Painstakingly tough negotiations on how to fight climate change are getting even harder as concerns mount that the global economy is heading into recession.
Even when the economic outlook looked brighter, the United States led criticism that the existing Kyoto Protocol's requirements on cutting greenhouse gases would prove too costly for rich countries.
Gregory Benford thinks Al Gore's a good guy and all, but he also thinks the star of "An Inconvenient Truth" is a little delusional. Driving a hybrid car, switching your bulbs to compact fluorescents and springing for recycled paper products are all well-meaning strategies in the fight against global warming. But as UC-Irvine physicist Benford sees it, there's a catch. Those do-gooder actions are not going to be effective enough to turn the temperature tide, and even incremental political changes like reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mining alternative fuel sources are not forward-thinking enough. "I never believed we were going to be able to thwart global warming through carbon restriction," Benford says. "Carbon restriction requires nations to subvert short- and midterm goals for a long-term goal they've read about online, and that's just not going to work."
The leader of the G-77 in the Bangkok talks has stinked up the place by insisting that the parties that undertook solemn commitments in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their emissions should actually be required to meet their solemn commitments as a condition of further negotiations.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
A recent opportunity in Minnesota, almost entirely ignored, demonstrates how little the members of these state climate commissions care about costs of their proposals they produce. According to one Burnsville businessman, who served on the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group, his colleagues were given the chance to meet with Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation for dinner, when she was in the Twin Cities recently. I'll let Jim Marchessault, owner of Business Card Services, tell the rest of the story:
Allow me to introduce myself. I, Jim Marchessault, own a printing company in Burnsville that employs about 140 people. We are a large consumer of electricity and we are always looking for ways to save money. We do this so we can remain competitive in the market place. We were even featured on WCCO's Project Energy. (see link below)
http://wcco.com/seenon/project.energy.renewable.2.372463.htmlI also happen to be one of the few consumers on the 55 member Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) that met over the last 9 months. Many times, I and others expressed concern about the possible cost impact of the many suggestions that the group came up with.
David Thornton, one of the MCCAG leaders, extended a dinner invitation to meet with Dr. Margo Thorning to the entire 55 member group. She was giving a talk on "Reducing Green House Emissions: What are the Real Economic Costs" on March 6th. Imagine my surprise when I was the only member to show up! This reinforces my feeling that cost to the consumer was not their concern.
This weekend Dr. Thorning wrote an article that appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. I have attached a PDF of it. I hope you will read it before implementing any of the MCCAG's recommendations.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Marchessault said he sent this message to all of Minnesota's state legislators. Perhaps some of them will at least give a bit of attention to the economics of greenhouse gas emissions policy.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
The Capital Research Center has just published its latest Organization Trends report, which focuses on the Center for Climate Strategies. Reviewers like me say it is "must reading," "compelling," and that they "couldn't put it down." Of course, I've had an intense interest in this group for at least a year, and it helps that our friend Chris Horner put the piece together. As CRC summarizes:
To use nightmare scenarios to forge national policies the activists have decided to circumvent the outgoing Bush administration – and more to the point, Congress – and get state governors to follow their advice. That’s where the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) comes in. CCS persuades governors to appoint “study commissions” on global warming, then steers the policy process, rigging commission proceedings to produce a predetermined result: higher energy costs, diminished property and other individual rights, and more Big Government. These undemocratic maneuvers do an end-run around state legislators and should trouble advocates of open government.
Chris does a great job explaining comprehensively how CCS works, how they are funded, and what are the fruits of their efforts. Read it.
Carter is not a man who gets easily spooked–he led a reconnaissance unit in Desert Storm, and I watched him grab a small anaconda with his bare hands in Brazil–but he can sound downright panicky about the future of the forest. "You can't protect it. There's too much money to be made tearing it down," he says. "Out here on the frontier, you really see the market at work."
This land rush is being accelerated by an unlikely source: biofuels. An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate.
Nigeria will lose all of its remaining forests in the next 12 years if the rate of deforestation remains unchecked, an environmental expert warned Thursday.
Nigeria has the seventh-largest gas reserves in the world but has so far failed to harness them to produce affordable cooking gas, meaning the bulk of the population still relies on wood or charcoal for cooking.
"Now that the forests in the north are gone, attention has shifted to … southern Nigeria where trees are burnt for charcoal. This is more destructive than tree chopping because it is more rapid and kills all the flora and wildlife," Yammama further warned.
When: Friday, April 4th
Noon—1:15 PM
Where: Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC
The State of California has developed an array of demand-side energy policies over the past several decades. More recently, California’s legislature has passed legislation that mandates drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Key lawmakers are now promoting California’s energy and global warming policies as a model for the federal government and other States to follow. Thomas Tanton’s talk will review California’s policies and show that they have had significant costs as well as other detrimental effects and are likely to have even higher costs and even worse effects in the future. California’s policies have led to the highest electricity and gasoline prices in the continental U. S. and contributed to the de-industrialization of California. While per capita electricity consumption has remained flat, total electricity demand has increased 65% since 1980.
Mr. Tanton’s talk is based on his new White Paper for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, California Energy Policy: a Cautionary Tale for the Nation. Copies will be available at the event and online at www.cei.org.
Thomas Tanton is a Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Pacific Research Institute and an Adjunct Scholar at the Institute for Energy Research. He is also President of T2 & Associates, an energy technology consulting firm. Mr. Tanton has over 35 years’ experience in the energy, economy, and environmental fields. As the General Manager at the Electric Power Research Institute from 2000 to 2003, he was responsible for the overall management and direction of collaborative research and development programs in electric generation technologies, integrating technology, market infrastructure, and public policy.
Until 2000, Mr. Tanton was Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission, where he began his career in 1976. He developed and implemented policies and legislation on energy issues of importance to California, U.S., and international markets, including electric restructuring, gasoline and natural gas supply and pricing, energy facility siting and permitting, environmental issues, power plant siting, technology development, and transportation. He served as lead advisor on energy and infrastructure to California's task force on 21st Century development. He has testified before several state legislatures and Congress, and provided expert witness testimony in power plant siting cases.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
USA Today has a predictably alarming story today by incurious press release rewriter Doyle Rice about the impending devastating effects on the health of Americans, based on "a new campaign announced by the American Public Health Association." I guess this has progressed so far that all that is required to capture the media's attention is for someone to announce a "campaign" (see previous Horner posts on Al Gore) — or in this case with APHA's own words, a "blueprint." The article has the disease and death forecast, while dutiful Doyle cites these experts:
In a telephone conference, report contributor Edward Maibach of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., said, "Climate change is affecting our health now and will more in the future…."
"These are all problems we have today, but they will intensify with climate change," said blueprint lead author Jonathan Patz of the University of Wisconsin.
Maibach is apparently a favorite in the USA Today environmental reporters' Rolodexes, while Patz toils within his university's Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and Global Environment, which "is supported by government research grants, corporate gifts, and private funds." Last year the Nelson Institute reported nearly $7.5 million in income, including $2.1 million from the state and $3.6 million in federal grants. Of that, $1.6 million fed into the CSAGE. That keeps those Madison profs happy.
Oh, and Patz is "a Lead Author on IPCC reports for 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2007, (and) shares in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore." Just tryin' to help ya finish your job, Doyle.
The U.S. rejected a Chinese proposal that developed countries should contribute a percentage of their gross domestic product to mitigate the effects of climate change.
China, the world's second-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, called for developed nations to provide financial support of 0.5 percent of their GDP a year to help it and other developing nations fight global warming.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org