2000

Economic Growth Makes Emission Credits Costly

by William Yeatman on September 13, 2000

in Blog

A September 5 Associated Press story calls attention to the problems and costs of pollution credit trading. Under Southern Californias Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), credits to emit one pound of nitrogen oxide sold for 13 cents last year. But since then, prices have gone as high as $37 per pound and are currently at $13.

According to Nick Drakos, vice president of Custom Alloy Light Metals, the prices increases “make it hard to make any informed business decision. If a company is growing, its very difficult to get reductions when youre burning more fuel, and they dont have a way to get more credits into the system.”

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power must pay $14 million in penalties and agreed to spend an additional $40 million to install emission control technologies to meet emission reduction requirements. Buying credits on the market would be even more expensive.

This is precisely what one would expect to happen. A fixed supply of emission credits with increasing demand due to economic growth leads to skyrocketing prices. The only option left to companies who must meet emission targets is to invest in costly technology. One would also expect a fixed supply emission credit market to experience extreme price fluctuations, making it difficult for businessmen to plan for the future.

Officials of Southern Californias RECLAIM program say the program is working as intended (Associated Press, September 5, 2000).

The Candidates and the Platforms

by William Yeatman on August 22, 2000

in Politics

The Kyoto Protocol and global warming are not, or at least not yet, shaping up as major issues in the presidential campaign. Republican nominee George W. Bush didnt mention them in his acceptance speech. Democratic nominee Albert A. Gore, Jr. said this: “On the issue of the environment, Ive never given up, Ive never backed down, and I never will. And I say it again tonight: we must reverse the silent, rising tide of global warming.”

The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains a long section on the environment, natural resources, property rights, federal lands, energy, agriculture, and transportation. Included is one paragraph on Kyoto: “As environmental issues become increasingly international, progress will increasingly depend on strong and credible presidential leadership. Complex and contentious issues like global warming call for a far more realistic approach than that of the Kyoto Conference. Its deliberations were not based on the best science; its proposed agreements would be ineffective and unfair inasmuch as they do not apply to the developing world; and the current administration is still trying to implement it, without authority of law. More research is needed to understand both the cause and the impact of global warming. That is why the Kyoto treaty was repudiated in a lopsided, bipartisan Senate vote. A Republican president will work with businesses and with other nations to reduce harmful emissions through new technologies without compromising America’s sovereignty or competitiveness – and without forcing Americans to walk to work.”

The 2000 Democratic Party platform gets a little more purple rhetorically: “And we must dramatically reduce climate-disrupting and health-threatening pollution in this country, while making sure that all nations of the world participate in this effort. Environmental standards should be raised throughout the world in order to preserve the Earth and to prevent a destructive race to the bottom wherein countries compete for production and jobs based on who can do the least to protect the environment. There will be no new bureaucracies, no new agencies, no new organizations. But there will be action and there will be progress. The Earth truly is in the balance – and we are the guardians of that harmony.

“Eight of the ten hottest years ever recorded have occurred during the past ten years. Scientists predict a daunting range of likely effects from global warming. Much of Florida and Louisiana submerged underwater. More record floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires. Diseases and pests spreading to new areas. Crop failures and famines. Melting glaciers, stronger storms, and rising seas. These are not Biblical plagues. They are the predicted result of human actions. They can be prevented only with a new set of human actions – big choices and new thinking.”

Hansen Cooks Up New Scenario; Journalistic Meltdown Hits NY Times;

by William Yeatman on August 22, 2000

in Science

Hansen Cooks Up New Scenario

NASAs Dr. James E. Hansen has stirred the global warming pot once again. In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Hansen and his four NASA co-authors estimate that most of the global warming observed in recent decades has been caused, not by carbon dioxide emissions (!), but by increasing levels of other greenhouse gases. These include methane, chloro-fluorocarbons, and various soots.

Based on this new finding, the authors propose an “alternative, more optimistic scenario” to the conventional wisdom that “30 Kyotos may be needed to reduce warming to an acceptable level.” They suggest focusing efforts on reducing these other greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. This would slow the rate of global warming more quickly and cheaply than by reducing carbon dioxide emissions alone.

Hansens pronouncements carry a great deal of weight. A respected scientist, he directs NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies. His dramatic testimony before a Senate committee began the global warming scare in 1988. Last year, he confessed openly and honestlyto the chagrin of many global warming propagandiststhat, “The science is not converging.” The article may be found at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.170278997.

Journalistic Meltdown Hits NY Times

Top of the page. Two columns. Left side. In a box. With a color photo. Headline: “Ages Old Icecap at North Pole Is Now Liquid, Scientists Find.”

The New York Times scooped the National Enquirer on August 19 with news that the Arctic ice cap has melted at the North Pole. The story by John Noble Wilford began, “The North Pole is melting.” The second paragraph claimed that, “The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.”

The shocking story, which will undoubtedly be repeated as gospel for years by environmental cranks, was apparently based on a press release put out by James J. McCarthy, director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. McCarthy is also co-author of one chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes forthcoming Third Assessment Report.

McCarthy saw blue water at the North Pole while serving as a lecturer on a Russian cruise ship in early August. He said that the Russian captain told him that he had never seen open water at the pole in ten previous voyages. (Presumably these go back 50 million years.)

A fellow cruise lecturer, Malcolm C. McKenna, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, told the Times that, “I dont know if anybody in history ever got to 90 degrees north to be greeted by water, not ice.” McKenna provided the photo that the Times ran.

Apparently the Times published the story without first checking with any polar experts or even with anyone with common sense. Experts were uniformly dismissive and scoffing in their comments. Dr. Peter Wadhams, director of the Scott Polar Institute at Cambridge University, told the Times of London that, “Claims that the North Pole is now ice-free for the first time in 50 million years is complete rubbish, absolute nonsense.”

Ian Allison, a glaciologist with the Australian Antarctic Division, told the Australian that open water at the North Pole was highly unusual, but that global warming was not involved. Instead, he explained that ocean currents pack and break apart huge ice sheets with vast force.

S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, wrote, “I am a veteran of two Arctic expeditions with the US Navy, and I can testify that icebreakers always search for leads to make their way through the ice. After a long summer of 24-hour days it is not unusual to find open leads all over the place, especially after strong winds break up the winter ice.”

Patrick Michaels, climatologist at the University of Virginia, told National Review Online that temperature records show no Arctic summer warming for the past 70 years.

Although ABC News picked up the story hook, line, and sinker, even National Public Radio expressed doubt. It noted that the ice sheet often breaks apart and open water appears.

Airlines Become Top Kyoto Target; Dairy Cows Under Threat

by William Yeatman on August 22, 2000

in Blog

Airlines Become Top Kyoto Target

The British government has promised to push for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by air travel, according to an August 6 article in the Observer of London. The pledge comes in response to a report released to the public on August 15 by the Institute for Public Policy Research (www.ippr.org.uk), which describes itself as “Britains leading centre-left think tank.”

The IPPR report, “Plane Trading,” says that commercial air travel produces 15 times more carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile than bus travel and twice more than passenger trains. This makes airlines the “most environmentally damaging method of transport in the world,” according to the Observer.

Chris Hewlett, co-author of the report, was quoted in an August 15 Reuters story as saying that, “Incorporating aviation emissions into emissions trading is the most feasible solution to the problem and would probably deliver the best environmental result.” (Short of banning air travel for the unprivileged, of course.)

The IPPR recommends that airlines should be given a fixed and declining number of emissions allowances. Thus airline passengers would indirectly pay for offsetting emissions reductions made in other industries.

Dairy Cows Under Threat

Reports have begun to trickle out of Australia about another serious economic threat posed by potential global warming. According to a study conducted by Dr. Robert Jones of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organizations Atmospheric Research Centre in Victoria, hot dairy cows produce less milk than cooler cows.

The study of high-yield dairy herds in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales shows that dairy cows left out in the sun produced approximately 230 liters (or 3%) less milk per year than cows kept under shelter. These losses could mount up to 310 litres per year by 2030 as global warming gets a grip on the island-continent down under.

Dr. Jones told the Australian Associated Press (August 18) that using shade sheds and sprinklers could reduce these losses to 50 to 90 litres per cow per year. Such measures will become increasingly cost effective as temperatures soar.

U.S. Proposes Carbon Sinks for Kyoto; Cooler Heads Comments on National Assessment; Administration Touts Kyoto Benefits for Lawy

by William Yeatman on August 8, 2000

in Politics

U.S. Proposes Carbon Sinks for Kyoto

The U.S. filed a proposal on August 1 to the United Nations office overseeing the Kyoto negotiations that would allow countries to get credit towards their Kyoto targets by using forests and crops to absorb carbon dioxide. The Clinton-Gore Administration estimates that the U.S. could receive credit for 300 million metric tons per year for carbon dioxide being stored in trees, crops and soil, accounting for nearly half of the reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol.

The administration said that “Given the growth in the economy and fuel use since 1990the only way to come anywhere near that target [7 percent below 1990 levels] is by adopting every possible strategy, including the agricultural approach,” according to the New York Times (August 2, 2000). It also noted that “In additionbringing farmers and foresters into the battle is likely to be crucial if the Senate, which has so far firmly opposed ratifying any international climate treaty, is to change its view.”

The EU opposes carbon sinks due to its relative scarcity of land for tree planting which would give the U.S. a distinct advantage. Japan, another country with limited space, wishes to meet its target by investing in forestry projects in the developing countries and possibly Australia.

Many environmental groups are also opposed to the proposal arguing that the U.S. should not rely on carbon sinks but rather should cut its use of oil and coal. It would seem that environmental activists are more concerned with preventing energy use than preventing global warming.

Cooler Heads Comments on National Assessment

Christopher C. Horner, on behalf of several members of the Cooler Heads Coalition, is filing official comments on the draft National Assessment on Climate Change before the August 11 deadline. The comments charge that several violations of Federal Advisory Committees Act, such as the absence of the required Designated Federal Officer from several meetings, the closing of meetings to the public, and the failure to certify meeting minutes by the chairman of the advisory committee, were committed in the preparation of the report.

The Cooler Heads members are requesting that the final report not be released until it complies with FACA. The comments will be posted in the next few days at www.globalwarming.org and at www.cei.org.

Frontiers of Freedom and the Science and Environmental Policy Project are also filing joint comments on the NACCs scientific shortcomings. These should also be available on the web at www.ff.org and www.sepp.org.

Administration Touts Kyoto Benefits for Lawyers

On July 20, Frank E. Loy, the under secretary for global affairs at the U.S. State Department and chief global warming negotiator for the U.S., spoke at the Annual Conference of the American Bar Association about the status of the negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol.

Loy prefaced his remarks by asking the audience of lawyers “Do you, the members of the bar, need to understand the Protocol and will you be able to bill your clients? (Because I know the suspense is killing you, let me just say that the answer to these last questions is an emphatic yes.)” While said jokingly, it is nonetheless true that lawyers love big, complex regulatory structures that require their services and fatten their wallets.

Loy was quite optimistic about the chances of getting an agreement that would be acceptable to the U.S. Senate. He even pointed out that we are closer than before since Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) a former skeptic on global warming, according to Loy, recently “acknowledged that the science has hardened considerably in the past decade and pledged to develop a domestic plan to deal with the problem.” He also pointed out that “Democrats and Republicans alike are proposing legislation to deal with climate change.”

One of the two major obstacles to getting an agreement is the desire of the EU that the U.S. “change our lifestyle as quickly and radically as possible,” he said. “Many in the EU believe that producing significant short-term pain and suffering is actually desirable, rather than something to be avoided.” The crux of the matter, according to Loy is that the EU is concerned that U.S. businesses “will enjoy a competitive advantage over European businesses that have been subjected to carbon taxes and extensive regulation.”

The other obstacle is developing country participation. Loy argues that since the developing countries are least able to adapt to climate change it is in their interest to come to an agreement. Loy also claimed that many of the key developing nations are already taking steps to reduce emissions and that those countries that “may lack the capacity to assume and implement legally binding targets” should “explore opportunities under the Clean Development Mechanism.”

And what is the role for lawyers in all this? “Like any sophisticated business transaction, each of these decisions [that companies must make about what to do about meeting climate change targets] will require legal advice about how to navigate a variety of domestic and international regulatory frameworks. Each transaction has the potential to involve litigation or administrative action.” Music to lawyers ears.

Oops! Sea Levels are Falling; More Problems with Tree Ring Data

by William Yeatman on August 8, 2000

in Science

Oops! Sea Levels are Falling

The island state of Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean has been one of the most vociferous players in the global warming debate. It has been trotted out by the global warming establishment as an example of the horrific effects of global-warming-induced sea level rise. The country is comprised of nine islands, which are only 12 feet above sea level at their highest point.

New research has shown, however, that sea level has fallen by about 2.5 inches in the last 2 or 3 years, an apparently dramatic reversal from the 1.5 inch per year rise experienced throughout the earlier 1990s. Hilia Vavae, director of Tuvalus Meteorological Service, said, “This is certainly a bit of a shock for us because we have been experiencing the effect of rising oceans for a long time.”

The evidence does not sway Ms. Vavae, however. “We are still facing the daunting prospect of being one of the first countries to be submerged by sea-level rises related to climate change.” As noted by the Sunday Telegraph (London, August 6, 2000), “The Tuvalu government, a vocal critic of the industrialized world at environmental conferences in Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro, has said that the result of its research is a blip and it is expected to make climate change a major issue when it joins the United Nations next month.”

Patrick Nunn, head of geography at the University of the South Pacific of Fiji attacked the data saying, “It is nonsense to try to make predictions about climate change from a data base of only seven years.” Nunn should have looked at the long-term data before making this statement. Sea level data from Tuvalu since 1977 shows no trend. Indeed, sea level remains stable with three punctuated drops in 1983, 1992 and 1998 during El Nio years. The current drop is occurring in the absence of El Nio (www.vision.net.au/~daly).

Any potential global warming will actually cause sea levels to drop in the short term, according to S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environment Policy Project. Singers paper, which he presented at a Cooler Heads briefing, is available at the SEPP website, www.sepp.org.

More Problems with Tree Ring Data

One of the major pieces of evidence upon which global warming theory rests is the long-term temperature record derived from analysis of tree rings. According to this research, these long-term chronologies show a dramatic late 20th century warming. However, an article in Quaternary Research (September 1999) questions the two critical assumptions upon which these findings rest, namely, “plant-climate relationships remain the same through time” and that “temperature-plant interactions are independent of changes in atmospheric CO2.” These assumptions are “not supported by physiological data,” according to the article.

If these assumptions arent true, then any temperature records derived from tree rings which do not take into account the effect of CO2 are wrong. Indeed, the article finds that CO2 concentrations have an effect on tree growth in three different ways. First, “Processes that determine growth optima in plantsare all highly CO2-dependent.” Second, water-use efficiency “is sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2.” Third, “leaf-gas exchange experiments indicate that the response of plants to carbon-depleting environmental stresses are strengthened under low CO2 relative to today.”

Nearly all studies of tree ring chronologies have interpreted tree growth in terms of changes in temperature and/or precipitation, not in terms of atmospheric CO2 content. An article posted by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at www.co2science.org notes that “the flawed studies of Mann et al. are fast becoming the centerpiece of the IPCCs misguided, but seemingly intentional, effort to rewrite earths climatic history in an attempt to prod national governments to adopt Kyoto-type measures to combat imaginary global warming.”

Brrrrrrrr!

An August 6 Washington Post story on the top of the front page reported that the past month was the coldest July in Washington, D.C. since 1918. Neither global warming or global cooling was mentioned as a possible explanation for this continuing pattern of extreme weather (even though record cool temperatures are just the sort of thing that global warming theorists predict will happen).

Vice President Al Gore held a press conference in the summer of 1998 to call attention to record high temperatures in many areas of the country and to blame them on global warming. Gore also chastised the American people for using energy produced by fossil fuels, which was causing global warming. Apparently the demands of the election campaign do not allow him the time to hold a press conference to call attention to the current temperature extremes.

Other places in the U.S. experiencing unusually cold weather include Chicago, which has yet to have a day with temperatures over 90 degrees this summer. This hasnt happened since Ulysses S. Grant was president. “By and largeChicagos heat island has been swamped by a tidal wave of [cool] temperatures,” noted the Chicago Tribune (August 3, 2000).

Maine has also been suffering through “Cool, wet, foggy weather,” says the Portland Press Herald (August 6, 2000), which has been hurting tourism in the state. And both Boston and New York City have been unseasonably cold with New York City experiencing its coolest July since 1914.

Finally, England has been having such cold miserable weather that one frustrated lady wrote a letter to the editor saying, “Sir: We were promised global warming and I want it now,” (The Independent, July 28, 2000).

Of course, other parts of the U.S., such as the West and South, have been suffering through very warm temperatures. So what does all this tell us about global warming? Absolutely nothing. For more stories about the cold weather visit www.vision.net.au/~daly.

The NACCs Compliance Problems; G-8 Founders on Kyoto; BP: Still Working for that Greenpeace Endorsement

by William Yeatman on July 26, 2000

in Politics

The NACCs Compliance Problems

Continuing White House stonewalling on the National Assessment on Climate Change has prompted another, even stronger letter from House Science Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Ken Calvert (R-Cal.). Their July 20 letter raises even more questions about the National Assessments peer review and public comment requirements as specified under the 2000 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. The Office of Science and Technology Policys reply to two earlier letters from Sensenbrenner and Calvert was “inadequate and non-responsive,” and “raises more questions than answers.”

The conference report of the VA-HUD act requires that the “supporting research” for the National Assessment be “subject to peer review.” Only 18 days, however, were afforded for peer review and the letter sent to reviewers advised them that the primary purpose of the review was to “ensure technical accuracy of the documents,” noted Sensenbrenner and Calvert. “Apparently, these reviewers were not encouraged to address issues of substance or to question any aspects of the documents beyond accuracy issues.” Requests by the committee for memoranda regarding peer review process and comments of the peer reviewers have been ignored.

The conference report also requires that the “draft assessment” be “published in the Federal Register for a 60 day public comment period.” This requirement has not been met. As a result, Sensenbrenner and Calvert have demanded that the 60-day period not begin until the draft report is published in the Federal Register.

The National Assessment is also working on several Regional and Sectoral analysis reports, some of which have been completed, for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. OSTP has attempted to circumvent the conference report requirements for these reports by arguing that they “are not federal reports,” even though they were funded with federal money. “There is nothing in the conference report to suggest a distinction between federal reports” and “federally funded reports,” stated Sensenbrenner and Calvert.

G-8 Founders on Kyoto

The G-8 countries fell short of their lofty goal of setting a timetable for Kyoto enactment at their summit this month in Okinawa. Japan reportedly pushed for 2002, making it the most ambitious player present. The U.S. was said to be “reluctant to be so specific” due to domestic policy concerns and the impending presidential election (Japan Economic Newswire, July 23, 2000).

G-8 leaders vowed to “achieve a successful outcome at the COP6,” which will occur this November in the Hague, and to push renewable energy sources. Finally, the leaders promised to strengthen export credit agency guidelines to include greenhouse gas evaluations of transactions (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 25, 20000).

Although White House press releases spinned the meeting differently, little progress was made in international climate change policy. The G-8 summit revealed internal squabbling and fundamental disagreements that may carry over to the Hague.

BP: Still Working for that Greenpeace Endorsement

Venerable British Petroleum, BP, has just kicked off a massive corporate rebranding initiative under the aegis “Beyond Petroleum.” The centerpiece of this campaign is an effort to move the companys revenue stream away from fossil fuel sales. The means? Pump-side Internet access which BP Chief Executive Sir John Browne hopes will help lift non-fuel sales to account for half of revenue.

Despite the new tagline and stunning new logo – a green, yellow, and white sunburst – environmentalists derided the change as “style over substance.” Greenpeace recommended that the company ought to have considered “a miserable polar bear on a melting ice pack” as a logo.

Browne, after playing up the rebrandings environmental focus at a press briefing, downplayed the rebrandings environmental focus to the business press: “Its all about increasing sales, increasing margins and reducing costs at the retail sites.”

Melting Ice Sheets: Much Ado About Nothing; Tree Rings: What Do They It Tell Us?

by William Yeatman on July 26, 2000

in Science

Melting Ice Sheets: Much Ado About Nothing

A recent study in Science (July 21, 2000) has prompted the press to run wild with lurid stories of melting glaciers, rising sea levels and looming disaster. If any of the reporters had taken the time to read the actual study, they would have learned that it is a non-story.

The study used aircraft laser altimeter surveys to determine the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet. It found that above 2000 meters there is both thickening and thinning of the ice sheet. In the north the ice sheet is thickening at a rate of 14 7 mm/year and a thinning in the south of 11 7 mm/year with an overall thickening of 5 5 mm/year. The authors estimate a bedrock uplift of 4 to 5 mm/year, meaning that the balance is essentially zero.

Below 2000 m, the coastal regions of the ice sheet, the authors estimate that “thinning predominates along approximately 70 percent of the coast.” The reason this is an estimate is because the coasts were “sparsely” measured. The authors explain that their estimate was obtained by calculating “a hypothetical thinning rate at the coast on the basis of the coastal positive degree day anomalies.” They then “interpolated between this calculated coastal thinning rate and nearest observed elevation changes to yield thinning rates within the ice-covered coastal regions.”

This interpolation from a calculation of a hypothetical thinning rates shows a total net reduction in ice volume of “51 km3/year, which is equivalent to 0.13 mm/year sea-level rise or, about 7 percent of the observed rate of sea-level increase.” The authors concede, “We do not have a satisfactory explanation for the observed, widespread thinning at elevations below 2000 m.” Perhaps the answer has to do with “hypothetical” rather than observed thinning.

To further complicate matters, the authors also note that “The 1980s and early 1990s were about half a degree cooler than the 96-year mean. Consequently, if present day thinning is attributable to warmer temperatures, thinning must have been even higher earlier this century.” But thinning rates on many glaciers are too large to be explained by warming, “leaving a change in ice dynamics as the most likely cause,” they argue. “We have no evidence for such changes, and we cannot explain whey they should apply to many glaciers in different parts of Greenland.”

Tree Rings: What Do They It Tell Us?

A study in Science (July 14, 2000) concludes that “A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.” The researcher, Thomas J. Crowley, at Texas A&Ms Oceanography Department, comes to this conclusion using computer models that test various forcings for a 1000 year temperature time series.

Using an energy balance model, Crowley determined that solar irradiance and volcanism account for a large part of temperature variations prior to 1850, before the advent of man-made greenhouse gases. By removing solar and volcanic forcings from the temperature data (reconstructed from proxies such as tree ring data) Crowley determined that the resulting natural variability was similar to the control run of the climate model. A model run with only greenhouse gas forcing resulted in a warming similar to the “very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.”

The temperature data used by Crowley was a combination of proxy data up to 1860 and data from the instrumental surface record beyond 1860. There are several problems with combining the two data sets, which result in an apparent pronounced warming in the 20th century. According to the study in the Quaternary Science Reviews (January 2000), there are several puzzles within tree ring data that complicate its use in climate science.

Keith R. Briffa, with the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, notes that “The evidence from dendroclimatology in general, supports the notion that the last 100 years have been unusually warm, at least within the context of the last two millenia.” He cautions, however, that “This evidences should not be considered equivocal. The activities of humans may well be impacting on the natural growth of trees in different ways, making the task of isolating a clear climate message subtly difficult.”

In the section titled “Reconstructing large-scale patterns of climate change”, Briffa discusses a tree ring data set of the northern boreal forest which he says “provides the best overall indicator to date of long-term temperature changes over the higher northern land areas,” the area where climate models predict the most warming. There is a divergence in temperature trends between proxy records and the instrumental record after 1950, notes Briffa. “Average [tree ring] density levels have continuously fallen while temperatures in recent decades have risen.” The reason for this “is not known” says Briffa, but he gives several possible explanations. One explanation that he doesnt entertain is the possibility that the instrumental record is wrong.

On the whole, however, tree-ring chronologies show an increase in density that has been widely interpreted as evidence for “anomalous global warming.” Biffra argues that “Some of this accelerated growth is no doubt temperature driven but fertilization by increased nitrogen and/or CO2 levels may also be involved.”

Kyoto: Bad Public Health Policy; Discounting Global Warming Costs; Clean Coal a Reality

by William Yeatman on July 26, 2000

in Blog

Kyoto: Bad Public Health Policy

Climate change policies would do little to protect public health, said Dr. Hadi Dowlatabadi, a physicist at Carnegie Mellon University, at the International Conference of Emerging Infectious Diseases on July 17. Indeed, trying to slow global warming may be harmful since it would divert resources from activities that have real impacts on public health.

“Climate change can impact health,” noted Dowlatabadi. But, “demographics, socioeconomics, technology and political factors are more important in public health outcomes.” These factors are “easier to manipulate than the climate system.”

Warnings that global warming may lead to the migration of tropical diseases, such as malaria, to the United States are unfounded, said Dowlatabadi. Malaria is a disease that afflicts the poor. “Where people prosper, they devote resources to fighting malaria,” he said.

As an example of how disease is correlated with poverty, Dr. Dowlatabadi noted that from 1980 to 1996 there were 50,333 cases of dengue fever in the border states of Mexico while in Texas there were only 43 cases. “Does the climate change abruptly at the border?” he asked.

If governments wish to enhance public health, said Dowlatabadi, they should create an economic environment conducive to allowing people to gain access to food and healthcare rather than spending millions on climate-control. “My worry is if we pursue climate change as a major objective,” Dowlatabadi said, “we will take away income and potential growth,” from the poor. “The pursuit of climate policycannot be justified on public health grounds” (USA Today, July 18, 2000).

Discounting Global Warming Costs

Vice President Al Gore in his epic tome Earth in the Balance advocates “a new global economics.” Specifically, “We must change our current use of discount rates, the device by which we systematically undervalue the future consequences of our decisions.” Writing in the Weekly Standard (July 17, 2000), Ira Carnahan responds deftly: “This is silly.”

The debate, surprise, surprise, isn’t over economics so much as environmentalism and, you guessed it, global warming. If the earth heats up there is a chance, however unlikely, that there may be economic consequences. The question for most policy-makers would be “What are likely outcomes, and is it worth acting now, at great expense, to forestall them?” The question that Gore and his environmental fellow travelers pose is more pointed: “How can we justify a massive, unprecedented regulatory regime?”

Well, unfortunately, you can’t, using conventional economics. It seems unlikely that global warming will have catastrophic effects. But even if you take the most pessimistic scenario and discount it, no policy action, besides “no regrets,” can be justified. Carnahan reminds us that, “At 10 percent, the present discounted value of one dollar 200 years in the future is one-half of one millionth of one cent.”

Clean Coal a Reality

Clean-burning coal – a misnomer, a typo? Hardly. With a new technology developed by FirstEnergy and Powerspan known as Electro-Catalytic Oxidation, or ECO, coal burning plants will soon be able to be retrofitted to remove SO2, NOx, mercury, particulates, and other toxics from emissions.

ECO uses plasma to oxidize pollutants into acidic mists which can then be collected and even sold profitably if distilled. Better, ECO costs less to implement and operate than the current scrubber or selective catalytic reduction unit technology, which is not nearly so effective. FirstEnergy vice president Guy Pipitone predicts “ECO should have broad market appeal” (Electricity Daily, July 24, 2000).

White House Rebuffs Congressmen on National Assessment; DOE Responds to Coalition FOIAs; The Blame Game: Gas Prices

by William Yeatman on July 13, 2000

in Politics

White House Rebuffs Congressmen on National Assessment

The stench of the National Assessment has reached Congress. Representatives James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the committee, and Ken Calvert, chairman of the subcommittee on energy and the environment, wrote to Presidential Assistant on Science and Technology Neal Lane on June 7 about the controversial report.

Dr. Lanes failure to respond and the release of the draft report prompted a more explicit letter from the two, sent on June 28. This second letter asked that the National Science Foundation, “(1) promptly publish the corrected draft versions of the National Assessment Synthesis Report Overview and Foundation Report documents in the Federal Register; and (2) extend the public comment period to provide a minimum of 60 days thereafter.” The Foundation Report, 700 pages long, is the basis of the Synthesis Report Overview and is allegedly available, by appointment, at the NSFs headquarters in Virginia.

The congressmen also criticized the NSF for not establishing a public docket and for not making available the “publications and analyses” used in the report. Because the report available (purportedly) in Virginia and on the web is incomplete, missing figures, tables, and other elements, the congressmen label it “deficient and incomplete” and not yet ready for final public comment and review.

Dr. Lane responded to the lawmakers on June 30th, addressing directly none of their concerns. He concluded simply: “I do not feel there is any need to alter the process that we devised” Translated: Full steam ahead; lets get this thing out the door in October and get our man into the White House.

DOE Responds to Coalition FOIAs

The Department of Energy on July 10 provided a “wealth of documents” in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

After a first glance, Christopher C. Horner, counsel to the coalition, said that the documents provide evidence that the department was under strong political pressure from the White House to hurry production of the National Assessment so that the final version would be ready for release before the election. Horner also said that reviewers comments of the draft National Assessment from scientists at two of DOEs National Laboratories are “scathing.”

The Environmental Protection Agency continues to resist turning over relevant documents in response to the Coalitions FOIA requests, despite being under a federal court order to do so. EPAs attempts to obstruct and obfuscate have begun to resemble President Clintons celebrated statement that it depends on what the meaning of is is.

The Blame Game: Gas Prices

Finger-pointing continued in Washington over recent gasoline price spikes. While Vice President Gore shouts about collusion and price gouging by oil companies, a June 5 memo to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson identifies a number of more plausible reasons. Among them are regulatory actions undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency, which initially requested the Federal Trade Commission investigation of possible collusion.

The memo by Melanie Kenderdine, acting director of policy at DOE, points to high consumer demand and low inventories of petroleum nationwide. In addition, Milwaukee and other upper Midwest cities are faced with “an RFG [reformulated gasolinerequired by EPA] formulation specific to the area that is more difficult to produce,” as well as specific refinery and pipeline problems. A June 16 report by the Congressional Research Service came to similar conclusions.

Kenderdine predicts that, “The first opportunity for any relief from this tight market situation will most likely be due to reduced seasonal demand this fall, when there will be a change back to less-stringent RFG performance specifications.”

In a June 9 letter to Secretary Richardson, Vice President Gore wrote that the memo “also implies the existence of an unexplained variation or price differential between RFG and conventional gas.In the light of these findings, it would appear appropriate that you forward your report, in full, to the Federal Trade Commission, for any action they deem appropriate.” The memo in no way implies what Gore asserted.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported on July 10 that more and more Europeans are fed up with high gasoline prices, which are now at or above $4 a gallon in most EU countries. In Germany, motorists are joining a protest movement called Jetzt Reichts (translated as Enough is Enough!). In the United Kingdom, a Dump the Pump gas boycott is being organized for August 1. The Post mentions that the “real culprit” is gasoline taxes “that account for about 80% of the price at the pump” compared to 25% in the U. S. The German Green Party continues to advocate raising the price to approximately $10 a gallon.

Take That, Excess Profits!

Taking their cue from Vice President Gores attacks on oil companies for increasing their profits by 500% in the last year, Representatives David Bonior (D-MI) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) intend to introduce the Gas Price Spike Act of 2000. It would prevent oil companies from reaping “excess profits” if enacted.

Historical data would be used to set a “reasonable” level of profits for individual companies. Profits more than five percent above that level would be taxed at a 100 percent rate. Said Rep. Bonior, “The threat of heavy taxation will send a clear signal to the oil companies that price gouging will not pay.”

Natural Gas: Conflicting Policies

Natural gas industry leaders have called on the next administration to reverse Clinton-Gore policies that have closed huge areas to gas exploration and development. New sources of natural gas will be needed to supply much higher demand expected in the near future.

The call to open federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf tracts to gas production that have been put off-limits by the current administration was made during the Natural Gas Summit, held in Colorado Springs on July 10, according to the BNA Daily Environment Report (July 11, 2000).

Dick Sharples, chairman of the Natural Gas Council and president of Andarko Energy Services, said that natural gas consumption is projected to rise from 22 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to 29 trillion cubic feet in 2010.

Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol have promoted the substitution of natural gas for coal to produce electricity because gas produces much less carbon dioxide per BTU than coal. However, environmentalists have also opposed industry efforts to expand sources of supply. The Clinton-Gore Administration has closed tens of millions of acres of federal land to exploration and has extended exploration leasing moratoriums on the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS. These conflicting policies now appear to be approaching a collision.

EU: Enforce Kyoto, No Nukes

The European Unions Council of Environment Ministers have made several key decisions about the European Unions negotiating position at the upcoming sixth Conference of Parties (COP-6) to be held in the Hague, November 13-24.

According to BNAs Daily Environment Report (July 3, 2000), the ministers decided that financial penalties should be imposed on countries that exceed their greenhouse gas emission limits under the Kyoto Protocol. Second, the Council agreed that definite limits should be put on the use of carbon sinks to offset greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, the EU will oppose the inclusion of nuclear power in the Clean Development Mechanism. The communiqu instead called on COP-6 to “adopt a positive list of safe, environmentally sound eligible projects based on renewable energy sources, energy efficiency improvements and demand-side management in the fields of energy and transport.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →