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.

Why Do Environmentalists Continue to Block Montana's Exploitation of Vast Inexpensive Coal Reserves That Could Be Made Greener With New Technologies?

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/03/with_vast_reserves_montana_eyes_coal_expansion/

With vast reserves, Montana eyes coal expansion


By Adam Tanner


Reuters


June 3, 2008


ABSALOKA MINE, Montana (Reuters) - Underneath Montana lies an estimated $1.5 trillion of coal, but with uncertainty about future environmental rules, investors are wary about opening new mines in the rugged Western U.S. state.


Many say a big boost to Montana coal production can only follow November's national election, when a new president could lead the way in clarifying environmental laws and encouraging cleaner coal technology. Montana ends the long U.S. state-by-state presidential primary process on Tuesday.


"Nothing is going to happen until we have a carbon law, that's the bottom line," Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer told Reuters. "It needs a new president."


"But what's happening right now is the partnerships are being formed, the capital is being raised, the coal is being acquired, so everybody is ready to move as soon as we have a carbon law."


The state produced 43.4 million tons of coal in 2007, up 3.7 percent on the year, the biggest growth rate of any state. That output is just a tenth of that in neighboring Wyoming, where coal is generally easier to extract and transport.


Yet Montana, which borders Canada, sits on America's greatest coal reserves: 120 billion tons, worth about $1.5 trillion at current prices, according to Jay Gunderson, a research geologist at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology.


"Coal demand is up all over the world," said John O'Laughlin, Westmoreland Coal Company's vice president, coal operations. "With the price for a barrel of oil, there's a lot of interest in Montana coal. But we've got to figure out a way to sequester the CO2. That's what is holding us back."


The company's 34-year-old Absaloka mine in southeast Montana reached a record 7.35 million tons output last year. In 2009, it plans to expand into adjacent Crow Indian reservation land for the first time.


All the presidential candidates back an expansion of some form of coal using more environmentally friendly technology.


"We're sitting on the world's largest supply of energy in our coal resources," presumed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain said recently. "That has to be one of the fundamental components of energy independence."


Among the Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama has said he would increase resources for commercialization and development of low-emission coal plants, and Sen. Hillary Clinton has called on industry to implement clean coal technology.


"It has been kind of refreshing to hear Hillary and Obama talk about clean coal," Westmoreland's O'Laughlin said. "There is at least a glimmer of acceptance."


INTEREST BUT CAUTION


Montana has not opened a new coal mine in decades.


"Companies are reluctant to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure not knowing what the government is going to do about CO2," said Gunderson at the Bureau of Mines and Geology.


At Absaloka, a single machine -- a dragline excavator that scoops out slabs of rolling countryside to get near the coal -- costs $120 million. Elsewhere, workers dynamite sections of earth and expensive trucks with wheels taller than people carry away coal to be crushed in a vast facility before transport.


Great Northern Properties is the largest private holder of U.S. coal reserves with 20 billion tons, mostly in Montana and North Dakota. Chuck Kerr, president of the Houston-based company, said the nation will eventually tap Montana's coal.


"It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when," he said in an interview. "The silent majority back coal development because it's a very cheap source of fuel."


Gov. Schweitzer has long championed Fischer-Tropsch technology to convert coal into liquid fuels that can be burned in a greener way than traditional coal, but no one has yet invested the many billions needed for such a plant.


"It is incredibly expensive to deploy," Kerr said.


But there are signs of other new projects.


John DeMichiei, president and CEO of Bull Mountain Coal Mining Inc, expects to get private financing by July 15 for what he said could be the largest underground coal mine in the world, located 35 miles north of Billings, Montana.


"It takes extreme capital investment," he said. "With these sales prices starting to at least support this type of capital investment, I think you will see more investment in Montana in terms of coal."


DeMichiei hopes to begin large-scale production at Bull Mountain by September 2009, with production of 14 million tons a year. The mine, with 430 million tons in reserve, now produces just 40,000 tons a month, he said in an interview.


The company's main investor is Airlie Group of Greenwich, Connecticut. "We are in discussions with a number of parties to get the mine fully financed and build a railroad and get it to be one of the largest long wall mines in the United States, if not the largest," Airlie Managing Director Andy Dwyer said.


But he added: Wyoming's "Powder River Basin has established rail lines and transportation hubs and the ability to substantially expand. So if there isn't going to be any substantial increase in demand then quite frankly the Powder River Basin can meet a good deal of that demand."


Schweitzer said despite its greater reserves and plans for expansion, Montana may never surpass Wyoming in production. "The world of hydrocarbons will be over and we'll still have 90 percent of our coal in the ground," he predicted.


"Wind and solar and hydrogen -- they'll be the energy sources of the future. Forty, 50 years from now hydrocarbons won't be an energy source of any large quality."
(Editing by Braden Reddall)

Ensuring U.S. Energy Security, NOT Climate Change Chastity Is Critical, Given the Worsening Impact Higher Energy Costs Are Having On the Economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08oil.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212945335-9fj4kod5eZsdcFZRafXfUA

Oil Prices Raise the Cost of Making a Range of Goods


By LOUIS UCHITELLE


June 8, 2008


Surging oil prices are beginning to cut into the profits of a wide range of American businesses, pushing many to raise prices and maneuver aggressively to offset the rising cost of merchandise made from petroleum.


Airlines, package shippers and car owners are no longer the only ones being squeezed by the ever-mounting price of oil, which shot up almost $11 a barrel on Friday alone, to $138.54, a record.


Companies that make hard goods using raw materials derived from oil, like tires, toiletries, plastic packaging and computer screens, are watching their costs skyrocket, and they find themselves forced into unpleasant choices: Should they raise prices, shift to less costly procedures, cut workers, or all three?


The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is trying to adapt. Its raw material of choice now is natural rubber rather than synthetic rubber, made from oil. To sustain profits, it is making more high-end tires for consumers willing to pay upwards of $100 to replace each tire on their cars.


These steps have not been enough, however, particularly now that the cost of natural rubber is also rising sharply, along with that of many other commodities. So Goodyear has raised the prices of its tires by 15 percent in just four months.


“Our strategy is to raise prices and improve the mix to offset the cost of raw materials,” said Keith Price, a Goodyear spokesman. “No one has predicted how long we can continue to do that.”
The sense that many companies may be hitting a wall is palpable. Corporate profits peaked last spring and have shrunk since then, Moody’s Economy.com reports, drawing on Commerce Department data.


The housing crisis and the weakening economy are big reasons, but oil prices are adding greatly to the pressure on profits as retailers fail to pass along higher prices to consumers. That helps to explain why expensive oil has not yet pushed up the inflation rate.


So far this year, the nation’s employers have been cutting jobs at an accelerating pace, particularly last month, when the unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent from 5 percent. But with the vise on corporate profits tightening and the price of oil continuing to climb, more dire action, including job cuts and higher prices, may be in store, economists say, although there is still room to avoid such steps.


“Companies came into this period with extraordinarily high profit margins,” said Edward McKelvey, chief domestic economist at Goldman Sachs, “and some of the surge in raw material costs will be absorbed by lowering those profits.”


Still, the prevailing attitude that the economy could just keep absorbing higher oil prices is being tested — for the first time in nearly 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of crude is now more expensive than it was in 1980, the previous peak.


“The conventional wisdom a couple of years ago was that oil did not have that much leverage over the economy,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. “But now it plainly does. People are suddenly paying much more attention to their energy costs and trying to figure out how to manage them.”


Goodyear has kept its head above water in part by passing along some of the higher prices to dealers. The dealers, however, have not been able to pass along all of those increases to consumers and are absorbing the difference in lower profits.


Since last spring, the average profits of the nation’s corporations — from behemoths like Goodyear to small neighborhood retailers — have declined at an annual rate of nearly 6 percent, government data show.


Even companies that have been performing well in the economic downturn are sounding notes of caution. Take Costco, the discount retail chain, which offers a wide array of consumer goods, food, wine, furniture, appliances, beauty aids and much more.


Costco’s profit was up in the first quarter, but James D. Sinegal, the chief executive, says he is “starting to be confronted with unprecedented price increases” for the merchandise that Costco buys to stock its stores. His first response has been to buy in extra large quantities so that he has stock on hand to carry him through subsequent price increases.
“We just made a big purchase of Tumi luggage,” Mr. Sinegal said.


Procter & Gamble finds itself in a similar predicament. For its fiscal year beginning next month, it expects to spend an additional $2 billion on oil-based raw materials and commodities. That is double last year’s increase, and it is carved from total revenue of just under $80 billion.


Price increases have helped to offset this cost. They have averaged nearly 5 percent for paper towels, bath tissues and diapers, all made with chemicals derived from oil, said Paul Fox, a company spokesman.


Natural oils have been substituted for ingredients made from petroleum; for example, palm oil now goes into a variety of laundry soaps. But like rubber, the cost of palm oil and other natural commodities is rising.


Trying to hold down raw material costs, Procter & Gamble has resorted to “compacting” a few laundry products, Mr. Fox said, so that the same amount of detergent fits into smaller and less costly containers made of plastic, which is derived from oil.


Still, the company’s operating profit edged down to 20.1 percent of revenue in the first quarter, from 21.9 percent in each of the two previous quarters. “That 20.1 percent was down, but it was an improvement on the advance guidance we had given for that quarter,” Mr. Fox said.


No business in America produces more of the oil-based ingredients that go into the nation’s products than the Dow Chemical Company, based in Midland, Mich. From Dow’s petrochemical operations come the basic ingredients of a wide variety of plastic bottles and packaging, including numerous containers once made of glass or tin.


Indeed, paint, computer and television screens, mobile phones, light bulbs, cushions, paper, mattresses, car seats, carpets, steering wheels and polyesters are all made with ingredients that Dow and other chemical companies refine from oil and natural gas.


Dow normally raises prices piecemeal. Last month, though, the surge in the cost of oil and natural gas, the company’s principal raw materials, produced a rare across-the-board price increase of as much as 20 percent.


“We have taken out head count, automated, been very diligent on cost control,” said Andrew Liveris, Dow’s chairman and chief executive, “but these surges in energy prices are just one surge too many.”


Dow’s sweeping price increases will probably have a domino effect, resulting in higher prices or, more likely, shrinking profits, analysts say. Constrained by the weak economy and fewer wage earners among their customers, the nation’s retailers have so far not been able to pass on to consumers much of the rising cost of products that depend on oil. The Consumer Price Index, minus food and energy, is barely rising.


“One of the surprises,” said Patrick Jackman, a senior economist in the consumer price division of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “is that the oil price surges of the 1970s passed through fairly quickly into consumer prices, and this time that is not happening.”

Political CO2 Emissions Threat in US Capitol Extinguished At Least For Now, as Disingenuous Climate Change Bill is Withdrawn From Senate Debate

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363642,00.html


Climate Change Bill Heads for Vote, But GOP Opposition Could Prevail


June 06, 2008


Associated Press


Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.


Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.


The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels.


Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.


The 48-36 vote fell short of a majority, but Democrats produced letters from six senators — including both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain — saying they would have voted for the measure had they been there.




"It's just the beginning for us," proclaimed Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a chief sponsor of the bill, noting that 54 senators had expressed support of the legislation, although that's still short of what would be needed to overcome concerted GOP opposition.


"It's clear a majority of Congress wants to act," Boxer said at a news conference.


She and other Democrats said this now lays the groundwork for action on climate change next year with a new Congress and a new president that will be more hospitable to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.


Both Obama and McCain have called for capping carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to climate change. President Bush has opposed such measures and said he would have vetoed the Senate bill if he had received it.


The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.


"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."



Supporters of the bill accused Republicans of muddying the water with misinformation.


"There is no tax increase," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of the bill's chief sponsors said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.


[THIS IS A BOLD-FACED LIE BY A U.S. SENATOR WHO IS SWORN TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.]


Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.



Obama and McCain, as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is recovering from cancer surgery, were absent, although they each sent a letter supporting the bill.

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/washington/07climate.html?ref=environment

After Verbal Fire, Senate Effectively Kills Climate Change Bill


By David M. HERSZENHORN


New York Times


June 7, 2008


WASHINGTON — Before the anticlimactic demise on Friday of legislation to combat global warming, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, called climate change “the most important issue facing the world today.” Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, a critic of the bill, nonetheless called it “the most significant piece of legislation to ever come out of the Environment and Public Works Committee.”


Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said the effort to limit heat-trapping gases was “one of the greatest challenges of our generation.” Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in a statement, “The future of our planet is at stake.”


[DISCERNING READERS WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS 'AL GORE LANGUAGE'. AFTER ALL, AL GORE IS ADVISING BARACK OBAMA'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN...].


And even Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, the leading opponent of the legislation, called it “probably the largest bill ever considered by the Senate in its impact on the economy and our way of life.”


And so it was, with a chorus of Senate voices having proclaimed the urgency and importance of the issue that the Great Climate Change Debate of 2008 ended on Friday morning, after three and a half days, with a procedural vote that effectively shelved the bill until next year. A motion by Democrats to end debate and move to a final vote, requiring 60 votes to succeed, fell far short, with 48 senators in favor and 36 against.


The bill would cap the production of heat-trapping gases and force polluters to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide. Critics, including many Republican senators, said it would raise energy prices, including the cost of oil, at a time when Americans are struggling with record gasoline prices.


But there were also critics at the other end of the political spectrum who said the bill’s limits on carbon emissions were not strict enough. They said the legislation would allow some industries to prosper while forcing average Americans to pay higher energy prices.





The result left lawmakers pointing fingers at one another. Democrats said Republicans had obstructed their efforts to address a most crucial issue, while Republicans said the Democrats were never serious about passing the bill, as evidenced by their unwillingness to allow a serious and lengthy debate over amendments.


Environmental groups, meanwhile, were left struggling to read the tea leaves of yet another procedural step by the Senate, which has been called the world’s greatest deliberative body but can also be its most mercurial and maddening.



In a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday, the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, mocked the Democrats as trumpeting the magnitude of the climate change but then seeking to cut off debate and move swiftly to a final vote.



“What are they afraid of?” Mr. McConnell asked. “Why don’t they want to consider amendments to a bill addressing what they call ‘the most important issue facing the world today?’ If it is the most important issue facing the world today, it certainly deserves a lot longer debate than a few days.”



[THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?? TELLING THE TRUTH??? WHY DO THEY SEEK TO DENY AMERICANS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO KNOW??]


Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, echoed Mr. McConnell’s remarks at her daily briefing.


The Democrats insisted that comments by Mr. McConnell and other Republicans were disingenuous because Republicans never intended to allow an open and honest debate, never intended to allow the bill to come to a final vote, never intended to support it regardless of what amendments were made, and had no intention of pressuring President Bush, who had made clear that he would not sign the bill.


“They do not want to address the most important issue of the day, so they stalled,” Mr. Reid said, noting that Republicans insisted on having the entire nearly 500-page bill read aloud on Wednesday. “They are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo.”



Some lawmakers and experts on the national debate on climate said there was merit in bringing the bill to the Senate floor for what amounted to a trial run, drawing out supporters and opponents and their particular concerns.



“We have a road map as to where our colleagues are,” said Mrs. Boxer, who was a main sponsor of the bill with Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut. “We will give the road map to the next president so he knows where our colleagues are and where are the consensus areas and where are the difficult areas.”


But even after the vote, it was hard to discern where many lawmakers stood, with 10 Democrats among the 48 senators who voted to close debate saying they would have opposed the bill had it come to a final vote.

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

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-carbon_08edi.ART.State.Edition1.460958e.html

Climate bill meets disappointing end

Editorial


Dallas Morning News


June 8, 2008


For a moment, the climate appeared to be changing in the U.S. Senate.


Last week's decision to bring landmark global warming legislation to the Senate floor signified the start of a long overdue discussion about the most important environmental and energy issues facing this country. And while the bill faced long odds from the get-go – and a likely presidential veto – this was an opening to begin tackling tough questions and to establish a baseline for future dialogue.


Unfortunately, opponents weren't satisfied with simply voting the bill down. They viewed this as an opportunity to avenge past political defeats and impede debate.


Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky forced Democrats to have all 492 pages of the legislation read aloud – a nearly nine-hour ordeal that he said was prompted by residual anger over judicial nominations. On Friday, filibuster was the Republicans' weapon of choice, as they effectively killed the bill before a scheduled vote.


These obstructionist tactics were unnecessary political ploys that only served to further delay urgently needed action on climate change. Much to our disappointment, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison joined Republican colleagues in thwarting the vote.


For both parties, this was a missed opportunity.


Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and putting a price on carbon will be a difficult and complex process. Whether Congress chooses to begin what inevitably will be a long negotiation now or next year, it's not going to get any easier.


Scientific evidence, though, makes clear that lawmakers can't afford to dally with nine-hour dramatic readings while the planet warms. Opponents of the bill passed up the chance for a serious debate that should include a full airing of their concerns about the proposal's economic impact.


[SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO DATE ONLY DEMONSTRATES A CORRELATIVE, NOT A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBAL WARMING AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY - POLITICIANS ARE EXPLOITING PUBLIC IGNORANCE OF THIS KEY DISTINCTION.]


Sadly, just advancing the bill to the Senate floor was progress. But moral victories will not move the country closer to shedding its distinction as a global warming laggard.


[IT IS SOMETIMES BETTER TO DO NOTHING THAN TO DO HARM. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPOSED BOXER-SUPPORTED CLIMATE CHANGE CAP & TRADE LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE SEVERELY HARMED THE U.S. ECONOMY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED AMERICANS' STANDARD OF LIVING. THE DEFEAT OF THIS BILL IS NOT ONLY A MORAL VICTORY, IT IS ALSO A VICTORY OF: 1) COMMON SENSE OVER 'FEAR-MONGERING & POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM; and 2) INDIVIDUALISM OVER COMMUNALISM.]

Former Greenpeace Co-Founder Exposes 'Pop-Environmentalism' as the Root of Climate Change Hysteria, While Calmly Discussing Virtues of Nuclear Energy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

A Renegade Against Greenpeace: Why he says they're wrong to view nuclear energy as 'evil'


Fareed Zakaria


NEWSWEEK


Apr 12, 2008


Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971, to protest U.S. nuclear tests taking place there.


After leading the group for 15 years he left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy.


NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke to Moore about his sparring with the green movement, and why he thinks nuclear power is the energy of the future.


Excerpts:


ZAKARIA: At Greenpeace, you fought against nuclear energy. What changed?


MOORE: My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. And indeed today, Greenpeace still uses the word "evil" to describe nuclear energy. I think that's as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons. Nuclear medicine uses radioactive isotopes to successfully treat millions of people every year, and those isotopes are all produced in nuclear reactors.

That's why I left Greenpeace: I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level.


Why do you favor nuclear energy over other non-carbon-based sources of energy?


Other than hydroelectric energy—which I also strongly support—nuclear is the only technology besides fossil fuels available as a large-scale continuous power source, and I mean one you can rely on to be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind and solar energy are intermittent and thus unreliable. How can you run hospitals and factories and schools and even a house on an electricity supply that disappears for three or four days at a time? Wind can play a minor role in reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, because you can turn the fossil fuels off when the wind is blowing. And solar is completely ridiculous. The cost is so high—California's $3.2 billion in solar subsidies is all just going into Silicon Valley companies and consultants. It's ridiculous.


A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it.


That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar. I know that France, which produces 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear, does not have high energy costs. Sweden, which produces 50 percent of its energy with nuclear and 50 percent with hydro, has very reasonable energy costs. I know that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much.


What about the issue of nuclear waste?


As is now planned, I'd establish a recycling industry for nuclear fuel, which reduces the amount of waste to less than 10 percent of what it would be without recycling. How many Americans know that 50 percent of the nuclear energy being produced in the U.S. is now coming from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads?


The environmental movement is going on about how terrible it will be if someone does something destructive with these materials. Well, actually the opposite is occurring: all over the world, people are using former nuclear-weapons material for peaceful purposes—swords into plowshares. This constant propaganda about the cost of nuclear energy—that's just activists looking for the right buttons to push, and one of the key buttons to push is to make consumers afraid that their electricity prices will go up if nuclear energy is built. In fact, it's natural gas that is causing [energy] prices to go up.


Don't you worry about proliferation?


You do not need a nuclear reactor to make a nuclear weapon. With centrifuge technology, it is far easier, quicker and cheaper to make a nuclear weapon by enriching uranium directly. No nuclear reactor was involved in making the Hiroshima bomb. You'll never change the fact that there are evil people in the world. The most deaths in combat in the last 20 years have not been caused by nuclear weapons or car bombs or rifles or land mines or any of the usual suspects, but the machete. And yet the machete is the most important tool for farmers in the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people use it to clear their land, to cut their firewood and harvest their crops. Banning the machete is not an option.


Are you optimistic that there will be an aggressive move toward nuclear power in the industrial world, and in particular in the United States?


There are 32 nuclear plants on the drawing boards right now. Last year four applied for their licenses and this year we expect 10 or 11 more. That's just in the United States. There are hundreds of nuclear plants on the drawing boards around the world. This is a completely new thing: the term "'nuclear renaissance" didn't exist three years ago, and now it's a widely known term. Unfortunately, the environmental movement now is the primary obstacle here. If it weren't for their opposition to nuclear energy, there would be a lot fewer coal-fired power plants in the United States and other parts of the world today.