Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States fell by 1.8 percent in 2006, compared to a 0.3 percent increase in emissions in the European Union (EU), according to newly released data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The new data confirm the continuing success of market-oriented, voluntary greenhouse gas emissions programs in the U.S. versus European cap-and-trade mandates.

The stark difference occurred even though the two economies grew at a near-identical pace in 2006, roughly 3 percent for the year.

Dr. Peter Friedman is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at UMass Dartmouth and a member of the American Geophysical Union.

Although there are many uncertainties in climate science, we do know with reasonable assuredness that the earth is currently experiencing a modest warming trend. We also know that CO2, which is a small contributor to the "greenhouse effect," is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere.

The short-term confluence of these trends has led many to disregard the more convincing longer-term data and jump to a conclusion that there is a cause-and-effect relationship. But while the media have decided that the science is settled, many in the scientific community are skeptical — and with good reason.

 

From Jennifermarohasy.com

In his Interim Climate Change Review for the Australian government Professor Ross Garnaut is looking to the world stabilising emission levels at year 2000 levels “soon after 2020”. Following this he sees a need for halving them by 2050 and reducing them to a quarter of 2000 levels by 2100.

He also considers that emissions must be based on some level of equality on a per capita basis. Realistically he recognises that there would need to be a phase to this and that population trends would need to be taken into consideration.

But, notwithstanding the cheer squad who were able to comment on detail about the report as soon as it was released, Garnaut barely scratches the surface in recognising the enormity of the task. Throw away lines like stabilisation at a uniform per capita level mask economic turmoil.

Australia’s emissions per capita are presently 16 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Largely because much of the OECD has (unlike Australia) outsourced its heavy energy intensive industries, the OECD average is 11.5 tonnes. The world average is 4.5 tonnes. Given population growth, that would have to fall to under 4 tonnes by 2030 to get to stabilisation.

In other words, to meet the level that Garnaut sees as necessary, Australia would be emitting only one quarter of its present level of CO2.

That degree of self discipline is possible only by accepting returning the economy to living standards similar to those currently experienced in the developing world. Nobody purposefully emits CO2 (though until a few years ago it was not a concern). The simple fact is that its emission is a by-product of earning income. We know of no other way to enrich ourselves and raise living standards of the poorest countries than to do so using energy and that means carboniferous sources.

As Garnaut acknowledges, easy gains in emission reductions have been made, especially with the dismantling of the command economies of the Soviet bloc and China. Those countries’ CO2 intensities have now stopped falling, in fact are rising. Indeed, China ahs already surpassed the magic 4 tonnes per capita and has only pulled a fifth of its population out of poverty. It is a pipe dream to think that Indonesia and PNG could become vast sinks to offset other countries’ emission levels. Only by foregoing the use of oil, gas and coal is it possible to reduce CO2 emissions.

For Australia this is even more difficult. Our economy is built on low cost coal based energy. Coal is also one of our most important exports. Even if we were to restructure our electricity industry so that it became fundamentally nuclear based (forget the fairies at the bottom of the garden calling for solar) we would still be twice the 4 tonnes per capita level.

And in moving to that position the corollary must be a vast jump in prices. There is no other way of ensuring the constricted use of the energy. Already in Australia with what to the environmental lobby is seen as totally inadequate measures at mitigation, prices of electricity are rising. Anticipating the measures foreshadowed the wholesale price of electricity for delivery in the first half of 2011 in Victoria and NSW is 50 per cent above present levels. And we have seen nothing yet.

Garnaut is surely correct in those of his recommendations that council gradualism and further study. He is also correct that the Kyoto agreement that all signatories including Australia have found it impossible to meet without cheating is only the start. But achieving the goal, even with the loathed nuclear future, is Mission Impossible unless some totally unexpected technical breakthrough comes along.

Alan Moran
Melbourne

Exxon used to encourage motorists to ''put a tiger in your tank.'' Well, a different animal may begin influencing traffic soon. Polar bears could force drivers to shell out even more money for gasoline.

Why? Because environmental groups are pushing to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and the Bush administration is considering their demands.

Which 88 per cent of the economy would my reader most like to kiss goodbye?

I ask this question only as a practical matter, after reading the summary of a Japanese study on the economic implications of the "global warming" fraud.

Where: St. John's University, MN; Pellegrene Auditorium

What: The Eugene J. McCarthy Center for Public Policy & Civic Engagement is sponsoring a debate on environmental policy. The central debate resolution is “Be it resolved that the free-market is best suited to protect the environment”.

For More Information

 

Al Gore had to take the two biggest spin words of 2007 and combine them into a really scary scenario at a UN meeting with institutional investors. He warned the executives that they ought to clean their portfolios of carbon-intensive industries, as those inevitably will lead to huge losses.

I can't help but feel that there is some magic in his words, as Al Gore himself has worked hard to make it harder to run and operate carbon-intensive portfolios. Maybe I can get paid $100,000 per speech to explain the investment consequences of the policies I have promoted, that would be sweet!

He is "misunderestimating" one thing though, human ingenuity and adaptability. As energy rationing makes it harder to run carbon-intensive industries, those companies will find other energy sources and transform their companies. The other ones will die at the hands of capitalisms creative destruction. That is an investment tip from me, and its totally free!

Under the Clean Air Act, should CO2 be deemed "regulated" under the act–even if the regulation is for vehicles or fuels and is specifically not directed at stationary sources–no new or existing "major" stationary source of CO2 can be built or modified, if the modification increases net emissions, without first obtaining a PSD permit.