Archive for May, 2009
Programming note
I’ll be away for about a month. Until then no posts, no comments, no comment moderation. I’m going to Idaho to run the Selway, Middle Fork Salmon, and Salmon rivers, about 400 miles of pristine rivers, lots of whitewater. Too bad I’ll be away, these are very interesting times.
-
Insanity — Democrats set to ration and tax energy, choke economy
“House Democratic leaders are scaling back plans to curb global warming [the planet's been cooling for a decade] and make the transition to cleaner energy in the hopes that they can get a bill passed this year.Waxman said Tuesday that the Democrats on the committee had agreed to give 35 percent of the allowances away for free to local electricity distribution companies to help ease costs. Allowances will also be doled out to auto manufacturers to help them develop cleaner cars.” …
[T]hey have lowered targets for renewable energy, will require a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming, and will give away valuable permits to release pollution to electricity distribution companies and auto manufacturers. “We have resolved a good number of the issues,” said Waxman, who chairs the panel and has set a Memorial Day deadline for it to clear the committee. “I believe we will have the votes for passage of this bill next week.” … Initially, the bill called for electricity producers to generate 25 percent of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2025. That target has been lowered to 15 percent by 2020, with as much as 5 percent coming from improvements in energy efficiency. The deal also makes more modest cuts in greenhouse gases. The draft unveiled in March called for a 20 percent reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming. The version that will be unveiled later this week will call for a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. …
-
America the clueless
“The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation being considered in Congress.
Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea.” “Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is” h/t CCNet May 12
Spencer’s simple model for atmospheric CO2 increase: 90% natural
“I decided to run a simple model in which the change in atmospheric CO2 with time is a function of sea surface temperature anomaly. The model equation looks like this:
delta[CO2]/delta[t] = a*SST + b*Anthro
Which simply says that the change in atmospheric CO2 with time is proportional to some combination of the SST anomaly and the anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 source. I then ran the model in an Excel spreadsheet and adjusted an “a” and “b” coefficients until the model response looked like the observed record of yearly CO2 accumulation rate at Mauna Loa.
It didn’t take long to find a model that did a pretty good job (a = 4.6 ppm/yr per deg. C; b=0.1), as the … graph shows.
The best fit (shown) assumed only 10% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human emissions (b=0.1), while the other 90% is simple due to changes in sea surface temperature. The peak correlation between the modeled and observed CO2 fluctuation is now at zero month time lag, supporting the model’s realism. The model explained 50% of the variance of the Mauna Loa observations.
The best model fit assumes that the temperature anomaly at which the ocean switches between a sink and a source of CO2 for the atmosphere is -0.2 deg. C, indicated by the bold line in the SST graph, seen in the second graph in this article. In the context of longer-term changes, it would mean that the ocean became a net source of more atmospheric CO2 around 1930.” “Global warming causing carbon dioxide increases: a simple model“
Whitehouse memo undermines EPA
“WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide “is likely to have serious economic consequences” for businesses small and large across the economy, a White House memo warned the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.
The nine-page document also undermines the EPA’s reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a trigger for new rules. …
The memo – marked as “Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege” – doesn’t have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed it was prepared by Obama administration staff as part of the inter-agency review process of the proposed endangerment finding. …
The position outlined in the memo is at odds with other White House documents on the proposed endangerment rule, which appear to affirm the EPA’s decision to move ahead with the endangerment finding.
“Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities,” the OMB document reads.
“The finding should also acknowledge the EPA has not undertaken a systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis,” it reads.
The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s environment and regulatory affairs, William Kovacs, said the memo “confirms almost everything we’ve been saying on the spillover effects of regulating greenhouse gases.” He said the OMB legal brief exposes the administration and the EPA to litigation if it finalizes the endangerment finding and begins to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, particularly because it was drafted during the deliberation process. …
The White House legal brief starts by questioning the link between the EPA’s scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA’s political summary. Jackson said in the endangerment summary that “scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified…”
“The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty,” the memo reads.
For example, the memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are “not well determined” and “not well understood.”
The OMB memo questions with concern the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is “no demonstrated direct health effects,” and the scientific data on which the agency relies are “almost exclusively from non-EPA sources.”
Based on the “dramatically expanded precautionary principle,” the EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other alleged “pollutants,” including electro-magnetic fields, noise, and salts called percholorates.
The memo also warns that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.” “OMB Memo: Serious Economic Impact Likely From EPA CO2 Rules” h/t Climate Depot
"Yellow light on green jobs"
“
Please see the linked new report and materials from U.S. Senate Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee Ranking Member Senator Kit Bond entitled “Yellow Light on Green Jobs.” The report, based on a review of materials overwhelmingly from green jobs, environmental and labor advocates as well as progressive policy groups, finds that green jobs require expensive taxpayer subsidies to create, pay low wages, and kill existing jobs to pay for creating new green jobs. This is in large part because green jobs advocates seek to fund their multi-billion U.S. dollar proposals through energy tax raising and job killing global warming legislation. The report’s lessons for policymakers include: do not kill existing jobs to create green jobs, avoid expensive green jobs taxpayer subsidies, and promote only those green jobs that make economic sense.” h/t CCNet May 11
http://bond.senate.gov/public/_files/BondGreenJobsReport.pdf
-
Is Cap-and-Tax-and-Redistribute dead?
“Democratic dissention, Republican opposition and growing public skepticism may derail Congress’ potentially economy-crippling carbon cap-and-trade bill, perhaps saving Americans billions [TRILLIONS] of dollars.
The bill’s author, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, is opposed by centrist Democrats, who fear the Draconian regulations would severely harm their constituents. Congress members representing the steel industry and coal and nuclear power generators oppose the 648-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, authored by Rep. Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.
Meanwhile, Republicans cite studies showing the bill would increase a typical family’s energy prices at least $3,100 a year, and over 20 years result in 7 million lost jobs and $7 trillion in reduced economic output. Republicans say the legislation is essentially a “tax bill,” and plan alternative legislation to create incentives for “clean” coal and more nuclear energy. …
Growing skepticism over the approach – and even the need – to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions isn’t limited to Capitol Hill. An artificial market in government-mandated carbon credits would be “monstrously stupid to do right now,” Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Charlie Munger told CNBC, adding that the move is “almost demented” considering other nations’ intention to continue industrial development, emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases.
Public sentiment is at a new low, too, says pollster Zogby International. Only 30 percent of Americans support cap-and-trade, and 57 percent oppose it. A Pew Research poll of voter priorities ranked global warming dead last behind the economy and 18 other areas. …
In addition, a recent study by the National Center for Climate Research shows that if fully implemented, the Waxman-Markey bill would produce global temperature “savings” of only 0.05 degree centigrade over 50 years [calculated assuming AGW theory, which is bogus]. Even James Hansen, the NASA scientist and perhaps most ardent proponent of manmade global warming as a threat, urges the bill’s defeat, saying it would be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases.
Even the premise for curbing greenhouse gases is flawed. There has been no cause-and-effect relationship convincingly established between rising carbon emissions and higher temperatures. Indeed, temperatures have leveled off or declined since 1998 while CO2 emissions have skyrocketed, the opposite of the global warming theory.
Considering its questionable assumptions, economic costs and hardships, this bill promises a paltry return on investment. One might say it’s “almost demented.”" “[Orange County Register] Editorial: Cap-and-trade stumbling in D.C.” h/t Climate Depot
Insanity — eco-zealots put 80,000 farm workers out of work
“Earhardt began: “California’s Central Valley is considered by many to be the richest and most productive farmland in the nation. But this land is being threatened by the small, harmless-looking minnow called the delta smelt. Recently, it has landed on the endangered species list, causing a federal court to shut down vital pumps to farmers to help preserve it.”
A shot was soon shown of Earhardt walking on dry ground that used to be a canal full of water until environmentalists convinced a federal court to shut off the water supply: “This was a canal full of gushing water irrigating the farmland here in the San Joaquin Valley. But as you can see, it is all dried up. The pumps were turned off after environmentalists won a federal court case.”
The FNC correspondent soon relayed Republican Congressman Devin Nunes’ complaint that thousands of jobs have been threatened by the ruling: “Representative Nunes estimates that 37,000 jobs have been lost due to the smelt issue, and that number is rising higher by the day. And in one town in California, unemployment is up to an astonishing 40 percent.”
After the report concluded with Earhardt visiting unemployed farmers at a food bank, the FNC correspondent appeared live in studio with Hannity as the two summed up the situation:
AINSLEY EARHARDT: They’re all losing their jobs. We’re talking about, Representative Nunes says up to 80,000 jobs could be lost. So we’re talking about lots of jobs. We went to the food bank. The line was wrapped around the block because people don’t have food.
SEAN HANNITY: And all they’ve got to do is turn the water back on.
EARHARDT: Right. That’s all they have to do.
HANNITY: That’s crazy.
On the March 28, World News Saturday, ABC correspondent Lisa Fletcher had also given attention to the controversy: “And for the first time ever, farmers may be completely cut off from one of their sources of water. Farmers don’t have access to this water that runs right through the center of their farmland. It is being allocated to the delta smelt, a little fish protected by the Endangered Species Act. Conservationists say the smelt are dying in the irrigation pumps, so a judge ruled they must be shut off for much of the growing season.”" “Drought-Stricken Farmers Lose Fight for Water to Endangered Fish“
Graph says it all
Congress wants $4K/yr from you to fight the phantom menace
Eco-zealots will sue to force EPA to regulate every business in America
“U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a member of the EPW Committee, responded today to statements made by the Center for Biological Diversity concerning the group’s intent to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from schools, hospitals, nursing homes, farms, and thousands of other small sources.
As reported recently by the Dow Jones newswire, Kassie Siegel, director of CBD’s Climate Law Institute, said that, “her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.” However, the following day, Siegel retracted her statement in Greenwire: “”The Center for Biological Diversity is not going to sue the EPA to regulate small sources of carbon dioxide, nor is anyone else. Characterizing it that way is an incredibly cynical ploy by Barrasso and [Sen. James] Inhofe to block solutions to the climate crisis and create a distraction from the real issues.”
But Greenwire also reported that the group wants EPA to regulate “big hospitals.” “In order to stave off the effects of climate change,” Greenwire reported, “EPA may eventually have to regulate sources like big hospitals that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, said William Snape, senior counsel with the center…” This raises several questions: Does the CBD also want to regulate big schools, big nursing homes, and big farms? How do they define ‘big’?
“The Center for Biological Diversity seems to be confused about its position,” Sen. Inhofe said. “But one thing is clear: this group likes to file lawsuits, and lots of them, and they’ve made clear that the only way to avert global warming is to regulate every school, hospital, farm, nursing home, and any other source that emits more than a specified amount of carbon dioxide.”
“I appreciate the CBD’s original honesty,” Sen. Barrasso said, “But this is just more Washington doubletalk. In Wyoming we take people at their word. If the CBD says they will sue, I assume they mean it. The CBD has stated on the record that they intend to sue small emitters such as schools and hospitals. The real losers here will be small business owners, farmers, patients, and students.”” “Green Group Wants to Regulate Schools, Farms, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, and Other Small Sources“
-
Linda Sanchez (D-CA) coming after bloggers
“Greg Pollowitz at NRO Media Blog sends the alert (via The Volokh Conspiracy) that Rep. Linda Sanchez, Democrat of California, has proposed a bill that would make it a federal felony to use blogs, text messages, and Internet messaging (“electronic means”) to harass someone and cause them “emotional distress.” Eugene Volokh pulls these snippets out of H.R. 1966:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both….
["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; …
["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
Same in Durango
“Going green isn’t easy, especially during a recession.
For two years, the city of Durango, Colo., bought electricity for all its government buildings from wind farms. The City Council ended that program this year, reverting to electricity derived from coal-burning plants and saving the cash-strapped city about $45,000.
“It’s very hard for us to lay off an employee to justify green power,” City Manager Ron LeBlanc said. “Those are the tradeoffs you have to face.”
Across the country, government agencies are either cutting or shrinking programs that use or fund renewable energy projects. Green power — from wind farms, solar power or other renewable energy sources — remains more expensive than traditional power sources.” “Going green can cost too much green” h/t Cooler Heads Digest May 8
Even Berkeley liberals have had it
“After two years of public outreach and debate on an ambitious and controversial plan to curb global warming, Berkeley’s city council this week was forced to water down the proposal — which initially required an energy audit of every home — after angry homeowners complained the plan could cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
Experts say Berkeley’s retreat may serve as a cautionary lesson to other cities and counties contemplating plans to fight global warming: Even residents of the nation’s most liberal jurisdictions may balk when it comes to paying the price of going green.” “Debate over global warming plan heats up Berkeley” h/t tip Cooler Heads Digest 8 May
When will the AGW bubble burst?
An out-of-control eco-zealot EPA, an out-of-control spending-mad Congress, an absurd climate bill the only purpose of which is to raise more revenue for more spending — when will the American people finally get enough of these idiots taking away their freedom and money?
The EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standards will, by EPA’s own analysis (based on AGW theory, which is bogus), allegedly result in a trivial reduction in temperature rise but will result in an enormous increase in energy costs: “Stunningly Trivial Emission Reductions from the Renewable Fuel Standard Program“. The same for EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas regulations: all pain, no gain. And EPA will regulate to death even small emission sources: “EPA Nominee Suggests New CO2 Rules May Expose Small Emitters“
Meanwhile in Congress the fools have come up with a bill which will accomplish nothing climatically but will fleece your pocketbook and enrich the chosen few: “Climate impacts of Waxman-Markey Part 1, Part 2” and “Just What Is Waxman-Markey For?“
In Britain the fools are imposing a per family cost of $30,000 to “fight climate change”, but it will achieve nothing other than enriching government and “green” special interests. “Ed Miliband’s global warming law ‘could cost £20,000 per family’“
The whole scam is dependent on the complacent public just “taking it” and doing nothing.
-
Holocene warmings and coolings
“In Chapter 2: History, Plimer travels back in time, thousands of years, in fact, to debunk Gore’s catastrophic global warming myths. I particularly like his research on the ancient Greeks. For Plato (427-347 BC) advanced the position that global warming occurs at regular intervals in Timaeus, and his famous pupil Aristotle (382-322 BC), referred to climate changes in Meteorologica.
Plimer’s research points are fascinating:
“Theophrastus (374-287 BC), in turn a student of Aristotle, followed the tradition with De ventis and observed that Crete’s mountains had previously produced fruit and grain whereas at the time he wrote, the winters were more severe and had more snow falls. In De causis plantarum, Theophrastus also noted that the Greek city of Larissus once had plentiful olive trees but falling temperatures killed them.”
It wasn’t Plato’s Hummer, after all.
The Holocene Warming a (11,600-8,500bp). The Egyptian Cooling (8,500-8,000bp). The Holocene Warming b (8,000-5,600bp). The Akkadian Cooling (5,600-3,500AD). The Minoan Warming (3,500-3,200bp). The Bronze Age Cooling (3,200-2,500bp). The Roman Warming (500BC-535AD). The Dark Ages [Cooling] (535-900AD). The Medieval Warming (900AD-1300 AD). The Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD). [The Modern Warming (1850-1998).] Recall that the Greeks survived the warmings without air-conditioners. “History,” writes Plimer, “cannot be rewritten just because it does not fit a computer model with a pre-ordained conclusion.” “Ancient Greece’s ‘global warming’“
-
Enviros don’t get third tool — yet (they’ll sue)
“The Interior Department is letting stand a Bush administration regulation that limits protection of polar bears from global warming, three people familiar with the decision told The Associated Press.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce on Friday that he will not rescind the Bush rule, although Congress gave him authority to do so. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt the secretary’s announcement.” “Gov’t sticks with Bush polar bear rule” h/t Tom Nelson
Enviros want third tool to shut down the economy
On their mission from Gaia to stop progress enviros first used the Clean Air Act to attempt to shut down fossil fuel use, then the Clean Water Act, and now the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears were declared threatened last year due to allegedly shrinking arctic sea ice allegedly caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Never mind that there are far more polar bears now than 40 years ago, never mind that arctic sea ice is back to the mean of the last 30 years, never mind that the planet is cooling:
“A decision involving the iconic polar bear could determine whether protecting endangered species might also help save the earth from global warming.
The Obama administration is approaching a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, for imposing limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the pollution [biosphere to journo: CO2 is NOT "pollution"] occurs thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.
The species law that affords protection for plants, animals and fish that face possible extinction became entangled with the need to reduce pollution linked to global warming more than a year ago. The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species, citing the decline of Arctic sea ice due to global warming.
Fearful that the declaration putting the bear under the federal species law might be used to force regulation of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels, the Bush administration issued a special rule: No action outside of the bear’s Arctic habitat could be considered as endangering its survival.
The limitation, hailed by business groups, prompted lawsuits from environmentalists and action by Congress.
In March, federal lawmakers authorized Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to rescind the Bush administration’s special rule, thus avoiding any complicated and time-consuming regulatory procedures. The deadline for such action is Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.” “Government Faces Weekend Deadline on Polar Bear Rule“
Ocean canaries to die — what will they come up with next?
“OSLO – A $500 million North Atlantic shrimp fishery may be vulnerable to climate change that could disrupt the crustaceans’ life cycle and mislead them into hatching when food is scarce, scientists said.
Any damage to stocks of the northern shrimp — a small, sweet-tasting variety popular in salads — could have knock-on effects in the ocean food chain ranging from algae to cod, according to a Canadian-led team of experts.
“The shrimp is the marine equivalent of the canary in the mine shaft. It’s an indicator of climate change,” Peter Koeller, the lead author of the study at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Canada, told Reuters.” “Shrimp Said At Risk From North Atlantic Warming“
The folly of CCS
“These are the likely effects [of carbon capture and storage (CCS)]:
- About 30% [some say as high as 50%] of the power station electricity will be wasted in separating, compressing and pumping of CO2. Thus a power station now using 1 million tonnes of coal per annum will need 1.5 Mt of coal to produce the same output of usable power for electricity consumers or other industries.
- A 50% increase in coal used will require a similar increase in coal mine capacity and transport and handling facilities – a huge waste of community land, resources and capital.
- The resource life of every thermal coal mine will be reduced by 30% [50%].
- Capital costs for every power station forced to wear this ball-and-chain will rise 30-100%, and electricity charges must rise by a similar amount to cover the parasitic power losses and the increased capital and operating costs.
- No wonder some greens support CCB [carbon capture and burial] – it will make coal fired electricity so expensive that even piddle power from windmills will look attractive.
- The same dismal story will emerge at every cement plant and steel works that is forced to install CCB.
- The figures for gas powered facilities are similar in principle, and only slightly better.
- The use of oxygen instead of air in the boilers merely shifts the nitrogen separation costs from the end of the process to the beginning.
- And after all that trouble and expense, the effect on climate is probably undetectable. There is no proof or evidence that man’s production of CO2 controls the climate.