The latest stop on John McCain's policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator's plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his "maverick" tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was "market based."
Republican White House candidate John McCain Monday veered sharply away from President George W. Bush on climate change, saying he would not "shirk" from the need for US global leadership.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Nice to see Ryan Radia's piece in the Des Moines Register today after yesterday's abominable piece reporting on what global climate change "means to Iowa." As usual the article ignores real global trends (no temp increase in last 10 years; oceans not warming; Antarctic sea ice increase; record cold winter; etc.) and instead regurgitates the IPCC Summary schtick and alarm-sounding from the Center for Climate Strategies, U. of Iowa prof Jerald Schnoor, and Iowa State U. global warming studier Eugene Takle.
"People are more worried," Takle was quoted without reporter curiousity or devil's advocacy.
Anyway, according to the Register, what does this all "mean to Iowa?" Let us count the "coulds," "ifs," "likely's," and "mights:"
"If we do this smart, we will create green jobs, improving the economy and cutting greenhouse gases," Schnoor said…
Scientists have noted for years that more carbon dioxide, which feeds plants, will likely mean booming crop yields. Takle said the longer period between the spring thaw and the return of frost in winter could mean longer growing seasons. The changes could open the door for farmers to grow two, maybe even three, crops a season, Takle said…But weather and climate changes could dampen the gains…For example, crop yields could drop 40 percent by 2100 because of higher levels of ground-level ozone…
Moisture in the air will likely increase because water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Over time, this results in higher temperatures day and night….
Warming might make water shortages a bigger issue in Iowa, where a boom in ethanol plants and hog confinements have already strained supplies….
Milder temperatures could mean savings on home-heating bills, Takle said. It also could provide more groundwater recharge in periods of fast snowmelts. On the down side, look for more freeze-thaw cycles, damaging roads and bridges and altering growing seasons…
Deer, skunks and raccoons could benefit from a smorgasbord of new plant growth in places, but they might spread rabies and other diseases farther….
Of course, sprinkled about are claims made with more certainty, all based upon computer models fed by who-knows-what kind of data. Meanwhile the Register clings to only their kind of experts and ignores the respected Joe D'Aleo– and William Gray-types within meteorology and atmospheric science.
As reported by James Pethokoukis of the U. S. News and World Report Capital Commerce blog, “According to Stephen Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece: Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent (from 1990 levels) by 2050, would cut U.S. annual emissions from 6 billion metric tons a year, or 20 tons per person, to 1 billion metric tons. When you consider that the U.S. population will be over 400 million by 2050 with a much larger economy, per capita emissions would have to fall to 2.5 tons, or about what you would find in today's Haiti and Somalia.”
With those numbers in mind, consider the study released this week by a team of MIT researchers that quantifies a “floor” below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop, regardless of income. The "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
Even before the media turned on ethanol, commodities markets were growing volatile because of record prices and subsequent speculation. A legislative assault on ethanol would add further uncertainty to the market, eroding price stability and endangering the utility of futures contracts and options – the two hedges that have protected Iowa farmers for a half-century from the boom-and-bust cycle that plagued their forefathers.
Do today's soaring food prices and Third World food riots mean we're headed for global famine?
Not any time soon-if we suspend the biofuels mandates quickly. Unfortunately, if we keep burning corn, wheat, and palm oil in our vehicles, there's no limit to the hunger, malnutrition, wildlife extinction and political disruption we can cause.
EU Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen is dead against the current plans by the European Commission to reduce CO2 emissions for new cars. He is warning against rules that interfere in the private life of citizens.
A senior EU official said Sunday that a European Union deadline to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new cars by 2012 was unrealistic, according to an interview with a German newspaper.
According to an article in today’s Greenwire, Concentrating Solar Power technology has a bright future if
1. federal renewable tax credits are extended;
2. a federal 25% by 2025 renewable portfolio standard for electric utilities is adopted;
3. a carve-out specifically for solar is included in the 25% RPS;
4. European-style "feed-in" tariffs are adopted;
5. more transmission lines to remote areas with high solar resources are built:
6. a multibillion-dollar federal fund is created;
7. a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions is enacted.
If this level of government support were given to horse-drawn carriages and wagons, the era of the automobile would soon be a brief interlude in the age of the horse.
You may have wondered why there has been no Congressional effort to actually legislate the "global warming" policies that will supposedly save the planet from itself. For six years, the Democratic minority indulged in often nasty rhetoric, with the gist being: We know the problem. We know the solution. Your hearings are a delaying tactic. We. Must. Act. Now!
After winning the majority, Dems muttered for a while about how that mean George Bush would just veto their legi-salvation anyway: Why bother? We'll just work for a bigger majority – and the White House. Though, as I have noted on Planet Gore before, Bush had threatened no veto – and on those occasions since January 2007 when he did threaten a veto, in other policy contexts, the Dems typically took it as a challenge to pass something. So there seemed to be something missing from their political calculation, or at least their public rhetoric.
Today's E&E Daily (subscription required) has a hilarious apologia, "Sponsors lower expectations for Lieberman-Warner bill," offering a walk-through of the phenomenon afflicting our crusaders. Here as in pretty much every country in the world (posturing notwithstanding), global warming is such a grave threat that other people need to "do something." Given the inescapable price tag, lawmakers looked and discovered that anything they propose would actually be doing nothing – besides harming state economies. And if forced to choose, it seems they would prefer it be other states' economies that are harmed.
"The Lieberman-Warner-Boxer camp is facing increasing demands from all corners of the Senate to change the bill that would establish a cap-and-trade system with midcentury emission limits of 70 percent below 2005 levels.
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown told the Cleveland Plain Dealer this week he was holding out in his support for the Lieberman-Warner bill because it did not do enough to protect his home state's manufacturing jobs while still stimulating investments in alternative energy. "I have serious concerns about any climate-change bill that doesn't take into account energy-intensive industries like we have in Ohio – glass and chemicals and steel and aluminum and foundries," Brown said.
"He's concerned," Brown spokeswoman Joanna Kuebler explained yesterday. "He's leaning toward a no."
Sen. Maria Cantwell [NB: Democrat] of Washington said in an interview that she is also pushing for changes in the Lieberman-Warner bill to benefit her home state's abundant supplies of hydropower. "We want to make sure people who are already good at reducing CO2 emissions will continue to do that and not be penalized," she said. Cantwell explained that she has not joined the bill as a cosponsor because she wants to keep working on it.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he wants a more beneficial emission allocation system for his state's rural energy producers." Obviously, I represent a state that's a significant power producer," Conrad said. "Most people don't think of North Dakota that way. But we produce electricity for nine states. We have the largest coal gasification plant in the country. We have very large reserves of lignite coal." [Meanwhile], Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) maintained that he is a long way from backing the Lieberman-Warner bill. Instead, he is taking a close look at an alternative climate bill circulated from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) that opens with tax incentives for new energy technologies but falls back on cap and trade if the other ideas have not worked by 2030."
That mean George Bush and those nasty filibustering Republicans are blocking a climate bailout. Or, maybe not so much. As my CEI colleague Myron Ebell characterizes this: thieves fall out when it comes time to split up the loot.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org