Search: feed

Gore Clobbers Farmers

by William Yeatman on August 31, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

Vice President Al Gore has not yet presented the Senate with the global-warming treaty he negotiated last December in Kyoto, Japan, but it’s a ticking time bomb for farmers in the United States and the rest of the First World.

The Kyoto treaty would require ratifying countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by 45 percent per capita by the year 2012. Such a drastic emissions reduction would probably cut First World economic output by at least 3 percent, eliminate millions of jobs and throw the affluent nations into a steep recession. (The treaty would put no constraints on the Third World.)

For farmers in the First World, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy- expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Natural gas, for example, is about 75 percent of the cost of anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer.

In addition, the treaty would mean ceilings on crop yields, to further discourage the use of fertilizer. It would mean limits on livestock production, especially cattle, to reduce the production of methane. And it would mean restrictions on food processing and transport, forcing food to be grown closer to the consumer, often at lower yields and often with more soil erosion.

Terry Francl, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, estimates that the higher cash costs for an acre of corn would cut net profit by 25 percent to 50 percent. Wheat and dairy profits would also fall by about 25 percent to 50 percent, and hog profits by 40 percent to 80 percent. Soybeans might end up being the only crop U.S. farmers could profitably grow. Because soybeans don’t take as many off-farm inputs, soybean profits would fall only about 20 percent.

The first world’s farm incomes would fall even as its food prices rose. Feed costs would increase, and bids for feeder pigs and cattle would drop. Farmland rents and land values would plummet all over the First World. Countries like Argentina and Brazil, not bound by the treaty, would expand their farm output and see their farmland prices rise.

Environmentalists would be thrilled. Modern farmers would be forced out of their tractor cabs and dragooned into low-input, low-yield farming. Meanwhile, the world’s farm-export demand would shrink. Instead of importing food, Asia would try to produce four times as much food at home. There would be no Kyoto-treaty restrictions on its farmers.

Unfortunately, expanding farm output in Asia is exactly what the environment doesn’t need. Compared with the First World, Asia has six times as many people per acre of arable land, and its farmers already use perhaps six times as much nitrogen fertilizer per acre.

The only land on which Asian farming can logically expand is currently tropical forest, home to millions of wild species. The Kyoto treaty seems wonderfully designed to trigger the massive loss in wildlife that biologists fear. In other words, Mr. Gore is volunteering his own farmers for bankruptcy and a major percentage of the world’s wildlife for destruction.

The excuse is that he’s doing it to avoid the disaster of a parboiled planet – which drives us back to the key question: Is global warming real, and how bad will it be?

The vice president has been holding press conferences all summer long at which he declaims that our temperatures in the aftermath of El Nino have been “”the highest on record.” But the records only go back 100 years, and the 19th century was the coldest in 10 centuries.

Equally important, the big computer models of global weather patterns have cut their projections of warming from about 5 degrees Celsius to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine recently circulated a petition among scientists that says: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere.” More than 15,000 scientists have signed the institute’s petition.

Signers include more than 6,000 climatologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, experts on plant life and animal life and others qualified to speak on global warming. The institute is independent and receives no funding from industry.

A competing petition circulated by Washington-based Ozone Action has gathered 2,600 signatures, and only about 250 of the signers are qualified to speak on global warming.

When global-warming activists are confronted with their lack of evidence and the weight of scientific opinion, their fallback position is: “”What if we’re right? What if catastrophic global warming is on the way, and you prevent us from stopping it?”

The mild global warming now projected by computer models that the environmentalists say we should believe would simply return us to the best weather in history. The projected warming of 2 degrees Celsius would recreate the Medieval Climate Optimum of A.D. 950-1300.

Farmers would get milder winters, fewer storms, only a slight increase in daytime summer temperatures and more carbon dioxide to fertilize crops and pastures.

The alternative laid out by the Kyoto treaty is so awful, for both people and the environment, that we should require a very high degree of proof from Mr. Gore and his global-warming activists.

Much Ado About Global Warming

by William Yeatman on August 27, 1998

in Kyoto Negotiations

Vice President Al Gore has not yet presented the Senate with the global-warming treaty he negotiated last December in Kyoto, Japan, but it’s a ticking time bomb for farmers in the United States and the rest of the First World. The Kyoto treaty would require ratifying countries to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by 45 percent per capita by the year 2012! Such a drastic emissions reduction would probably cut First World economic output by at least 3 percent, eliminate millions of jobs and throw the affluent nations into a steep recession. (The treaty would put no constraints on the Third World.)

For farmers in the First World, the Kyoto treaty could mean a 75 percent surge in energy prices, leading to radically higher prices for such energy-expensive inputs as machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Natural gas, for example, is about 75 percent of the cost of anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer. In addition, the treaty would mean ceilings on crop yields, to further discourage the use of fertilizer. It would mean limits on livestock production, especially cattle, to reduce the production of methane. And it would mean restrictions on food processing and transport, forcing food to be grown closer to the consumer, often at lower yields and often with more soil erosion.

Terry Francl, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, estimates that the higher cash costs for an acre of corn would cut net profit by 25 percent to 50 percent. Wheat and dairy profits would also fall by about 25 percent to 50 percent, and hog profits by 40 percent to 80 percent. Soybeans might end up being the only crop U.S. farmers could profitably grow. Because soybeans don’t take as many off-farm inputs, soybean profits would fall only about 20 percent.

The First World’s farm incomes would fall even as its food prices rose. Feed costs would increase, and bids for feeder pigs and cattle would drop. Farmland rents and land values would plummet all over the First World. Countries like Argentina and Brazil, not bound by the treaty, would expand their farm output and see their farmland prices rise. Environmentalists would be thrilled. Modern farmers would be forced out of their tractor cabs and dragooned into low-input, low-yield farming.

Meanwhile, the world’s farm-export demand would shrink. Instead of importing food, Asia would try to produce four times as much food at home. There would be no Kyoto-treaty restrictions on its farmers. Unfortunately, expanding farm output in Asia is exactly what the environment doesn’t need. Compared with the First World, Asia has six times as many people per acre of arable land, and its farmers already use perhaps six times as much nitrogen fertilizer per acre. The only land on which Asian farming can logically expand is currently tropical forest, home to millions of wild species.

The Kyoto Treaty seems wonderfully designed to trigger the massive loss in wildlife that biologists fear! In other words, Gore is volunteering his own farmers for bankruptcy and a major percentage of the world’s wildlife for destruction. The excuse is that he’s doing it to avoid the disaster of a parboiled planet-which drives us back to the key question: Is global warming real, and how bad will it be?

The vice president has been holding press conferences all summer long at which he declaims that our temperatures in the aftermath of El Nino have been “the highest on record.” But the records only go back 100 years, and the 19th century was the coldest in 10 centuries. Equally important, the big computer models of global weather patterns have cut their projections of warming from about 5 degrees Celsius to less than 2 degrees Celsius. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine recently circulated a petition among scientists that says: “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere.” More than 15,000 scientists have signed the institute’s petition. Signers include more than 6,000 climatologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, experts on plant life and animal life and others qualified to speak on global warming. The institute is independent and receives no funding from industry. A competing petition circulated by Washington-based Ozone Action has gathered 2,600 signatures, and only about 250 of the signers are qualified to speak on global warming.

When global-warming activists are confronted with their lack of evidence and the weight of scientific opinion, their fallback position is: “What if we’re right? What if catastrophic global warming is on the way, and you prevent us from stopping it?” The mild global warming now projected by computer models that the environmentalists say we should believe would simply return us to the best weather in history. The projected warming of 2 degrees Celsius would recreate the Medieval Climate Optimum of A.D. 950-1300. Farmers would get milder winters, fewer storms, only a slight increase in daytime summer temperatures and more carbon dioxide to fertilize crops and pastures.

The alternative laid out by the Kyoto treaty is so awful, for both people and the environment, that we should require a very high degree of proof from Gore and his global-warming activists. So far, it looks as though the Kyoto treaty would cause economic recession, rural disaster and widespread wildland destruction-while trying to prevent what would be better weather!

DENNIS T. AVERY, who is based in Churchville, Va., is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. His views are not necessarily those of Bridge News.

Satellite Data Still Robust Despite Challenge; El Nios Role in Texas Heat Wave Confirmed; More Evidence of Rapid Natural Warming

by William Yeatman on August 22, 1998

in Science

Satellite Data Still Robust Despite Challenge

A paper claiming to have detected an error in the satellite temperature data has caused quite an uproar. The press has jumped all over the story proclaiming that the main pillar of the skeptics argument has now fallen and it is time to move on with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. AAP Newsfeeds headline proclaimed, “New Evidence to Silence Global Warming Doubters,” and the Washington Post headline blared, “Global Warming Assertions Enhanced; Study Cites Flaw in Data Collection That Undermines Position of Skeptics.”

The authors of the paper, physicists Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, claim to have discovered that the satellite global temperature data is distorted by a loss of altitude known as orbital decay (Nature, August 13, 1998). This changes one of the angles from which the satellites measure the microwaves used to determine the Earths temperature. According to Wentz and Schabel, taking this error into account changes the temperature trend from 1979 to 1995 from a cooling of 0.05 degrees C to a warming of 0.07 degrees C.

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA, who compile and publish the satellite data, agree that orbital decay must be accounted for. When they take the effect into account, however, they still find a cooling of 0.01 degrees C. The difference between the two findings gets to the crux of the matter. Apparently, Mr. Wentz and Mr. Schabel used data that had already taken most of the effect into account.

Spencer and Christy, in order to insure accuracy, check the measurements of satellites against one another. According to The Economist (August 15, 1997), “calibrating one satellite against another allows all sort of errors to be compensated for, whether they are known or not.” Wentz and Schabels conclusions result from double-correcting the same effect.

El Nios Role in Texas Heat Wave Confirmed

Despite Vice President Al Gores claims that the heat wave in the southern United States is proof of global warming, level headed scientists are blaming the phenomenon on El Nio. A new study published by the National Weather Service (NWS) says that even though it has weakened considerably El Nio is still to blame for the high temperatures in the Southwest. It will probably persist for another month.

“Were expecting this warm water to peter out in the next 3 to 6 weeks,” says Anthony Barnston, a forecaster with the NWS. El Nio will be replaced by La Nia which could mean even more dryness for the southern U.S. “If we dont get more normal precipitation in the late summer and early fall, were looking at a very large [drought],” says Barnston (Science, July 31, 1998). The study is available at nic.fb4.noaa. gov/index.html.

Hurricanes in Decline

Several studies have discredited the claim that a warmer planet will lead to an increase in hurricane activity. Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, found in a study published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that Atlantic hurricane activity has declined. Other studies have found similar results.

A new study by Mark C. Bove, David F. Zierden and J. OBrien at Florida States Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, looked at hurricane records of the Gulf of Mexico extending back to 1896, and found that the number of hurricanes have declined in recent years. The data show a peak in the 1916-1925 period of 14 storms, 6 of which were severe. The 1986-1995 experienced only 8 storms, 1 of which was severe, equaling the study periods previous low set in 1896-1905.

Its not clear why the decline is happening, says Mark Bove. One explanation is that there appears to be a 30-year cycle of hurricane activity that has been detected by William Gray, a hurricane expert at Colorado State University. But the cause of the 30-year cycle is also unclear (Associated Press, July 22, 1998).

More Evidence of Rapid Natural Warming

While a lot of ink is being spilt on the possibility of manmade global warming, researchers are finding more and more evidence that the earth has undergone profound, natural climate variations over short periods of time. The latest research, published in Science (August 14, 1998), has found that there was a significant warming about 2,000 years ago in equatorial Africa. The evidence shows that lake water during this period warmed by about 8 degrees F. Other research has also found a similar warming in Alaska and Lapland during the same era, but the new findings are “important because it was conducted around the equator, a region that plays a crucial role in determining the climate system throughout the planet.”

“Our findings show that the climate can warm up suddenly without any connection to human activity,” says lead researcher Aldo Shemesh of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Though the factors that triggered the warming are unknown, Shemesh believes that they “could allow scientists to distinguish between natural climate variability and warming due to manmade factors” (Greenwire, August 17, 1998).

Here We Go Again – Satellite Measurements Fail to Show an Increase in Global Average Temperatures

by William Yeatman on August 19, 1998

in Science

A rather trivial bit of scientific research has gotten blown up into an end of the world scenario. A Washington Post headline blared, “Global Warming Assertions Enhanced; Study Cites Flaw in Data Collection That Undermines Position of Skeptics” and an AAP Newsfeed headline proclaimed, “New Evidence to Silence Global Warming Doubters.”

The articles refer to a new study that appeared in the August 13th issue of Nature that claims to have found an error in the global temperature data measured from satellites. The satellite measurements, taken since 1979, fail to show an increase in global average temperatures contrary to global warming predictions. This has been a thorn in the side of those who wrongly declare that the science is settled.

Drs. Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel, from the company Remote Systems Sensing in Santa Rosa, California, claim to have found an error in the satellite data that is caused by orbital decay. When the error is taken into account the data show a slight warming trend instead of a cooling trend.

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA, who compile and publish the satellite data, agree with the study in principle. They argue, however, that there are other countervailing effects that create a false warming which cancels the effect discovered by Wentz and Schabel.

Drs. Wentz and Schabel also erred in modifying the adjusted data (which has already taken into account many confounding variables). According to John Christy, applying the orbital decay finding to the raw data fails to produce a warming trend.

It is a shame that the press insists on inflating a perfectly good piece of research to support their preconceived notions.

UN Readies “Buenos Aires Mandate”; Ashcroft Bill to Block Kyoto Implementation Without Ratification; Clinton Kicks Off Efficienc

by William Yeatman on May 12, 1998

in Politics

UN Readies “Buenos Aires Mandate”

The UN Conference on Trade and Development has developed recommendations for the proposed Buenos Aires Mandate to be completed at the November 1998 climate treaty Conference of the Parties. The UNCTAD plan would provide for voluntary developing country participation in a global emissions trading scheme. The proposals were released at a London forum co-sponsored by the UN Environment Program and the Earth Council, an NGO directed by environmental power broker Maurice Strong.

Among UNCTADs proposals: 

  • Limit developing country emissions growth, but impose no emissions cuts 

  • Allow developing countries to choose different base years  

  • Consider regional groupings of developing countries as one emissions unit, like the “EU bubble” 

(BNA Daily Environment Report, May 7, 1998)

Ashcroft Bill to Block Kyoto Implementation Without Ratification

On April 30, U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) introduced a bill to prevent the Clinton Administration from implementing the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification. The bill, S. 2019, reads in part, “Federal funds shall not be used for rules, regulations, or programs designed to implement, or in contemplation of implementing, the Kyoto Protocol . . . unless or until the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification.” Sen. Ashcrofts bill also states that “no Federal agency shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide.” According to Sen. Ashcroft, “This legislation will protect the American economy, our jobs and incomes, and it will uphold important constitutional values. Having given away far too much to get a bad agreement in Kyoto, the Administration is seeking to put salt into this wound by sneaking the Kyoto terms past the Senate and the public.”

Several groups responded to the proposed legislation. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out that the Clinton administration has committed to take unilateral steps to cut emissions independently of a climate treaty. One of the ways that the Administration is surreptitiously implementing the treaty is through “Post Kyoto” conferences for State and local environmental agency officials and air quality regulators that took place in January and April. “Through such networking exercises, the Administration is recruiting pro-Kyoto lobbyists in bureaucratic power centers immune from Senate oversight,” Lewis remarked at the press conference where Sen. Ashcroft released his bill.

The American Farm Bureau Federation also strongly supports the bill. “The Kyoto Protocol is a bad deal for American farmers,” said Minnesota Farm Bureau President Al Christopherson. “It will dramatically increase production costs and reduce net farm income.” Phil Clapp, president of the National Environment Trust, was less complimentary. “New technology and energy savings can only benefit our economy,” Clapp told reporters. Preventing energy efficiency programs “would fly in the face of common sense and prudent government policy,” he said (BNA Daily Environment Report, May 1, 1998).

Clinton Kicks Off Efficiency Crusade

On May 4, President Bill Clinton called for an “American crusade” to stop global warming as he officially kicked off the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH). Joined by actor-environmentalist Ed Begley, Jr. and National Association of Home Builders president Don Martin, Clinton outlined a new program to cut energy use in new homes by 50 percent over the next ten years. It would fund improvements in 15 million existing homes and cut energy costs by 30 percent. “If we achieve that goal, it means by the year 2010 well save consumers $11 billion a year in energy costs, the President said. The PATH project is intended to utilize energy-saving technologies and home designs that would reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and energy costs.

The National Association of Homebuilders endorsed PATH, which has already dedicated $70 million in subsidies for the homebuilder industry to encourage research and testing of energy-saving technologies. Clinton has asked that another $100 million for the program for next year as part of the $6.3 billion tax credit and spending plan that will face opposition in Congress (Washington Post, May 5, 1998).

President Clinton used the event, which took place in storm-wracked California, to warn about the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming. “If you liked El Nino for the last several months, you will love the 21st century if we keep on the path we’re on,” he said. For one of the first times, however, the President acknowledged scientific doubt about climate change. “There is virtually unanimous not complete, but virtually unanimous opinion among scientists that the globe is warming at an unacceptably rapid rate.” The President also claimed that “We know that if the climate, in fact, continues to heat up, through the excessive emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we will have more extreme, dramatic weather events such as those youve experienced so frequently in California in the last few years.”

More on Petition Project Controversy

 In our last issue we reported on the Petition Project, which has garnered the signatures of more than 17,000 scientists opposing the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and critical news reports on the petition drive. Since then more information has come to light. Writing in Access to Energy (April 1998), Arthur Robinson, President of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which sponsored the petition, says that of the thousands of petitions returned only 1.4 percent were negative responses. Ninety percent of the negative responses “consisted solely of profanity scrawled across the petition card, usually with the name of the writer removed,” Robinson wrote.

Environmentalists have attacked the review article that accompanied the petition because it is not peer-reviewed. As Robinson points out, however, “review articles are often not peer reviewed at all, since they do not contain original research and do contain complete references to the peer-reviewed literature for all of their data.” Moreover, states Robinson, “the 8-page review was written . . . to communicate the fully referenced facts on both sides of this issue to scientists, so that they could easily locate the information needed to reach their own objective conclusions.” Nothing in the petition mailing indicated that the article had been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal.

Robinson also responded to one of his more ardent critics, University of Chicago atmospheric chemist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who is quoted in various news accounts. Pierrehumbert is a prolific contributor to Internet newsgroups where he pontificates on a wide range of subjects, Robinson reported. Based on these postings, Pierrehumbert opposes sports utility vehicles, currently installed refrigeration, incandescent lights, short and medium-distance air travel, nuclear power, strategic defense, logging, private gun ownership, and fuel-bearing transport. Pierrehumbert once wrote: “On balance the U.S. doesn’t produce ANY of the world’s goods. We are a net importer of other peoples goods . . . Therefore, I propose that a large fraction of China’s CO2 emissions should be attributed to the U.S., in the Kyoto discussions. Japan’s too.” A member of the Union of Concerned Scientists “Sound Science Initiative,” Pierrehumbert has argued that cold water evaporates faster than warm water.

Mercury Rising

In what some now view as a never-ending quest to destroy the coal industry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is once again considering regulating mercury from coal-fired power plants. In mid-April the EPA proposed that all coal-fired power plants measure and report mercury levels on a weekly basis. Some utilities will be required to measure the amount and type of mercury emitted from each smokestack and report on a quarterly basis. Since regulators need statistics to control an activity, this is the first step towards regulation. The most effective way to reduce mercury emissions is to switch from coal to gas. Thus many fear that this is the beginning of the end for the coal industry (The Electricity Daily, April 27, 1998).

Thirty One Nations Ink Kyoto Pact

Representing 38.5 percent of global emissions, the following countries have signed, but not necessarily ratified, the Kyoto Protocol. For the treaty to enter into force, Annex I countries accounting for at least 55 percent of 1990 CO2 emissions must ratify. (Global Climate Coalition)

Antigua Argentina

Australia

 Barbuda
Austria Britain
Belgium Denmark
Canada France
Finland Greece
Germany Italy
Grenadines Luxembourg
Japan Marshall Islands
Maldives Monaco
Micronesia Norway
Netherlands Saint Lucia
Portugal Samoa
Saint Vincent Spain
Seychelles Switzerland

Sweden

 

  
Dont Bite the Hand That Feeds You

Environmental lobby groups are quick to criticize the private sector for investing in “dirty” industries such as oil refining, coal mining, and auto manufacturing. The same level of scrutiny is not applied to the philanthropic foundations that provide tens of millions of dollars every year to support the environmental lobby, according to independent newsletter The Climate Change Report. Charitable grant-makers such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, and the W. Alton Jones Foundation invest heavily in some of the very industries the Green lobby is out to destroy. Their portfolio includes numerous emitters of greenhouse gases, including corporations represented in the Global Climate Coalition.

Pew donated almost $4 million for global warming advocacy last year, yet it also earned $250,000 from $6.6 million in energy-related investments the previous year in companies such as Atlantic Richfield, Phillips Petroleum, Texaco, and Unocal. Pew invested over $1.5 million in auto companies Chrysler and Ford, and $6.7 million in electric utilities.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the sixth largest contributor to environmental causes nationally, profits from investments in the Big Three auto manufacturers plus Exxon, Alcan Aluminum, and Imperial Oil. Likewise W. Alton Jones, which supports Environmental Defense Fund and Ozone Action, invested substantially in Atlantic Richfield and Mobil.

National Environmental Trusts Philip Clapp urged that attention not be focused on his benefactors: “The real issue is what the oil industry is doing.” Ironically, the bull market in blue chip stocks is helping to finance the Green campaign against energy use (The Climate Change Report, April 29, 1998).

The Good Side of El Nio; More Disease or Total Baloney; Climate as a Pedulum

by William Yeatman on May 5, 1998

in Science

The Good Side of El Nio

El Nio has been blamed for just about every negative weather occurrence this year. But it also has many beneficial side effects. “For the most part,” says Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “El Nio is a good guy. But we have seen the bad side.”

According to climate experts, every adverse event caused by El Nio brings benefits to another part of the world. Kenyan farmers who produce the araciba coffee bean, for example, have been devastated by heavy rains while Brazilian coffee growers are benefitting from the El Nio induced dry weather. On the other hand, Kenyan growers of macadamia nuts will benefit from a shortage that results from a drought in Hawaii, the worlds leading grower. Meanwhile, Indonesia and Singapores tourist industry is suffering from severe smog conditions that are caused by forest fires exacerbated by drought and Australian vintners are experiencing record harvest of high-quality grapes, all thanks to El Nio (AAP Newsfeed, April 20, 1998).

Patrick Michaels, a climatologist with the University of Virginia, argues that the warmer weather experienced in the U.S. saved energy consumers $5 billion in home heating costs. El Nio also suppressed hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean saving as much as $1.25 billion in storm damage costs. Michaels estimates that El Nios total benefits may be as high as $15 billion. Compare this to the $700 million in weather related losses in California and $100 million in tornado related losses in Florida and El Nio doesnt look so bad (State of the Climate Report, 1998).

More Disease or Total Baloney

Paul Reiter is the chief of the entomology section for the Centers of Disease Control’s Dengue Branch and a foremost expert in the field of vector-borne disease. He was recently interviewed for the State of the Climate Report (1998). Here is an excerpt from that interview.

SOC: People are going around glibly stating that dengue fever is spreading because of global warming. What evidence are they citing for their argument?

Reiter: Truly, I challenge you to find anyone who knows anything about dengue who doesn’t laugh at this supposition. There is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. The resurgence is quite clearly the result of the resurgence of the vector, the movement of people all over the world, the breakdown of public health services, and the increased urbanization of the tropics.

SOC: A few months ago, Science magazine noted many epidemiologists were complaining that global warming was being blamed for this, though it isn’t the cause. What implications does this have?

Reiter: I ran a symposium of the [2,500 to 3,000 member] American Society of Tropical Medicine, and there was virtually no dissent to the position that this whole business is total baloney. The only dissent I heard were people who came to me afterwards and suggested I might be hurting other people’s grant money.

Climate as a Pedulum

Deep ocean floor sentiments recovered over a two month period in 1995 reveals that the last 1.5 million years has experienced sharp climate changes over short periods of times. Massachusetts Insitute of Technology researcher Maureen Raymo says that if one of the swings experience in the past were to occur today, New England would experience weather like Florida for a 25 year period.

“Ten years ago, we had no idea that climate could change this quickly,” says Raymo. Temperature swings of as much as 10 degrees C within a few decades are not restricted to glacial periods of the last 800,000 years but go back much further in time. The researchers involved in the project state in their April 16 article in Nature that “Our results suggest that much of millennial-scale climate instability may be a pervasive and long-term characteristic of Earths climate rather than just a feature of the strong glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 800,000 years.” Raymo admits that “What causes climate variations on this time scale is a black box for scientists right now” (Electricity Daily, April 21, 1998).

Announcements

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has produced a book and a highlights video based on The Costs of Kyoto conference held in July 1997. Both the book and the video are available for $15 or buy both for $25. To order call CEI at (202) 331-1010, or e-mail to info@cei.org.

Thomas Gale Moore, a member of the Competitive Enterprise Institutes board of directors, has written a book, Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming published by Cato Institute. Ordering details will be forthcoming at Catos website at www.cato.org

The Institute of Economic Affairs in London has published a book, Climate Change: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom. The book can be ordered by contacting IEA by e-mail at books@iea.org.uk.

The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) has recently published Global Warming: The Continuing Debate. It can be ordered for $25 from CEI or by contacting ESEF at lorraine@esef.org.

Supertrees; CO2 Eating Algae

by William Yeatman on April 15, 1998

in Science

Supertrees

Scientists at Japans Toyota Motor Corp. have reported that through genetic engineering they enhanced the ability of trees to absorb vehicle emissions. It takes 20 regular trees to absorb the annual emissions of one car, but Toyotas scientists say they can improve this performance by 30 percent. They have already created trees that absorb nitrous oxides by doubling the number of chromosomes in experimental trees widening air inlets on stems and leaves.

Some environmentalists, however, are not pleased. “If we want to reduce [nitrous oxide], we should reduce our automobile production and set lower emission standards,” says Yuichi Sato, deputy director of research at Japans Forestry Agency (Business Week, March 30, 1998).

CO2 Eating Algae

Yoshihisa Nakano, a professor of nutrition chemistry at Osaka Prefecture University says that manmade carbon dioxide could be used to breed a single-cell algae called euglena. Euglena, which is used to feed cultivated fish, increases survival ratios among stocks. Nakano also believes that the algae could be used to feed domestic livestock and maybe even humans.

Nakano discovered that the algae reproduces most rapidly in air containing 15-20 percent carbon dioxide and his studies indicate that one-hectare tank of the cultivated algae would absorb about 410 tons of carbon dioxide (The Daily Yomiuri, March 31, 1998).

Leading Climate Change Myths; Clouds and Climate Change; Ancient Climate Change

by William Yeatman on March 12, 1998

in Science

Leading Climate Change Myths

John Christy, as a key contributor to the 1995 IPCC report, “participated with the lead authors in the first and the final drafting sessions, and in the detailed review of the scientific text.” He writes in the Montgomery Advertiser (February 22, 1998) that much of what passes for common knowledge in the press regarding climate change is either “inaccurate, incomplete or viewed out of context.”

Many of the misconceptions about climate change, Christy contends, originate from the six-page executive summary, the “Summary for Policymakers (SP).” It is the most widely read and quoted of the three documents published by the IPCCs Working Group I, but had the “least input from scientists and the greatest input from non-scientists.”

The “true believers,” as Christy calls them, rests their entire case on one sentence from the SP; “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.” Christy is quick to point out that “2,500 IPCC scientists did not write, sign or otherwise endorse the Summary for Policymakers” nor the one sentence statement.

Other statements in the SP are equally disturbing. It states, “. . . the 20th Century global mean temperature is at least as warm as any other century since at least 1400 A.D.” This statement, argues Christy, is not meaningful. The temperature of the Earths atmosphere has warmed in the last 150 years but the Earths atmosphere is cooler now than it was 1,000, 5,000, or 10 million years ago. Warming over the last 150 years occurred because the planet has been emerging from the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1400 to 1850.

Christy says that the line was lifted, out of context, from the scientific text to make it look like the global warming of the last century is due to human factors while ignoring the fact that the warm weather 1,000 years ago could not have been manmade.

So what does the report really say? Essentially this: we know that climate has always changed naturally. But, “We cant actually measure human impact on the climate, however, because we dont know enough about how or why the climate changes naturally.”

Sun, Sun, Sun, Sun, Sunshiny Day

A new study published by Switzerlands Federal Institute of Technology corroborates recent studies that find that variations in the suns brightness contributes significantly to climate change. The institute pointed out in a statement that “Very small variations in the suns brightness are sufficient to cause noticeable changes in climate.”

The study reconstructed the suns brightness since 1874 and adjusted the measurements to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The Swiss astronomers, Sami Solanki and Marcel Fligge, who did the study also found that the earth has warmed up faster in the last 20 years than would be expected from such variations which they attribute to “other sources” (AAP Newsfeed, February 23, 1998).

Clouds and Climate Change

One of the unresolved issues in climate change research is how aerosols affect the nucleation (a process which concentrates the available water in a small number of large ice crystals) off different types of clouds. Aerosol particles act as “cloud condensation nuclei” which increase the reflectivity of cloud-tops.

According to Nature (February 26, 1998), “cirrus clouds ice-particle clouds that lie between a few thousand meters up and the tropopause, at 10 to 20 km exert an overall heating effect, because their reflectivity at solar wavelengths is low, and they absorb more rising infrared radiation than they emit to space from their very cold cloud tops.”

Recent studies have suggested that cirrus clouds can evolve from jet contrails, which consist of soot and sulphuric acid particles. Because of the altitude of aircraft emissions the affect can be comparable to natural and athropogenic sources.

One of the implications of these findings is that if jet contrails are indeed partially responsible for warming then this must be taken into account when determining the temperature affects of CO2 emissions. “How changes,” concludes Nature, “in tropospheric aerosol concentration, including aircraft emissions, will affect all types of cloud is a vital question in assessing the overall climatic impact of anthropogenic emissions,” Nature concludes.

Ancient Climate Change

Climate scientists have searched into the far past, using ice core and deep ocean setiment samples, to compile climate records that contain clues about climate change. Until now, however, records of interglacial periods (as we are experiencing now) were scarce.

Now researchers have now been able to complete a detailed record that extends nearly 2 million years into the past. The results and analysis of this record is reported in a recent article in Science (February 27, 1998).

The record shows that temperature variations are far greater during glacial periods (ice ages) than during interglacial periods. North Atlantic sea temperatures, for example, varied by as much as 3 to 4.5 degrees C during glacial periods 450,000 and 350,000 years ago, while they only varied by about 0.5 to 1 degree C during the interglacial period which fell in between.

Another finding is that “the record shows that climate varies on regular cycles lasting form 1,200 to 6,000 years, in glacial and interglacial periods alike.” “Whatever the cause of the climatic gyrations,” says Science, “the records suggest that the worst climate swing likely in the present interglacial is another Little Ice Age.”

The article concludes, “a push toward warmth during an already-warm interglacial might boost climate shifts to devastating proportions. Then again, because past climate swings have been smaller in warm periods, continued global warming might dampen them even further.”

Gore Lore; IPCC, Developing Nations Must Cut Emissions; China and Others Support Australia

by William Yeatman on October 5, 1997

in Politics

Gore Lore

Al Gore recently visited Glacier National Park in Montana to heighten fears about global warming. He warned that global warming is causing the glaciers to retreat, threatening Montana’s tourism industry. There’s just one problem, according to the National Climatic Data Center of the U.S. Department of Commerce, there has been no warming trend in Montana over the past century.

A 1989 article published in Science showed that more that 70 percent of mountain glaciers in the U.S., Soviet Union, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria and Italy were retreating while 55 percent of the same glaciers were advancing. According to Keith Echelmeyer of the University of Alaska’s Geophysical Institute, “To make a case that glaciers are retreating, and that the problem is global warming, is very hard to do. The physics are very complex. There is much more involved than just the climate response” (The Electricity Daily, September 9, 1997).

IPCC, Developing Nations Must Cut Emissions

A draft of a final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that if global climate change is to be averted, developing nations must reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Even a large reduction of CO2 emissions would not prevent global warming or the rising sea levels that would result. According to the report, “Even under the strictest emission cut proposal [a 2 percent yearly reduction of CO2 emissions beginning in the year 2000], however, the sea level is projected to rise by more than 40 centimeters by 2100 from the current level and the global-mean temperature is expected to increase by 1.5 C or more . . .” (Japan Economic Newswire, September 4, 1997).

The Financial Times of London (September 17, 1997) reported that the U.S. “issued a stern warning that developing countries must this year join the industrialized world in agreeing to reduce greenhouse gases associated with climate change.” U.S. Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth is quoted as saying, “If you get brutally realistic about climate change, the countries that are richer are for the most part less vulnerable to climate change . . . . Many developing countries are fast realizing it [greenhouse gas emissions reductions] is in their own self-interest.”

China and Others Support Australia

The Australian federal government has reported that China, Italy and Spain have come out in support of Australia’s position of differentiated greenhouse gas emission targets. Acting Prime Minister Tim Fischer said, “I happily enough was able to persuade, in a few seconds flat, China to be very supportive of our position. [China’s chief economic minister] Zhu Rongji found himself much attracted to our realistic, achievable targets process. Interlocutors in Italy and Spain likewise – as long as they’re a safe distance from Brussels – were also very much in support of achievable, realistic, differentiated targets rather than the Brussels connotation” (AAP Newsfeed, September 17, 1997).

Other International News

Japan, according to the Ahashi News Service (September 5, 1997), will likely propose a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of approximately 5 percent lower than 1990 levels at the UN conference it is hosting in Kyoto. There will be at least three distinct negotiating positions for Kyoto: Japan’s; the European Union’s call for a 15 percent reduction from 1990 levels; and Australia’s support of differentiated targets based on each country’s marginal abatement costs. The U.S. has not yet made a formal proposal, but it will probably fall somewhere between Japan and the EU with a tradable emission scheme to implement the proposed reductions. With such wide disagreement the parties may have to postpone signing a binding treaty for the future.

Canada’s Natural Resources Minister, Ralph Goodale, has said that Canada will not promise big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions at the summit in Kyoto. Pointing to the world’s inability to reach the voluntary targets set in 1992, Goodale said, “That would be a very frustrating outcome for the world at large, to go through a process that doesn’t bring the results people want” (The Energy Daily, September 8, 1997).

Also in Canada, Environment Minister, Christine Stewart, is going to launch an education campaign to warn Canadians of the approaching danger of global warming. The campaign will be built upon six Environment Canada reports which purport to show the effects of climate change on each region of the country (Calgary Herald, September 6, 1997).

Australia’s Labor Party environment spokesman, Duncan Kerr, affirmed the government’s stance to not accept unfair emission reduction targets at the climate talks in Kyoto. While he did not endorse the government’s differentiation model, he did assert that Australia must seek accommodation for its dependence on mineral exports and fossil fuels. “We should work to ensure that any emerging global consensus is sensitive to the particular unique circumstances we possess,” he said (AAP Newsfeed, September 5, 1997).

“Slouching Towards Kyoto” from Down Under; Australia Courts Japan, Attacks Germany; Scientists Feel Political Pressure

by William Yeatman on September 2, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

“Slouching Towards Kyoto” from Down Under

The two most influential lawmakers in Congress on climate change issues traveled half way around the world to the capital of Australia to assail the climate treaty being readied for Kyoto.

“Let me make it very clear,” stated Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), “I believe we are headed down the wrong path in the negotiations for any global climate treaty to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, this December.” Hagel is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on International Economic Policy, which has jurisdiction over international environmental treaties that come to the chamber for ratification. “In its current form, the global climate treaty would face a resounding defeat in the United States Senate” he told his audience, a conference entitled “Countdown to Kyoto,” sponsored by the Australian APEC Study Center and the Arlington, Virginia-based Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, assured the conference that Republicans are not alone in their misgivings: “We may be slouching towards Kyoto with only the barest appreciation of what we are doing and how it will affect us.”

The Canberra conference was attended by prominent Australian officials, who are watching closely both the White House negotiating stance and the Senates reaction to it. Australia, a major coal exporter, also depends on fossil fuels for 94 percent of its energy supplies. The Australian government has already expressed staunch opposition to the European Unions proposal for binding emissions targets. In his address to the conference, Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer stated that “we are going to need some growth in our emissions above 1990 levels.”

Greenpeace led a protest against the conference in which 20 demonstrators were arrested. The activists are hoping to salvage a treaty which, in Sen. Hagels judgment, “has the potential of bringing under direct international control virtually every aspect of a nations economy.”

Australia Courts Japan, Attacks Germany; Germany and Japan Get Together

Australias federal government has asked Japan to join them in opposing binding greenhouse gas emission limits. Australia is supporting a policy of differentiation where each country would agree to voluntary limits based on its marginal cost of abatement. Australias Primary Industries Minister, John Anderson, argues that “Our economic analysis shows that it is in both Australia and Japans interests to stand firm against global pressure and oppose binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in Kyoto.”

Anderson argues that Australia is well positioned to meet Japans future massive increases in energy demand: “Over the next decade, Australia should emerge as easily the biggest supplier of primary energy to Japan. . . . We must be able to convince Japan that we can, and will, remain a reliable, competitive and secure supplier” (AAP Newsfeed, August 27, 1997).

Meanwhile, Australias Foreign Minister Alexander Downer accused Germany of pushing an international campaign to isolate Australia: “Its unfair for people from Germany to ask Australia to sacrifice more jobs and more living standards than they themselves are prepared to sacrifice,” Downer said. “The European Union is asking us to make a grossly unfair contribution. . .we completely reject that.”

Downer argues that setting binding greenhouse gas limits on industrial countries will cause energy intensive industries to move to the developing world. “What people in Germany dont seem to have grasped is that if you close down energy industries in environmentally sensitive Australia they will move abroad to countries less sensitive” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, August 29, 1997).

Germany and Japan, however, have signed an agreement on environmental cooperation. The two countries agreed to exchange personnel and information and hold seminars to discuss greenhouse gas abatement strategies, prevention of ozone destruction and conserving endangered species. They will also set up a joint committee which will meet once a year (AP Worldstream, August 26, 1997).

Scientists Feel Political Pressure

An article in the Financial Times (London, August 28, 1997) begins, “Leading scientists are expected to respond today to pressure from politicians to clarify the threat of climate change to specific parts of the world.” Roger Newsom, head of climate modelling for the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), stated, “Theres a lot of pressure,” on the scientists to “clarify and specify what action must be taken so we can . . . give better answers on mans effect on climate.”

The U.S. Senate has opposed a treaty that would cause economic harm to the U.S. especially when the scientific evidence for climate change is so sparse. Michael Grubb, a member of the IPCC, urged politicians to “grow up and understand that we are dealing with uncertainty. . . Nobody in their right mind thinks uncertainty means do nothing.”

In a statement at the end of the meeting the WCRP called for more political support to further its future work on global warming. G.O. Obasi, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said, “I believe the time has come for all nations to heed the advice of the scientific community and to allocate more resources to global monitoring, research, and the important activities being provided by the national meteorological and hydrological services. It is a small investment to make to ensure the future safety and well-being of our planet” (BNA Daily Environment Report, September 2, 1997). Is it any surprise that when politicians ask scientists what must be done about global warming, their answer is give us more money?

Senators to Track Developments in Kyoto

Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has appointed twelve senators to monitor the upcoming talks in Kyoto, Japan in December. Named to the Global Climate Change Observer Group are Sens. Spence Abraham (R-Mich), Max Baucus (D-Mont), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Byrd (D-WVa), John Chafee (R-RI), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Kerry (D-Mass), Carl Levin (D-Mich), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan). The senators will report periodically to Sen. Lott on the negotiations (BNA Daily Environment Report, August 29, 1997).

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →