GlobalWarming.org

McCain and Warming   [Iain Murray]

With the Presidential election looking closer than would have been thought possible a few months ago, it is worth examining just where Sen. McCain stands policywise on global warming at the moment.  An IBD article today looks at his position and how it leaves both sides of the debate cold.  The article quotes McCain's policy chief, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is a smart guy, as saying that a detailed proposal is months away, but it would contain two main elements: a cap n' trade plan and a Kyoto II that would include India and China.

The latter is, at the moment, politically infeasible if it includes mandatory reductions from those countries, while the former is either going to be an ineffective subsidy to energy companies that manages to increase prices to the consumer, as has been the case in Europe, or the equivalent of a disguised carbon tax, with significant penalties on the red states (as discussed earlier), depending on whether permits are allocated or auctioned.  Moreover, if you look at the last bill Sen. McCain proposed with Sen. Lieberman that included a cap n' trade element, it would have very little effect on climate, at high cost.  Marlo Lewis worked out that the bill would avert at most 0.03 degrees C warming by 2050, at a total cost to the economy of $776 billion.

Nevertheless, as my colleague Myron Ebell pointed out in the IBD article, a President McCain would have a very good chance of getting his proposal through Congress:

"The Republicans in Congress will not be able to oppose a President McCain. The leadership in both Houses will follow him," Ebell said. "If it is a President Obama or Clinton, Republicans will have every reason in the world to say, 'We're gonna fight this.'"

Finally, I think it's worth saying that, just as subsidies to oil companies should be opposed, McCain's proposal for a $3.7 billion subsidy to the nuclear industry is objectionable.  The nuclear industry would be better served by reducing the irrational regulatory barriers that prevent nuclear competing properly with coal, natural gas and other renewables rather than bribing it to put up with them.

Given that Kyoto is not enforceable on its own terms (Article 18), those who argue that we must ratify it because “everyone is doing it” must face the difficult fact that, actually, they aren’t doing it. Europe hasn’t had to pay for its broken promises and shifting emissions-reduction targets. The U.S. is the only nation whose courts could have forced the government to meet the terms of the treaty. That threat surfaced thanks to an earlier decision by the Court — which caused great distress to conservatives — under which treaties were considered not merely on a par with domestic laws, but superior to them in cases where the two conflict. Under Medellin, it now seems feasible that the U.S. could ratify Kyoto and, if lawmakers lacked the political will to adopt implementing legislation, green pressure groups could not sue their way to compliance.

One might argue: if two-thirds of the Senate were to approve a Kyoto-type treaty, that would demonstrate the political will to actually impose the restrictions that such a treaty calls for. I suggest that these steps remain quite different animals: the first involves feel-good press releases announcing bold action to join an international consensus for the sake of our children and grandchildren; the second — the implementing legislation — involves pesky Congressional Budget Office public estimates of the extraordinary costs.

Remember, Congress has had the option of imposing Kyoto-type legislation sans treaty for a decade — and certainly for the past 14 months while a Democratic majority has held the reins. When they were in the minority, Democrats bayed incessantly about how hearings were an irresponsible delay tactic and waste of time and that we must act now! Their present-day muttering about test-votes and gestures in anticipation of next year speak for themselves.

Apologists claim that fear of a Bush veto is the reason for Congressional Democrats’ inaction on climate-change legislation — an argument I’ve answered here; their real fear is advertising the costs of their preferred climate action.

In sum, Medellin offers no threat and possibly some succor for us anti-Kyoto types.

Tuesday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by sociology professor Monica Prasad, "On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend," which singled out Denmark as a model for how the U.S. should proceed on carbon-dioxide regulation. I have watched Denmark’s policies with particular interest — since marrying a Dane, and now having two little half-Danes here and a host of family there — and have been a regular visitor to that country.

Denmark’s domestic press hangs its head quite a bit over the fact that the proudly “green” country (home to the European Environment Agency) is among Europe’s biggest Kyoto violators — a failure facilitated by the absurd promise made by Socialist minister Sven Aukend to match whatever reductions Germany promised (-21% below 1990, averaged over 2008-2012), despite the fact that Denmark did not have the luxury of shutting down filthy Jutland industrial capacity as Germany did, post-reunification.

Therefore certain of the piece’s claims struck me as a bit of a surprise — for example: “The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in emissions is Denmark"; and “Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”

Something smelled a little rotten in this cheerleading, as I know full well that the Danes benefit from Swedish nuclear power, despite also regularly banging on about how the Swedes need to shut down the reactor just across the Straight. Then again, who are we to begrudge them such hypocrisy, with California being so bossy while relying on atoms smashed and coal burned in other states?

So I turned to the World Nuclear Association. Suddenly the bloom falls off the morally superior rose.

"The 7.64 billion kWh [NB: that equals > 16% of how much electricity DK produces on its own, domestically] imported from Sweden in 2005 is almost half nuclear and half hydro, the power (5 billion kWh in 2003, 0.6 billion kWh in 2005) imported from Germany is largely generated by brown coal and nuclear power (Germany itself imports 15 to 20 billion kWh/yr from France, which is 80% nuclear)…

Conclusion:

Nuclear power provides an essential part of Denmark's electricity…Using 2005 data, with production of 36.3 TWh, consumption of 34 TWh, exports of 12.9 and imports of 10.4 from Germany and 0.7 from Sweden, it would seem that 3 TWh used is nuclear, about 9% of total."

So much for not relying on nuclear. The U.S. also relies on nuclear, for about twice Denmark's percentage of its electricity. But we also have not (yet) embraced Denmark’s windmill boondoggle, that after hundreds of millions of dollars leaves them “selling” wind to the Swedes for about 0 cents per Kwh.

What about this notion that a carbon tax caused Denmark’s emissions to drop? I turned to the European Environment Agency for a little straight talk — something you won’t hear me say very often. According to Denmark’s submission to the EEA, Denmark's main emissions-reduction strategy is to import electricity rather than create it.

About its "Past emissions: Denmark’s GHG emissions were 6.3 % below those of 2004 and 7.8 % below base-year levels in 2005. The main factor for decreasing emissions with regard to 2004 was a decrease of fossil fuel combustion in electricity and heat production partly due to higher electricity imports."

About their projected 2010 emission total of 20.6 MMT: "*The Danish Energy Authority estimates that approximately 5.0 of the 20.6 million tones CO2 annually will be offset by increased electricity exports based on the calculation assumptions of the climate strategy."

Ms. Prasad’s claim is false: a carbon tax didn't cause the Danes’ emissions to drop; almost the entire reduction came in one year and as a result of importing electricity, i.e., paying someone else to emit CO2.

It also turns out that the carbon tax Ms. Prasad praises is just one of five taxes cited in the seven "measures" Denmark cites: mineral oil tax, gas tax, coal tax, electricity tax, CO2 tax, (the sixth being Emissions Trading Schemea tax; and the seventh, the wealth transfer of buying JI and CDM credits). These come on top of a vehicle-registration tax touted as a GHG-reduction scheme that doubles the price of cars — the joke in Denmark is that it's a good thing that they don't have all the cars they've paid for; not to mention another GHG tax on HFCs, a weight- and volume-packaging tax, and a waste tax, among the other measures.

Meanwhile, of course, the European Parliament and Commission are busy trying to find ways to impose EU-wide taxation to install a “Kyoto tax” on top of all the other taxes that have, as we know, failed to reduce EU member-state emissions.

In truth, cap-and-trade means cap, trade and tax. Answering the NYT's false claims only confirms that.