1999

Russia May Have More Credits than Anticipated; An Alternative to Kyoto

by William Yeatman on April 7, 1999

in Blog

Russia May Have More Credits than Anticipated

The Clinton Administration has claimed that international emission trading system would greatly lower the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions because countries such as the former Soviet Union will be have large amounts of credits available for purchase. The Energy Information Administration now says, in a newly completed International Energy Outlook 1999, that due to last years economic collapse the former Soviet Union will have more credits available for sale than previously expected.

In 1998, the EIA estimated that the former Soviet Union would have 199 million metric tons of carbon credits for sale. That estimate has now increased to 324 million metric tons. Eastern European countries would have about 50 million metric tons to contribute. This could account for as much as 45 percent of needed emission cuts for “successful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol,” according to the EIA. Purchasing countries will be able to increase emissions by 7 percent over 1990 levels and still meet Kyoto commitments, the report said (www.iea.doe.gov).

This assumes that the former Soviet Union would be willing to sell its surplus permits. According to Robert Reinstein, president of Reinstein & Associates International, Inc., the Russians do not plan to sell their permits in the near future. They have announced a three-phase plan for meeting their targets. First, they want to use joint implementation to attract investments in the form of money and technology for emission reduction projects, as well as learn how to implement these projects on their own.

In the second phase the Russians will use their newly acquired knowledge to reduce emissions and create more allowances. Some of these allowances may be sold under certain conditions. Only in Phase III would Russia engage in Article 17 trading which would take place in 2013.

An Alternative to Kyoto

Proponents of global warming policies are beginning to realize that the Kyoto Protocol has little chance of being ratified. Paul Portney, president of Resources for the Future, told the Energy Information Administration that it is unlikely that the Kyoto Protocol will pass in its current form. He has proposed a new approach that would cap carbon emissions 1996 levels by 2008. The plan would include emission trading and would be applied to “upstream” producers of coal, oil and natural gas.

As a safety valve the plan would also allow the government to sell emission permits whenever the price exceeds $25 per ton. Seventy-five percent of the revenue raised would be returned to households in the form of rebates and 25 percent would be distributed to states “based on the vulnerability of low-income households and industries” (www.weathervane.rff.org).

Senators Hagel and Murkowski to Introduce Global Warming Bill; Senate Hearings on Early Action Bill; Public Perceptions of Globa

by William Yeatman on April 7, 1999

in Politics

Senators Hagel and Murkowski to Introduce Global Warming Bill

Senators Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) are planning to introduce a bill to provide $2 billion for the research and development of new technologies to prevent global warming. The bill says that given the possibility that manmade greenhouse gas emissions “may ultimately contribute to global climate change,” a long-term, global effort must be undertaken to stabilize them. It also argues that “all nations must share in an effective international response to potential climate change.”

The bill would establish an Office of Global Climate Change within the Department of Energy that would “promote and cooperate in the research, development, demonstration, and diffusion of environmentally sound, cost-effective and commercially practicable technologies, practices and processes that avoid, sequester, control, or reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol for all relevant economic sectors.” It would also transfer “environmentally sound” technologies that are developed with federal funds “to interested persons in the United States and to developing country Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

The bill would lavish taxpayer funds on companies that successfully acquire government contracts to develop emission reducing technologies. The guidelines for acceptance of a proposal are stringent meaning that only large businesses with the technical expertise, sufficiently large staff, and the necessary discretionary capital would be eligible for funds.

The bill also provides for “public recognition” of voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Under this provision the Energy Information Administration will keep a national inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and will collect the reports of emission reducing activities. “At a minimum,” says the bill, “such recognition shall annually be published in the Federal Register.”

The bill makes no mention of several “no regrets” policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as elimination of energy subsidies, deregulation of energy markets, and elimination of environmental regulations that discourage innovation.

Senate Hearings on Early Action Bill

Hearings on the credit-for-early-action bill introduced by Senators John Chafee (R-RI), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Connie Mack (R-FL) took place on March 24 before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Testimony was heard from business groups on both sides of the issue as well as Green groups. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) asked why an early action bill was necessary since the U.S. has not capped greenhouse gas emissions. Dale Lundgren, assistant vice president of business planning for Wisconsin Electric Power Co., responded that emission caps “are inevitable.” Eileen Clausen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a group of big businesses that favor emissions reductions, said, “we do expect that at some point in the future, the United States will ratify a climate change treaty that includes a binding commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Raymond Keating, chief economist for the Small Business Survival Committee told the Senators that the credit-for-early-action bill would make caps on greenhouse gas emissions more likely in the U.S. “Credits would only have meaning and value under the Kyoto Protocol or some similar regulatory regime which would implement an emissions cap-and-trade system,” said Keating. The bill “would be pointless” otherwise. Keating also argued that “credits potentially worth untold millions of dollars would act as powerful incentives to push and lobby for treaty ratification or some type of regulatory structure that would give value to such credits.”

Baucus said that the bill must encourage small businesses to participate in early emissions reductions. Keating, however, said that small businesses would view the program as being “the domain of big business or be construed as some complex and vague program that offers no or little quantifiable benefit in running their day-to-day operations.” Moreover, small businesses “would not be able play the credits game,” said Keating, given their small profit margins (BNA Daily Environment Report, March 25, 1999).

Public Perceptions of Global Warming

An important part of the global warming debate is how the public perceives the threat of global warming. Many polls have attempted to assess public perceptions. In an article in the journal Climate Research (December 17, 1999), researchers review and interpret the available polling data as well as their own polling data.

They found that many people have an awareness of global warming and assign a fairly high level of threat to the phenomenon, albeit much lower than other environmental threats. They also found widespread confusion regarding global warming. Many Americans linked aerosols and insecticides with global warming as well as confused it with ozone depletion. Surprisingly, the authors polling data found that 31 percent of respondents said that heating and cooling their homes was not a cause of global warming and 54 percent said it was minor or secondary cause. “Perhaps,” say the authors, “the source of temperature control in homes is not understood by many Americans.”

Few poll respondents considered global warming to be a serious threat. Fifty-one percent did not believe that global warming would have a negative effect on standards of living. “In fact,” say the authors, “24 to 39 percent think that positive outcomes are likely.” This is also reflected in peoples willingness to pay to prevent global warming. One poll asked whether the U.S. should spend less, the same amount or more on global warming, 50 percent said less while only 33 percent said more.

When asked about lifestyle changes 60 percent of respondents said that Americans would be willing to install more insulation and weatherize and 41 percent said they would replace older appliances. Forty-five percent said that Americans are not likely to buy more fuel-efficient cars while 30 percent said they would. Forty-nine percent said they are unlikely to carpool and drive less and 59 percent said that it was unlikely that they would use less air conditioning and heat. Only 21 percent and 15 percent respectively, said that Americans were likely to engage in the latter activities.

The authors conclude “that global warming is not a salient problem for most Americans.” They do not “support initiatives that threaten car use or home heating and cooling options.”

Media Coverage of Extreme Weather

Green activists have made concerted effort to link global warming with extreme weather. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, and forest fires have all been attributed to global warming. Some claim that extreme weather events prove the global warming is already here. Coupled with the publics belief that the weather has become more extreme and you have the making of a real scare story.

A study in the journal Climatic Change (February 1999) by Sheldon Unger, asks if the weather is becoming more extreme or whether the publics perception is being influenced by other factors? Unger searched media stories about extreme weather events that aired on television network news (ABC, CBS, and NBC) from 1968 and 1996, and found that there has been a five-fold increase in network coverage of extreme weather events. Most of the increase has occurred since 1988 when global warming became a major issue.

Several scientific studies, however, have failed to find upward trends in extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and hurricanes. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in its 1996 report that “Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century, although data and analyses are poor and not comprehensive.”

Glaciers Dont Show Global Warming; CO2 Is Good For the Planet; Global Warming Guru Urges Caution

by William Yeatman on April 7, 1999

in Science

Glaciers Dont Show Global Warming

One of the most powerful images used by the global warming activists to frighten the public is that of melting glaciers and precipitous sea level rise. The Greens also claim that glaciers are one of the most important leading indicators of manmade global warming. A recent survey of the science, however, shows that “glaciers are poor barometers of global climate change,” and “Far from providing scientific proof of global warming, the behavior of glaciers represents yet another powerful indictment of the already controversial global warming theory.”

According to John Carlisle of the National Center for Public Policy Research, glaciers are subject to many influences which scientists dont fully grasp. Mountain glaciers are especially tricky due to the “complex topography of mountain areas.” Carlisle quotes Alaska Geophysical Insitute glaciologist Keith Echelmeyer as saying, “to make a case that glaciers are retreating, and that the problem is global warming, is very hard to do . . . The physics are very complex. There is much more involved than just the climate response.”

Many Alaskan glaciers, for example, are advancing in the same areas that others are retreating. Switzerland has experienced mild winters, warmer summers, and less precipitation over the last decade, yet many of its glaciers have advanced during this time.

An important determinant of how glaciers react to temperature change is size. A polar ice sheets response time to temperature change ranges from 10,000 to 100,000 years, for example. Large mountain glaciers respond on time scales ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 years and small mountain glaciers take 100 to 1,000 years to respond. “One explanation for some glaciers retreating today,” says Carlisle, “is that they are responding to natural warming that occurred either during the Medieval Warm Period in the 11th century or to an even warmer period that occurred 6,000 years ago.”

Mountain glaciers only account for about 6 percent of the earths total ice mass. The real danger of precipitous sea level rise would come from the melting of the polar ice sheets. Again Carlisle finds little evidence to support these claims. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which is deemed to be the most vulnerable to global warming, were to melt the earths seas would rise by 17 feet. It has been estimated, however, that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would take about 50,000 years to respond to any warming that may occur now, due to its great size. A recent study of the ice sheet found that it has been stable for the last 100 years.

The Greenland ice sheets have also failed to recede. In fact, Greenland is in the midst of cooling period, contrary to global warming predictions. One study has found that the West Greenland Ice Sheet has thickened up to seven feet since 1980.

CO2 Is Good For the Planet

The Cooler Heads Coalition hosted a science briefing for congressional staff and media that featured Dr. Keith Idso. Dr. Idso argued that even though it is a trace gas, carbon dioxide, a necessary component of plant photosythesis, supports all life on earth. Idso explained to the audience that CO2 is not a pollutant, but is an odorless and invisible gas that is not toxic to animals, even at very high levels.

Thousands of scientific experiments have confirmed that a CO2 rich environment is more healthy, one in which plants thrive. One of the most important scientific discoveries about CO2 is that under a variety of stressful situations plants do better when there is more CO2 in the air. In fact plants that are stressed due to lack of water, high soil salinity, low light conditions or the presence of pollutants in the air, have a relatively higher response rate to CO2 than do plants in optimal environmental conditions.

Plants are now starving for CO2, according to Idso. About 95 percent of earths plant life evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 3,000 to 4,000 parts per million. Now with CO2 making up only about 360 parts per million, plants are struggling to survive. Any increase in CO2 can only benefit plants and the animals that depend on them.

Global Warming Guru Urges Caution

Recently several scientists who traditionally supported the apocalyptic global warming theory have made statements that downplay the certainty of the science behind the global warming scare. Most recently Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University biologist and one of the stalwarts of the global warming scene, told an audience at a March 23 conference in St. Louis University, that there is no reliable way to determine the impact of global warming on the earth, and that scientists dont really know what should be done about it.

He also argued that there is a “large degree of uncertainty among the experts over what might happen,” according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (March 24, 1999). Schneider also made the case that “so many variables exist that estimates on the timing vary from the years 2030 to 2100, and the estimates on temperature rise vary from a manageable 1 degree Fahrenheit or less to as much as 4 degrees,” the Post-Dispatch reported. “Its not so much a scientific question as it is a question of human values,” said Sncheider.

Another scientist who is favorable to the global warming theory, Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, said that it will be at least 10 years or more before scientists can separate the human effects on climate from natural variation. “The uncertainties concerning the responses of clouds, water vapor, ice, ocean currents and specific regions to increased greenhouse gases remain formidable,” he said.

Announcements

  • The Cooler Heads Coalition is sponsoring two briefings for congressional staff and media in April. On April 9 Ben Leiberman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will discuss the Montreal Protocol: A Success Story or Cautionary Tale. On April 16 Jeremy Rabkin will discuss the sovereignty implications of the Kyoto Protocol. Both briefings will be held at the Rayburn HOB room 2200 at 12:00 noon. Lunch will be provided.

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced the release of the draft inventory for U.S. emissions for the years 1990 to 1997 as required by the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Comments from the public will be accepted until April 9, 1999. Comments received after that date will be considered for the next edition of the report. The draft is available at www.epa.gov/globalwarming/inventory.

  • The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.

The Benefits of Global Warming

by William Yeatman on March 27, 1999

in Blog

The Benefits of Global Warming

Several economic studies have attempted to determine the economic costs of a rise in global temperatures. Most have found that global warming will have a significant negative impact. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, found that the costs of global warming would range from 1.5 to 2 percent of GDP for the world and about 1 to 2 percent for the U.S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric scientist and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, notes that several sectors were not included in the IPCC analysis and that non-market sectors all suffered from negative impacts and much of the time the impacts were greater than in the market sectors. Since no reliable or agreed upon metric to measure non-market impacts exists, those results are little more than an assumption by the IPCC.

A new book, titled The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999) by Robert Mendelsohn at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and James E. Neumann with Industrialized Economics, Inc. finds a different result. Mendelsohn and Neumann assume a doubling of CO2 that would lead to a 2.5 degree C increase in global temperatures. They also include sectors of the economy that were ignored by the IPCC, such as commercial fishing. Other improvements included the possibility of adaptation, reliance on natural climate experiments, in towns with different temperature changes, and so on.

Mendelsohn and Neumann found that overall the economic impact of global warming on the U.S. is positive, about a 0.2 percent increase in GDP. This includes large positive impacts on agriculture and smaller positive impacts on forestry and recreation. All other sectors experience negative impacts, but far smaller than found by the IPCC. There were 26 economists involved with the writing and reviewing of the book. Not only were individual chapters reviewed but also several economists reviewed the overall work. A review of the book can be found at www.sepp.com.

New Early Action Bill Introduced; UK: Carbon Taxes are Unavoidable; EU Ministers Fail to Agree on Kyoto Commitments

by William Yeatman on March 27, 1999

in Politics

New Early Action Bill Introduced

The latest attempt to smooth the way for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is a plan to allow businesses to earn emissions credits if they voluntarily reduce their CO2 emissions. On March 4, Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) along with 11 other cosponsors introduced a bill that would give businesses credits for use “in any future domestic program for controlling greenhouse gases,” according to the BNA Daily Environment Report (March 5, 1999).

The bill would give several federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy, the authority to negotiate emission reduction agreements with companies. Senator Connie Mack (R-Fl.), a cosponsor of the bill, argued that “under this legislation, businesses are encouraged not by government fiat or handout to do the right thing in protecting the environment and get credit for their own initiative.” He also said, “the consequences of regulations targeted at changing our patterns of energy use could be dramatic and economically unsound.”

A joint statement signed by both environmental groups and conservative/free-market groups blasted the bill as “an accounting nightmare that could be exploited by special interests for economic advantage.” The groups included the American Policy Center, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Friends of the Earth, National Center for Public Policy Research, National Environment Trust, National Tax Limitation Committee, Ozone Action, Small Business Survival Committee, This Nation, Seniors Coalition, and Sierra Club. The statement also said, “as written, this plan could not possibly benefit either the economy or the environment.”

UK: Carbon Taxes are Unavoidable

The Clinton Administration has downplayed the need for costly carbon taxes, claiming that the U.S. can meet its Kyoto target through emission trading and energy efficiency measures. Great Britain doesnt see things the same way. According to an article in the March 10 issue of the Independent (London), “the Government considers the [carbon] tax unavoidable if emissions of carbon dioxide from power stations are to be curbed in line with the Kyoto agreement on climate change of December 1997, and the even tougher Labour manifesto pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 20 percent by 2010.”

In line with this sentiment the Government has recommended an energy tax on industry as well as measures to cut automobile CO2 emissions. Even though proponents claim the tax will be revenue neutral, many in industry are wary. “I dont think energy-intensive industries can stand being taxed any more than they are without being driven out of business,” said Lisa Waters, economic advisor to the Energy-Intensive Users Group. The proposal would lower industrys CO2 emissions by 1.5 million tons. Vehicle emissions would also be cut by the same amount.

EU Ministers Fail to Agree on Kyoto Commitments

On March 11 the EU Environment Ministers met to define their position regarding commitments made in Kyoto. On the agenda was a ceiling on the use of flexible mechanisms such as emission trading, clean development mechanism, and joint implementation. They agreed in principle on restricting the amount of emissions reductions to be achieved through flexible mechanisms, but did not agree on what the specific ceiling should be. The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden argued that the German proposal to “calculate ceilings based on real national annual emissions,” was too restrictive. The Dutch argued in favor of allowing at least 50 percent of greenhouse gas reductions to take place using flexible mechanisms if national measures are adopted (European Report, March 13, 1999).

The War on Cars

The automobile has become public enemy number one in some quarters, even though its benefits are tremendous. Al Gore even called for eliminating the internal combustion engine in his book Earth in the Balance. Currently the state legislature of Massachusetts is considering a bill that would penalize individuals who purchase “gas-guzzling” cars, and reward those who purchase fuel-efficient cars. According to the Associated Press (March 9, 1999), the bill would raise gasoline taxes for large vehicles from 5 percent to 10 percent while lowering the tax for smaller cars to as low as zero percent.

The bills sponsor, Senator David Magnani (D-Framingham) said that the tax would be like a “user fee for the environment.” Also, the bill “suggests when you pollute, it has a public impact,” according to Magnani. Rob Sargent, legislative director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, applauded the bill, saying it would help prevent global warming. Others are not so happy, however. Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government, argued that this would penalize people who want larger cars for safety reasons. “This is not David Magninis business,” she said. “This is strictly elitist know-it-all politicians trying to force their particular choice on other people who they feel are not competent to make choices for themselves and their families.”

World Bank Seeking Funds for Emissions Reductions

World Bank officials are submitting a proposal for a Prototype Carbon Fund to curb greenhouse gas emissions to its board of directors. If approved the bank can seek funding from governments and companies. Three Japanese companies, Mitsubishi Corp., Mitsui and Co., and Tokyo Electric Power Co. have already agreed to invest $5 million in the project (Greenwire, March 12, 1999).

Whats Up (or Down) With Carbon?; IPCC Plans to Use Fewer Climate Models in its Next Assessment

by William Yeatman on March 27, 1999

in Science

Whats Up (or Down) With Carbon?

Two new studies appearing in prestigious science journals may force scientists to rethink the global warming hypothesis. It has been an ongoing debate within the scientific community as to whether increases in atmospheric CO2 leads or follows rises in global temperature. In the March 12 issue of Science, researchers concluded that during three separate deglaciations temperature rise came first. Using ice core samples from the Antarctic they found that “carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 400 years after the warming of each of the last three deglaciations.” This is directly the opposite result that one would expect from simple global warming theories.

Another assumption made by climate scientists is that CO2 levels have remained constant over the last 11,000 years, a period known as the Holocene epoch, until the advent of the industrial revolution. An article in Nature (March 11, 1999), which shared many of the same authors as the Science article, argues that during this period atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuated significantly. This is no surprise given that we still do not fully understand the carbon cycle nor can we account for significant amounts of CO2 emitted by man a third of which seem to disappear without a trace.

Its interesting how the press handled the studies. The Washington Post (March 15, 1999) basically got the story right, acknowledging that the studies may force a new understanding of the “relationship between airborne carbon dioxide and climate change.” But Anthony J. Broccoli of the NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory is worried that “greenhouse skeptics will probably jump on this paper as proof” that there is no link between global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. He claims, according to the Washington Post that “the new findings are completely consistent with a positive CO2-temperature feedback” system in which changes in one prompt changes in the other.”

The Associated Press did two articles about the Science study. On of the articles explained correctly that rises CO2 follow rises in temperature. The other article, however, got the story almost completely backwards. AP science writer Joseph B. Verrengia wrote, “a new study suggests carbon dioxide levels in Earths atmosphere fluctuated after the Ice Age, helping to warm the climate and trigger the spread of deserts.” Fred Singer points out that the study shows a “transition from a warm and wet Climate Optimum, 6000 years ago, to a cooler and dryer climate, i.e., the droughts and deserts correlate with cooling.” Unfortunately, nine newspapers ran the article that bungled the story and none pick up the one that got it right.

IPCC Plans to Use Fewer Climate Models in its Next Assessment

The IPCC could be gearing up to start another major controversy. Of the thirty-three general circulation models in existence, it is currently planning on using only three. Depending on the three they choose this could have the effect of raising estimates of warming over the next several decades.

A clue to the direction that the forecast is heading is the elimination of the newest model produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The NCAR model, according to University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels, has “better resolution vertically and horizontally, improved methods of moving heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, and a more sophisticated treatment of clouds and the oceans.” As a result it only predicts 2.3 degrees C of warming for a doubling of CO2 and a 1.3 degrees warming over the next 100 years, lower than any model to date. Moreover, the NCAR model, unlike other models, is completely transparent (World Climate Report, March 1, 1999).

Etc.

  • USA Today (March 17, 1999) is reporting that shark attacks are down in 1998 for the third straight year. Some researchers think it may have something to do with climate change. Chalk it up as another benefit of global warming.

  • The following is an excerpt from a “letter to the editor” from an astute observer of the press: “I could scarcely believe my ears yesterday morning when I heard Kate Adie, introducing “From Our Own Correspondent” on Radio 4, say that scientists were blaming the heavy snow in the Alps and the avalanche at Chamonix on global warming. Oh, puhleeze!

“Are these the same scientists who, after the virtually snow-free Alpine winters of 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92 and 1994-95, were warning us that global warming meant much less snow in the Alps in future decades? The European winter holiday industry, they said, would have to up sticks to Scandinavia.”

“Please, Kate, the next time you have some unusual weather to report, see if you can do it without mentioning global warming.”

Announcements

  • The Cooler Heads Coalitions is sponsoring a briefing for congressional staff and media on March 19, 1999 to discuss the Ecological Benefits of Carbon Dioxide. The briefing will feature Keith Idso with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The briefing will be held the Rayburn House Office Building room 2325 at 12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m.

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced the release of the draft inventory for U.S. emissions for the years 1990 to 1997 as required by the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Comments from the public will be accepted until April 9, 1999. Comments received after that date will be considered for the next edition of the report. The draft is available at www.epa.gov/globalwarming/inventory.

  • The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.

20th Century Warming No Big Deal: ASU Bristlecone Pine Data

by William Yeatman on March 24, 1999

in Science

Arlington, VA March 25, 1999) In their fourth report pursuant to a Greening Earth Society research grant to Arizona State University, the ASU Climate Data Task Force examined 1,437-years of temperature data extrapolated from tree-ring chronologies of Bristlecone pines (Pinus aristata) growing in the San Francisco Peaks area of northern Arizona. The reconstructed temperatures during the 20th Century showed a warming of 0.10C per decade that, over the entire 1,437-year record, appears to be “an inconsequential twist in the long road of temperature changes in the region.”

The long-lived Bristlecone pine trees have been growing around the Colorado Plateau for thousands of years and their “rings” preserve remarkable information about the climate of each year in the trees lifespans. The actual values of the chronology used by the ASU task force were obtained from the International Tree-Ring Databank at the University of Arizonas Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research. The original chronology was developed by the late Donald Graybill from a site 3,500 meters above sea level and spans the period from 548 AD to 1984 AD.

The University of Arizona researchers followed a standard procedure used in literally hundreds of tree-ring reconstructions of local and regional climate conditions. In their review of the data, the ASU researchers found the mean sensitivity for the San Francisco Peaks chronology to be very high, indicating that the specimens respond well to annual climate variation. The ASU team gathered historical climate records from different stations in the general area of northern

Arizona and southern Utah and found that the tree-ring series had a relatively high correlation with the annual temperature data from Hanksville, Utah over the period from 1912 to 1984.

The ASU team used a standard set of time series and multivariate statistical procedures to link the variance in the tree-ring data to the annual temperature variance at Hanksville, removing autocorrelation in the data, establishing the statistical linkage between the tree-ring widths and the temperature data, developing transfer furnctions, and generating an estimate of annual temperature for each year from 548 AD to 1984 AD. According to the ASU researchers, “We tested the comparisons over the period of actual and reconstructed temperature values during this century, and we generated diagnostic statistics indicating that a long-term, meaningful reconstruction was possible.”

The results, displayed on the last page of the ASU study, while showing the “inconsequential” 20th Century warming also showed that while greenhouse gas concentrations did not increase in the early 1100s or the early 1300s, the temperature had no trouble shooting upward. Similarly, the ASU team notes, “There is no indication for any drop in greenhouse gas concentration in the last 1300s when temperatures fell like no other time in the 1,437-year record.”

“We must note that the magnificent Bristlecone pine trees of northern Arizona have been enjoying the recent buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide,” the ASU Climate Data Task Force reports. “The effect is a growth stimulation that may produce a recent warming bias in our reconstruction. Despite this problem, the temperature reconstruction does not reveal a warm-up that looks anything out of the ordinary over the past 1,437 years. The Bristlecone pines are telling us a lot about our climate. Wed better listen.”

This latest ASU Climate Task Force report (“Listening to the Pines”) is the fourth to be released by Greening Earth Society in 1999. The first (“20th Century Temperatures Atop Mt. Washington”) found no change in the sixty-year annualized mean, maximum or minimum temperatures recorded at Mount Washington in New Hampshire. The second (“View of Arctic Temperatures from Drifting Ice”) found no warming in the 37-year record of temperature data gathered at Arctic manned sea-ice stations operated by the Soviet Union between 1954 and 1990, and a slight, though statistically insignificant, cooling of annual mean temperature. The third (“A Climate Gift from Rothamsted”) examined one of the longest-running and continuous temperature records in the world (121 years) from the Rothamsted Experimental Station near Harpenden in southeastern England. That study revealed early, benign warming in that the bulk of warming took place at night and in winter with almost all of the detected warming (92.5%) taking place before 1950, which is before the exponential rise in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use.

The four ASU Climate Data Task Force studies were preceded by one prepared by Greening Earth Society science advisor Robert C. Balling, Jr., in November 1998. Ballings study analyzed trends in United States “heating and cooling degree days” between 1950 and 1995. According to Balling, who is Director of the Arizona State University Office of Climatology, no statistically significant trends over the period of study could be detected. That study led to the formation of the ASU Climate Data Task Force and Greening Earth Societys research grant to the university.

Under the research agreement with ASU, the results can be submitted for peer-review in the major journals on climatology. The effort will also be a source of continuing information for use by Greening Earth Society in World Climate Report and at the website (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org) to keep GES members abreast of developments in the science of climate change.”

The yearlong survey of available ground temperature datasets will use disparate, worldwide official climate data repositories and national meteorological centers, expanding the search to include other institutions, as necessary.

Click Here to read the study.

Cooler Heads Briefing Faults “Early Action”; Kyoto Cant be Met With Current Technology; Kyoto Will Cost Agriculture Billions

by William Yeatman on March 6, 1999

in Blog

Cooler Heads Briefing Faults “Early Action”

On February 22 the Cooler Heads Coalition sponsored an economic briefing for congressional staff and media. The briefing, which featured Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Mills of Mills, McCarthy & Associates, discussed the Mack-Chafee “Credit for Early Action” plan.

Lewis discussed the political problems with the bill. He explained that the bill would create winners and losers within the business community. Those who earn early credits will do so at the expense of those who are unable to. The bill will also create a pro-Kyoto constituency among the winners since their credits would be worthless unless the Kyoto Protocol is ratified.

Mills argued that “early action” on emission reductions is a nonstarter because you cant do it, it wouldnt work, and it wont matter. Mills maintains that currently fossil fuels supply 85 percent of the U.S. energy supply and is forecast to reach “90 percent of all increases in energy supply vital to a growing economy.” Substantial reductions in fossil fuel use would depress the U.S. economy.

Mills argues that “early action” would not work. It would require a “vast bureaucracy to track, validate and regulate the millions of existing and prospective activities of the entire market that uses $500 billion in energy annually.” Most energy use in the U.S. is in the form of electricity. Restricting electricity use, says Mills, would “threaten the entire technological infrastructure of the new information economy that is almost exclusively electrically-fueled.”

Finally, Mills argues that even if we could do it and it did work, it wouldnt matter. Even if we burned all available fossil fuel in the next twenty years, “the net result would not significantly change the future atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.”

Kyoto Cant be Met With Current Technology

The Clinton Administration has based much of its Kyoto-will-be-painless argument on the claim that the energy efficient technology needed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is already on the shelf and just needs to be installed. A new study by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), however, takes issue with that claim.

According to the report “the time frame proposed by the Protocol will not be sufficient to accommodate the enormous investment of R&D and human resources needed to meet the carbon emission reduction goals.” To meet the goal the U.S. would need to reduce its carbon emissions by 551 million metric tons (MMT). But, says the report, “maximum utilization of currently available technologies might result in a reduction of carbon emissions by an estimated 79 to 164 MMT by 2008-2012 time frame.”

The report evaluates several possible technologies that may be helpful in reducing carbon emissions, and finds that most are either nonviable or would have minimal impact on U.S. emissions. The federal government, for instance, has been heavily involved in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles that would use fuel cells as a power source for transportation. The ASME argues that “it is not yet clear that fuel cells will be developed for commercialization by 2008/2012. A massive infusion of R&D funding would be needed to make this happen.”

“Commercial air travel,” according to the report, “is the second largest and fastest growing transportation subsector.” It is also the most dependent on petroleum. The report states that replacements for kerosene jet fuel are still “many decades away.” The Clinton Administration has also claimed that household electrical appliances is another sources for potentially large energy efficiency improvements. It has proposed new energy efficiency standards as part of its plan to reduce carbon emissions. According to ASME, however, “much of the technology for residential heating, cooling, hot water, and refrigeration equipment is reaching its theoretical limit or can only be increased at a significant cost.”

Energy supplied by biomass is highly favored by the Greens. But biomass requires massive amounts of land to produce the necessary fuel. The report points out that to fuel a 2600 MW plant at a 65 percent capacity factor “would require one half of the State of Ohios available farmland and forests.” The maximum amount of energy that could be produced from biomass would be about 210 billion KWH per year or about 3 percent of the total amount of energy demand projected for 2010. Wind power is also expected to contribute a maximum of about 2 to 3 percent of total electricity needs.

What, according to the ASME, would be required to meet the Kyoto target? A massive reduction in the use of coal from 50 percent of energy mix to 15 percent in 2010 and zero percent by 2030. An increase in the use of natural gas from 11 percent to 56 percent. The report also argues that “the nuclear option must be included in any long-term strategy for the reduction of carbon emissions.”

Kyoto Will Cost Agriculture Billions

Last week we reported that a recent Pew Center on Climate Change study claimed that global warming would have little effect on U.S. agriculture. A new study, sponsored by five national agriculture organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Corn Growers Association, National Cattlemans Beef Association, National Grange and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Association, shows that global warming policy under the Kyoto Protocol will do severe damage to U.S. agriculture.

According to the study by Sparks Companies, Inc., an agriculture consulting firm, agriculture costs could increase by 8.8 percent or $16.2 billion. The study also shows that the compliane with the treaty would boost gasoline prices by 29.5 percent by the year 2010, electricity by 54 percent, and natural gas by 110.9 percent. The study also claims that American farmers would be faced with lowered demand for their goods because they would be forced to compete with farmers in countries that are not bound by the treaty. This could lead to a reduction in farm income of more than 50 percent.

“The impact of the treaty would be a financial last straw for many family farms,” said Dean Kleckner, President of the AFBF. “The Clinton Administration has committed to a flawed treaty without releasing its own analysis of the impact the protocol would have on U.S. agriculture. Meanwhile, agriculture has completed three studies, all of which show devastating financial consequences for farmers and ranchers” (Topeka Capital Journal, February 23, 1999).

Model Study Shows Mixed Results; Global Warming Guru Advises Caution

by William Yeatman on March 6, 1999

in Science

Model Study Shows Mixed Results

A study appearing in the February 25 issue of Nature attempts to ascertain the regional effects of global warming on Europe. Using a climate model from the UK Hadley Center the researchers attempted to determine what effects global warming may have on river flow and wheat yield, both of which are affected by temperature and rainfall. The purpose of the experiment was to see if they could distinguish the impacts of human-induced global warming from natural multi-decadal climate variability.

The results showed that increasing anthropogenic carbon emissions significantly changed river runoff relative to natural variability in northern and southern Europe, but showed no change for western and central Europe. They also found that wheat productivity was very sensitive to natural climate variability. Only Denmark, Finland and Italy showed a marked increase in wheat yield as a result of human-induced global warming. “Elsewhere,” according to the study, ” climate-change impacts on mean wheat yield are indistinguishable from those due to natural climate variability.” Wheat yield was also highly sensitive to increases in CO2 concentrations.

An article discussing the study that also appeared in Nature said that “the clear message of this work is that greater efforts are needed to take account of the noise of natural climate variability when considering the signal of climate change.”

Global Warming Guru Advises Caution

Stephen Schneider is most famous for predicting global cooling in the seventies and then reversing himself to predict global warming in the eighties. As one of the most visible and radical proponents of the global warming theory and international control on energy use he is now urging the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be cautious when making its projections. In an internal paper for the IPCC, Schneider argues that it is a “well-documented tendency for scientific committees to overstate the confidence of their guesstimates.” Schneider argues for a “consistent assessment and reporting of the uncertainties.” No more statements like “the balance of evidence suggests,” which, according to the New Scientist (February 20, 1999), was the “result of a straw poll among themselves [the IPCC].”

Announcements

  • The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.

Iceland Will Not Sign Kyoto; Oklahoma Senate Committee Rejects Implementation; British MP Attacks Greenpeace; IPCC Chairman: Sci

by William Yeatman on March 6, 1999

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Iceland Will Not Sign Kyoto

The first major defection from the Kyoto Protocol comes from an unlikely source. Icelands foreign minister Halldor Asgrimsson announced that his country will not sign the Kyoto Protocol unless his country is allowed to substantially increase its greenhouse gas emissions. Icelands target under the Kyoto Protocol is a 10 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels. But the government argues that this is too stringent, and is demanding to be allowed a 25 percent increase. Even one new industrial plant could increase Icelands emissions by 10 percent, according to the government. Only Iceland, Turkey and South Korea among the OECD countries are expected to miss Kyotos March 15 signing deadline. So far only two countries, Fiji and Barbuda & Antigua have ratified the treaty (ENDS Daily, March 3, 1999).

Oklahoma Senate Committee Rejects Implementation

One of the ploys used by the Clinton Administration to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification is to convince the states to make greenhouse gas reductions by providing grants and other benefits. The state of Oklahoma, however, has taken a first step towards rejecting administration overtures. The Senate Energy, Environmental Resources and Regulatory Affairs Committee voted 9-4 on February 18 to advance Senate Joint Resolution 6 to the full Senate for consideration.

The resolution, sponsored by committee chairman and Senator Kevin Easley (D- Broken Arrow), states that the Oklahoma Legislature should not take any action to reduce greenhouse gases until the Kyoto Protocol is properly ratified. The resolution also states that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would lead to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, higher electricity rates, income losses and lower output.

Senator Lewis Long, a Democratic supporter of the resolution said, “I think we need to stop and tell the federal government to go fly a kite on some of these issues and let us take care of our own business here in the United States instead of a bunch of bureaucrats telling us what we can do and cant do” (The Sunday Oklahoman, February 21, 1999).

British MP Attacks Greenpeace

At a meeting of the Commons Environment select committee, Teresa Gorman a Tory MP for Billericay, accused Greenpeace of “demonizing” the energy use and raising fears about global warming. She asked Labour Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK, “isnt the demonization of carbon gases over the top, and your organization has to answer for that?” She noted that there are other factors that may be responsible for climate change, such as volcanic eruptions and sunspots. Gorman also said, “it was not the job of governments to burden their populations, with carbon taxes” (Press Association Newsfile, February 24, 1999).

IPCC Chairman: Science Doesnt Matter

Weve always suspected that proponents of the global warming scare really dont care what the scientific evidence shows. Now a statement by Robert Watson, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms our suspicions. At a sustainable development conference in Tokyo, Watson argued, according to the Asahi News Service (February 24, 1999), that “governments cant wait until the cause and effect of global warming have been definitely established because the time to reverse the damage may take centuries.” Watson also argued that the business community must not turn a blind eye to environmental problems that will affect sustainable development. To do so, said Watson, would have adverse effects on their bottom line.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →