2003

Senate Ready to Debate Climate Amendments to Energy Bill; Europe Falling for Russian Bait?; Environmentalists for Enron

by William Yeatman on July 22, 2003

in Politics

Senate Ready to Debate Climate Amendments to Energy Bill

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has scheduled all next week for floor debate on S. 14, the comprehensive energy bill. While he has suggested that the Senate will not go home for the August recess until the bill is voted out, some Senate Democrats have hinted that they intend to keep the debate going until next year by offering amendment after amendment.

A draft of the climate amendment that Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) plans to offer has been floating around. It looks a lot like Titles X, XI, and XIII passed by the Senate in the 107th Congress as part of Senator Daschle’s energy bill. Bingaman has removed or modified several controversial provisions. For example, the draft drops sense of the Congress findings on climate change.

The provisions regarding the registry of greenhouse gas emissions make several important changes to the Brownback-Corzine amendment in last year’s bill. Bingaman’s draft amendment would allow the president to choose the lead agency for managing the registry. Most unusually, it would direct that a not-for-profit organization be given a contract to design and operate the registry database and designate independent groups to verify and audit emissions reports. It would also set up complex procedures for certifying reported emissions reductions, again using and provides civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for non-compliance.

The possible amendment to require a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for electric utilities has been further analyzed by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. In May, EIA reported that the proposed 10% RPS would have a cumulative probable cost of $4.9 billion by 2030. That was using assumptions specified by Senator Bingaman. Using more realistic assumptions specified by Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, EIA finds that the likely costs could range from approximately $36 billion upwards to well over $100 billion. The EIA’s supplementary analysis may be found at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/supplement.pdf.

Europe Falling for Russian Bait?

Speculating as to why Russia’s supposed enthusiasm for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol appears to have stalled, the Wall Street Journal editorialized July 17, “Russia’s change of heart over Kyoto seems mostly motivated by its wallet. Countries can sell ‘credits’ for carbon dioxide emissions allowed under the protocol but not used, to other countries who need higher levels of emissions than the protocol allows them. This potentially puts Russia in the money, because Kyoto’s calculations were based on 1990 levels, and since then-following the collapse of the Soviet Union-Russia’s levels have decreased by 36%. Russia reportedly wants guarantees from Europe and Japan that its credits will be snapped up, netting the Kremlin tens of billions of dollars. Holding Kyoto hostage may also be a ploy to secure concessions from Europe on Russia’s languishing World Trade Organization membership bid, or over the status of Kaliningrad.”

Europe already seems to be falling for the Russian ploy. EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, speaking in Italy on the weekend of July 19, suggested that Europe would be happy to give Russia all kinds of help. According to the Independent of London (July 21), she “stressed that Russia would gain economically from ratification, arguing that Western countries would invest in Russian emission-cutting technology. EU countries could ‘demonstrate that we are also interested in providing them with clean technology,’ she said.”

The Wall Street Journal may have foreseen the outcome. It concluded its editorial, “Assuming Moscow’s ploy works, while the Kremlin is laughing all the way to the bank, Europe’s taxpayers will be scratching their heads wondering what happened after Kyoto’s provisions kick in, hitting European growth and raising costs in industries dependent on carbon dioxide. Maybe it’s time for Europe to have its own second thoughts.”

Environmentalists for Enron

The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, or CERES, which numbers among its members the AFL-CIO, Environmental Defense, and the Presbyterian Church, has issued a report criticizing American oil, energy and automotive industries for failing to follow its good corporate governance guidelines. Specifically, it objects to their failure to disclose possible financial risks associated with climate change and their unwillingness to enter into a ‘voluntary’ emissions trading scheme.

The report complains that American petroleum companies are devoting virtually all their development efforts to increased oil and gas exploration, while European competitors are investing in renewable energy technologies. They complain that American auto manufacturers are “depending on sales of big sport utility vehicles that get low gas mileage as their main profit center,” while Japanese competitors have taken the lead in introducing gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. And they allege that American electric utilities are “investing heavily in refurbishing old, coal-fired power plants,” while regulators’ activities “argue in favor of” replacing these plants with new, lower-carbon-emitting facilities.

CERES argues that these strategies amount to significant risks that should be disclosed to shareholders. They call on CEOs to appoint and listen to Chief Environmental Officers, to “include a statement on material risks and opportunities posed by climate change in the company’s securities filings” and to participate in an external voluntary greenhouse gas emissions trading program. They claim that this represents a governance challenge that responsible stewards must rise to, intimating that Enron-like corporate scandals await if they do not.

They neglect to mention that Enron was the leading promoter of a greenhouse gas emissions trading program, arguing that it would do more to promote Enron’s business than any other regulation. (See http://ceres.org)

Climate Research Plan Hits the Streets

The Climate Change Science Program’s strategic research plan is scheduled to be released by Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at a press conference on July 24. The report will be available at www.climatescience.gov.

An interagency team led by NOAA’s James Mahoney developed the plan over the past year through an exhaustive process of consultation, comment, and review. A pre-release summary lists five major goals of future federally-funded climate research:

Goal 1: Improve knowledge of the Earth’s past and present climate and environment, including its natural variability, and improve understanding of the causes of observed variability and change.

Goal 2: Improve quantification of the forces bringing about changes in the Earth’s climate and related systems.

Goal 3: Reduce uncertainty in projections of how the Earth’s climate and related systems may change in the future.

Goal 4: Understand the sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and managed ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global changes.

Goal 5: Explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving knowledge to manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability and change.

“A Product of the Bureaucracy”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received new documents from the EPA under the Freedom of Information Act relating to the EPA’s claim that it is not responsible for Climate Action Report 2002 (which President Bush disowned, claiming it was a “product of the bureaucracy”).

The EPA’s chronology states that the document was submitted to the Executive Office of the President (EOP) by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). EPA confirmed this, then incorporated the EOP comments into the final document and prepared it for printing. EPA then asked the State Department and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which had earlier revised the executive summary of the document, on how to handle its public release. CEQ and the State Department decided to publish the document without publicity.

Sea Levels See-Saw; Extreme Weather Events Reportedly Increase

by William Yeatman on July 22, 2003

in Science

Sea Levels See-Saw

An article in Japan’s Kyodo News July 7 attributed a sea level rise in 2002 of over 5 cm greater than the century’s average to global warming. However, the paper added that “the new figure topped the previous highest rise of 5.07 cm recorded in 1948,” also pointing out that the latest rise began only in 1985.

In this regard, an article on sea-level rise in Science (July 1) makes for interesting reading. Scientists are unable to make the “steric” rise (caused by thermal expansion of a warming ocean) now estimated at 0.5 mm/year and the “eustatic” rise (caused by more fresh water) normally estimated at 0.2 mm/year [the IPCC figure] add up to the total IPCC figure for sea-level rise of 1.5-2.0 mm/year during the 20th century. Some have suggested the tide gage readings are predominantly in unusual areas for sea-level readings.

The author believes the explanation is likely more fresh water than thought running off continents, but concludes: “Global coverage by satellite altimetry…shows a notably larger than average level rise in the last decade of the century. The detection of the relatively slow century-scale trend is plagued by the dominance of high (decadal) frequencies in the spectrum of the rate of sea-level variability. It will take several decades to obtain good estimates of the role of global warming in sea level rise.

“In the meantime, 20th century sea level remains an enigma — we do not know whether warming or melting was dominant, and the budget is far from closed.”

According to London’s Guardian (July 19), scientists from Australia’s National Tides Facility suggest that, while the sea level around the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu (which is only 3 meters above the sea) have risen by about 5 cm since 1993, this may not be anything to worry about. One scientist said, “We’ve had a large El Nino which appears to have raised sea levels across the western Pacific, so rises in future may well not be as dramatic.” Previous estimates suggested that the aftermath of El Nino could see a fall of up to 30 cm in the waters around Tuvalu.

Nevertheless, the Tuvaluan Congregational Church has asked Australia to give the Tuvaluan government an island to which they can evacuate the entire nation.

Sequestration Appears Sustainable

The idea that carbon sequestration via forests is a sustainable option for reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has come under attack in recent years. The theory is that new forest growth will quickly become saturated and will start returning stored carbon to the atmosphere by 2050. New research from Luo et al published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles suggests that this may not be the case.

The researchers examined a new forest called Duke Forest established in 1983 in North Carolina. Beginning in 1996, they started enriching 30 meter diameter plots with CO2 to concentration 200 ppm above ambient, while maintaining control plots at the ambient level. The studies revealed “sustained photosynthetic stimulation at leaf and canpy levels which resulted in sustained stimulation of wood biomass increment and a larger C[arbon] accumulation in the forest floor at elevated CO2 than at ambient CO2.”

The researchers then developed a model for studying the long-term sustainability of sequestration. In a scenario where atmospheric CO2 concentration gradually rises from 378 ppm in 2000 to 710 ppm in 2001, they calculated sustained carbon sequestration rising from 69 units to 201 in 2100. (co2science.org, July 16)

Extreme Weather Events Reportedly Increase

On July 2, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO – a UN agency) issued a press release that blamed global warming for an observed increase in extreme weather events, tied to the heat wave in Europe and the busy tornado season in the central US. The WMO also blamed the cooler-than-average spring in the eastern US on increasing temperatures. Hedging their predictions with “mights” and “coulds,” the WMO suggested that, “Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase.” The press release also claimed that, “considering land temperatures only, last May was the warmest on record.”

However, as John Daly, who runs the Still Waiting for Greenhouse web site from Tasmania, pointed out, much of the seeming increase in extreme weather events could be attributable to increased reporting of the events rather than to an actual increase in their occurrence. When this possibility was put to the Director of the World Climate Program for the WMO, Ken Davidson, he replied, “You are correct that the scientific evidence (statistical and empirical) are (sic) not present to conclusively state that the number of events have (sic) increased. However, the number of extreme events that are being reported and are truly extreme events has increased both through the meteorological services and through the aid agencies as well as through the disaster reporting agencies and corporations. So, this could be because of improved monitoring and reporting.”

Daly also pointed out that, although the scattered surface temperature stations in their urban heat islands may have suggested that May was the warmest month on record, the satellite temperature measurements place this May as only the 4th warmest in the last 25 years. Finally, Daly reminded us that recent temperatures are influenced upwards by the current El Nino. (<http://www.john-daly.com>)

Etc.

Does McCain-Lieberman Cover This?

Tristram West of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has calculated that barbecue grilling on Independence Day burns the equivalent of 2,300 acres of forest and consumes enough energy to power a town the size of Flagstaff, Ariz., for an entire year.

Not only that, but the grilling emits 225,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. West based his calculations on the relative use of gas and charcoal grills. If the nearly 34 million liquefied petroleum and natural gas grills used on July 4 were instead charcoal grills, they would emit an additional 89,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, West said (a 40 percent increase in emissions). If, however, the nearly 23 million charcoal grills were fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by about 26 percent, or about 59,000 metric tons. (Eurekalert press release, July 3).

Less Developed Argument

Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN Environment Program, appears to want to keep the Chinese people in poverty. According to Reuters (July 17), he criticized Chinese plans for economic growth on Malthusian grounds, arguing that the world does not possess enough resources to meet China’s aim of quadrupling its economy by 2020.

Saying that this was part of the “rationality of economics,” Toepfer also appeared to cast doubt on the idea that anywhere else had achieved economic progress. He pronounced, “Quadrupling the GDP of a country of 1.3 billion, can you imagine what are the consequences if you go in the same structure as was done in the so-called developed countries?” Toepfer was speaking from Australia. He presumably arrived there by so-called airplane, rather than by outrigger canoe.

Land of the Midsummer Snow

[Editor’s note: Cooler Heads does not stoop to the methods of global warming alarmists, who send out a press release every time there’s a hot spell. We therefore make no claims for the following item. It’s merely anecdotal and tells us nothing about global temperature trends.]

An inch of snow fell on July 16 at the headquarters of Denali National Park in central Alaska. The Fairbanks Daily Miner-News (July18) reported that it was the first snow ever recorded there during the entire month of July. The high temperature of 42 degrees F was also the lowest ever recorded in July.

Similar low temperature marks were set throughout central Alaska. In Fairbanks, the high was 48 degrees, which is only the third July day in 99 years that the thermometer hasn’t reached 50 degrees. Snow was also reported for the first time ever in July at several other locations. According to the U. S. Naval Observatory web site, on July 16 the sun rose in Fairbanks at 3:56 AM and set at 11:56 PM.

Announcements

* “The Climate Conflict”, the award-winning Danish documentary, will be aired on the Science Channel on Friday, August 8, from 9 to 10 PM ET. It will also be shown five times on Saturday, August 9, at midnight, 5 AM, 8 AM, 1 PM, and 4 PM. The broadcast schedule may be consulted at <http://science.discovery.com>. The Cooler Heads Coalition has sponsored two showings of “The Climate Conflict” with introductory remarks by solar physicist Paal Brekke of the European Space Agency, who is interviewed in the documentary. The Science Channel is broadcasting a new English-language version that has been updated. Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark’s theory that solar variation is the main climate driver is investigated.

* The Fraser Institute in Canada has published a paper titled “Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Not Warranted, Not Beneficial” by Dr. Kenneth Green, Fraser’s chief scientist and director of its Risk and Environment Centre. The paper may be found on the web at http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Climate.pdf.

* The Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of Frontiers of Freedom Institute, has published a paper titled “EPA Mercury MACT Regulation Rulemaking Not Justified by Science.” Its authors are Dr. Willie Soon and Robert Ferguson. It will soon be posted at www.ff.org <http://www.ff.org>.

Corrections

* In our article in the last issue on S. 139, the Lieberman-McCain bill to regulate CO2 emissions, we said that national disposable income “would take fifteen years to return to the amount reached in 2000” and that, “By 2025, the country’s GDP would be $106 billion lower in real terms than it is today.” Both these statements are incorrect, owing to a misreading of graphs in the report. They should read: “would take fifteen years to return to the levels envisaged without McCain-Lieberman,” and “… would be $106 billion lower in real terms than it would have been without McCain-Lieberman.”

* In vol. VII, no. 12, we also undercounted the number of scientists who signed the open letter to Canadian PM-in-waiting Paul Martin (now available on the web at <http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/LttrtoPaulMartin.html>). There were 46 signatories at our last count.

We regret the errors and thank our readers for pointing them out. We encourage our readers to point out any future errors.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Environment; Maine Governor Signs Climate Law; Russia: Kyoto Ratification Latest

by William Yeatman on July 8, 2003

in Politics

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Environment

The Democratic contenders for the White House focused on health issues at an environmental debate in Los Angeles hosted by the League of Conservation Voters on June 26.

Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) argued that environmental issues are tied to jobs, health, and national security. In a written statement he claimed that increasing use of renewables to 20% by 2020 would create 500,000 new jobs. He also announced that he would force the oil and gas industry to fund technology intended to put them out of business, increase fuel efficiency, and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Sen. Kerry has yet to comment on the Cape Cod wind farm.

Former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.) spoke of his experience as a doctor, and linked airborn pollutants to asthma. He has written that oil is tied to national security because it is the lifeline of terrorists, but opposes drilling in ANWR and instead plans for higher CAFE standards on SUVs.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) recommended the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on the logic that following Europe’s lead will, “restore us as the moral leader of the world.” He also has a “Declaration of Energy Independence,” which focuses on reducing foreign oil consumption by two thirds within ten years and eliminating it completely within twenty years.

Former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun criticized the President at the debate as being in the pocket of energy lobbyists.

According to Rev. Al Sharpton, the President’s Clear Skies proposal, “is nothing but a gift to his friends in big business.” He also believes that because protecting the environment is labor intensive, pro-environmental policies will create jobs instead of eliminating them.

Other Candidates Stances

Four Democratic candidates did not appear at the debate. However, they have already all gone on record in regard to their environmental policies.

Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) blames our nation’s vulnerability to terrorism on our dependence on Mideast oil. He wants to support alternative transportation power schemes (including other technologies than fuel cells) and higher CAFE standards. He also opposes any revision to the Clean Air Act saying, “Its going to give more children asthma attacks and more seniors heart problems.”

Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) accuses the White House of refusing to enforce the Clean Air Act and allowing more arsenic in drinking water. He also opposes increasing energy resources stating, “I will continue to fight against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” instead outlining an Apollo project to free the US from Persian Gulf Oil in ten years. His plan includes one million hybrid cars by 2010 and 2.5 million fuel cell cars by 2020.

Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.) highlights his experience as governor of Florida when discussing environmental issues. He writes, “I brought more environmentally endangered lands into public ownership than any other state in the nation during that time.” He wants to increase government investment in renewable energy, including ethanol, wind, and solar.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) believes that technological advances in renewables have broken down old barriers to development.  He seeks to spur research and development in hydrogen, solar, wind, and ocean energy sources, and to expand public ownership and control of utilities.  In addition, he wants to initiate a Global Green Deal for renewable energy both at home and in developing countries.  On other environmental fronts, he has opposed advances in biotechnology in the food supply and claims to have thwarted nuclear waste dumping.

Maine Governor Signs Climate Law

On June 26, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a bill into law that aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. It requires Maines Department of Environmental Protection to convene a group of stakeholders, including environmentalist groups and at least 50 businesses that will agree to an emissions reduction plan by 2006. The law also includes a carbon sequestration program allowing credit for carbon taken up by vegetation. The cost of the law has not been estimated.

The new act had its origins in the 2001 compact between New England governors and premiers of Canadas eastern provinces. Its sponsor, Rep. Ted Koffman (DBar Harbor) told the Bangor Daily News that immediate action was needed for Maine to do its part in protecting the world from the effects of climate change. The Daily News outlined the dangers supposedly threatening Maine: “Here in New England, the temperature and sea level are on the rise, according to scientists. Climate models predict that much of the states famous coastline could be lost. Rising temperatures and more frequent storms will bring increased disease. Because Maine is located at an ecological boundary, a shift of just a few degrees could mean the loss of the spruce-fir forests that support the states paper industry, the famed Maine moose and even the lobster fishery.” (Bangor Daily News, June 26)

Russia: Kyoto Ratification Latest

While the members of Russias parliament, the Duma, appears broadly in favor of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears less enthusiastic about the idea. There have been increased efforts by European governments to persuade Russia to ratify the document, as it cannot come into effect without ratification by either Russia or the United States.

Most Russian parliamentarians support the protocol, Robert Nigmatulin, chairman of a parliamentary committee that advises on ecological issues, told Reuters. He said, “I am in favour of it, and I think most deputies are in favour of it. The treaty has to be ratified by the Duma, but it is the president that will decide.”

Putin himself appears less than impressed by the protocols effectiveness, telling a group of students, “If everything that was written in the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, it would not solve the problem. (But) it is true, as my European colleagues say, that it is a step in the right direction.”

A major conference on climate change science is scheduled to take place in Moscow in the fall. Russian scientists and economists have recently expressed skepticism about whether global warming is occurring at all (see the May 28 issue). The news that this June was Moscows coldest since 1941 will not have helped make the case for climate change. Moscows normal average temperature for June is 17.5 C. This years was a mere 13. (Reuters, July 7/ Moscow Times, July 1).

Cosmic Influence on Climate; Mann Reacts to Paleoclimate Study; Urban Heat Islands Mean Fewer Ice Storms

by William Yeatman on July 8, 2003

in Science

Cosmic Influence on Climate

In new research published in GSA Today, a publication of the Geological Society of America, researchers Nir Shahiv and Jan Veizer conclude that cosmic rays emanating from dying stars account for 75 percent of the change in the Earths climate over the past 500 million years. This means that carbon dioxide accounts for much less of the recent mild warming trend than commonly postulated.

The theory is that cosmic rays increase the number of charged particles in the atmosphere, which then leads to the formation of more low-level clouds that cool the atmosphere. Shaviv and Veizer have put together a model that looks at the interaction of cosmic rays with historical climate data.

The researchers were able to place an upper limit on the role of CO2 that translates to a temperature increase of about 0.75 C. associated with a doubling of CO2. This is about one-third the amount of radiative forcing assumed in most general circulation models. The findings are also consistent with the suggestion that much of the warming seen over the last century is associated with increased solar activity rather than greenhouse gases. (Nature, July 8).

Mann Reacts to Paleoclimate Study

Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and a group of other paleoclimatologists have responded to the recent study by Wille Soon et al on the evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age were worldwide phenomena. The Soon study refutes the “hockey stick” graph contained in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, which appears to show that the 20th Century experienced unusual warming.

The critique by Mann et al appears in the July 8 issue of the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. It alleges three main flaws in Soon et als work. First, that it misinterprets proxy data indicative of drought or excess moisture as evidence of temperature.

Second, that the specific time periods of warmth or coolness in the two alleged climate eras varied from place to place, meaning that applying the labels “medieval warm period” or “little ice age” to them reflected Eurocentrism. The claim of Eurocentrism, at least concerning the Little Ice Age, was demolished in a book, The Little Ice Age, published in 2001 by archeologist Gale Christensen, which finds evidence for that climatic event all over the world.

Finally, Mann alleges that using the entire twentieth century as the temperature base with which to compare previous periods is inappropriate. Soon and his colleagues are preparing a scientific response to the criticisms, which they hope will be published in Eos.

Scientific American Charge Refuted

In a sidebar to an article also criticizing the Soon study in the June 24 issue, Scientific American repeated allegations that the publication of the study in the journal Climate Research was influenced by politics. The sidebar suggested that peer review had failed in this instance.

However, as Ross McKittrick pointed out in a July 10 article on Tech Central Station, “Prof. Otto Kinne, the Director of Inter-Research (the publisher of Climate Research) personally reviewed the file, including the four referee reports and the process leading up to the publication decision. He dismissed the misconduct accusation, finding that the article was properly reviewed and that the editor, Prof. Chris de Freitas, did a good and correct job as editor.”

Urban Heat Islands Mean Fewer Ice Storms

A new study in the Journal of Applied Meteorology adds more details about the urban heat island effect. Researchers from the University of Illinois found that large cities such as New York or Chicago experience significantly fewer days of freezing rain and ice storms than surrounding rural areas. Smaller cities experience less of an effect, although it is still noticeable.

Hashem Akbari of the Heat Island Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California told Nature that studies of this type, “help us understand how heat islands generate their own weather patterns, change wind direction and modify air quality.” As the magazine pointed out, “Some cities are up to 11 C warmer than the surrounding suburbs. Traffic, buildings, and air-conditioning units all release heat. Tarred roofs and roads soak up solar energy which they give up at night, when the largest temperature differences between city and country occur.” (Nature, July 1)

EIA Puts Cost of McCain-Lieberman at $507 Billion; Oil Drilling Protects Rainforests

by William Yeatman on July 8, 2003

in Blog

EIA Puts Cost of McCain-Lieberman at $507 Billion

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U. S. Department of Energy released its analysis last month of S.139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, sponsored by Senators John McCain (RAz.) and Joe Lieberman (DConn.). The bill may be offered as an amendment to S. 14, the comprehensive energy bill, which the Senate is scheduled to take up again later this month. It would introduce a “cap and trade” program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EIA found the economic effects would be far-reaching. As a result of energy price increases, the average households energy bill would increase by $444 per year by 2025, although a new bureaucracy set up by the bill called the Climate Change Credit Corporation would issue rebates, assistance and other payments in a form of energy welfare to offset much of this cost.

Yet the EIA found that the impact on the economy as a whole would not be made up by hand-outs from government. The economy would be severely affected, resulting in job and output losses in the short-run. Because of this shock, national real disposable income would drop by almost 1 percent by 2011, and would take fifteen years to return to the amount reached in 2000. By 2025, the average person would have lost almost $2,500 as a result of McCain-Lieberman. The effect on GDP would be even more startling, with the nation losing $507 billion (in real terms using 1996 dollars) over the next twenty-two years. By 2025, the countrys GDP would be $106 billion lower in real terms than it is today.

The analysis also found that nuclear power generation would expand by 50 percent and that oil import dependence would drop from 67.8 percent to 64.7 percent of the total US oil supply. Total greenhouse gas emissions would drop to 2000 levels by 2025, but this does not reflect any increases in carbon sequestration or the purchase of emissions reductions abroad. The price of emissions allowances would grow from $79 per metric ton of carbon equivalent in 2010 to $221 in 2025. (Report available for download at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ml/pdf/summary.pdf).

Oil Drilling Protects Rainforests

A new study by an Indonesian-based organization, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) suggests that exploitation of oil resources in tropical areas can help preserve the rainforests. Income from oil drilling, for instance, strengthens countries currencies, thereby making it less profitable for foreign companies to invest in logging operations. Governments also tend to invest their new wealth in cities, attracting people away from the forests, where they would otherwise engage in “slash-and-burn” agriculture and hunt for bushmeat. By contrast, slumps in earnings associated with cutbacks in oil production lead to jobless people returning to the forests and resuming these activities.

The reports author, Sven Wunder, told the BBC, “The key lesson is not that [oil and minerals] are good for forests, but rather that changes in commodity prices, exchange rates and wage rates frequently have a much greater impact on the environment than most people realize.”

Gabon in West Africa is cited as a prime example. As the oil boom there took hold, the report found that most Gabonese stopped farming and relied on imports, leading to an exodus from rural areas. The researchers conclude that “Gabon has probably seen marginal net reforestation since 1970. CIFOR told the BBC that it receives no funding from the oil industry. (BBC News Online, June 26).

New Zealand Considers Gas Tax; EU Agrees on Trading Scheme; Alberta Has the Energy U.S. Needs

by William Yeatman on June 24, 2003

in Blog

New Zealand Considers Gas Tax

As part of its effort to reach its Kyoto targets, the New Zealand government is planning to introduce a tax to help pay for research into livestock emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which account for more than half of the country’s greenhouse gases.

The tax will be paid by the countrys farmers, and is expected to cost them NZ$8.4 million (about US$5 million at current exchange rates). The levy will take the form of a 9 cent tax on each of the countrys 46 million sheep and 72 cents on each of the nine million cows.

Farmers are resisting the move. Federated Farmers President Tom Lambie told Reuters, “This decision is yet another example of the government’s desire to act in the wider public interest but expecting rural New Zealand to pay for its largesse.” (Reuters, June 19).

EU Agrees on Trading Scheme

The European Parliament and the EUs member governments have reached agreement on the content of an emissions trading scheme. The agreement will be incorporated into a bill currently before the Parliament, which is expected to be approved at its second reading the week beginning 30 June, after which it will become law following formal adoption by the EU Council of Ministers.

EU member states extracted the concession from the parliament that they will not be subject to a quantitative cap on the amount of allowances they can distribute. They are restricted in issuing “no more than is likely to be needed” for the “strict application” of national emissions allocation plans. For the initial 2005-2008 trial period, this must also be “consistent with a path towards achieving or over achieving” Kyoto Protocol targets.

The parliament also conceded that auctioning of emissions allowances could remain voluntary, despite its earlier insistence on the guaranteed sale of at least a small portion. During the initial period, up to five percent may be auctioned, with 10 percent from 2008. There is a promise of harmonized EU auctioning of allowances “after 2012.” The parliament did win its wish for limitation of an opt-out clause during the initial phase to individual installations rather than whole industry sectors.

Environmental New Service reports that inclusion of other sectors and other greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide remains optional, though there is a stronger commitment for the addition of the chemicals, aluminium and transport sectors when the European Commission reviews the law at the end of next year.

The spokesman for the parliaments Greens, Dutchman Alexander de Roo, expressed the hope that the agreement would “put pressure on the Russian Duma” to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol cannot come into force until either the US or Russia ratifies it. (ENS, June 25).

Alberta Has the Energy U.S. Needs

Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta, Canada, described his province’s vast hydrocarbon resources in a speech in Washington, D. C. on June 25. The possibility that the Kyoto Protocol could limit future use of these resources was not raised by Klein or in any of the questions from reporters at the lunch, which was sponsored by the Edison Electric Institute, U. S. Energy Association, and G. F. Energy. The premier did mention that Alberta’s energy resources, although enormous, would eventually run out.

Alberta has proven reserves of 176 billion barrels of oil. The rest of Canada has less than 3 billion, the U. S. has 22 billion, and Mexico has 13 billion barrels. Approximately two thirds of Alberta’s reserves are contained in heavy oil sands.

Klein described technological advances that have made production from oil sands economically feasible in the last few years. He said that 32% of Canada’s petroleum production came from oil sands in 2002. The provincial government expects this to grow rapidly as $50 billion is invested in oil sands development in the next 15 years.

Alberta also has huge reserves of natural gas, coalbed methane, and coal. Currently, the province supplies 14% of the gas consumed in the U. S. Klein said that increased supplies from Alberta were only part of the answer to the increasing demand for gas in the U. S.

Hydrogen Poses Risks to Ozone Layer; Atmospheric Mercury Declining; Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

by William Yeatman on June 24, 2003

in Science

Hydrogen Poses Risks to Ozone Layer

A report in the June 13 issue of Science entitled “Potential Environmental Impact of a Hydrogen Economy on the Stratosphere” suggests that hydrogen fuel cells could pose environmental risks.

The study theorizes that systems of molecular hydrogen (H2) production, storage, and transport will almost certainly involve some of the hydrogen escaping into the atmosphere. Current losses suggest that 10-20% of all H2 will escape, which implies that if all oil or gasoline combustion technologies were replaced with hydrogen fuel cells, anthropogenic H2 emissions would increase four to eight times.

The researchers suggest that the H2 would move up to mix with air in the stratosphere, where it would oxidize to form water vapor. This would result in a cooling of the lower stratosphere and would also enhance the chemical practices that destroy ozone. A fourfold increase in the amount of H2 in the stratosphere would lead to a stratospheric temperature decrease of about 0.25 C and ozone depletion of around five percent. These effects would rise to a 1 decrease and over 15 percent depletion with a sevenfold increase in H2.

The researchers also suggest that an increase in water vapor in the mesosphere could lead to an increase in noctilucent clouds, potentially affecting the earths albedo.

Atmospheric Mercury Declining

A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters (May 22) has found that total gaseous mercury levels have declined since their peak in the early 1980s. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry measured mercury levels in eight locations in both hemispheres as well as eight trans-Atlantic cruises over the course of more than twenty years. The study found that total gaseous mercury levels have declined since their peak in the early 1980s.  The findings correlate well with earlier research that found decreasing levels of mercury deposition dating back as far as fifty years. 

The study called into question the reliability of mercury models, saying that either “the area of man-made to natural emissions (including re-emissions) has been underestimated or the natural emissions undergo large temporal variations.”  If the discrepancy were natural, it would indicate a far greater degree of natural fluctuation than previously believed.

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

A June 17 story in the Independent of London was headlined, “Global warming may wipe out a fifth of wild flower species, study warns.” The actual study (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), however, suggested rather less.

The scientists looked at the effects of increased temperature, CO2, precipitation, and nitrogen on a small patch of California meadow, divided into plots of approximately one square yard. They found that under certain conditions, including increases in all four factors, the average number of forb species in the plots (small flowering plants like buttercups) decreased from about 4 to 3.2 over three years. This did not mean that the plots became less diverse, however, as other plant species took their place, leading in some cases to an increase in biodiversity.

The studys authors acknowledged that not all areas would respond to the effects of climate change like California meadows, something that did not make it through to the Independents coverage.

Global Warming Caused Permian Mass Extinction, Researcher Warns

A new book from Michael Benton, head of earth sciences at Bristol University in England, suggests that the mass extinction at the end of the Permian era, 250 million years ago was caused by a global warming of about 6 C. When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time suggests that a series of volcanic explosions caused a runaway greenhouse effect that led to the death of the vast majority of the species alive at the time.

Professor Benton told the Press Association: “The Permian crisis nearly marked the end of life. It’s estimated that fewer than one in 10 species survived. Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand how and why so many species died out so quickly.”

An advisor on the science behind the award-winning TV series Walking with Dinosaurs, Professor Benton is also the author of the Encyclopedia of Awesome Dinosaurs. (Sydney Morning Herald, June 20).

NY Times Accuses White House of Censoring EPA Report; Energy Bill Update; Automakers Oppose Hydrogen Target

by William Yeatman on June 24, 2003

in Politics

NY Times Accuses White House of Censoring EPA Report

In a front-page story on June 19 and an editorial the following day, the New York Times accused the White House of partisanship and censoring science during the normal editing process of the State of the Environment report unveiled on June 23. The administration had moved to correct certain statements about the state of climate change science. In response, the EPA deleted the section on climate change entirely.

Much of the criticism centered on two issues. First, the replacement of the sentence “Climate changes has global consequences for human health and the environment,” with the statement, “The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future. Because of these complexities and the potentially profound consequences of climate change and variability, climate change has become a capstone scientific and societal issue for this generation and the next, and perhaps even beyond.” The NY Times summarized this alteration as “replacing statements about the risks of global warming with remarks that stress uncertainty.”

Secondly, the paper criticized the administration for deleting references to the National Assessment on Climate Change, a widely discredited document that relies on models that have been proven to have no better predictive power than tables of random numbers.

Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Foundation, was quoted as charging that “Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science.” This would seem to refer to the White House adding reference to the recent study by Willie Soon et al. that found worldwide evidence of extensive natural temperature variation during recorded history and beyond.

The Times pointed out that the Soon study had been “partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute,” but neglected to point out that 90 percent of the studys funding came from three government agencies the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. New Yorks paper of record did not address the question of whether leaving out reference to the Soon study might have been regarded as censorship.

Energy Bill Update

Since the beginning of June, the Senate has passed eight amendments to S. 14, the comprehensive energy bill.  Two, numbers 840 and 860, were sponsored by Senators Domenici (R-N.M.) and Bingaman (D-N.M.), and re-authorized Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding.  Two, Bingaman no. 867 and Alexander (R-Tenn.) no. 880 were adopted to ensure the availability of natural gas and to instruct the Secretary of Energy to report on natural gas supplies and demand. 

Others included an amendment by Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.) to promote the use of cellulosic biomass ethanol from agricultural residue, and an amendment sponsored by Domenici for the elimination of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE an additive used to increase oxygen in gasoline) from the fuel supply, and an amendment sponsored by Mary Landrieu (D-La.) aimed at reducing dependence on foreign oil, which passed 99-1, with Jon Kyl (R-Az.) being the lone dissenter who realized oil prices are set in a global market.

Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and John Sununu (R-N.H.) proposed an amendment to strike the provision relating to deployment of new nuclear power plants. The provision allows the government to aid in the creation of new power plants through loan guarantees and purchase agreements. Wyden and Sununu claimed that the provision amounted to $16 billion of high-risk loans. Their amendment was defeated on June 10, 48-50.

The Senate will probably take up the energy bill again some time in late July. Sen. Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has expressed determination to make the deals necessary in order to pass the bill before the August recess. There have also been persistent rumors that Senate Democrats intend to drag out debate until next year.

Automakers Oppose Hydrogen Target

At the Energy Efficiency Forum in Washington in mid-June, automakers claimed that Californias zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) program should be a warning to law-makers to avoid future mandates on fuel alternatives. Toyota, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors were referring to the California Air Resources Boards change in policy, switching from an electric vehicle mandate to one focusing on gas-electric hybrids and then fuel cell-powered vehicles. The failure of the electric vehicle mandate is blamed on high and rising costs and very low consumer demand.

One specific piece of legislation with which automakers disagree was Sen. Byron Dorgans (D-N.D.) bill, which would require hydrogen fuel cell vehicle accumulative sales reach 100,000 by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020. GM and other automobile manufacturers are already trying to find ways to sell hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by lowering costs and improving performance, but are still having problems with storing the fuel.

Also at the forum, U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman spoke about the Climate Leaders Program, which added 11 partners, making the total 41. The Climate Leaders Program is a voluntary initiative on climate change aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists are unhappy with the program, claiming that the goals are too low. (Greenwire, June 13).

Greenspan Testifies on Economics of Natural Gas; Utilities Back Emissions Caps

by William Yeatman on June 10, 2003

in Blog

Greenspan Testifies on Economics of Natural Gas

Prices of natural gas have risen dramatically as a result of environmental regulations that prohibit drilling in many areas and limit infrastructure development, according to witnesses testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 10. The availability and price of natural gas is of interest because most strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions assume large-scale fuel switching from coal to gas.

The American Gas Associations representative, Carl English, cited land access restrictions as the greatest difficulty in lowering prices that have more than doubled on average since July 2000. Jeffery R. Currie on behalf of Goldman Sachs requested public investment in infrastructure projects to reduce volatility, which has rocked the chemical industry, but was contradicted by Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan urged a market-based resolution to the problem and advised the committee to allow the free market greater access to world markets of liquefied natural gas as a way to reduce prices.

The Fed chairman assured members that LNG technology has grown to be very reliable and safe over the past decades. Currently only one percent of Americas natural gas supplies comes from overseas, but according to Greenspan the potential for growth in world natural gas markets is vast.

Utilities Back Emissions Caps

A coalition of eight electric utilities, energy investors, and environmentalist groups has urged the Federal Government to back mandatory caps on CO2 emissions. Their report, Electric Power, Investors, and Climate Change: A Call to Action, argues that greenhouse gas emissions will inevitably be regulated in the US, and that companies benefit by knowing when and how they will be limited. Furthermore, the current “patchwork of regulations and continued uncertainty” discourage investment and limit growth in the energy sector. Mandatory caps are seen as the answer to this uncertainty.

The utilities involved in the consortium stand to gain over their competitors if mandatory caps are introduced. They include: Calpine, the worlds largest producer of geothermal energy; Con Edison, the New York City utility which has divested itself of its generators in accordance with New York regulations and has recently asked FERC to “institute programs aimed at preventing unreasonably high energy prices and ensuring that consumers are protected from potential market abuses by power generators and marketers;” and KeySpan, a New England based utility which also has significant holdings in Canadian natural gas production.

The utilities report may be found on the web at www.ceres.org/newsroom/press/electricrecs.htm.

Scientists Revive Debate in Canada; Administration Aids State AGs Lawsuit; Mercury Numbers Look Shaky

by William Yeatman on June 10, 2003

in Politics

Scientists Revive Debate in Canada

An open letter published in Canadas National Post on June 4 urges Paul Martin, MP, Canadas Prime Minister in waiting, to undertake comprehensive scientific consultations on the Kyoto Protocol when he takes office following Jean Chretiens likely retirement. The letter was inspired by reports that Martin felt that Canadian ratification of Kyoto proceeded without adequate consultation with the provinces.

The letter was signed by 35 scientists, of whom 16 are Canadian. Tim Ball, for 28 years professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and one of Canadas first climate scientists, coordinated the letter. Also among the signatories was Freeman Dyson, emeritus professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, who has expressed strong skepticism about climate modeling.

The letter criticized Prime Minister Chretien for acting to ratify the protocol on the basis of a “gut feeling.” It provoked a reply from the Minister of the Environment, David Anderson, published in the National Post on June 9. Anderson called the signatories “dead wrong.” He argued for Chretiens “gut feeling” on the basis that there will never be absolute scientific certainty on climate change and so leaders need to act in order to avoid “analysis paralysis.”

Dr. Ball replied, “The real threat in all this is Mr. Andersons dogged determination to take draconian action on climate change without a proper assessment of the relevant science.”

The letter has been posted at www.sepp.org.

Administration Aids State AGs Lawsuit

On June 4, the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency for refusing to initiate a process for regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

Their suit, naming outgoing EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman as defendant, seeks to force the agency to apply National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to CO2 despite the fact that the Clean Air Act does not authorize regulation of CO2 or any climate-related programs.

According to Greenwire (June 4), the plaintiffs base much of their case on the idea that the EPA has “made clear its understanding of the possible scenarios that could result from unchecked carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, the AGs point to the administration-approved Climate Action Report released last June that said recent climate changes are likely due mostly to human activities and that predicted increases in temperature and weather variability could have serious negative ramifications, including major ecosystem transformations, diminishing water supplies, a 4-inch to 35-inch rise in sea levels and increased outbreaks of insect-borne diseases.”

Climate Action Report 2002 (actually issued in May) and the National Assessment on Climate Change have theoretically been disowned by the current administration, with the President stating that it was “put out by the bureaucracy.” However, various agencies continue to disseminate the documents on their web sites.

Christopher C. Horner, acting on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has petitioned under the Federal Data Quality Act to have the document removed from further dissemination, but is meeting resistance from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (see article in the DATE issue). The State Attorneys General lawsuit illustrates exactly how this obstinacy is creating problems for the administration itself.

State Legislative Update: New York, Illinois, Oregon, and New Jersey

Legislative activity continues in many States aimed at curbing CO2 emissions. Activity is currently at its most intense in Illinois, Oregon, New York and New Jersey.

In Illinois, HB 2563 aims at directing marine and rail terminals to operate so that trucks do not idle with their engines running for more than 30 minutes, on pain of a $250 fine. The bill is currently with the House Committee on Rules. SB 0143 would create a renewable energy portfolio standard law. It is currently before the Senate Committee on Rules.

In New Jersey, AB 2095 would increase fines for non-compliance with the renewable portfolio standard up to $10,000 to $100,000. AB 3238 would make the adoption of an emissions portfolio standard for power generators mandatory. Current law already requires power generators to track emissions in lbs per MWh of SO2, CO2 and NOx. The bill is currently before the Committee on the Environment. AB 3491 would prohibit diesel trucks from idling at marine terminals, and is currently before the Committee on Transportation.

In New York, AB 04082 would adopt Californias vehicle greenhouse gas regulations by 2009. It has been through the Committees on Environmental Conservation and Codes and was amended in the Assembly during May. AB 05933 would set performance standards for NOx, SO2, CO2 and Hg, and has passed the Assembly. It is currently before the Senate Committee on Environmental Conservation.

Also in New York, AB 06428 would set an emissions standard for NOx, SO2, Hg and CO2 based on lbs per MWh generated. It would make a CO2 emissions cap permanent by 2007 that is seven percent less than 1990 levels and also establish a credit trading program. The bill passed the Assembly in March and is currently before the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications. SB 00899 would set a clean energy requirement that 1.5 percent of each utilitys electricity supply comes from renewables, increasing by 0.5 percent each year until the requirement reaches six percent, after which it would increase by one percent annually until the requirement stands at ten percent. This bill is also currently before the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications.

In Oregon, HB 2788 would impose a tax on each fuel supplier and utility based on the amount of carbon in fuels sold to consumers or used to produce electricity. It would also create a renewable energy resources account fund for development of renewable energy resources. The bill was introduced in March.

Mercury Numbers Look Shaky

On June 5, the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety held a hearing on the Clear Skies Act, S.485, that focused on mercury. Reducing mercury emissions has been seen as a potential indirect means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions because it could force utilities to close coal-fired power plants.

Incidental mercury reductions, which the EPA initially anticipated would produce a decrease of 22 tons by 2010, will actually result in a reduction of only 2 to 14 tons from its current level of 48 tons per year according to Dr. Randall Kroszner, acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

According to Dr. Larry S. Monroe of the Electric Power Research Institute, the Clear Skies Acts mercury reduction scheme would reduce the fraction of the population above the reference dose for mercury by only 0.064%, at an estimated cost of 6 billion dollars.

Dr. Richard Bucher, on behalf of W.L. Gore and Associates, the makers of GORE-TEX fabrics, reported a breakthrough by his company in using their synthetics to capture mercury at rates higher than any commercially available products. According to Bucher, “Coal burning trial results . . . indicate mercury capture rates consistently in excess of 90%.” However, the technology is still in the testing stage and may not be available to power suppliers for years.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →