Science

Cooling Blair’s climate crusade

by William Yeatman on November 10, 2004

in Science

Tony Blair is, in a way, as polarizing a figure in the United Kingdom as President George W. Bush is in the United Stateswith one crucial difference.  While President Bush has his Republican critics, he incurs nothing like the venomous hatred hurled at Blair from the left wing of his own Labor Party, a party he has led to successive landslide election victories.


 


Americans may be about to see why. Blair, having been the president’s chief ally in Iraq, may soon become his chief antagonist over the issue of climate changeand his likely tactics will cause his supposed friends no end of pain.


 


The Labor left wing’s disdain for Blair is based as much on style as on policy — a style of which Americans would be wise to be wary.


 


Blair’s world view has been described as “messianic.”  After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he became convinced that the world needed to change for the better, by force if necessary.  In an extraordinary and in many ways brilliant speech to his party conference in October 2001which he wrote himselfthe prime minister sang the virtues of liberal interventionism. He praised intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, regretted inaction in Rwanda, and warned against letting crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe to go unabated. 


 


No objections or other considerations may interfere when Blair is in messianic mode.  Consider his support of President Bush’s plans to liberate Iraq.  It was for Blair, quite simply, the right thing to do. But now reports from various government inquiries show that Blair’s office ignored or overrode legitimate questions over the quality of the intelligence he was receiving. The prime minister, having convinced himself that Saddam Hussein not only possessed weapons of mass destruction, argued that Saddam was capable of launching them against British interests at a mere 45 minutes’ notice.  It was on the basis of this questionable claimthat Saddam was an imminent threat, as opposed to the American contention that Saddam should be disarmed before he became an imminent threatthat the British Parliament backed the use of military force in Iraq.


 


Similar things have happened with Blair’s domestic policies. The Blair government, convinced that the House of Lords was an unjustifiable anachronism, decided that the revered old institution had to go. The government ignored the peers’ principled objections, and only a last-minute compromise kept 1,000 years’ worth of history and tradition from being swept away. Recently, Blair decided to ban foxhunting as uncivilized, despite the almost unanimous opposition from country dwellers that led to the largest anti-government demonstration in British history.


 


The latest target of the prime minister’s messianic gaze is climate change.  He has been convinced by his chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, a chemist by training, that global warming is the greatest long-term danger facing the planet. Blair has announced that, along with Africa, global warming will be the focus of Britain‘s presiding roles over the Group of Eight (G8) and European Union this year. As with the Iraqi intelligence, the Blair government has ignored troublesome but legitimate questions in making this decision.


 


During his visit to Washington this week, the prime minister will likely strongly pressure the president to acknowledge the supposed problem of global warming and to commit America to do something about it beyond current policies. He has already committed Britain to reducing greenhouse gas emissions well below the targets demanded by the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that independent experts say his vision of a hydrogen economy will require covering an area the size of Wales in wind turbines. What he will demand of America is anyone’s guess; in his recent speech, he stopped short of calling on the United States to ratify Kyoto, but Russia‘s politically motivated ratification of the treaty may breathe new life into that futile process.


 


Blair will certainly pitch this in moral terms, deploying the sermonizing style that led satirical magazine Private Eye to portray him as a busybody Anglican priest. Blair probably won’t refer directly to Americans’ sinful love of “unhealthy” fast food and gas-guzzling SUVs, but he will likely seek to make Americans feel guilty for consuming a quarter of the world’s resources while having such a small fraction of the world’s population (an argument his close Parliamentary ally Stephen Byers uses frequently).


 


Such moral hectoring must be met with moral arguments. When Blair asks America to restrict its greenhouse gas emissions, American policy makers should respond that he is calling for more unemployment, higher heating prices for the elderly and reduced aid to developing countriesand that he is calling for all of this on the basis of projections that have little basis in reality.  In the run up to the Iraq war, Blair’s anti-war critics accused his government of “sexing up” its findings on Iraq to increase their impacta criticism that seems even more apt to describe Sir David King’s alarmist pronouncements that global warming is worse than terrorism.


 


While recognizing the immense value of Tony Blair’s support in the war on terror, the newly re-elected Bush administration should respond resolutely to any attempts to get the United States to change course on climate policy. This will require a firm diplomatic hand and a steadfast refusal to compromise settled policy. In short, the administration should act just like Blair in rebuffing his global warming entreaties.

The One-Percent Solution

by William Yeatman on November 2, 2004

in Science

Many of the scientific papers that have contributed to global warming alarmism over recent weeks (such as the study that predicted the ruin of Californias wine industry or the more recent study predicting stronger hurricanes by 2080) have depended on models that assume atmospheric increases of carbon dioxide concentrations by one percent per year from 1990 to the end of the century.


This assumption is not backed up by the evidence, which has seen concentration increase by only 0.4 percent per year since 1990. University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels drew attention to this problem in a Cato Institute op-ed published on October 6 (“Debunking the Latest Hurricane Hype,” available at www.cato.org).


He commented, “Because carbon dioxide increases have been bouncing around four-tenths of a percent per year for three decades, why do climate modelers insist on using the wrong number? It seems peculiar that people who have the equivalent of doctorates in applied physics (which is what climate science is) would somehow be perfectly happy to do something they know is wrong.


“I began asking that question at scientific meetings a decade ago. At that time, I asked Kevin Trenberth, a highly visible atmospheric scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who often testifies to Congress on climate issues. He told me it was done because it was convention. That answer doesnt set well with me, because its awfully easy to program a computer to increase a variable by half a percent instead of 1 percent per year.


“That leads to the final, nagging question. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers out there in which climate models use this wrong number. Each of those papers gets sent to three outside peer-reviewers. The fact that 1 percent continues to be used only means one thing: when it comes to global warming, hundreds of scientists must prefer convention to truth.”

Changing political climate

by William Yeatman on October 29, 2004

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

Lost among the charges and counter charges about lost explosives during the last week of the presidential campaign, was a last-gasp attempt by the environmental community to impact the election. The assault came from Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who traveled to Iowa from his Manhattan home to charge that the Bush Administration is purposely ignoring growing evidence that sea levels could rise significantly unless prompt action is taken to reduce heat-trapping emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes.” And that “delay of another decadeis a colossal risk.”


Scary stuff if true; but is it? Dr. Hansen himself hasn’t always thought so. His own most recent research, in which he has argued mainly for quickly limiting emissions of methane, rather than CO2, contradicts this claim. Smoke stacks and tailpipes don’t emit methane; cattle and rice fields do.


It appears that Dr. Hansen’s speech in Iowa during the climax of the election is just the latest example of a willingness to change his scientific position depending on his perceived direction of the political winds. For example, Dr. Hansen told former Vice President Al Gore that he predicted high-end estimates of warming, and attributed that to emissions of CO2. More recently, Hansen has embraced lower-end estimates of warming, and suggested that we should control methane emission more than CO2. Yet policy that impacts every area of our economy should be set on sound science, not science that bends to the political winds.


Back to his current charge; is it accurate, are CO2 emissions causing sea levels to rise dramatically? He apparently bases his assertion on his own publication [Proc Nat’l Acad Sci 2004] that to preserve global coastlines, global warming must not exceed one degree Celsius. As sole support for this unusual claim, he cites his own recent article in the popular Scientific American [vol 290, pp 68-77, 2004].


All independent evidence, however, shows sea levels rising steadily – by about 400 feet in the past 18,000 years, since the peak of the most recent ice age. Significantly, empirical evidence has demonstrated that there has been no acceleration of sea level rise during the strong warming in the early 20th century. Evidently, warming leads to faster evaporation from the oceans and an increased rate of ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent – producing a drop in sea level that mostly offsets the rise from the thermal expansion of the oceans.


In addition, as is well known, prompt policy action (by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases in accord with the Kyoto Protocol) would lower the calculated temperature rise by 2050 by at most a tiny one-thirtieth of a degree C – too small to even measure.


Further, it is important to remember that President Bush did not “withdraw” from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming – as his critics so falsely claim. He simply has not submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification; but neither did his predecessor, former President Bill Clinton. Clinton decided not to submit the treaty that was negotiated on his watch because the Senate at the time had voted unanimously against any treaty that would have such damaging economic consequences. That vote was unanimous, including the junior Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry.


It’s hard to see how ‘prompt action’ of any kind could affect sea level. Dr. Hansen’s critique is disingenuous and not founded on science, and is a prime example of why it is important not to base important public policy decisions on any one scientist’s predictions.

Chat transcript: Implications of new California auto emissions regulations

by William Yeatman on October 27, 2004

in Politics, Science



Kenneth Green
Fraser Institute 

Dr. Kenneth Green is Chief Scientist and Director of the Risk and Environment Policy Centre at Canada’s Fraser Institute, and is an adjunct scholar with Reason Public Policy Institute, a public-policy research organization headquartered in Los Angeles. Dr. Kenneth Green is Chief Scientist and Director of the Risk and Environment Policy Centre at Canada’s Fraser Institute, and is an adjunct scholar with Reason Public Policy Institute, a public-policy research organization headquartered in Los Angeles.  Dr. Green received his doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering (D.Env.) at UCLA in 1994, his master’s degree in molecular genetics from San Diego State University in 1988, and his bachelor’s degree in Biology from UCLA in 1983.


Green has critiqued the new California auto-emission regulations for the Orange County Register.  If you have any questions about the environmental, political, or economic ramifications of this move by California, this will be a very enlightening hour.


Moderator: Here we go.  I’ll start it off myself by asking Dr. Green to set up the situation for us.  What exactly is the CARB and how did they come to this decision?


Green: CARB stands for the California Air Resources Board – they are the highest air quality control agency in the state. 
The decision to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of the California vehicle fleet evolved over time, but it was originally proposed by Fran Pavley about 3 years ago.
CARB’s regulation was intended to fulfill a California Assembly bill, 1493, which directed CARB to achieve “maximum feasible” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.


Moderator: Richard in Oklahoma asks:
Californians seem to be itching to shoot themselves in the foot with this type of legislation and state spending. As a non-Californian, why should I care? Won’t it mean that California businesses will move to more business friendly states like mine?


Green: It does sometimes seem that California has an economic death wish.  But the answer to your question is fairly complicated. First, California does have massive market power when it comes to buying automobiles. Nearly 20 percent of all the new cars bought in the US are bought in California.
So, they can force the automakers to incur higher costs, at least in the California market. Of course, to get people to buy these cars (that will cost about $3,000 more over the life of the vehicle), they’re probably going to have to subsidize the market in California by raising vehicle rates somewhat in other states. And, other states tend to copy California on these things, so it probably won’t only be California that does it.
The other reason you should care is that, in truth, California’s economic prosperity contributes to overall economic prosperity in the United States. If California’s economy suffers, ripple effects spread throughout the country.


Moderator:  Phil in Florida asks:
Will California lose jobs to other states because of this policy?


Green: It’s somewhat too early to tell. It’s one thing for California to have passed a foolish law, it’s another thing for them to implement it. The National Academy of Sciences has observed that the technology for what CARB is requiring simply doesn’t exist, and isn’t on the immediate horizon.  So, as with the electric car fiasco, this could wind up being a rule that just isn’t met, and lead to endless rounds of “compromise” proposals that sock the automakers for money to be dumped in California through research projects.
What we do know is this: If California raises the cost of transportation, they’ll hinder their economic growth. If that happens, people will lose jobs, and many of those, one presumes, will seek greener pastures.


Moderator: May in Louisiana wants to know:
When most experts say that the California law will do virtually nothing to curtail greenhouse gases,  what’s the real agenda for this restrictions on car emissions?


Green: I think there are several agendas at play. One is simply that “environmentalists” hate cars. They always have. They particularly despise sport utility vehicles. In the past, they’ve tried to get people out of cars, and into trains, by raising fears of oil depletion and air pollution. Both of those problems have been largely corrected, so now the excuse is climate change.  As an agency, CARB is subject to the problem of “public choice” theory. That is, the people who work there, like everyone else, wants to advance in his/her career, and that advancement is through growth.
Growth of their department, growth of their sphere of authority, and so on. As air pollution dies out as a real threat, what’s an Air Resources Board to do?


Moderator: Ned in California wonders:
Will there be an increase in price that it costs vehicle owners to inspect their car?


Green: I doubt that there will be a change in the way that cars are tested through Inspection and Maintenance programs, though I suppose it’s possible. The real cost is going to be in the initial price of the car.  According to a report by Sierra Research, for a new passenger car sold in 2016, when the new rules are tightest, will cost $3,357 more than they would otherwise.


Moderator: Mary in Virginia asks:
Where is Schwarzenegger coming down on this issue?  What power does he have as Governor to effect it?


Green: Well, judging from his recent media circus over his hydrogen-powered Hummer, one has to assume that Schwarzenegger won’t want to change the regulation. On the air pollution and environmental issues, Schwarzenegger seems to have decided to just throw in the towel to environmental groups. As Governor, he could certainly effect change in the regulation. For one thing, I believe that several of the appointees to the governing board of the Air Resources Board are appointed by the governor.


Moderator: Alex in Virginia is worried:
As an enthusiast of older automobiles, I have read that the CARB standards would put the squeeze on older automobiles, especially ones that don’t have any emissions controls from the factory. CARB has already impacted on my hobby as there are fewer choice cars and bodies for restoration. California “Junk car” laws encourages that they be crushed instead. Is this only going to get worse? What can we do to stop the destruction of our hobby?


Green: That’s a great question. The new CARB standards for greenhouse gas emissions will only apply to new car sales, and, I believe, that classic cars are exempted from even air pollutant standards. It is true that there’s a pressure to just scrap the older cars that are just being driven, rather than treated as a classic car. I can see where that would make it harder to find parts for restoration. I can’t say how that might be remedied, other than, perhaps, to seek your parts in other states, or other countries.


Moderator: Katherine from Maryland asks:
Is it becoming a trend that states (and of course, their attorneys general) are more and more deciding that they will ignore federal regulatory agencies, in this case, NHTSA, and do their own thing?


Green: Yes, states, and particularly their AGs are, more and more often, simply setting their own agenda regardless of the federal government. They tend, not surprisingly, to do that more when the federal government is seen as not being aggressive in a given area of public policy.  Greenhouse gas control bills are popping up all over the US, as are lawsuits by the Attorneys General involving greenhouse gas emissions. The motivations for this proliferation of state actions, to me, seem to involve the prospect of generating massive state revenues through law suits, or to force the federal government to implement strong greenhouse gas controls by threatening to create such a crazy-quilt of regulation that the feds have no choice but to try to create a uniform regulatory playing field.


Moderator: John from Virginia asks:
It seems clear that CARB and green community place far more credence in global climate computer models than the proven fact (National Academy of Sciences among others) that downsizing vehicles results in more deaths and injuries.  The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce fuel consumption.  And there are only 2 ways to reduce fuel consumption:  Use more expensive materials and technologies OR downsize the vehicle.  The consquence of Option 1 is pricing consumers out of the market, meaning that more older, polluting vehicles stay on the road longer.  The consequence of Option 2 is increasing traffic at California morgues.  How are they getting away with this literal trade of blood for oil?

Green: Well, CARB has never been averse to simply restating mistruths, until the public buys into them. In the case of the new greenhouse gas controls, you’re going to get a double dose of danger: the cars will have to be lighter, AND they’ll also be more expensive, and they may, if we’re silly enough to use hydrogen as a fuel source, be more likely to explode.  The bottom line is, the new rules will hurt motorists not only in the wallet, but also in their safety. And, those who are sensitive to our ever-lower levels of air pollution are going to see a set back in the elimination of those emissions because people will hold onto older cars longer, rather than buy the new, smaller, higher-priced, less-capable cars and trucks that will result from the new rules.


Moderator: Elizabeth in Florida wonders:
It sounds as if California is trying to force new technologies.  Have there been any prominent successes in low-emission vehicles? 


Green: The planner-types at California’s environmental agencies have long suffered from the fatal conceit, that somehow, they know better than all the people acting in free markets, about what future technologies will win, and which will lose. They have a dismal track record, however, as do all governmental agencies. The most obvious example is the electric car fiasco. Billions of dollars were spent to try to conjure up battery-cars that a consumer would want to buy. They subsidized the building, and the selling, and the charging stands, and they still couldn’t get people to buy their prize electric cars for a very simple reason: they didn’t have nearly the capability of a regular economy car.


Moderator: Patrick at an undisclosed location asks:
What states are most likely to follow California down this road?


Green: It’s hard to say. New York is a distinct possibility, as I believe that they also copied California on their “Zero-Emission Vehicle” standards. There is a group of states that have basically adopted the practice of cloning California’s emission laws, and implementing them.  Of course, we can hope that some of those states might have learned from the electric-car fiasco, and be more hesitant to adopt the new greenhouse gas standards. Either way, what I think is most likely to happen wherever they adopt these rules is simply failure. The deadlines will come, the automakers will have to spend a fortune proving they can’t meet the requirement, some deal will be cut, and the automakers will pay some hefty research bill in some politician’s home town. Motorists will pay one way or the other, as whatever costs the automakers incur in dealing with these rules, it’s ultimately the consumer who pays for it.


Moderator: Okay, that was our last question.  We want to thank Dr. Green for lending us his time and expertise!
Keep checking back at GlobalWarming.org for more live chats with the experts. 

Hockey stick is an “artifact of poor mathematics”

by William Yeatman on October 26, 2004

in Science

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, a MacArthur Fellow in 1982 and who writes the column Technology for Presidents in the MIT Technology Review, strongly criticized the Michael Mann hockey stick reconstruction of historic temperatures in his October 15 column.

Mullers criticism is interesting because he remains a strong believer in the threat of global warming.  Nevertheless, he agrees with the findings of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (see previous issues, passim) that the hockey stick is an artifact of poor mathematics.  He also points out that the principal component error that McIntyre and McKitrick identify is blatant and easy to understand.


Muller comments further, It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase.  In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections.  Did medieval global warming take place?  Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows.  Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesnt settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.


If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.  Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions.  Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be a natural occurrence.  And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey.  If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.


A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one if we know it is broken.  It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

CO2 rise claim too much for alarmists

by William Yeatman on October 26, 2004

in Science

European media sources (e.g., the Independent, Oct. 10) made a great deal out of a supposed surprise rise in CO2 levels in 2003, increasing by 2 parts per million to 379 ppm when the recent trend has a been 1.5 ppm rise each year.

Nevertheless, even dedicated climate alarmists such as Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the British government, felt impelled to dismiss the anomaly as an aberration, not the start of a trend (BBC, Oct. 11).


The Hadley Centers Peter Cox told UPI (Oct. 14) that, as the CO2 increase was not uniform across the globe, it might have been caused by something unusual in the Northern Hemisphere, such as the forest fires in Europe caused by the hot summer.

Epstein blames hurricanes on warming

by William Yeatman on October 26, 2004

in Science

Breaking with the scientific consensus that the intense hurricane season this year was unconnected with global warming, Paul Epstein, M. D., claimed that there was a connection in a telephone press conference (Reuters, Oct. 21).

Epstein said, This year, the unusually intense period of destructive activity, with four hurricanes hitting in a five-week period, could be a harbinger of things to come.  The weather patterns are changing.  The character of the system is changing.  It is becoming a signal of how the system is behaving and it is not stable.


Reuters quoted only one expert who disagreed with Epsteins analysis.  Florida State University meteorologist James OBrien said, Recent history tells us that hurricanes are not becoming more frequent.  According to meteorological measurements, extreme weather is not increasing.  Hurricanes are just one of many scientific fields where Dr. Epstein has claimed expertise where he in fact has none.

Activists, not global warming, a third-world threat

by William Yeatman on October 21, 2004

in Politics, Science

A coalition of environmental activists called this week for rich countries to do more to control global warming and to help poor nations cope with the alleged effects of climate change.

The irony, of course, is their activism, not global warming, is the real threat. The activist groups, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and ActionAid, issued a report calling for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions far more stringent than those called for by the international global warming treaty known as the Kyoto protocol.


They also want industrialized countries to subsidize poor countries adaptation to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year, a sum on par with what industrialized countries now pay in subsidies to their domestic fossil fuel industries, according to the report.


Keep in mind that the Kyoto protocol, rejected by the U.S. Senate, President Bush and even Sen. John Kerry, only called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. of about 7 percent below 1990 levels cuts that the Clinton-administration Department of Energy estimated could raise electricity prices 86 percent and gasoline prices 53 percent.


Greenpeace and company now want greenhouse gas emissions to be cut by 60-80 percent from 1990 levels cuts that would probably be economically devastating to the developed world.


The activists recipe for solving global warming thus appears to be, first, to kill off economic development in the developed world and, then, to have the developed world send what money it has left over to the developing world. Its not clear, though, that an economically crippled developed world would be able or willing to subsidize poor countries, leaving those countries forever impoverished.


While no one knows whether or to what extent humans may or may not be affecting global climate, climate change is a known and natural fact. The advantage that humans have over other species is that we can use our intelligence and wealth to adapt to changes in climate. Air conditioning, irrigation, desalinization are examples of human ingenuity overcoming otherwise inhospitable or uncomfortable climactic conditions. But harnessing technology to overcome climate challenges requires money something that is often in short supply in poor countries.


And, sadly, the environmental activists seem to be doing their best to make sure that poor countries stay poor.


For example, in a Jan. 22 media release, the activist Rainforest Action Network (RAN) declared victory in its campaign to transform the environmental practices of the worlds largest financial institution, Citigroup.


Now Citigroup doesnt have the sort of environmental practices typically associated with manufacturing and chemical industries. But Citigroup does make loans for economic and industrial development. After a four-year-long campaign, the RAN pressured Citigroup to restrict its lending practices in the developing world, including: not lending to projects that might adversely impact natural habitats; banning logging in tropical forests; avoiding investment in fossil fuel energy projects; and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from power projects in its lending portfolio.


Its an extremely regressive lending policy that, in effect, gives environmental activist groups a veto on Citigroup loans for development in poor countries and we all know how much environmental activists approve of development.


The Rainforest Action Network is not stopping with Citigroup. Last summer, RAN kicked off a campaign called Barbecue the Banks with a sidewalk barbecue in front of the San Francisco headquarters of Wells Fargo. Using Citigroup as the precedent, RAN hopes to intimidate Wells Fargo and other banks into agreeing to restrict their lending practices in poor countries.


Should the activists succeed in dictating restrictive bank lending practices in poor countries and I would bet that RAN is not yet done telling Citigroup how it may make loans dont expect too much economic development to occur there. As a result, poor countries will remain poor and will not be able to adapt as easily as wealthy countries to changes in climate.


Global warming may or may not be occurring. Humans may or may not be playing a role in any ongoing climate change. What is certain is that poor countries need economic development and environmental activists are blocking their way. The developing world doesnt need the Kyoto protocol. But it could use some sort of protection from global warming activists.


Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of “Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams” (Cato Institute, 2001).

Kyoto is unfair to U.S.

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2004

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

In July 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing any international treaty that would damage the economy by restricting energy usage, raising the cost of fuels for transportation, heating and electricity.

This unanimous vote included Sen. John Kerry, and Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who are currently advocating just such restrictions. But the resolution was right. A treaty obligating developed nations but not China, India, Brazil and Mexico would produce huge U.S. job losses as industries moved overseas.


However, because of the initiative of then-vice president Al Gore, the U.S. signed just such a treaty, the protocol negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. But President Clinton never submitted it for Senate ratification. And President Bush has consistently declared Kyoto “fatally flawed.”


Neither Bush nor the Senate has pointed out, however, that Kyoto is not only costly and unfair to the U.S., but it is also ineffective in averting a feared global warming. Scientists all agree that at best it would reduce the calculated temperature rise in 2050 by an insignificant one-tenth of a degree.


Russia has been more outspoken. The Russian Academy of Sciences, in a May 2004 report, questioned the reality of substantial future warming, concluding that Kyoto lacks any scientific base. President Vladimir Putin declared Kyoto “scientifically flawed” and intimated that Russia would not ratify it.


Yet, ironically, Russia’s parliament will likely ratify it before the year’s end, making Kyoto binding on all ratifiers. Why? The reason may be short-term economic gain, as the protocol permits selling Russia’s unused emission rights to Europeans anxious to ease the economic penalties of Kyoto’s restrictions.


Russia’s economic collapse after 1990 nearly halved its emissions and the base year chosen for Kyoto is 1990. This arbitrary choice also favors Germany, which took over a faltering East German economy, and Great Britain, which switched its electric generation from coal to natural gas at about that time. We would lose out, and maybe that’s why our economic competitors are so anxious to get us to ratify Kyoto.


S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and the author of Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Independent Institute, Oakland, 1999).

“Global Warming” at a glance:

by William Yeatman on October 14, 2004

in Science


As determined by NOAA Satellite-mounted MSUs
Information from Global Hydrology and Climate Center,
University of Alabama – Huntsville, USA
The data from which the graph is derived can be downloaded here
Global Mean Temperature Variance From Average,
Lower Troposphere, September 2004: +0.118C
(Northern Hemisphere: +0.191C , Southern Hemisphere: +0.046C )
Peak recorded: +0.746C April 1998.
Current change relative to peak recorded: -0. 628 C 


 




GISTEMP Anomaly September 2004 +0.49C .
Peak recorded: +0.97C February 1998.
Current change relative to peak recorded: -0.48C

Discrepancy between GHCC MSU & GISTEMP September 2004: 0.372C

Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C (57.2F)
Estimated absolute global mean September 2004 14.49C (58.08F)


 


← Previous Entries

Next Entries →