Will Global Warming Save Us from “Snow Rage”?

by William Yeatman on March 13, 2008

Do cold and snowy winters lead to “snow rage”? So says the police spokesperson in Quebec, where winter has been bad this year, leading to more violence:

Quebec City police said they had been called to a dozen violent disputes about snow from one property ending up on someone else’s. The drifts outside some houses are 12 feet and higher.

. . .

Police in the French-speaking province of Quebec said on Wednesday that people were fighting over snow clearing and even parking spaces.

Recent Canadian winters have been mild but this one looks set to break all-time records for snow. One storm last weekend dumped 23 inches on the capital Ottawa and 19 inches on Quebec City, which has already received 210 inches this year.

Global warming catastrophists constantly point to the dire effects of a warmer planet and push for carbon taxes or other schemes to raise the costs of fuel. But, tragically, bitter cold, blizzards, snow, ice, and sleet usually take a higher toll. And the elderly, who may not be able to afford fuel, often suffer the most.

Euro Protectionism – For the Environment, of Course!

by William Yeatman on March 13, 2008

The Europeans are threatening to impose tariffs on the U.S. if it fails to knuckle under and accept some international climate regulatory system–undoubtedly drafted to favor the Europeans. Reports the Times of London:

America and China face trade protection measures from Europe if they fail to join a global climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, EU leaders will caution at their summit in Brussels today.

Nations that refuse to curb greenhouse gases will be told that they face “appropriate measures” — code for trade sanctions — if they try to gain a competitive advantage by continuing to allow cheap, high-pollution production.

EU leaders are particularly concerned to try to stop big companies relocating from Europe to countries that refuse to join a post-2012 climate change agreement in order to avoid the EU’s tough CO2 targets.

I don’t normally advocate threatening trade retaliation, but Washington needs to make clear that the U.S. won’t accept trade protectionism under the guise of climate protection.

California’s greenhouse-gas law: Who will pay?

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

Somebody, somewhere will have to pay for California's landmark law that would force dramatic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. Two years on, it's not much clearer who.

State lawmakers last week expressed frustration with a proposal by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would further defer that decision.

GE’s Immelt: U.S. Energy “Policy” Is a Certain Kind of Hell

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

The chief executive of General Electric has emerged as one of the most outspoken advocates of government caps on carbon emissions. But it’s not that visions of saving the planet are filling his “Ecomagination,” nor has he given up on Hayek. In transforming one of the world’s biggest companies into a clean-tech juggernaut, he just smells the chance to make a lot of money—if the U.S. doesn’t miss the train altogether.

Borrowing to fight a nonthreat

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

Despite next year’s projected $8 billion budget deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is so intent on implementing costly regulations and mandates to “fight global warming” that he now wants to borrow money to pay for the crusade. This is bad policy on at least two fronts.

Even Sacramento Democrats see the danger in resorting to another ill-conceived fiscal fix by borrowing $67 million over two years from the state’s beverage container recycling fund, which is supposed to repay consumers who recycle bottles and cans. The loan would be repaid with interest.

Carbon Labels Will Arm California and U.S. Consumers in Fight Against Global Warming

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

“What if consumers could reduce carbon emissions by simply choosing one product over another at their local store? With a carbon label – similar to a nutrition label for the environment – we could all be armed with enough information to make a difference, not through regulation or taxation, but through the power of consumer choice.”

I have introduced a bill that will provide Californians with the information necessary to voluntarily reduce global warming pollution through consumer purchasing power.

‘Green’ storage in forests may be going up in smoke

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

A new study has found that California wildfires emit more greenhouse gases than previously believed largely through the post-fire decay of dead wood, a finding that is raising questions about how effective the state's forests are at storing carbon and slowing global warming. "No matter what anybody does in California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as long as these forests are burning, they are wasting their time," Bonnicksen said.

Global Conflicts

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

Yesterday, running between flights, I briefly noted how Al “Gore is traveling to Poland and India this week to meet with government officials to continue his efforts to achieve a global climate treaty”, revealing his status as self-appointed roving Climate-treaty Ambassador.

The day before, various news services reported that the man who left office worth under $3 million had just plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products”.  Let us stipulate that Mr. Gore and his advisors are savvy enough to not place all of his wealth in one fund; in fact, the same sources report this wealth as “well in excess of” $100 million.  It’s been a good seven years.

Mr. Gore also has a position in, and position with, a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit – another group of people investing money in companies who would be worth real money under different circumstances – and of course sells carbon “offsets”, which are a bit of window dressing at present but which would be assigned artificial value through artificial (state-created) scarcity under different circumstances.

At this point I want to remind all of the skeptics, who clearly need no reminding, that one’s financial interests dictate or at minimum pollute one’s opinions.  As a certain gentleman recently said, people who disagree with him on this issue do so “because they are locked in a coalition with rich and powerful people who take advantage of the poor for economic profit”.

Like, say, increasing their energy costs? Exporting pollution to countries with lower environmental and other standards, and therefore exporting jobs? Here we see the trouble with this line of argument, that it is not possible to cherry-pick such things, assigning venality to just one side: one cannot logically fault the skeptics’ credibility on the grounds that they receive income related to their advocacy without also faulting Gore’s credibility and that of their heavily compensated rock star alarmists like James Hansen, the “responsible” businesses aiding in the campaign in order to sell windmills, carbon offsets or the like, and so on.

So, in sum, we see the former vice-president traveling the world – though, no doubt, “the planes were going there anyway” – to encourage people in positions of responsibility to whom he has unique access to agree to something that, if they agree, will do for his wealth what the alarmism he has fostered since leaving office has already done, but several times over.

Now imagine the outcry and arguments in the event an oil company’s CEO or emissary assumed this role.

That was a trick, of course. Several oil companies have been doing this for more than a decade. It didn’t work out in time for Enron, though others have picked up where they left off, a story that you never hear. Maybe Mr. Gore has now made the issue safe for substantive debate without the ritual claims of corruption – or else has begged full disclosure of who is meeting with whom advocating what and with what interests at stake. 

Key senator predicts strong global-warming measure

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

Leaders from more than a dozen U.S. environmental groups stood beside Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in solidarity Wednesday when she announced that the Senate will have a good chance in June to strengthen and pass a landmark bill to slash greenhouse-gas emissions.

The new road to serfdom

by Julie Walsh on March 13, 2008

in Blog

Criticisms of Environment Minister John Baird for the vagueness of the moves announced this week to force oilsands to sequester CO2, and prevent construction of "dirty" coal plants reflects the Alice in Wonderland quality of the climate-change non-debate. Opposition parties brayed that he had not been "tough" enough. Media headlines suggested that big emitters had "won."

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →