Cooler Heads Digest

Announcements

CEI’s Chris Horner, author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism), has a new book out, Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner's Red Hot Lies explodes as many myths as Al Gore promotes. To buy a copy, click here.

In the News

How To Kick Our Oil Habit Despite Plunging Prices
Wall Street Journal, 17 November 2008

Green Mandates Burden the Economy
David Ridenour, Washington Times, 20 November 2008

Clean Energy Confronts Messy Reality
Rebecca Smith, Wall Street Journal, 20 November 2008

Dining with the Green Glitterati
Claudia Rosett, Forbes, 20 November 2008

Soil Studies Muddle Climate Debate
CNN, 17 November 2008

Green Hysteria Loses
David Stirling and Steven Gieseler, Washington Times, 16 November 2008

Filmmakers Take on Global Warming Hype
Harry McGee, Irish Times, 16 November 2008

News You Can Use
2007 Coldest Since 1997

This week the National Climatic Data Center is reporting that through its first 10 months, 2008 is shaping up to be the coolest year in the United States since 1997.
Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other major state-run institutes have concluded that China will double it’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

Inside the Belyway
From Auburn Hills to Beverly Hills
Myron Ebell

The House Democratic Conference on Thursday voted 137 to 122 to replace Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).  This marks a huge change in legislative strategy for the Democratic majority on a wide range of issues, including energy and global warming.  Spokesmen for most major environmental pressure groups were ecstatic.  

Dingell was first elected in a special election in 1955 (upon the death of his father, who first won the seat in 1932) and in February will become the longest-serving Member of the House in history.  He served as Chairman of the committee from 1981 until the Republicans took control in 1995.  During that period, Dingell turned a major committee into the most powerful in Congress by stealing jurisdiction on issue after issue from other committees.  At the height of his powers, Dingell was the most formidable and feared Member of Congress.  Dingell returned as Chairman when the Democrats regained the majority in the 2006 elections. 
 
Dingell has always been a big government liberal.  He is also a serious legislator.  Over the decades, he put together enormous bills that created new government spending or regulatory programs.  He paid careful attention to the details and worked strenuously to build broad coalitions to pass with large majorities what was originally considered controversial legislation.  Just on environmental issues, Dingell was one of the chief sponsors or movers behind the Wilderness Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Clean Air Act of 1972, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act of 1977, Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

But that was then.  Now, the Democratic majority in the House has moved far to the left of Dingell.  Dingell represents the western suburbs of Detroit, including Dearborn, where Ford Motor has its headquarters just outside the district, and Auburn Hills, where Chrysler has its headquarters.  Henry Waxman has represented Beverly Hills since the 1974 election, when Democrats won huge majorities following the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s resignation.  Rather than representing members of the United Auto Workers, Waxman represents the interests and sensibilities of movie and teevee and pop music stars such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Britney Spears.  But he’s a lot smarter than the typical movie star turned environmental activist.  He is also one of the most dedicated, hardest working, toughest, and most aggressive legislators in Congress. 

Being intelligent, dedicated, hard working, tough, and aggressive is an admirable package, but it doesn’t guarantee success.  Waxman is also a hard left ideological purist who is completely out of touch with the concerns of most Americans. 

My own view is that the chances of enacting cap-and-trade legislation went down considerably when House Democrats chose Waxman over Dingell. Make no mistake, Henry Waxman is a formidable opponent, but he is not the heavyweight legislator that John Dingell is.  He is too rigid ideologically, which makes him less capable of conciliating the wide range of interests that must be brought together in order to pass big, controversial pieces of legislation.

As I wrote in a statement for the press: “This should provide a loud wake-up call to American business leaders that the 111th Congress is not going to play nicely with them on energy rationing policies.  I hope that those who have counseled that ‘if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,’ will now realize that they are on the menu and they’d better get as far away from the table as quickly as they can.  The cap-and-trade bill that Chairman Dingell proposed this fall would dramatically raise energy prices for American consumers and producers. Chairman Waxman introduced a cap-and-trade bill in this Congress that would send us back to the Stone Age.”

Environmental pressure group leaders may be excited now, but I won’t be surprised if they’re disappointed with the results.    

Over on the Senate side, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, announced that she will introduce two major bills  that would fulfil major parts of President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign agenda.  The first, which Obama barely mentioned in the general election campaign, is a new cap-and-trade bill.  Unlike the Lieberman-Warner bill that crashed on the Senate floor in early June, Boxer’s bill will simply direct the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade program.  The Congress will let EPA figure out the messy details.  The second is the “green jobs” bill that Obama talked a lot about in the campaign.  It would provide for up to $15 billion a year for a decade to subsidize renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures, and to train people for promising careers, such as replacing incandescent with compact fluorescent light bulbs. 

Obama Watch

This week President-elect Barack Obama promised to “lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change" at an international climate change summit in California. In a previously-recorded video message to the 800 attendees, Obama repeated his campaign pledge to push for a cap-and-trade scheme that would reduce U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama also promoted his plan to spend $15 billion annually for ten years to create 5 million green jobs.

Obama faces an uphill battle to meet these promises. The economic crisis will be a major impediment to Obama’s vision of an era of global cooperation on climate change. Countries are increasingly reluctant to commit to economically harmful climate mitigation policies during what appears to be a global recession (see “Around the World, below).

The economic downturn also will impede Obama’s cap-and-trade plans. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) this week announced that she will introduce a cap and trade bill in January (see Inside the Beltway, above), but the Senate rejected the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill last summer because of its adverse economic impact, and the economy is much worse now. Just last week, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told reporters that the financial crisis has forced the Congress to relegate cap and trade legislation to the backburner. He said that he didn’t expect the Congress to address cap and trade until 2010.

Obama’s plan to spend billions in taxpayer money to create green jobs is much more plausible in the short term. Members of Congress are likely to embrace an opportunity to spread around $15 billion among constituents.

Around the World

This week German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that the global financial crisis could cause leaders to renege on their environmental pledges, according to AFP. In 2007, the European Union pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, but member states have yet to agree on how to share the burden. Germany and Italy, which have large manufacturing sectors, are refusing to submit to emissions controls that would “weigh” on industry. Coal-dependent central and eastern European countries have threatened to veto any EU climate policy that would force them into dependence on Russian natural gas by making coal uneconomic.

What a racket
Julie Walsh

California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a declaration this week with Indonesia and Brazil to develop efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation. This treaty-lite will make it cheaper for California businesses to purchase emission credits abroad than reduce their emissions.

Tropical forestry is a natural choice for carbon offsets because nothing has to be produced. As in California, the trees are merely left to grow a little longer before they are logged. No hassles trying to produce “clean” energy in developing countries for this bunch; these projects don’t accomplish something helpful like building natural gas fired power plants for Nigerians currently using their forests for fuel, for instance.
 
But guilt-laden Californians could also be doing more harm than good. The countries where they will supposedly be investing in forests have proven records for corruption. Brazil tied with China and India at 72 on the 2006 Transparency International Perceptions of Corruption Index. And Indonesia tied with that paragon of virtue, Russia, near the bottom at number 143.
 
Regular charities disclose the percentage of their donations that are spent on administrative costs and executive salaries. Yet the companies affiliated with these projects typically don’t release information on what percentage of their funds actually goes to the owners of tropical forests.

One of the primary companies supplying tropical forestry offsets is Sustainable Forestry Management, whose principal revenues are “derived from supplying and trading emission credits and offsets, the harvest of environmentally certified timber, agro-forestry, bio-fuels, biomass energy and agricultural products,” according to their website. Yet they’ve spent $280,000 already this year lobbying the House, Senate and White House.

In the News

Chevron’s Orwellian Crude Discovery
Sam Kazman, Investor’s Business Daily, 14 November 2008

Greens Pave Way for GOP
Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com, 14 November 2008

Bingaman: Congress Will Wait on Global Warming
AP, 12 November 2008

Put Global Warming on “To Do” List
Lorrie Goldstein, Edmonton Sun, 13 November 2008

Big Carbon Footprint at Schwarzenegger’s GW Summit
Samantha Young, AP, 12 November 2008

Alarmist Tactics
Chris Horner, FoxNews (video), 11 November 2008

Green Jobs Costly for Michigan
William Yeatman, Detroit News, 11 November 2008

Gore: “I’ve Failed Badly”
Claire Cain Miller, New York Times, 7 November 2008

Green Herring
Jacob Sullum, Townhall, 5 November 2008

News You Can Use
Global Cooling

Ten years ago this week, the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol. On this symbolic occasion, it seems worthwhile to note that the planet has cooled since the U.S.  signed the Kyoto Protocol. It must be working! (Can we go home and relax now?)

Inside the Beltway
Green Jobs
Myron Ebell

Washington is awash in loose talk about rebuilding the economy by moving to renewable energy and creating millions of new "green" jobs. President-elect Obama ran on a 150 billion dollar green jobs program. House and Senate Democratic leaders are talking about making more subsidies for renewable energy and creating green jobs key parts of a second stimulus package.

It's buncombe, as Dr. Gabriel Calzada explained at a briefing today on Capitol Hill sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition. He detailed the enormous costs to taxpayers of subsidizing renewable energy, such as windmills and solar panels, in Spain.  The electricity produced is much more expensive than conventional power, so rates paid by consumers have been increased dramatically. This is odd. Taxpayer subsidies are normally used to lower the prices of subsidized products for consumers. 

Calzada, who is associate professor of economics and of environmental sciences at King Juan Carlos University in Madrid and president of the free market Instituto Juan de Mariana, said that the calculation was made several years ago that Spain could bear the higher energy costs imposed by global warming policies because economic growth was strong. Now, with the financial crisis, which is much worse in Spain than in the U. S., Spanish leaders are realizing that they cannot afford energy subsidies and higher energy prices.

But our congressional leaders and president-elect think these sorts of economically-damaging policies are just the ticket to put our ailng economy back on its feet. They should listen to Dr. Calzada's presentation, which will be available at www.globalwarming.org in a week or so.

Will Hugo Chavez eventually become America’s Putin?
Julie Walsh

Carbon limits mean gas-fired power plants over coal. This has led to European nations putting themselves under the thumb of Russia. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article, “Putin Threatens to Scrap Gas Pipeline as Talks with EU Leaders Approach,” chronicles how that thumb is currently putting on the pressure.

Carbon limits here in the U.S. could have the same result as they have in Europe, with only a different task master. As in Europe, U. S. environmental pressure groups lobbied successfully to lock up huge federal areas with high gas potential. Natural gas, which emits roughly half the carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of coal-fired power, “only” costs about 70% more than coal power. Gas would become the preferred power source under carbon rationing laws, as in Europe.

As in Russia, Venezuela possesses vast reserves of natural gas, estimated at 3 trillion cubic meters in 1989, the second greatest proven reserves in the Western Hemisphere after the United States.

Venezuela and Russia began drilling the first gas well in the Gulf of Venezuela this month. “Venezuela is now free with allies like Russia… We will be together for ever,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in a recent speech.

Around the World

EU Energy Security

On the eve of this weekend’s European Union-Russia summit, the first since the Georgian conflict, the EU Commission released a report that says reducing dependence on Russian natural gas is “one of the EU's highest energy priorities.” European countries—but especially Germany, the EU’s largest economy—have become increasingly dependent on Russian natural gas in large part because of environmental regulations targeted at the coal and nuclear energy industries. Moscow, however, has demonstrated a willingness to use its energy supplies to coerce and threaten other countries. As a result, the EU is aggressively pursuing the construction of gas pipelines that would deliver fuel from Central Asia and bypass Russian territory, so that Gazprom, Russia’s state owned monopoly on gas exports, could not influence or inhibit the flow of gas. Former Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the report by questioning whether Russia should proceed with a major planned pipeline under the North Sea that would deliver Russian gas directly to European markets.

Developing Nations Fear Climate Commitments

Developing countries are worried that they would face increased expectations to commit to economically harmful emissions reductions if President-elect Barack Obama follows through with a campaign promise to align with the European Union and orchestrate a global response to global warming. To date, developing countries have faced little diplomatic pressure to act on the climate because the Bush administration refused to commit to an international climate treaty. As a result, the EU spent its diplomatic capital trying to convince the U.S. to join and largely ignored developing countries, even though they account for half of current emissions. If, however, President-elect Obama reversed the Bush administration’s international climate strategy, a united EU-U.S. would likely demand that developing countries commit to steep emissions cuts. So it’s no wonder that China and India chose the week after Obama’s victory in the presidential elections to demonstrate their unwillingness to put global warming over economic growth. China’s government unveiled their climate plan this week. The centerpiece is to exact a commitment from developed countries to give 1% of their GDP—about $300 billion annually—to building a clean energy infrastructure in China and other developing countries. India’s government held a conference in New Delhi, called Climate Change: Business Sustainability and Society, during which Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal announced that a global action plan to fight climate change was unworkable.

Michael Crichton, RIP

Inside the Beltway
Election Post-Mortem
CEI's Myron Ebell

For opponents of further energy-rationing policies, the good news is that Senator John McCain (R-Az.) lost the presidential election. The bad news is that Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) won. There are two views of what Senator Obama will do as President.  Some guess that he will cautiously pursue a modest agenda of progressive social and economic change. Others guess that he will rapidly pursue a radical agenda.  In short, will he follow the path of Tony Blair or of Juan Peron or some weird combination?

Across the States
California

Two energy initiatives failed in California on Tuesday. Proposition 7 would have required California to get 50% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025. In fact, California already has a requirement to produce 20% of its electricity from renewables by 2010, but the California Energy Commission says that the Golden State will fall well short of that goal. Proposition 10 would have required the Golden State to use compressed natural gas for public vehicles. It was funded primarily by Texas natural gas magnate T Boone Pickens, who stood to reap a windfall profit if the measure had passed.

In the News

MIT Scientists Baffled by Sudden Rise in Greenhouse Gas
Rick C. Hodgin, TG Daily, 30 October 2008

Green Energy Crashes
Reuters, 30 October 2008

Stranger than Fiction
Brendan O Neil, Planet Gore, 29 October 2008

San Francisco: The Epicenter of Stupid Ideas
Alan Caruba, Canadian Free Press, 26 October 2008

News You Can Use

On October 29, the U. S. broke 168 cold-temperature records and 63 snowfall records. The first snowfall in October in London since 1934 started at about ten PM on October 28, just as the British House of Commons passed a new climate bill that mandates 80% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Inside the Beltway
CEI’s Myron Ebell

Washington remains quiet as everyone awaits the election returns. Environmentalists are talking about making any second stimulus bill that may be taken up by Congress in its lame duck session (scheduled for the week of November 17th) into a “green stimulus” package. Lots of new money for make-work “green jobs,” new and higher subsidies for “green energy,” and so on.  It should be fun to watch the pushing and shoving at the trough, but the outcomes of these spending sprees are always depressing. It’s hard to see how wasting money and replacing lower-cost energy with higher-cost energy can revive the economy.

T. Boone Pickens will probably be back in Washington rattling his tin cup. The Charlotte Observer reports that Pickens is scaling back his plans to build a wind farm in Texas because of a lack of financing.  

The other way of looking at a “green stimulus” is that it indicates that the air has been sucked out of the climate issue by the credit crunch and looming recession. Cap-and-trade legislation now looks less likely to be a front-burner issue in the next Congress. So the environmental pressure groups are left to scramble for anything they can get. They should take comfort in the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions are certain to decline for as long as the recession lasts.

Political Science
CEI’s Julie Walsh

Climate science has been politicized more thoroughly than most people realize, as Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, enumerates in his recent paper, “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?” A few revelations from it include:

•    The primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci, who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore.
•    John Firor was the administrative director for the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and frequently spoke as an NCAR expert on the dangers of global warming.  But he didn’t mention that he also served as chairman of the board of Environmental Defense,
•    The UK Meterological Office’s board’s chairman, Robert Napier, was previously the chief executive for World Wildlife Fund – UK.
•    Bill Hare, a lawyer and campaign director for Greenpeace, frequently speaks as a scientist representing the Potsdam Institute, one of Germany’s leading global warming research centers.
•    Michael Oppenheimer is now a professor at Princeton University and is often referred to as a leading climate scientist.  Oppenheimer previously occupied the Barbra Streisand Chair at Environmental Defense.  His scholarly publication record does not include any significant contributions to climate science.
•    The myth of scientific consensus is perpetuated in the web’s Wikipedia where climate articles are edited by William Connolley, who regularly runs for office in England as a Green Party candidate. No deviation from the politically correct line is permitted.
•    The National Academies of Science had a “Temporary” Nominating Group for the Global Environment which bypassed the usual procedures for vetting candidates and thereby provided a back door for the election of candidates who were prominent environmental activists but otherwise fell short of the qualifications necessary for election. Lindzen details how many of these new Academicians exerted control over the NAS and were elected to high positions.

More highlights from Lindzen’s paper will be noted in future issues. 

Around the World

EU

The European Union’s climate agenda further disintegrated this week after member states watered down a major renewable energy law. In 2007, EU countries agreed to ambitious greenhouse gas emissions cuts of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. In early 2008, the EU Commission developed a comprehensive strategy to achieve the emissions targets, which must be accepted by member states before it is implemented. Like all policies that call for significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the EU Commission’s climate plan is economically harmful—Open Europe, an independent think tank, estimates that the Commission’s policies would cost the EU $93 billion a year by 2020. With that much at stake, member states have spent all of 2008 protecting their economic interests by weakening the Commission’s strategy with exceptions and exemptions.

First, Germany and France agreed to weaken the fuel efficiency standards in order to protect Germany’s powerful auto industry. Next, Germany unilaterally declared that it would exempt its energy-intensive industries from the most onerous provisions of a continent wide cap-and-trade scheme. Last month, Poland led a group of coal-dependent states including Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, opposing the Commission’s proposal to price coal out of the electricity generation market by 2013. These rebellious states have since been joined by Italy, which fears that the EU’s climate plan would harm the competitiveness of Italian industry on the international market. Together, these states won the right to amend the Commission’s plan to make it more “cost-effective.”

And this week, member states significantly weakened a directive to generate 20% of the EU’s energy from renewables by 2020 by allowing for a progress review in 2014. The review would allow member states to pull the plug on the directive if the directive proves too expensive because the technology is not yet there.

China

Last week the EU signaled that they expect significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions from developing countries before the EU will sign onto an international treaty to fight climate change. This week, China countered. On Monday, Chinese officials announced that China would cooperate, but only if developed nations spend 1% of their collective GDP—about $300 billion—on the transfer of clean energy technologies to developing countries. To lend urgency to this demand, China also released a white paper warning of the catastrophic impact that climate change has already had on the Middle Kingdom. China has long held that historical emissions from developed countries are responsible for climate change, so the implication of the government study is that wealthy countries have harmed China.

UK

On Monday, the British House of Commons passed the Climate Change Bill, marking a solemn undertaking to reduce British emissions by 80% by mid-century (unless decided otherwise) by the clear majority of 403 to 3. The bill is designed to make hydrocarbon energy sources like oil and gas more expensive, so that consumers use less and emit less. Yesterday, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) demanded that oil companies reduce the price of gasoline.

In the Community

The Texas Public Policy Foundation this week released a major study on wind energy, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future,” by Drew Thornley. To read the document, click here.

In the News

News You Can Use
What Global Warming?

In the News

Five-Star Green Hypocrisy
Steven Milloy, FoxNews, 9 October 2008

Michigan Sacrifices for the Climate
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 9 October 2008

Since Dingell is Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Boucher is Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, this is where the debate will start in the 111th Congress. However, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) have attracted a lot of support in the House Democratic Caucus for a plan with much more ambitious targets.   

The Debate
What’s the Difference?
CEI’s Myron Ebell

This week’s debate between the presidential candidates again offered slim pickings on global warming and energy. There was one question specifically about global warming, while energy prices and energy security came up briefly in several contexts.

I am reminded of Governor George Wallace’s comment on the Democratic and Republican Parties when he ran for President in 1968 as a third party candidate.  At least on global warming and energy issues, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between McCain and Obama.

Gore (and McCain) Hijinks
CEI’s Myron Ebell

In the News

Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing faster than predicted (but global temperatures remain flat—oh sorry, that’s not in the story)
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, 26 September 2008
 
British government split on new coal-fired power plant
Andrew Grice, Independent, 26 September 2008
 
GAO finds fault with credibility of carbon offsets
Stephen Power, Wall Street Journal, 26 September 2008
 
In surprise move, EU refuses to relax auto mileage rules
Pete Harrison, Reuters, 25 September 2008
 
Hollywood starlet dares to reveal that she’s green
Yahoo News, 25 September 2008
 
California taxpayers pay for legislators’ gasoline (and their cars, too)
AP/MSNBC, 25 September 2008
 
Obama and McCain on global warming: compare and contrast
Nature Magazine Reports, 24 September 2008
 
EU tells eastern member nations that they must stay poor
Pete Harrison, Reuters, 22 September 2008
 
News You Can Use
CEI's Myron Ebell
 
The Guardian reports on a study that has found that those people who are trying to lead the greenest lifestyles tend to be responsible for much higher than average carbon emissions. That’s because they tend to be higher income people who take lots of airplane flights. Sadly, therefore, as David Adams writes, "People who believe they have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as some of the main culprits behind global warming." Al Gore, take note.
 
Promises, Promises
The Democratic and Republican nominees also spoke at the annual pow-wow of the Clinton Global Initiative this week. Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Az.) presented almost indistinguishable plans to ration energy with a cap-and-trade program and save us from global warming.  They also both vowed to reduce global poverty and revive the U. S. economy. The little difficulty that no one asked them about is that cap-and-trade will create chronic economic stagnation and increase poverty around the world.
 
Inside the Beltway
CEI's Myron Ebell

The mad rush to pass lots of bad bills at the end of the Congress has been made even more hectic and difficult this week by all the time taken up with the Wall Street bailout.  The House and Senate this week both passed a broad bill extending a wide range of tax credits, including credits for renewable energy.  Both bills would extend refundable tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy and for energy-efficient appliances and buildings and for plug-in hybrid cars.  A proposal to extend the credit for ethanol was not included, but it doesn’t expire until 2010, so Big Ethanol has plenty of time to convince Congress to keep the tax dollars flowing.  It isn’t clear whether the House and Senate will be able to agree on the tax bill because of major differences in other areas.  If they cannot agree, then wind and solar installations will plummet.
 
Since the House and Senate have given up on passing appropriations bill for the various departments, a continuing resolution, or CR, must be sent to the President before the new fiscal year starts on October 1st. The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a CR funding the government until March 2009.  It did not include the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in 85% of federal waters surrounding the lower 48 States that has been in place since Fiscal Year 1982.  Nor did it include the moratorium on production from oil shale in the Rocky Mountains .  This is a significant victory for House Republicans, who vowed to vote against any extension of the annual moratoria.  It has been reported that what convinced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to drop the moratoria was a clear veto threat from the White House.
 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) are trying to continue the oil shale moratorium by including it in a new economic stimulus package.  The House on Friday morning passed their version of a stimulus bill, which does not contain any oil shale language.  A vote to invoke cloture on the Senate stimulus bill, with the oil shale moratorium, failed on Friday by a vote of 52 to 42, with 60 votes needed.  Again, it’s not clear what the House and Senate may be able to agree on to send to the President in the next few days.
 
As for lifting the offshore moratorium, liberal Democrats in the House, led by Representatives Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and Frank Pallone (D-N. J.), have already vowed to put the moratorium back in place when the Congress returns next year.  Even if they fail, the offshore moratorium victory will be a symbolic one for several years.  The next President will have to decide whether to allow the Interior Department to prepare any offshore areas for leasing by competitive auction.  If he decides to go ahead with some lease sales, it will then take time to prepare them and for the winning bidders to start drilling exploratory wells.
 
In the States
CEI's Myron Ebell

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative kicked off its cap-and-trade program with an auction of carbon allowances on Thursday. The results of the auction will be announced Monday and can be found on the RGGI web site. The mandatory plan aims to hold greenhouse gas emissions steady at 188 million tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent annually until 2014 and then make annual 2.5% cuts through 2018.

Only six of the ten northeastern States belonging to RGGI were ready to participate in the initial auction. The lucky six are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Those still on the sidelines because of administrative or legislative delays are Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York. 

Trying hard to catch up with RGGI, the Western Climate Initiative also announced plans this week to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in seven western States and four Canadian provinces.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the plan "covers about 20% of the U.S. economy and more than 70% of the Canadian economy, affecting power plants, industrial facilities and transportation, among other economic sectors." The Governors who have signed up are from Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington. The Canadian premiers are from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. State and provincial legislatures will have to agree before the cap-and-trade program goes into effect. The goal is to reduce emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020.
 
Science Meets PR
CEI's Julie Walsh
 
Where was the press release from National Snow and Ice Data Center ?  In the past they had these breathless ones: “Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Extent for 2008”,  “Arctic sea ice extent at maximum below average, thin” and “Melt onset earlier than normal.”
 
However, yesterday’s statement was drearily entitled “Arctic Ice Begins Autumn Freeze Up.” On their website’s page with their list of “Milestones To Watch For”, they list the minimum sea ice extent date as important and whether it occurs earlier or later in the year, yet they don’t tell even tell us in their new press release when the minimum occurred or whether it was earlier or later this year. Yet from their graph, it was considerably earlier than last year. My sleuthing discovered that it was on September 12th.  And then with some more research I found this gem from an NSDIC press release in October of 2007: “In addition to the record-breaking retreat of sea ice, NSIDC scientists also noted that the date of the lowest sea ice extent, or the absolute minimum, has shifted to later in the year. This year, the five-day running minimum occurred on September 16, 2007; from 1979 to 2000, the minimum usually occurred on September 12.” So this year’s minimum occurred on the average minimum day from 1979 to 2000! You think their reporting is biased? Their new press release should have been titled: “Date of Minimum Sea Ice Extent Completely Normal.”
 
NSDIC does admit, though, that “perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 2008 melt season was the higher-than-average retention of first-year sea ice (see earlier entries, including April 7). Relatively thin first-year ice is more prone to melting out completely than older, thicker ice. However, more of this year’s first-year ice survived the melt season than is typical. Sea ice age maps from Sheldon Drobot, our colleague at the University of Colorado at Boulder , show that much more first-year ice survived in 2008 than in 2007. This is one of the reasons that 2008 did not break last year's record-low minimum. One cause of the high first-year ice survival rate was that this summer was cooler than in 2007.” I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath for articles on how those earlier alarmist reports were wrong.
 
The Latest on Al
CEI's Myron Ebell
 
Albert A. Gore, Junior’s $300 million dollar advertising campaign peddling global warming alarmism and energy rationing must not be convincing too many people. It’s no wonder. Have you seen any of the ads? This week the former Vice President and Senator and Representative called on the nation’s youth to block construction of new coal-fired power plants through civil disobedience. According to a Reuters story, Gore told the rich and the powerful meeting at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City: "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."
 
The problem with Gore’s "leadership" is always the same: it’s do as I say, not as I do. I have a suggestion. Before trying to stop new power plants from being constructed, why don’t young people concerned about greenhouse gas emissions concentrate on the root of the problem—energy consumers. They could start at the top with people who are using the most energy. For example, take Al Gore. He must use at least fifty times as much energy as the average person. Protesters could picket the several large houses he owns and could meet him whenever the private jet he uses for most of his frequent trips takes off or lands.
 

In the News

In the News

No Will to Drill
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 8 August 2008

Republican Energy Fumble
Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 8 August 2008

Global Warming Did It! Well, Maybe Not
Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, 3 August 2008

Al Gore Places Infant Son in Rocket to Escape Dying Planet
The Onion, 30 July 2008

Gore Hits the Waves with a Massive New Houseboat
Steve Gill, Pajamas Media, 6 August 2008

Dialogue with Lord Lawson and the Rt. Hon. Oliver Letwin, M. P., on Global Warming and UK Policies
Daniel Johnson, Standpoint Magazine, July 2008

Poland Seeks Allies to Block New EU Emissions Caps
Thomson Financial News, 6 August 2008

British Emissions Increasing?
Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 2 August 2008

Protesters Try to Stop New Coal Power Plant in England
Golnar Motevalli, Reuters, 6 August 2008

Monbiot: Fate of the World Hinges on Stopping New Coal Plant
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 5 August 2008

Inside the Beltway
CEI's Myron Ebell

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has denied the request from Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) to suspend the ethanol mandate. From Texas Governor Rick Perry ® to suspend the ethanol mandate. Johnson decided that the economic harm being done was not severe enough to waive the 2008 mandate of 9 billion gallons or the 2009 mandate of 11.1 billion gallons, as the law allows.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has introduced a bill, H. R. 6666, that would prohibit EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The U. S. Climate Change Science Program last month released the first draft of the second National Assessment of Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States and invited expert comments by August 14th. The draft and how to file comments may be found here.

A bit of background: the first National Assessment was released in 2000 by the Clinton-Gore Administration. It was a classic piece of junk science. CEI, led by my colleague Chris Horner, filed suit on procedural grounds. That suit was settled by the Bush Administration in 2001 with a statement that explained that the National Assessment did not represent government policy. The Bush Administration settled a second suit filed by Chris when it admitted that the National Assessment had not been subjected to Federal Information Quality Act guidelines (that is, they admitted that it was junk science).

Apparently, the Bush Administration has forgotten what happened to the first National Assessment. Many of the same people who produced the first Assessment have been in charge of producing the second Assessment. What they have produced is an even bigger piece of junk science than the first. It’s full of undocumented or poorly documented claims. For example: tipping points are becoming more likely (page 5); many climate changes are occurring even faster than expected just a few years ago (page 6); extreme weather events are already having increasing impacts (page 6); past climate history is no longer an adequate guide to future climate change (page 7).

Once you get past these general claims to the details, it gets much worse. William Kovacs of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce has already written a letter to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration asking that the draft Assessment be withdrawn because it does not meet the standards required by the Federal Information Quality Act guidelines.

International News

Australia’s Labor Party government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is finding that it isn’t easy to enact cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Paul Howes, head of one of the Labor Party’s biggest supporters, the Australian Workers Union, has endorsed a key element in competing proposals of the Liberal Party, which is the main opposition party. The Liberals, with help from the smaller, more conservative opposition National Party and from dissidents in the Labor Party, could probably defeat any Labor emissions reduction legislation, but the Liberals themselves appear to be hopelessly divided and confused on the issue. Liberal leader Brendan Nelson has moved from one position to another and then back again. As the debate continues, the heavy costs of emissions reductions in an economy based on cheap brown coal are becoming more and more apparent.