2004

Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson strongly criticized the lawsuit recently launched by eight state Attorneys General against several electricity generators for creating a public nuisance by contributing to global warming (Aug. 11).

Samuelson concluded his argument, It’s easy to be against global warming but not easy to be for the things that might control it.  Barring some magical technological breakthrough, lowering U.S. emissions would require some or all of the following: tougher regulation or higher gasoline prices to force drivers into smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles; restrictions on coal-burning power plants; encouragement of nuclear power; expansion of drilling for natural gas and more imports of liquefied natural gas; and regulations or tax penalties to discourage large homes.

No judge should try to impose new policies. These issues belong in the political arena, not the courts.  But even if the United States embraced tough anti-global warming policiesand other industrial countries did the samethe effect would be offset unless developing countries joined.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that greenhouse emissions will more than triple over the next century under business as usual assumptions.  Virtually all the increase occurs in developing countries.

Spitzer and his allies can’t change any of this. Their suit mainly allows them to advertise themselves to people who don’t know better. Here’s Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sounding off:

Our lawsuit is a huge, historic first step toward holding companies accountable for these pernicious pollutants that threaten our health, economy, environment, and quality of life now and increasingly in the future.  The eventual effects . . . [will be] increasing asthma and heat-related illnesses, eroding shorelines, floods and other natural disasters, loss of forests and other precious resources.

Actually, this contains considerable distortion. In truth, no one knows how much the world will warm, exactly when or with what consequences.  Any self-respecting judge will dismiss this suitand do more. Because the only point is political self-promotion, the judge ought to require the attorneys general to pay court costs and defendants’ costs from their own pockets. There’s a name for what the attorneys general are making of themselves: a public nuisance.

Margot Wallstrom of Sweden has been promoted in the new European Union Commission to head the commissions communications efforts.  She has been replaced as Environment Commissioner by Stavros Dimas of Greece. 

Dimas, from the Greek conservative party New Democracy, is believed to be less personally committed to environmentalism than Wallstrom.  Recent months had seen Wallstrom argue publicly with Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio of Spain over the economic effects of the Kyoto Protocol.

Dimas appointment has already worried some in Europes powerful green movement.  Under the headline, All hope is lost, the Guardians environment correspondent John Vidal wrote (Aug. 18):

 If the European Commission really wanted to signal that it didn’t give a monkey’s [British slang for couldnt care less] about the environment then it would probably choose as its new environment commissioner an old, rightwing free-marketeer lawyer who used to work for the World Bank and had responsibility for Africa in the bad old 1970s.  Impossible?  Not in the slightest.  Welcome Stavros Dimas, 62, Greek economist, Wall Street banker, and conservative lawyer.  The fragile hopes of Europe‘s mountains, rivers, climate and forests rest on you.

Washington, D.C. According to a new study appearing in the August 13 issue of the journal Science, We already have the technology we need to take the world off the path toward dramatic climate change. But a cursory glance at the advance summary reveals that the study, conducted by Princeton Environmental Institutes Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI), is completely out of touch with economic, political, and environmental reality.

The forthcoming study claims that each of 15 recommended strategies could eliminate up to 1 billion tons annually of carbon emissions by 2054, though by not considering their costs the authors make their recommendations useless as public policy proposals. The study basically says that if you coerce everybody to use a lot less energy and dont care about the cost, you can significantly reduce emissions, said Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. We needed Princeton University to tell us that?

CMIs Strategy 1 is to double the fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg. However, the average passenger car in the U.S. got 21.4 mpg in 1999, and the average light truck 17.1 mpg, so CMI is really proposing to triple fuel economy. Dont they know how politically difficult it is to mandate even small mpg increases? Their proposal would either eliminate todays most popular vehiclesSUVs, pickups, and large sedansor price them out of reach of working families, said Lewis.

CMIs Strategy 2 is to decrease the number of car miles traveled by half. But the U.S. population could easily increase by half or more by 2054. This strategy is tantamount to rationing carscommuters and soccer moms should just love it.

CMI Strategy 5 is to replace 1,400 coal electric plants with natural gas-powered facilities. But America is already facing a multi-billion dollar natural gas supply crunch. This strategy would wreak havoc upon consumer electricity bills.

CMI Strategy 9 is to add double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal-based electricity. This proposal should go over big with the no-nukes environmental establishment.

CMI Strategy 10 is to increase wind capacity by 50 times relative to today, for a total of 2 million large windmills. The word boondoggle was invented for just such proposals, and in case CMI has not heard, theres a growing grassroots backlash against wind farms.

CMI Strategy 13 is to increase ethanol production 50 times by creating biomass plantations with an area equal to 1/6^th of world cropland. This strategy is a prescription for decimating millions of acres of forest and other wildlife habitat. I thought environmentalists liked trees and wildlife, but I guess these days anyone can qualify as long as they embrace the Kyoto agenda of climate alarmism and energy rationing.

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website at www.cei.org