Search: feed

Global Warming Killed the Coral Reefs?

by Lene Johansen on March 24, 2008

in Science

I have lost the count on the number of stories I have seen about coral reefs dying out because of global warming. A recent report in Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences details the corals warming adaptation strategy.

As the so-called climate change deniers emphasize continually: Climate changes, the only thing stable about the climate is that it changes. They are a modern day version of Heraclitus and his proclamation Panta Rei! for those of you who remember your western civilization classes. If climate change is permanent, it follows that the species alive today have a strategy for coping with the change.

We have seen this in papers published last year as well; one I remember quite vividly was about the migration of plants in the Arctic.

Now we have documentation about how the rich ecosystems around coral reefs adapt, so maybe its time to stop crying wolf and dedicate ourselves to an honest and meticulous examination of the actual effects of the changing climate?

Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This

by Julie Walsh on March 17, 2008

From IceCap.us

As a climate scientist, I would like to see some answers to a few basic global warming science questions which I’m sure the U.N.’s Ministry of Global Warming Truth (also known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) can handle. After all, since they are 90% confident that recent global warming is manmade, they surely must have already addressed these issues:

1) Why are ALL of the 20+ IPCC climate models more sensitive in their total
cloud feedback than published estimates of cloud feedbacks in the real climate system (Forster and Gregory, J. Climate, 2006)? If the answer is that “there are huge error bars on our observational estimates of feedback”, then doesn’t that mean that it is just as likely that the real climate system is very insensitive (making manmade global warming a non-problem) as it is to be as sensitive as the IPCC models claim it is?

2) And regarding those observational estimates of (somewhat) positive cloud feedbacks: How do you know that the cloud changes that have been observed during temperature changes really are “feedbacks”? In other words, how do you know that the temperature changes caused the cloud changes, rather than the other way around? This basic distinction between cause and effect is critical because such a misinterpretation will ALWAYS make the climate system look more sensitive than it really is (e.g., it is energetically impossible for more low clouds to cause a warming). Doesn’t it seem like a coincidence that the ONE case were we know that there was a huge non-cloud forcing (the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo) resulted in a negative solar shortwave cloud feedback, whereas all other periods showed supposedly positive shortwave cloud “feedback”?

3) As a follow on to question #2, we all agree that there has been strong global-average warming since the 1970’s. Well, how do you know this wasn’t the result of a small, natural change in cloud cover? Doesn’t it seem like (another) coincidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) just happened to shift to a different mode in 1977, about the time that the warming started? (Please don’t say that the greater warming over land versus ocean is consistent with manmade greenhouse gas forcing…because it is also consistent with ANY kind of change in the Earth’s radiant energy budget, whether natural or manmade.)

The fact is, we DON’T know how much of recent warming is natural, simply because we don’t have good enough global cloud observations back to the 1970’s (and earlier) to measure any long-term changes in cloudiness to the required accuracy – 1% or less.
The same cause-versus-effect uncertainty is true of any other climate variable as well, for instance water vapor, our main greenhouse gas. A small change in precipitation
efficiency (the main process which ultimately limits the strength of the natural greenhouse effect) could cause a change in average water vapor content, which then would change the average temperature. In other words, increased water vapor doesn’t have to only result from warming…warming can also result from increased water vapor.

The fact that we don’t have a good enough understanding (or observations) of cloud changes, or precipitation efficiency changes, on decadal time scales to document such potential mechanisms seems like pretty weak justification for blaming all of our recent warming on mankind. And if you say, “well, the IPCC doesn’t claim that ALL of the warming is manmade…”, then tell me: About what percentage of the warming IS natural, and how did you come up with that quantitative estimate?

I fear that the sloppy science that too many climate researchers have lapsed into could, in the end, hurt our scientific discipline beyond repair. The very high level of certainty (90%) claimed by the IPCC for their manmade explanation for warming can not be justified based upon the scientific evidence, and is little more than an expression of their faith that they understand the causes of climate variability – which they clearly don’t.

For those scientists who value their scientific reputations, I would advise that they distance themselves from politically-motivated claims of a “scientific consensus” on the causes of global warming — before it is too late. Don’t let five Norwegians on the Nobel Prize committee be the arbiters of what is good science.

The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias

by Julie Walsh on March 14, 2008

From JunkScience.com

Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin leads the pack in this year’s contest for biased climate journalism.

Eilperin’s March 10 article entitled, “Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say” has the same sort of journalistic objectivity that one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.

With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that “suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.”

“Using advanced computer models to factor deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide, the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further,” Eilperin reported.

But none of the models in the studies — nor for that matter any other mathematical model of global climate — has proven to be particularly useful. No model has been validated against historical climate data. So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy?

As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.

… continues below advertisement:

Such model failure should come as no surprise since they have many built-in biases, including the unproven assumption that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global climate. But all the available real-life data — including 20th century records and ice core samples stretching back 650,000 years — fail to support such a cause-and-effect relationship. The ice core samples show, in fact, an opposite relationship.

Eilperin, who has long reported on climate for the Washington Post, must know about the models’ problems, but she apparently chooses not to report it.

In her March 4 Post article, Eilperin mentioned a report by a number of climate experts from around the world entitled, “Nature Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” She even interviewed one of the experts for her story.

A section of that report, entitled “Climate Models Are Not Reliable” discusses in plain language how climate models don’t consider solar dimming and brightening, don’t accurately control for clouds, don’t simulate the potential feedback effects of water vapor, don’t explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate, and don’t produce reliable predictions of regional (let alone global) climate change.

At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as PlayStation® Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its PlayStation games are in fact what they purport to be — just games.

Not content with ignoring viewpoints she doesn’t like, Eilperin goes on to diminish, if not ridicule critics of her apparent point of view.

Eilperin’s March 4 article featured four ad hominem attacks from three environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming orthodoxy as members of a “flat Earth society” and participants in the “climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand.” If Eilperin wants to poke fun at those who disagree with her on public policy issues, she ought to write an opinion, rather than a news column.

Another disturbing aspect of Eilperin’s article was the accompanying photo of downtown Beijing.

The photo was captioned, “A heavy haze could be seen in Beijing in August 2007. Two recent reports call for a heightened global effort to reduce carbon emissions.”

The juxtaposition of the article and photo clearly implied that unless we cut carbon dioxide emissions, U.S. cities would soon look like Beijing.

But as virtually anyone who breathes knows, carbon dioxide is an invisible gas. Not only can you not see it, there’s no possible way for carbon dioxide emissions to cause smog, haze or whatever was fouling Beijing’s air in the photo.

The irrelevant and misleading nature of the photo has been pointed out to Eilperin, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and the paper’s editors. As of the writing of this column, none have responded and it remains to be seen whether the Washington Post has the journalistic integrity to remove the photo from its web site and publish a correction in its print edition.

It’s quite possible that if Eilperin and the many other members of the mainstream media who so far have been in the tank for global warming started reporting on the very real debate about climate model validity rather than simply regurgitating what the agenda-driven modelers tell them, then we could avert the looming national economic disaster that Congress is preparing for the next president to sign into law.

Straight talking doomsayer

by Lene Johansen on March 3, 2008

in Politics

James Lovelock is the originator of the Gaia myth and convinced that the world is coming to an end, soon, because global warming is going to get us.

OK, so we have heard that one before. However, what I found interesting about the story is that Lovelock thinks carbon offsetting is a joke and "green ethical living" is a sham.

Although I am sure that the most prominent greens know this, they will not tell you if their life depended on it, so Lovelock's honesty is refreshing even though his reasons for thinking so is logically invalid.

Puff the Magic Dragon

by Julie Walsh on February 29, 2008

More proof that wind power is no panacea for the nation’s looming electricity crisis. The wind dropped in Texas, and caused blackouts:

ERCOT said the grid’s frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.

In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.

ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below 2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750 MW.

At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency’s Web site.

Meanwhile, in Denmark, wind turbines are exploding. Dramatic video (provenance uncertain, so may not be genuine) here. This follows the fatal collapse of a wind tower in Oregon last summer. They also come with environmental costs of their own.

Now, of course, all energy production comes with risks, but wind power has such a positive image that people think of it as completely safe, environmentally-friendly and reliable. That’s not the case.

Lobbying Costs and Changing Tactics

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on February 27, 2008

in Politics

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

The Charlotte Observer reports today that Duke Energy spent more money last year on lobbying efforts than it ever has at the federal level, mostly to address global warming legislation:

Several carbon dioxide bills that could cost utilities are pending. And Duke and other power companies helped stall measures last year that would force utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable energy sources, such as the sun and wind. That electricity is more expensive to produce.

Extra costs from regulation are generally passed on to ratepayers, which utilities say is bad for business….

Duke, the nation's third largest consumer of coal, reported lobbying lawmakers on 31 separate bills last year, 19 of which deal with global warming and ways to battle it.

However, it appears the environmentalists may feel they are losing traction on climate change and may be changing their tactics. Back to mercury, folks!

Global Warming: Not So Fast

by Julie Walsh on February 22, 2008

From the World Climate Report

For more than 100 years, climate scientists have fully understood that if all else were held constant, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) would lead to an increase in the near-surface air temperatures. The problem becomes a lot more complicated in the real world when we consider that “all else” cannot be held constant and there are a lot more changes occurring at any one time than just the concentration of CO2. Once the temperature of the Earth starts inching upward, changes immediately occur to atmospheric moisture levels, cloud patterns, surface properties, and on and on. Some of these changes, like the additional moisture, amplify the warming and represent positive feedback mechanisms. Other consequences, like the development of more low clouds, would act to retard or even reverse the warming and represent negative feedbacks. Getting all the feedbacks correct is critical to predicting future conditions, and these feedbacks are simulated numerically in global climate general circulation models (GCMs). Herein lies a central component of the great debate — some GCMs predict relatively little warming for a doubling of CO2, and others predict substantial warming for the same change in atmospheric composition.

If that is not enough, changes in CO2 in the real world would almost certainly be associated with other changes in the atmosphere – sulfur dioxide, mineral aerosols (dust), ozone, black carbon, and who knows what else would vary through time and complicate the “all else held constant” picture. By the way, the Sun varies its output as well. And when discussing climate change over the next century, even more uncertainties come from estimations of economic growth, adoption of various energy alternatives, human population growth, land use changes, and … you get the message.

However, the fundamental question in the greenhouse debate still comes down largely to a question of climate sensitivity defined as the change in global temperature for change in radiative forcing associated with varying levels of atmospheric CO2. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that the sensitivity is between 0.48 and 1.40 degrees Kelvin (K) per one Watt per square meter (Wm-2) which translates into a global warming of 2.0 K to 4.5 K for a doubling of CO2 concentration (1 degree K equals one degree Celsius which equals 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Rather than turn this into a review of a physics course, what we have is the IPCC predicting global warming of 3.2°F to 7.2°F for a doubling of CO2 concentration. Others have shown in very credible professional journals that there is a 66% chance of the IPCC being right in their estimate – this provides the fodder for alarmists to suggest that IPCC acknowledges the possibility of a global warm up of 10°F for a doubling of CO2.

To say the least, these numbers are hotly debated in the climate community. A recent article in Geophysical Research Letters presents an interesting approach to pinning down the critical sensitivity value (K/Wm-2) for elevated levels of CO2. The article is by Petr Chylek and Ulrike Lohmann of New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and Switzerland’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science; funding was provided by the Los Alamos Laboratory. The team decided to re-examine the temperature, CO2, methane, and dust record from the Vostok ice core extracted from a site in Antarctica. Although the core record goes back nearly a half million years, Chylek and Lohmann elected to restrict their primary analysis to the past 42,000 years.

As seen in Figure 1, the core reveals that we clearly escaped from an ice age around 15,000 years ago as we moved into the modern, relatively warm Holocene period, but the core also shows that the Earth experienced a cooling from 42,000 years ago to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). They recognize that the Vostok data represent Antarctic conditions, not true global conditions, and they used a variety of scenarios to estimate global conditions from what was observed in Antarctica. To make a long story short, the authors used the cooling from 42,000 years ago to the LGM and the warming from 15,000 years ago to the near present to estimate the climate sensitivity parameter.


Figure 1. Vostok ice core data for changes in temperature (in units of 0.1 K), carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration (in ppmv), and dust aerosols (in arbitrary units normalized to value of one for an average Holocene concentration), and relative changes in summer solar insulation (in W/m2) at the latitude of 65°N (dashed line). A solid thick black line shows a five point running average of dust aerosol concentration (from Chylek and Lohmann, 2008)

By combining temperatures, carbon dioxide concentrations, methane concentrations and importantly, dust amounts determined from the ice core during the past 42,000 years, the authors were able to derive the climate sensitivity from the combined variations for these factors. One of their largest uncertainties surrounded the dust amounts, and so Chylek and Lohmann turned to a climate model to see if changes in atmospheric dustiness could have the magnitude of the effect on global temperatures (and thus climate sensitivity) that they had determined empirically. The modeled results were consistent with their other calculations, giving them added confidence in their calculations.

The reason they were looking for independent confirmation was that their findings for climate sensitivity were near the low end of the bounding range given by the IPCC—and that means they are going to be subject to an endless amount of scrutiny from those folks who want potential global warming to seem as bad as possible.

Here are the concluding paragraphs Chylek and Lohmann paper:

We have shown that the ice core data from the warm period (around 42 KYBP) to the LGM and from the LGM to Holocene transition can be used to constrain the dust aerosol radiative forcing during these transitions. We find the dust radiative forcing to be 3.3 ± 0.8 W/m2. Assuming that the climate sensitivity is the same for both transitions, we obtain [the climate sensitivity] = 0.49 ± 0.07 K/Wm_2. This suggests 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 (assuming that the CO2 doubling produces the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 according to the IPCC 2007 report). The ECHAM5 model simulation suggests that during the LGM the global average aerosol optical depth might have been almost twice the current value.

The results compatible with climate sensitivity around or below 2 K for doubling of CO2 were recently deduced using cloud resolving models incorporated within GCMs [Miura et al., 2005; Wyant et al., 2006], from observational data [Chylek et al., 2007; Schwartz, 2007], and from a set of GCM simulations constrained by the ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) observations [Forster and Gregory, 2006]. All these results together with our work presented in this paper support the lower end of the climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5 K suggested by the IPCC 2007 report [Solomon et al., 2007].

To long-time readers of World Climate Report (and its predecessors), these results should hardly come as much of surprise. For at least a good 7 or 8 years we have repeatedly been telling you that you should be expecting about a 1.5 to 2.0ºC of warming from greenhouse gas increases this century. Chylek and Lohmann’s findings are simply further confirmation of this.

The biggest thing to take home in all of this is that the less the temperature rise, the less the chance for major disruption, such as a large sea level rise, at least anytime soon. That means we have more time to figure out a solution.

Assuredly, had Chylek and Lohmann discovered that IPCC was underestimating the climate sensitivity, they would have been a front page news story the world over. Instead, they found that IPCC is likely overestimating the climate sensitivity to CO2, so they were reduced to coverage only at World Climate Report.

Reference:

Chylek, P., and U. Lohmann, 2008. Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04804, doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.

 

Cooler Heads Digest

by William Yeatman on February 15, 2008

in Cooler Heads Digest

Announcement
International Climate Conference in New York, March 2-4
 
Hundreds of the world’s leading “skeptics” of the theory of man-made global warming will meet in New York City on March 2-4 to present their case and discuss the latest scientific, economic and political research on climate change.
 
For more information, visit the conference web site, by clicking here.
 
In the News
 
John Atkinson, The Register, 14 February 2008
 
Associated Press, 14 February 2008
 
Brendan Keenan, The Independent, 13 February 2008
 
Shai Oster & Ann Davis, Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2008
 
BBCNews, 12 February 2008
 
John Hanna, Associated Press, 12 February 2008
 
Mark Newgent, DC Examiner, 11 February 2008
 
David A Ridenour, Sacramento Bee, 10 February 2008
 
Forbes.com, 9 February 2008
 
Paul Rogers, Mercury News, 9 February 2008
 
Alex Madrigal, Wired.com, 8 February 2008
 
Terrence Corcoron, National Post, 12 February 2008
 
William Yeatman, Spectator.org, 15 January 2008
 
We Can’t Make This Stuff Up…
Global Warming Kills Famous Lake-Monster
 
After 37 years, Robert Rines has stopped trying to nab the Loch Ness Monster. According to the UK Daily Record, Rines belief that global warming killed off the elusive beast compelled him to abandon his life’s quest to find the elusive beast.
 
Inside the Beltway
McCain: ‘Mandatory Caps’ 101
Myron Ebell
 
Senator John McCain (R-Az.), now the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party, said this week in an interview with Darren Samuelsohn of Greenwire that he had shown stronger leadership on global warming than the two leading Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY). He noted that both Obama and Clinton are now co-sponsors of his climate bill, S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act. Then he gave a quite extraordinary description of how his bill would work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Greenwire story, McCain said: “It’s not mandatory caps to start with. It’s cap and trade. That’s very different, OK, because that’s a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. So please portray it as cap and trade. That’s the way I call it.”
 
McCain is technically accurate in that if the Lieberman-McCain bill were enacted, it would not require mandatory reductions immediately. But it does put a cap on future emissions and that cap is mandatory. It’s what used to be called energy rationing. During the Second World War, the federal government gave people coupons each month which would allow them to buy a certain quantity of gasoline. If you wanted to buy more gas, you had to trade someone else for his coupons. That’s how cap and trade works. We just don’t call them rationing coupons any more.
Around the World
Will Kyoto Bury Coal?
Marlo Lewis
 
You have probably heard that China is building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of one every week to 10 days. In late 2004, The Christian Science Monitor reported that three countries—the United States, China, and India—had plans to build nearly 850 new coal plants, “which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.” These new plants would “bury” Kyoto. The Monitor elaborated:
 
"By 2012, the plants in three key countries – China, India, and the United States – are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons."
 
Well, there’s been a lot of agitation to stop new coal plants from being built in the United States. In some cases, like TXU’s proposal to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, the anti-coal campainers carried the day.
 
But China and, to a lesser extent, India and other developing countries still dominate the big picture. The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday carried a front-page story on China’s booming demand for coal. China’s electric generating capacity increased 18% just from last July to December, almost all of it fueled by coal.
 
Chinese demand for coal is surging so fast that, for the first time, the country has become a net importer of coal. Also, just as China’s industrialization was a key cause of rising oil prices from 2004 to the present, so China’s electrification is now pushing up world coal prices. Coal mines in the United States and elsewhere are revving up to meet this surging demand.
Energy analysts interviewed in the WSJ article all foresee even greater demand for coal in China and other developing countries in the foreseeable future. Kyoto’s sustainability looks dimmer than ever.
In the Home
Reaping the Wind
Julie Walsh
 
Citizens in Florida are outraged as they discover their power company’s true motivations for windmills and the costs to themselves. About Florida Power and Light’s wind turbine proposal Julie Zahniser writes in her local paper,
 
“This one is about corporate tax avoidance through massive tax subsidies lobbied for by Enron, which was the largest wind developer in the United States before its demise and which pioneered the tax shelter as a commodity. FPL Group paid zero federal income tax in 2002 and 2003 despite more than $2 billion in profits, largely because of the wind projects of its wind subsidiary, FPL Energy, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. But, now it has gotten so bold that it is proposing putting wind turbines where we don’t have sufficient winds to get close to the 30 mph required to reach the turbines’ rated capacity.”
 
When the government chooses “winners and losers” in energy markets, consumers always lose.

McCain Should Know: Cap & Trade Is A Carbon Tax

by William Yeatman on February 8, 2008

in Blog

A few thoughts on the heels of Sen. John McCain’s wise counsel on Fox News Sunday that “the worst thing we can do right now, Chris [Wallace], is — we’ve got some shaky economic times  — is to increase peoples’ taxes.”

Indeed.  But Congress’s newly most-prominent champion of what the Congressional Budget Office describes as “similar to those of a carbon tax [because] both would raise the cost of using carbon-based fossil fuels, lead to higher energy prices and impose costs on users and some suppliers of energy” might consider three headlines from just the past week:

 

n      “Industry shelving investments over EU emissions plan”

 

n      “Green laws and regulation risk energy crisis, say Europe’s power companies”

 

n      “RWE halts investments in German power plants due to rising emission costs”

 

Cooler Heads Digest

by William Yeatman on January 25, 2008

in Cooler Heads Digest

News Highlights
 
Steve Milloy, Fox News, 24 January 2008
 
David Shepardson, Detroit News, 24 January 2008
 
Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 25 january 2008
 
Simon Lauder, ABC News, 24 January 2008
 
Julian Glover, The Guardian, 24 January 2008
 
Alan Caruba, USA Daily, 23 January 2008
 
Ken Kay, Florida Sun-Sentinel, 22 January 2008
 
Leigh Phillips, EUObserver, 21 January 2008
 
This Week in Europe, the EU’s Climate Plan was Unveiled…
 
AFP, 21 January 2008
 
AFP, 23 January 2008
 
Hans-Jürgen Schlamp, Der Spiegel, 22 January 2008
 
Paul Taylor, Reuters, 22 January 2008
 
David Gow, The Guardian, 14 January 2008
 
News You Can Use
Energy Prices Go Through the Roof
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, energy prices in America went up an incredible 18.4 percent in 2007. But don’t look to Congress for relief. In December, 2007, Congress passed an anti-energy bill that will increase energy prices even further.
 
Inside the Beltway
CEI’s Myron Ebell
 
President George W. Bush is scheduled to give his last State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on January 28th. There has been speculation this week that one of the president’s annual, usually nasty, surprises would be to announce that he would sign a cap-and-trade bill if the Congress sent him an acceptable one, perhaps one that just covered electric utilities. It appears that this possibility has been headed off by calls from senior Republican members of Congress, but since cap-and-trade booster Josh Bolten is the president’s chief of staff I won’t say it’s dead until after the president finishes his speech.
 
After having been to hundreds of House and Senate hearings the past two decades, I feel that I am a pretty good judge of the theatrics. In the twelve years of Republican control, there were very few hearings that succeeded in making the intended point well. Indeed, with most hearings I attended chaired by a Republican, I often wasn’t sure what the point was. Things have improved a lot theatrically speaking since the Democrats regained control. But the attempt this week to grill EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson over an open fire at a Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee hearing fell flat. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and her fellow Democrats wanted to grandstand, but they were just too dull and dreary to scare Johnson or excite the audience. The only exception was Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist from Vermont, who has some of the spark of Big Bill Haywood, the leader of the Wobblies in the early twentieth century.
 
For the substance of the hearing, see Marlo Lewis’ piece below.
 
The Most Important Story You Haven’t Heard
EPA Averts Resulatory Nightmare 
CEI’s Marlo Lewis
 
On December 19, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied California a waiver, under the Clean Air Act, to set first-ever carbon dioxide (CO2) emission standards for new motor vehicles. On Thursday, January 24, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on EPA’s denial of the California waiver.
 
Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) pilloried EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson as a betrayer of the Clean Air Act, the Planet, and the Children. Instead, she should thank him for averting an economically- and environmentally-debilitating regulatory morass.
 
If the EPA had granted the waiver, allowing California and other states to adopt CO2 emission standards for new motor vehicles, CO2 would become a pollutant “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. That, in turn, would compel EPA and its state-level counterparts to regulate CO2 from hundreds of thousands of stationary sources, spawning a red-tape nightmare as detrimental to the environment as to the economy.
 
Attorneys Peter Glaser and John Cline provide an eye-popping analysis of the economic and administrative burdens that would be created by extending the PSD program to CO2 in a November 8, 2007 testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
 
To read more, click here.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →