Politics

Aviation and Global Warming

Aviation has come under attack in the global warming debate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a report that airplanes are “polluting the skies and changing the weather,” reports the Earth Island Journal (December 22, 1999).

The report claims that planes account for 3.5 percent of the global warming experienced to date and could account for 15 percent by 2050. The IPCC report recommends that governments discourage air travel and encourage travel by train. The report also calls for higher taxes on fuel used in airplanes.

Global Warming Caused by Foreign Aid?

The one thing that both proponents and opponents of global warming policies can agree on is the need to end government subsidies for fossil fuels. The World Bank, for example, has promoted $13.9 billion worth of fossil fuel projects since 1992, according to the Earth Island Journal (December 22, 1999). These projects will produce 37.5 billion tons of CO2 in the next 20 to 50 years.

A report by Friends of the Earth and the Institute for Policy Studies shows that from 1992 to 1996 the U.S. Export-Import Bank and Overseas

Private Investment Corporation financed $23.2 billion in oil, gas and coal projects around the world.

Ford Leaves GCC

In a terse statement dated December 3, the Ford Motor Company informed the Global Climate Coalition “that it will not renew its membership in that organization for the next year. We will continue to work with government, non-governmental and industry partners on technology-based voluntary approaches,” said Ford.

Kyotos Nonexistent Mandate

Pew Runs for Cover

As reported in our last issue, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a letter from Jack Kemp, challenged the Pew Center on Climate Change, a major left-wing advocate of energy controls, to a series of scientific debates in Washington and other cities, “to review the evidence for and against Kyoto in a more thoughtful fashion.” The Pew Center has now responded.

Eileen Claussen, the President and Chairman of the Board of the Pew Center, wrote in response to the challenge, “The Pew Center was founded to advance the broader discussion surrounding climate change not the Kyoto Protocol with credible and thoughtful analyses that would lead to realistic solutions to a serious problem.”

She goes on to say that “The Center has also initiated a series of peer-reviewed studies [that] have helped define the credible parameters within which reasonable differences can be considered by those with a stake in the issue (our emphasis).” Translation: The science is in. Manmade global warming is real. The only reasonable difference of opinion can be in what to do about it. The claim of peer-review is dubious. The reviewers were most likely selected because their viewpoint matched Pews, not to provide an objective evaluation.

According to Miss Claussen, “An adversarial forum on the Kyoto Protocol would not do justice to the scale and complexities of the climate change issue. What is needed is serious and informed discussion (our emphasis).” Miss Claussen claims, therefore, that the science behind the global warming theory is no longer a topic of “serious” debate. “For these reasons, we respectfully decline your invitation to a debate on Kyoto,” wrote Miss Claussen.

IPCCs Draft Report Available

Those who follow the global warming debate have noticed that the evidence supporting catastrophic scenarios becomes weaker each year. But dont expect the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes third assessment report to reflect that reality, however.

According to the New Scientist (November 20, 1999), the draft of the IPCCs third assessment report takes quite a different view. “Unlike the last IPCC assessment five years ago, which concluded merely that the balance of evidence suggested that global warming was caused by humans, the latest report unequivocally points to humans as the culprits.”

The report claims that the world has been warming at a rate of 2 degrees C per century since 1976, and that this rate is “unprecedented” based on data from the past millenium. “Whats more,” reports the New Scientist, “climate modeling studies in the past five years all show that the patterns of warming match predictions based on the greenhouse effect much better than those based on alternative theories.”

Perhaps the most startling claim of the draft report is that even though solar influence is probably responsible for some of the warming experienced in the first half of the century, “Based on these factors alone temperatures would actually have fallen during the past two decades,” reports the New Scientist.

Other predictions include a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet over the next 1000 years and a subsequent rise in sea level of 7 meters and that forests may exhibit a “positive feedback” effect. After absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, forests could succumb to heat stress and release their carbon. The draft of the IPCC report is available on the web at www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/ipcc/wg1/drafts.

Federal Budgets Kyoto Outlays

The Clinton-Gore Administration has been successful in gaining Congresss approval of increased funding to combat global warming, according to a White House press release. “The budget provides $1.1 billion for research and development of clean energy through the Climate Change Technology Initiative, including a 7 percent increase for energy efficiency investments to reduce pollution, create jobs, and save consumers money.”

The press release also boasts of extending tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001. “These tax credits encourage no- (wind) and low- (biomass) emission energy production. The biomass tax credit encourages farmers to grow certain materials that can be burned to produce energy. Producing energy from wind and biomass preserves scarce energy resources and reduces our reliance on imported oil.” Finally, the administration claims that it was the last line of defense against attempts “to block common-sense actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution” (U.S. Newswire, November 18, 1999).

University Students Gunning for GCC

“UCLAs undergraduate student government has approved a resolution urging the University of California Regents to divest itself of holdings of industrial and manufacturing firms that the students say contribute to global warming,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Undergraduate Student Affairs Council voted 9-2 to divest holdings of Exxon, Ford, and General Motors, which are members of the Global Climate Coalition. Also, 58 UCLA faculty members have sent a letter to the regents urging them to divest holdings in GCC companies.

Students and faculty members of Grinnell College in Iowa have also signed a letter urging the trustees to “avoid investing any of the schools billion-dollar endowment fund in companies that oppose limits on greenhouse gas emissions.” The letter signed by members of a student group called “Free the Planet” and 28 faculty members said that they are opposed to investments in GCCs member companies.

Grinnell officials say that the college has not invested in any of these companies. The trustees will consider the proposal, however. Grinnell student Bill Holland says his group wants “the trustees to take a formal stand against investing in the firms,” as well as a resolution from the student government (The Des Moines Register, November 12, 1999).

Bonn is Underway

The fifth Conference of the Parties (COP-5) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under way in Bonn, Germany. Some of the issues to be considered include the use of flexible mechanisms, such as emission trading, and developing country participation.

The conference opened with a speech by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who called for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002. He told the delegates that the industrialized nations must set an example for developing countries. Michael Zammit Cutajar, executive secretary of the convention, applauded Schroeders speech and that the proposal is “an encouraging goal” (Greenwire, October 26, 1999).

Greens Launch Propaganda Blitz

Maybe youve seen them television ads with disturbing images of natural disasters and a somber voice claiming that global warming will lead to global climate chaos. Its all part of a new, multimillion-dollar campaign by Green pressure groups to convince Americans to hand control over their energy future to international bureaucrats.

The ads warn Americans of the causes and consequences of global warming, claiming that it will lead to more hurricanes, droughts, fires, and so on. One ad even claims that global warming will cause an increase in childhood asthma. “Asthma,” begins the ad, “Its striking more and more of our kids. In just 13 years, the number of children with asthma has more than doubled. Scientists know that global warming is real and heating up the planet. More heat means more smog, and smog can trigger asthma attacks for our kids.”

The television, radio and print ads, sponsored by the National Environment Trust, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, are funded by an array of left-wing charitable foundations. The Turner Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the John Merck Fund, and the W. Alton Jones Foundation have provided $8 million for the ads and $3 million for grassroots efforts. Turner is also providing money to the League of Conservation Voters to sponsor presidential debates on environmental issues (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 6, 1999).

In concert with the ads, several Green pressure groups are releasing “studies” about global warming. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, released a report that warned of flooding in New York and Tokyo, droughts in Latin America, and the destruction of Australias Great Barrier Reef. “Evidence for the warming of our planet over the last 200 years is now overwhelming,” claims WWF. With no action to curb emissions, the climate on earth over the next century could become warmer than any the human species has lived through” (ABC News, October 19, 1999).

U.S. PIRG, part of a web of groups associated with fearmonger extraordinaire, Ralph Nader, has also released a report repeating the tired litany of disasters supposedly linked to global warming. The claims by these groups are based on pure speculation, however. They are not supported by the scientific literature (www.igc.apc.org/pirg/uspirg).

Businesses Are Eager to Look Green

The global warming debate has been cast by Green activists as a moral battle between greed and profit versus saving the planet. The dynamics of the debate are slowly changing, however, as businesses are beginning to pay lip service to the claim that the production of goods and services is destroying the planet. Businesses that make the switch are transformed from public enemy, in the eyes of Green activists, to venerable icons. Few commentators suggest, however, that the profit-seeking impulse that drives businesses initial resistance to government regulation may be at work in their apparent change of heart.

An article in the Wall Street Journal (October 19, 1999) discusses the change in corporate Americas global warming stance. The article notes that “some of the nations biggest companies are starting to count greenhouse gases and change business practices to achieve real cuts in emissions.” Moreover, “many of them are finding the exercise is green in more ways than one: Reducing global warming can lead to energy-cost savings.”

The Journal notes another motivation for the change in corporate behavior. “Many U.S. multinationals trying to keep pace with Europes faster approach simply dont want to be on the extreme end of the political spectrum, especially if they want a seat at the table where regulations are being crafted. Some hope to forestall or dilute legislation by reducing emission voluntarily.”

One company, American Electric Power, admits that its primary motivation for joining a business group that has “moderate” views on global warming is to be able to influence future standards. “Once you realize that you cant kill this thing, then its incumbent upon you to try to be a player in the process of shaping policies,” said Dale Heydlauff, the utilitys vice president of environmental affairs.

Greens Petition EPA to Regulate CO₂

A coalition of Green activists petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO₂ emissions from new cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act on October 20. The coalition claims that cars and light trucks in the U.S. are largely responsible for global warming, and threatened to file suit against the EPA to force them to regulate automobile emissions. The EPA has the discretion under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, according to the coalition.

According to Chris Horner, counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, “The Clean Air Act never specifically mentions global warming gases except to say that they cant be regulated.” And Rep. David McIntosh, chairman of the Subcommitte on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, has said, “EPA has somehow missed the obvious. The Clean Air Act is a carefully structured statute with specific titles that establish specific regulatory programs to accomplish specific objectives.The Clean Air Act is not a regulatory blank check.”

The coalition includes Green pressure groups such as Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth and the National Environment Trust, and renewable energy industry groups such as Bio Fuels America, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and several state solar energy associations.

The following articles are from reports detailing the Kyoto Treaty negociations in Bonn, Germany. This round of negociations was used as a preparatory round for the next series of talks in The Hague in 2000.

• Yawns in Bonn — conclusion of the Bonn talks

• Climate Science Position Statement from Germany

• Bonn is Underway — Greens launch propaganda blitz

Bush Attacks Kyoto

Those who are concerned about the adverse economic consequences of cutting energy use to prevent the dubious threat of manmade global warming were upset when presidential candidate George W. Bush said, “I believe there is global warming.” But during a September 1 campaign speech in West Des Moines, Iowa, Bush strongly criticized the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that would require the U.S. to drastically cut energy use. “Its going to cost jobs,” Bush said. “I also dont appreciate the fact the United States bears the brunt of the goals of Kyoto while underdeveloped, developing nations are really excluded from cleaning up the environment.”

A Gore spokesman, Chris Lehane responded that “Its no surprise that the governor is parroting the right wings line on Kyoto. After all, hes carried the dirty water for some of Texass worst polluters for years.” He also claimed that “the last seven years have shown that choosing between the environment and jobs is false you can do both, as 19 million new jobs and the cleanest environment in a generation can attest” (Houston Chronicle, September 2, 1999).

In other election news, the Friends of the Earth political action committee announced its endorsement of former Senator Bill Bradley over Vice President Al Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination. FOE stated “both disillusionment with Gores environmental performance over the past seven years and recognition of Bradleys superior environmental credentials,” as justification for the endorsement. It also pointed out that Bradley had a higher environmental rating while in the Senate, as judged by the League of Conservation Voters, than did Gore, 85 to 66 percent (Washington Post, September 14, 1999).

Big Business Tries to Force the “Credit For Early Action” Issue

Credit for early action legislation that would give companies emission credits for voluntarily reducing greenhouse gas emissions have not made the splash that its sponsors and supporters had hoped for. Opposition from across the political spectrum has thwarted progress on this front. Now, those who would benefit most from such laws, namely big businesses, are seeking to force the issue.

At a September 13-14 conference on credits for early action sponsored by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, DuPont announced a plan to reduce voluntarily its greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent below their 1990 levels by 2010. It will also use renewable energy to provide 10 percent of the energy it uses by 2010.

DuPonts vice president and chief operating officer Dennis Reilley, said, “Our bias should be for prompt and meaningful action where there is reasonable cause for concern. And there is no question in our minds about whether there is reasonable cause for concern” (BNA Daily Environment Report, September 14, 1999).

Businesses like DuPont are gaming the political process for economic gain, however. Its not surprising that supporters of credit for early action are big businesses that have the financial wherewithal and legal expertise to engage in early emission reductions and verification. By acquiring early credits, these companies can corner the market on emissions credits.

Companies who are unable to play the early action game will find themselves shouldering the burden of future Kyoto-style regulations. Those that do participate in early action will gain a huge competitive advantage over their smaller rivals (see CEIs On Point Policy Brief, “Early Action Crediting: Growing the Kyoto Lobby at Small Businesss Expense” at www.cei.org).

By taking such a step, DuPont will, in the event that Congress imposes Kyoto-style emissions limits, be able to claim that it deserves credit for what it has already done, thereby transferring the burden onto other businesses.

Condors Clash with Global Warming

For years we have been hearing the global warming will be the doom of endangered species. It now appears that global warming policy may be far more menacing. The National Audubon Society has launched a campaign to prevent construction of a wind energy project in northern Los Angeles County, historic habitat for the endangered California condor.

The wind farm project is part of an aggressive effort by the California state government to promote renewable energy. It awarded $7 million to the Houston-based Enron Wind Corp. for two wind farms. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded that the project would endanger the condor that has been reintroduced to the area at enormous cost to taxpayers. “It is hard to imagine a worse idea than putting a condor Cuisinart next door to critical condor habitat,” said Daniel P. Beard, the Audubon Societys senior vice president. The Audubon Society wants Congress to make wind farms within 10 miles of habitat of endangered birds ineligible for tax credits (Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1999).

Knollenberg Language Strengthened

Congressional attempts to limit federal agencies efforts to implement or promote the Kyoto Protocol have intensified during the current appropriations cycle. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) and his allies on the House Appropriations Committee have succeeded in attaching the “Knollenberg provision” to six major spending bills.

The original Knollenberg provision was included last October in legislation making fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency. It prohibits EPA from taking actions that have no other purpose than to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to its ratification by the Senate or from advocating ratification.

The Clinton-Gore Administration has largely ignored the provision on the grounds that EPA actions are taken for all sorts of reasons. Thus a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be proposed because it would help to meet Kyoto targets but also because Administrator Carol Browner thinks its a fun thing to do to make energy less affordable for the poor and needy. EPA has also continued to hold “educational” conferences that are really advocacy events.

In response to these blatant attempts to evade the clear intent of Congress, the Appropriations Committee included report language that spells out what the Congress intends. “Although the agency may under the current prohibition continue to conduct educational seminars and activities, it should ensure balance in those programs. Balance does not mean merely that there is an acknowledgement of viewpoints different from those of the Administration, but that qualified representatives of those viewpoints are included in the programs and in numbers roughly equal to the participants representing the Administrations positions. One dissenting voice in what is otherwise an obviously stacked or biased program does not constitute balance.”

The Committees report continues: “The bill language is intended to prohibit funds provided in this bill from being used to implement actions called for under the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification.” Last years report language barred funds to be used for actions designed solely to implement Kyoto.

Greens Attack Fossil Fuel Industry

Its really not news when Green activists attack the fossil fuel industry. In this case however, a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Union of Concerned Scientists, explains too much. The report is an “expos” of the worlds largest carbon producers. The report, according to the contributors, is the “first-ever company-by-company tabulation of carbon pollution based on fuel production,” and includes emissions from the activities of 122 companies.

The intent of the report is to indict the fossil fuel industry. It even goes so far as to liken energy producers to drug pushers and by implication energy users to drug addicts. The clear intent is to paint energy use as something immoral. Glenn Kelly of the Global Climate Coalition responded by asking, “Does the NRDC really intend to compare workers and families who drive to work or cool their homes with drug addicts?”

Kelly also pointed out that “NRDCs top kingpins are the biggest state-run companies in China, India, Mexico, Indonesia, the Middle East and Russia.” These companies are far more inefficient and wasteful than their private sector counterparts. If the Greens are interested in energy efficiency, they should begin a campaign to privatize and deregulate the energy industry, not try to restrict energy use as some sort of social dysfunction. The report can be found at www.nrdc.org.

Administration Seeks Latin American Participation

The Clinton-Gore Administration continues to prod the developing countries to take on commitments to reduce energy emissions. At a meeting of energy ministers from Western Hemisphere nations, U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson hopes to reach an agreement with Latin American countries on Kyoto participation.

“What we want to see is stronger commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but on hemispheric terms,” said Richardson. “We want to see if through a commitment to renewable energy, through increased energy cooperation, through reliance on technology to develop ways to address greenhouse gas emissionswe can come forth with a statement that continues the dialogue towards ratification of the Kyoto Protocol” (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 26, 1999).

Environmental Regulations as Trade Barriers

The developing countries are becoming wise to the imperialistic tendencies of Green activists both within the governmental and non-governmental (NGO) communities. At a recent meeting of the National Council of Ecologic Industrialists, Pablo Bifani, an environmental adviser to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, told the audience that developing countries see international environmental regulations as trade barriers.

It is no secret that Green NGOs are pushing to implement environmental standards within the framework of the World Trade Organization. These attempts “are increasingly perceived as a mere disguise for trade barriers imposed by developed countries to overcome the inconveniences” of competition. They are also skeptical as to whether these standards have any significant environmental benefits (BNA Daily Environment Report, August 3, 1999). The push by U.S. industries and Congress to require the developing countries to take on commitments to reduce energy emissions also adds to that perception. Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol will be difficult and expensive for the rich developed countries, but it will be devastating for developing countries.