Blog

Glaciers Melt Despite Cooler Temperatures; Heat Mortality and Adaptation; Hurricanes on the Rise

by William Yeatman on December 7, 1999

in Science

Glaciers Melt Despite Cooler Temperatures

Flooding, mudslides and spillover from the Indus River in the Ladakh area along the Kashmiri and Tibetan border in the Himalayan Mountains were caused at least in part from glacier meltwater. One news story about the resulting damage to the famous thousand-year-old Hemis Buddhist Monastery mentioned that global warming may be the culprit.

Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, decided to see if warmer temperatures were indeed the cause of melting glaciers in the Himalayas. When he analyzed the 123-year temperature record for the region, compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he found no trend. His analysis revealed a statistically insignificant 0.04 degrees C cooling trend.

“Obviously, heavy rains during this past summer could be responsible for difficulties in the Ladakh area,” Balling wrote. “However, any suggestion that the nearby glaciers are retreating because of warming during this century is inconsistent with the temperature data for the region. The simplistic notion that glacial retreat implies local warming once again melts away when available temperature records are examined” (www.greeningearthsociety.org).

Heat Mortality and Adaptation

Predicted increases in heat-related mortality have been a staple of the global warming propaganda machine. The IPCC, for example, claims that, “[Based upon data from several North American cities,] the annual number of heat-related deaths would approximately double by 2020 and would increase several-fold by 2050.” But, according to a paper presented by Robert Davis, a climatologist with the University of Virginia, at the International Congress on Biometeorology in Sydney, Australia, these gloomy scenarios are incorrect.

The problem arises from plugging historic mortality data into future climate scenarios. If, for example, on average 50 people die as a result of a heat wave, then a tripling of the number of heat waves will triple the death rate. The paper found, however, that this simple extrapolation does not coincide with the data. By analyzing heat-related mortality in the New York City area, Davis and his four coauthors found that the weather/death link has weakened over the last few years (World Climate Report, www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate).

Hurricanes on the Rise

It sounds like the familiar global warming rhetoric weve all heard so often. According to William Gray, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, over the next 20 years “Well see hurricane damage like weve never seen before,” on the southeast coast of the U.S. (Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 27, 1999).

There is one difference in Dr. Grays predictions, however. Global warming is not the cause. “The global warming scenario is suspect as hell, I think,” said Gray. “Perhaps there has been a little bit of global warming, but its natural, cyclical, whether or not human-induced greenhouse gases are being put into the atmosphere,” said Gray (The Times-Picayune, November 30, 1999). Dr. Grays research has shown that hurricane activity follows a 20 to 40 year ocean circulation cycle that has occurred for thousands of years.

Dr. Grays predictions have been remarkably accurate. For this past hurricane season he predicted that there would be nine hurricanes there were eight. He predicted 14 named storms there were 12. And he predicted that there would be 75 hurricane days and there were 77. “He has made a tremendous contribution to tropical meteorology,” said Max Mayfield, deputy director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. “Bill Gray gets all the credit for saying were heading back into a multidecadal period of intense hurricanes.”

In spite of his success, Dr. Gray has recently had difficulty finding funding to continue his research. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has ceased funding Dr. Grays work. Officials claim that similar work is now being done by the National Hurricane Center and that Dr. Grays work is no longer needed. Moreover, Grays work is no longer ground breaking.

Dr. Gray has a different take. “I think its partly a backlash due to my criticism of their theories of global warming, and Ive also been criticizing their methodology of climate prediction.” All thirteen of Dr. Grays grant requests since 1991 have been turned down.

Ford Leaves GCC; Kyotos Nonexistent Mandate

by William Yeatman on December 7, 1999

in Politics

Ford Leaves GCC

In a terse statement dated December 3, the Ford Motor Company informed the Global Climate Coalition “that it will not renew its membership in that organization for the next year. We will continue to work with government, non-governmental and industry partners on technology-based voluntary approaches,” said Ford.

The group Ozone Action declared it a major victory for global warming activists. “This is one of the clearest signs to date that the debate over global warming is coming to a close,” said John Passacantando, the Executive Director of Ozone Action. Passacantando also said, “We have all suffered from a decade of lies on global warming from corporate America. Now we finally have Bill Ford, Jr., chairman of one of our countrys largest manufacturers, standing up saying that he wants to tell the truth about our most pressing environmental crisis. It makes for a promising century.”

According to one source, William Clay Ford, Jr. has been pushing this shift since becoming chairman last January, but has met resistance from the companys board of directors. A massive call-in and e-mail campaign organized by Ozone Action and other pressure groups to intimidate the company overloaded Fords phone e-mail system. This reportedly gave Mr. Ford the leverage he needed to convince the board to withdraw from the GCC.

The GCC released a statement claiming that Fords position on global warming, “opposing the Kyoto Protocol, while pursuing an aggressive policy of voluntary actions, research and development remain identical,” to the position of the Coalition. “What is most disappointing about Fords decision is that it seems to be driven by a campaign of misinformation by fringe environmental groups such as Ozone Action who disregard the serious nature of this debate with scare tactics, half-truths and outright distortions.”

Kyotos Nonexistent Mandate

The Kyoto Protocol has set a new standard in international negotiations. Prior to Kyoto, international agreements were hammered out and then submitted to the various countries for ratification. Once an agreement was reached and signed, no further action would be taken prior to completion of the ratification process.

The Kyoto Protocol, on the other hand, is a negotiated, signed, but unratified. Undaunted, global warming negotiators have carried on as if countries have agreed to abide by its requirements. Foul, cries Davik Wojick of the Electricity Daily (November 29, 1999). “The entire discussion at Bonn [the location of the fifth conference of the parties to the UNFCCC] was couched in terms of working out the details of a done deal,” said Wojick. “This illusion has implications. For one thing, it means that the negotiators are not looking ahead to formulating a plan that might actually be approved by the people. They are acting like social engineers, not politicians.”

Wojick points out that for the Kyoto Protocol to have legal force in the U.S. it must be ratified by the Senate, and that Congress must pass implementing legislation “empowering EPA, or some other agency, to make somebody do something.”

Wojick suggests an interesting experiment: “Suppose we require EPA to develop detailed air quality regulations before Congress passes the law that authorizes them. People have complained that EPA rules distort the will of Congress, but stay just within the technical discretion wiggle room afforded by judicial review. It might be a salutary experience all around if detailed proposed regulations had to be approved, by the representative branch of government, before they became final.”

Astronomical Cycles and Global Warming; Coral Reefs Rebound; Disease Not Due to Global Warming; No More Extreme Weather

by William Yeatman on November 24, 1999

in Science

Astronomical Cycles and Global Warming

Several factors have been implicated in climate change, including the sun, carbon dioxide, and changes in the Earths orbit. A team of researchers with the University of California-Berkeley has found that climate cycles are closely related to astronomical cycles. “Astronomy is responsible for almost all climate changes,” said project leader Richard Muller.

By examining sediment cores from the bottom of the oceans, the researchers found that ice ages last about 90,000 years followed by a warm period of about 10,000 years. They then examined astronomical cycles that influence the tilt of the Earths orbit and found that there is a close match between astronomical cycles and climate cycles. According to Muller, “When we look at ancient records of planets, these astronomical cycles appear in the climate record.

The gravitational forces from changes in the positions of other planets change the tilt of the Earths orbit. “By using the laws of physics, we can figure out what kind of cycles (other planets) induce on the orbit of the earth,” Muller said. Jupiter and Venus affect on Earths orbit the most. Jupiter because of its large mass and Venus because its relative proximity to Earth.

The researchers found that the Earth experiences ice ages when its orbit is less tilted and warm periods when it is more tilted. Unfortunately, they dont know why the tilt of the orbit influences climate. “We have lots of guesses and we are trying to figure out which one is correct,” Muller said. “The first guess is dust. Dust hitting the Earth has the same cycles as the ice ages.” But theres just not enough dust to account for dramatic climate change by itself, according to Muller, so there must be some feedback process at work.

“Our best guess as of right now is that changes in the dust affect the formation of clouds,” said Muller. “Remarkably, cloud formation is not well understood.” Muller does not discount manmade global warming, however. He argued that global warming is a near future phenomenon and that the coming ice age is in the distant future (University Wire, November 18, 1999).

Coral Reefs Rebound

The bleaching of coral reefs has been touted as one of the consequences of global warming. In a previous issue we highlighted a study that showed that coral bleaching may be part of a natural cycle. That finding now seems to be confirmed with the recovery of coral reefs throughout the world. The ProDivers News writes, “We are sure you will share our optimism and delight in the knowledge that coral growth and recovery is reported even in areas where extensive damage has been caused due to bleaching.” Information about coral reef recovery can be found on the web at www.prodivers.com/coralnews.htm.

Disease Not Due to Global Warming

The recent outbreak of West Nile virus in the New York metropolitan area was linked by some to global warming. But, said Sidney Shindell, professor emeritus in the department of preventive medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, “Dont you believe it. Theres no evidence that global warming is to blame. If anything, travel affects the emergence of disease, and human migrations have been the main source of disease outbreaks throughout history.”

“To combat mosquito-borne illnesses effectively,” said Shindell, we must “strengthen our public health infrastructure and implement better disease-prevention strategies, not invest in schemes to reduce greenhouse emissions that will disrupt our economy and place even more lives at risk” (Wisconsin State Journal, November 14, 1999).

No More Extreme Weather

Environment Canadas (a government department) senior climatologist, David Phillips is a global warming skeptic. Though many of his colleagues claim that mans warming of the planet leads to more destructive weather, Phillips says there is no proof of such a link. “The point Ive argued about with my colleagues is all the weather weve seen in recent history cant be blamed on global warming,” said Phillips. “There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the ice storm in Ontario last year or the Red River flood in Manitoba were direct results of what were doing to the atmosphere.”

Phillips doesnt discount the possibility that mans influence on the atmosphere may lead to more extreme weather, but the evidence doesnt show it. Phillips blames much of the erroneous perception on the advent of “storm porn,” the medias overreaction to natural disasters. The perception of more extreme weather, says Phillips, may have more to do with increasing media coverage than actual changes.

Phillips argues that population growth is blame for perceived increases in natural disasters. “Weathers doing a bigger number of people,” says Phillips. “That doesnt make the weather more extreme. Its just that were bigger targets now. Were getting in the way of the weather” (The Edmonton Sun, November 14, 1999).

New York Times Flunks Energy Test; Emission Trading Not the Answer

by William Yeatman on November 24, 1999

in Blog

New York Times Flunks Energy Test

Few reporters have towed the Clinton-Gore Administrations global warming line more faithfully than William K. Stevens at the New York Times. A recent article attempted to convince readers that there is a trend toward the use of “more energy efficient fuels” that could considerably slow down global warming. Unfortunately, Stevens has a poor grasp of the mechanics of energy use, as pointed out in a recent article in The Electricity Daily (November 15, 1999).

According to the author, Howard Hayden, proprietor of The Energy Advocate, “Fuels themselves are not efficient or inefficient.” Efficiency is determined by “the ratio of the useful energy obtained divided by the energy contained in the fuel.” Efficiency, then, is a function of the machinery used to extract useful energy. The more useful energy a furnace can extract from a unit of fuel the more efficient, and vice versa.

Stevens, of course, is referring to the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of heat delivered, said Hayden. Stevens claims, for example, that fuels with high carbon content have been progressively replaced with fuels with low carbon content. “First wood, high in carbon, was eclipsed by coal, which contains less carbon.” Hayden points out that coal is all carbon, something of which Stevens is apparently unaware.

We are now using natural gas that has four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom. Stevens claims “that the day of hydrogen providing no carbon at all may be about to dawn.” But, “there are no sources of free hydrogen whatsoever on the Earth,” says Hayden. “All hydrogen must be freed from chemical compounds (such as water) at a high price a lot of energy. More energy, in fact, than will ever be released from burning the hydrogen.”

Emission Trading Not the Answer

In the October 18 issue of Business Week, University of Chicago economist and Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker extolled the virtues of emission trading. In response, Russell Jones of the American Petroleum Institute argued that emission trading is no panacea (November 15, 1999).

“Trading permits is really about wealth, or wealth transfer,” said Jones. Depending on assumptions, you can easily put the annual world market value of the permits in the $200 billion to $1 trillion range. Either auctioning or allocating those permits among and within countries would cause great political distress.”

Emission trading could increase “deforestation and therefore greenhouse emissions,” Jones argued. “Thats because trading could drive up the price of fossil fuels, leaving wood as the energy source of choice in the developing world.” Jones concludes, “Beckers observation that enforcement of compliance is a challenge shows a mastery of subtle understatement.”

Pew Runs for Cover; IPCCs Draft Report Available; Federal Budgets Kyoto Outlays; University Students Gunning for GCC

by William Yeatman on November 24, 1999

in Politics

Pew Runs for Cover

As reported in our last issue, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a letter from Jack Kemp, challenged the Pew Center on Climate Change, a major left-wing advocate of energy controls, to a series of scientific debates in Washington and other cities, “to review the evidence for and against Kyoto in a more thoughtful fashion.” The Pew Center has now responded.

Eileen Claussen, the President and Chairman of the Board of the Pew Center, wrote in response to the challenge, “The Pew Center was founded to advance the broader discussion surrounding climate change not the Kyoto Protocol with credible and thoughtful analyses that would lead to realistic solutions to a serious problem.”

She goes on to say that “The Center has also initiated a series of peer-reviewed studies [that] have helped define the credible parameters within which reasonable differences can be considered by those with a stake in the issue (our emphasis).” Translation: The science is in. Manmade global warming is real. The only reasonable difference of opinion can be in what to do about it. The claim of peer-review is dubious. The reviewers were most likely selected because their viewpoint matched Pews, not to provide an objective evaluation.

According to Miss Claussen, “An adversarial forum on the Kyoto Protocol would not do justice to the scale and complexities of the climate change issue. What is needed is serious and informed discussion (our emphasis).” Miss Claussen claims, therefore, that the science behind the global warming theory is no longer a topic of “serious” debate. “For these reasons, we respectfully decline your invitation to a debate on Kyoto,” wrote Miss Claussen.

IPCCs Draft Report Available

Those who follow the global warming debate have noticed that the evidence supporting catastrophic scenarios becomes weaker each year. But dont expect the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes third assessment report to reflect that reality, however.

According to the New Scientist (November 20, 1999), the draft of the IPCCs third assessment report takes quite a different view. “Unlike the last IPCC assessment five years ago, which concluded merely that the balance of evidence suggested that global warming was caused by humans, the latest report unequivocally points to humans as the culprits.”

The report claims that the world has been warming at a rate of 2 degrees C per century since 1976, and that this rate is “unprecedented” based on data from the past millenium. “Whats more,” reports the New Scientist, “climate modeling studies in the past five years all show that the patterns of warming match predictions based on the greenhouse effect much better than those based on alternative theories.”

Perhaps the most startling claim of the draft report is that even though solar influence is probably responsible for some of the warming experienced in the first half of the century, “Based on these factors alone temperatures would actually have fallen during the past two decades,” reports the New Scientist.

Other predictions include a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet over the next 1000 years and a subsequent rise in sea level of 7 meters and that forests may exhibit a “positive feedback” effect. After absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, forests could succumb to heat stress and release their carbon. The draft of the IPCC report is available on the web at www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/ipcc/wg1/drafts.

Federal Budgets Kyoto Outlays

The Clinton-Gore Administration has been successful in gaining Congresss approval of increased funding to combat global warming, according to a White House press release. “The budget provides $1.1 billion for research and development of clean energy through the Climate Change Technology Initiative, including a 7 percent increase for energy efficiency investments to reduce pollution, create jobs, and save consumers money.”

The press release also boasts of extending tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001. “These tax credits encourage no- (wind) and low- (biomass) emission energy production. The biomass tax credit encourages farmers to grow certain materials that can be burned to produce energy. Producing energy from wind and biomass preserves scarce energy resources and reduces our reliance on imported oil.” Finally, the administration claims that it was the last line of defense against attempts “to block common-sense actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution” (U.S. Newswire, November 18, 1999).

University Students Gunning for GCC

“UCLAs undergraduate student government has approved a resolution urging the University of California Regents to divest itself of holdings of industrial and manufacturing firms that the students say contribute to global warming,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Undergraduate Student Affairs Council voted 9-2 to divest holdings of Exxon, Ford, and General Motors, which are members of the Global Climate Coalition. Also, 58 UCLA faculty members have sent a letter to the regents urging them to divest holdings in GCC companies.

Students and faculty members of Grinnell College in Iowa have also signed a letter urging the trustees to “avoid investing any of the schools billion-dollar endowment fund in companies that oppose limits on greenhouse gas emissions.” The letter signed by members of a student group called “Free the Planet” and 28 faculty members said that they are opposed to investments in GCCs member companies.

Grinnell officials say that the college has not invested in any of these companies. The trustees will consider the proposal, however. Grinnell student Bill Holland says his group wants “the trustees to take a formal stand against investing in the firms,” as well as a resolution from the student government (The Des Moines Register, November 12, 1999).

Yawns in Bonn; Implementation Without Ratification?; CEI Challenges Pew

by William Yeatman on November 10, 1999

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Yawns in Bonn

The fifth Conference of the Parties (COP-5) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded with little fanfare and with major decisions being put off until COP-6 in 2000. The conference had begun with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder calling on governments to ratify the Protocol so that it will be in force by 2002.

The dispute between the U.S. and the E.U. over whether there should be caps on the use of flexible mechanisms was tabled once again. But several technical issues were resolved, such as an agreement “on how to improve the rigor of national reports from industrialized countries and strengthen the guidelines for measuring their greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Other decisions,” according to a press release from the conference, “establish the process negotiators will follow over the coming 12 months. They will make it possible to finalize regimes for non-compliance, capacity building, emission trading, joint implementation, and a Clean Development Mechanism. They also point the way forward for determining how to address adverse effects on developing countries and how to account for net emissions from forests (which can act as carbon sinks).” The sixth Conference of the Parties will be held in The Hague on November 13-24, 2000.

Implementation Without Ratification?

The Clinton-Gore Administration has said repeatedly that it will do nothing to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to ratification by the U.S. Senate. Several actions by the administration, however, demonstrate that they are perfectly willing to pursue reductions of CO2 in the absence of ratification. Although administration proposals such as the Clean Technology Initiative and its support for “credits for early action” may not directly implement Kyoto, they are clearly meant to grease the skids to ratification, and perhaps make such a vote a mere formality.

A recent action by the administration clearly shows it has no respect for constitutional processes. The U.S. Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by a 51-48 vote on October 13. Despite this rejection, the administration maintains that the treaty is the law of the land merely by virtue of the presidents signature.

According to an article in The Washington Times (November 2, 1999), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote a letter to foreign governments stating that the U.S. is legally bound by the treaty despite the Senates rejection. “Despite this setback, I want to assure you that the United States will continue to act in accordance with its obligations as a signatory under international law, and will seek reconsideration of the treaty at a later date when conditions are better suited for ratification,” said Secretary Albright.

State Department spokesman James Rubin said in an interview, “We believe that so long as the presidentexpresses his intention to seek advice and consent pending whatever timeframe he chooses, customary international law applies.” In other words, as long as the administration has not given up on the treaty it is still legally bound to uphold it. The same logic could apply to Kyoto. Since President Clinton has not submitted it to the Senate for ratification, but plans to do so, the U.S. is bound to comply with its targets.

Further evidence of the administrations disrespect for the law is its latest attack on coal-fired power plants. Thwarted by the D.C. Court of Appeals in its attempts to impose overly stringent air-quality standards on utilities in Midwestern states, the Environmental Protection Agency has brought suit against seven electric utility companies for emissions at coal-fired power plants.

According to Ken Maize, editor of Electricity Daily (November 8, 1999), “EPA has concocted a novel, backdoor approach (to lower NOx emissions): claiming that what the utilities clearly believed were routine maintenance activities were actually major modifications under the Clean Air Act. Its a gigantic stretch.”

“The EPAs latest ploy is clearly extra-legal. The definition of routine maintenance has been long established, and none of the utilities charged in the EPA complaint were reckless enough or stupid enough to try to turn routine maintenance into a loophole,” wrote Mr. Maize. “A retrospective reinterpretation in what constitutes a major modification gives the agency a hammer to pound home its policy views.”

CEI Challenges Pew

The debate over global warming has deteriorated to thirty-second sound bites that consist of a litany of scare stories with no scientific basis whatsoever. In an attempt to raise the level of the debate, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has challenged the Pew Center on Climate Change, a major left-wing advocate of energy controls, to a series of scientific debates in Washington and other cities, “to review the evidence for and against Kyoto in a more thoughtful fashion.”

The letter was sent by Jack Kemp, a distinguished fellow at CEI, to the Pew Center and appeared in a full-page ad in Roll Call on November 2, 1999. So far the Pew Center has not responded to the challenge.

Why We Shouldnt Sweat Global Warming; The Costs of El Nio, La Nia; Sinking Carbon: Literally

by William Yeatman on November 10, 1999

in Science

Why We Shouldnt Sweat Global Warming

In a briefing for congressional staff and media on November 5, sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition, Dr. Patrick Michaels debunked many of the global warming myths that have made their way into public debate over the last decade. Climate models have consistently overestimated climatic warming, and new research has proved that mild warming will likely be beneficial to human beings and the planet, according to Dr. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia

“The warming we are seeing is largely confined to the areas of Siberia and northwestern North America, and the vast majority of that occurs during the winter months,” Dr. Michaels explained. Accordingly, the most likely result of a predicted 1.5-degree increase in temperatures over the next 100 years will be slightly milder winters in Siberia and Northern Canada, hardly doomsday effects.

The current, rather mild, warming projections come from many of the same researchers that made the apocalyptic warming predictions of a decade ago. Climatologists around the world have been progressively revising their predictions downward as their models improve. “It appears that the people who were the so-called small band of skeptics must have had a point,” Dr. Michaels commented.

Dr. Michaels critiqued media coverage linking “severe” weather to global warming. He noted that neither droughts, hurricanes, nor floods have increased significantly in the last 50 years. Regarding the infamous Dust Bowl drought of 1934, Dr. Michaels stressed how such events were part of the earths natural cycle: “Severe droughts have happened before, and theyre going to happen again. Except that the next time, itll be global warming thats responsible. No one will want to hear about all the times these kinds of event have happened in the past.”

The talk concluded with some very simple answers to the climate change debate. Temperature increases, concentrated in the coldest parts of the world, and mostly during winter, will, if anything, be beneficial. “Cold related deaths outnumber heat related deaths four to one,” Dr. Michaels pointed out.

Two members of Ozone Action passed out a one page “expos” of Dr. Michaels that misrepresented his views on global warming. During Q&A, Dr. Michaels confronted them but they had no response. Hopefully, Ozone Actions misperceptions regarding Dr. Michaels views have been cleared up.

The Costs of El Nio, La Nia

El Nio has taken a lot of heat for its alleged role in several adverse weather events. In our September 15 issue we highlighted a study that argued that El Nios influence on weather patterns is a net benefit to the U.S. economy. A new study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (October 1999), by Roger Pielke with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Christopher Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gives further evidence that El Nio is a beneficial phenomenon.

The study looked at how hurricane activity was affected by the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) from 1925 to 1997. The authors found that most of the recent hurricane damage occurred during periods of transition between El Nio and La Nia. El Nio periods, however, experienced fewer damaging hurricanes than both the transition periods and periods of La Nia. “The average damage per storm of El Nio years is $800 million versus $1,600 million in La Nia years,” said the authors.

Green activists argued during the most recent El Nio that global warming would lead to more frequent and more intense El Nios that would have all sorts of adverse climatic consequences. Even if the Greens are correct about the link between global warming and El Nio (theres no evidence of a link in the scientific literature), they are wrong that it will be harmful. The evidence shows that El Nio is a good thing.

Sinking Carbon: Literally

The use of carbon sinks has been hotly debated, with Green activists, who dont want anything to interfere with the elimination of fossil fuels, being opposed to their use, and industry in favor of their use. The evidence is clear, however, that there is great potential in the use of carbon sinks, if removing CO2 from the atmosphere is the sort of thing one would like to do.

According to researchers at Kansas State University, one of the greatest potential carbon sinks is the prairie soils of Americas breadbasket. They argue that “Changes in farming techniques such as not plowing the soil and adjusting crop rotations so that land is left fallow for shorter periods can keep the carbon locked up in the soil for hundreds, if not thousands of years” (The Sunday Gazette Mail (Charleston, W.Va.), November 7, 1999).

Climate Science Position Statement from Germany

The German Meteorological Society has issued a position statement on the current state of climate science. The statement notes many of the shortcomings of current climate models, arguing that “It is therefore scientifically proven without a doubt that radiation fluxes in the system Earth/Atmosphere are changed through the increase of climate-relevant trace gases. Without consideration of feedback effects in the complicated climate system, this would certainly lead to a warming of the surface and troposphere. The real, scientifically challenging debate deals with the question to what extent the different feedback processes strengthen or diminish the warming from radiative forcing” (translation courtesy of Fred Singer). For further details see The Week that Was, November 6, 1999 at www.sepp.org.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Slow; U.K. Needs Nuclear Power

by William Yeatman on November 10, 1999

in Blog

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Slow

A new report by the Department of Energys Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that U.S. emission of greenhouse gases rose in 1998, but at a slower rate than the average for the last ten years. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased by about 1.2 percent per year on average. In 1998, however, emissions rose by only 0.2 percent over 1997 levels. The EIA also noted that U.S. emission levels remained about 10 percent above 1990 levels.

Many advocates of Kyoto style energy controls have pointed to this report as evidence that the use of fossil fuels is no longer linked to economic growth, since this decline occurred while the U.S. economy posted strong gains. The EIA argues, however, that the decline was due to a warmer-than-usual winter, which lowered demand for heating (BNA Daily Environment Report, November 8, 1999).

U.K. Needs Nuclear Power

Green pressure groups have dubbed global warming the greatest threat to the planet, so great that we must make severe reductions in energy use at great cost to prevent it. They are also adamantly opposed to the use nuclear power to stop this world-ending threat.

According to the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society, however, there may be little choice. These groups argue in a joint report “that the UKs stated intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming, will only be met by accepting the need for nuclear power as a significant part of the energy mix,” according to the UK: Environment News (November 8, 1999). It looks like the Greens are going to have to decide which is the greater threat: global warming or nuclear power.

Governments Agree on Kyotos Costs; Canada Will Feel Kyoto Pain the Most

by William Yeatman on October 31, 1999

in Kyoto Negotiations

Governments Agree on Kyotos Costs

Economic studies attempting to ascertain the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol almost invariably come to the same conclusion: it will be expensive (the lone exception being a study conducted by the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers). Many of these studies have been criticized as being paid for by industry, and therefore not credible. However, they are rarely criticized on the merits, and for good reason: they are conducted by highly competent economic forecasting firms.

Moreover, these studies are generally supported by studies conducted by government agencies. Mary Novak, Senior Vice President of WEFA Energy Services, evaluated five different government assessments of the costs of the Kyoto Protocol at a conference sponsored by the American Council for Capital Formation on October 13.

Novak reported that the studies are very pessimistic. The five assessments were conducted by the European Commission Directorate General for Energy, the International Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration, and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

These studies all find that the energy sector would be required to make massive reductions in carbon emissions. They also argue that CO2 emissions are closely linked to all aspects of economic growth and that energy use is essential to improving economic well being.

The studies also found that due to the long-lived nature of energy-using capital equipment, it would be very expensive to further improve energy efficiency in the short time frame contemplated by the Kyoto Protocol. Meeting the Kyoto targets is further complicated in European countries where they are moving to retire nuclear capacity.

Finally, the studies argue that opportunities for meeting the targets through fuel substitution (gas for coal, for instance) are few since there have already been significant advances made along these lines. All of the studies agree that Annex B countries will be unable to meet their Kyoto targets without large carbon taxes or extensive use of flexible mechanisms.

Canada Will Feel Kyoto Pain the Most

So far the U.S. has been nearly alone in its skepticism of global warming claims and the need to spend billions of dollars to prevent it. The Canadians, however, are becoming more and more squeamish about the Kyoto Protocol and its implications.

They have good reason to worry. A new study by Charles River Associates, an economic consulting firm, shows that of all the industrial nations Canada could face the highest costs to reduce energy emissions. “Of all the OECD countries,” says the study, “Canada is probably in the most disadvantageous position to respond to the Kyoto Protocol.” Compliance could reduce Canadas annual economic growth by 0.66 to 2 percent per year.

To meet its Kyoto targets, Canada would have to reduce its energy emissions by 28 percent below the levels that would otherwise be reached in 2010. This would mean raising gasoline prices by 24 cents a liter and doubling natural gas prices. This could also hurt Canadian industrys ability to compete in international markets, since they are already a comparatively high-cost producer (Financial Times, October 26, 1999).

Bonn is Underway; Greens Launch Propaganda Blitz; Greens Petition EPA to Regulate CO2

by William Yeatman on October 31, 1999

in Politics

Bonn is Underway

The fifth Conference of the Parties (COP-5) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under way in Bonn, Germany. Some of the issues to be considered include the use of flexible mechanisms, such as emission trading, and developing country participation.

The conference opened with a speech by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who called for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002. He told the delegates that the industrialized nations must set an example for developing countries. Michael Zammit Cutajar, executive secretary of the convention, applauded Schroeders speech and that the proposal is “an encouraging goal” (Greenwire, October 26, 1999).

Greens Launch Propaganda Blitz

Maybe youve seen them television ads with disturbing images of natural disasters and a somber voice claiming that global warming will lead to global climate chaos. Its all part of a new, multimillion-dollar campaign by Green pressure groups to convince Americans to hand control over their energy future to international bureaucrats.

The ads warn Americans of the causes and consequences of global warming, claiming that it will lead to more hurricanes, droughts, fires, and so on. One ad even claims that global warming will cause an increase in childhood asthma. “Asthma,” begins the ad, “Its striking more and more of our kids. In just 13 years, the number of children with asthma has more than doubled. Scientists know that global warming is real and heating up the planet. More heat means more smog, and smog can trigger asthma attacks for our kids.”

The television, radio and print ads, sponsored by the National Environment Trust, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, are funded by an array of left-wing charitable foundations. The Turner Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the John Merck Fund, and the W. Alton Jones Foundation have provided $8 million for the ads and $3 million for grassroots efforts. Turner is also providing money to the League of Conservation Voters to sponsor presidential debates on environmental issues (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 6, 1999).

In concert with the ads, several Green pressure groups are releasing “studies” about global warming. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, released a report that warned of flooding in New York and Tokyo, droughts in Latin America, and the destruction of Australias Great Barrier Reef. “Evidence for the warming of our planet over the last 200 years is now overwhelming,” claims WWF. With no action to curb emissions, the climate on earth over the next century could become warmer than any the human species has lived through” (ABC News, October 19, 1999).

U.S. PIRG, part of a web of groups associated with fearmonger extraordinaire, Ralph Nader, has also released a report repeating the tired litany of disasters supposedly linked to global warming. The claims by these groups are based on pure speculation, however. They are not supported by the scientific literature (www.igc.apc.org/pirg/uspirg).

Businesses Are Eager to Look Green

The global warming debate has been cast by Green activists as a moral battle between greed and profit versus saving the planet. The dynamics of the debate are slowly changing, however, as businesses are beginning to pay lip service to the claim that the production of goods and services is destroying the planet. Businesses that make the switch are transformed from public enemy, in the eyes of Green activists, to venerable icons. Few commentators suggest, however, that the profit-seeking impulse that drives businesses initial resistance to government regulation may be at work in their apparent change of heart.

An article in the Wall Street Journal (October 19, 1999) discusses the change in corporate Americas global warming stance. The article notes that “some of the nations biggest companies are starting to count greenhouse gases and change business practices to achieve real cuts in emissions.” Moreover, “many of them are finding the exercise is green in more ways than one: Reducing global warming can lead to energy-cost savings.”

The Journal notes another motivation for the change in corporate behavior. “Many U.S. multinationals trying to keep pace with Europes faster approach simply dont want to be on the extreme end of the political spectrum, especially if they want a seat at the table where regulations are being crafted. Some hope to forestall or dilute legislation by reducing emission voluntarily.”

One company, American Electric Power, admits that its primary motivation for joining a business group that has “moderate” views on global warming is to be able to influence future standards. “Once you realize that you cant kill this thing, then its incumbent upon you to try to be a player in the process of shaping policies,” said Dale Heydlauff, the utilitys vice president of environmental affairs.

Greens Petition EPA to Regulate CO2

A coalition of Green activists petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act on October 20. The coalition claims that cars and light trucks in the U.S. are largely responsible for global warming, and threatened to file suit against the EPA to force them to regulate automobile emissions. The EPA has the discretion under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, according to the coalition.

According to Chris Horner, counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, “The Clean Air Act never specifically mentions global warming gases except to say that they cant be regulated.” And Rep. David McIntosh, chairman of the Subcommitte on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, has said, “EPA has somehow missed the obvious. The Clean Air Act is a carefully structured statute with specific titles that establish specific regulatory programs to accomplish specific objectives.The Clean Air Act is not a regulatory blank check.”

The coalition includes Green pressure groups such as Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth and the National Environment Trust, and renewable energy industry groups such as Bio Fuels America, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and several state solar energy associations.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →