Blog

Court Ruling Defeats Kyoto; Global Warming Causes Extreme Legislative Fury; Greens Release a Slew of Global Warming Reports

by William Yeatman on July 6, 1999

in Politics

Court Ruling Defeats Kyoto

In May the federal appeals court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agencys standards for ozone and particulate matter on the grounds that they constituted an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.” According to Bonner Cohen in an article in Electricity Daily (June 28, 1999) this ruling also thwarts the “administrations plans to implement the Kyoto Protocol by regulatory means.” Cohen points out that “the manmade sources of ozone and particulate matter automobiles, coal-fired electric utilities, manufacturing plants, etc. are the same ones that produce manmade greenhouse gases.”

Cohen argues that the EPAs ozone/particulate standard was a “regulatory scheme that would also allow it to control emissions of greenhouse gases, even without Senate ratification of the global warming treaty.” This is right in line with other actions by the administration and the EPA. Cohen reminds us of an internal EPA document, titled Climate Change Action Plan that “contained no fewer than 39 different taxes and fees on energy the administration could impose under existing statutes, without having to get Congressional approval.” And the administration continues to try and bypass the Senate ratification in its attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“The purpose of the whole exercise” was to “force the nations major metropolitan areas to reduce levels of ozone and particulates and greenhouse gases all within the same regulatory framework,” says Cohen. “Had the court not faulted the way EPA arrived at its new standardsthe country could well be on the way to implementing a treaty the Senate will probably never ratify.”

Global Warming Causes Extreme Legislative Fury

Several bills related to global warming are being promoted on Capitol Hill. The most recent is the Administrations package of energy efficiency taxes, introduced by Rep. Bob Matsui (D-Cal.). The bill is a $3.6 billion plan to give tax breaks to consumers who buy energy efficient homes, cars, water heaters, and rooftop solar systems. It also encourages the use of other renewable energies (U.S. Newswire, June 29, 1990).

Frank Pallone (D- N.J.) will introduce a bill that would create an emission trading system amongst electric power plants with caps on emissions. According to the BNA Daily Environment Report (July 2, 1999) the “bill would impose a cap and allow trading of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide emission allowances.” Also, it “would amend the Federal Power Act and require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to set standards for those pollutants cap levels.”

Greens Release a Slew of Global Warming Reports

In what appears to be a major concerted effort, several Green activist organizations have released reports warning about the dangers of global warming, and the media are reporting them with the same seriousness they would peer-reviewed scientific papers. Greenpeace (see below) has released a report that claims that coral reefs could disappear in the next 100 years.

The Environmental Defense Fund (www.edf.org) is claiming that New York City could experience serious problems resulting from climate change. For example, sea level rise could threaten lower Manhattan with “frequent flooding by the end of the next century.” The report gets even more specific. “The foundations of Battery Park City and the World Trade Center would be flooded regularly. The East River would flood Bellevue Medical Center, the FDR Drive and East Harlem between 96th and 114th Streets. Storms would flood much of Coney Island, submerging or creating islands of residential communities there and in Staten Island nearly annually,” and so on.

The report also predicts that the number of days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit would increase from 13 to between 38 and 80 days per year, leading to increased mortality due to heat stress among the elderly. It also claims that children could be at risk “because of health risks due to air pollution.”

Finally the report argues that “global warming may increase the frequency of extreme weather events, including both prolonged periods with little precipitation and periods of heavy downpour and snowfall, leading both to more droughts and more inland floods.” One scenario described by the report could have 100-year floods occurring every 3 to 11 years in New York City by 2100. Higher sea levels could also push salt water further up the Hudson River threatening the citys water supply.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org) has also released a report claiming that temperature rise due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions could occur more rapidly than previously thought. According to the report, the presence of SO2 in the atmosphere serves to cool the planet. But SO2 is regulated to reduce acid rain deposition. As more countries restrict the emission of SO2, temperatures could rise.

The report says that the 1996 edition of the IPCC report used predictions of SO2 emissions from 1992 which projected a doubling of SO2 over the next century. The new projections show only a slight rise in emissions for the next 100 years. Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center said, “the data and likely impacts outlined in this study should encourage concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 30, 1999).

Red Cross Sees Global Warming Green

It is no secret that the global warming scare has become a cash cow for many groups and individuals. Green groups use the issue to convince contributors to give larger donations and scientists of many disciplines try to make their work relevant to global warming in order to get a share of the federal governments yearly $2 billion global warming giveaway.

Now a major humanitarian organization, Red Cross International, has jumped on the bandwagon. A new report by the Red Cross argues that global warming will increase major disasters, and that the Red Cross will need more money to pay for it. The report claims that there will be more droughts and that “marginal areas” will become “uninhabitable” in 20 years. It also says that the “one in 50 year hurricane may return one in ten years.” Disappearing mountain glaciers will cause rivers to dry up and there will be changes in disease patterns affecting millions (The Electricity Daily, July 2, 1999).

The Red Cross does many good things, but adopting the most extreme scenarios of the radical green movement to raise money diminishes its credibility. It would do well to consult the scientific literature. There is no evidence of an increase of more extreme weather, more droughts, more floods or any of the other scenarios presented by the Red Cross.

A Flexible Policy is the Best One; SO2 Trading Not a Good Model

by William Yeatman on July 6, 1999

in Blog

A Flexible Policy is the Best One

The Kyoto Protocol is widely seen as an excessive policy that has little chance of being implemented. According to Warwick McKibbin and Peter Wilcoxen of the Brookings Insitution, the Kyoto Protocol is “a policy that is very strict in principle but completely ineffective in practice is neither prudent nor realistic.” McKibbin and Wilcoxen argue that the large scientific uncertainties make it unlikely that the Kyoto Protocol will be accepted.

The authors argue, however, that since “it is quite clear that human activity is raising global concentrations of carbon dioxide,” and that “virtually no one is suggesting that we can emit as much carbon dioxide as we want into the atmosphere without adverse consequences,” we must do something. Policies should include four key features: CO2 reductions should be cost effective, companies adversely effected by restrictions should be compensated, there should be domestic and international consensus for the policy, and there should be a mechanism to ensure that a core group of countries continue to carry out emission reductions even if others reject compliance.

The policy they propose “is an international system of emissions permits and fees for the use of fossil fuels.” The authors propose that governments give businesses a certain number of permits. If a business needs more permits, it can purchase them. The authors suggest that the permits be sold at $10 per ton of carbon, which would translate into $6.50 per ton of coal and $1.40 per barrel of crude oil. The “user fee” would be set by international agreement. The authors argue that this is a sensible policy because it gives a clear economic incentive to reduce emissions. Businesses that reduce emissions sufficiently can sell their permits.

This proposal, however, is nothing more than a carbon tax dressed in sheeps clothing. The only difference is that it is a tax that can be avoided, making it more acceptable to business. Moreover, it is widely admitted that even the draconian Kyoto Protocols effect on the climate will be too small to detect. McKibbin and Wilcoxens proposal would do nothing to slow global warming. The main effect of the policy would be to further governments ambitions to control the worlds energy use.

SO2 Trading Not a Good Model

The Clinton Administration has argued that an international emission trading system would significantly reduce the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. It justifies this claim by pointing to the U.S. acid rain program, which it credits with using emission trading to reduce the cost of lowering the SO2 emissions. A new policy brief by the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that the acid rain program is not as successful as advertised and does not support the contention that emission trading will reduce the costs of emissions reductions.

The administration argues that the acid rain program has reduced emissions below the required regulatory cap and has done so at very low cost, about $100 per ton of SO2 reduced. According to the brief, however, economists have estimated that the true cost of the acid rain program has been about $187 to $210 per ton. Moreover, the program is supposed to reduce total emissions to 9 million tons by 2002. That goal will not be reached until between 2005 and 2012, according to economists at MIT.

Finally, it is doubtful whether the acid rain program can be credited with SO2 reductions. Demographic changes in electricity demand, according to one researcher, may have lead to reductions even in the absence of the acid rain program. Others have pointed out that railroad deregulation greatly reduced the costs of using low sulfur coal, saving money for the electric utilities while reducing SO2 emissions. The On Point policy brief can be found at www.cei.org.

A Complete Temperature Record; Global Warming Destroys Coral Reefs?

by William Yeatman on July 6, 1999

in Science

A Complete Temperature Record

Long term, continuous and uncorrupted temperature records are difficult to find. One such record does exist at an agricultural experiment station, known as Rothamsted Experimental Station, in southeastern England. The station has been taking temperature readings every day at 9 a.m. since 1878 using thermometers very similar to the ones we use today. The 121-year record is continuous with no missing data and the landscape has remained largely agricultural over the entire period.

The data, analyzed by Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, shows rising temperatures from 1878 to 1950 and then cooling until the 1980s. The last decade, says Balling, “has been dominated by high temperatures. The total record shows a warming trend of 0.71 degrees C.”

Balling also found that “winter warming of minimum temperatures accounts for more than 40 percent of all warming observed at Rothamsted; summer maximum temperatures account for only 10 percent of the warming,” meaning that most of the warming occurs at night and in winter. Also, 92.5 percent of the warming in the record occurred before 1950.

Scientists at the station have also collected rainfall data during the same period and also began collecting data on sunshine and cloud cover in 1915. These records show that both sunshine and rainfall have increased slightly during the last 84 years. Balling concludes that as a result of these changes together with increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that “crops there now perform better than their ancestors in the days of Lawes and Gilbert (founders of the station)” (World Climate Report, July 5, 1999).

Global Warming Destroys Coral Reefs?

A new report by Greenpeace claims that global warming will destroy the worlds great coral reefs by 2100 if something isnt done to stop it. The report states that “Coral reefs could be eliminated from most areas of the world by 2100,” and that even the Great Barrier Reef could be dead within 30 years. The report also claims that even if measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken it may still take 500 years for the reefs to recover (www.greenpeace.org).

The New Scientist (July 3, 1999) reports a different mechanism for the ill health of coral reefs. Dick Barber of Duke University says that drought in the Sahel region of Africa has increased atmospheric dust fivefold. The dust carries viruses, bacteria, and fungi that can kill coral. The dust also carries iron that stimulates the growth of algae that can smother reefs. Barber does not claim, however that his theory contradicts the theory that global warming is killing reefs. He argues that “warming leaves the coral more vulnerable to disease.”

Etc.

  • Ross Gelbspan, the author of The Heat is On now has an internet sight called The Heat is Online (www.heatisonline.org) to promote his global warming views. The website has a multimedia presentation, and a 6,000-word overview, which claims that “this new era of climate change could well be the most profound threat ever facing humanity.” The website also “catalogues the last four years of increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events all over the world,” as well as provides short synopses of scientific findings and offers solutions. Finally, the site “documents a pervasive and very successful industry campaign of deception and disinformation.”

Bill to Ban Early Action Crediting; GAO: Clinton Climate Report Flawed; Deadlocked Bonn Meeting Ends;

by William Yeatman on June 22, 1999

in Politics

Bill to Ban Early Action Crediting

Recent attempts to implement the Kyoto Protocol have come under the guise of giving emission credits to companies that voluntarily engage in reducing CO2 emissions. The first proposed bill of this type was introduced in the Senate by Senators John Chafee (R-R.I.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Connie Mack (R-Fla.). Another “credit for early action” bill is expected to be introduced soon in the House by Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) and Calvin Dooley (D-Cal.).

In response to these bills and other actions by the Clinton-Gore Administration, Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) has introduced a bill, “Stand up for Small Business, Family Farms and the U.S. Constitution” (H.R. 2221). The bill explains that “credit for early action” legislation constitutes implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and would pave the way to ratification by building a “pro-Kyoto business constituency.”

This would occur because companies that participate in the program would receive “credits potentially worth millions of dollars but which would have no actual cash value unless the Kyoto Protocol, or a comparable domestic regulatory program, were ratified or adopted,” according to Mr. McIntosh.

The bill would also prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating CO2 as a pollutant. The bill points out that, “When the Congress enacted and amended the Clean Air Act, it did not delegate to the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide. Such regulation would constitute a usurpation of legislative power” as well as constituting implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The bill says that, “no Federal Agency has authority to promulgate regulations to limit emissions of carbon dioxide unless a law is enacted after the date of enactment of this Act that specifically grants such authority.”

Finally the bill would make permanent the prohibitions set forth in the Knollenberg provision that prevents the use of federal funds to implement or contemplate the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

GAO: Clinton Climate Report Flawed

The Clinton Administration is required by law to submit a “Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures.” But, according to the General Accounting Office, the report is not really useful. The report states that “discussion of climate change activities and the performance goals set out in the report are organized by program or group of programs,” which “does not correspond to either the line items in the presidents budget nor completely to the tables in the report itself on spending by program or program element.”

The GAO comments that this limits the reports usefulness. Users of the report “cannot identify line items in the presidents budget, for example, those with large dollar amounts or those for which an increase in funding is being requested. Nor can users easily identify in the report what activities are planned and what performance goals have been established” (The Electricity Daily, June 11, 1999).

Deadlocked Bonn Meeting Ends

A conference held in Bonn, Germany to lay the groundwork for the upcoming 5th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP5), ended on June 11 with little progress to report.

The European Union has played a very proactive role in the negotiations with several proposals. For example, the EU has called “for broader faster action and identifying priority sectors.” It also presented a European Commission Communication on “reflecting environmental policies in other sector-specific policies, particularly those with a direct bearing on the climate (energy, taxation, transport, agriculture, industry).” The EU also continued to push for “a system to police compliance with the undertakings,” and the creation of “a compliance system that is comprehensive, consistent, uniform, efficient and effective.”

There appears to be a slight softening among developing countries regarding their participation. One group of countries, which includes Korea, Argentina, and Mexico, said they would be willing to pursue greenhouse gas policies. Most developing countries, including China, continue to oppose commitments of any sort. The OPEC countries continue to work to prevent implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (Europe Environment, June 15, 1999).

The EU and the U.S. continue to butt heads over flexible mechanisms. The EU wants to limit their use to 50 percent of total emissions reductions, while the U.S. wants unlimited trading. Frank Loy, U.S. under secretary of state for global affairs, argues that the negotiations could come crashing down unless significant progress is made in the next few years.

Loy argued that flexible mechanisms would greatly reduce the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol, and would allow for developing country participation. Said Loy, “Eventually capital transfers under the Kyoto Protocol will dwarf those from official assistance.” (Financial Times, June 15, 1999).

Global Warming: A Matter of Faith?

The National Council of Churches is launching a year-long interfaith campaign to garner support for action against global warming. The campaign will focus on four states. According Richard Killmer, environmental justice director for the NCC, the states “have been chosen for specific reasons,” — Michigan because of the auto industry, Iowa because it holds the first presidential caucuses, and West Virginia and Pennsylvania because of their fossil fuel sectors.

The Interfaith groups are planning to lobby legislators, unions, and business leaders, getting churches involved in energy conservation, and placing opinion pieces in local media. (Greenwire, June 11, 1999). See www.webofcreation.org/NCC/Workgrp.html.

“Early Action” Bill Postponed

Rep. Rick A. Lazio (R-N.Y.), who’s weighing a run for Senate, postponed introduction of an “early action credit” legislation to meet with opponents of the idea. Lazios decision was prompted when David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, sent him an “urgent memorandum” expressing deep concerns from the “entire conservative community” about the bill. Keene urged Lazio to “seriously consider the enormous political and policy downsides of supporting [the bill] . . . I would be surprised if those conservative leaders whom you are currently courting in New York do not share our view on this.”

OR Senate: Dont Implement Kyoto

The Oregon Senate has approved a bill barring new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions until the federal government ratifies the Kyoto Protocol. Supporters of the Oregon measure call it financial protection for state businesses and communities threatened by the global warming treaty. Environmentalists called the legislation a regressive move in a traditionally green state (States News Service, June 22, 1999).

Ozone Layer Affected by Sun; High Heat, Low Carbon; U.S. Droughts Lasted for Decades

by William Yeatman on June 22, 1999

in Science

Ozone Layer Affected by Sun

The thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica is due to the sun and not people, according to research by Yang Xuexiang, a professor of geological sciences at Changchun University of Technology in China. Yang believes the changes are caused by solar wind, a current of high-energy particles, rather than the use of CFCs. His research was published in the May Chinese edition of Scientific American.

Yang argues that ozone depletion resulted from solar wind making the atmosphere at the South Pole thinner, from volcanic eruptions in the southern hemisphere, and from solar high-energy particle currents. The conventional wisdom is that ozone depletion is caused by the use of freon by man. Yang points out that freon use is concentrated in the northern hemisphere, not over the South Pole (AFP, June 20,1999).

High Heat, Low Carbon

The hypothesis that carbon dioxide levels exert a significant influence on the Earths climate is being rethought. We reported in the last issue of Cooler Heads that researchers have found that 15 million years ago the temperature was significantly warmer than it is today, and yet atmospheric CO2 levels were lower. A new study in Science (June 11, 1999) finds that 48 million years ago, in the Eocene era, temperatures were 5 degrees C warmer than now but that CO2 levels were not significantly different.

“Some authors,” says the study, “have suggested that middle Eocene CO2 was two to six times as high as the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million, whereas others have suggested values similar to that concentration or only slightly higher.” The researchers studied ancient marine sentiments and found that CO2 concentrations were between 180 ppm to 550 ppm, the most likely value being 385 ppm. The authors conclude that either the climate system is very sensitive to small changes in CO2 or that something else caused warmer temperatures.

These studies have scientists rethinking the carbon/warming link. “We may have to think harder about whats driving the [climate] system on these long time scales,” says paleoclimatologist Thomas Cowley of Texas A&M University. “It could be the whole carbon dioxide paradigm is crumbling.” Paleo-oceanographer Edward Boyle of MIT said these studies suggest that “we need to reconsider the prevailing dogma.” These scientists argue that CO2 is still a powerful source for short-term climate changes. But on very long scales many other factors may explain climate change.

U.S. Droughts Lasted for Decades

Scientists who study the Earths past climate are learning that change is the norm and rapid change is not uncommon. Research carried out in North Dakota has discovered severe and long lasting droughts in the plains of the U.S. during the last 12,000 years. Bison bones found at the bottom of Spiritwood lake suggest a rapid onslought of drought that drew down water levels very rapidly. “The draw-down in this period was ferocious, as much as 20 feet,” according to Allan Ashworth a geologist at North Dakota State University.

With the recession of the glaciers, the Red River Valley was cool and wet and was covered by a spruce forest. “Then bang it goes into the prairies,” said Ashworth. “The implication is that the regional climate begins to be much drier right around 8,000 years ago. Ever since then, weve been into prairie.” Ashworth says that we dont yet understand why “the climate has become much more oscillatory between dry and wet phases.” Ashworth explains that “were only just starting to really define some of these patterns, or refining them so we can really start talking about them with enough confidence” (The Associated Press, June 14, 1999).

Etc.

  • From the Science and Environmental Policy Project (www.sepp.org): “Turning to smog-avoiding nuclear power, complaints by enviros about deceptive ads have led the Better Business Bureau to get the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. What’s all the fuss about? It seems that Nuclear Energy Institute ads “falsely” claim that reactors make power without emitting greenhouse gases. Apparently, the NEI didn’t mention that the uranium fuel was made using electricity from coal plants. So what about the wind turbines that pack 150,000 pounds of steel, concrete, and fiberglass per turbine? How about that for “embedded carbon”?

  • A new survey by the American Geophysical Union finds that Americans are less concerned than ever about global warming. “The more we talk about warming,” says the study’s director, John Immerwahr, “the [more the] public’s concern goes down.” (Time, June 21, 1999).

London Group Opposes Energy Tax; IEA Analysis of EU Proposal

by William Yeatman on June 22, 1999

in Blog

 London Group Opposes Energy Tax

Several influential British groups have criticized the governments proposal to impose energy taxes to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Royal Society (Englands counterpart to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences), and the Royal Academy of Engineering argue that the tax would hurt business and do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The tax was proposed in a report prepared by a task force headed by British Airways Chairman Lord Colin Marshall, under the auspices of the Department of Environment, Transport, and the Regions. The Marshall report was criticized by the Royal Commission, which said that the government should tax carbon emissions rather than energy use and that the proposed tax would fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concur that “the planned levy on the use of energy is deeply flawed.”

The Confederation of British Industry argued that the tax would jeopardize economic growth and particularly the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 where England agreed to economically rebuild Northern Ireland (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 16, 1999).

IEA Analysis of EU Proposal

The EUs proposal to cap emission trading has led to a heated debate over the flexible mechanisms within the Kyoto Protocol. A new analysis by the International Energy Agency shows the effects of the proposal on the ability of countries to reduce emissions. According to the report, the EU proposal would restrict the amount of emission allowances that could be purchased by the developed countries to 1.09 billion tons of CO2. “This would amount to 42 percent of the difference between their projected emissions in the year 2010 (if no emissions-cutting actions were to be taken) and the emissions they will be allowed under the Protocol; it would amount to 34 percent for other industrialized countries.”

The EU proposal would also restrict the amount of emissions that could be sold by countries that would have surplus permits. The IEAs World Energy Outlook estimates that in the year 2010 emissions from Central and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine will be 574 million tons lower than 1990 levels, and these countries would be able to sell the total amount. But under the EU proposal the amount that these countries could sell would drop to 190 million tons. “Russiawould be limited to selling approximately 30 percent of its potential,” said the IEA (Europe Energy, June 11, 1999).

Emissions Trading Permits

by William Yeatman on June 14, 1999

in Blog

  • Emissions Trading not the Answer

  • Problems with the Perfect Solution? — Review and Critique of Current Global Climate Change Proposals

  • Emissions Trading No Solution

  • U.S. Makes CO2 Trading Proposal

  • Costs of Kyoto will be High Regardless of Flexible Mechanisms

    • High Temperatures with Low CO2; Solar Magnetism and Global Warming; Alaska Entering a Cold Spell

    by William Yeatman on June 9, 1999

    in Science

    High Temperatures with Low CO2

    Scientists are still uncertain about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on the earths temperature, although it is generally thought that higher concentrations of CO2 will increase global temperatures and vice versa. Recent studies have cast doubt on that hypothesis, however. In the March 12 issue of Science researchers showed, using ice core samples, that during three deglaciations temperature rises occurred before higher CO2 levels.

    A new study published in Paleoceanography (June 1999) finds that CO2 concentrations were very low during the Miocene Climatic Optimum of about 14.5-17 million years ago, a period that experienced extremely high global temperatures that were about 6 degrees C higher than present.

    It has been thought that the high Miocene temperatures were caused by a combination of high CO2 levels and changes in the ocean. But the new study presents evidence that the CO2 levels were about 180-290 parts per million by volume, compared to the current level of 360 ppmv. The low levels of CO2 persisted throughout the entire Climatic Optimum and began to rise in concert with a global cooling and expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet that occurred at about 12.5-14 million years ago (Nature, May 27, 1999).

    Solar Magnetism and Global Warming

    Evidence that the Sun plays a major role in climate change continues to mount, casting doubt on the CO2-global warming link. A new study in Nature (June 3, 1999) has found that the Suns magnetism has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years. The researchers, according to a commentary article in the same issue, “use records of geomagnetic activity, monitored in England and Australia since the nineteenth century, to show that the weak general magnetic field on the Sun has more than doubled over the past 100 years.”

    The researchers note that the solar wind “drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field.” These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.

    The Suns general magnetism is also related to its brightness, although this is not well understood. Moreover, sunspots generate strong magnetic fields that also correspond to greater solar luminosity. These two types of magnetic fields appear to have different sources, but, “it is curious that the general level of both fields has increased by about the same degree over the last 100 years, suggesting some hidden commonality.” These phenomena lead to a more vigorous Sun that is about 0.1 percent brighter.

    The increase of solar magnetism has been about 131 percent over the last 91 years. From 1964 to 1996 the Suns magnetism has increase by 41 percent. This brightening has occurred during the same time as the measured surface warming experienced on Earth.

    Alaska Entering a Cold Spell 

    Warmer temperatures in Alaska over the last few years have been cited as evidence of global warming. But as with other types of anecdotal evidence no research has linked Alaskas warming spell with greenhouse gases. Now scientists believe that the warming period is a result of a natural 25-year cycle that causes climatic conditions in Alaska to swing back and forth between cold and warm periods.

    The recurring weather cycle is called the Pacific (inter) Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and scientists believe that Alaska has “just finished roughly 25 years of good fishing, warmer ocean temperatures, early ice pack melt-offs and fairly mild winters.” Now Alaskans can “look forward to about 25 years of gray summers, harsh winters, poor fish returns and a lingering ice pack.” In fact, it has already begun. Salmon fishing in Bristol Bay has deteriorated significantly in the last two years, water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska have cooled this year and the melting of the Arctic ice pack is long overdue. Similar conditions existed in the 1960s with very harsh winters.

    According to scientists at the University of Washingtons Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans, the 25-year pattern can be traced back 300 years. The PDO also influences the pattern of salmon returns. When salmon returns are high in Alaska they are low in Washington and Oregon, and vice versa. In 1915, for example, “Bristol Bay salmon returns were abysmal when Washington and Oregon had one of the best salmon fishing years in history,” and “in 1939, the Bristol Bay catch was regarded as one of the greatest in history, while Washington and Oregon recorded one of the worst” (Anchorage Daily News, June 7, 1999).

    Etc.

    • On May 26 Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D- Cal.) submitted an amendment to the House Science Committee that is virtually identical to the Knollenberg Amendment that prohibited federal agencies from implementing the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification.

    A certain amount of confusion surrounds the amendment, however. Lofgren, a proponent of the Kyoto Protocol, states in a press release that, “The House and Senate have already agreed to adhere to the Kyoto language. Yet as originally drafted, H.R. 1743 would have undercut that commitment. My amendment simply reiterates that commitment, allowing the EPA to continue to work to limit greenhouse gases.”

    Lofgren also argues that, “we have agreed to reduce emissions in line with the Protocol. Such action is vital no only for the health of the world environment, but also to make us ready to ratify the Protocol if and when developing countries meet emissions standards.”

    Announcements

    • The Cooler Heads is sponsoring an economics briefing for congressional staff and media on June 18. The briefing will feature Robert Bradley, director of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas. Mr. Bradley will discuss “The Economic and Environmental Transformation of Fossil Fuels.” It will be held at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 366, at 12:00 noon.

    Can Emission Trading Lower Cost?

    by William Yeatman on June 9, 1999

    in Blog

    Can Emission Trading Lower Cost?

    The Clinton Administration has claimed that international emission trading would substantially lower the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. A recent paper published by Resources for the Future agrees with that assessment, but with an important caveat. “If all countries use domestic tradable permit systems to meet their national targets and also allow for international trades,” then costs will be minimized, say the researchers. “But when some countries use non-trading approaches such as greenhouse-gas taxes or fixed quantity standards, cost-minimization is not assured.”

    The researchers, Robert Hahn with the American Enterprise Institute, and Robert Stavins with the John F. Kennedy School of Government, argue that emissions trading is still an attractive approach to meeting the Kyoto targets, but that “individual nations choices of domestic policy instruments to meet the Kyoto targets can limit substantially the cost-saving potential of an international trading program.”

    According to Hahn and Stavins, “nation-states are not simple cost-minimizing agents.” For example, governments may discourage trading, even though it may be the cost-minimizing instrument, in order to protect the revenue it gets through carbon taxes. Even if they were cost minimizers, say Hahn and Stavins, “they tend to lack the information required to make such cost-effective trades.”

    Preferably, governments would devolve their quota of permits to private entities that would then be allowed to trade freely. The authors argue that this is unlikely, however. A more likely outcome is some sort of mixed system with tradable permits, carbon taxes and fixed quantity standards. This, according to the authors, would lead to heavy use of the other flexible mechanisms, such as joint implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

    Two of the main assumptions in nearly all of the analyses of the costs of reducing greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol are “that all countries adopt a domestic tradable permit system,” and “that all countries adopt either a domestic tradable permit system or a domestic greenhouse gas tax instrument and adopt a tax rate that equals the international equilibrium permit price.” If either assumption holds, then emission trading would lead to cost minimization. However, “if neither…are valid which we believe to be the more likely outcome then our analysis has several implications for global climate policy and research.”

    First, “a truly cost-effective international emission trading program is not compatible with the notion of full domestic sovereignty regarding instrument choice.” Second, “with most combinations of domestic policy instruments, a significant fraction of Annex B (countries with Kyoto targets) international exchanges would have to be in the form of joint implementation (and CDM in the case of exchanges with non-Annex B nations). But, JI (and CDM) will likely involve relatively high abatement costs and transaction costs.” Third, “real-world abatement costs associated with the execution of a feasible program may be much greater than implied by simulations of the cost-effective solution.” The paper can be found at www.weathervane.rff.org.

    Implementation Sans Ratification; Federal Government to Reduce Emissions; U.S., E.U. Still at Odds Over Emission Trading

    by William Yeatman on June 9, 1999

    in Politics

    Implementation Sans Ratification

    A leaked EPA document dated April 23, describes an April 7 meeting between EPA and White House staffers, and private sector officials, where a pilot program to test emission trading between the U.S. and Russia was proposed. According to the document, the U.S. is “considering the possibility of establishing a linked emissions trading/joint implementation pilot program with Russia.” The plan has also been “favorably” received by other countries who are part of the “Umbrella Group.”

    “The purpose of the possible pilot programs would be to demonstrate that compliance, measurement, registry, and certification of trades could be ensured in Russia, answering concerns expressed about the practicability of the Kyoto mechanisms in Russia,” the document said. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Science Committee, is concerned about the propriety of the proposal given the absence of Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

    In a letter to Carol Browner, EPA administrator, Sensenbrenner requested detailed information regarding the proposal. Sensenbrenner reminded Browner that the administration has repeatedly said that it will not try to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification, and that the 1999 appropriations legislation bars the administration from such activities.

    “Quite frankly, I fail to see how it [the proposal] is consistent with administration policy, as stated by [the Office of Management and Budget], or with the purposes and plain meaning of the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 for anyone in the U.S. delegation to even initiate discussions with the Umbrella Group, which includes the Russian Federation, for such programs to test the interests of U.S. business in such programs,” said Sensenbrenner (BNA Daily Environment Report, May 28, 1999).

    Federal Government to Reduce Emissions

    On June 3 President Clinton ordered federal agencies to “reducegreenhouse gas emissions attributed to facility energy use” to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. It also requires each agency to “reduce energy consumption per gross square foot of its facilitiesby 20 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010 relative to 1985.”

    These goals seem to be at odds with the Clinton Administrations claims that we can comply with Kyoto without lowering energy use, but by simply using energy more efficiently. Yet the executive order requires a greater reduction in energy use than in greenhouse gas emissions.

    The order also requires the greater use of renewable energy. The federal government will be required to install 2,000 solar energy systems at federal facilities by the end of 2000 and 20,000 by the end of 2010 as part of the Million Solar Roofs initiative. The executive order can be found at the www.whitehouse.gov.

    U.S., E.U. Still at Odds Over Emission Trading

    Representatives from 150 countries are meeting on Bonn, Germany to continue talks about how to implement the Kyoto Protocol, and to prepare for COP-5 this coming November. Progress has come to a standstill due to a dispute between the U.S. and the European Union, over the use of emission trading. The U.S. wants to have unlimited emission trading while the E.U. wishes to limit emission trading, forcing governments to achieve most of their emissions reductions within their own borders.

    Chief U.N. climate official Michael Zammit Cutajar said it is “highly unlikely” that the dispute will be settled before the November meeting (The Toronto Star, June 1, 1999). State Department spokesman James Foley reiterated the U.S. commitment to unlimited trading, and pointed out that the E.U. accepted the Kyoto language that sets no quantitative limits (The Electricity Daily, June 4, 1999).

    A new report released by the Paris-based International Energy Agency shows that the European proposal to cap emissions trading would heavily impact on the U.S. According to the study, a cap would reduce the ability of the U.S. trade emissions by as much as 66 percent.

    With unlimited trading U.S. companies could trade as much as 2.07 million tons of CO2, whereas a cap would reduce the volume of trade to 674,000 tons, forcing the U.S. to implement new emissions regulations. Melinda Kimble, U.S. acting assistant secretary of state, argued that “eliminating flexibility or to reduce it so its no longer cost-effective is just going to endanger the agreement” (Greenwire, June 7, 1999).

    ← Previous Entries

    Next Entries →