Politics

EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate CO2; Congress Boosts Green Funding; Big Business Bids for Early Emission Reduction Credits

by William Yeatman on October 27, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

EPA Lacks Authority to Regulate CO2

Following the completion of the Kyoto Protocol, Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), testified before Congress that the EPA possessed the authority to meet the targets set at Kyoto. She claimed that the EPA could, under existing law, characterize carbon dioxide as a pollutant and regulate it under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

A new report by the National Mining Association, CO2: A Pollutant? The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act, analyzes the language, legal structure, and legislative history of the CAA to determine whether Congress intended for EPA to regulate carbon dioxide. The report concludes that Congress did not provide EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide. “Instead, Congress deliberately limited EPAs endeavors in this area to non-regulatory activities,” according to the report.

None of the CAA sections cited by the EPA as “potentially applicable” authorizes the agency to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPAs legal analysis relies entirely on general language contained in the CAA. But, contends the report, such language “cannot defeat the specific intent of Congress.” In 1990, Congress specifically debated and rejected proposals to allow EPA to regulate carbon dioxide. “Congress authorized EPA only to study certain greenhouse gases, not regulate them.”

Finally, the report argues that even if Congress had intended to give such power to the EPA it would still need to show that carbon dioxide “causes harmful effects to the public health, welfare or the environment.” The complexities of global warming and the “serious flaws in some of the fundamental evidence” would make it very difficult for EPA to support such a finding. For additional information contact John Grasser or Karen Batra of NMA at (202) 463-2651.

In a supporting study, the Greening Earth Society reviews “carbon dioxides effects on human health, welfare and the environment.” The study finds that: “There is no direct effect of any anticipated level of atmospheric carbon dioxide on human health,” and, “There is an overwhelming body of evidence that the direct effect of carbon dioxide on food production is highly positive.” For instance, “Carbon dioxide is currently increasing the vegetative biomass of the planet and has increased agricultural production by 10 percent.” The report can be obtained by contacting GES at (703) 907-6168.

Congress Boosts Green Funding

In a surprise move, Congress agreed to appropriate $193 million for the World Banks Global Environment Facility in the fiscal 1999 federal budget deal. The money, critics fear, may be used in part to induce the developing countries to participate in the global warming treaty inked in Kyoto, Japan. In addition, numerous environmental pressure groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, contract with the GEF to implement carbon emissions reduction projects in the Third World.

The Senate had previously rejected any further funding for the GEF, and the House had voted to cut $47 million from the appropriation. But when the House and Senate met in conference committee, the massive increase was inserted as a provision to pay back “arrears,” Cooler Heads has learned. The amount reflects the difference between what the Clinton Administration pledged and what the Congress actually appropriated during the past three years.

“It will help improve the tone of discussions in Buenos Aires by putting more money on the table for clean projects,” according to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists (The Washington Times, October 22, 1998).

Big Business Bids for Early Emission Reduction Credits

The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) has sent President Clinton a set of principles that would give early credit to companies who voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of the principles would give credit for “legitimate and verifiable measures that reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions relative to defined benchmarks,” and calls for “all levels of government to lead the way in cutting emissions.”

The PCSD, created in 1993 by President Clinton, is a commission that advises the president on “sustainable development, economic, environmental, and equity issues.” The group is made up of representatives from industry, environmental groups and government officials. The letter to the President states that voluntary action “is justified entirely on its own merits because it will improve economic performance and will reduce local environmental pollution as well as greenhouse gases.”

Steve Percy, chairman and CEO of BP America Inc. and co-chair the PCSD task force, said, “Even before any binding treaties or other requirements are in place, Americas businesses, communities, government agencies, and individuals need to get ready to tackle the challenge of climate change” (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 28, 1998).

Knollenberg Amendment Weakened

On October 21, President Bill Clinton signed the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, which contains the Knollenberg amendment which bars the EPA from implementing the Kyoto Protocol before it is ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Already, however, the White House is seeking to turn the amendment into permission to regulate carbon dioxide. In a speech following the signing, Clinton stated, “I am pleased that the Congress modified the language in the Act concerning the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and clarified what this language means in the Statement of Managers.

“In particular, the Congress made it clear that it does not intend to limit my Administrations ability to carry out common-sense actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; its intent, rather, is only to limit funding that would implement actions called for solely under the Kyoto Protocol.” (U.S. Newswire, October 21, 1998).

COP-4 Provisional Agenda and Annotations

by William Yeatman on October 21, 1998

in Politics

This addendum to the provisional agenda and annotations for the Conference of the Parties (COP) at its fourth session contains information on:

Documents that have been prepared for the session and documents from previous sessions that will be made available (annex I);

The proposed allocation of each item on the provisional agenda and the relevant documentation (annex II); and

A tentative schedule of meetings for the COP plenary, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) (annex III).

Click here for the full document (PDF).

Little Progress Expected in Buenos Aires; European Union Softening on Limits for Emissions Trading; Clinton Administration to Mo

by William Yeatman on October 19, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science, Small business

Little Progress Expected in Buenos Aires

The fourth Conference of the Parties (COP-4) will meet in Buenos Aires, Argentina on November 2-13 to further discuss greenhouse gas reductions. According to Melinda Kimble, acting assistant secretary of state, there probably will be little progress toward reaching the administrations goals. “Buenos Aires has the potential to be a small step forward,” Kimble testified on October 6 before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

The biggest hurdle is emissions trading. Different countries have different ideas on what an emission trading system would look like under the Kyoto Protocol though views have converged in recent weeks.

Kimble was questioned about the administrations definition of “meaningful participation” by developing countries. She admitted that the administration has “no definition.” But, she said, it will not be a “one-size-fits-all solution.” Targets for poorer countries with low emissions will be different than for richer developing countries with higher emissions (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 7, 1998).

European Union Softening on Limits for Emissions Trading

The European Union appears to have relented, for the time being, on its demand that the use of emissions trading be limited. In a meeting in Luxembourg on October 6 the EU environment ministers agreed that the EU will insist at COP-4 that emissions trading “be defined in a quantitative and qualitative terms based on equitable criteria” at a later date.

At the Council of Ministers moderate countries convinced hard-liners that it would be a mistake to demand a cap on emissions trading. “For tactical reasons there was a majority opinion that there is no reason to narrow ourselves to a precise 50 percent cap now,” said Peter Jorgensen, a European Commission official. “This is especially true when it comes to dealing with the Americans” (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 7, 1998).

Clinton Administration to Move Forward With Emission Trading

The Clinton Administration will pursue emissions trading even if there is no agreement reached at Buenos Aires, Kathleen McGinty, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, explained at a congressional hearing held by the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs.

There is nothing in the Kyoto Protocol that prevents the U.S. and other countries from pursuing emissions trading even if there is no agreement among the parties regarding the rules governing such a system. “Should push come to shove,” McGinty said, the United States will not be “held hostage to complete a unanimous agreement before we move on with trading measures.” McGinty also said that “while we have our option to proceed unilaterally it is our preference to proceed in partnership.”

She also said that the Clinton Administration will not submit the Kyoto Protocol to Congress until flexible mechanisms “are available and agreed upon by the parties” (BNA Daily Environment Report, October 13, 1998).

Business Could Get Credit for Early Greenhouse Gas Reductions

While many in Congress are holding the line against the unconstitutional implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, others are trying to facilitate implementation without ratification. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) has introduced a bill (S. 2617) that would give businesses credit for voluntarily greenhouse gas reductions. This bill would allow President Clinton to “enter into binding agreements with U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Energy Secretary: Global Warming Message Not Getting Out; Gores “Hot” Data Not Peer Reviewed; OECD Ignores Technology Trends, Fo

by William Yeatman on October 8, 1998

in Politics

Energy Secretary: Global Warming Message Not Getting Out

The Clinton administrations new Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently remarked that the administration has been “out-gunned in the Congress, [and] in media ads,” foiling its efforts to get the word out about global warming.

“We have to do better. And what we need to do is find ways that we can communicate why its important climate change, agricultural disasters, water rising, ozone layer why that is important to the American people,” said the energy secretary. “We need to do a lot better there and we need to be committed towards not just international treaties, but delivering the message to Congress and the American people.”

If the public has not embraced the administrations energy use controls and other global warming prevention measures, it is not because the White House has expended too little effort. As Cooler Heads has documented thoroughly, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many other administration officials have trumpeted global warming warnings at press conferences throughout the year. Heat waves, tornadoes, and violent storms have all been blamed on man-made global warming.

The federal government has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on programs to promote the global warming scare. The EPA alone has distributed approximately $30 million to greenhouse lobby groups, such as the Climate Institute, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the World Resources Institute. Additional millions are spent by private foundations in an attempt to convince Americans to go on an energy diet (“Deep pockets, Hot Air,” Washington Times, August 31, 1998).

Gores “Hot” Data Not Peer Reviewed

At the beginning of 1998, Vice President Al Gore held a press conference to announce nationally that 1997 was the hottest year on record. Every month since, he has announced a new record high for each month. Unfortunately, the Vice President has been relying on data that has never been peer reviewed.

The un-refereed material was “developed for political impact” by the Commerce Departments National Climatic Data Center, according to University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels. An e-mail distributed by the NCDC admits “our methodology was not documented in the open refereed literature,” and states that “This [memorandum] is an attempt to provide documentation.”

It turns out, says Michaels, that the data cited is not a record of global temperatures, but rather an “index” combining three different measures. These measures include land surface temperatures, sea surface temperatures taken from ships, and temperatures taken from a network of buoys deployed in the 1980s. The sea surface temperatures were adjusted upward by 25 percent after 1982 in order to calibrate it with land surface temperatures. The result of this unorthodox adjustment is that recent years appear warmer in “indexed” terms.

Michaels also points out that the sea surface temperatures used are inconsistent with the air temperatures above the ocean, known as marine air temperatures. The marine air temperatures, however, match up nearly perfectly with the balloon radiosonde and satellite temperature data, and show no warming over the last 20 years (Washington Times, August 31, 1998).

OECD Ignores Technology Trends, Forecasts Oil Shortage

The International Energy Agency of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that world oil production will peak in as little as ten years. Sometime between 2010 and 2020, production is projected at 80 million barrels per day and then will begin a steady decline.

In the 1970s, we were told that the world was running out of oil and the only solution was to cut energy consumption. The old-school doomsayers are back, warning once again of an oil shortage.

Other estimates, taking into account technology and rising production capacity, differ from the OECD. The U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration does not project a peak in oil production until well after 2020. Other optimists see reserves growing rapidly through technological developments, which allow explorers to extract more oil from established oil fields. “Technology has managed to offset the increasing cost of finding and retrieving new resources,” says Douglas Bohi, an economist with Charles River Associates in Washington, D.C. “The prospect is out there for an amazing increase in the [oil] reserve base.”

One new extraction technique reduces the costs of drilling by a factor of ten. It employs a method of drilling downward and then across, reducing the number of wells needed (Science, August 21, 1998). A brand new technology called Atomic Dielectric Resonance may massively increase the ability of explorationists to discover oil. It has already shown that it can distinguish gold from quartz in seams 10,000 feet under ground (The Scotsman, August 28, 1998). A chronic problem afflicting the doomsayers is the inability to predict future technological change. Without this ability prognosticators will invariably be wrong.

When Science Meets Politics on Global Warming

by William Yeatman on September 2, 1998

in Politics, Science

(This article first appeared in the Washington Times)

The political and scientific debate over whether the Earth is warming due to human activities was stirred up earlier this month when a research paper, published in the journal Nature by physicists Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel, claimed that the satellite temperature data were flawed. Satellite data are the only truly global temperature data scientists have. But contrary to surface readings, satellites have shown a slight cooling trend since readings began in 1979. Mr. Wentz and Dr. Schabel claimed that adjusting the data to account for gradual changes in the orbits of these satellites would result in a slight warming trend. As a result, newspaper headlines trumpeted “the satellite data finally support global warming.” This is quite misleading.

Wentz and Schabel of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research firm, did convincingly establish an effect that we had failed to account for in processing the satellite data. The very slow fall of the Earth-orbiting satellites (called “orbital decay”) changes the angle of the satellites’ view of the Earth’s surface, causing a very slight–and false–cooling in the global average temperature record. But even if Wentz and Schabel’s adjustment was correct, their estimated temperature trend, an increase of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade during 1979-1997 would still have been only one-third of the 0.24 degree Celsius increase per decade that computer climate models predict for the next century in the lower atmosphere.

Were it not for the standoff between the White House and Congress over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the concern over recent record high temperatures, this would be just another technical debate hashed out on the pages of the scientific journals. But for better or for worse, climate science has run headlong into politics and policy. Taxpayers, who have been footing the bill for all of this climate research, deserve to kept informed.

The precision satellite monitoring method, which I developed with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville’s Earth System Science Laboratory, began explicitly incorporating orbital decay (and other partially offsetting effects) into the data analysis in February. With those corrections made, our detailed review of the satellite data between 1979 and 1997 still shows a cooling but at a smaller rate–dropping at 0.01 degrees Celsius per decade. Given the measurement uncertainty, this is no temperature trend.

Also, though not mentioned in most news accounts, instruments aboard weather balloons provide an independent measure of global temperatures in the lower troposphere, the same layer where satellite readings are taken. Between 1979 and 1997, readings from thousands of weather balloons, and analyzed separately by teams of scientists in three countries–Great Britain, Russia, and the United States–actually show a stronger global cooling.

One problem has already cropped up in the Wentz/Schabel research. It appears that our processed satellite data already had unintended corrections for orbital drift, both in height and in time of day. Proper adjustments for these effects must be done on the raw satellite measurements, not on the processed datasets we provide to the research community. Unfortunately, it will likely take more than a year for our publication of such a complex analysis. This is in contrast to science news journals, such as Nature, that promise quick publication, but at the expense of much needed detail.

With the many statements from politicians and some scientists expressing certainty about global warming, what the public needs to realize is the small disparity in temperature trends being debated here: a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade, or less! Moreover, it is extremely difficult to measure human-induced global warming when the climate system is perfectly capable of going through wild fluctuations on its own. Warming over the last century, suggested by surface thermometer readings, is about 0.6 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit). This is so small no one would have noticed it without a painstaking effort to patch together a wide variety of disparate measurements that were never intended to detect such a small signal over such a long period of time.

The 1997-98 El Nino, its effects still lingering, has contributed to record warmth in recent months. January through July of this year have shown the highest readings in the twenty-year satellite record, which now has a trend of +0.04 deg. C/decade. The surface thermometer data suggest most of the last year has been the warmest period since reliable surface measurements have been kept, about 100 years or so. But both thermometer and satellite readings will very likely drop in the coming months as conditions return to normal, or a period of even cooler temperatures, the so-called La Nina, sets in. Has global warming contributed to this recent record warmth? The vast majority of climate scientists would put the blame on El Nino, and I would add that they were blaming unusual weather on El Ninos long before it became fashionable to blame it on global warming.

It is curious that the thermometer data have not had to endure the level of intense scrutiny that the satellite data have undergone in recent years. Is this because the surface data support global warming? The surface data are less than perfect, to put it mildly. Unlike the satellites, which orbit the Earth, each taking some 40,000 readings every day, thermometers cover less than half of the Earth’s surface and are unevenly distributed, with more measurements being taken in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. On land, temperature readings have to be corrected for the “heat island” effect, a local warming that occurs over time as cities spread outward. Then there’s the difficulty in patching together records of measurements taken by different collection methods. Until the 1940s, ships would measure sea surface temperatures by dropping a thermometer into a bucket of sea water. Today, sea water temperatures are measured by thermometers affixed to buoys, or in the intake ports of ships.

Recently, the addition of ocean buoy measurements in the tropical east Pacific and their role in recording a possible false warming has come under investigation. There is also evidence that air temperatures taken just above the ocean surface have not risen nearly as fast as sea water temperatures, and it is sea water temperatures that have, up until now, been included in global temperature estimates. Finally, although land-based thermometer readings have had some correction for the “heat island” effect, there is reason to believe that these corrections have not been sufficient. Even small towns and rural thermometer sites, which are uncorrected, have in general experienced population growth. In short, thermometer estimates of global warming are not “truth” either, and will likely be revised.

Bias is widespread in the global warming debate. Scientists are human too, and have their own pet theories, political and world views, and heartfelt beliefs. Nobel Laureates that expound on the threat of global warming typically have no training in the atmospheric sciences. And while a majority of the climate community probably agrees that some amount of global warming is likely in the next century, there is no consensus on how much warming will occur. There are still too many uncertainties about how the climate system will respond to the gradual increase in greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Ultimately, what the debate boils down to, is whether scientists believe the Earth to be fragile or resilient.

Many scientists involved in the process feel that the official U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s firm predictions of substantial warming were guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists. To some extent, this can be excused since it is often difficult to pin a scientist down to a definite answer. The American public is clearly divided on the issue, with the balance of opinion often depending upon how survey questions are phrased. The public’s confusion is justified, since nearly the same level of confusion exists in the climate science community.

Even though I am a global warming skeptic, if global warming is proven to be a dire threat, I hope that I am the one who proves it. But in today’s politically correct climate, I can guarantee you that no one will ever receive a Nobel Prize for proving that it was not a threat.

Roy W. Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center analyzes global temperature data from weather satellites. Dr. Spencer is not expressing any official position of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These are his personal views.

EPAs Propaganda Machine Rolls On; $1.5 Million to Create Scientist-Activists; Solar Energy Off the Dole?

by William Yeatman on August 22, 1998

in Politics

EPAs Propaganda Machine Rolls On

The EPA is “spending untold millions on propaganda about global warming,” according to Investors Business Daily (August 4, 1998). “The EPA calls this educational outreach,” says IBD, The EPA is “spending untold millions on propaganda about global warming,” according to Investors Business Daily (August 4, 1998).

Recently Congress voted to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to spend money on educational outreach and informational seminars on global warming. Critics of the legislation worry that it will allow the EPA to continue its advocacy of the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

IBD notes that there are five federal agencies the EPA, the Agriculture Department, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Geological Survey sponsoring 20 pro-Kyoto workshops nationwide. One of the attendees of an EPA workshop, who questioned the science behind global warming, was told to “sit quietly” or leave.

EPAs web site asks state governments to “encourage and support the federal government to take action at the national level.” Brochures distributed at an EPA-sponsored conference in Baltimore demanded that the U.S. “now begin designing policies and programs” to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. In Atlanta, EPA literature, warned of heat waves, storms, droughts, migration and crowding, disease carrying animals and infective parasites. “[T]hese visions of doom,” says IBD, “are all designed to scare people into pressing Congress to take away their freedom with more rules and laws.”

$1.5 Million to Create Scientist-Activists

A Green group is planning to spend $1.5 million to help “some of the nations leading environmental scientists” become “professional communicators.” The program, funded by the Ecological Society of America and operated by Oregon State University, also hopes to “improve the flow of accurate, credible scientific information to policy makers and the general public on critical issues of the environment.”

Though there is nothing wrong with improving scientists communication skills, its abundantly clear that this program is meant to promote the extremist ideological views of Green activists. Project director Judith Vergun of OSU says that “[t]he current rate of ecological change is unprecedented in the history of the Earth.”

The press release announcing the program goes on to state: “For instance, on the issue of global warming, many people may be confused by complicated studies and pseudo-scientific critics who argue the phenomenon is an unproven theory of no particular importance.”

According to the press release, “[T]he vast majority of credible scientists,” believe that “global warming is now a reality, that the time for action is here and that the looming crisis is very real, with implications for everything from severe weather events, to the spread of disease, disruptions of agriculture and forestry, rising sea levels and habitat loss.” It continues: “the gap between common perceptions and scientific reality has to be bridged” (OSU News Service, August 4, 1998).

Solar Energy Off the Dole?

Congress appears ready to cut funding for the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) through the Department of Energy. SEIA received $1 million (about 60 percent of its budget) in 1997. Expected cutbacks have forced Scott Sklar, SEIAs president, to lay off 10 of his 21 staff members (National Journal, August 15, 1998).

Solar energy has been subsidized for decades, but the millions of dollars sunk into this alternative fuel have not made it self sufficient. Congress action may be the first step to weaning solar power off of welfare.

Canadas “clean-technology” industry is also being hit with the budget-cutting axe. The Canadian Environmental Industry Strategy, a three-year, $14.7 million program has had its funding zeroed out. Most of the money was used to help Canadian industries sell their technology overseas (The Gazette (Montreal), August 17, 1998).

Kyoto in the Pulpit

Some church groups are beginning to shift their focus from saving souls to saving the planet. The debate over global warming, according to The New York Times (August 15, 1998), “is spilling over into pulpits and pews as religious organizations speak out about morality, faith, and the Kyoto Protocol.”

The National Council of Churches sent a letter to convince the U.S. Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without requiring emissions reductions from the developing nations. The councils general secretary, Rev. Joan Brown Campbell says that the group wants global warming to be “a litmus test for the faith community.”

The National Religious Partnership for the Environment is embarking on a major lobbying effort to convince Senators from nine states, from Appalachia to Michigan, to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) have been targeted.

Some larger religious organizations, such as the United States Catholic Conference and the National Association of Evangelicals, are planning to consider their own positions on the issue. The Southern Baptist Convention “has not taken a position, and in view of the unsettled science, it seems unlikely that we will take such a position,” according to spokesman William Merrell.

Silencing Science In The Climate Debate

by William Yeatman on August 6, 1998

in Politics, Science

The Clinton White House will brook no dissent in its efforts to get the Kyoto climate treaty ratified. Just ask Frederick Seitz.

Seitz was the first president of the National Academy of Sciences and is a winner of the National Science Medal. Now he’s a prime target of a government smear campaign. He’s been slammed in government journals and the mainstream press for his departure from the party line on global warming.

Seitz’s sin? He signed a cover letter for the Petition Project, an effort by scientists skeptical of the global-warming mania. The petition urges the U.S. to reject the climate treaty drafted in Japan in December.

As the petition states, “there is no convincing evidence” that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are causing “a catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” To date, more than 17,000 scientists have signed on.

But such scientific free speech is too much for Kyoto’s backers. George Lucier, editor of a government “science” journal called Environmental Health Perspectives, has led the assault on Seitz.

“Seitz’s petition reminds us of the approach used by the tobacco industry over the decades when asked if tobacco is addictive and harmful,” Lucier wrote last spring.

Seitz is as bad as the tobacco industry? Let’s get real.

Seitz is a distinguished physicist. He worked on the Manhattan Project and was a consultant to the secretary of war during World War II. He was the science adviser to NATO in the late ’40s and, in ’64, he became the first president of the NAS. He has received 15 national and international prizes in addition to the National Science Medal, and holds more than 30 honorary doctorates.

And who is George Lucier? He’s a senior bureaucrat who has spent 28 years as a ward of the taxpayers at the National Institute for environmental Health Sciences. His only awards are from the federal agency that employs him. He is a toxicologist, and there is no reason to think he knows as much about the science of global warming as Seitz.

Lucier’s attack on Seitz fits into a broader effort to squelch scientific debate on global warming. Last year, Vice President Al Gore and his minions claimed that a consensus of 2,500 scientists supported the theory that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were disrupting Earth’s climate.

But those 2,500 scientists hardly represented a consensus. First, they only helped assemble the ’95 U.N. report on global warming; they didn’t pass judgment on it. And few of those 2,500 scientists actually worked on the one part of the report that linked human activity to global warming -the executive summary. In fact, many of those same scientists are skeptics.

That hasn’t stopped the White House, U.N. bureaucrats and green activists from using this “consensus” mantra as part of their effort to discredit dissenters. But now, with Seitz’s help, 17,000 scientists have blown away the myth of any scientific consensus on global warming.

Since the petition was made public in April, the climate treaty’s backers have been in damage-control mode. The lawyer-filled Union of Concerned Scientists branded the petition as “a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.” The New York Times and St. Louis Post-Dispatch have published stories and editorials attacking Seitz and other petition signers.

As for the NAS, it has distanced itself from its former president and touted its own ’91 report that gave credence to global-warming hysteria. Ironically, the NAS will release a report in spring ’99 about what additional research might reduce the scientific uncertainty about global warming.

Lucier calls Seitz’s petition “disingenuous.” Yet in the same piece, Lucier wrote, “Both sides of the global-warming question must be examined and discussed openly.” What could be more disingenuous than that?

It’s wrong for a tax-paid scientist writing in a tax-supported publication to smear another scientist. Seeing such tactics used against a scientist of Seitz’s caliber is clearly a warning to others who would consider opposing officially sanctioned science. Genuine science will suffer from this attempt to suppress dissent.

Steven J. Milloy publishes the Junk Science Home Page (http://www. junkscience.com). Michael Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute.

Little Progress Made in Bonn; House Committee Keeps Tough Language; NAFTA Countries Agree to Implement the Kyoto Protocol

by William Yeatman on July 11, 1998

in Politics

Little Progress Made in Bonn

The Clinton Administrations prospects of meeting the conditions set under the Byrd/Hagel resolution diminished significantly at the meeting of the subsidiary bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany on June 2-12. The Byrd/Hagel resolution, adopted by the Senate last year, states that the U.S. Senate will not ratify any climate change treaty that does not include emissions reductions targets and timetables for developing countries, or that will be harmful the U.S. economy.

The Bonn meeting was held to iron out the procedural and methodological details regarding implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and to prepare an agenda for the November meeting in Buenos Aires. Key items on the agenda included the application of the three cooperative mechanisms the Clean Development Mechanism, emissions trading, and joint implementation developing country commitments, forestry and land use issues, among others.

No agreement could be reached regarding the cooperative mechanisms. Of the three mechanisms, emissions trading proved to be the most controversial. The U.S., supported by several developed countries, presented a proposal that would allow unlimited emission trading, while the European Union proposed caps on emission trading. In the end the delegates could only agree to a “compilation document” that included all of the proposals. The delegates agreed to clarify language regarding forestry and land use (Failsafe, July 1998).

The Group of 77 and China, a bloc of more than 100 developing countries, refused to accept an agenda item for Buenos Aires to discuss developing country commitments. A Saudi delegate said that the issue of developing country participation was settled in Kyoto and would not be revisited (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 8, 1998).

House Committee Keeps Tough Language

The House Appropriations Committee approved on June 26th a $7.4 billion spending plan for the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill also includes a provision stating that none of the money can be used “for the purpose of implementation, or in contemplation of implementation” of the protocol. The committee successfully fended off attempts to soften this language.

The Clinton Administration is complaining that the provision will prevent them from “setting energy-efficiency standards, pushing industry to adopt such measures, or looking for ways to give credit to companies that lower their emissions before the treaty is implemented.” The bill may face a veto, says the Administration, unless the anti-protocol language is removed (Greenwire, June 26, 1998).

Also, Congress cut $200 million from appropriations bills requested by the Administration for energy efficiency and development of renewable technologies, and essentially ignored President Clintons $6.3 billion, five-year climate initiative (AP Online, July 7, 1998).

NAFTA Countries Agree to Implement the Kyoto Protocol

Environmental ministers from the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed on June 26th to work together to develop greenhouse gas emission offset projects under the Kyoto Protocol. The council for the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), formed under a side pact to the North American Free Trade Agreement, released a statement which reads in part, “Within the framework of the protocol, the CEC will work with the three nations and the private sector to develop North American opportunities for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).”

The CDM is a mechanism whereby developed countries can earn emission offsets by transferring “environmentally friendly energy technologies” to developing countries. Under the agreement Canada and the United States will transfer technology to Mexico. European Union officials, however, want to include Mexico among the industrialized nations under the Kyoto Protocol because it is a member of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (BNA Daily Environment Report, July 2, 1998).

Kyoto Protocol Reassessed

An article appearing in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1998) takes a look at the long-term prospects for the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of the climate treaty is to stabilize emissions at levels that are not dangerous to the economy or ecosystems. While it is not certain what this means, the authors use the European Union recommendation of stabilizing emissions at twice pre-industrial levels. To reach this goal without developing county participation would require the participating countries to become net carbon sinks. And even this, according to the authors, would only slow global warming. If the industrial countries are serious about stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, they must pay the developing countries to reduce their emissions, say the authors.

The authors point out that “it will be nearly impossible to slow warming appreciably without condemning much of the world to poverty,” unless large sums of money are spent on R&D to reduce reliance on CO2 emitting energy sources.

The Clinton Administrations plan does spend money on R&D, but, say the authors, the plan is faulty. The first stage of the plan calls for spending money on tax incentives and R&D expenditures “to encourage energy efficiency and the use of cleaner energy sources.” Then, according to the Administrations plan, “after a decade of experience, a decade of data, a decade of technological innovation,” whichever administration is in office in 2007 will cap emissions and implement a domestic trading system. However, at the end of the aforementioned decade U.S. emissions will be 20 to 25 percent higher than 1990 levels.

“It is simply laughable,” say the authors, “to forecast that Washington would then impose a cap on emissions stringent enough to turn the energy economy around in three to five years.”

GAO Critiques Clinton Climate Policy; Gore Hints at Government Shutdown

by William Yeatman on July 4, 1998

in Politics

GAO Critiques Clinton Climate Policy

The Clinton Administrations blueprint for implementing the Kyoto Protocol lacks quantitative goals, specific time frames, and cost benefit analyses, according to the General Accounting Office. GAO Director of Energy, Resources, and Science Victor Rezendes testified before the Senate Energy Committee on June 4 that the Administration lacked a sound analysis of stage 1 of its overall plan, a $6.3 billion tax and subsidy package. It also lacks a coordination plan for the 14 federal agencies managing the program.

Of the $6.3 billion to be spent on stage 1, $3.6 billion would come from tax incentives to stimulate spending on energy efficient transportation and housing. But, says the GAO, the Administration “has no estimate of the expected benefits [of these tax credits] and thus is not explicitly tied to the protocols target for emission reductions.” The GAO says that “it is uncertain how much” the $2.7 billion proposed for R&D will “help the United States meet the target specified by the protocol.”

According to the GAO, stage 1 “lacks a quantitative goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, does not have a specific performance plan, and contains incomplete information on expected outcomes and links to the protocols target.” Therefore, “stage 1 may not provide a firm foundation for stages 2 and 3.”

The GAO report confirms suspicions that the administration is less interested in the costs of reducing emissions controls than in acquiring the controls themselves.

Gore Hints at Government Shutdown

Vice President Al Gore threatened to shut down the federal government if Congress does not approve President Clintons environmental funding requests. “We are putting Congress on notice,” said Gore. “We will not tolerate stealth attacks that do unacceptable harm to our environment or threaten public health.”

Gore recalled that three years ago Bill Clinton vetoed bills that had environmental riders which “led to government shutdowns.” Gore is concerned about the administrations $6.3 billion climate change program. He criticized the failure of Congress in prior years to “take early steps to confront climate change.” An unnamed White House source suggested that the veto threat was premature (Associated Press, June 16, 1998).

Gore Spins El Nio; Third World Refuses to Consider Emission Curbs in Buenos Aires; U.S. Surrenders Sovereign Rights Under Climat

by William Yeatman on June 18, 1998

in Politics

Gore Spins El Nio

On behalf of the White House Vice President Al Gore announced at a June 8 press conference that each of the first five months of 1998 had experienced record high temperatures. The high temperatures, according to Gore and scientists who participated in the press conference, were the result of El Nio combined with the overall temperature trend. Gore went on to say that “We set temperature records in every month since January, and it appears that this general warming trend is making the effects of El Nio worse.”

In the White House press release announcing the event, Gore claims that one of the effects of the warming is increased tornado activity. He warned that, “Tornadoes have killed 122 people this year, matching the annual record set in 1984.” In fact, the tornadoes of April 3-4, 1974 killed 315 people, and the Tri-State Tornado of March 18, 1925 killed 695 people. More importantly, there has been no increase in the number or intensity of tornadoes in this country.

He also claimed that “This is a reminder once again that global warming is real and that unless we act we can expect more extreme weather in the years ahead.” The Vice Presidents claim does not jibe with the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century”

The warm ocean currents of the naturally occurring El Nio phenomenon have indeed raised temperatures of late. However, the New York Times (June 8, 1998) reports that “El Nio has faded, drastically so in the last three weeks, so it is questionable whether the records will hold up for the rest of 1998.”

Al Gores timely press conference capitalized on the temporary temperature spike just before it was expected to end. The purpose: “[to] tell Congress that it is urgent to enact a $6.3 billion, five year program of financial incentives and technological research aimed at cutting emissions” of greenhouse gases (derided as “heat-trapping industrial-waste gases” in the New York Times). Last summer the 37th coolest for the contiguous United States in the last 103 years would not have been a good time to tout global warming legislation.

Third World Refuses to Consider Emission Curbs in Buenos Aires

The 150 countries that are parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are currently meeting in Bonn, Germany. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the Fourth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-4) being held in Buenos Aires from November 2-13, 1998 and to discuss how the Kyoto Protocol will look in practice. One of the issues being debated is developing country participation. The U.S. delegation said that it is important to consider “whether an insufficient number of countries have commitments to curb their emissions of greenhouse gases.”

But the developing countries rejected all talk of their taking on emissions restrictions. A Saudi Arabia delegate said, “No way developing countries will accept an agenda item [for Buenos Aires meeting] on commitments.” And a Chinese delegate said, “The position of the G-77 and China is clear no new commitments in whatever guise or disguise.” Commenting on the Clinton administrations goal to get “meaningful participation by key developing countries,” the Chinese delegate said, “In the UN system, theres no category” of “key developing countries.”

Mexico said that developing country participation should not be discussed until the Kyoto Protocol enters into force (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 6, 1998).

Senator Enzi Plays Hardball

Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wy.), a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, has threatened to hold up three presidential nominations if the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) does not release the Clinton Administrations economic analysis of the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. The nominations are Rebecca M. Blank, for a permanent post on the three-member CEA, and Awilda R. Marquez and Michael J. Copps, for assistant secretaries at the Commerce Department.

Administration officials have testified before various congressional committees that the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be negligible, but they refuse to release an economic analysis to the public (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 10, 1998). Senate Republicans have also said that they will hold up funding for climate change programs in President Clintons fiscal 1999 budget unless they can get more details about how the Administration is planning to implement the Kyoto Protocol. (BNA Daily Environment Report, June 5, 1998).

U.S. Surrenders Sovereign Rights Under Climate Treaty

The Kyoto Protocol infringes on national sovereignty and transfers considerable decision-making power to international bodies. Thats the conclusion of lawyer James V. DeLong in a paper presented at the U.S. Chamber of Commerces recent conference, “American Sovereignty and Security at Risk.”

The Kyoto treaty, if implemented, would facilitate a massive centralization and aggrandizement of power in countries such as the U.S. “The Protocol may convert decisions usually classified as domestic for purposes of U.S. law and politics into foreign, and thus move substantial power from the Congress, from state and local governments, and from private entities into the federal Executive Branch.”

DeLong warns that the international bodies used to enforce and monitor numerous global environmental treaties are “heavily under the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are not politically accountable.” This means that voters, taxpayers and consumers are gradually being denied the right to self government as these half public, half private groups gain effective control over important international institutions (The paper, “Treaties, National Sovereignty, and Executive Power: A Report on the Kyoto Protocol,” can be downloaded from www.climatetreaty.com).

Foxes to Guard Hen House?

New United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) director Klaus Tpfer, Germanys ex-environment minister, has submitted a nine-page proposal to incorporate non-governmental organizations into the policy-making process and to assist in “developing relevant scientific advice.”

Tpfer says, “I want to be as close as possible to organizations such as IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] and WWF [World Wide Fund for Nature], as well as other NGOs.

The IUCN has an outstanding tradition. I intensely believe that they can be part of the process.”

Environmental pressure groups are, of course, salivating over the prospect of being granted new process powers. Frank Vorhies, head of the IUCN economics unit in Geneva, said, “IUCN is well placed to play a role as UNEPs technical agency.”

Others are less enthusiastic. Developing countries are especially upset at the prospect of environmental groups having the ability to interfere with their domestic affairs. Rabi Bista, special secretary in the ministry of forests and soil conservation in Nepal, argues that “Conservation is a simple concept made difficult by high paid consultants. In my country, we know which areas need to be conserved. We have no difficulty at the professional level. Local people often know more than people like me in the cities. We dont need more committees [of scientists], we need local action.” Nature (May 14, 1998) notes that “panels set up with environment groups will be seen as partial to the environmentalist view. The role of IUCN may be particularly controversial, as many of its members appear to see conservation as more important that development.”

Catalytic Converters Under the Gun

The catalytic converter is no longer an environmental savior, according to the New York Times (May 29, 1998). Though the device sharply reduced smog emissions from autos, it may be out of favor at the Environmental Protection Agency. A new EPA study says that the converters break down the compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that then combine with hydrocarbons to form nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Wylie J. Barbour, an EPA official who worked on the study, called this a classic problem. “Youve got people trying to solve one problem, and as is not uncommon, theyve created another.” The New York Times had mistakenly reported that nitrous oxide accounted for 7.2 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, in the Dow Jones Newswires (May 29, 1998) the EPA said that figure was incorrect. “The level is probably closer to 2 percent.” The EPA also noted that “There are still major scientific uncertainties about the contributions that catalytic converters may make to greenhouse gases.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →