The Cooler Heads Coalition has decided to accept member organizations from outside the United States. We are proud to announce our initial two new members the Fraser Institute in Canada and Istituto Bruno Leoni in Italy. Both organizations are leaders in the global warming debate in their countries.
Politics
United for Jobs 2004 will hold an energy roundtable for congressional staff on June 15 from 10 to 11:30 AM in Room 188 of the Senate Russell Office Building. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation will discuss the new economic analysis of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act (see lead story in this issue). Other speakers are Karen Kerrigan of the Small Business Survival Committee, John Felmy of the American Petroleum Institute, and Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The causes and solutions to rising fuel costs will also be discussed.
The watered-down version of the Climate Stewardship Act that Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Az.) offered on the Senate floor last fall would still have significant economic costs, according to a new analysis by the Energy Information Administration. The estimated price tag of $776 billion (or $290 billion in discounted dollars) is timely, since Sen. McCain recently announced that he would try to get another vote this summer on his bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions.
EIA’s estimate of the total costs of S. 139 as originally introduced was a principal factor in Lieberman and McCain’s decision to drop the second phase of emissions reductions when they offered their bill on the Senate floor. Their Senate Amendment 2028 was defeated last October 30 by a 43 to 55 vote.
The new analysis by EIA, which is the independent analytical arm of the Department of Energy, was done at the request of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.). Landrieu recently said that she was thinking about changing her vote from no to yes if the measure comes to another floor vote.
The EIA analysis concluded that the price to emit a metric ton of carbon equivalent would rise from $55 in 2010 to $167 in 2025, compared with a growth from $79 to $221 over the same period under S.139 as originally introduced.
The bill would have little effect on the natural gas sector, but would significantly affect the gasoline, electric power and coal sectors. Gasoline prices would rise 9 percent by 2010 and 19 percent by 2025. The price of electricity (cents per Kwh) would rise from the reference case of 6.42 to 6.82 in 2010 and 9.09 in 2025 (compared to 6.98 and 9.82
respectively under S.139).
The coal industry would be badly hit under S. 139, reducing production by 14 percent in 2010 and 78 percent in 2025 compared to the baseline scenario. The impact under SA 2028 is still severe, with production dropping by 8 percent by 2010 and 59 percent by 2025. The price of a short ton of coal is expected to increase from $24.41 to $107.96 in
2025, an increase of 366 percent.
These price increases would continue to have a negative effect on the economy. The cumulative GDP loss from 2004-2025 would be $776 billion, with a peak annual loss of $76 billion in 2025. When discounted to present value at 7 percent, the cost of the program to the economy to 2025 amounts to $290 billion. Congress appropriated $135 billion to pay for the costs of the war in Iraq.
Speaking at the conclusion of the European Union-Russia summit in Moscow on May 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would “speed up ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.” The news came as a surprise given the increasingly strong condemnations of the protocol’s effects on Russia by Putin’s chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, and the report of the Russian Academy of Sciences that found the protocol lacked “scientific substantiation” (see story in Science section below). Putin made clear that there was an element of quid pro quo in his announcement, saying, “The EU has met us half way in talks over the WTO and that cannot but affect positively our position on the Kyoto Protocol.”
However, Russia’s president left himself some wiggle room. He said that Russia continues to have difficulties with the obligations it would have to take on-a clear reference to Illarionov’s disquiet at Russia having to pledge to reduce its emissions while no such restrictions would be imposed on countries like India and China, which Russia views as its rivals.
Putin also pointed out that ratification was the formal responsibility of the Duma (parliament). In April, three Duma committees- for ecology, the economy and international affairs-issued a joint statement that, “Ratification [of the protocol] is inexpedient given the U.S. pullout and the non-participation of many countries with high levels of man-made impact on climatic processes.”
Moreover, the involvement of the Duma raises another interesting issue related to Russia’s internal politics and the perception of Putin’s rule as authoritarian. Vladimir Milov, head of the Institute of Energy Policy, told newspaper Vremya Nostoy (May 25), “I am not convinced that the books on this matter have been closed. The president gave quite a transparent hint, saying that this should be decided by parliament. This is generally a good argument for showing that there is in Russia democracy and a parliament, which might not agree with the opinion of the president. Considering the overall negative background in respect to the Kyoto Protocol, there could, in my view, be a serious continuation of the parliament ‘story’.”
It is probably because of these caveats and recent history on the issue that reaction from environmental groups to the announcement was muted. Jennifer Morgan of the World Wildlife Fund said, “I think Putin’s announcement is a major step forward. But we need and urge Putin to specify a timetable. He should encourage the Duma to do something as soon as possible,” recognizing that he said nothing to indicate what he meant by ‘speeding up’ ratification. (Reuters, various reports, May 21-22)
Former Vice President Al Gore and the George Soros-funded Move On campaign have joined forces once again to claim that the fantasy disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” makes a significant contribution to the public debate on global warming. In a speech at a Move On-organized event in New York City on May 25, Gore contrasted the “honest fiction” of the movie to the “Bush White House story about global warming.” Apparently, for Gore fictions are honest when they scare people into doing what he considers to be the right thing.
The movie opened worldwide on May 28. It might have been better for Mr. Gore if had waited to read the reviews, which ranged from poor to abysmal.
Richard Roeper, of Ebert and Roeper, had the most pointed words for the movement: “Memo to all the environmental activists who are relying on ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ to serve as a wake-up call about global warming: You might want to see the movie first. It’s really quite silly. Citing ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ as a cautionary tale about global warming makes about as much sense as pointing to ‘Independence Day’ as proof we need to build an interplanetary defense system, because you never know when slimy, super-smart aliens will attack.
“Scientists and climatologists should relax as well. This film isn’t going to send the public into a panic attack any more than ‘Finding Nemo’ convinced us that talking clown fish swim the seas.”
A. O. Scott in the New York Times (May 27) called it “a two-hour $125 million disaster” and went on to write that, “.if the film is meant to prod anxieties about ecological catastrophe and to encourage political action in response, it seems unlikely to succeed. Not because the events it depicts seem implausible, but because they seem like no big deal.”
The Boston Globe’s Wesley Morris (May 28) also panned the movie: “There’s hail in Japan, snow in New Delhi, and, hey, a twister just ate the Hollywood sign! Now that’s entertainment-for about 20 minutes. The other hour and 40 feel like the most expensive PowerPoint presentation ever made.”
After calling it “so very bad,” David Edelstein in Slate considered the potential political impact: “Is it possible that ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ is a plot to make environmental activists look as wacko as anti-environmentalists always claim they are? Al Gore stepped right into this one, didn’t he?”
Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado posted the following generic news story about global warming on his Prometheus weblog on May 17:
“Instructions to editor: Please repeat the below every 3-4 weeks ad infinitum.
“This week the journal [Science/Nature] published a study by a team of scientists led by a [university/government lab/international group] [challenging/confirming] that the earth is warming. The new study looks at [temperature/sea level/the arctic] and finds evidence of trends that [support/challenge] the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Scientist [A, B, C], a [participant in, reviewer of] the study observed that the study, [“should bring to a close debate over global warming,” “provides irrefutable evidence that global warming is [real/overstated] today,” “demonstrates the value of climate science”]. Scientist [D, E, F], who has long been [critical/supportive] of the theory of global warming rebutted that the study, [“underscores that changes in [temperature/sea level/the arctic] will likely be [modest/significant],” “ignores considerable literature inconvenient to their central hypothesis,” “commits a basic mistake”]. Scientist [A, B, C or D, E, F] has been criticized by [advocacy groups, reporters, scientific colleagues] for receiving funding from [industry groups, conservative think tanks]. It is unclear what the study means for U.S. participation the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush Administration has refused to participate in. All agreed that more research is necessary.”
We are glad to report editors are following his advice. Pielke’s web site may be found at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/.
|
‘The Kyoto Protocol and its future’
with: |
 |
|
| |
Moderator: Welcome to the globalwarming.org live chat. Remember to REFRESH THE PAGE to see the questions and answers as the hour progresses.
Question: Zeke in Arkansas asks:
Many people say the Kyoto protocol is flawed, particularly in that it exempts developing countries. If it is important to reduce the emissions of these gasses that cause global warming/climate change then what kind of treaty would you propose instead of the Kyoto Protocol?
Murray answers: This is an interesting question because it presupposes that it is important to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
I don’t accept that emitting greenhouse gases will be catastrophically bad for the Earth. Indeed, one team of economists has determined that moderate warming caused by greenhouse gases will be beneficial to the Earth.
That’s backed up by better information that suggests that the Earth isn’t warming as much as the alarmists say it is.
James Hansen of NASA now suggests that we’ll only be facing a 1 degree F rise by 2050 even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases.
So I’m not sure we need anything to replace the Kyoto protocol. Perhaps we might need to do something in 50 years time, but it’s likely that the world will be a very different place then and it’s possible technology will have solved the problem for us without needing to put restrictions
on energy use.
Question: Mary from Orlando asks –
I’m confused — I thought that Russia had said that under no circumstances would they ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But recently they seem to have said that they will, in a supposed deal with the EU to support their entry into the World Trade Organization.
What’s the story?
Murray answers: Russian officials have been saying since November that they would need to decide whether Kyoto was beneficial or not for Russia before ratifying.
Some officials, such as Andrei Illarionov, President Putin’s chief economic adviser, have said that they think it’s a bad idea, but they’ve never said explicitly that Russia will not ratify.
Essentially, president Putin repeated his officials’ line last Friday. Russia is moving towards ratification, but there are still some concerns about downsides for Russia and anyway, it’s the Duma’s (Parliament’s) decision.
Russian accession to the WTO needed Europe’s support, but it also needs the support of other countries, like the US.
I expect there’s a lot of horse trading to go on before any firm action is taken on either treaty.
Question: Jim in Virginia asks –
What is going on with the Kyoto Protocol in Australia? Will Howard ultimately sign on?
Murray answers: John Howard stated again this week that he will not ratify Kyoto.
However, it is looking more and more likely that his Liberal Party may not win the upcoming election. If the opposition Labour Party win, Australia will probably ratify.
It is also possible that Howard – already weakened by Iraq – might lose the support of his MPs and someone else will become Liberal leader. Whoever does might have a different stance on Kyoto.
Question: Liz in Washington, DC asks –
Will Russia’s promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol affect U.S. business interests, and/or the presidential election?
Murray answers: If Russia ratifies, then the Kyoto protocol will come into effect globally. Any American business interest in a country affected by Kyoto, like Western Europe or Russia, will be subject to the Kyoto restrictions.
This means that businesses in those countries will have to restrict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or buy permits to allow them to emit.
Those permits will be openly traded and will become a big part of some companies’ business. Enron was a big fan of such permits.
As long as the US stays outside of Kyoto, domestic operations should not be affected. However, it is possible that the protocol could be extended to the US by legal action, as “customary international law.” That is more likely while America’s signature remains on the treaty. Despite President Bush withdrawing from the process, he has not “unsigned” the Kyoto Treaty
Murray continues: As for the Presidential election, Sen. Kerry is on record as doubting whether Kyoto is good for America. It is likely to lead to fewer jobs and higher energy prices, two things he’s been campaigning on.
I don’t think Sen. Kerry will be too keen to bring up the issue. It could cost him and Democrats votes in areas like West Virginia. I don’t expect the issue will be raised unless Ralph Nader looks like taking too many “green” votes away in key states.
Question: Kristina in Maryland asks —
Will the recent expansion of the European Union effect the EU’s position on Kyoto? Does Eastern Europe think differently than Western Europe on global warming?
Murray answers: Eastern Europe stands to benefit from Kyoto as the protocol was designed to give Eastern European countries credit for the smokestack industries closed down after the collapse of communism there. They will be able to sell those credits to western european countries like Germany who need them.
As their economies recover, however, they will have fewer credits to sell. It is possible that Kyoto might become burdensome on them, at which point there may be some friction within Europe over the issue.
Question: Patrick in Louisiana asks —
Are Sens. McCain and Lieberman or anyone else in Congress planning to introduce more pro-Kyoto or similar legislation this year?
Murray answers: Yes, Sens. McCain and Lieberman are reintroducing S.139, their Kyoto-lite measure that failed on the Senate floor this time.
It is unlikely to come to the floor unless Sen. McCain engages in political horse-trading with Majority leader Frist, as it does not have the votes to get out of Committee.
There is a parallel bill in the House, but that is very unlikely to come to the floor.
Question: DeWitt in Tennessee wants to know —
You were rather dismissive in a column not too long ago of the theory that variations in cosmic ray flux affect the climate in the short term and are more important to climate change than greenhouse gasses. Are you not aware that the solar wind, which varies with the decadal sunspot cycle and not just galactic rotation over millions of years, affects the cosmic ray flux to the earth?
Murray responds: I was dismissive because I thought that the research, with its million-year timescale, was unable to tell us about changes in the last 30 years or so with precision. I have no doubt that the solar wind and other cosmic phenomena affect climate, but I don’t think this particular research is precise enough to say that the temperature rises since 1970 were due mostly to cosmic ray flux.
Murray revisits an earlier question: I want to add something to my answer to Kristina about Europe above. Many of the central European countries have areas dependent on coal. Thus Germany is seeking exemptions from Kyoto obligations to protect its brown coal industry. Poland’s province of Silesia, I believe, is still coal-centric. This could be an issue.
Question: Joel from California asks —
Isn’t it true that the fact that the US refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is used by Europeans to show the country is isolationist? Do you think that President Bush will give in on this to try to win some goodwill?
Murray answers: There are two things that are always advanced to demonstrate that the US is “out of step” with the rest of the world. Kyoto is one and the International Criminal Court is the other.
I know that the President is being lobbied heavily on the issue by his chief ally, British PM Tony Blair. However, given the almost certain effect Kyoto would have on American jobs, energy prices and the economy as a whole, I don’t think President Bush will cave on the issue. It is noticeable that Sen. Kerry and even Gov. Howard Dean have questioned whether Kyoto is good for America.
However, if Kyoto dies as a result of Russian non-ratification, I can see America participating in something less stringent designed to replace it, to win international goodwill.
Question: Blaine in Maryland asks —
Didn’t the US sign the Kyoto Protocol? Doesn’t that mean we have some obligations already?
Murray answers: As I mentioned, the US did sign in 1998. However, we withdrew from the decision-making process, which exempts us from having to take action. It is, however, possible that the signature could be used in the courts to force America to abide by “customary international law.” The signature therefore represents a hostage to fortune. President Bush “unsigned” the treaty about the International Criminal Court. It is mystifying that he hasn’t doen the same with Kyoto.
Question: John in California asks —
What do you think the ultimate effect of this “Day After Tomorrow” movie will be in the political debate on climate change?
Murray answers: From the reviews I’ve seen so far, like that in the New York Times today, it looks like people will remember it as much for its clumsy dialogue and ham-fisted politics as for its spectacular special effects, so I think those who see it won’t be affected either way. I’ve got tickets to see it tomorrow morning so I’ll have a better idea then.
But the movie is certainly giving the issue a higher profile among the public at large. I think there will be a small surge of interest in the environment as a political issue, but gas prices and terrorism will keep in the public’s mind longer than the movie.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the DVD release timed to coincide with the Presidential election, though.
Question: Kimberly in Texas writes –
When you say that technology will probably solve the problems of emissions by 2050, doesn’t that mean that if we support such things as solar, biomass, etc. we would be better off?
Murray answers: Not necessarily. Perhaps those things will become cheaper and therefore as cost-effective as hydrocarbons. The International Energy Agency doesn’t think so, though. I think it’s more likely that technology will increase fuel-efficiency and lead to fewer emissions from traditional energy sources.
Murray continues: I should add that there are other considerations that could cause problems. For instance, in Europe the authorities want car manufacturers to reduce emissions, which they can do by reducing the car’s weight so that it only needs a small engine. However, they also want cars to be safer to passengers, for instance, which normally increases the weight and requires a more powerful engine. There are trade-offs involved in all these decisions.
Moderator: This will be the final question —
Ron in the US asks:
Is there any change in the ratio of scientists [in Russia] for or against the Kyoto agreement?
Murray answers: There are no definitive figures either way on what “scientists” think about Kyoto, which is at heart an economic issue. Most scientists agree that it will do little to reduce forecast temperature rises (temperatures will be 0.15 degrees C lower than they would be without Kyoto in 2100).
However, the Russian Academy of Sciences issued a report last week which noted noted the “absence of scientific substantiation of the Kyoto Protocol and its low effectiveness for reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as is envisaged by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” and stated that, “the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol are of a discriminatory character, and its mechanisms involve economic risks for Russia.”
Moderator: Thanks to Mr. Murray and all of our questioners. Be sure to tune in next Thursday at the same time for a live chat with top climatologist Dr. James J. O’Brien on the “science” portrayed in the upcoming film The Day After Tomorrow, and other issues.
Interview: Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Fred Smith, Natural Resource Defense Council’s Jon Coifman discuss “The Day After Tomorrow” film
GLORIA BORGER, co-anchor: And welcome back. “The Day After Tomorrow” hits theaters this Memorial Day weekend, sending a tidal wave of political debate on global warming to the forefront.
Unidentified Reporter: (From “The Day After Tomorrow”) Car accidents, at least 200 and Lower Manhattan, I am told, is virtually inaccessible.
BORGER: So is this just election-year Hollywood hype? Or an environmental wake-up call? joining me now to debate this is Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Jon Coifman, spokesman for the National Resources Defense Council.
Thanks to both of you for being with me this evening.
Let me start with you, Fred Smith. Doesn’t a movie like this just sort of scare people? I mean tornadoes in LA, the Eiffel Tower under ice, New York City gets hit with a tidal wave and then freezes over. What’s the purpose of this?
Mr. FRED SMITH (Competitive Enterprise Institute): I guess they don’t want to have the Republican Convention in New York City. That’s the only thing I can figure out. It’s obviously designed to be a scare movie, to make money, disaster film scare. It’s interesting though, as a science of global warming, as man-caused catastrophic warming weakens, we turn not to more science but to movies. Not a very smart policy for America.
BORGER: So, Jon Coifman, is any good that comes out of this or just scary movie for a long weekend?
Mr. JON COIFMAN (Natural Resources Defense Council): Well, first of all, nobody should mistake the “Day After Tomorrow” for a scientific textbook. This is a summertime adventure movie. It’s all about special effects and the fun in the studios. Now, what we’re seeing over the past few days here is this actually sparked quite an interesting and we think lively and intelligent debate about what global warming really is about, what we know about the issue and what we ought to be doing about it. And that’s good news.
BORGER: But don’t you think this can just confuse the issue rather than spark a debate? I mean, if people see, you know, a tidal wave in New York, that can confuse the issue or turn it into a cartoon even.
Mr. COIFMAN: We should be…
Mr. SMITH: It already has turned into a cartoon. And one of the real interesting things about that as it becomes more and more of a cartoon, serious debate, maybe, but I didn’t think Al Gore came across that seriously. What I think we’re really seeing is, is an attempt to create a political agenda, piggyback on fears that people have, then try to put a prediction so terrible out there that, if this is the truth, the best thing you can do is to say a novena and go away.
BORGER: So does this help you? You, for example, want more environmental regulation. Does a movie like this help your group at all, Jon Coifman, get its point across?
Mr. COIFMAN: Well, nobody should be concerned that New York City is going to have a glacier problem any time soon or that we have got a tornado problem in Los Angeles. If people are interested in global warming because they’re afraid of tidal waves, it’s probably the wrong way to be looking at the problem. But what we found is that the film has actually created an opportunity like this to have these discussions, much livelier debate than we have seen in the past couple years on this. Now, what we do know about the issue and, you know, where there is no dispute, is that burning fossil fuels are pumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide, which is a heat-trapping pollutant, into the atmosphere, and that the earth is getting warmer as a result. The scientists say that the earth is warming at a rate that is much faster than any natural factors could possibly explain today.
Mr. SMITH: Well, wait, wait, wait. Wait, Jon. We’re not in movie land now. We’re…
BORGER: Let him finish.
Mr. COIFMAN: And that if the trend continues as they are today, that we will be seeing serious issues over the course of the next century that are going to be real challenges to our health, to our economy, Fred, and to our environment.
BORGER: OK, Fred.
Mr. SMITH: Jon should actually have been in the movie. He would have had a lot more reason to be there. Seriously, what’s happening is, as we realize that climate is much more complicating than we thought it was, that non-man causal factors are dramatically bigger, and we see that the trends up and down on weather…
BORGER: You say non-man causal. Speak English.
Mr. SMITH: Well, for example, it’s essentially not driving our SUVs around.
BORGER: OK.
Mr. SMITH: It’s effectively the sun’s radiation, it’s wind currents, incredible complex issues which aren’t in the movie, of course, because they don’t fit into ascience fiction is not science. A science debate on this would be very important. We have been trying to mount that. We aren’t getting much discussion from Jons of the world.
Mr. COIFMAN: Yeah.
BORGER: Do you agree it is non-man causal, as Fred says, that we have to worry about?
Mr. COIFMAN: I’m not sure I would put it that way. But theand Fred probably wouldn’t have put it that way either. But, you know, again, what we have seen from the National Academy of Sciences, the intergovernmental panel on global climate change, most mainstream climate researchers say that the…
Mr. SMITH: Jon.
Mr. COIFMAN: …rate of climate change…
Mr. SMITH: Jon, the scientists…
Mr. COIFMAN: …that we have experienced in the century has exceeded what the natural factors now…
Mr. SMITH: Jon, no. Jon, we’ve got towe know that carbon dioxide levels are rising. We know, all things equal, but the trouble is all things aren’t equal. What we’re finding out today is that essentially two things are happening. It doesn’t look like the earth is going catastrophically warming, and it looks like if we’re concerned about that, the solution is not more regulation, it’s freeing up the economy to produce the wealth to produce the knowledge that we can address that.
BORGER: OK, Jon, last word.
Mr. COIFMAN: We can agree that we’re not going to see a catastrophic climate change, but we do think we need to start moving the solutions, start cleaning up emissions. The good, sensible, bipartisan, market-based solution…
Mr. SMITH: Market-based.
Mr. COIFMAN: …like the McCain-Lieberman…
Mr. SMITH: Higher energy tax.
Mr. COIFMAN: …bipartisan global warming bill.
Mr. SMITH: Higher energy tax. This is not a solution to world’s problem.
BORGER: OK, guys. Guys, we’re going to have to end it there.
Mr. COIFMAN: All right.
BORGER: Thanks so much, Fred Smith and Jon Coifman. Thanks so much.
Mr. SMITH: All right, thank you.
Mr. COIFMAN: Good to be here.
The fatuous new special-effects extravaganza The Day After Tomorrow (which, judging from the plot summaries so far released might just as well have been called Love in a Cold Climate) seems to have spurred Al Gore to think he’s Roger Ebert. Ignoring both the movie’s offenses against the laws of physics and the fact that it will simply make Rupert Murdoch (owner of the distributor Twentieth Century Fox) richer, the former vice president has called on Americans to see the film.
Al’s reasoning is not that he’s been bought by Murdoch (he’s actually working with MoveOn.org, financed by another billionaire, George Soros) but that he’s terribly worried about the potential damaging effects of climate change. He claimed that there would be “more vulnerability to tropical diseases like dengue fever and malaria in higher latitudes, rising sea levels and areas threatened by storm surges that have not been in the past.” All of these are terrible consequences if true. But, the trouble is, the scientific evidence for these effects just isn’t there.
In fact, the Cooler Heads Coalition recently held a policy briefing on Capitol Hill at which world-renowned scientists addressed the misinformation in each of these areas. Paul Reiter of the Institut Pasteur in Paris and formerly of the CDC, for instance, is probably the world’s leading expert on mosquito-borne diseases like malaria and dengue fever. He told the audience that it is a misnomer to call dengue and malaria tropical diseases. In fact, they have historically been present at high latitudes. In a malaria epidemic in the Soviet Union in the twenties, for instance, there were 30,000 cases recorded in the frozen port of Arkhangelsk, which at about 64 N. is further north than the tip of Greenland.
Indeed, malaria was present along much of the east coast of America in 1882, and was still fairly widespread in the South as recently as 1935 (which is why the CDC is headquartered in Atlanta). Reiter pointed out that there are many factors involved in the reappearance of these diseases in areas where they had been wiped out, and that climate is rarely relevant. We should, therefore, be tackling the diseases instead of trying to change the weather, as Al Gore would have us do.
As for sea-level rise, Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, pointed out that much of what has been assumed about sea-level rise is not backed up by the evidence. Satellite measures, for instance, show no change in sea level over the past decade, which has led him to write in a peer-reviewed journal, “This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.” Much of the supposed rise, it seems, has actually been a shifting of the amount of water from one area of the globe to another.
Nor is Professor Morner worried about island nations drowning. He and his team visited the Maldives, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says are at risk from sea-level rise. He found considerable evidence that the sea level around the islands has fallen over the past 30 years, and that the islands and their people had survived much higher sea levels in the past.
As for the extreme weather events that can cause storm surges and which form a big part of the movie, there is no comfort for Al Gore even there. Madhav Khandekar, recently retired after 25 years with Environment Canada, is an expert on extreme weather events and edited a special issue of the International Journal of Natural Hazards on the subject last year. He told the audience that extreme weather events as defined by the IPCC are not increasing anywhere in North America at this point in time. Nor, based on available studies, does there appear to be any increasing trend in extreme weather events elsewhere. Finally, in his judgment, the likelihood of increased incidences of extreme weather events in the next ten to 25 years remains very small at this time.
The presenters on the panel were generally scathing about the quality of the science produced by the IPCC, which is where people like Al Gore get their line that there is a scientific consensus that the world has to act over global warming. For instance, Prof. Reiter revealed that, before the publication of their first paper linking vector-borne (i.e., mosquito-transmitted) diseases to global warming, the lead authors of the IPCC chapter on the subject had published a grand total of six papers on the diseases. The three leading critics of the chapter, including Prof. Reiter, had published over 550. Prof. Morner has written that the IPCC chapter on sea-level rise represented “a low and unacceptable standard. It should be totally rewritten by a totally new group of authors chosen among the group of true sea-level specialists.”
These people know what they’re talking about, unlike Al Gore. He doesn’t even fare well as a movie critic. Nature reported this week that, at a preview screening of The Day After Tomorrow, the “hammier sections of the film’s dialogue” were met with “derisive laughter.” On the day after The Day After Tomorrow‘s release, the cinemas may well be empty.
Iain Murray is a senior fellow specializing in environmental issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
According to a Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) report, world demand for energy is expected to rise by two-thirds between now and 2030. Consequently, energy firms in Europe must dramatically increase supply. However, they have been slow do to so because of the new emissions trading directive and uncertainty over future regulation. Manfred Wiegand, PWCs global utilities leader, said: “Companies are facing a huge need for investment. The bill from now until 2030 is some $10 trillion and they need a consistent and stable regulatory environment to make the sector more attractive to investors.”
Investment in newer and cleaners plants has ground to a halt in places such as the United Kingdom where the government has embraced the Kyoto treaty and pledged to cut greenhouse gases by 5.5m tonnes by 2010. It is the opinion of energy experts that blackouts such as the one in London last August that trapped 250,000 commuters are therefore likely to become more frequent. Paul Golby of Powergen stated “We want to invest but we have all had our fingers burnt in the past” and “over the next few months the government must make some key decisions about how emissions trading will be implemented.” (The Times, May 9)
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org