is a paper that discusses the use of balloon borne radiosonde temperature measurements as confirmation of the satellite data. The lead author is Dian Gaffen of the Air Resources Laboratory, NOAA, and is co-authored by John Christy of Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama-Huntsville, among others. Gaffen et al. offers possible explanations of the temperature discrepancy, such as “Surface and lower tropospheric temperatures may respond differently to changes in a suite of natural and human-induced climate forcings, including well-mixed greenhouse gases, stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, tropospheric aerosols, and stratospheric volcanic aerosols.”

The discrepancy is largest at the tropical belt and so the paper focuses on the temperature trends for those areas. Balloon measurements of the tropical belt began in 1960 and show that the lower to mid troposphere actually warmed faster than the surface in “a pattern consistent with model projections of the vertical structure of tropospheric warming associated with increasing concentrations of well-mixed atmospheric greenhouse gases. From 1979 to 1997, however, the balloon data “show the same pattern of surface warming and tropospheric cooling since 1979 as the independent surface and MSU (satellite) observations.”

Another confirmation of the satellite data is observed changes in the tropical freezing level, which is closely correlated with tropospheric temperatures. From 1960 to 1997, the freezing level rose by about 30 meters per decade, but during the period of satellite measurements since 1979 the freezing level has fallen. Interestingly, “Tropical glaciers at the 5- to 7-km elevation have retreated during the 1980s and 1990s, while freezing levels have lowered.”

A paper by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, among others (including Gaffen), analyzed three state-of-the-art climate models to see how well they could account for the discrepancy. Gaffen, et al., noted that the analysis, “suggests that simulated global surface temperature trends over 20-year periods never exceed lower tropospheric trends by as much as” that observed during the 1979 to 1998 period. Even when “forced” by changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, stratospheric ozone depletion and the Mount Pinatubo eruption, the models failed to simulate the trend differences. Santer et al. also argues that part of the discrepancy is due to incomplete surface temperature records.

Gaffen et al. concludes that, “Given uncertainties in the observations, in reconstructing the historical climate forcings, and in the climate systems response to those forcings, we may never have a complete understanding of the complex behavior of tropical tropospheric temperatures, lapse rates, and freezing levels during the past few decades.”

What is the implication of these papers? Dr. Christy told MSNBC (February 18, 2000) that, “The behavior of the surface temperatures and the atmosphere over the past 21 years is at odds with the theories that explain how human-induced climate changes should occur. This suggests that what has happened in the past 21 years is not an example of human-induced climate change.”

Climate Model Uncertainties

Computer models are being used with increased frequency to evaluate and solve problems, writes Barry Cipra in an article in Science (February 11, 2000). These models can be useful, but they also have their drawbacks.

“Although the precise numbers and realistic pictures produced by computer simulations give an illusion of accuracy,” says Cipra, “a ravening swarm of assumptions, simplifications, and outright errors lurk beneath.” Better tools are needed, but according to Cipra, “The quest for such tools is itself an uncertain and challenging process.”

Take global warming, for instance. “Much of the global warming debate,” says Cipra, “is fueled by the radically different numbers that different models produce. As the explosive growth of computer power allows researchers to tackle ever-bigger problems with ever-more-complex models, even the experts have a hard time sorting the scientific wheat from the numerical chaff.”

Mac Hyman, a mathematician at Los Alamos National Laboratory, says that the number of variables and size of the system being analyzed is so great that even the fastest computers strain under the computational requirements.

A Five Century Temperature Trend

Nature (February 17, 2000) has published a paper showing that the Earth has warmed gradually over the last 500 years. By measuring the temperature in boreholes (deep holes in the ground) “at 10-m depth intervals to depths as great as 600 m,” the researchers found a long term global warming. They also found that, “Almost 80% of the net temperature increase observed has occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”

Of course, prior to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Earth was in the depths of the Little Ice Age. The end of the Little Ice Age was only 100 to 150 years ago, so these findings are not particularly surprising.

Research Group: Polar Ice Sheets to Remain Stable

The Cooperative Research Center for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean (Antarctic CRC) released a position statement on February 10 entitled “Polar Ice Sheets, Climate and Sea-Level Rise.” The statements findings are part of Antarctic CRCs contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

According to the statement, “There is popular speculation that greenhouse warming of two or three degrees over the next century might trigger a similarly large change in association with melting of the two remaining ice-sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.” A few degrees warming, says the statement, may melt most of the Greenland ice-sheet, raising sea levels by six meters, but that would take 1,000 to 2,000 years.

The Antarctic ice-sheet, if completely melted, would raise sea levels by 55 meters but, “It is not expected that it would melt as a result of a warming of two or three degrees. This is because temperatures in most of the Antarctica are well below the melting point of ice.” At most, increased ice flows from the Antarctic ice-sheet due to warming would increase the sea level by one or two meters over the next 1,000 to 2,000 years.

The statement concludes, “In the shorter term that is, over the next century or two it is expected that there will be relatively little melting of the ice-sheets. Indeed it is expected that the volume of Antarctic ice will increase slightly because greater snowfall caused by higher evaporation from the warmer oceans will outweigh any increase in melting.”

The highest predicted sea level increase is “several tens of centimeters per century,” according to the statement. “This is good news,” said Professor Garth Paltridge, the institutes director. The statement can be found by clicking “News Flash” at www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/antcrc.

Etc.

According to a press release from the Republican National Committee, Chairman Jim Nicholson has “challenged Democrat Senate Candidate Hillary Clinton to declare whether she supports Gores reckless treaty (Kyoto Protocol) or hard-pressed New York families.” Noting that according to the respected economic forecasting firm, WEFA, Inc., the Kyoto Protocol would raise New York home heating oil prices by 71 percent and cost New York 140,000 jobs, Mr. Nicholson thinks that Mrs. Clinton should reveal “whether she shares Gores enthusiasm for the misguided Kyoto Treaty.”

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton said on January 25 that if elected to the Senate she would vote to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto vs. the Net

by William Yeatman on February 11, 2000

in Blog

On February 2 the House Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs held a hearing to learn more about the impact of the explosion in Internet usage on electricity demand. The hearing featured testimony from Jay Hakes, Administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Agency, Joseph Romm, Executive Director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, and Mark Mills, science advisor for the Greening Earth Society and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Chairman David McIntosh (R-IN) set the tone by arguing that coal is used to produce half of the USs electricity needs. “Coal is the fuel source targeted for extinction by the Kyoto Protocol. Is there not a fundamental incompatibility between the energy requirements of the digital economy and the Kyoto Protocol,” he asked. “Can we really wire the world and at the same time restrict US and global access to abundant, affordable, and reliable electric power?”

According to Romm, the Internet will actually make it easier to comply with Kyotos energy restrictions. He claimed that the Internet uses at most 1 percent of the USs total electricity consumption. Mills, on the other hand, argued that it uses 8 percent. Romms testimony was based on a study by his organization that concludes, “The Internet itself is not a major energy user, largely because it draws heavily on existing communications and computing infrastructure.”

Mills responded that, “This observation reflects such a deep misunderstanding of the telecommunications revolution that it is difficult to know how to respond. Just what exactly do the authors think the past half decade of over several trillion dollars in new investment in telecommunications and computing equipment has been for and driven by, if not the Internet?” Copies of the written testimony can be found at www.house.gov/reform/neg/hearings/index.htm.

Clinton Releases Global Warming Budget; Automakers Begin to Cut CO2 Emissions in Europe; House Members Lecture Speaker about Glo

by William Yeatman on February 11, 2000

in Politics

Clinton Releases Global Warming Budget

The Clinton-Gore Administrations FY2001 budget is laden with global warming pork and flouts the Knollenberg provision that prohibits implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification. The budget includes $2.4 billion to combat global warming and an additional $1.7 billion for global warming research.

Included in this sum is $289 million “to develop technologies that convert crops and other biomass into clean fuels and other products,” and over $200 million “to promote the export of clean energy technologies to developing nations.” The budget also contains $1.4 billion “to develop and deploy renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies for the buildings, transportation, industry and utility sectors; and to research coal and natural gas efficiencies and carbon sequestration,” and $85 million for state and local governments to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

Finally, the budget includes a massive outlay of tax credits of $4 billion over the next 5 years and $9 billion over the next 10 years to “consumers who purchase energy efficient products and for producers of energy from renewable sources.” The program is known as the Climate Change Technology Initiative. A summary of the budget can be found at www.whitehouse.gov.

Automakers Begin to Cut CO2 Emissions in Europe

While it has received little notice in this country, major automakers have begun to reduce CO2 emissions in cars sold in the European Union, under an agreement between the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) and the EU. According to the voluntary agreement, “Compliance with this target translates for the European automobile industry into an average CO2 reduction of 25 percent for newly registered cars, compared to 1995.”

The automakers state that “This target will mainly be achieved by technological developments affecting different car characteristics and market changes linked to these developments. In particular, ACEA will aim at a high share to the point of 90 percent of new cars sold being equipped with CO2 efficient direct injection gasoline and diesel technologies.”

This stated ability to achieve lower CO2 emissions would seem to conflict with the arguments advanced by automakers last fall in asking Congress to continue the freeze on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE). The Senate voted to maintain the freeze on a 55-40 vote.

In a December debate on monitoring CO2 emissions, several members of the European Parliament expressed their lack of faith in voluntary agreements. The parliament then voted 460-20 to instruct the European Commission to produce a plan to force compliance if the voluntary agreement fails. ACEAs members include Daimler-Chrysler, Ford of Europe, General Motors-Europe, and other major European automakers.

House Members Lecture Speaker about Global Warming

Inside EPA has acquired a letter to the Speaker of the House signed by about 30 Democratic House members asking for immediate action on global warming and urging the Speaker “to ensure that the House refrain from using the appropriations process to block sensible efforts to address this serious issue.”

The letter claims that, “There is no longer credible scientific debate over whether climate change is, in fact, occurring.” The signers, led by California Democrats George Miller and Henry Waxman, cite the recent National Research Council report to support their claim, even though it says nothing of the sort.

Additionally the letter pointed out that several companies have left the Global Climate Coalition. Why this is important is not clear. The congressmen request that appropriations bills be free of “anti-environmental” riders, such as the Knollenberg provision.

BP-Amocos Troubles

Environmental pressure groups have lavished praise on BP-Amoco for taking what they claimed was a principled stand on global warming. When BP CEO, Sir John Browne, announced that he believed that mans industrial activities were heating up the planet and that his company was leaving the Global Climate Coalition the Greens claimed a major victory.

But BPs capitulation has not freed it from criticism. It seems their so-called Green friends are attacking them with more zeal than ever. First, BP (now BP Amoco) is being harassed at its own shareholders meetings. A resolution was filed by a group of investors that calls for the company to cancel its Northstar project as well as to cease all lobbying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The group argued that these activities must be stopped to protect the environment and to prevent global warming. The group of investors, which calls itself Sane BP, is made up of Greenpeace, the US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), and “socially responsible” investors in the United States and Britain. Trillium Asset Management Corporation, an investment firm that specializes in “socially responsible” investing, joined the effort.

Greenpeace senior analyst Iain MacGill said that, “Despite these public pronouncements [in support of taking action on global warming] BP Amoco continues to pursue risky oil exploration in the pristine and vulnerable Arctic Ocean and Wildlife Refuge. It doesnt add up so we are giving investors a voice and a choice” (Environment News Service, January 26, 2000).

Greenpeace has also applauded the U.S. Federal Trade Commissions decision to oppose the merger of BP Amoco and Atlantic Richfield Corp (ARCO). “The FTC has the obligation and the authority to examine environmental threats presented by mergers,” said MacGill, “As for BP Amoco, we ask why a company whose stated goal is to provide energy without damaging the environment is pursuing more Arctic oil and fueling global warming” (U.S. Newswire, February 2, 2000).

In other BP-related news, the corporation has been handed a maximum criminal penalty of $500,000 by U.S. District Judge James Singleton for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaskas North Slope

The company has also been ordered to pay $15 million over the next five years to “establish a nationwide environmental management system designed to prevent future violations.” This is in addition to the $6.5 million that BP Amoco agreed to pay in civil penalties (Environment News Service, February 2, 2000).

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →