Holy Hypocrisy!! UK Proselytizes About Climate Change, But Can't Even Meet its Own Carbon Commitments!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4009254.ece

UK CO2 emissions rise faster than EU average despite carbon-trading scheme

By David Charter

Times Online

May 27, 2008

Britain pumped out more greenhouse gases last year under the EU carbon trading scheme designed to cut emissions, according to figures released in Brussels.

The British increase was 2.2 per cent. There was an overall increase across Europe of 0.68 per cent, or 16million tonnes of CO2. Emissions rose in ten of the EU's 27 countries, including Germany and Spain, despite the scheme's target to cut CO2 by a fifth by 2020.

Ministers argued that the extra 5.4 million tonnes of CO2 produced in Britain could be more than explained by 59 organisations joining the trading scheme, in which polluters are given carbon credits and forced to buy more if they emit beyond their allocation.

They added that when the scheme is revamped next year, there will be tougher controls on the number of credits available. Phil Woolas, the Environment Minister, said that without the new entrants into the scheme, emissions would have gone down by 2.9 million tonnes. “Companies are taking their responsibilities seriously and carbon reduction and trading has become a normal part of their business,” he said.

But environmental campaigners said that the figures, combined with plans for more coal-fired power stations, showed that the carbon-trading scheme was not tough enough to meet reduction targets.

“The only thing that matters is how much CO2 is going into the atmosphere,” said Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate campaign. “It does not sound credible to call the emissions-trading scheme a success when we have seen a proposal for a new coal-fired power station in Kent. It is not sending a strong enough signal to the power companies.”

Stavros Dimas, the EU Environment Commissioner, said that the rise in emissions was below the 2.8 per cent rise in Europe's GDP last year. “Emissions trading is yielding results,” he said. “Studies show that emissions would most likely have been significantly higher without the EU emission trading scheme.”

The biggest rises in tonnage of CO2 in 2007 came in Germany (up 8.99 million tonnes), Spain (up 6.79 million tonnes), Britain (up 5.42 million tonnes) and Czech Republic (up 4.21 million tonnes).

Yesterday a committee of MPs told the Government to go ahead with a system of personal “carbon credits”.

Under the scheme everybody would be given an annual carbon limit. Anyone who wanted to spend more could buy extra credits from low-carbon emitters.

The Environmental Audit Committee said it would be more effective than green taxes and would promote behavioural change. It admitted that there would be strong public opposition but urged the Government to be courageous.

World Bank Rebuked By Enviros & Some Gov'ts As it Tries to Inject Common Sense and Accountability in Climate Change-Clean Energy Financing Tools

[READERS SHOULD NOT BE PERSUADED BY MEDIA (e.g., NEWSWEEK) ARTICLES, POLITICAL RHETORIC & RELIGIOUS PROPHECIES ABOUT THE COMING CLIMATE CHANGE ARMAGEDDON. IN FACT, THESE STORIES, PLUS THE DRACONIAN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS CAP & TRADE ('SMOKE & MIRROR') REGULATORY REGIMES NOW BEING TOUTED AS THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT CAN ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND BY THE 110TH CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY CONSTITUTES PERHAPS THE GREATEST ATTEMPTED FRAUD EVER PERPETRATED ON HUMANMANKIND SINCE THE PROPAGANDA OF THE THIRD REICH AND THE MARXIST/SOCIALIST 'PEOPLE'S' REVOLUTION. READERS NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT WILL BE PRIMARILY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS AND SMALL BUSINESSES WHO/WHICH WILL PAY THE COST OF ENERGY PRICE INCREASES, GOODS AND SERVICES PRICE INCREASES AND GENERAL STANDARD OF LIVING COST INCREASES WITHOUT PROOF THAT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ARE PROVIDED. ACTUALLY, THE TRUE WINNERS ARE AL GORE AND OTHER INVESTMENT HOUSES AND REINSURANCE COMPANIES ON WALL STREET AND IN LONDON'S FINANCIAL DISTRICT WHO UNDERWRITE THE CARBON EMISSIONS OFFSET TRADES AND RELATED CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INSURANCE POLICIES. THESE SCHEMES ARE NO LESS OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLES' COMMON SENSE THAN A REAL ESTATE AGENT TRYING TO SELL CONDOMINIUMS ON THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE]



http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1228263320080412


Financing crucial to next climate change pact: U.N.


Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:04pm EDT


By Louise Egan


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The global fight against climate change after the Kyoto pact expires will fail unless rich countries can come up with creative ways to finance clean development by poorer nations, a U.N. official said on Saturday.


"We are not going to see that major developing country engagement unless significant financial resources and technology flows begin to be mobilized," Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said in a media briefing.


De Boer and Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development, said they were studying a long list of financing schemes and proposals and were hopeful of meeting an end-2009 deadline.


But they were acutely aware of critics who have expressed fears the World Bank will "hijack" billions of dollars of development aid to tackle climate change.


"The overriding concern of developing countries is economic growth and poverty eradication and you cannot expect developing countries to engage on the question of climate change and harm those overriding objectives," De Boer said.


"At the heart of this is intelligent financial engineering," he said.


World Bank President Robert Zoellick said in a speech on Thursday that "addressing climate change won't work if it is simply seen as a rich man's club."


The first formal talks to draw up a replacement to the Kyoto climate change pact, which ends in 2012, took place in Bangkok earlier this month with plans for another seven rounds of negotiations culminating in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.


U.N. climate experts want the new treaty to go beyond Kyoto by getting all countries to agree to curbs on emissions of the greenhouse gases that are fueling global warming.


Under Kyoto, only 37 rich nations are bound to cut emissions by an average of five percent from 1990 levels by 2012.


But developing countries want firm commitments of aid to meet the new targets that will eventually be set out.


The international carbon market is one source of funding but it is not enough, said De Boer who said he was very interested in a German proposal to auction emission rights and use the proceeds for international aid.


"That is a very interesting way of mobilizing new financial resources that are not related to official development assistance," he said.


The World Bank is developing a new strategy on climate change that includes embedding climate change into its existing programs to help countries boost their economies and combat poverty, said Sierra.


She said the bank would meet with donors over the next several days to discuss its proposals, including a $5-10 billion Clean Technology Fund, a $500 million "adaptation" fund and possibly a third fund dealing with forestry.


Zoellick said the needs of developing nations in climate change will be the subject of a Sunday meeting of World Bank officials and ministers from rich and poor countries.


(Reporting by Louise Egan, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)


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


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSBKK28941120080404


World Bank accused of climate change "hijack"


Fri Apr 4, 2008 5:26am EDT


By Ed Cropley


BANGKOK (Reuters) - Developing countries and environmental groups accused the World Bank on Friday of trying to seize control of the billions of dollars of aid that will be used to tackle climate change in the next four decades.


"The World Bank's foray into climate change has gone down like a lead balloon," Friends of the Earth campaigner Tom Picken said at the end of a major climate change conference in the Thai capital.


"Many countries and civil society have expressed outrage at the World Bank's attempted hijacking of real efforts to fund climate change efforts," he said.


Before they agree to any sort of restrictions on emissions of the greenhouse gases fuelling global warming, poor countries want firm commitments of billions of dollars in aid from their rich counterparts.


The money will be used for everything from flood barriers against rising sea levels to "clean" but costly power stations, an example of the "technology transfer" developing countries say they need to curb emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide.


As well as the obvious arguments about how much money will be needed -- some estimates run into the trillions of dollars by 2050 -- rich and poor countries are struggling even to agree on a bank manager.


At the week-long Bangkok conference, the World Bank pushed its proposals for a $5-10 billion Clean Technology Fund, a $500 million "adaptation" fund and possibly a third fund dealing with forestry.


However, developing countries want climate change cash to be administered through the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), which they feel is much less under the control of the Group of 8 (G8) richest countries.


"Generally we have been unpleasantly surprised by the funds," said Ana Maria Kleymeyer, Argentina's lead negotiator at the meeting.


"This is a way for the World Bank and its donor members to get credit back home for putting money into climate change in a way that's not transparent, that doesn't involve developing countries and that ignores the UNFCC process," she said.


[NO, MS. KLEYMEYER: IT IS A WAY TO HOLD CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS LIKE YOURS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY SPEND THE MONEY!!]


(Editing by Michael Battye and Alex Richardson)

EPA Must Find CO2 Endangers Public Health Before It Can Regulate Emissions - California & Greenies Misrepresent Law

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1870.cfm



The EPA's Prudent Response to Massachusetts v. EPA


by Ben Lieberman



Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1870


March 28, 2008


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Administrator Stephen Johnson deserve praise following the announcement that the agency will respond to the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA decision by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the question of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Taking irreversible steps toward regulating emissions would lead to the imposition of unnecessary costs on the economy, which would be all the more damaging in the current economic climate. An ANPR, which will allow for public comment without committing the agency to a specific outcome, is the best course of action.


[See brief explanation of the USSct's holding in Mass. v. EPA at: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Call For Large Unspecified National 'Sacrifices' and High Cost Enviro-Energy Use Regulatory 'Changes', at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/03/hillary-clinton-and-barack-obama-call.html ].


Background




In April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision against the EPA over its refusal to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from motor vehicles. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, Massachusetts v. EPA did not require the agency to change its position; it only required the agency to demonstrate that whatever it chooses to do complies with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court stated that "[w]e need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding" and that
"[w]e hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."



Nonetheless, some people in the environmental activist community, Congress, and the EPA wanted to read the decision as a mandate to begin cracking down on carbon dioxide. But doing so is not required under the law.[1]


[A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS ARE THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ACTIVIST GROUP ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE. "In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the gases that cause global warming are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court also found that the U.S. government has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases... Although the ruling does not require the federal government to act, it puts new pressure on Congress to set a national policy that caps carbon pollution — the best way to solve this problem. 'This is ultimately up to Congress,' said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. "The Court did all it can," he said, "but if we’re really going to fix climate change, Congress must pass a cap on carbon pollution, and soon."
See http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5623 ].


ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE WAS JUST ONE OF A NUMBER OF ACTIVIST PLAINTIFFS IN THE MASS. V. EPA CASE. OTHER ACTIVIST GROUPS INCLUDED:

Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment and its affiliate, the Center for Food Safety, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS HOW CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CREATIVELY INTERPRETED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S RULING AND PRESSURED THE EPA TO IMMEDIATELY MAKE A FINAL ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION WITHOUT ADEQUATE REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION. THE CALIFORNIA RELIES ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE CHAIRED BY HENRY WAXMAN, A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS NOT UNKNOWN FOR HIS FIERCELY PARTISAN POLITICS: "California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. went to federal court today to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release a court-mandated determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare. Such a determination of endangerment is the first step towards establishing federal controls on greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming... On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions after making a formal determination that such pollution threatens public health or welfare. The EPA itself described the Court’s mandate as follows: '...the EPA must determine...whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare'...A recent investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform revealed that the EPA had already made its endangerment determination--including an extensive scientific review--and sent it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final approval. Brown called EPA’s inaction “a textbook case of unreasonable delay” because the agency already completed its endangerment determination last year and is simply refusing to release it publicly. “It is makes absolutely no sense for the EPA to say it needs a year-long public comment period before it can obey the Supreme Court,” Brown said. “The EPA has finished its determination and Johnson should keep his promise by releasing the final version immediately.” See "Brown Takes EPA To Court For Ignoring Supreme Court Mandate", News Alert, Office Of The Attorney General, The State of California (April 2, 2008) at: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1540 .]

A Cautious Federal Approach to Regulating Carbon Dioxide

Thus Far Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring component of the air and is created by breathing and other natural processes. It is also the ubiquitous and unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America's energy. Thus, any effort to substantially curtail such emissions would have extremely costly and disruptive impacts on the economy and on living standards.

However, that may change over the long term: The Bush Administration is supporting research into carbon-friendly energy technologies as well as means to capture and store carbon emissions underground rather than releasing them into the air. But these efforts will likely take at least 20 years to reach fruition. There are no cost-effective solutions in the interim.

For this reason, the federal government has been extremely cautious about embarking on mandatory carbon reductions over shorter time frames. In 1997, the Senate unanimously resolved to reject any climate change treaty that unduly burdened the U.S. economy or failed to engage all major emitting nations such as China and India. Although the Kyoto Protocol was signed by the U.S. later that year, neither President Bill Clinton nor President George W. Bush ever submitted the treaty to the Senate for the required ratification.

Legislatively, Congress has rejected every attempt to control carbon dioxide emissions, from proposed provisions in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to ones in the 2005 energy bill. Even the current Congress, with its stated zeal for regulating carbon, has done little since taking power in January 2007. One climate change bill, S. 2191, has been voted out of committee, but its proponents still have a number of hurdles to overcome before it stands a realistic chance before the full Senate. The House has done nothing beyond introducing several bills and holding hearings.

Beyond costs, there are questions about whether these measures would accomplish anything environmentally. Even assuming the worst-case scenarios of man-made warming, these bills would likely reduce it by an amount so small as to be difficult to detect.

Overall, Congress has, quite rightly, recognized the potential pitfalls of ill-advised climate measures and is acting with appropriate caution.

The Clean Air Act: A Regulatory Pandora's Box

It is with this justified caution that the Administration should approach its response to Massachusetts v. EPA. This is especially so given the many shortcomings of the Clean Air Act as an instrument for rationally regulating carbon dioxide emissions—something the statute was not set up to do.

The Clean Air Act is a model of redundancy. Virtually every type of pollutant is regulated by not one but several overlapping provisions. Terms of art like "air pollutant" and "public health" appear throughout the statute, as do a number of non-discretionary duties for the EPA. Thus, any finding that carbon dioxide from motor vehicles is a pollutant that endangers public health or welfare would not only lead to regulations for cars and trucks, but also unleash many additional measures with impacts throughout the economy.

Under the Clean Air Act, once carbon dioxide emissions are regulated from motor vehicles, they must also be controlled from stationary sources under the New Source Review (NSR) program, which applies to all pollutants subject to regulation anywhere in the statute. And given that the threshold for regulation—250 tons per year and in some cases as little as 100 tons per year—is easily met in the case of carbon dioxide emissions, the agency could impose new and onerous NSR requirements heretofore limited to major industrial facilities.

Most emissions regulated under the Clean Air Act are trace compounds measured in parts per billion, so these threshold levels make sense to distinguish de minimis contributors from serious ones. But carbon dioxide occurs at far higher levels (background levels alone account for 275 parts per million), and even relatively small usage of fossil fuels could meet these thresholds. Thus, even the kitchen in a restaurant, the heating system in an apartment building, or the activities associated with running a farm could cause these and other entities—potentially a million or more—to face substantial and unprecedented requirements whenever they are built or modified.

The bottom line: The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that routinely imposes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in compliance costs in a process that can drag on for a year or more could now be imposed for the first time on many commercial buildings, farms, and all but the smallest of businesses. Not only would the costs and delays hamper the private sector, but the paperwork would do the same to federal and state environmental regulators, drawing resources away from more useful endeavors.

Even if the EPA attempts to limit the impact to motor vehicles, it will be hit with a number of lawsuits from environmental organizations trying to force an expansion of its carbon dioxide restrictions. In addition to NSR, the language used to regulate carbon dioxide from motor vehicles could also qualify it as a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a lawsuit seeking to do so would be inevitable. If carbon dioxide becomes a NAAQS, it would trigger requirements that could be met only by severely curtailing economic activity. Other Clean Air Act regulations could also be unleashed—and all of this without congressional approval.
In effect, initiating carbon dioxide restrictions for motor vehicles would lead to a regulatory scheme far more extensive than those Congress has wisely rejected. The economic impacts, unintended consequences, and public anger could be unprecedented. It would leave a highly unfortunate legacy for this Administration; indeed, the cost of this de facto tax increase on businesses and consumers would undo the benefits of the Bush tax cuts and then some.

Conclusion

A wave of costly new regulations is the last thing the economy needs. An ANPR is the best option at this time. It will allow for comment on the economic implications of various options open to the EPA for regulating motor vehicles and on other critical issues, such as the impact of the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act.

EPA's announcement is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, which neither set a deadline for the agency to act nor required it to undertake a particular course of action. The EPA is to be applauded for taking the most sensible course of action.

Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] Edwin Meese III et al., Heritage Memorandum, "Possible EPA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions," December 13, 2007, pp. 3–4.

Polar Bear Politics: Employing The U.S. Endangered Species Act To Force US Climate Change Regulation Endangers Indigenous Rights & US Energy Security

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-03-09-polar-bears_N.htm


Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate


By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY


Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving.


Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving.


Although they say sea ice has melted, some Natives question the accuracy of the most dire predictions of a warming climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council seek evidence that a change would seriously harm the bears.


Their stance has put them at loggerheads with a usual ally: environmentalists who say the bears need protection now to survive a warmer climate in the future.


"It would have a really big effect on us Inuit, because we go by dog team to traditionally hunt polar bears," said Jamie Kablutsiak, who guides U.S. trophy hunters for big money onto the ice on Canada's Hudson Bay. As for the bears, "I don't think they're decreasing because there's usually lots, even in summer time," he said.


A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will come soon, spokesman Bruce Woods said.


The petition marks the first time a healthy species would be considered at risk under the Endangered Species Act and the first time global warming would be officially labeled a species' main threat.


Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.


The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition in 2005 for endangered species protection based on projected habitat loss due to global warming.


The petition resulted in a 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey, which predicted a loss of two-thirds of the world's polar bear population by 2050, based on a projected 42% summertime loss of "optimal polar bear habitat" such as shallow-water sea ice.


Some scientists, however, question predictions that sea ice will disappear, and even that polar bears would disappear if it did.


Richard Glenn, an Alaskan Inuit hunter and ice researcher, told U.S. senators in January that "marginal ice," which freezes in winter and melts in summer, will grow as multiyear ice disappears.


"Even the Fish and Wildlife Service study acknowledges that … may be beneficial to ice seals and polar bears," he said.


The aim of the environmentalists is to use the Endangered Species Act to force the U.S. government to take action on global warming, said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity. It would require federal agencies "to look at the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases on polar bears" and limit emissions by cars and power plants, Siegel said.


Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin disagrees with that approach.


"If you want to address climate change, address it directly," said Doug Vincent-Lang, Palin's coordinator for endangered species.


To the Inuit, the polar bear has been a source of food, clothing and income for millennia, said Duane Smith, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Canada, which represents Inuit across Canada.


The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents Native communities in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia, wants Fish & Wildlife not to make a decision until Natives have a greater role, Chairwoman Patricia Cochran said. Any decision should be based on "sound science," which includes traditional knowledge, Cochran said.


Big money is at stake. Sport hunters pay between $25,000 and $30,000 each to bag a polar bear.


The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, which represents Eskimos on polar bear issues, supports the listing as long as it allows subsistence hunting by Alaskan Inuit to continue. Executive Director Charlie Johnson said the group chose to avoid clashing with U.S. environmentalists.


The conservation scheme works because "it's in the best interest of the (Inuit) people out there to maintain the (bear) populations," Smith said. But it may end if the bear is listed because U.S. hunters will be banned from importing any part of the bear, such as a pelt, Smith said.


"The numbers of polar bear are good," said Smith, a former conservation officer for the Canadian government.


Steven Amstrup, chief polar bear researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey, said climate models predict that it will be warmer by midcentury than "ever in the course of polar bear evolution." Other scientists question that view.


Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said far too few data were used to make predictions about both climate change and polar bear behavior and populations.


"We looked at historical studies. The first thing you notice is the whole climatic system undergoes huge fluctuation," Soon said.


Over the possibly 200,000 years the polar bear has existed as a species, it has survived "very harsh conditions" of extreme cold, such as ice ages, and warmth, such as the last interglacial period, 100,000 to 110,000 years ago, Soon said.