No — or, more precisely, not yet — conclude R.M. Hirsch and K.R. Ryberg of the U.S. Geological Survey in a recent study published in Hydrological Sciences Journal.
“One of the anticipated hydrological impacts of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere is an increase in the magnitude of floods,” note Hirsch and Ryberg. Righto! Google “global warming” and “flood predictions,” and you’ll find more than 2.7 million sites where this hypothesis is affirmed or at least discussed. The researchers explain:
Greenhouse gases change the energy balance of the atmosphere and lead to atmospheric warming, which increases the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere, which in turn, potentially changes the amount of precipitable water.
Sounds plausible, but all weather is local or regional, and a lot more goes into making weather than average global temperature. In addition, all flooding is local or regional, and a lot more goes into determining flood risk than local or regional weather patterns.
As Hirsch and Ryberg point out, “human influences associated with large numbers of very small impoundments and changes in land use also could play a role in changing flood magnitude,” and “at time scales on the order of a century it is difficult to make a quantitative assessment of the changes in these factors over time.”
That, however, did not stop good ol’ Al Gore from claiming that global warming is responsible for a decade-by-decade increase in the number of large floods around the world (An Inconvenient Truth, p. 106). Gore’s source was a chart from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Figure 16.5, p. 448): [click to continue…]
The environmentalist movement continually touts itself as the well-meaning shepherd of America’s public health. It seems to me, however, that their cause consistently runs counter to our country’s economic health, which is deserving of some much-needed TLC. This week the Energy and Commerce Committee surveyed Rep. Kristi Noem’s (R-SD) Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 1633), which aims to provide farmers and ranchers some protection from economic uncertainty due to overregulation by the US EPA.
In short, this bill bans EPA from revising the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for large particulate matter (PM) for one year, and prevents the agency from regulating rural nuisance dust (“farm dust”) unless it proves to have significantly adverse health effects, of which there is currently no evidence. When Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) asked EPA Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Regina McCarthy why the EPA has not changed the coarse PM standard if they feel it has adverse effects, she answered that there is scientific uncertainty.
[click to continue…]
The New York Times has a special section on energy in its 26th October edition that suggests that the paper is trying to catch up with the big news of the last decade in the energy sector. The front page story by Clifford Krauss is headlined, “The Energy Picture, Redrawn.” Inset photos are headlined DEEP WATER, HIGH ARCTIC, OIL SANDS, and SHALE, and the caption reads: “A CHANGED GAME New oil and gas fields are expected to yield a vast supply of fuels that should help relieve the United States of dependence on the Mideast and help drive booming economies in India and China.”
Here’s the conclusion of Krauss’s long summary of recent history: “‘The fossil fuel age will be extended for decades,’ said Ivan Sandrea, president of the Energy Intelligence Group, a research publisher. ‘Unconventional oil and gas are at the beginning of a technological cycle that can last 60 years. They are really in their infancy.'”
[click to continue…]
File under: “D’oh!” From Discover Magazine’s 80 Beats blog:
“A new study published in the Journal of Climate claims that painting rooftops white—a method championed by energy secretary Steven Chu and others to combat climate change — only minimally reduces local cooling, and actually causes a slight increase in overall global warming.”
Yes, I know it’s hard to believe, but a harebrained, government-promoted scheme to alter the climate of the Earth with paint brushes may be backfiring. Why? Apparently, the global climate model used in the study (adorably named GATOR-GCMOM) found that;
“[W]hite roofs means less surface heat in cities (which is obvious enough to anyone who’s sat in a car with a black interior in the sun). Lower local temperature means less water evaporates and rises up to eventually form clouds, says lead author and Stanford University researcher Mark Jacobson. The decrease in clouds allows more sunlight to reach the Earth’s surface, leading to higher temperatures overall.”
[click to continue…]
Earlier this week, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) sent letters to three Obama administration officials regarding the veracity of their testimonies at an October 12 subcommittee hearing on the administration’s fuel economy policies.*
Issa’s letters — to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy, and EPA Director of Transportation and Air Quality Margo Oge — are identical in content.
The gist of the letters is that each administration witness denied under oath that EPA and California’s greenhouse gas emission standards are “related to” fuel economy standards, whereas in fact, according to Issa, “regulating greenhouse gases and regulating fuel economy is a distinction without a difference.”
This matters for three inter-related reasons: (1) EPA is currently regulating fuel economy by setting motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards even though the Clean Air Act provides no authority for fuel economy regulation; (2) EPA in June 2009 granted California a waiver to establish motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards despite the Energy Policy Conservation Act’s (EPCA’s) express prohibition (U.S.C. 49 § 32919) of state laws or regulations “related to” fuel economy; and (3) the California waiver, by threatening to create a market-balkanizing “regulatory patchwork,” enabled the Obama administration to extort the auto industry’s support for EPA’s new career as greenhouse gas/fuel economy regulator in return for California and other states’ agreement to deem compliance with EPA’s greenhouse gas/fuel economy standards as compliance with their own.
As I will demonstrate below, greenhouse gas emission standards are highly “related to” fuel economy standards, and the administration witnesses cannot possibly be ignorant of the relationship. Do their denials of plain fact rise to the level of perjury? [click to continue…]
The most consistent and nauseating feature of the environmental movement is its profound narcissism, which manifests primarily in two ways:
1) The belief that the mean global temperature of the current (or last) century is “the” correct state of affairs, any deviation from which is abhorrent and unnatural, and which must be maintained in perpetuity.
2) The belief that they, the environmentally anointed, can understand – and effect – something as intricately complex as the climate of the entire planet.
Imagine some beings living some 635 million years ago when the entire planet was covered in ice, a recurring condition in Earth’s history known as “Snowball Earth.” Imagine these beings saying, “This planetary ice cube is the natural state of the Earth, we must make sure it stays this temperature forever!”
[click to continue…]
The Washington Times today has an editorial chiding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its decision to proceed with approval and support for higher blends of ethanol (E15) to be sold nationally. There are still a number of complications that seem likely to get in the way of (i.e., the lack of price competitiveness) of widespread use of E15, but recent decisions by the EPA are unfortunately steering the country down that path. However, the editorial makes one comment that doesn’t seem quite right:
This issue highlights the danger of allowing liberal zealots to set public policy. They are so obsessed with micromanaging the lives of others and fulfilling their environmental fantasies that they give no thought whatsoever to the real-world consequences of their schemes.
As a fuel, ethanol is highly corrosive. The E15 gasoline blend reduces gas mileage by 6 percent compared to real gasoline. That adds up to about $150 a year for the average vehicle owner. This expense and the mechanical danger serve absolutely no purpose beyond filling the pockets of wealthy farming giants. Congress needs to repeal the ethanol mandate to protect American pocketbooks – and the car warranties of millions of motorists.
Assuming they are using ‘liberal’ in the liberal versus conservative sense, ethanol has (both historically and to this day) been supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. Indeed, true market-oriented politicians oppose interventions in our energy markets. However, those politicians are few and far between as politicians from both sides rarely have issue with sacrificing their alleged principles in order to support local constituencies or interest groups. [click to continue…]
If there was ever a bully that deserved detention, it is the bureaucrats that run unchecked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. One only has to listen to the heartbreaking accounts of ordinary, innocent American citizens who have been treated like criminals by this rogue agency to get a sense of a Goliath crushing David into the ground. Senator Rand Paul’s roundtable forum, “Property Wrongs: A Discussion with Victims of the U.S. Government’s Assault on Private Property,” held on October 12, 2011, gave folks who have been bullied by government agencies the chance to share their disheartening realities with the public.
The discussion began with Sen. Paul addressing the problems we face today: keeping up with the myriad regulations imposed upon the individual by unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats. Instead of the passage of laws by Congress, where public debate and influence can be exercised, agencies like the EPA rule by administrative fiat, which is leading to exorbitant penalties that do not fit the “crime.” The agencies responsible for this over-criminalization of laws have taken a toll on property owners and their faith in the government as the protector of their rights.
The once lovely face of Lady Liberty now wears the quintessential looks of the mean kid on the playground: class bully. The saying “Because I said so”, comes to mind. Rand Paul is working on a bill targeted at putting bureaucracy bullies in a well-deserved time-out. The stories I will share are of those who have been bullied specifically by the EPA’s ever-expansive interpretation of its own authority under the Clean Water Act.
[click to continue…]
As a lifelong sufferer of asthma, I have always depended on inhalers to provide me with fast-acting, lifesaving medicine. Fortunately, I am able to afford expensive prescription inhalers, but many Americans hit hard by the faltering economy are not so lucky.
Until now, however, there has been a cheaper option for low-income families—over-the-counter, epinephrine-based inhalers have helped an estimated 1-2 million people treat their asthma for about $20 per unit (the prescription brands can cost up to 3 times that amount).
But now thanks to our out-of-control federal government, low-income Americans will be denied this over-the-counter relief as of December 31.
[click to continue…]
A recently released report on the future of the biofuel industry, by the National Research Council concludes that the cellulosic ethanol targets are unlikely to be met and casts doubt on the utility of the renewable fuel standard. The report can be downloaded (after a free registration) here, though the report itself exceeds 400 pages, so its not easy reading. Allow me to include a long quote from the conclusion:
A key barrier to achieving RFS2 is the high cost of producing biofuels compared to petroleum-based fuels and the large capital investments required to put billions of gallons of production capacity in place. As of 2010, biofuel production was contingent on subsidies, tax credits, the import tariff, loan guarantees, RFS2, and similar policies. These policies that provide financial support for biofuels will expire long before 2022 and cannot provide the support necessary for achieving the RFS2 mandate. Uncertainties in policies can affect investors’ confidence and discourage investment. In addition, if the cellulosic biofuels produced are mostly ethanol, investments in distribution infrastructure and flex-fuel vehicles would have to be made for such large quantities of ethanol to be consumed in the United States. Given the current blend limit of up to 15-percent ethanol in gasoline, a maximum of 19 billion gallons of ethanol can be consumed unless the number of flex-fuel vehicles increases substantially. However, consumers’ willingness to purchase flex-fuel vehicles and use E85 instead of lower blends of ethanol in their vehicles will likely depend on the price of ethanol and their attitude toward biofuels. Producing drop-in biofuels could improve the ability to integrate the mandated volumes of biofuels into U.S. transportation, but would not improve the cost-competitiveness of biofuels with petroleum based fuels.
This covers much of what CEI has concluded: cellulosic ethanol is too expensive to be widely produced, it is likely to remain so in the future, and blends exceeding 15% are tricky given the lack of cost competitiveness. This is why the Renewable Fuel Standard should not exist. Previous CEI work on cellulosic ethanol can be read here.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org