Wednesday, December 15, and Im finally at the COP–though its been much busier outside of the convention center.
Ironically the meeting is being held at the Argentine Rural Society (La Rural, for short), an agriculture promotion body. Next to the convention hall is an amphitheater that looks like it could be used for equestrian or cattle shows.
Myron and I arrived in Buenos Aires on Sunday, December 12, nearly 5 hours late after we were bumped from our flight and rerouted through Sao Paulo. Our luggage did not arrive, but, luckily, I did have one carry-on bag with some clothes.
I contacted Armando Ribas, the host of a live weekly political commentary TV show on which I was set to appear. We made it to the studio, and I appeared for about eight minutes near the end of the show. I focused on the fact that many of the biggest country supporters of Kyoto–mainly Europe–are projected to decline in population, while developing countries population is projected to expand. Greater population means greater energy demand. Thus, Kyoto, by leading to energy rationing, would be a disaster for the developing world.
I spent much of Monday trying to track down our luggage whlile Myron was at the COP. The bags finally arrived that evening, and I had to leave Bjorn Lomborgs Copenhagen Consensus event early to meet the delivery driver. I made it to the convention center once that day. When we found La Rural, which is quite huge, I asked a police officer where we could find the entrance. He directd us to look for “the arc that says Greenpeace.” Word had it that Myron was being denounced at various events by leftist environmentalists.
Tuesday I prepared all day for the evening event at Fundacion Atlas, who were kind enough to lend me office space for the day. The event, a forum featuing six speakers, was largely successful. We got a large crowd, most of whom stayed through what turned out to be a fairly long event. Myron made a concise presentation on the bad science beind Kyoto, while I concluded with the economic argument against it, once again citing population. The event was in Spanish; and I translated for Myron. After the event, a few people told me that theyd seen me on TV on Sunday night.
On Wednesday, we participated in a lunch discussion with local media, academic, and business leaders, also arranged by Fundacion Atlas, to whom we owe a great deal of thanks. We made some very valuable contacts at these events. We hope to collaborate with them in the future in our fight for freedom.
Politics
Kyoto global-warming negotiations have resumed in Buenos Aires, where yesterday it was 85 degrees and sunny (being that the start of summer is a week away in the Southern Hemisphere).
“With what appears to be everyone consigned to drying their clothes on the rooftop here, it is curious why such an energy-impoverished country would splurge an estimated $10 million to host thousands of bureaucrats pushing a treaty premised on too much energy use,” remarks conference attendee Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at Washington’s Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Still, the last time Buenos Aires hosted such talks in 1998, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol. While the United States never actually rescinded that signature, its team once again finds itself in a hostile “environment.”
“Right off the bat, U.S. negotiators publicly minced no words about joining Kyoto or anything resembling its ‘targets and timetables’ of energy rationing,” notes Mr. Horner.
Treaty negotiations are nothing without intrigue, and there is a buzz over two interesting developments. First, the Times of London late last week splashed word of Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who vows a monomaniacal climate crusade to match his campaign-finance ‘reform’ victory, mediating a face-saving U.S. climate-treaty commitment for British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“All parties denied this was the goal, but attendees here claim McCain’s visit is being quietly followed up this week by his more moderate colleague and presidential hopeful Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican,” reports Mr. Horner.”Blair remains under increasing pressure from neighbors such as French President Jacques Chirac to show that he has ‘gotten something’ for his cooperative relationship with President Bush over Iraq.
“If a U.S. ‘global warming’ commitment is indeed the pound of flesh that Blair seeks to shed his ‘poodle’ moniker, one wonders how replacing a claim of ‘blood for oil’ with ‘blood for Kyoto’ would sit any better with the voters he faces next year.”
Stay tuned.
International global warming activists will have CEI sound-science team Myron Ebell, Director of International Environmental Policy, and Ivan Osorio, CEI Editorial Director, to contend with at the 10th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Dec. 13-17.
Contact Myron Ebell in
Ebell and Osorio will be available for interviews live from
http://www.globalwarming.org
http://commonsblog.org
Ebell and Osorio will participate in public and media events, including the conference :
Climate Change, Energy, and the Future of the World Economy, Tuesday, December 14, 6:45 pm – Conference: co-sponsored with Fundacin Atlas. For more information on this event, please email atlas@atlas.org.ar or call (54) 11.4343.3886.
CEI global warming experts Iain Murray and Fred Smith will also be available for U.S.-based interviews on the conference.
Visit http://www.cei.org/sections/section17.cfm to view CEI commentary and analysis on global warming.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) complained to the Washington Post in a published letter (Dec. 11) that too much space was given to the views of Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in a Dec. 2 Post article on global warming. Lautenberg’s letter is below. My comments are in bold and indented.
Tell Sen. Lout-enberg what you think of his desite to censor those who dare disagree with global warming ortho-doxy.Juliet Eilperin’s Dec. 2 news story on climate change, “Humans May Double the Risk of Heat Waves,” is the latest example of the media’s “he said, she said” treatment of what reputable scientists say is one of the greatest threats to the human race.
Even worse, the article countered the findings of the world’s top climate scientists by quoting an oil industry-funded economist.I dont know what Frank is referring to here. The media usually takes the side of the global warming alarmists!
Such reporting is not credible, nor does it illuminate a subject of significant importance.Myron may not be a scientist, but I cant think of too many people that know as much as he does about the science, economics and politics of the global warming controversy.
The article began by citing a peer-reviewed study published in the revered scientific journal Nature, which reported that the risk has more than doubled for the type of lethal heat wave responsible for 35,000 deaths in Europe last year.Uh, Frank, in journalistic circles, giving adequate voice to opposing sides is called balance.
But the last half of the article is squandered on the views of Myron Ebell, an economist — not a climate scientist — whose “studies” at the American Enterprise Institute are funded by Exxon Mobil.Frank may not know this, but the journal Nature doesnt really have any credibility on the global warming issue any more. It decided in the 1990s that manmade global warming was real and that it would only print studies that supported its pre-determined position. In any event, the study in question isnt really science — like most other global warming fearmongering, its computer modeling that is constructed to produce pre-determined answers. Garbage-in, garbage-out, as they say.
The article fails to mention this shameless conflict of interest.Actually, Myron is at the Competitive Enterprise Institute — a completely different organization than the American Enterprise Institute. I guess to Frank, all free-market/limited government supporters look alike! Im not quite sure why Frank is throwing stones at AEI for being supported by ExxonMobil — Frank has accepted campaign contributions from Exxon and other energy companies in the past – more than $275,000 between 1989-1996.
Shooting the messenger is typical strategy of the junk science crowd. Rather than address the substance of Myrons comments, Frank chose to engage in ad hominen attack. And what about the conflict of interest among the authors of the Nature study? After all, the study authors are from the U.K.s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research — an organization that is funded by the U.K. government, whose official policy is that manmade global warming is real. Hadley is so predisposed towards global warming that it even describes the science supposedly underlying the global warming movie The Day After Tomorrow as real enough.
The problem with this type of reporting was highlighted at a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing. Robert Correll, senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society, warned, “The trouble with a debate of this nature is you put 2,600 [scientists] against two or three or four [scientists who disagree].”
Corrells statement is misleading in two respects. First, Correll has the numbers way wrong. Most importantly, it doesnt really matter how many scientists are on one side or the other. In science, hypotheses are supported by data, not opinion polls.
Ebell is not in the same league as the qualified climate scientists who report that the climate is changing before our eyes;
only the intensity and the speed of those changes are unknown.Frank, climate has always been changing and always will be changing — thats the nature of climate. Im tempted to say that Franks almost old enough to remember when advancing glaciers in the 14th century announced the onset of the deadly Little Ice Age in Europe!
Your newspaper does an injustice to its readers by giving Ebell’s caterwauling equal weight with the widely accepted viewsThe direction of climate change is also unknown – and for my money, Id rather that climate warm up than cool down, which is famine-inducing.
of reputable and unbiased scientists.Widely accepted by who? Frank Lautenberg? Environmental activist groups? The liberal media?]
I suppose that depends on what the meaning of reputable and unbiased is!
— Frank R. Lautenberg
Washington
The writer is a Democratic senator from New Jersey.
The United States is pursuing a three-pronged climate change strategy that is equal to the efforts of any other nation to address this environmental issue, which is the focus of attention at a major international meeting underway in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
“We believe we match or exceed what any other country in the world is doing to address” climate change and the need to control greenhouse gas emissions, said Harlan Watson, senior climate negotiator for the U.S. State Department, speaking at a press briefing on the sidelines of the conference of the parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The first prong in the U.S. strategy is to reduce carbon intensity — that is, the amount of carbon emissions generated per dollar of economic output — and consequently to reduce emissions.
“Second, we are making substantial investments in science and technology and institutions designed to address both climate change in the near term and in the long term,” Watson said to the international press. The senior official, also the alternate head of the U.S. delegation to the meeting, said the United States is spending about $5 billion annually on science and technology projects, including solar and renewable energy technologies, and advanced, still-developing technologies such as nuclear fission and fusion.
The United States has established partnership arrangements with other nations in pursuit of those technological breakthroughs, and that is the third element of the U.S. strategy.
“We have well over 200 projects with our partners addressing climate change science, clean energy technologies, earth observations, and so forth,” said Watson. The United States and partners are working to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors, new methods for the capture and storage of fossil fuel emissions, and the technologies and support structure to move society toward a hydrogen-energy based economy.
The looming implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is the main agenda item at the UNFCCC. The United States is not a party to that agreement, which called for compulsory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Watson said the United States may not be in accord on the Kyoto agreement, but it has taken actions to reduce emissions and control climate change.
“Much more focus ought to be put on the action,” he said.
The following terms are used in the transcript:
DOE: U.S. Department of Energy
EURATOM: European Atomic Energy Community
The transcript of the press briefing follows:
[U.S. Department of State]
Press Briefing by
Dr. Harlan L. Watson
Senior Climate Negotiator and Special Representative,
U.S. Department of State, and
Alternate Head of the United States Delegation,
Tenth Conference of the Parties [COP] to the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]
Buenos Aires, Argentina
December 7, 2004
Dr. Watson: We welcome and congratulate the government of Argentina on hosting the meeting here and for the excellent arrangements they have made. We are certainly committed to working constructively and to having positive outcomes of this Conference of the Parties.
The United States does remain committed to the Framework Convention and to achieving its ultimate objective. However, we are taking a different path than Kyoto, which many of the parties here are taking. With regard to the actions the United States is taking, they are many, and I would challenge many of the Kyoto Protocol Parties to match us in the activities we are taking both domestically and internationally.
First of all, we have three prongs in our climate policy which President Bush announced in February 2002. The first is to reduce our greenhouse gas intensity at home, thereby slowing the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. Second, we are making substantial investments in science and technology and institutions designed to address both climate change in the near term and in the long term. And, third, we are engaging actively in international cooperation — both on a bilateral basis and on a multilateral basis.
With regard to our domestic program, we are committed to reducing our greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the ten-year period 2002-2012. This is a domestic commitment the President made. We are doing this through a number of programs through both incentives and voluntary programs, and through some mandatory programs such as improving the fuel economy of our automobiles, improving the efficiency of our appliances and so on.
With regard to science, the United States is spending some $2 billion annually on the science of climate change, to address the uncertainties and help reduce these uncertainties. We spent some $23 billion dollars since 1990 when the U.S. Global Change Research Program was first initiated.
On the technology side, we spend approximately $3 billion dollars annually on a variety of technologies, the implementation of which would allow us to reduce our greenhouse gases over the long term. This includes both near-term options such as solar, and other renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency technologies, advanced fossil technologies — and some longer-term technologies, such as advanced nuclear, both in fission and fusion, as well as strong investments in hydrogen and in carbon capture and storage.
Internationally — we are engaged both, as I mentioned before, on a bilateral basis as well as multilaterally. Bilaterally, we have established partnerships with 14 countries and regional organizations — many of which are Kyoto parties and some of which are not. We have well over 200 projects with our partners addressing climate change science, clean energy technologies, earth observations and so forth. We have also initiated, as I mentioned yesterday, some five multilateral initiatives — science and technology initiatives:
The Group on Earth Observations — which is involving over 50 nations and 30 international organizations, as well as the European Commission, I might add, on helping to design and implement, over the next ten years, a comprehensive earth observation system which will provide data not only on climate change but also on other environmental issues.
We have a very strong partnership among 10 countries and the EURATOM on the Generation IV International Forum which is working to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors, which will be safer and more economic and secure, from a proliferation standpoint.
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, with some 16 countries and the European Commission, is working on technologies that will allow the capture and storage, in a safe and environmental manner, of emissions from fossil fuel burning plants.
The International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy — where again we have 16 countries and the European Commission — is working to advance the global transition to a hydrogen economy.
And most recently, the Methane-to-Markets Partnership where 13 countries joined the United States this summer to launch an innovative program that will be targeted on reducing methane emissions, which is the second most important greenhouse gas. With regard to this latter partnership, the U.S. committed some $53 million to the Partnership over the next five years.
I want to close my opening remarks by referring to President Bushs commitment he made in June 2001 to develop with friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to address climate change. The United States supports the development of an integrated approach to partnerships among governments, the private sector and NGOs that promotes economic growth, improves economic efficiency and productivity, enhances energy security, increases the availability of cleaner, more efficient energy resources and, of course, reduces pollution — all in ways that have the effect of reducing nations’ greenhouse gas intensity.
We believe that economic development is absolutely key to addressing this issue, because without economic development and economic growth around the world we are not going to be able to afford the new technologies that we need to address the problem in the long term.
And with that, I will be happy to stop and take any questions that you might have. Thank you.
Reuters: Dr. Watson, you told us about the goal of reducing the GHG intensity by 18% over the next 10 years. I wanted to know where U.S. emissions will stand in 2012 relative to 1990, because I understand that your emissions rose since 1990 right now, are up 13% and well, I’d rather you do the math for me.
Dr. Watson: Well, I quite frankly don’t have off the top of my head — maybe my colleagues of the DOE can address what our latest projection is. I believe we are forecasted, under a business-as-usual scenario, to be up approximately 20% by 2010. But, Dave, do you have that figure at the top of your head?
David Conover [Director, Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. Department of Energy]: No, I don’t.
Dr. Watson: O.K. I think the projections, again under the latest business-as-usual [scenario], we would expect a 4% reduction from that, which would get us about 15% or 16% above 1990 levels.
German Radio: Can you please tell us how would an international climate change protection regime from the time after 2012 have to look so it could be ratified by the U.S.?
Dr. Watson: Quite frankly, we don’t believe it’s time to address the post-2012 time frame. We are very focused on implementing the President’s program domestically. We think there are many lessons that will be learned from that process, which can inform the international process. We believe the same is true for those who will be working to implement the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, what is still to be decided among the Kyoto Parties is the type of compliance regime that will be agreed to; whether, of course, the Kyoto mechanisms – exactly how all those will work out. Of course, European trading systems and other trading systems under development still have to be implemented. Again, we will learn many, many lessons from that. And, quite frankly, whether or not the Kyoto Parties will be willing to take on what we believe would be non-growth economic policies; [they will be] required to meet the targets. So, for all of these reasons, we do not believe that it is the appropriate time to talk about post-2012 negotiations.
Agence France-Presse: I just want to understand your figures on what you’re spending this fiscal year. Can one add $3 billion this year and $2 billion annually to say that you’re spending $5 billion on climate change science and on new technologies? I mean, to simplify matters, can I do that or how would you do the arithmetic? Thank you.
Dr. Watson: Yes. Actually, Congress, by the way, is still working on our 2005 budget. The President’s overall request for climate change programs was $5.8 billion, $5 billion of which were spent on science and technology – $2 billion on the science and $3 billion on the technology. We also have some significant amounts requested before Congress with regard to tax incentives to encourage the use of clean energy technologies as well as, of course, our assistance to developing countries through our contributions to GEF and other international bodies.
Energy Daily: You mentioned the President’s statement in June 2001 committing to a science-based response to the problem of global warming. Can we infer that the U.S. does not consider the Kyoto Protocol to be based on sound science?
Dr. Watson: The Kyoto Protocol was a political agreement. It was not based on science.
German Press Agency: You’ve been telling us all the efforts the U.S. is making concerning climate change. Can you tell us when the world can expect that GHG emissions will really decrease? In which year will this be – in 2020 or when would that be? And a second question, if you allow me, what went wrong in American way of life that you have almost doubled GHG emissions in comparison to countries in Europe with the same living standard, more or less? What went wrong in the States?
Dr. Watson: Let me address the last part first, and I’ll turn to my colleague in the Department of Energy to perhaps provide some more detail on some of our technology programs. Nothing went wrong in the U.S. We are blessed with economic growth. In most developed countries and developing countries economic growth implies more energy use, which typically implies more emissions. I might say, by the way, that your sweeping statement about European reductions does not hold across-the-board, because you should know there have been substantial increases in a number of countries in Europe. I’m not going to name any countries, but I think you all know who they are.
David, would you like to address the first question?
David Conover: Thank you. We are making substantial investments in both near-term deployment of energy-efficiency and renewable energy. The total budget for our program is over $3 billion, as Harlan indicated, and fully a quarter of that is deployment of technologies today that will have an impact on reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
The larger efforts that we have going will phase in over the near, the mid-term and long-term. The Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy [and the Presidents Hydrogen Fuel Initiative are aiming for] the 2015 time-frame [for commercialization of] hydrogen-powered vehicles.
The FutureGen program is clean coal with sequestration producing hydrogen and electricity, and is also on schedule for that time frame.
The GEN IV nuclear programs that Harlan mentioned are aiming at the 2035 time-frame. And, ITER and the fusion effort…… is aiming to the middle of the century, in the 2050 time-frame.
So we are phasing these technologies as we move forward. We have strong investments in the near term, and we believe that the intensity metric that we are using is the appropriate metric to recognize both reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and continued economic growth.
Question: My question is, beyond climate itself, which consequences does the U.S. perceive that is suffering from the dependence on fossil carbon? Now, the reason for my question is that in today’s local “Buenos Aires Herald”, which is in English, there’s a reproduction of an article by Thomas Friedman. He points out that, in effect, the National Science Foundation will be funded less by 105 million dollars next year. That means that there’s a reduction of 2%, and he also points out that by paying these high amounts of money for imports of oil we are actually funding terrorism that’s going to the U.S…and the question was simply that beyond climate itself, what other consequences does the U.S. have now from the dependence on fossil carbon?
Dr. Watson: You’re getting way beyond my area of expertise. But, clearly, it is having an impact in the increased oil prices and obviously has had an impact in what we have seen at the fuel pumps and so on. And I believe that all of the forecasts are that we are going to have lower economic growth than we otherwise would have – as will the rest of the world. Beyond that you are getting way beyond my realm of expertise. I really don’t want to comment.
O Globo, Brazil: My question is if the U.S. is doing so many things to reduce emissions as they say here, why do you think there are so many negative opinions about the Bush administration that seems to be like the bad boy. Why is that if you’re doing so much and … [inaudible]?
Dr. Watson: Thank you for your question. I’m not sure why we are considered the “bad boys.” Let me just say that perhaps there’s a perception that it is more important to agree to things rather than taking actions. We believe the focus ought to be on the actions. But, agreeing to Kyoto does not necessarily mean that you’re going to meet those commitments. And again, much more focus ought to be put on the actions… Again, our focus there is highlighting our actions. We believe we match or exceed what any other country in the world is doing to address the issue.
BBC News: There’s been quite a lot of criticism of your attempts yesterday to keep discussion off the agenda of the various conferences coming up next year – on Disaster Relief and on the problems of Small Island States. The interpretation that some of the NGO’s are putting on this is that you are very concerned not to admit the causal link between climate change and some of the problems being discussed there because of the possible liability issues that might arise if that link was admitted. Can you comment on that?
Dr. Watson: Yes, let me say that our intervention there was to make sure that there is appropriate input from the Framework Convention on Climate Change into those other two meetings that are coming up — in Mauritius on the Barbados Plan of Action – as well as the Kobe World Conference on Disaster Reduction. And then, of course, the input in the Commission on Sustainable Development process, which will be from 2006 to 2007.
Each of the upcoming meetings that will occur in January of next year has their own negotiating sessions. Certainly, climate is featured in the current negotiating text. We believe that those are the appropriate fora to negotiate those texts. Quite frankly, one of our concerns here is that this meeting will be used as an opportunity to try to negotiate things here in a forum which is really not appropriate. Again, those negotiations will take place, and the results of those will take place both in Mauritius and in Kobe at the end of January.
We also have a problem with the Framework Convention, trying to provide inputs into meetings in general. Our time here is very limited, and there are many, many issues on the plate. Procedurally, if the Conference of the Parties starts to provide input to every meeting that is occurring, nothing else will get done. In fact, we won’t even work through the list of meetings.
Lastly, we want to make sure that, again, the attention is focused on what it is that the Convention is actually doing to contribute to those processes. There are many, many activities which are being carried out under the Framework Convention which are relevant to both the meetings in Mauritius and Kobe — particularly our work on adaptation is certainly very relevant, and we expect a very positive outcome on adaptation as well as other major steps that have been undertaken under the Convention processes.
There is an agreement that was reached that the focus [of the COP plenary discussion] will be on an exchange of views on what UNFCCC activities are underway or have been accomplished that are appropriate for the Executive Secretary to report on to those meetings. Those bodies can then take those into account and complete their negotiations ultimately successfully on their text there.
New York Times: I wanted to go back to the issue of post-2012 goals. Dr. Watson, you made reference to the February 2002 speech by President Bush in which he said that within 10 years the U.S. would reassess its position. So, I have two questions that flow from that. Why not, even in an informal fashion, discuss now some of those issues, post-2012 issues and plan ahead? That’s the first question. Secondly, if not now, when?
Dr. Watson: Why not?’ Because we are still implementing the President’s program and we want to be informed by the results. The President said the current U.S. plan is to review the results of that in 2012. And, if not [now], when?’ Well, again, 2012 is when the U.S. has to reassess its current program. Obviously, we will be informed along the way by science and make adjustments as needed. But we do not intend to change our overall approach.
BBC: In the session yesterday, the opening session, this is Joke Waller Hunter when she was speaking about the future and after 2012 about the possibility of different rules and different speeds. Did you interpret that as an opening towards the United States’ willingness to discuss different ways of doing things?
Dr. Watson: Listening carefully and reading her comments, I think she put that more as a hypothetical and certainly something that needs to be on the table – different approaches and so on. And, particularly if you have the desire to bring in developing countries more into the process than they currently are, there will have to be different approaches because expecting developing countries, whose focus is on poverty reduction, to agree to targets and timetables that might impede that desire to reduce poverty in their countries is just not going to be something that is agreeable to them.
Thank you.
My experiences over the past 16 years have led me to the discouraging conclusion that we are dealing with the almost insoluble interaction of an iron triangle with an iron rice bowl.
Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 800-859-1154 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Skeptics of the theory that human activity is causing global climate change now have confirmation of their argument that the Kyoto Treaty — the energy-rationing international treaty to cut greenhouse gases — was not an end point but only a modest first step, according to an expert with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). The Associated Press reports today that delegates from European countries assembling in Buenos Aires next week as part of the annul international treaty conference will begin a push to find new ways to confront the presumed climate change.
“Since it is widely recognized that Kyoto will do nothing to stem the rise of greenhouse gases, it is understandable that if you believe they are the cause of catastrophic global warming something beyond Kyoto is needed,” said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett. “The problem is the vast majority of signatory countries are unlikely to meet their Kyoto obligations, much less go beyond them.”
The Kyoto Treaty’s requirement of initial cuts in “greenhouse gas” emissions by 2012 finally comes into force in February, seven years after it was negotiated. European governments now want the annual treaty conference — Dec. 6-17 in the Argentine capital — to get down to talks on steps beyond 2012 to limit heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
That debate will go on in the corridors at Buenos Aires, while the formal meeting agenda puts a “major, major emphasis” on adapting to climate change, said the Dutch head of the treaty secretariat, Joke Waller-Hunter.
“To the extent that the next agreement contains binding commitment from fast growing developing countries, it might have a chance of garnering U.S. support and modestly reducing the rise or at least the rate of rise of CO2,” said Burnett. “Yet it is extremely unlikely that most developing countries will agree to binding commitments for themselves — in fact, most are on record rejecting them.”
Burnett concluded that in the end, “by the time any proposed reductions under a new commitment period come into effect, climate science could very well show climate change to be less of a threat than is currently believed – which would tend to undercut the need for energy restrictions.”
——
The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D.C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. We depend on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.
The Cooler Heads Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute
invite you to a Congressional and Media Briefing on
+10F – Are the UNs Global Warming Forecasts based on Faulty Economics?
with
Professor David Henderson
Friday, November 19, 2004 – Noon to 1:30 PM
406, Senate Dirksen Office Building
First Street and Constitution Ave., NE
Refreshments and lunch provided – Reservations are required.
In 2001, the Third Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the global mean temperature would be between 2.5 and 10.4o higher by 2100. This range of predictions was based on a wide variety of scenarios of future world population, economic growth, energy use, and technological change. These scenarios were used to calculate future levels of greenhouse gas emissions, which were then fed into sophisticated computer models of the Earths climate system. David Henderson and Ian Castles have produced a powerful critique of the economic assumptions used in the IPCCs scenarios. Professor Henderson will discuss whats wrong with the economic methodology used by the IPCC and why even the low-end scenarios overstate likely future emissions. He will also discuss the IPCCs unwillingness to adopt accepted international economic methods and practices in preparing its Fourth Assessment Report.
Professor David Henderson is currently Visiting Professor at the Westminster Business School in London. He was chief economist at the OECD in Paris from 1984 to 1992, has held senior positions at the World Bank and the British government and was professor of economics at Oxford University. Among Professor Henderson’s many publications are Misguided Virtue, Anti-Liberalism 2000, The Changing Fortunes of Economic Liberalism, and Innocence and Design: the Influence of Economic Ideas on Policy (the BBC’s Reith Lectures in 1985).
Please RSVP by e-mail toinfo@marshall.orgor by calling 202.296.9655.
Norman Baker | |
Mr Peter Ainsworth | |
Mr David Chaytor | |
Mr Simon Thomas | |
Sue Doughty | |
Alan Simpson |
| Mrs Helen Clark |
That this House deplores in the strongest possible terms the unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government’s Chief Scientist, by |
On the occasion of yet another congressional hearing featuring alarmist predictions of future climate disaster, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a study on the state of the global warming debate. Today Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain (R-AZ) will hold a hearing on the misleading and unbalanced Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report. CEI’s study, Launching the Counter-Offensive: A Sensible Sense of Congress Resolution on Climate Change, by Senior Fellow
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, despite its recent release, has already generated analysis pointing out numerous flaws and distortions. Widely accepted data records show Arctic temperatures that are roughly the same as in the 1930s and part of a slight cooling trend over the last few thousands years, and that the Greenland ice sheet is also cooling, all in opposition to the unsourced data sets contained in the Assessment.
Launching the Counteroffensive takes on the misleading Arctic scenarios: As for the
In order to generate the predictions of massive dislocation and disaster in the Arctic, the authors of the Impact Assessment had to use warming scenarios from a previous report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Third Assessment Report which scientists and economists consider extreme and among the least likely to actually come to pass. Even the evidence for one of its most widely cited predictions, that polar bears may become extinct due to regional warming, is actually consistent with a larger population of bears competing for a naturally limited food supply.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org