China’s Big Squeeze

China, as leader of the G-77 group of developing countries, is demanding that the United States cut its CO2 emissions 40% by 2020 and pay developing countries 1 – 2% of its GDP so that developing countries can invest in technologies that reduce CO2 emissions.

Simultaneously, China refuses to agree to targets for itself to reduce CO2 emissions.

China is using global warming and CO2 emissions to foster its growth and promote its political ambitions.

• China knows that if it can get the United States to drastically cut its CO2 emissions, it can weaken the United States so that the United States cannot interfere with China’s geopolitical strategy.

• It also knows that by calling for financial contributions from the United States to developing countries, China will ingratiate itself with developing countries and further its geopolitical aims. By having the United States pay developing countries, including itself, as much as $275 billion annually, China can further weaken the United States.

At this month’s UN meeting in Bonn, Mexico proposed that developed nations should pay developing countries an amount based on the size of the developed countries (e.g., the United States) economy.

The US administration’s representative to the Bonn talks, Todd Stern, agreed that the proposal was “highly constructive”.

Meanwhile representatives of the United States are negotiating with China to achieve a “breakthrough” where China will agree to targets for its CO2 emissions so that the United States can subject itself to the treaty that emerges from Copenhagen requiring the United States to cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

The administration is citing the Waxman-Markey Bill, requiring the United States to cut its CO2 emissions 83% (from 2005 levels) as proof of its goodwill towards China.

The G-77 is a group of developing countries, including India, that claim developed countries owe reparations to them, because developed countries “polluted the atmosphere with CO2” while industrializing. China has become the titular leader of the G-77 and is pushing their case for reparations.

With respect to China, the United States will cripple itself and lack the strength to interfere with any move China might make in Southeast Asia, or elsewhere, while U.S. taxpayers pay reparations to China and developing countries.

TSAugust

June 14, 2009

The outcome of this December’s UN meeting in Copenhagen could depend on the difference between these two words – Curb or Cut.

The UN is demanding that the U.S. and other developed countries cut their CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

China, India and other developing countries have said they will not agree to establishing targets for cutting their CO2 emissions – however, recently, China and India have indicated they might accept curbs.

These comments emerged after the UN conference in Bonn and the recent Climate¹ talks in Washington D.C.

“Curbs” could be the breakthrough environmentalists have sought, which could allow the U.S. Senate to ratify a new treaty. In the past, the Senate has said it would not ratify a treaty that omits China’s participation. But by China agreeing to curbs, environmental groups could sway the Senate into ratifying the new Copenhagen treaty – also referred to as Kyoto II.

But what is meant by curbs?

Cutting CO2 emissions 80%, means reducing them by 80% from 1990 levels.

Curbs on the other hand, merely indicate that China and India might agree to curbing the rate at which their CO2 emissions are increasing. Curbs to the growth of emissions do not mean absolute cuts in emissions.

An argument could be made that, if China, India and other developing countries agree to curb their CO2 emissions, the United State should agree to cut its CO2 emissions.

1: Major Economies Forum on Energy Security and Climate Change, involving 17 of the world’s largest emitters of CO2.

 TSAugust

May 10, 2009

President Giscard d'Estaing, in writing a preface for Christian Gerondeau’s new book “CO2: un mythe planétaire” joins the rank of skeptics. The former French president writes;

“he shows, like other scientists, no definite relationship has been established between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and possible changes in the climate. The latter are due to far more complex evolutions which doubtless find their origin well beyond the atmosphere.”

Equally interesting is that the outspoken skeptical French scientist Claude Allegre, may be appointed as the next French Environment Minister by President Sarkosy.

Dr. Benny Peiser, an anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, said:

“The very fact that he [Claude Allgre] is a serious contender for the post of environment minister in itself is a clear signal that climate politics in Europe are changing rapidly. It also mirrors similar changes in Poland, Italy and Germany where political opposition to self-destructive climate policies is rising sharply,”

If Europe is becoming more skeptical, perhaps President Obama will follow suit.

Source: CCNET

TSAugust

April 19, 2009

Administration's Strategy for Increasing Foreign Oil Imports

The administration’s proposed budget would render U.S. oil and gas production uneconomic at current prices and thereby encourage less oil and gas production in the United States; this in turn would result in the United States having to import more oil.

The proposed budget, for example, repeals the law that allows producers to expense intangible drilling costs.

These costs are for such items as drilling mud, fuel and chemicals used in drilling new wells. These costs can account for 80% of the cost of drilling a well. This change will discourage drilling in the United States.

The proposed budget will also repeal the manufacturers' tax deduction for oil and gas companies. This will discourage such things as refinery capacity expansions.

The proposed budget will also repeal the percentage depletion allowance, which is important to small independent producers.

These and other proposed changes in the budget will hurt America’s ability to produce oil and gas in the United States.

In effect, the proposed budget will encourage the oil industry to go to foreign countries.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, said they were not economic development but "a sure-fire way to send America's businesses either to bankruptcy or overseas."

The administration favors these changes as bringing fairness to the industry so the tax payer gets the benefit of the new tax revenues resulting from the proposed changes.

Of course, if the oil industry goes overseas for its new oil development the tax payer will get nothing; plus the taxpayer will have to pay for more foreign oil.

The proposed changes go against the idea of achieving independence from foreign oil. Independence from foreign oil is something TSAugust has been encouraging for several years.

TSAugust

April 12, 2009

Hydrokinetics uses the flow of water to generate electricity.

This has also been called marine, river and tidal to describe generating electricity using the flow of water.

In every case, the process is still experimental.

A few wave motion and tidal units have been installed, mostly in Europe.

Two units rated 100 kW, are being installed on the Mississippi River at Hastings, Minnesota. These units are about 12 feet in diameter. At this point, no one knows how much electricity these 100 kW units will actually produce under varying water flows. Similar to wind turbines, output will vary with the speed of the water as well as other conditions such as turbulence.

Other factors in deciding the extent that units can be installed in rivers include how they might interfere with river barge traffic, how they will affect fish and other river life, and whether they will have other impacts on the environment.

In spite of these unknowns, some environmental groups are declaring that these units can generate large amounts of renewable electricity without CO2 emissions.

Each 12 foot diameter unit produces a very small amount of electricity, even if it produced it at the nameplate rating. More likely the capacity factor will probably be around 30%, similar to wind turbines. If so, it will take nearly one hundred thousand units installed in America’s rivers to produce the same amount of electricity as a single 1,000 MW nuclear power plant.

Similar to wind turbines, they will need to be connected to the grid using local transmission lines. Maintenance problems are bound to be greater with units installed underwater. There is also the issue of corrosion and the issue of mud, tree branches and other debris blocking the flow of water.

The trial installation at Hastings, Minnesota may help answer some of these questions.

NOTE: Additional information specific to these two units indicates they are installed at a dam, directly in the path of the discharge of the hydro generators installed at the dam. Under these conditions the capacity factor should be substantially higher than the estimated 30% when units are not located in conjunction with a dam's existing hydro power station.  The manufacturer suggests that the annual output of the two units combined will be 1,454 MWh annually.

TSAugust

April 5, 2009

From March 29 to April 8, there will be a meeting in Bonn, Germany to plan for the Copenhagen meeting this coming December.

The Bonn meeting followed last month’s meeting in Poland, which followed nearly monthly meetings going back to the Bali meeting in 2008.

The purpose of these meetings?

To develop a new treaty, commonly referred to as Kyoto II, which will require the United Sates to cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.Todd Stern is President Obama’s envoy to this meeting. Among other things, he told reporters that the President was developing a financing package to assist developing countries cut their CO2 emissions.

Some have asked whether the United States should send billions of dollars to developing countries when the administration has already tripled America’s future debt.

In addition, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has suggested that import duties be levied against products coming from countries that do not have targets for cutting their CO2 emissions. The Chinese immediately pointed out that tariffs, such as Mr Chu proposed, would violate the WTO agreements. It was this type of protectionism in the Smoot Hartley act that thrust the world into a sustained great depression in the 1930’s.

The Director of Fox News obtained a copy of a 16 page memo to be distributed at next week’s Bonn meeting.

The memo called for energy policy reform that could affect ‘large scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports”. It noted that cap and trade “may induce some industrial relocation” to” less regulated countries”.

In other words More Americans would lose their jobs.

The memo also referred to new tariffs that it referred to as “border carbon adjustments.”

The memo ignores hard projections on the cost of Kyoto II, except for making vague comments such as a "climate change levy on aviation" could have "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce, as well as "tourism."

There has been very little published in American media about the Bonn meeting, or the previous meeting in Poland, even though a new Kyoto treaty would have devastating consequences on every American.

President Obama has said America will take a leadership role in developing Kyoto II, so the media should be closely following these events.

Now President Obama is launching a "Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate" to help facilitate a U.N. agreement on global warming. Leaders from 16 major economies have been invited to a "preparatory session" on April 27-28 in Washington to "help generate the political leadership necessary" to achieve Kyoto II in Copenhagen in December 2009.

TSAugust

March 29, 2009

The rhetoric has been that global warming caused by CO2 has been the reason glaciers have retreated.

Many glaciers, however, started to retreat long before there were substantial CO2 emissions

Pictures document when these glaciers started to retreat.

This picture of the Mendenhall glacier shows that it started its retreat before the Boston Tea Party.

The second picture is from a Cambridge study.

In a similar vein, there have been claims that the glacier on Mount Kilamanjaro declined because of global warming, yet temperatures at the glacier have not been above freezing.

It is now generally believed that the glacier retreated because deforestation on the mountain slopes deprived the glacier of the moisture it needed to remain as it was.

TSAugust

March 22, 2009

Surface temperature data, used by NASA for determining whether there has been an unprecedented rise in temperatures, is disgracefully inaccurate.

A few years ago, Anthony Watts began to examine the network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations around the United States. He began when he looked at three stations near to where he lived and found serious problems with how they were sited.

Altogether they have investigated 865 stations, or more than 70% of the 1,221 U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations.

The most serious problem they found was siting monitoring instruments next to radiative heat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt. Other problems were where the instruments were placed next to heat sources, such as transformers, or in the path of air conditioning or automotive exhausts.

All told, the network of 1,221 instruments is reporting higher temperatures than are actually occurring and have instilled an unmistakable upward bias in the temperature history of the United States.

In addition, Watts has determined that there is a bias in adjustments made by NOAA and NASA that further exacerbate the problem.

The data used by NASA and others to claim that there is global warming is dramatically and disgracefully inaccurate.

Quoting from the source document: How do we know global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the U. S. temperature record?

Source:

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? By Anthony Watts. www.surfacestations.org

Copies of the report may be obtained from the Heartland Institute, www.heartland.org

TSAugust

March 15, 2009

There will be a permanent tax increase on every American household, rich or poor, as the result of the proposed Cap & Trade legislation according to a recent study.

The study says the tax increase will amount to $1,100 now, and will rise to $2,000 by 2030.

But this tax is hidden and won’t show up on the taxpayer’s 1040. For this reason it is insidious.

This tax increase sounds small, but  actually has a huge impact on America’s families.

It “becomes quite significant when one considers the average American household spends about $2500 on food annually.”

Or think of it in terms of buying a new automobile.

“A new 2009 Honda Civic LX can be bought for around $189 a month. A decrease in consumption by $1100 equals to almost six monthly payments on this car every twelve months...”

This assumes of course you have a job.

The study also shows how Cap & Trade will result in a huge loss of jobs. Summarizing results from other studies, job losses in 2015 will range from 500,000 to 3,750,000.

Source:

The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households, by Bryan Buckley and Sergey Mityakov, Clemson University. Published by The George C. Marshall Institute, 2009.

TSAugust

March 8, 2009

While promising to cut the deficit in half the president said; "So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution…”

A Cap and Trade system that auctions credits will result in a huge revenue windfall for the government. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the windfall will be $300 billion every year.

The cost of these credits will be passed from corporations to customers in the form of higher prices.

These credits are a hidden tax on rich and poor alike.

By calling for Cap & Trade to be established in the budget there will be no opportunity to filibuster or debate the Cap & Trade legislation. Cap & Trade will be rammed down America’s throat.

“By assuming the revenue from cap and trade in the budget, the enabling legislation becomes a revenue producer and is put in a “Reconciliation” bill.  Under the Senate’s arcane rules, Reconciliation has a 51 vote rule and cannot be filibustered.”

The credits purchased under Cap & Trade allow companies to emit CO2, up to a predetermined amount. This amount gets reduced periodically, possibly each year, so that CO2 emissions are reduced.

Reducing emissions without technologies that can generate electricity or replace gasoline will result in a further loss of jobs and lowers America’s standard of living.

The book Carbon Folly establishes in detail why these technologies do not exist, which is contrary to the propaganda published in the media and by government spokesmen.

Building hundreds of nuclear power plants is, in fact, the only way to cut CO2 emissions by the 80% demanded by the president, yet America’s “greens” will not hear of this.

President Obama

It would appear as though the president is banking on the revenues from carbon credits to bankroll his administration while cutting the deficit in half.

TSAugust

March 1, 2009

The second International Conference on Climate Change will be held in New York City March 8 – March 10.

Key note speakers include:

• Jose Maria Azner, Former Prime Minister of Spain

• Vaclav Klaus, President, Czech Republic; President, European Union (tentative)

• Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. One of the world’s most respected atmospheric physicists

• Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, Ph.D. Former U.S. Senator, Apollo 17 Moonwalker

This year, highly respected elite scientists will be joined byeconomists, legal experts, and other climate specialists calling attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century was primarily man-made and has reached crisis proportions.

The event is being sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute, a 24-year-old national nonpartisan think-tank based in Chicago, said all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.

For more information on this conference, including a copy of the program, click here.

TSAugust

February 8, 2009

President Obama has made it clear he wants the United States to cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. With this in mind, it’s important to know who is advising him on this issue.

President Obama has nominated John Holdren to be the Whitehouse Science Advisor.

Jeff Jacoby,  Boston Globe Columnist, has suggested that Holdren should be asked the following questions during his confirmation hearings.

John P. Holdren

Questions posed by Jeff Jacoby [Click for link to his column] Boston Globe Columnist,

1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: "If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1971, the two of you were adamant that "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century." In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that "carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?

2. You have advocated the "long-term desirability of zero population growth" for the United States. In 1973, you pronounced the US population of 210 million as "too many" and warned that "280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." The US population today is 304 million. Are there too many Americans?

3. You opposed the Reagan administration's military buildup in the 1980s for fear it might "increase the belligerency of the Soviet government." You pooh-poohed any notion that "the strain of an accelerated arms race will do more damage to the Soviet economy than to our own." But that is exactly what happened, and President Reagan's defense buildup helped win the Cold War. Did that outcome alter your thinking?

4. You argued that "a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States" in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the "de-development" of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: "Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others." Which is it?

5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: "The ongoing disruption of the Earth's climate by manmade greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable." Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn't policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?

6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?

7. "Variability has been the hallmark of climate over the millennia," you wrote in 1977. "The one statement about future climate that can be made with complete assurance is that it will be variable." If true, should we not be wary of ascribing too much importance to human influence on climate change?

8. You are withering in your contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster. You have written that such ideas are "dangerous," that those who hold them "infest" the public discourse, and that paying any attention to their views is "a menace." You contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg's notable 2001 book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" - an attack the Economist described as "strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance." In light of President-elect Obama's insistence that "promoting science" means "protecting free and open inquiry," will you work to soften your hostility toward scholars who disagree with you?

TSAugust

February 1, 2009

Deciding America’s Future
Pictured below are the attendees at last month’s UN meeting in Poznan, Poland as they prepared for the ultimate meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, December 2009, to establish a new treaty, superseding the Kyoto treaty.

Click for Larger Image

These thousands of attendees represented the 190 countries that have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The United States ratified the treaty in 1992.

Many of these countries such, as Iran and Venezuela, hate America. Most others want money from the United States. The non government organizations (NGO’s) that attend these UN meetings oppose the United States on nearly every issue and despise America’s refusal to join the Kyoto treaty.

The United States has one vote among the 190 voting attendees, so is always out voted or coerced into going along with the consensus, as it did in Bali, December 2007.

These are the people who will try to bludgeon the United States into joining the new treaty that is to supersede the Kyoto treaty and force the United States into cutting its CO2 emissions. President elect Obama has already said he will lead the United States in adopting stringent controls over CO2 emissions. In his remarks to the Governor’s conference in California, November 2008, he said;

“We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.”

At Poznan the UNFCCC agreed to meet in April and May 2009 to draft the agreement that will be voted on at the December 2009 meeting in Copenhagen.

If the Obama administration agrees to the new treaty, America can only avoid the treaty if the Senate refuses to ratify it.

TSAugust

January 11, 2008

The following observations by Dr. Frank Tippler are very relevant as we enter the New Year. They are repeated here courtesy of www.urgentagenda.com. Highlighting is by TSAugust.

Quote from Dr. Tipler:

“A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:

(1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that "the debate is over," because this was exactly the claim originally made against the Copernican theory of the Solar System. Copernicus' opponents said the idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by Aristarchus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100 A.D. The debate is over! Sorry, it wasn't: the Earth IS the third planet.

(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this.

The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience.

NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

(3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth's average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were predicted before they occurred. This is good science.

(4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust "scientists" to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We've seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, [Jim] Hansen and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. [Anthony] Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hansen and company had used September's temperatures for Russia rather than October's. I'm not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.

(5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800's that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.

(6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one's scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the "consensus" view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired. Stillman Drake, the world's leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book "Galileo: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called "natural philosophers"), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The "out-of-the-mainstream" Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotelian theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do.

Galileo's fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these "scientists" tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo's fellow "scientists" called in the Inquisition to silence him.

I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition's case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama's new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are "dangerous." I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.

(7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. There is a professor at Tulane, with a PhD in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I am about AGW, but he'd never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.

(8) This is why I am astounded that people who should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk. Where are the Einsteins of today? They would never be able to get a university job --- Einstein's idea that time duration depended on the observer was very much opposed to the "consensus" view of the time. Einstein's idea that light was composed of particles (now called "photons") was also considered crazy by all physicists when he first published the idea. At least then he could publish the idea. Now a refereed journal would never even consider a paper written by a patent clerk, and all 1905 physics referees would agree that relativity and quantum mechanics were nonsense, definitely against the overwhelming consensus view. So journals would reject Einstein's papers if he were to write them today.

Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high-quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can't Newt Gingrich understand this?

Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science.”

Note:  Dr. Frank Tipler, is the distinguished mathematical physicist at Tulane University.

TSAugust

January 4, 2008

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that October was the warmest on record, but they were wrong.

This follows a series of errors made by Dr James Hansen’s organization.

The reason for this latest error was that the data from Siberia showed that large portions of Russia had been up to 10 degrees warmer than normal, but it turned out the Russians had accidently used September’s data for October.

Meanwhile much of the Northern latitudes were experiencing unusually cold weather and considerable snowfall.

Then GISS committed another error by announcing it had found a hot spot in the Arctic, while satellite pictures were showing that Arctic sea ice was 30% greater than at this time last year.

Then a GISS spokesman said they didn’t have sufficient resources to exercise proper quality control over its data.

This is a shocking admission. The GISS data was used by the IPCC in arriving at its pronouncements about global warming. GISS is only one of four data sets tracking global warming, and consistently reports higher temperatures than do the other three organizations keeping temperature data.

How can the public trust the information about global warming that is published by GISS?

As a result of these blunders, Dr Hansen's methodology is again being called in question. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

Source: Article by Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, November 17, 2008

TSAugust

November 23, 2008

Every year the media hypes the hurricane season, attributing larger storms and greater losses to global warming.

This year’s current hurricane season is ending, so it’s worth looking at the history.

With the advent of a new Hurricane season, the media has been trumpeting how global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes.

The following table shows there have been periods of greater hurricane activity before the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In addition, Dr. Chris Landsea, National Hurricane Center, has noted that many hurricanes went undetected before the advent of satellites.

“Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75 during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the U.S. each decade during the first half and only 6 during the second half of the century.”

The insurance industry is clamoring for action to be taken to stop global warming because they have suffered large losses in recent years.

However, it was the increase in coastal populations that caused the higher insurance losses. In his testimony to Congress, Professor Lomborg pointed out that “the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 counties stretching from Texas through Virginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”

TSAugust

November 16, 2008

As blackmail goes, this is mind-boggling.

As a stipulation for China to agree to any action to cut CO2 emissions, China is demanding that developed countries pay 1% of their GDP to developing countries, including China.

For the Group of Seven developed countries it would amount to over $300 billion.

For the United States, it would amount to more than $130 billion of taxpayer money.

Gao Guangsheng, head of the climate change office at the National Reform and Development Commission, China’s main planning body, said that this "might not be enough.”

The money would be used to buy technology and equipment for cutting CO2 emissions.

So, not only will U.S. taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of billions of hidden taxes if Cap & Trade legislation is enacted, they must also fork over billions more to China and the other developing countries.

If we don’t, China won’t agree to any program for cutting CO2 emissions.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in October, joined in when he said “western nations haven’t lived up to their commitment for technology transfer and additional financing since the Rio Conference.”

This commitment might come as a surprise to most Americans.

Source: Financial Times, October 29, 2008.

TSAugust

November 9, 2008

Media reports have the ice melting all around the world.

But here are some interesting facts.

In the arctic, the National Snow and Ice Data Center forecast the possibility of an ice free arctic in 2008. As the accompanying chart shows, Arctic sea ice extent at its minimum in 2008 was greater than in 2007, and is already greater than in 2005.

See http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm for a larger image.

Copyright protected by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

Another chart shows the Arctic sea ice area and the standard deviation for readings taken since 1979.  Towards the end of October 2008 the actual area is approaching the limits of the standard deviation.

More information and a larger chart can be seen at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/sea-ice-approaching-the-edge-of-normal-standard-deviation/

In Antarctica, the ice coverage has been increasing. Temperatures have been declining for the past 50 years and the ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

While the Larson ice shelf and the Wilkins ice shelf in Western Antarctica have collapsed, their collapse is best categorized by former Weather Channel Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo.

“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof …We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear”

Sources:

IARC-JAXA Information System

Watts Up With That

TSAugust

November 2, 2008

The October 21^st PBS pseudo documentary claimed that CO2 was causing global warming and that it was imperative to cut worldwide CO2 emissions 60 to 80%by 2050.

Not mentioned in the program was that temperatures have not been rising in recent years.

The premise behind anthropogenic global warming is that CO2 emissions, since the mid 1800’s, have caused an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that this increase is responsible for global warming.

There is no question that atmospheric CO2 has climbed steadily since the mid 1800’s, but some scientists have questioned whether CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.

Interestingly, worldwide temperatures have remained steady for at least the past eight to ten years while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.

The following graph from NASA depicts worldwide temperatures since 1995. It would appear as though temperatures in 2008 are at the same level as in 1995. (The peak in 1998 has been attributed to el Nino.)

TSAugust

October 26, 2008

Is there a fingerprint for global warming?

The U.S. Science Change Program (CCSP) put forward a zonal temperature graph in 2006, derived from computer simulations, that purports to show how atmospheric temperatures should react with anthropogenic global warming.

See Figure 1.

This is the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming.

Figure 1

Actual temperatures taken by balloons and satellite do not match the temperatures developed by the computer models. See Figure 2.

Figure 2

From this it can be concluded that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are not a significant cause of current global warming.

Notes:

1. The vertical axes are altitude in kilometers (right scale). The horizontal axes are North and South Latitudes.

2. Statistical distributions of the data, as shown in figures 9a and 9b of the source document, confirms the validity of the graphs used in this article.

Source:

S. Fred Singer et al, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

TSAugust

October 19, 2008

While visiting the Baltic countries this summer I heard former prime ministers and presidents say the Nazi’s were terrible, but the Russians were worse.

These countries sought protection in NATO, but one wonders whether these countries aren’t having second thoughts about their relationship with the EU.

The EU has proposed that these countries buy carbon credits at auction beginning in 2013 which will have severe consequences for countries that use coal for generating electricity.

Poland derives 95% of its electricity from coal and has attempted to have other Eastern European countries assist them in opposing the auctioning of carbon credits. Poland believes its cost for electricity will increase by 70% if it must buy credits.

Eastern Europe’s only alternative will be to use natural gas for generating electricity which will make Poland and other Eastern European countries more dependent on Russia.

After Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the EU has dropped its support of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s admission into NATO like a hot potato. With its push to cut the use of coal for generating electricity the EU seems to be throwing Eastern Europe to the mercies of Russia.

The EU did little to help Estonia when Russia launched a cyber attack against Estonia’s financial system and government in 2007.

Would the EU come to Eastern Europe’s rescue if Russia became more aggressive?

TSAugust

October 12, 2008

Over the past several years there have been repeated reports that the Gulf Stream could shut down and throw Europe into ice age conditions.

Researchers from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), in combination with others, have reaffirmed that the Gulf Stream is safe.

"It hasn't only been possible to show that the currents instead have maintained a surprisingly constant strength during the last 50 years, but we can also point out where earlier signs of weakness were misleading," said Steffen M Olsen of Danish Meteorological Institute.Concerns about the Gulf Stream came to the fore in December 2005 when the media reported that a study by Bryden et al had claimed the thermohaline circulation (Gulf Stream) had slowed by 30%.

This was refuted in 2006 by Christopher Meinen and two associates at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, that measured the Southward flow of water (millions of cubic meters per second) in the MOC [Meridional Overturning Circulation] between September 2004 and September 2005 and found no indication of a significant reduction in the strength of thermohaline circulation.

A second study by German scientist Friedrich Schott et al, measured the current over the Grand Banks and concluded, "Although the water mass characteristics show inter annual to decadal variations at those locations," "there is no sign of any MOC 'slowdown' trend over the past decade.”

With the DMI report, researchers have once again found the Gulf Stream to be safe and not in danger of collapse.

TSAugust

October 5, 2008

There is a new technology that can save consumers thousands of dollars while also reducing the need for new power plants.

But Big Brother, in the form of the California Energy Commission, tried to usurp the technology and, by its bungling, has cast a cloud over the technology. (It should be noted however, that this is the type of control proponents of Cap & Trade could deem necessary.)

The technology in question are meters installed in homes, offices and factories that record electricity usage by the hour, where rates also vary by the hour.

If electricity is used during peak hours the user will pay a higher price than if it is used during off-peak hours.

Even if the total amount of electricity consumed remains unchanged, the electricity generated during off-peak hour’s uses generators that might otherwise be left idle (or running below capacity.)

If electricity is consumed during peak hours, it could require the addition of new power plants. This would definitely be true if the demand is new, such as if Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s) charged their batteries during daytime.

Big Brother attempted to insist that these new meters be controllable by the utility. For example, if Big Brother wanted to keep consumers from running their air conditioning units the utility could reset the consumer’s thermostat to a higher temperature. Let’s say the consumer set the thermostat at 70 degrees, Big Brother could change the setting to 80 degrees. The motivation behind Big Brother’s blunder was a desire to control CO2 emissions because of Big Brother’s view of global warming. “Big Brother knows best.”

Fortunately consumers became aware of Big Brother’s efforts and told Big Brother to change the proposed regulations for “programmable communicating thermostats.” But Big Brother never gives up, so consumers in other States will need to stay alert for attempts in their State to install meters that can intrude into their homes and offices.

The idea of using meters to allow consumers to choose when they want to buy electricity is excellent. It allows consumers to lower their energy bills while allowing utilities to defer investment in new power plants. But a meter allowing Big Brother to put its hand on the consumer’s thermostat is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s merely an early indicator of how far Big Brother will intrude into people’s lives to control CO2 emissions.

TSAugust

June 8, 2008

The Warner-Lieberman Bill, S2191 Climate Security Act of 2007, is going to be debated and possibly voted on this week (June 2^nd). (The bill was debated and defeated, probably for this year.)

The following information should be critical to understanding the appropriateness of this legislation.

S2191 will require that the United States cut its CO2 emissions 70% from 1990 levels by 2050, to 1,560 Million Metric Tons (MMT).

Current U.S. emissions are around 6,000 MMT.

The last time the United States emitted 1,560 MMT of CO2 was 1922 when the U.S. population was 110 million.

Looking ahead to 2050, the population of the U.S. is forecast to be approximately 440 million.

To understand the significance of these numbers it’s important to look at the per capita emissions of CO2.

U.S. per capita CO2 emissions:

1922 = 14.2 Tons

2004 = 20.3 Tons

2050 = 3.5 Tons

It is extremely difficult to see how per capita emissions can be reduced to 3.5 tons without crippling the U.S. economy and virtually destroying America.

As Carbon Folly demonstrates, only a combination of a huge expansion in nuclear power (400 new nuclear power plants by 2050) combined with a huge increase in electric vehicles (75% of all vehicles by 2050) can achieve CO2 emissions of  3.5 tons per person.

Naming this legislation the “Climate Security Act” is farcical in the face of our economic and technical knowledge.

June 1, 2008

TSAugust 

Coal Must be Good, May 4 2008

Europe is pushing Cap & Trade and Carbon Taxes in an effort to get the world to follow its example in setting targets for cutting CO2 emissions. But, it appears that Europe is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

While demanding that other countries adopt Cap & Trade regulations, Europe is scheduled to build around 50 new coal fired power plants over the next five years. Italy is converting an oil fired power plant to coal.

Meanwhile, here in the United States various States are attempting to prohibit the construction of new coal fired power plants. An unelected regulator in Kansas denied permits for a badly needed coal fired power plant and the Governor supported his move.

The Sierra Club and other so called environmental groups are picketing communities and legislatures to deny permits for new coal fired power plants. Sixty proposed coal fired power plants in the U.S. have been dropped. A few dozen more are stuck in the courts.

Meanwhile, China is building two new coal fired power plants every week. India is also building coal fired power plants.

Why is ‘Coal still King’ in Europe, China and India?

• It’s cheap.

• Europe has a 200 year supply of coal. China and the U.S. have a 400 year supply.

• There is no OPEC for coal: Coal is exported by many countries so market forces can keep the price relatively low.

Why should Europe build coal fired power plants while excoriating the U.S. for not cutting CO2 emissions?

May 4, 2008

TSAugust

There is more oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado than in Saudi Arabia. The obstacle to its extraction is that it’s encased in rock, known as shale.

Shell oil has undertaken a new process for extracting oil from shale and is conducting experiments in Colorado using its new “freezewall” technology.

They have already demonstrated they can extract the oil “in-situ” by heating the rock underground and then pumping out the oil that has been freed from the shale.

They are currently testing the “freezewall” to ensure that it isolates the area for heating and prevents the entry of water into the recovery zone. They will then test the integrity of the “freezewall” using warm water or steam to fracture the ice wall and then see how best to repair any break in the wall.

These tests will demonstrate the process is environmentally safe.

Unfortunately, Shell doesn’t currently plan to begin commercialization until the middle of the next decade.

A recent book, Gusher of Lies, only mentions shale oil once, and says shale oil is too constrained by price and capital to be an alternative oil resource for the United States. Shell is demonstrating that Gusher of Lies is wrong and that Shell is proving that shale oil is economically viable.

Gusher of Lies statements are doubly unfortunate because shale oil is a resource that could contribute to the United States becoming independent from foreign oil. (Independence from foreign oil will not affect the price of gas at the pump, as the price of oil is set by worldwide market forces. It does, however, allow for strategic independence and for improving America’s balance of payments.)

Shell has not said so, but the global warming activist’s desire to impose Cap & Trade regulations to deter the use of fossil fuels cannot but help slow down the development of this valuable resource.

April 27, 2008

TSAugust

A major concern of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been that ice on Antarctica would melt and cause oceans levels to rise: The IPCC has said human activity is causing global warming which could cause glaciers to melt. But there are other possibilities, including the latest -- volcanic activity.

Geophysicists Robin Bell and Michael Studinger from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a part of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently presented a paper showing how subglacial lakes could contribute to ice sheets sliding into the ocean and causing a catastrophic rise in sea level.

Most theories have focused on glaciers melting at the surface with the melt water draining into the ocean, but this ”subglacial”  theory has water accumulating under the glaciers which could cause them to slide rapidly into the ocean. This would be more dramatic and catastrophic than surface ice melt from global warming. Fast flowing ice streams in Antarctica have caused rapid movements of glaciers from the interior of Antarctica to the ocean.

A new theory, however, indicates that it isn’t global warming that’s causing ice to melt in Antarctica, it’s a string of volcanoes under the ice.

A chain of volcanic vent islands known as the Seal Nunataks may have been the cause of the Larson Ice Shelf breakup and may be causing glaciers to slide toward the ocean.

The accompanying NASA picture shows temperature trends from 1982 to 2004 for the Antarctic Continent. As can be seen, the Western edge of Antarctica has had rising temperatures while the bulk of Antarctica has had declining temperatures. The vast bulk of Antarctica has seen an increase in glacier thickness while the peninsula that juts far to the north has seen the loss of the Larson Ice Shelf and, most recently, the breaking away of the Wilkins Ice Shelf.

 (Both of these ice shelf’s are floating on water so do not contribute to sea rise when they melt.)

A recent discovery of an ancient volcano has brought the possibility of volcanic activity to the fore. Others have noted that Pacific Ocean currents could contribute to the warming along the Western edge of Antarctica.

If volcanic activity is behind the threat there is nothing mankind can do, at this juncture, to affect the amount of subglacial ice melt that might occur from the heat from the volcanoes. This is different than any threat from CO2 in the atmosphere that may be causing global warming.

Antarctica Temperature Changes, 1982 - 2004

Sources:

Science Daily

World Climate Report

NASA

 April 20, 2008

TSAugust

There are 1,600 people attending the latest United Nations soiree in Bangkok, trying to develop a strategy for a new Kyoto style agreement by the end of 2009. This followed the Bali meeting last December where a similar number of delegates from the UN and 190 countries, plus representatives from NGO’s, hammered out the “Bali Declaration.”

The Bangkok meeting has been eventful for three reasons.

1. Developing countries, led by the Group of 77 countries plus China (the G-77), have emphatically stated they will not accept binding targets for reducing CO2 emissions.

2. Japan has suggested the reference date be changed from 1990 to 2005. Japan believes, rightfully, that the 1990 date in the Kyoto protocol was set in a manner that favored European countries. (The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the collapse of Eastern European economies with resulting lower CO2 emissions in 1990. Additionally, the UK shifted from coal to North Sea natural gas for political rather than environmental reasons, and this also resulted in reduced CO2 emissions in 1990.)

3. China said developed countries should pay 0.5% of their GDP to developing countries for mitigating and adaptive strategies and technologies. This would be $66 billion that U.S. tax payers would pay China annually.

As a reference, $66 billion would have paid for all the oil we imported for three months during 2007.

When the conference concluded, a schedule was set for future meetings with contentious issues set aside for these future meetings.

Prodipto Ghosh, an Indian delegate, called the Japanese proposal for industry goals and a revised reference date a “huge protection scam,” while the G-77 refused to allow it to be included in the work plan. An August meeting in Ghana would address the Japanese proposals.

A June meeting in Bonn would discuss the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries from developed countries. Since the U.S. is in the vanguard of developing new technologies these transfers would largely be borne by the U.S.

There was much hope that a new administration in Washington would result in the U.S. acceding to the demands of the UN., specifically that the U.S. would agree to specific cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing developing countries, such as China and India, to avoid having to make firm commitments.

April 13, 2008

TSAugust

The Kyoto protocol has a provision where developed countries, such as in Europe, can buy Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or 'carbon credits' for every ton of CO2 reduced by projects in developing countries.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are classified as developing countries.

The UAE has just  established a formal process for creating CER’s under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Now Europe can pay the UAE for its oil and also pay the UAE for CER’s.

The CER’s will be issued for such things as eliminating the flaring of gas and recovering and utilizing CO2 from the manufacture of fertilizer.

“Projects include energy efficiency, industrial process improvement, flare gas recovery and power plant upgrades.”

Now the UAE can get paid for making its operations more efficient: Something the UAE would have (or should have) done anyway.

A similar situation is emerging in Russia where European countries can buy emission credits from Russia when Russian oil and gas companies fix leaks in their pipelines.

The fact that Europe isn’t reducing its CO2 emissions and that the CER’s are based on actions that should have (or would have) been done anyway, allows the EU to try to meet its Kyoto targets without reducing its emissions.

March 2, 2008

TSAugust

The great depression of the 1930’s was started by “beggar thy neighbor” tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill is often mentioned as the catalyst that worsened the Great Depression. It provoked retaliatory measures by foreign countries.

Could Global Warming actually trigger a new depression? It certainly could if countries establish tariffs on so-called high CO2 content products such as steel, aluminum and concrete.

Europe is threatening to enact tariffs against high energy imports.

The Social Democrats in Germany are calling for sanctions on these types of goods.

"We have tried in the past and we will try again to introduce some kind of import duties for products from the U.S. and other countries that do not subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol," said the energy expert Claude Turmes, a European Parliament legislator and vice chairman of the European Greens.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has said Europe should "examine the option of taxing products imported from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol.”

Though European Greens were singling out the United States, restrictive tariffs would also affect China and India who are major exporters of steel and other energy intensive products.

C. Boyden Gray, US ambassador to the European Union, said retaliatory steps could be taken against China and India if they refused to agree to limitations on CO2 emissions.

With threats emanating from all sides, the likelihood of restrictive tariffs increases.

Though it was the agriculture industry that triggered the “beggar thy neighbor” tariffs in the 1930’s, it could be high energy intensive industries that trigger the next great depression.

February 17, 2008

TSAugust

The UN hailed the announcement made by David McCormick, Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs, that the U.S. would establish a Clean Development Fund.

Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, called the news “a Marshall Plan for climate change.”

McCormick said the U.S. had already met with potential donors. The U.S. would be a lead donor.

Many developing countries such as China and India are currently using old technologies for generating electricity and for producing products, such as aluminum and steel.

The Clean Development Fund would provide money so that developing countries could install newer, more expensive technology.

McCormick said that by 2030 the difference in cost for newer technologies could be $30 billion. The fund the U.S. is proposing would pay for this difference.

De Boer said, "I see a number of economic and security issues emerging as a result of climate change which make it all the more imperative to come to grips with this issue in time."

The fund would come from major developed countries so that rich nations would help pay the cost of controlling CO2 emissions. Developing countries have consistently said that it was up to developed countries, such as the U.S., to pay for controlling emissions since it was they who pumped the CO2 into the atmosphere over the past century.

Not addressed by McCormick is whether improving the technology of companies in China and India will make it harder for U.S. companies to compete, and possibly cost Americans their jobs.

There is a pattern developing in Washington D.C. where climate change regulations and funding could become a burden on American tax payers.

February 10, 2008

TSAugust

It has not been widely reported, but it appears as though global warming has halted, or at least taken a vacation.

The global temperature has remained the same from 2001 through 2007, a period of seven years without increasing global temperatures.

In addition, British weather experts are predicting that global temperatures in 2008 will go down.

With global temperatures remaining constant or possibly declining, will it affect the theory that green house gasses are causing global warming?

There is little dispute that the earth has warmed about 1.3 degrees F over the past century, but there is considerable disagreement that green house gasses are causing warming.

As widely reported in the media, CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing every year, including from 2001 through 2007. If CO2 is the underlying cause of global warming, why haven’t global temperatures also increased while the levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased?

This should open the door for looking at alternative causes for global warming. The level of sunspots over the next few years should be of interest as there is speculation that the sun is the real cause of global warming.

A Russian Scientist, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, predicts that global cooling rivaling the Little Ice Age of the 1600’s will reach its coldest between 2055 and 2060.

The most important immediate issue is whether CO2 is actually causing global warming. If not, there is an immense danger of overreacting and imposing severe restrictions on CO2 emissions that could cause serious economic disruptions.

February 3, 2008

TSAugust

The only way the United States can achieve an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 is using nuclear power on a massive scale.

Currently, generating electricity results in 39% of all U.S. emissions of CO2.

By building 300 nuclear power plants it would be possible to dismantle all coal fired generating plants and thereby cut CO2 emissions by 80% when generating electricity.

Gasoline currently accounts for 20% of all U.S. CO2 emissions.

If 80% of all cars on the road by 2050 were Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s) they would require an additional 50 to 100 nuclear power plants to preclude using coal fired power generation for the electricity needed to recharge batteries. This assumes that the remaining 20% continue to use gasoline while the PHEV’s all run on ethanol when their batteries are not in use.

For documentation explaining why nuclear is the only technology that can cut U.S. CO2 emissions by any significant amount, see Carbon Folly.

January 20, 2008

TSAugust

Note: Carbon Folly ISBN 978-0-9815119-0-0 is scheduled for publication in April 2008

There can be little doubt that the next two years will be crucial for Americans.

“The UN will now prepare for a summit in Copenhagen in 2009, where it hopes the world will sign up to a global system [on] emissions,” said the London Sunday times.

There will be a bitter worldwide debate about mandating cuts in green house gasses (GHG), principally CO2.

The Bali Action Plan calls for deep cuts in GHG. The United States agreed to the

document after ensuring there was no mention of any target. Targets of any kind would have preordained targets in any future agreement. Japan, Canada and Australia strongly supported the United States in this position.

China and India have both said they will not accept targets in any future agreement.

The UN has said the world must cut CO2 emissions by 50 to 60% by 2050 and has repeatedly said the United States should cut its emissions by 80%.

The European Union was insisting the Bali Action Plan include a target of between 20 and 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020. The U.S. refused to agree to this proposal and was castigated by nearly everyone at the Bali conference including former Vice President Al Gore.

One line of reasoning has it that, if the United States adopts CO2 legislation, the amount of reduction required by the legislation would become the de facto target of any future UN agreement. If this line of reasoning is correct, the legislation adopted by Congress will become critical and should require a vigorous debate in the U.S.

At present, environmentalists are counting on Americans leaving the issue up to Congress. Reuters reported, “The debate is largely over for the American public, according to Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute. Americans view climate change as the world's top environmental problem, although few followed the Bali debate.”

If Americans become involved, Congress will be less likely to enact legislation that would force substantial reductions in CO2 emissions.

The white paper Carbon Folly explains why it is virtually impossible to significantly cut CO2 emissions unless a massive nuclear building program was undertaken.

January 6, 2008

TSAugust