2004

UN Admits Russian Emissions Forecasts are Wrong; Costs of Kyoto Begin to Dawn on Britain

by William Yeatman on March 16, 2004

in Blog

UN Admits Russian Emissions Forecasts are Wrong

The growing realization that Russia is serious about not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol has reached the pages of Science magazine.  In an article entitled, A Eurasian Tiger Threatens to Maul Kyoto (Mar. 5), reference is made to a draft report from the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that says that, The data underlying the U.N.s emissions forecasts for Russia are full of holes and out-of-date.

The last official communication from Russia to the UNFCCC, submitted in November 2002, predicted that Russias emissions would not surpass 1990 levels before 2015.  However, the new review suggests that the communication does not include emissions data from important energy sources, including plans to double coal production.

The article also quotes Alexander Golub of Environmental Defense, who once predicted that, Solid economic growth without significant energy efficiency reforms might propel Russia beyond its Kyoto emissions limits far sooner than the U.N. had predicted.  He now thinks, however, that Russia will remain well within Kyoto limits, so it would not hurt to ratify the protocol.

Golubs arguments seem to carry little weight in the Kremlin.  The article quotes economist Peter Kaznacheev, who said, Its unlikely Russia will make profits from carbon dioxide quota sales.  And meeting Kyoto targets is out of the question: The targets are hardly affordable, says Kaznacheev.  Russias rising fortunes, therefore, could be the Kyoto treatys ultimate misfortune.

Costs of Kyoto Begin to Dawn on Britain

The economic ramifications of the British Governments decision to adopt stricter-than-Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions are finally being looked into by British officials and industry leaders.

According to the BBC (Mar. 10), an adviser to the government has warned that Britains power supplies could be interrupted owing to lack of capacity by 2006.  Meanwhile, a report by the bipartisan House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee has warned, There is a danger that there is currently insufficient investment in the network to replace in a planned and orderly way equipment which is reaching the end of its life.  Simply to maintain present performance levels, capital expenditure by the network owners would have to double.  The report suggested that consumers would have to pay an extra ₤1 billion in higher electricity prices to redress the balance.

The same day, Londons Times reported on a new paper by the Royal Academy of Engineering on the cost of renewable energy.  It summarized, Even the cheapest forms of renewable energy will cost at least twice as much as gas or nuclear power for the foreseeable future, according to a new report that questions the viability of the Government’s energy strategy.

The paper quoted the report as saying, The energy consultant PB Power, which prepared the report, found in a comparison of energy costs that electricity generated from gas turbines or modern nuclear plants is by far the cheapest, at 2.3p per kilowatt hour (kWh).  Onshore wind power, the cheapest renewable energy, costs 3.7p per kWh and offshore wind power costs 5.5p per kWh.  And the cost of both is increased further by the need for back-up conventional power sources to ensure that supplies remain constant when the wind is not blowing.
 
Then, on March 12, yet more of the cost of the governments green policies came to light.  The Guardian reported, Water and sewerage customers in England and Wales could be forced to pay more than the 30% extra in real terms over the five years from April 2005, originally foreseen by regulator Ofwat.  It follows tough new environmental guidelines from ministers.  Business bodies warned that industry could see their power bills rise by up to 30%with a knock-on effect on domestic consumersif the government sticks to its plans to enforce a 16.3% cut in greenhouse gases under an EU carbon emissions trading scheme that takes effect on January 1, 2005.

The Guardian concluded, Ministers came under fire from both the CBI [Confederation of British Industry] and EEF [an association of manufacturers]over their ambitious plans for CO2 trading which, the government says, should increase power bills by no more than 6%.  Industrial and retail customers, who already face a combined 1.5bn bill over 10 years to rebuild the grid system and hefty increases to meet the switch to renewables, will pay considerably more10 to 30%than government forecasts, the two bodies said.

The EEF said UK power prices would surge faster than in Europe unless ministers persuaded other EU states to adopt its more stringent standards and urged a delay to the new scheme.  While the rest of Europe drags its heels, Britain’s manufacturers are going to have to run much faster to meet the UK’s ambitious target, said Martin Temple, EEF director-general.

Energy Secretary Defends Administrations Commitment to Sound Science; British Government Reprimands Alarmist Scientist; McCain W

by William Yeatman on March 16, 2004

in Politics

Energy Secretary Defends Administrations Commitment to Sound Science

Responding to a Washington Post op-ed by former American Prospect Online editor Chris Mooney that repeated allegations that the administration had ignored the scientific consensus supporting global warming alarmism, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham issued a strong defense of administration policy in a letter to the newspaper.

He wrote, In “Beware ‘Sound Science.’ It’s Doublespeak for Trouble” [Outlook, Feb. 29], Chris Mooney engages in more than a little doublespeak himself and does what he accuses the Bush administration of doingtwisting reality to fit his preferred hypothesis.

Mr. Mooney claims that the 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change embarrassed the administration that commissioned it. This is nonsense. The administration is well aware of the scientific consensus that temperatures have warmed partly due to human activity.

But acknowledging consensus is a far cry from implying, as Mr. Mooney does, that our understanding of climate change is complete. Indeed, the same report also noted that “a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established,” and it identified a number of scientific areas that need further study to advance our understanding of climate change and support policy decisions.

The administration’s Climate Change Science Program strategic plan, released in July 2003, addresses many recommendations from the NAS report and is designed to accelerate research on the most important uncertainties in climate science. An extensive review of the plan just published by the NAS, and ignored by Mr. Mooney, commends the program for seeking input from a broad array of scientists and stakeholders and concludes that advancing science on all fronts identified by the program will be of vital importance to the nation.

British Government Reprimands Alarmist Scientist

Despite supposedly having the backing of Prime Minister Tony Blair, UK Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King earned a dressing-down from senior civil servants after claiming that global warming was worse than terrorism (see previous issues).

According to the Independent (Mar. 7), Ivan Rogers, Mr. Blair’s principal private secretary, told Sir David King, the Prime Minister’s chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush’s policy on climate change.  Since Sir David’s article in Science was published, No. 10 has tried to limit the damage to Anglo-American relations by reining in the Prime Minister’s chief scientist.

In a leaked memo, Mr. Rogers ordered Sir Davida Cambridge University chemist who offers independent advice to ministersto decline any interview requests from British and American newspapers and BBC Radio 4’s Today.  To accept such bids runs the risk of turning the debate into a sterile argument about whether or not climate change is a greater risk, Mr. Rogers said in the memo, which was sent to Sir David’s office in February.

Sir David, who is highly regarded by Mr Blair, has been primed with a list of 136 mock questions that the media could ask if they were able to get access to him, and the suggested answers he should be prepared to give. One question asks: How do the number of deaths caused by climate change and terrorism compare? The stated answer that Sir David is expected to give says: The value of any comparison would be highly questionablewe are talking about threats that are intrinsically different.

If Sir David were to find himself pushed to decide whether terrorism or climate change was the greater threat, he was supposed to answer: Both are serious and immediate problems for the world today.  But this was not what Sir David said on the Today programme on 9 January when the Science article was published.

Asked to explain how he had come to the conclusion that global warming was more serious than terrorism, Sir David replied that his equation was based on the number of fatalities that have already occurredimplying that global warming has already killed more people than terrorism.

Sir David does not appear to have repeated his contention since the Madrid outrages on March 11.

McCain Wants New Studies to Support His Legislation 

Senator John McCain has somehow overcome his long-time opposition to wasteful government spending in order to promote two costly new studies on global warming.  Since he believes that the science is settled on the issue, his purpose appears to be to provide support for his energy rationing bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139.  First, he has asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to study the likely effects of global warming on federally managed lands.  

Bluewater Network, an environmental pressure group, boasted in a press release, Prompted by a request from Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based environmental nonprofit organization, Senators McCain and Hollings asked the GAO to identify the losses and stresses on all of Americas public lands (including coastal and ocean resources) that will result from global warming. The GAO report would inventory the impacts of global warming and predict the timing of their environmental and socio-economic consequences. In addition, the Senators are asking the GAO to identify the resources that can be saved by adaptive measures such as construction of sea walls to protect coastal lands, and improved networks of reserves to protect species.  Bluewater Network point out that global warming is a direct consequence of industrialization.

Second, McCains Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed out a bill that would spend $60 million to establish a research program for studying abrupt climate change within the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The bill was passed out by voice vote and with little discussion on March 8.  The sponsors are Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Washington Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Vermont Independent Senator Jim Jeffords.

Lomborg Case Quietly Dropped

It escaped the attention of most of the worlds press that had earlier gleefully reported the news of his conviction for scientific dishonesty, but the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty on March 12 dropped their case against Bjorn Lomborg, author of the international environmental best-seller, The Skeptical Environmentalist, following the quashing of its initial verdict by the governments science ministry.

The Environmental Assessment Institute, headed by Dr. Lomborg, issued a press release that quoted him as saying, The committee decision is as one would expect.  More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation.

Lomborg continued, DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid.  I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events.  The release concluded, The DCSD translated their first judgment into English.  Today’s announcement is only available in Danish.

Warming Link to New Ice Age Shaky; Lindzen Summarizes Current State of Climate Science

by William Yeatman on March 2, 2004

in Science

Warming Link to New Ice Age Shaky

While alarmist scientists and the journalists who write for them, Pentagon futurists, and Hollywood disaster movie-makers are all happy to present the possibility of global warming triggering another ice age, the science behind the assertion is less than solid.

The possibility is based on the idea that global warming will cause a freshening of the waters in the North Atlantic, so causing the Gulf Stream to weaken or even shut down.  This would mean warmer waters would not be present in the North Atlantic, causing a drastic lowering of temperatures in the areas that rely on the Gulf Stream to maintain a temperate climate (temperate Great Britain is on the same latitudes as inhospitable Labrador in Canada).

Yet the models on which climate alarmists rely for their catastrophic scenarios do not agree on the effects of global temperature rise on the Gulf Stream.  Researchers R. Bleck and S. Sun, writing in the journal Global and Planetary Change, tell how they revisited their model of the meridional overturning circulation (MOC).   In view of evidence presented in IPCC (2001), the researchers had expected the Atlantic MOC to weaken in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  They found that the Atlantic overturning stream function appears to be stable, concluding that, It is insensitive to global warming resulting from gradual CO2 doubling.

News for the alarmists is worse from their favorite model, that from the UKs Hadley Centre, which proved no more capable of predicting past climate than a table of random numbers when used for the flawed National Assessment on Climate Change.   Wu et al. report in Geophysical Research Letters that their examination of thermohaline circulation (THC) was expected to show a weakening of the stream.  However, as they write, they do not find a decreasing trend of the North Atlantic THC.  Instead, Accompanying the freshening trend, the THC unexpectedly shows an upward trend, rather than a downward trend.  In other words, according to the Hadley Centre model, global warming may well strengthen the Gulf Stream.

Lindzen Summarizes Current State of Climate Science

Writing in Ottawas Hill Times (Feb. 23), Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, summarizes the current state of global warming science and cautions against incorrect interpretations of what reviews such as that from the National Academy of Sciences (2001) were trying to do.

He writes, [I]t is quite wrong to say that our NAS study endorsed the credibility of the IPCC assessment report.  We were asked to evaluate the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM), the only part of the IPCC reports that is ever read or quoted by the media and politicians.  The SPM, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world’s foremost climate scientists.  In fact, it is no such thing.  Largely for that reason, the NAS panel concluded that the SPM does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.
 
The full IPCC report, most of which is written by scientists about specific scientific topics in their areas of expertise, is an admirable description of research activities in climate science.  It is not, however, directed at policy.  The SPM is, of course, but it is also a very different document.  It represents a consensus of government representatives, rather than of scientists.  As a consequence, the SPM has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
 
Similarly, in the case of our NAS report, far too much attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report.  The summary claimed that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Yet, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long term trends, a crucial point that the summary neglected to mention.  Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled.

UK Scheme Criticized as Emissions Soar; Illarionov Compares Kyoto to Gosplan

by William Yeatman on March 2, 2004

in Blog

UK Scheme Criticized as Emissions Soar

The United Kingdoms initial assessment of carbon emission allocations under the governments scheme has been criticized for containing basic errors.  According to the Independent (Feb. 29), The oil industry’s trade body, the UK Offshore Operators’ Association (UKOOA), said officials had made basic errors in estimating oil companies’ carbon emissions. Some onshore installations, such as National Grid Transco’s transmission systems, had been incorrectly included in the offshore oil industry’s allocation, a spokeswoman for the association said. Some refineries had been double counted, while others appear to have been forgotten altogether, she added.

The Government indicated it could back down if companies could prove it got the figures wrong. A spokesman at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) admitted: This is a very complex programme. But the targets are flexible.

The Association of Electricity Producers (AEP) met officials from Defra about the targets last week. It is concerned that the Government has underestimated how many tons of carbon are emitted each year by power stations, which are responsible for most of the CO2 output in the UK. This means they would have to cut their emissions even more to meet their allocations.

The revelation came shortly after Friends of the Earth revealed that new figures showed that UK carbon emissions soared during 2003.  The environmental organization issued a press release February 26 claiming, Approximately 4.5 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) more were emitted from burning fossil fuels last year than in 2002. To put this in context, the renewables obligation, which will deliver 10 per cent of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010, is predicted to save only 2.5 MtC per annum. The UK Government’s entire climate change programme, published in 2000, is intended to deliver a reduction of 18 MtC. This would equal a 19% cut in 1990 carbon dioxide emission levels by 2010.

The reasons for the increase are a two per cent rise in total demand for energy compared to the previous year and a switching from gas to coal, which produces between two and three times more carbon dioxide.  This last statement is incorrect: coal produces less than twice as much CO2 per Btu than natural gas.

Illarionov Compares Kyoto to Gosplan

Russias representative at the G8 and chief economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin, Andrei Illarionov, attacked Kyotism in a speech in Moscow on February 19.  According to the Moscow Times, Illarionov said, I have called my speech ‘The Return of Gosplan, [in a reference to the Soviet agency that set production quotas].  He went on, But the proposed mechanism would decrease quotas year by year…. So it may be more correct to call it the return of the gulag.

The Times added, Illarionov on Thursday accused the EU of putting unprecedented pressure on Russia to ratify the treaty and embrace the ideology of what he called Kyotism. Attempts to pressure Russia into taking a decision can only be seen as an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, he said.

During the 20th century, Russia seriously suffered from another ideology that came from Europe….  Not only Russia, but the whole world suffered, he said, referring to Marxism.

Alarmists Allege Pentagon Worried by Global Cooling; EU Seeks to Paper Over Kyoto Cracks; Stacked Hearing Signals Start of McCai

by William Yeatman on March 2, 2004

in Politics

Alarmists Allege Pentagon Worried by Global Cooling

Although the story broke in Fortune magazine on Jan. 26, it was not until Londons Observer publicized it (Feb. 22) that alarmists discovered that the Pentagon had commissioned a study about the possible effects of abrupt climate change.

The study, commissioned by the Office of Net Assessment, looked particularly at the possible effects of rapid cooling following the shutting down of the Gulf Stream as a result of global warming.  The study admitted it was imagining the unthinkable and that its scenario was extreme both in its global reach and its magnitude.  The Pentagon reacted that the $100,000 study did not meet its needs and took no action.

This did not stop alarmist sources from reacting as if the Joint Chiefs had become global warming catastrophists.  The Observers story was titled (and sub-titled), Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us.  Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war, Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years, Threat to the world is greater than terrorism.

In fact the report had been made public by the Pentagon, made clear that it was a scenario, not a forecast, and made no mention of the threat being greater than terrorism (that being a reference to the statement by Sir David King see recent issues).

The over-reaction was typified by Robert Watson, former head of the IPCC, who waxed lyrical to the Observer about what this could mean for the administration:  Its hugely embarrassing…. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then [the President] has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon.

The study was written by Peter Schwartz, former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

EU Seeks to Paper Over Kyoto Cracks

EU Commission President Romano Prodi had to intervene personally (Feb. 25) to reiterate the EUs commitment to the Kyoto Protocol in the event of Russian non-ratification.  The Commission then released a document (Memo/04/43, Mar. 4) restating its public position.

Neither of these interventions seems to have stopped the flood of speculation on whether adherence to the protocol is wise.  The influential UNICE business group said in a letter to the presidency that member state environment ministers should ask the European Commission to launch a review of climate change policies for 2008-2012.

Reuters added, While urging the EU to redouble efforts to get the Protocol ratified so it can come into force, the letter added:  The review of the current EU climate-change policies should also be relevant as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in case it does not come into force.

Reservations among member governments continued at the meeting of environment ministers on March 2.   Environment Daily reported, At a ministerial meeting in Brussels [Italian] environment minister Altero Matteoli made a prolonged attempt to force a declaration from his colleagues that future emission-cutting action should depend on the treaty being ratified by Russia and thus entering into force. The move follows increasing unrest in Italian industry circles at the imminent prospect of the greenhouse gas curbs under the EU climate emissions trading system. The Italian government first reflected this last December when it tried to characterize Kyoto explicitly as a threat to business at a summit of EU leaders.
 
Mr Matteoli claimed after the meeting he had been supported by Spain and to a lesser extent Finland, where doubts over EU climate policy have recently surfaced. Nevertheless, the final text was adopted unanimously.

Irish environment minister and council president Martin Cullen insisted at a post-council press conference that ministers remained united in their absolutely determined commitment to the Kyoto protocol and that there had been no debate about alternatives to the global pact.  But he implicitly acknowledged the reservations being expressed: some aspects of Kyoto seem insurmountable in the short-term time frame, he said, but the long-term economics benefits in prompting energy-efficiency were clear.

Stacked Hearing Signals Start of McCain Campaign

Abandoning all pretence of objectivity, Sen. John McCain (RAz.) used his tenuous connection to the climate change issue to hold a stacked hearing on the subject before the Senate Commerce Committee on March 3.

The committee heard only from the alarmist side of the debate, with witnesses such as Robert Correll of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Lee Hannah of Conservation International, Jerry Mahlman and Marvin Gellar (two of the authors responsible for the junk science National Assessment on Climate Change), and Lara Hansen of the World Wildlife Fund.  Dr Mahlman stressed he was testifying as a private citizen, not as a representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The witnesses were, however, mere support for the re-launch of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act, which attempts to impose Kyoto-like policies on America. The bill was defeated 53-44 in the Senate last year, having reached the floor only as part of a failed compromise aimed at securing passage of the comprehensive energy bill.

Senator McCain said of his measure, This is an issue of worldwide importance.  We will get another vote and see if there is any temperature change in the Senate this spring.  McCain acknowledged that there is little, if any support for his bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.  (Environmental News Service)

Case for Greenhouse Gas Forcing Suffers Further Blow; More Problems with Hockey Stick; Hoffa Says Kerry Will Drill for Oil All O

by William Yeatman on February 17, 2004

in Science

Case for Greenhouse Gas Forcing Suffers Further Blow

In an article in the March Scientific American, James Hansen, father of global warming alarmism (along with then-Senator Al Gore, Jr.), implicitly acknowledges that climate models have failed to reflect accurately what is causing the small warming trend recently observed.

Hansen summarizes, Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by climate models.

This would surely qualify as validation of the climate models if the models included all the forcings Hansen claims.  In fact, as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made clear, most climate models rely primarily on greenhouse gas forcings and include little or no estimate for the other forcings Hansen now considers so important.  In other words, if the Earth is warming at a rate predicted by the models, this is more coincidence than anything else, because the models clearly overestimated the effect of greenhouse gas forcings.

Underlining the greater importance of other factors, Richard Somerville (a professor of meteorology at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and the organizer of a symposium on aerosols at the AAAS meeting in Seattle, titled “Our Hazy Atmosphere: Aerosols and Climate) announced in a press release, It has become clear that local effects on the heat budget from aerosols can be substantially larger than those from greenhouse gases.  I believe we are at a very early stage of understanding the effect of aerosols.  Aerosols come from all kinds of sources: dust blown off the Sahara by wind, particles emitted from smokestacks, gas from volcanoes.  There are many, many complicated interactions with aerosols that we are just beginning to learn about.

More Problems with Hockey Stick

To add to the problems surrounding the failure to reproduce the long-term historical data in the hockey stick graph on which much of global warming alarmism depends (see last few issues), new questions have been raised about the end of the curve (the blade of the hockey stick).

Writing in Geographical Research Letters (Feb. 14), Willie Soon, David Legates, and Sallie Baliunas found that they were unable to reproduce exactly the extremely sharp upturn depicted in the IPCC graph using any of three standard methods for analyzing trend data.  While they still found an upturn, their analysis found a difference of around 0.25 C., which appeared to be at least in part due to unjustified data-padding.

The inventor of the hockey stick, Michael Mann, responded by launching an ad hominem attack on Willie Soon (UPI, Jan. 26): The researcher has produced very poor work in the past, and isn’t taken seriously in the climate community, Mann told UPI.  This sounds like another in their installation of just bad work.  He added: I’m amazed this paper got into print. They don’t even try to determine what method we used.  Our method was described in more detail in other papers.

Hoffa Says Kerry Will Drill for Oil All Over the United States

The Teamsters Union has endorsed Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for president.  On February 18, Chris Matthews interviewed Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. on Hardball and asked him about Kerrys votes against oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the Teamsters top legislative goals.  Here is an excerpt from the interview:

MATTHEWS: How about ANWR? You guys want to see ANWR because you want to see guys working in your business.  I guess theres a lot of Teamsters jobs up there lined up and organized, if you could put a pipeline up to the Alaska wilderness.  He [Kerry] is against that.

HOFFA: Well, we talked about that.   He says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and were going to drill like never before.

MATTHEWS: But he is against drilling up there.  What are they going to run through the pipeline?

HOFFA: Well, they are going to drill all over, according to him.  And he says, were going to be drilling all over the United States.  And he says that is going to create more jobs.

MATTHEWS: It just seems amazing that he has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters.

HOFFA: Oh.

This excerpt has been tidied up to remove crosstalk.  The full interview transcript is available on the MSNBC site at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4302564/.  The League of Conservation Voters has also endorsed Senator Kerry for president.

Big Utility Expects Caps on Emissions; Time to Move On from Kyoto World Energy Council; Wind Farms Reduce Property Values

by William Yeatman on February 17, 2004

in Blog

Big Utility Expects Caps on Emissions

Despite the domino-like collapse of the international consensus on Kyoto, American Electric Power (AEP) announced February 16 that it expected emissions caps to be imposed in America at some point.

According to Reuters, We don’t expect Kyoto timeframes to be enforced in the United States but we do expect international consensus on this issue (CO2 emissions) will prevail in the United States, Susan Tomasky, chief financial officer at AEP told a conference.

Proposals by some states in the Northeast to curb CO2 emissions were impractical but were a sign of pressure mounting on the United States to do more to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, Tomasky said.  The difficulty is where the emissions are and where the regulatory push is.  In the Midwest where most coal-fired plants are, regulators don’t want anything to do with (Kyoto), she said. This is not a local problem.  You can’t address it on a state basis.

AEP is one of the worlds largest producers of carbon dioxide emissions and has long hoped to profit from credits for switching from coal-fired power plants to gas turbines.

Time to Move On from Kyoto World Energy Council

Claiming that the Kyoto Protocol had served its purpose by raising awareness, but was now irrelevant, the World Energy Council has called for different approaches to the emissions issue.

Reuters reported (Feb. 12), The Kyoto climate treaty is irrelevant and it is time to move on and boost investment in reliable, clean energy for the future, although prices will rise, a leading international energy official said on Thursday.  World Energy Council Secretary General Gerald Doucet said he doubted the Kyoto pact would ever come into effect, with Russia and Australia unlikely to ratify the treaty that aims to cut the emission of gases causing global warming by 5.2 percent by 2012.

Kyoto has served a political purpose but, in reality, will make no difference to actual levels of greenhouse gas emissions, Doucet said in an interview with Reuters.  The focus in energy markets since the last world congress three years ago had shifted from environmental concerns, and ensuring reliability and access to energy supplies from 2010 to 2030 was now the main issue.  Setting arbitrary targets was misguided, said Doucet, ruling out another world climate treaty along the lines of Kyoto and calling for international partnerships on clean technology such as the 15-nation Carbon Capture Sequestration Leadership Forum.

Wind Farms Reduce Property Values

A court in the United Kingdom has ruled that wind farms reduce the value of nearby properties owing to their excessive noise pollution.

A couple who had bought a house close to the site of a since-built wind farm without being informed of the plans were awarded over $25,000 in damages as a resultone-eighth of the value of the property.  The Daily Telegraph reported (Feb. 14), The district judge explained that he arrived at [a figure for damages] by listening to the arguments of chartered surveyors employed by both sides and concluding that the wind farm reduced the value of Poaka Beck House by 20 per cent.  In 1997, the property would have been worth 150,000, had there been no plans for a wind farm, he ruled.  Had the farm been in place at that time, on the other hand, the property would have been worth only 120,000. As Barry and Gillian had paid 132,500, they were entitled to 12,500 in damages plus interest, bringing the total to 15,000.

The case has important repercussions because the wind-farm industry has argued for some time that turbines do not devalue homes.  Indeed, until recently the website of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) stated, under the heading Top 10 myths about wind farms, that the proximity of a wind energy development does not adversely affect property prices.

British Government Continues Attacks on U.S. on Climate Change; European Consensus on Kyoto Cracks Further; Junk Science Group A

by William Yeatman on February 17, 2004

in Politics

British Government Continues Attacks on U.S. on Climate Change

Following up his attacks on President Bushs position on climate change (see last issue), Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Her Majestys Government, addressed the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle on February 13.  Sir David did not repeat his assertion that global warming was worse than terrorism, but still called on the Bush Administration to change its stance and provide global leadership to confront a very real threat.

Londons Independent commented (Feb. 16) that, [Sir David] is speaking with the backing of the Prime Minister, who has decided that trying to make progress on tackling climate change should be a key priority when Britain both chairs the G8 group of the world’s richest countries and holds the presidency of the European Union next year.

His close adviser, Peter Mandelson, MP, said last week that Mr. Blair regarded climate change as a threat second only to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  Downing Street sees differences on global warming as an opportunity to demonstrate that Mr. Blair is not Mr. Bush’s poodle.  However, senior officials are worried that he will nevertheless fight shy of a direct personal confrontation with the President on the issue.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is pressing forward with its ambitious plans to cut carbon emissions.  Reuters reported (Feb. 18) that, Carbon dioxide quotas for [power] generators, the main CO2 polluters [sic], would be 13.2 percent below the sector’s average annual emissions in 1998-2002.   The offshore oil and gas industry, the second largest industrial polluter, would be required to cut its carbon emissions by 37.6 percent from levels in 1998-2002.

The Reuters story ended with the interesting claim that, The government has said it expects the power sector to bear the brunt of the CO2 cuts as it faces little international competition and can recoup the costs through higher electricity prices.  In other words, consumers (including producers of manufactured goods) will actually bear the brunt of the cuts, not the power sector.

European Consensus on Kyoto Cracks Further

Finland has become the latest member of the European Union to deviate from the party line on the Kyoto Protocol, at least speculatively.  The Finnish news organization YLE reported February 18 that, Trade and Industry Minister Mauri Pekkarinen commented on Saturday that Finland had taken on too much by signing up to the treaty.   Pekkarinen added that Finland would demand further talks on redistributing discharge levels more equally if the Kyoto treaty is not ratified in its current form. Finland is already committed to the preliminary stage of the deal from 2005 to 2007.

However, Pekkarinen felt it necessary to deny suggestions that he had suggested Finland should withdraw from the treaty.  Helsingen Sanomat reported (Feb. 18), Pekkarinen roundly denied that he had said anything of the sort, commenting that his only message had been that emission rights trading was to start and that Finland is preparing itself for this.

Nevertheless, Pekkarinen does support the idea that if the treaty is not ratified in its present form in the near future, Finland should become more active within the European Union to seek a renegotiation of the accord and the more equitable distribution of discharge levels.

The entire world should be on board, and not merely the countries that generate 15% of the emissions.  But even this is a matter of negotiations, and not of wriggling out, stressed Pekkarinen.  There has been concern among Finnish industry representatives recently that the implementation of the reduction in emissions required by Kyoto will noticeably increase energy prices.  Pekkarinen himself has earlier commented that in his view Finland may have taken on an overly ambitious commitment to reduce emissions when these matters were decided within the EU in 1997.

Junk Science Group Accuses Bush Administration of Suppressing Junk Science

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a $9 million leftist pressure group dedicated to alarming the public with junk science, has issued a report that strongly condemns the Bush Administration for distorting science in many areas, including climate change.  At the same time, UCS released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking signed by sixty leading scientists, including twenty Nobel Prize winners.

There is nothing new in the report, which merely repeats accusations of political censorship of the EPAs State of the Environment report last year, which found that environmental quality in the U. S. was improving in most areas.  It claims that Soon et al.s work on the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period had been discredited.  By contrast, it bewails President Bushs disparaging remarks about the Administrations Climate Action Report 2002, that relies on models to predict regional climate impacts that are no more accurate than tables of random numbers by the admission of one of the authors.

No mention is made of the administrations use or lack of use of the Federal Data Quality Act, which requires that information disseminated by the federal government must meet minimal standards of objectivity.   The administration settled a suit brought by the Competitive Enterprise Institute against the National Assessment (which is the basis for key parts of Climate Action Report 2002) by admitting that the assessment had not been subjected to data quality standards.

The report and statement are available at http://www2.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm.  Anyone may become a concerned scientist by sending $25 to UCS.

Global Warming Policies and Farmers

by William Yeatman on February 3, 2004

in Blog

 “The Holstein Association USA, Inc. is opposed to attempts to cap greenhouse emissions and is concerned about the resulting increase in energy prices. Our membership is comprised of farmers and breeders who are not able to pass along the increased cost of business that will occur as energy taxes are raised.”

-Richard E. Nelson, Holstein Association USA, Inc., Executive Assistant of Domestic Affairs

Wind Turbines More Deadly to Birds than Thought; Hockey Stick Update from McIntyre and McKitrick; Return to Global Cooling Alarm

by William Yeatman on February 3, 2004

in Science

Wind Turbines More Deadly to Birds than Thought

According to a new study reported in the Oakland Tribune (Jan. 30), wind turbines have proved more deadly to avian life in the Altamont Pass region of California than previously thought.  The study also suggests that a 1998 plan to reduce fatalities by replacing older machines will not work.
 
The Tribune says that, The study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that about 500 birds of prey are killed by wind farms in the Altamont each year, including red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and golden eagles. Previous estimates, based in part on studies paid for by wind farm operators, put the number at between 160 and 400 raptors a year.

The study also found that the repowering plan, thought to be more bird-friendly by reducing the total number of wind turbines and providing handy perches, would not achieve its goals as the modern machines could prove to be more lethal than those they would replace.

Repowering would drastically reduce the number of wind turbines, but result in a slight net increase in the total area “swept” by the larger machines’ longer blades. The study concluded that bird deaths are tied more closely to this factor than the total number of turbinesa finding that contradicts an earlier, industry-sponsored study.

The study also found that existing wind turbines with tubular towers killed birds at a higher rate than models with lattice towers, and that siting new turbines to avoid bird kills may be difficult.

Observers found raptors were attracted to prey such as ground squirrels, gophers and rabbits that make their homes around wind turbines.  Different species of raptors employ varied hunting methods, so what helps one birdnot placing wind turbines on ridge tops, for examplemay harm another, the study said.

Hockey Stick Update from McIntyre and McKitrick

On January 22, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre posted the following update on Professor McKitricks website:

Despite the long quiet on this page, the past 7 weeks have been very busy for us.  A number of people have written to ask about progress on Part II, while others have interpreted the 7 week gap as a sign that maybe we ran out of material.  No, there is a lot of material, and the challenge has been to sift through it and put it into coherent form.  There are now some new journals involved in handling material that arose from our paper, and we have held back releasing any of the Part II contents connected to these review processes. 

Professor Mann’s response focuses on the role of 3 (out of 22) key indicators available in the 15th century portion of the data base.  His calculations show that without these series the MBH98 results would look like ours, and his assertion is that we improperly “omitted” the series in question.  Our response will establish that the series in question are in fact inadmissible.  Of course the discovery that the 1998 conclusions rest so sensitively on only 3 series already points to the lack of robustness of this famous graph.  But there is much more to be said, when the time comes.

The entire controversy can be accessed at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html.

Return to Global Cooling Alarmism

Following the derision that greeted former Vice President Al Gores pronouncements on global warming during the coldest snap for many years, environmental alarmists have been quick to revive long-buried claims of an imminent ice age (caused by global warming this time).

According to a report in Londons Independent (Jan. 25), Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming, new research suggests.  A study, which is being taken seriously by top government scientists, has uncovered a change of remarkable amplitude in the circulation of the waters of the North Atlantic.  The developmentdescribed as the largest and most dramatic oceanic change ever measured in the era of modern instruments, by the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which led the researchthreatens to turn off the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe’s weather mild.

The Independent drew comparison with the Younger Dryas period, saying, This froze Britain in continuous permafrost, drove summer temperatures down to 10C and winter ones to -20C, and brought icebergs as far south as Portugal.  Europe could not sustain anything like its present population.  Droughts struck across the globe, including in Asia, Africa and the American west, as the disruption of the Gulf Stream affected currents worldwide.

The newspaper eventually revealed, Some scientists say that this is the worst-case scenario and that the cooling may be less dramatic, with the world’s climate “flickering” between colder and warmer states for several decades. But they add that, in practice, this would be almost as catastrophic for agriculture and civilization.  However, no mention was made of earlier research indicating that the strength of the Gulf Stream has varied considerably in the past, possibly cyclically.

Etc.

R.I.P., John Daly

The Cooler Heads Coalition was deeply saddened to hear of the sudden death of John Daly, custodian of the invaluable web site, Still Waiting for Greenhouse, on January 29.

Johns daughter, Rachel, posted the following on the site (http://www.john-daly.com):

It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.  Condolences may be sent to John’s e-mail account (daly@john-daly.com).  As a lasting tribute to John, weare endeavouring to keep this web site not only active, but also up to date.  If anyone is able to contribute to this in any way, please contact me by email (daly@john-daly.com) and type Rachel in the subject heading.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →