The Trouble With Inefficient Carbon Cap & Trade: It Was Always Designed to Serve as a Non-Transparent 'Curtain of Diversion'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20emissions.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

The Trouble With Markets for Carbon

By JAMES KANTER


New York Times



June 20, 2008


BRUSSELS — As the United States moves toward taking action on global warming, practical experience with carbon markets in the European Union raises a critical question: Will such systems ever work?



Backers of these markets, which involve setting limits on greenhouse gases and then allowing companies to buy and sell emission permits, see the approach as one of the cheapest and most effective ways to control the gases in advanced economies. The presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have both endorsed the idea.

[YES. AND BOTH ARE MISTAKEN TO THE EXTENT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE 'WIZARD OF OZ'-LIKE 'CURTAIN OF DIVERSION' CAST BY THE CHARACTERISTICALLY OPAQUE 'CAP & TRADE' SYSTEMS WILL RESOLVE THE ALLEGED 'CARBON CONUNDRUM' AND THE MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT U.S. ENERGY SECURITY DILEMMA CARBON CHASTITY EXACERBATES. INDEED, EXPERTS AGREE THAT THE COSTS IMPOSED BY 'CAP & TRADE' SYSTEMS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN HIDDEN TAXES, NO MATTER WHAT THE POLITICIANS OR COMPANIES SUPPORTING THEM SAY! See: Willem Buiter, Cap & Trade is a Tax on Carbon Emissions - Fortunately!, Financial Times (6/12/08), at: http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/06/cap-trade-is-a-tax-on-carbon-emissions-fortunately/#more-261 . (Why then do politicians and outfits like BP prefer cap & trade to a carbon tax? The politicians prefer it because the cap & trade scheme, while economically equivalent to a tax, will not count as a tax in the traditional record-keeping manuals. It does not add to the official ‘tax burden’ the opposition likes to bash you around the head with. You can present cap & trade in a way that hides/obscures the fact that for it to work, that is, for it to reduce emissions, it must be equivalent to a tax by increasing the marginal cost of emitting CO2E; however, it does not look like a tax and will not show up in conventional tax burden calculations. Lack of transparency means absence of accountability. That is why non-transparent arrangements are universally valued by politicians.")]


[WE SERIOUSLY QUESTION HOW MUCH THESE CANDIDATES ARE BEING INFLUENCED BY COMPANIES THAT HAVE SO MUCH INVESTED IN THIS 'CAP & PAY GAME' THAT THEY ARE NOW RELUCTANT TO REVERSE COURSE. IN PARTICULAR, WE QUESTION THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF THESE 'INVESTED' COMPANIES THAT FAVOR CARBON 'CAP & TRADE' ARE BEING PROTECTED BY THE NON-TRANSPARENCY OF SUCH REGULATORY SYSTEMS.]


[See: Willem Buiter, Cap & Trade is a Tax on Carbon Emissions - Fortunately!, supra. ("Why then do politicians and outfits like BP prefer cap & trade to a carbon tax?...A second reason is that with cap & trade, you can distribute the shadow tax revenue associated with the cap & trade scheme (that is the amount of revenue you would be able to obtain for the permits in a transparent, competitive auction) in a non-transparent manner. Give-aways through explicit grants or subsidies are not as easy. There are parliamentary committees scrutinizing revenues and outlays; there may be institutions like the UK National Audit Office that can ask bothersome questions. Life is easier with the initial allocation of permits. You can, for instance, hand out the permits free of charge to your friends (including the heavy historical polluters). This is also the reason, I believe, that the heavy emitters, including BP, favour cap & trade over taxes. They believe that the initial allocation of free permits will favour them. There is this crazy notion that past heavy polluters should not be hit too hard by schemes to reduce CO2E emissions, and that they should therefore be given gratis allowances of permits that are related to their recent past emissions record. I can see no efficiency reason in favour of this, and many a fairness argument against it, but the argument carries weight in the unreal real world.")


[THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE FT ARTICLE. (Doly - "The big problem I see with cap & trade is the following: Nobody interested mainly in monetary gain would buy carbon permits if they are more expensive than carbon-reducing infrastructure. The buyers can be safely assumed NOT to be investing in carbon reduction. As for the sellers, they got their carbon permits for free, so they make a profit at any price. In theory, there is some incentive for sellers to invest in carbon-reducing infrastructure to make extra profit; in practice, most people are happy about free money but won’t make an extra effort unless there is a big, clear profit. In short, no buyers would invest in carbon-reducing infrastructures and few sellers would. Which is not what is intended. The scheme would only start producing the intended results at the point where the market freezes, when the cap becomes low enough that there are very few sellers. At that point, the temptation to commit fraud would be fairly great for would-be buyers, and I could easily imagine extra carbon permits somehow appearing out of thin air everywhere. If/when the market freezes what we have isn’t a market any more but something akin to rationing (in the original meaning of the word, not what has been called “carbon rationing” that also contains trade)".]


[DUE TO THE SYSTEMIC INEFFICIENCIES OF CAP & TRADE AND THE FRAUD AND MANIPULATION TO WHICH IT WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE, ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF CONSUMERS and SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG HAD PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED THIS VIEW DURING THE DECEMBER 2007 U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE CONVENED IN BALI, INDONESIA. LIKE PROFESSOR BUTIER ABOVE, BLOOMBERG RECOMMENDED INSTEAD THE IMPOSITION OF A CARBON TAX. See: Carbon Tax Should Replace Carbon Trading to Curb Climate Change, Says US Mayor Bloomberg, Associated Press (Dec. 13, 2007) at: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/13/asia/AS-GEN-Bali-NY-Mayor.php . ("New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, at a U.N. climate conference drawing hundreds of emissions traders, said Thursday the growing carbon cap-and-trade industry is vulnerable to 'special interests, corruption, inefficiencies,' and should be replaced by straight carbon taxes. Speaking of global warming, Bloomberg said, 'Most experts would agree that the way to solve the problem is with a carbon tax'...carbon trading "is attractive to many politicians because it doesn't have that three-letter word 'tax'." 'But it's a very inefficient way to accomplish the same thing that a carbon tax accomplishes,' he said. 'It leaves itself open to special interests, corruption, inefficiencies.'").]


[IN ADDITION, THERE IS MOUNTING EVIDENCE FROM 'ACROSS THE POND' IN THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT REFLECTS HOW THE ONLY FUNCTIONING NON-TRANSPARENT 'CAP & TRADE' SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY NONFUNCTIONAL. IT IS NOT ONLY UNLIKELY TO ACHIEVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS PROMISED BY EUROPEAN POLITICIANS, BUT IT HAS ALREADY IMPOSED CONSIDERABLE NEW COSTS ON UNSUSPECTING CONSUMERS AND SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT EUROPE. WHY WOULD THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WISH TO SUBJECT AMERICAN CONSUMERS and SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES TO THE SAME ECONOMIC PAIN WITH LITTLE, IF ANY, ENVIRONMENTAL GAIN??]


Yet in Europe, which created the world’s largest greenhouse gas market three years ago, early evidence suggests the whole approach could fail. Carbon dioxide emissions are still rising in many industries, not falling.


[BASED ON EUROPE'S BAD EXPERIENCES, AT LEAST ONE EU PARLIAMENTARIAN HAS APPEALED TO U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANT JOHN McCAIN NOT TO ADOPT A CARBON 'CAP & TRADE' SYSTEM IN THE U.S. See: Roger Helmer, Don't Do it Mr. McCain, Roger Helmer MEP, Straight Talking Newsletter (5/27/08) at: http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/dont-do-it-mr-mccain ("Asking the following question to McCain adviser Carla Fiorina - I said (as near as I can remember): 'Mike Duncan referred to policies that didn’t work in Europe, and won’t work in America. That applies in spades to Cap’n'Trade. I was very disappointed to hear that John McCain has backed this system, which has been a disaster in Europe. Please ask him to reconsider'. I didn’t quite get a standing ovation, but close to it. There was a very loud and positive audience reaction, and it was easy to sense the mood of the meeting. Ms. Fiorina has been left in no doubt of the views of Washington conservatives on the policy. She conspicuously failed to reply to the question.")].


“We currently are in danger of losing yet another decade in the fight against global warming,” said Hugo Robinson of Open Europe, a research group in London.


[See: Europe’s Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn’t Working, Open Europe (Aug. 2007) at: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf . (SEE BELOW).]


This week, the European Environment Agency reported that emissions from factories and plants that trade pollution permits rose 0.4 percent in 2006 over the previous year, and 0.7 percent in 2007, the first two years of the system’s operations.


[See: You Know You're a Hypocritter When...You Emit More Hot Air (CO2) Than Those Whom You've Been Crittercizing!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/you-know-youre-hypocrite-whenyou-emit.html ;THE U.K. WAS RECENTLY SHOWN NOT TO HAVE MET ITS KYOTO OBLIGATIONS. See: Holy Hypocrisy!! UK Proselytizes About Climate Change, But Can't Even Meet its Own Carbon Commitments!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/httpwww.html .]


Europeans took an early lead in efforts to curb global warming, championing the Kyoto Protocol and imposing a market-based system in 2005 to cap emissions from about 12,000 factories producing electricity, glass, steel, cement, pulp and paper. Companies buy or sell permits based on whether they overshoot or come in beneath their pollution goals.


European Union officials acknowledge that establishing such a vast market has been more complicated than they expected. “Of course it was ambitious to set up a market for something you can’t see and to expect to see immediate changes in behavior,” said Jacqueline McGlade, the executive director of the European Environment Agency. “It’s easy, with hindsight, to say we could have been tougher.”

A major stumbling block arose at the outset, when some participating governments allocated too many trading permits to polluters when the market was created. That led to a near-market failure after the value of the permits fell by half, and called into question the validity of the system.


Since then, officials have promised changes, and the price of carbon permits has largely recovered. Yet a ferocious lobbying battle is under way as European Union regulators seek to overhaul dysfunctional parts of the market by charging polluting companies more and reducing the supply of permits. Brussels is also seeking to consolidate its oversight of the market, rather than leave it partly in the hands of national governments that have proved susceptible to corporate lobbying.


“The politics you’re seeing in Europe now are the real politics of carbon,” said David Victor, the director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford.


Energy-intensive industries, like power, steel and aluminum, have challenged proposals that would force them to buy many more permits than in the past. During the three years in which they participated in the first phase of the market, carbon emissions in the iron and steel sector in Britain alone rose more than 10 percent while emissions in the cement industry rose more than 50 percent, according to transcripts from the British Parliament.


Electricity producers, oil companies, steel companies and airlines are among those fighting to protect their interests, with some threatening to freeze investments in Europe unless the system is tweaked to suit them.


Meanwhile, poorer countries in the union, led by Hungary, are clamoring to overturn emissions allowances that they say are too stingy and risk undermining their economic growth.


The proposals are also under attack from environmentalists, who want to restrict polluters from using large numbers of permits from an offsetting program run by the United Nations. It funnels money to poor countries for investments that purportedly reduce carbon emissions, but the effectiveness of the program has been questioned.


“The sheer amount of lobbying creates so much uncertainty about the way these markets operate that nobody really is investing in cleaner technologies in Europe,” said Mr. Robinson of Open Europe.


Carbon markets, also known as cap-and-trade systems, have come into vogue because they are more politically palatable than imposing carbon taxes.


THE CAP & TRADE 'SCREEN' ALSO ENSURES THAT ONLY TECHNOLOGIES FAVORED BY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS, AS PUSHED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS CONCERNED WITH SECURING A COMPETITIVE MARKET ADVANTAGE FOR THEIR CLIENTS, MAY BE USED TO MEET THE CAP & PAY RULES. THE NET EFFECT OF THESE RULES, AS DRAFTED LARGELY BY ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST GROUPS IN EUROPE & SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE GREEN/SOCIALIST MAJORITY IN THE EU COMMISSION & THE U.S. CONGRESSIONAL GREEN MAJORITY, EACH OF WHICH CALLS FOR A ZERO CARBON ECONOMY, WOULD BE TO STOP THE U.S. ECONOMY ALTOGETHER IN ORDER TO FUNDAMENTALLY and PERMANENTLY RESTRUCTURE IT, WITHOUT PAYING HEED TO THE ECONOMIC COSTS INVOLVED & THE NEED FOR DIVERSE ENERGY SOURCES THAT CAN ENSURE U.S. ENERGY SECURITY. THE EUROPEAN UNION WANTS THE U.S. TO ADOPT 'CAP & TRADE' PRECISELY BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD EFFECTIVELY 'LEVEL' THE ECONOMIC PLAYING FIELD' FOR ITS OVER-REGULATED INDUSTRIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO THE FLAWED EU EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM.]


[MUCH LIKE EUROPEAN SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES, U.S. SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES WOULD BE FORCED TO INCUR HIGHER ENERGY COSTS & PRICES FOR MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INPUTS AND SUPPLIES, WHICH WOULD THUS RESULT, AS IN EUROPE, IN LOWER PROFIT MARGINS FOR SUCH COMPANIES.]


[MEANWHILE U.S. CONSUMERS, MUCH LIKE EUROPEAN CONSUMERS, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO HIGHER ENERGY, CONSUMER GOODS & SERVICES COSTS and A LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING, AND ARE LIKELY ALSO TO SUFFER INCREASED JOB LOSSES AS SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED COMPANIES, WHICH CONSTITUTE THE GREATEST SOURCE OF U.S. EMPLOYMENT, ARE COMPELLED TO RETRENCH, SCALE DOWN AND/OR ELIMINATE LABOR COSTS JUST TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ENERGY INFORMATION AGENCY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSED LIEBERMAN-WARNER CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (S. 2191) WOULD HAVE IMPOSED SEVERE COSTS ON THE U.S. ECONOMY, INCLUDING INCREASED COSTS OF LIVING FOR CONSUMERS, INCREASED IMPORT DEPENDENCE & OUTSOURCING AND REDUCED DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING. See: EIA & EPA Both Find S.2191 Climate Change Bill Would Cost $Trillions in Added Expense: How Could US Senators Conscientiously Do This to Americans?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/eia-epa-both-find-s2191-climate-change.html .]


Americans pioneered pollution markets in the 1970s and used them on a broader scale with some success during the 1990s to control emissions from power plants that contributed to acid rain. American officials also pushed hard for emissions trading to be included in the Kyoto climate treaty on the grounds that markets are the most effective way of encouraging innovative emission-reducing technologies.




[WHILE SULFUR DIOXIDE and NITROGEN (SO2 & NO2 -ACID RAIN) EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM OF THE '80's & '90's MAY HAVE WORKED WELL, IT DEALT WITH SPECIFIC SOURCES OF REAL (AS OPPOSED TO FICTIONAL) ANTHROPOGENIC 'AIR POLLUTANTS' - EMITTENTS, UNLIKE CARBON DIOXIDE, THAT DIRECTLY & ADVERSELY AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH, WILDLIFE, THE ENVIRONMENT AND EVEN PRIVATE PROPERTY.]


But the momentum in the United States to create a nationwide carbon market ground to a halt in 2001, when President Bush withdrew support for the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Bush said carbon controls would put an undue burden on the American economy unless fast-growing countries like China and India also made commitments to cut emissions.



Now the tide is turning again in favor of carbon markets in the United States. Although the Senate this month blocked a bill that would have imposed a cap-and-trade system to slash greenhouse gases by 2050, the issue is expected to come up again after the elections. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have pledged support for market-based systems like the one in Europe.

[AS NOTED ABOVE, THIS WOULD BE A GRIEVOUS MISTAKE THAT WOULD HAMSTRING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY and ACCOMPLISH LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF A CARBON CAP & TRADE SYSTEM WOULD PLACE A SEVERE DRAG ON U.S. GDP AND PERVERSELY ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC IN ACTIVITY.]




Mr. Obama has said he supports the use of a market to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. His proposal would require pollution credits to be auctioned rather than given away to big industries, including coal and oil companies.



Mr. McCain favors giving permits away to big polluters before moving to an “eventual” auctioning of permits to reduce emission levels 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.



[THIS WOULD SOLVE NOTHING, BUT PLAY RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF CARLA FIORINA'S FORMER COMPANY & OTHER BIG FORTUNE 100 U.S. COMPANIES.]



Americans were likely to experience many of the same problems already playing out in Europe, said Mr. Victor, the Stanford expert. “The challenge for the United States now will be to have enough pork to get people to the meal, but not to give away so much that we end up squandering public resources,” he said.


[MR. VICTOR CANDIDLY ADMITS THAT THE 'CAP & TRADE' GAME IS NOTHING MORE THAN POLITICAL POSTURING & PANDERING TO THOSE WHOM WILL BE THE MOST ECONOMICALLY HARMED. HOWEVER, THE 'CAP & PLAY' SCHEME FAILS TO CONSIDER THE INTERESTS OF SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES AND OF CONSUMERS, WHO HAVE LITTLE OR NO SAY DUE TO THE LOBBYING INFLUENCE OF THE 'BIG BOYS'.]



The biggest question hanging over the European system — and that is likely to be of major concern to American policy makers — is whether the rules can be tightened enough that they achieve the social goal [SOCIALISM] of reducing the emissions that are warming the planet.



Henrik Hasselknippe, the director of emissions trading analysis at Point Carbon, a consultancy in Oslo, said the European system was beginning to show signs of success. [THIS IS EURO-SPIN.] He said the price of carbon had been rising, and that would prompt factories and installations covered by the system to move toward cleaner power generation, such as burning natural gas instead of coal.



Mr. Hasselknippe said efforts to overhaul the European system by reducing corporate influence and government largess would mean greater certainty about price of carbon permits [i.e. - THEY WILL BECOME EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE AND RESTRICTIVE!!] during the next decade. And he predicted that emissions from industries covered by the European system would finally decline this year, by 2 percent.



[THIS WOULD MEAN LESS CONSUMER and SMALL & MEDIUM-SIZED COMPANY INFLUENCE OVER COMMUNITY POLICY AS EU COMMISSION BUREAUCRATS COMMANDING SALARIES OF OVER $200,000 PER ANNUM ASSUME EVEN MORE CONTROL OVER THE FATE OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC, and DETERMINE EVEN TO AN EVEN GREATER EXTENT, HOW THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE CAN & CANNOT LIVE THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES.]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf



Europe’s Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn’t Working



Open Europe




(Aug. 2007)




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




"...The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is supposed to be the EU’s main policy tool for reducing emissions. But so far, it has been an embarrassing failure. In its first phase of operation, more
permits to pollute have been printed than there is pollution. The price of carbon has collapsed to
almost zero, creating no incentive to reduce pollution. Across the EU, emissions from
installations covered by the ETS actually rose by 0.8%.



The Commission insists that it has learned its lesson, and has reassured us that in the second
phase of the scheme, which runs from 2008 to 2012 will work better because it has clamped
down on the over allocation of permits by member states.



Open Europe argues however that in fact things have gone backwards for the ETS. In the second phase of the ETS member states will be able to “import” external Kyoto “credits” from developing countries in order to meet their targets for reductions. This might be unobjectionable if these ‘imports’ reflected real emissions cuts. But these credits have already been exposed as highly flawed, and often fraudulent. They don’t always reflect absolute reductions in
emissions, whilst many of these credits are generated from projects in developing countries that would have happened anyway. Such credits actually mean increased pollution.



Furthermore, many credits will be generated through a system which allows polluters to bag massive profits for very little effort. Unsurprisingly, the main beneficiaries will be large, highly capitalized firms with the capacity to attract the attention of speculative investment in potentially lucrative ‘green’ projects. Meanwhile, community level development will be sidelined, and sub-Saharan Africa will see just 4% of total investment from Kyoto credits.

The Open Europe report finds that it is highly likely that the majority of CO2 reductions in the next ETS phase will be simply 'bought in’ through these imported permits. That means the ETS won’t reduce emissions in Europe, and won’t encourage companies to invest in low carbon technology – surely the main purpose of any serious climate change policy?

The report concludes that far from creating a credible basis for EU level action on climate change, the ETS has instead established a web of politically powerful vested interest groups, massive economic distortions and covert industrial subsidies. It will do practically nothing to fight climate change. It's good news for the traders and the large firms who will reap tens of billions of euros worth of profit through emissions trading. It's less good news for those who will suffer
the consequences of global warming.

[See: Cap and Play: The New Carbon Emissions ('Hand is Quicker than the Eye') Game, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/cap-and-play-new-carbon-emissions-hand.html .]

You Know You're a Hypocritter When...You Emit More Hot Air (CO2) Than Those Whom You've Been Crittercizing!

http://euobserver.com/9/26360/?rk=1

EU remains off track to meet Kyoto targets

LEIGH PHILLIPS


EU Observer


6/19/08


Greenhouse gas emissions from the oldest European Union member states have declined slightly, according to the latest EU data.

However, the decline occurred to such a small degree, according to data released on Wednesday (18 June) from the European Environment Agency, that if they continue at this pace, they will overshoot reduction targets set under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.


The EEA figures show that the older member states - the EU-15 - reduced their emissions by 0.8 percent between 2005 and 2006 – bringing the total reduction to reached 2.7 percent below 1990 levels.


[THE U.K. WAS RECENTLY SHOWN NOT TO HAVE MET ITS KYOTO OBLIGATIONS. See: Holy Hypocrisy!! UK Proselytizes About Climate Change, But Can't Even Meet its Own Carbon Commitments!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/httpwww.html .]


The emissions of the European Union as a whole, including new member states, decreased slightly in 2006. They were 0.3 percent lower than 2005, reaching a total reduction of 7.7 percent on 1990 levels.


The agency, which advises the EU on environmental issues, issued emissions figures for 2006 as the data is always published with a delay of about two years.


At the Kyoto summit, the EU-15 committed themselves to a joint Kyoto target of at least eight per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.


But, warn environmentalists, if the countries were to reduce emissions more or less equally every year, a linear path drawn from 1990 to 2012 would show that by this point, emissions should have already been reduced to 6.4 percent below 1990 levels.


Countries are not obliged to adhere to such annual reductions, but if they do not achieve them, it means that larger emission cuts will have to be achieved closer to the target date of 2010.


"This data is alarming," said Sonja Meister, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth Europe. "The EU will only be able to fight dangerous climate change if all member states reduce their emissions year on year."


The environmental group argues that the European Commission should be given the power to ensure that EU states comply with their targets.


"Time is running out and only strong legislation including annual cuts will bring the EU on track to meet its long-term targets," said Ms Meister.


Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector continued to increase over the 2005-2006 period, and large growth in all greenhouse gas emissions continued apace in the aviation and shipping sectors.


The data is troubling for the EU. If the earlier Kyoto reduction targets are not on schedule to be met, this brings into question how realistic the more ambitious new goals of a reduction of 20 percent by 2020, agreed to by EU leaders last spring.


Additionally, the decrease in EU-15 emissions was due to 2006's unusually warmer weather – meaning that people did not have to heat their homes as much – rather than as a result of political movement on the part of governments.


Furthermore, CO2 emissions also continued to climb in the newest 12 EU member states – a development that produced a mild rebuke from environment commissioner Stavros Dimas.
"The emission increases in the majority of EU-12 countries are not helpful," he said.


"The EU-12 countries have to bear in mind that they cannot rely on the successes of the past," he added, referring to the large drop in carbon emissions experienced in eastern Europe as a result of the sharp decline in the countries' economies following the collapse of the Soviet bloc.


"Our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 are for the EU-27 together," he continued, "and a continuous effort will be required by all member states to achieve them."


Across the EU, heavier use of coal for power and heat production resulted in an increase of 15.4 million tonnes of CO2 from this sector. Poland alone accounted for an increase of 7.6 million tonnes of emissions for power and heat production.


Of the EU-15, Denmark and Finland experienced the biggest relative increase in GHG emissions (10.9% and 16.3 % respectively), due to heavier use of solid fossil fuels for power generation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore's Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations
Tennessee Center for Policy Research

June 17, 2008




NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.


“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.” In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.


In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient.


Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul. Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.


In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. “Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said.


“Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

Cap and Play: The New Carbon Emissions ('Hand is Quicker than the Eye') Game

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/04/cap-and-pay/


Cap and pay - Congress should reject uncertain promise of emissions crackdown

By Rocky Mountain News

Wednesday, June 4, 2008


We are fairly confident that the Climate Security Act, being debated this week in the U.S. Senate, will have at most a negligible impact on global warming.


For one thing, U.S. lawmakers cannot prevent China, India and other developing nations from expanding their industrial economies (nor should they); these growing societies are likely to produce much more carbon-based energy in the next two decades than the projected savings by the United States.


Though the bill is unlikely to pass, the Democratic and Republican presidential front-runners remain enthusiastic about the cap-and-trade process that is its cornerstone. A similar bill is almost certain to reappear next year.


Cap and trade is a recipe for energy rationing, big time. Washington would set a limit on national greenhouse gas emissions beginning at 2005 levels in 2012 and then going down by 2 percent a year from the same '05 base until 2050.

Since electricity production, transportation and manufacturing account for 81 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the bill would target those activities - in other words, the heart and soul of our economy. Power plants, fuel refineries and manufacturers would get allowances under the cap (a permit to pollute, if you will) each year. Those seeking to exceed their government- imposed limits could buy credits from other permit holders that have not.
Under the legislation, emissions allowances would be forced downward every year, even as energy demand is expected to rise. As a result, allowances will get more expensive.

The cost of anything produced with fossil fuels will go up. Economists at MIT estimate that by 2015 the Climate Security Act would raise the price of gas by 29 percent, electricity by 55 percent and natural gas by 15 percent. The Congressional Budget Office is not as pessimistic, but still it predicts that a 15 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions (which would be mandated within a few years of passage) would boost the average household's energy bill by $1,300 a year.
But the truth is that these models - and others that predict virtually no economic impact, or much worse - are educated guesswork. All that can be said with certainty is that carbon-based energy costs will steadily rise; that, after all, is the idea.


These higher consumer costs would percolate through the economy since nearly everything requires energy to be produced. Washington also stands to land a sizable windfall - between $3.3 trillion and $7 trillion over the next four decades, according to bill sponsors. The feds would get the money auctioning emission allowances each year.


Not only will Washington do well in terms of revenue; regulators' powers will be vastly expanded. American families won't be so lucky, since Congress hasn't planned offsetting tax cuts to cushion individuals and businesses from the financial blow.


A revenue-neutral plan pairing legislation with broad-based tax cuts would at least make the bill more palatable. For that matter, most economists will tell you that a straight carbon tax (also offset, we'd hope, with tax cuts elsewhere) makes more sense than cap and trade because the tax is visible and involves smaller transaction costs; a cap-and-trade system would be incredibly complex and its effects largely obscure to the average American.


Someday the United States will transition from a fossil fuel economy, and the ground for it is being laid right now through major investments in research into alternative technologies. But the needed breakthroughs are best fostered by policies that encourage economic growth, not retard it.


Proponents of this legislation are asking Americans to accept a reduction in their living standards for decades, perhaps a significant one, in exchange for an uncertain payoff many decades in the future. That's hardly a bargain.

© Rocky Mountain News

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121236237789236363.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

WALL STREET JOURNAL

REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Cap and Spend


June 2, 2008; Page A16


As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.


Sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out "allowances" under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances.


When cap and trade has been used in the past, such as to reduce acid rain, the allowances were usually distributed for free. A major difference this time is that the allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of cap and trade even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress.


Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that's trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won't be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot.


Of course most of the money will go to human constituencies, especially those with the most political clout. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for low-income taxpayers, to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. Ms. Boxer will judge if you earn too much to qualify.


There's also $190 billion to fund training for "green-collar jobs," which are supposed to replace the jobs that will be lost in carbon-emitting industries. Another $288 billion would go to "wildlife adaptation," whatever that means, and another $237 billion to the states for the same goal. Some $342 billion would be spent on international aid, $171 billion for mass transit, and untold billions for alternative energy and research – and we're just starting.


Ms. Boxer would only auction about half of the carbon allowances; she reserves the rest for politically favored supplicants. These groups might be Indian tribes (big campaign donors!), or states rewarded for "taking the lead" on emissions reductions like Ms. Boxer's California. Those lucky winners would be able to sell those allowances for cash. The Senator estimates that the value of the handouts totals $3.42 trillion. For those keeping track, that's more than $6.7 trillion in revenue handouts so far.


The bill also tries to buy off businesses that might otherwise try to defeat the legislation. Thus carbon-heavy manufacturers like steel and cement will get $213 billion "to help them adjust," while fossil-fuel utilities will get $307 billion in "transition assistance." No less than $34 billion is headed to oil refiners. Given that all of these folks have powerful Senate friends, they will probably extract a larger ransom if cap and trade ever does become law.


If Congress is really going to impose this carbon tax in the name of saving mankind, the least it should do is forego all of this political largesse. In return for this new tax, Congress should cut taxes elsewhere to make the bill revenue neutral. A "tax swap" would offset the deadweight taxes that impede growth and reduce employment. All the more so because even the cap-and-trade friendly Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill would reduce GDP between $1 trillion and $2.8 trillion by 2050.


Most liberal economists favor using the money to reduce the payroll tax. That has the disadvantage politically of adding Social Security into the debate. A cleaner tax swap would compensate for the new tax on business by cutting taxes on investment – such as slashing the 35% U.S. corporate rate that is the second highest in the developed world. Then there's the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2010 and would raise the overall tax burden by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. Democrats who want to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends are proposing a double tax wallop by embracing Warner-Lieberman-Boxer.


All of this helps explain why so many in Congress are so enamored of "doing something" about global warming. They would lay claim to a vast new chunk of the private economy and enhance their own political power.

EU Influences, Congressional Climate Change Chicanery and Environmental Extremists Continue to Hold U.S. Energy Security Hostage

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-renews-call-for-offshore-oil/20080618093109990001

Bush Renews Call for Offshore Oil Drilling


By H. JOSEF HEBERT,


AP


June 18, 2008


WASHINGTON (June 18) -- With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea."There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a statement in the Rose Garden. With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. His proposal echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration.


"Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response," Bush said.


Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed. [???]


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's proposals "another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry — give away more public resources."


[MS. PELOSI PREFERS AN ENERGY POLICY WRITTEN BY THE EUROPEANS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS]

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades.


[MR. OBAMA WOULD PREFER HIGHER GAS, OIL PRICES, AS THE EUROPEANS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS WANT, SO THAT WE COULD JOIN WITH THEM IN CLIMATE CHANGE KUMBAYA!!]


"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular," said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a "cynical campaign ploy" that won't help lower energy prices.


"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."


[MESSRS. OBAMA AND REID: THE MATH IS SIMPLE - WINDMILLS, SOLAR PANELS AND ETHANOL ARE NOT GOING TO MEET CURRENT OR FUTURE U.S. ENERGY NEEDS ALONE. THE U.S. NEEDS TO EXPLOIT ALL ENERGY SOURCES AND TO DEPLOY CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES ALONG THE WAY TO ADDRESS OUR IMMEDIATE ENERGY CRISIS.]


Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also said offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time.


[THIS IS TRUE, GIVEN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MARKETS WHICH LOOK FOR POLICY DIRECTION AND POCKET BOOK RELIEF.]


There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida. What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress has to act first and then he would follow behind.


Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said: "He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it in tandem."


Before Bush spoke, the House Appropriations Committee postponed a vote it had scheduled for Wednesday on legislation doing the opposite of what the president asked — extending Congress' ban on offshore drilling. Lawmakers said they wanted to focus on a disaster relief bill for the battered Midwest.


Bush also proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.


[WHILE ANWR IS NOT NECESSARY, THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY OIL SHALE LEASING IN THE GREEN RIVER BASIN OF COLORADO, UTAH AND WYOMING, AND EVEN COAL MINING IN MONTANA SHOULD NOT PROCEED IMMEDIATELY. THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY HAVE NOT PROCEEDED, IS BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST OPPOSITION AND CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY SUPPORT.]


[See: Why Do Environmentalists Continue to Block Montana's Exploitation of Vast Inexpensive Coal Reserves That Could Be Made Greener With New Technologies? , ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-do-environmentalists-continue-to.html ; Are Wall Street Carbon Credit Traders So 'Invested' That They Are Blocking Exploitation of Known U.S. Oil Reserves in Montana??, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/are-wall-street-carbon-credit-traders.html ; Former Greenpeace Co-Founder Exposes 'Pop-Environmentalism' as the Root of Climate Change Hysteria, While Calmly Discussing Virtues of Nuclear Energy, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/04/former-greenpeace-co-founder-exposes.html .]


With Americans deeply pessimistic about the economy, Bush tried to put on the onus on Congress. He acknowledged that his new proposals would take years to have a full effect, hardly the type of news that will help drivers at the gas stations now. The White House says no quick fix exists.Still, Bush said Congress was obstructing progress — and directly contributing to consumers' pain at the pump.


"I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past," Bush said. "Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions.


"Bush said that if congressional leaders head home for their July 4 recess without taking action, they will need to explain why "$4 a gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it."


Bush said restrictions on offshore drilling have become "outdated and counterproductive.


"In a nod to the environmental arguments against drilling, Bush said technology has come a long way. These days, he said, oil exploration off the coastline can be done in a way that "is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills."


Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for 27 years.


On Monday, McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue.Obama retorted that the Arizona senator had flip-flopped on that issue.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following excerpts are taken from: Lawrence A. Kogan, ARCTIC ESCAPADES - Can The Precautionary Principle Be Invoked via UNCLOS to Undermine U.S. Polar Interests?, Prepared for the National Defense University Symposium "Unfrozen Treasures- National Security, Climate Change and the Arctic Frontier", (May 14, 2008, at pp. 47-48, at: http://www.itssd.org/Programs/KOGANIII.ppt .


►The U.S. oil & gas industries support US ratification of the UNCLOS & its application in the Arctic because U.S. environmental activists have thus far left the OCS in [the northern shores of] Alaska as the only place within the U.S. to undertake new drilling. Wouldn’t it be rational for the USG to reopen OCS drilling along the eastern & western U.S. coastlines, and to enable U.S. coastal states to share in the revenues, to ensure US energy security in the short-medium term while newer cleaner technologies are being developed???


§“Oil and gas leasing has been prohibited on most of the outer continental shelf (OCS) since the 1980s. Congress has enacted OCS leasing moratoria for each of fiscal years 1982-2006 in the annual Interior Appropriations bill, allowing leasing only in the Gulf of Mexico (except near Florida) and parts of Alaska. President George H.W. Bush in 1990 issued a Presidential Directive ordering the Department of the Interior not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in areas covered by the annual legislative moratoria until 2000. In 1998 President Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. Proponents of the moratoria contend that offshore drilling would pose unacceptable environmental risks and threaten coastal tourism industries, while supporters of expanded offshore leasing counter that more domestic oil and gas production is vital for the nation’s energy security.” (See: Marc Humphries, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil & Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, CRS Issue Brief for Congress (April 7, 2006) at p. CRS-1).


►U.S. environmental activists effectively invoke the Precautionary Principle – they recently sued to block ALL OCS oil & drilling around Alaska, alleging that “the Minerals Management Service did not fairly evaluate the potential effects if offshore petroleum fields were developed in the lease area...


§“Earthjustice attorney Eric Jorgensen said the lawsuit does not seek an injunction to block the sale, but asks the court to declare leases invalid if they are sold improperly. He said the groups hope federal authorities will cancel the sale based on the lawsuit and pending legislation. On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., introduced legislation to prohibit oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas until the full effect on polar bear populations was understood. Jorgensen said the lawsuit seeks a more thorough environmental review.” (See: Environmentalists, Natives Sue Feds to Halt Petroleum Lease Sale in Alaska, Associated Press (Feb. 1, 2008)).



§“Environmental groups and Alaska Natives who harvest whales, seals, walrus and salmon said not one acre should have been opened for drilling until oil companies prove they can overcome a basic environmental hurdle: cleaning up a major spill in sea water that's partially covered by broken ice. No oil spill responders have demonstrated that they can clean up oil in broken ice that ranges from slush to cakes, said Margaret Williams of the World Wildlife Fund in Alaska...The same conditions that contribute to oil spill risk — darkness during the long Alaska winter, extreme cold, moving ice, high wind and low visibility — would make spill response difficult or ineffective, according to the WWF...The stakes are enormous as federal policy makers look to find new sources of domestic oil and conservation groups turn to lawsuits to protect northern marine mammals and birds already facing habitat loss from the effects of global warming on sea ice... Williams said the MMS pushed ahead with the Chukchi sale despite information gaps, including an agreement for spill cleanup with Russia. The burden to prove risk continues to fall on conservation groups, she said. The Arctic and vulnerable wildlife already are undergoing stresses with global warming and don't need more from seismic activity, marine traffic and the potential for petroleum spills, she said. (See: Icy Area Opens to Drills, But What About Spills, Associated Press (April 13, 2008)).


... ►Apparently, Ted Stevens, the U.S. Senator from Alaska, sought administration support for OCS drilling to bring jobs & economic growth to the State of Alaska, and suggested that Alaska be cited as an example of how USG OCS licensing could be structured elsewhere in the U.S. (See: Senator Stevens Asks for Bush Administration Support for OCS Revenue Sharing for Alaska, Opening ANWR, Press Release, Office of United States Senator Ted Stevens for Alaska (April 15, 2008)).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. environmental extremist groups have been notorious over the years for blocking the exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas along U.S. coastlines and up to 200 miles therefrom. However, many Americans have only begun to realize how U.S. environmental extremist groups, now backed by the 110th Congressional Majority, have long blocked the construction of use of nuclear power, clean coal technology using plants, hydroelectric power stations and of liquified natural gas terminals (even if the gas is not drilled in the US). Without any exploration and drilling over the past several decades, this type of policymaking has left the United States in an extreme energy security quandary.


The political debate seems now to be focused only on what the environmentalists will let the country do or not do. This sounds pretty similar to what occurs in the European Union, and has practically left the EU with high fuel and home heating & airconditioning costs and dependent on natural gas imports from volatile, unfriendly and/or unreliable regimes.


Is this what we want for the U.S.? Who will step into the current political leadership vacuum??


How much do Americans have to suffer before something is done??


How can the president and the congress permit the environmental extremists to kidnap and hold hostage to their demands our country's energy security and the well being of the U.S. economy???


Don't our leaders understand that the market prices of oil, gas and other energy sources is largely psychological, and that their policies and prescriptions must prudently address that psychology?


Why hasn't the president tapped the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to relieve the pressure on oil prices??


Is it prohibited from doing so by the International Energy Agency??


"According to the United States Energy Information Administration, approximately 4.1 billion barrels (650,000,000 m³) of oil are held in strategic reserves, of which 1.4 billion is government-controlled. The remainder is held by private industry. At the moment the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is one of the largest strategic reserves, with much of the remainder held by the other 26 members of the International Energy Agency.[1] Recently, other non-IEA countries have begun creating their own strategic petroleum reserves, with China being the largest of these new reserves. According to a March 2001 agreement, all 26 members of the International Energy Agency must have a strategic petroleum reserve equal to 90 days of oil imports for their respective country...In addition to maintaining a domestic stockpile of petroleum, several countries also have agreements to share their stockpiles in the event of an emergency...The United States has the largest reported Strategic Petroleum Reserve with a total capacity of 727 million barrels. If completely filled, the US SPR could theoretically replace about 60 days of oil imports." See Global Strategic Petroleum Reserves, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_strategic_petroleum_reserves .


Apparently, the U.S. cannot touch its Strategic Petroleum Reserves because of the European Union dominated and climate change-focused Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) International Energy Agency Treaty by which it is bound:


"The International Energy Agency (IEA, or AIE in Romance languages) is a Paris-based intergovernmental organization founded by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the oil crisis. The IEA was initially dedicated to preventing disruptions in the supply of oil, as well as acting as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors. Recently, they have expanded their mandate to include energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The latter has focused on mitigating climate change.[1] [Environment (HTML). OECD/IEA. Retrieved on 2007-12-23. ] They have a role in promoting and developing alternate energy sources, rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation. Until recently, it did not study nuclear power in detail, except as a contribution to the overall energy balance and economy. Nuclear power is also covered by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations.


IEA member countries are required to maintain total oil stock levels equivalent to at least 90 days of net imports. At the end of June 2007, IEA member countries held a combined stockpile of almost 4.1 billion barrels of oil, 1.5 billion of which governments control for emergency use." See International Energy Agency, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency .


One last question for our leaders: How much longer will you permit the EU-dominated and climate change focused IEA determine U.S. emergency needs???

Climate Change Consensus or Prophecy??

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026

Global warming, an unsettled science

The thesis of man-made global warming has been portrayed as a scientific consensus, but is this more a policymaker and media phenomenon than a settled matter?

By Simon Roughneen

ISN Security Watch

May 30, 2008

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. This included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature rise.

Founding director of the UN Environment Programme Maurice Strong once analyzed global environmental challenges as follows:

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

"Industrial civilization" has been pumping additional carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect, whereby carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor combine to trap sunrays bouncing off the earth's surface, keeping the earth at a temperature conducive to supporting life.

What ultimate benefit the collapse of industrial civilization could bring at a time when - as Oxford University economist Paul Collier put it in his award-winning book The Bottom Billion - around four billion people are being lifted out of poverty, remains unclear.

However, the IPCC outlines that "deep cuts in global emission will be required," while the European Commission supports emissions cuts of 25-40 percent by 2020. The US, however, considers such cuts beyond reach, at least before 2050, while Japan says it is premature to commit to 2020 limits.

On 26 May, G8 environment ministers endorsed slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century, but failed to agree on much more contentious near-term targets.

Environmentalists were disappointed, according to AP reports: They missed the "opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations, but they failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough," said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan.

Whether or not such emissions cuts, and the industrial and economic turmoil that could ensue, are necessary, depends precisely on whether global warming or climate change is man-made, or whether the anthropogenic aspect outweighs natural factors.

On 10 May 2007, UN special climate envoy Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland declared the climate debate "over," adding that "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's scientific "consensus."

Questions about the "consensus" are mounting, however, as are apparently growing numbers of scientists who dispute the notion that "the science is settled."

Unraveling consensus

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature - the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California - report a 0.7C cooling in 2007 - a reversal of the warming that has taken place over the 20th Century.

A recent study in the journal Nature by scientists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, postulates that global temperatures are unlikely to rise again until around 2015-2020, after a decade-long leveling-off since the 1998 recorded high. In other words, it is possible that by 2020, the world will not have warmed for over 20 years.

Dr Vicky Pope of the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office told ISN Security Watch that natural climate variations linked to the Pacific cooling system known as La Niña, as well as a cooling phase of a system of Atlantic currents, contributed to the 2007 cooling and what the Leibniz/Nature study predicts for the coming decade.

The climate prediction modeling system used by the IPCC postulates that global temperatures will rise in tandem with carbon dioxide emissions, and at an unprecedented and dangerous rate, hence the need for, if not the collapse of industrial civilization, then reductions in carbon emissions as outlined since the Kyoto agreements in 1998.

Another study published in Nature in mid-May postulated that "Changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone," and that man-made climate change is having "a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally."

Speaking about this study to the Financial Times, Barry Brook, director of climate change research at the University of Adelaide, said: "[We should] consider that there has been only 0.75ºC of temperature change so far, yet the expectation for this century is four to nine times that amount."

However, Richard Lindzen (Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology), told ISN Security Watch that predictions such as the IPCCs were based on flawed modeling:

"The text of the IPCC [as opposed to the spin-oriented summary] makes clear that a major assumption of attribution studies is that the models were used properly and adequately account for natural internal variability. This study acknowledges that they did not. Under the circumstances, it is absurd to depend on these same models to predict the end of phenomena that they could not predict in the first place."

Dr Pope conceded that "climate science is an evolving subject," but in reference to the second Nature study, said that "they looked at secondary impacts of climate change, and made a stronger link back to core causes, along the lines of the latest research being done on this issue."

Arguments over the reliability of climate models have emerged at various times, in recent years. Most notoriously, the "hockey stick" graph used by the IPPC showing a rapid temperature rise over the industrial era was revised after allegations that it glossed over previously occurring natural cycles, including the Little Ice Age, running to around 1850, and the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than now.

A warm Middle Ages saw vineyards in England, while Greenland got its name due to the relatively lush coastal regions encountered by contemporary exploring Vikings, whose villages there lasted until around the 17th Century, until a cooling climate reduced the snow-free land available to the settlers and indigenous people alike, leaving Greenland as we know it today. Needless to say, such temperature levels occurred well before any "industrial civilization" was in place to emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide.

But in response to counter-arguments to the man-made global warming thesis, the UK Royal Society has drawn up another point-by-point counter-argument, which states "our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming."

The Royal Society, however, goes on to outline: "While climate models are now able to reproduce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change. The reliability also continues to be improved through the use of new techniques and technologies."

In turn, Director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project S Fred Singer has responded to the Royal Society's position in a paper authored for the Centre for Policy Studies in London. And referring to the Leibniz Institute Nature study, he told ISN Security Watch that "natural climate fluctuations can be greater than manmade forcing," and that it is feasible that "the modeled manmade forcing has been greatly exaggerated."

The 4th IPCC report was released 10 months before it shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, and that publication made it clear that there was a consensus of 2,500 scientists across the globe who believed that mankind was responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations, which in turn were very likely responsible for an increase in global temperatures.

However, just two weeks ago, Dr Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine told the National Press Club in Washington DC that more than 31,000 scientists had signed the so-called Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line.

Moreover, some of those included on the IPCC's list have also raised objections. On 12 December 2007, the US Senate released a report from more than 400 scientists, many of whose names were attached to the IPCC report without - they claim - their permission. In the report, the scientists expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

While the US remains outside the Kyoto system, along with developing-country high carbon emitters such as China and India, US President George Bush has made conciliatory noises on climate issues in recent months, while all three remaining presidential candidates have been vocal about their commitment to offsetting.

Less commented-upon is the data on emissions reduction: The US has cut the rate of increase of its carbon emissions more than any party to Kyoto, according to the Index of Leading Economic Indicators' figures for 1997-2004, the last year for universal emission data.

The US Senate will convene next week to discuss a climate bill, which aims, through a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, to reduce emissions 70 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, even though countries such as China, Russia and India have no such plans.

Alarmism misplaced?
Prior to the December Bali climate summit, some of the scientists who signed the Senate and Oregon letters penned an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, outlining their view that climate alarmism was misplaced, and the policy options discussed were futile:


"The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. […] Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the 'precautionary principle' because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. […] The current UN focus on "fighting climate change" […] is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take."

Whether this distraction results in the destruction of industrialized civilization or not, some analysts, such as Bjorn Lomborg, author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, believes that an inappropriate reaction to global warming will cause more problems than contribute solutions.

Carbon trading has been pitched as part-panacea to man-made global warming. Stanford University academics believe that the system does little to prevent emissions, while cynics believe that proponents of the schemes can benefit financially - a sort-of counter-argument to the "big oil funds climate dissent" view held by green activists.

Problems aside, Dr Terry Barker, director of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Research, tells ISN Security Watch that the ongoing climate negotiations need to "establish a global carbon price through a global cap-and-trade scheme for international transport, not adequately covered by national jurisdiction."

He adds: "Governments need to agree to quantified targets [...] with a reasonable chance of achieving the EU's 2 degree target."

It seems that policymakers are in a bind: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas reacted to the Bali summit as follows: "Now the real hard work must begin. It is essential that the agreement to be worked out over the next two years is ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels."

And more incongruently, only last week, Slovenia's UN ambassador Sanja Stiglic, speaking on behalf of the EU, whose rotating Presidency Ljubljana holds, said that "the present [food] situation highlights the urgent need to reach ambitious, global and comprehensive targets for reductions in CO2 emissions."

The massive rise in world food prices in the past two years came to a head recently, with widespread food riots in numerous countries, and many analysts point to the diversion of cropland to the subsidized biofuels industry - aimed to curb carbon emissions - as a contributory factor to the food crisis.

Global warming, therefore, is causing the food crisis, but most directly through human efforts to prevent warming. In any case, the IPCC itself concedes that for a warming of anything up to 3 percent, "globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Roughneen is a senior correspondent for ISN Security Watch