SMART Grid Socialism: Governments to Decide When and Where Regulated Utilities Will Deliver Power to Ensure That it Meets 'The Highest Social Purpose'

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/03/05/lawrence-solomon-don%E2%80%99t-count-on-constant-electricity-under-renewable-energy-says-uk-electricity-ceo/

Lawrence Solomon: Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO

FP Comment

By Lawrence Solomon

Lawrence Solomon  March 5, 2011 – 10:20 am

Wind power will require lifestyle change

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.

Smart grids are being developed by utilities worldwide to allow the government to control electricity use in the home, down to the individual appliance. Smart grids would monitor the consumption of each appliance and be capable of turning them off if the power is needed elsewhere.

Holliday’s startling comments on BBC Radio 4 were reported by The Daily Telegraph.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Climate Change Consensus or Prophecy??

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

Global warming, an unsettled science

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

By Simon Roughneen

ISN Security Watch

May 30, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unraveling consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simon Roughneen is a senior correspondent for ISN Security Watch

A Reverse Senate 'Boxer Rebellion' Previously Sought to Enhance Foreign (European) Regulatory Influence in U.S.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ae230690-802a-23ad-4b41-cfdc0d90bac6&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Boxer Introduces Bill to Reverse EPA Global Warming Waiver Decision


U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


January 24, 2008


[THE REFERENCE ABOVE TO A REVERSE 'BOXER REBELLION' IS INTENTIONAL, AS IT IMPLIES HOW SENATOR BARBARA BOXER IS ENDEAVORING TO IMPORT EUROPEAN NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS INTO THE UNITED STATES AS U.S. LAW. THE 'BOXER REBELLION' IS ACTUALLY AN HISTORICAL EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY IN CHINA. UNLIKE SENATOR
BOXER'S INVITING FOREIGN INFLUENCES INTO THE U.S., THE CHINESE BOXER REBELLION REFLECTED CHINESE PEASANT'S REPULSION OF FOREIGN INFLUENCES. "The Boxer Rebellion, or Boxer Movement, was an uprising by members of the Chinese Society of Right and Harmonious Fists against foreign influence in areas such as trade, politics, religion and technology. It took place in China from November 1899 to 7 September 1901, during the final years of the Manchu rule (Qing Dynasty). The members of the Society of Right and Harmonious Fists were simply called 'Boxers' by the Westerners due to the martial arts and calisthenics they practiced. The uprising began as an anti-foreign, anti-imperialist peasant-based movement in northern China. They attacked foreigners who were building railroads and violating Feng shui, as well as Christians, who were held responsible for the foreign domination of China." See Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion ].


UPDATED: This release has been revised to include quotes from Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) as original cosponsors.


Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, introduced legislation today that would direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act to cut global warming pollution from motor vehicles.


Cosponsors of the bill include Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joseph Lieberman (ID, CT), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bill Nelson (D-FL.) Barack Obama (D, IL), and Roberts Menendez (D-NJ).


Senator Boxer said, "Administrator Johnson's decision to deny the waiver was not supported by the facts, by the law, by the science, or by precedent. I will use every available tool to ensure that California and the nation are able to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. One of those tools is legislation that essentially overturns Mr. Johnson's actions."


Senator Feinstein said, "It's become clear that Administrator Johnson's denial of California's waiver was based on politics, not science. Even the EPA's own experts have said that there was a compelling need for action. So, today, Senator Boxer and I have introduced legislation to take this decision out of the hands of the EPA - and allow California to move ahead with curbing tailpipe emissions. Bottom line: I'm committed to protecting California's landmark global warming efforts - and will do everything in my power to ensure that this Administration doesn't stand in the way."


Senator Lieberman said, "The vision and leadership of California, Connecticut, and the other states that have moved to curb global warming pollution from cars should be rewarded by the grant of authority to implement the states' programs. In the wake of the Bush administration's failure to follow federal law and deliver the needed authority, we in Congress must step in with legislation that gives the states the go-ahead to fight climate change."


Senator Clinton said, "It is outrageous that the Bush Administration chose to block the efforts of New York, California and many other states that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Chairman Boxer's continued oversight on this issue is critically important, and I am proud to join with her in introducing legislation to overturn EPA's wrongheaded decision and allow states to move forward on global warming."


Senator Lautenberg said: "It's bad enough the Bush Administration has been sitting on its hands and done virtually nothing to fight global warming, but now it's trying to block states from taking strong action on their own. Our legislation would work to overturn this misguided decision and allow states like New Jersey and California to continue their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and combat global warming."


Senator Cardin said, "The EPA has clearly chosen to ignore the issue of global warming. It's time that States are allowed to take meaningful action to protect the health of their citizens by reducing greenhouse gas emissions."


Senator Sanders told the EPA administrator, "If you can't do the right thing, at least get out of the way of California, Vermont and other states. If we do not move aggressively, this planet is in danger."


Senator Whitehouse said, "Allowing Rhode Island and all these states to set tough vehicle emissions standards is one of the strongest and most common-sense steps we can take to begin to tackle the enormous challenge of global warming. But once again, this administration has put blind ideology before science; once again, this administration has let politics govern policy; and once again, this administration has taken an action that will directly undermine our efforts to protect our environment and safeguard public health. I applaud Chairman Boxer's commitment to addressing this issue and am proud to cosponsor this important bill."


Senator Kennedy said, "It's extremely unfortunate that the Administration has stood in the way of states' efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. I commend Senator Boxer for her leadership in filing this bill, which is so vital to states like Massachusetts and California which are ready to do the things necessary to curb global warming in spite of the obstacles EPA has set."


Senator Leahy said, "The Bush Administration has been AWOL or worse on air quality issues, and now they even want to undermine states like California and Vermont that are trying to pick up the slack. They won't lead and they won't follow, so the Boxer bill would force them at least to get out of the way and stop obstructing states like ours that are trying to lead on clean air policy."


Senator Dodd said, "The EPA's decision in December to deny the request by California, Connecticut, and 15 other states for the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles was a politically-motivated roadblock erected to stop responsible solutions to the growing problem of global warming. Indeed, evidence suggests that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson ignored the advice of his own climate experts, who recommended that this request be approved. This bill restores those efforts to address one of the most pressing issues of our day. I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue and am committed to seeing this important piece of legislation passed."


Senator Kerry said, "If the Bush Administration refuses to combat climate change, they at least need to get out of the way when the states do. California needs this waiver, and deserves a lot of credit for meeting an environmental challenge with the reform it demands."


Senator Mikulski said, "The world is facing a climate crisis and we must act now. Maryland and a number of other states have already joined California in setting a higher bar to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles than the federal government has. The country is looking to us for leadership. As we continue to assist our manufacturing industries in making this transition, we need to set the standard so states can do the right thing."


Senator Snowe said, "I am deeply disappointed that the Administration failed to follow the statute outlined in the Clean Air Act that allows California to adopt distinct environmental laws. This is a setback for Maine and as well as our national environmental stewardship. Although I am confident that the court system will ultimately overturn this decision, I am troubled that this Administration has unnecessarily delayed enactment of a strong curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation will allow the states to move forward with enacting strong reductions in green house gas emissions filling the void of federal action."


Senator Collins said, "Climate change is one of the most daunting challenges we face and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If states, like my home state of Maine, establish reasonable standards to help address this serious problem, the federal government should not stand in the way."


Senator Nelson said, "The failure of the Bush administration to allow states to clean up auto emissions means that Congress is going to have to step in and pass this legislation."
Senator Obama said, "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this Administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer. I commend Chairman Boxer for her leadership on this bill and on working to eliminate the damaging consequences of climate change around the world."


Sen. Menendez said: "Our planet is in peril and this administration simply refuses to let anyone do very much about it. Under this administration, the EPA is acting like the ‘Environmental Pollution Agency'. Since they won't act, states that want to undertake serious efforts to clean our air should not have their hands tied. New Jersey is one of those states, and I will stand up for our right to help save our planet. I applaud Chairwoman Boxer for her leadership on this issue."


The bill introduced today directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to grant California's request for the waiver, which will allow California to implement its greenhouse gas emissions standards for motor vehicles. The waiver will also permit other states to adopt California's emissions standards.


Fourteen other states have adopted California's standards, or are in the process of adopting them. Another four are moving toward adopting the California standards. All together, those 19 states represent more than 152,000,000 Americans - a majority of the U.S. population.


[THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR WAS DOING WHAT WAS CALLED FOR. THE EPA CANNOT GRANT A WAIVER FROM A FEDERAL STANDARD THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE EPA WAS TRYING TO DEVELOP - A FEDERAL STANDARD. THE PROBLEM HERE, IS THUS, THAT THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL DO NOT WISH TO GRANT THE EPA THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A FEDERAL STANDARD THAT CAN WITHSTAND LEGAL CHALLENGE FROM WHICH IT COULD THEN GRANT A WAIVER.]

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

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/epa-denies-cali.html


EPA Denies California Vehicle GHG Waiver; State Will Sue to Overturn Decision


Green Car Congress


December 19, 2007


The US Environmental Agency (EPA) today denied the state of California the waiver required to enable the state to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and light trucks. Sixteen other states—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington—have adopted or are in the process of adopting the California regulations.


In announcing the rejection of the waiver, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said, “The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution—not a confusing patchwork of state rules—to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles. President Bush and Congress have set the bar high, and, when fully implemented, our federal fuel economy standard will achieve significant benefits by applying to all 50 states.”


The EPA is relying upon the new CAFE standard of an average 35 mpg by 2020 to deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. President Bush signed the CAFE legislation—contained with the larger energy bill—into law today. The California standards call for 205 g CO2/mile for passenger cars (about 43 mpg for a gasoline vehicle) and 332 g/mile for light trucks (about 27 mpg for a gasoline vehicle) by 2016.


The EPA said that California’s current waiver request is distinct from all prior requests, which covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. The agency asserted that greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. Since these gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union, the EPA argued, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, it did not find that separate California standards are needed to “meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”


In reaction, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to appeal the decision and pursue every legal opportunity to obtain the waiver.


While the federal energy bill is a good step toward reducing dependence on foreign oil, the President's approval of it does not constitute grounds for denying our waiver. The energy bill does not reflect a vision, beyond 2020, to address climate change, while California's vehicle greenhouse gas standards are part of a carefully designed, comprehensive program to fight climate change through 2050.


It has been nearly two years since we requested the waiver and, now, sixteen other states are following our lead to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase fuel efficiency and help reduce harmful greenhouse gases. A ruling from the US Supreme Court earlier this year made it clear that the US EPA has the authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation. We will continue to fight this battle. California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.

—Gov. Schwarzenegger


[GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE VIEWS OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATION THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISES, LET ALONE, THE RECOMMENDED EUROPEAN REGULATORY CAP & TRADE LEGISLATION SITTING IN CONGRESS OR IN CALIFORNIA. THE CALIFORNIA CAFE STANDARD IS BUT THE TIP OF THE REGULATORY ICEBERG. WHILE HIGHER MPG REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO HELP SECURE U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE BASED ON REDUCED ENERGY USE /EFFICIENCY, IT DOES LITTLE TO ADDRESS CO2 EMISSIONS. EUROPEAN-STYLE CLIMATE CHANGE CAP & TRADE REGULATIONS ARE REALLY WHAT THESE DEMOGAGUES ARE AFTER, SINCE THEY WOULD COVER ALL U.S. ECONOMIC SECTORS...]


Under the Federal Clean Air Act, California has the right to set its own tougher-than-federal vehicle emission standards, as long as it obtains a waiver from US EPA. Over the past 30 years the US EPA has granted California more than 40 such waivers, denying none.


The original request for a waiver of federal preemption of California's Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards was made by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on December 21, 2005. The waiver, allowing California to enact and enforce emissions standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, was requested after the Air Resources Board developed regulations based on a 2002 California law, AB 1493 by Assemblymember Fran Pavley.


That law required California to establish new standards for motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions beginning in model year 2009. The ARB-adopted regulations will phase in and ramp up over eight years to cut global warming emissions from new vehicles by nearly 30% by model year 2016.


In letters sent on April 10, 2006 and October 24, 2006 to President Bush, the Governor reiterated the urgency of approving California's request to address global warming. On April 25, 2007, 16 months after the original waiver request, Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter to Administrator Johnson informing him of California’s intent to sue after 180 days under the Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act, which provides mechanisms for compelling delayed agency action.


California’s request has been supported by recent judicial decisions.

Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill Adopts Very Costly, Unproven European Socialist Regulatory Model at Expense of U.S. Consumers, New Report Finds

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1940.cfm

Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation (S. 2191)


by Ben Lieberman


Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1940 (May 30, 2008)


Myth #1: LW would not be expensive.
"...By restricting carbon dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas--with a freeze at 2005 levels beginning in 2012, to a 70 percent reduction in 2050--the bill forces down supply and thus boosts the price of energy...Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030...



Myth #2: The costs fall on industry, not consumers.

...Particularly hard hit is the manufacturing sector where over one million jobs will be lost by 2022 and two million by 2027. The losses in household incomes could reach $1,026 per year by 2015. Annual household energy-price increases could hit $1,000 by 2030, including a 29 percent increase in the price of gasoline from 2008 levels.


Myth #3: Global warming is a crisis that must be addressed at all costs.

Global warming is a concern, not a crisis. Both the seriousness and the imminence of the threat are overstated... Overall, current and expected future temperatures are far from unprecedented, and are highly unlikely to lead to catastrophes.


Myth #4: LW effectively addresses the threat of climate change.

China has overtaken America as the world's largest emitter, and its emissions growth is several times greater than that of the U.S. India and other fast-developing nations are on a similar trajectory. Thus, the unilateral impact of the bill on global emissions would be inconsequential.






Myth #5: LW's cap-and-trade approach is a proven success.


Most E.U. nations are not on track to meet their targets, and many are seeing their emissions rise faster than those in the U.S. The program is furthermore plagued by accusations of fraud and unfairness. LW essentially adopts the European approach wholesale."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.europa-eu-un.org/documents/en/070531_eu_action_against_climate_change.pdf

EU action against climate change: Leading global action to 2020 and beyond


© European Communities, 2007


"The February 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 shows that the world has warmed by an average of 0.76º Celsius since pre-industrial times and the temperature rise is accelerating. Sea levels rose almost twice as fast between 1993 and 2003 as during the previous three decades. Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing these changes.


The IPPC projects that, without action to limit emissions, the global average temperature is likely to increase further by 1.8º to 4ºC this century. We cannot allow this to happen. The European Union considers it vital to prevent global warming of more than 2ºC above the pre-industrial level.


There is considerable scientific evidence that, beyond this threshold, irreversible and potentially catastrophic changes could occur. In March 2007 EU Heads of State and Government endorsed an integrated climate change and energy strategy put forward by the European Commission which outlines the EU’s proposals for a global and comprehensive agreement to combat climate change after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol targets will expire.


[READERS SHOULD NOTE THAT IT DOESN'T SAY 'CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!].


The Commission’s analysis shows that for the world to have a fair chance of keeping the average temperature rise to no more than 2ºC, global emissions of greenhouse gases will have to be stabilised by around 2020 and then reduced by up to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050.


...The European Commission’s analysis shows that the investment needed to achieve a low-carbon economy would cost only around 0.5% of world GDP between 2013 and 2030. According to its projections, taking action against climate change would reduce global GDP growth by just 0.14% per year up to 2020. Global GDP growth over the period 2005-2020 would be 53%, barely lower than the 55% growth projected if no action were undertaken. And this figure does not take account of the benefits of cutting emissions, such as reduced damage from avoided climate change, greater energy security, and healthcare savings from less air pollution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm


The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation


by William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Ben Lieberman and Nick Loris

Center for Data Analysis Report #08-02


May 12, 2008

"...S. 2191 imposes strict upper limits on the emis­sion of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) with the pri­mary emphasis on carbon dioxide (CO2). The mechanism for capping these emissions requires emitters to acquire federally created permits (allowances) for each ton emitted. The cost of the allowances will be significant and will lead to large increases in the cost of energy. Because the allow­ances have an economic effect much like the effect of an energy tax, the increase in energy costs creates correspondingly large transfers of income from pri­vate energy consumers to special interests.




...We use these two cases to bracket our cost projections of S. 2191:


- Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).


- Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).


- Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.


- The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).


- The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in infla­tion-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.


Our analysis does not extend beyond 2030, at which point S. 2191 mandates GHG reductions to 33 percent below the 2005 level. However, it should be noted that the mandated GHG reductions con­tinue to become more severe and must be 70 per­cent below the 2005 level by 2050.


...Since income (as mea­sured by GDP) drops as a result of S. 2191, it is clear that more capital is destroyed than is cre­ated. The cumulative GDP losses for the period 2010 to 2030 fall between $1.7 trillion and $4.8 trillion, with single-year losses reaching into the hundreds of billions.


...With S. 2191, there is an initial small employ­ment increase as firms build and purchase the newer more CO2-friendly plants and equipment. However, any "green-collar" jobs created are more than offset by other job losses. The initial uptick is small compared to the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in later years. Table 1 shows the high and low projections of the employment and income effects of S. 2191.




...Distribution of Auction Proceeds


S. 2191 specifies how the distribution of the auction proceeds will be spent, with constant percentages from 2012 to 2036. The auction process depends on the creation of a new nonprofit corporation called the Climate Change Credit Corporation to initiate and complete the auctioning of allowances.


Eleven percent will be allocated to an advanced-technology vehicles-manufacturing incentive. While 44 percent is to be spent on low-carbon energy technology, advanced coal and sequestration programs, and cellulosic biomass ethanol technology programs, 45 percent is to be spent on assisting individuals, families, firms, and organizations in the transition to a low-carbon regime. This includes 20 percent allocated to an Energy Assistance Fund, 20 percent allocated to an Adaptation Fund, and 5 percent allocated to a Climate Change Worker Training Fund.


...Proponents of cap and trade describe it as a flexible and market-based approach that allows the private sector to find the most cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They expect the program to motivate fossil energy producers and users to reduce their car­bon dioxide emissions through improvements in energy efficiency, expanded use of energy sources with fewer or no carbon emissions, or new carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies that allow such emissions to be stored underground rather than released into the atmosphere.


...In contrast, critics fear that many of the necessary advances are decades away from being technologi­cally and economically viable and that, in the interim, the caps in S. 2191 can be met only with severe reductions in energy use, which would drive up energy costs significantly--and would be, in effect, a massive energy tax.


...Critics also point to the substantial difficulties that the European Union has faced since imple­menting its greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program in 2005 in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty on emissions that the United States declined to ratify.


...In addition to the provisions of the bill, the many baseline assumptions about the future also affect the projected costs of S. 2191. They include assump­tions about the pace of technological advances, especially those regarding the CCS breakthroughs that will be necessary for the continued use of coal, the energy source with the highest CO2 emissions per unit of energy. Continued use of coal is critical because it provides half of the nation's electricity. Assumptions about America's economic growth and concomitant energy needs are also of great importance, as are assumptions about the effect of previously enacted energy legislation, particularly the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.


...The Simulations


This CDA report discusses three different views of this country's economic future, each shaped by different policies designed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and, presumably, to reduce the warming trend in global climate change. Policy­makers and others who follow the climate change debate closely should find each of these three views helpful in understanding the policy alternatives cur­rently before us. These three views are:


- The current-law baseline. Presented here is a highly detailed, 30-year economic forecast that incorporates the principal elements of energy and climate change policies signed into law last year.


- Simulation of S. 2191, America's Climate Secu­rity Act of 2007, sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). The simulation builds on the detailed baseline and assumes that critical technologies are fully developed.


- An alternative, more realistic scenario in which critical technology does not materialize over the 20-year forecast horizon...


Baseline --


...Natural Gas. In the baseline scenario, gas prices settle just below $7 per million British thermal units (Btus). This is less than the current price but well above the 1990s levels. Alaskan pipeline deliveries will not start until 2025, at which point they will help to offset supply reductions in the Lower 48 as well as imports from Canada. Nearly 100 gigawatts of old natural-gas-steam capacity is retired, and 50 gigawatts of the more effi­cient "natural gas combined cycle" (NGCC) plants are built. Total natural gas consumption grows by 0.4 percent per year through 2030.


Coal. In the baseline case, coal use is restrained by slower growth of energy demand and increas­ing generation of nuclear and renewable power. Demand will grow by an average of 0.2 percent each year through 2030. One hundred gigawatts of old inefficient energy is retired. Sixty-five gigawatts of new and replace­ment coal-fired power-generation plants will be added using the "integrated gas combined cycle" (IGCC) or advanced pulverized-coal technolo­gies. These more efficient technologies use less coal and emit less CO2 per unit of electricity gen­erated and are ready to be fitted for carbon cap­ture and sequestration. Because of the additional cost, there is no use of CCS technology in the baseline case.


...Nuclear Energy. Though there are no significant CO2 emissions from nuclear power generation, it is not considered "renewable" for the purpose of meeting existing state-imposed targets. Neverthe­less, federal incentives are already in place for an additional nuclear power capacity. There will be 12 gigawatts of new capacity built and 3 gigawatts of uprated additional capacity added at existing plants. Resolving the problems with waste disposal is a major hurdle in expand­ing nuclear power generation.


...Renewable Energy Sources. Federal and state initiatives already in place seek to increase the use of renewable energy sources. The definition of "renew­able" varies from state to state but generally in­cludes biomass, wind, and solar power. Higher fuel prices along with state and federal mandates cause renewable fuel use to grow at 5.5 percent per year through 2030.


...Lieberman-Warner --


S. 2191 sets ever more stringent caps on emissions of these gases. Using previous emission levels as yard­sticks, the 2012 cap is set at the 2005 emission level. The cap drops to 15 percent below the 2005 emission level by 2020 and 33 percent below by 2030. By 2050, the goal is to have man-made GHG emissions at 70 percent below those of 2005.


...Barriers to Trade: Title VI, Global Effort to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Title VI of S. 2191 is part of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensures that emitting GHG in other countries does not undermine U.S. efforts to reduce GHG. The bill's supporters hope to encourage international action on GHG reduction.


To this end, the bill includes the suggestion that the President establish an interagency group to determine whether or not other countries have taken similar action to limit their release of GHG. The interagency group will be responsible for creating a reserve of international allowances, and any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit international allowances as a condition for the trade to occur.


Thus, importers of covered goods must submit emissions allowances that are equal in value to those required for those goods in our system. For instance, if the production of a product generates two tons of CO2 , importers of this product need two tons of allowances for each product they import.


An importer must also submit a written declaration to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for each import. Failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration bars the importation of a good into the United States.


...Coal Technology... The costs of meeting the CO2 reductions man­dated by S. 2191 are very sensitive to changes in the rate at which CCS technology is developed. Our generous scenario operates on the assump­tion that any coal-fired plant built after 2018 uses CCS. A second scenario assumes that the signifi­cant technological and political hurdles prevent CCS adoption before 2030.


...Natural Gas. Because of its higher cost, natural gas is not competitive with coal in the baseline case of zero CO2 restrictions. Though natural gas gener­ates less CO2 per Btu than does today's coal, it is not competitive when coal generators use CCS...For carbon-allowance prices in the $30 to $40 range, replacing old steam plants with combined-cycle natural gas plants makes sense. When allow­ance prices exceed $50, coal plants with CCS are more competitive.


...Nuclear Energy. The projection is for no addi­tional nuclear power beyond the base case.


...Renewable Energy Sources. Current state and federal legislation calls for more than tripling the amount of renewable energy in power generation and increasing transport biofuels by more than 1,000 percent. This includes 16 billion gallons per year of corn-based ethanol and biodiesel and 20 bil­lion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol and biodie­sel...While S. 2191 has no additional mandates for biofuels, the costs of allowances for fossil fuels lead to greater use of biofuels. At this time, there is no commercially feasible cellulosic ethanol pro­duction. If this technology fails to deliver as pro­jected, energy prices will have to rise enough to reduce the quantity of energy demanded by the amount of missing cellulosic ethanol.


...Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Bill


Economic Output Declines.


...Th[e] investment-driven burst of GDP subsides after 2018. Higher energy prices decrease the use of car­bon-based energy in production of goods, incomes fall, and demand for goods subsides. GDP declines in 2020 by $94 billion, in 2025 by $129 billion, and in 2030 by $111 billion (all, again, after inflation). When CCS is not implemented, the higher carbon fees produce more adverse economic effects. GDP is $330 billion below its baseline levels by 2025 and $436 billion below its baseline levels by 2030.


...[M]an­ufacturing benefits from the initial investment in new energy production and fuel sources, but the sector's declines are sharp thereafter. Indeed, by 2020, manufacturing output in this energy-sensitive sector is 2.4 percent to 5.8 percent below what it would be if S. 2191 never becomes law. By 2030, the manufacturing sector has lost $319 billion to $767 billion in output when compared to our baseline; that is, when compared to the eco­nomic world without Lieberman-Warner.


...Number of Jobs Declines.


...In 2025, nearly a half-million jobs per year fail to materialize. The job losses expand to more than 600,000 in 2026. Indeed, in no year after the boomlet does the econ­omy under Lieberman-Warner outperform the base­line economy where S. 2191 never becomes law...Our baseline contains a 9 percent decline between 2008 and 2030. Lieberman-Warner accelerates this decrease substantially: Under our generous-assump­tions simulation, employment in manufacturing declines by 23 percent over that same time period, or more than twice the rate without Lieberman-Warner...Other, less energy-intensive sectors, however, do not suffer such decreases.


...Energy Prices Rise.


...Higher energy prices, of course, are the root cause of the slower economy...[C]onsumer prices for electricity, natural gas, and home heating oil increase signifi­cantly between 2015 and 2030. Indeed, by the last year of our simulation, the total energy bill for the average American consumer has gone up $8,870 from 2012.


Incomes and Consumption Decline.


Declining demand for energy-intensive products reduces employment and incomes in the businesses produc­ing these products. Workers and investors earn less, and household incomes decline. Reductions in income in these sectors spread and cause declines in demand for other sectors of the economy.


Our simulation captures this effect of higher energy prices. Under the generous-assumptions simulation, the income that individuals have after taxes declines by $47 billion (after inflation) in 2015 and by $50.7 billion in 2030. Our reasonable-assumptions simulation contains worse news: Dis­posable personal income falls $120 billion below baseline in 2015 and averages $68 billion below baseline over the entire period of 2008 to 2030.


Consumption outlays by individuals and house­holds follow the pattern of lower income. In 2020, consumption expenditures are $52 billion lower than they would be in an economic world in which S. 2191 is not the law. Personal consumption outlays (after inflation) are $67 billion lower by 2030 and average $54 billion below baseline over the entire 22-year forecast period. Under a more reasonable assessment of the likelihood of standard use of CCS, consumption expenditures by individuals average $113 billion lower over the 22-year forecast period.


These declines in consumption are particularly dramatic in those parts of the economy that are sensitive to economic shocks: con­sumer durables, financial services, and discretionary medical services, among others."

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Call For Large Unspecified National 'Sacrifices' and High Cost Enviro-Energy Use Regulatory 'Changes'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01tue1.html


New York Times


January 1, 2008


Editorial: In Office


The One Environmental Issue


The overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet. The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged, calling for large — if still unquantified — national sacrifices and for a transformation in the way the country produces and uses energy. The Republicans do not go much further than conceding that climate change could be a problem and, with the notable exception of John McCain, offer no comprehensive solutions.


In 2000, when Al Gore could have made warming a signature issue in his presidential campaign, his advisers persuaded him that it was too complicated and forbidding an issue to sell to ordinary voters. For similar reasons, John Kerry’s ambitious ideas for addressing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil never advanced much beyond his Web site.


Times have certainly changed. It is not yet clear to what extent Americans are willing to grapple with the implications of any serious strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: more specifically, whether they are ready to pay higher prices for energy and change their lifestyles to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.


Polls suggest, however, that voters are increasingly alarmed, and for that Mr. Gore is partly responsible. His film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” raised the issue’s profile. Then came four reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, predicting catastrophic changes in weather patterns, sea levels and food production unless greenhouses gases can be quickly stabilized and then reduced by as much as 80 percent by midcentury.


There is also a growing appetite for decisive action — everywhere, it seems, except the White House. Governors in more than two dozen states are fashioning regional agreements to lower greenhouse gases, the federal courts have ordered the executive branch to begin regulating these gases, and the Senate has begun work on a bipartisan bill that would reduce emissions by nearly 65 percent by 2050.


[THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE - RATHER, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ORDERED, IN MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA, WHICH WAS DECIDED APRIL 2, 2007, THAT
(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf) "BECAUSE GREENHOUSE GASES FIT WELL WITHIN THE [CLEAN AIR] ACT'S CAPACIOUS DEFINITION OF 'AIR POLLUTANT', THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MUST EVALUTE WHETHER GREENHOUSE GASES, SUCH AS CARBON DIOXIDE, "CAUSE[] OR CONTRIBUTE[] TO AIR POLLUTION WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ANTICIPATED TO 'ENDANGER' PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE", WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7601(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT REQUIRE THE EPA TO REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE AS MANY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST GROUPS HAVE FALSELY CLAIMED. "WHILE THE STATUTE [CLEAN AIR ACT] CONDITIONS EPA ACTION ON ITS FORMATION OF A 'JUDGMENT', THAT JUDGMENT MUST RELATED TO WHETHER AN AIR POLLUTANT 'CAUSES[S], OR CONTRIBUTE[S] TO, AIR POLLUTION WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ANTICIPATED TO ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE'." §7601(a)(1). UNDER THE ACT'S CLEAR TERMS, EPA CAN AVOID PROMULGATING REGULATIONS ONLY IF IT DETERMINES THAT GREENHOUSE GASES DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE OR IF IT PROVIDES SOME REASONABLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT CANNOT OR WILL NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY DO."]


Still, the country is a long way from a comprehensive response equal to the challenge. That is what the Democratic candidates are proposing. Senators Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Gov. Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis Kucinich have all offered aggressive plans that would go beyond the Senate bill and reduce emissions by 80 percent by midcentury (90 percent in Mr. Richardson’s case), much as called for in the United Nations reports.


These plans would rest primarily on a cap-and-trade scheme that imposes a gradually declining ceiling on emissions and allows power plants, refineries and other emitters to figure out the cheapest way to meet their quotas — either by reducing emissions on their own or by purchasing credits from more efficient producers. The idea is to give companies a clear financial incentive to invest in the new technologies and efficiencies required to create a more carbon-free economy.


[THE USE OF EMISSIONS CAP & TRADE REGIMES ARE QUITE EXPENSIVE TO THE PUBLIC (CONSUMERS) AND CANNOT ENSURE THAT ACTUAL EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT ARE INDEED REDUCED, SINCE A CAP & TRADE REGIME SIMPLY INVOLVES ONLY 'PAPER ACCOUNTING ENTRIES' THAT REFLECT 'OFFSETS' OF FICTITIOUS CARBON CREDITS CALCULATED IN RELATIONSHIP TO A REGULATORY LIMIT, WITH ACTUAL CALCULATED EMISSIONS. THE CANDIDATES' CAP & TRADE PLANS DO NOT SPECIFY HOW SUCH CALCULATIONS CAN AND WILL BE VERIFIED. ONE NEED ONLY LOOK TO THE SELF-ADMITTED FAILURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION'S CARBON DIOXIDE CAP & TRADE SYSTEM]


None of the Democrats trust the market to do the job by itself. All would make major investments in cleaner fuels and delivery systems, including coal-fired power plants capable of capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground. Every Democrat except Mr. Kucinich says that carbon-free nuclear power has to be part of the mix, although all are careful to say that safety issues and other concerns must first be resolved.


Internationally, the Democrats say they would seek a new global accord on reducing emissions to replace and improve upon the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Winning agreement among more than 180 nations will be slow-going, so several candidates, including Mrs. Clinton, have suggested jump-starting the process by bringing together the big emitters like China very early in their administrations. China and the United States together produce about 40 percent of the world’s total emissions and neither has agreed to binding reductions.


The only Republican candidate who comes close to the Democrats with a plan for addressing climate change is John McCain, one of the authentic pioneers on the issue in the Senate. In 2003, along with Joseph Lieberman, Mr. McCain introduced the first Senate bill aimed at mandatory economy-wide reductions in emissions of 65 percent by midcentury. He also regularly addresses the subject on the campaign trail.


The other leading Republican candidates — Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee — talk about energy issues almost exclusively in the context of freeing America from its dependence on foreign oil. All promote nuclear power, embrace energy efficiency and promise greener technologies. Only Mr. Huckabee has dared raise the idea of government regulation, embracing, at least theoretically, the idea of a mandatory cap on emissions. The rest prefer President Bush’s cost-free and demonstrably inadequate voluntary approach, which essentially asks industry to do what it can to reduce emissions.


So far, the Democratic candidates seem more engaged with the issue than some of their interrogators in the news media. In a recent study, the League of Conservation Voters found that as of two weeks ago, the five main political talk-show hosts had collectively asked 2,275 questions of candidates in both parties. Only 24 of the questions even touched on climate change.


One result is that even the candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost: How do they intend to pay for all the new efficiencies and technologies that will be necessary? And what kind of sacrifices will they be asking of people who almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills and their greener cars?


[THESE ARE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS THAT DESERVE HONEST ANSWERS, WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN FORTHCOMING]


Addressing these questions will require more courage of the candidates than simply offering up broad new visions. The voters deserve an honest accounting and the candidates should be prepared to give it.

Mindless Green UK Mandates Make Migraines A Medical Concern

Energy-Saving Light Bulbs Blamed for Migraines


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/03/eabulb103.xml


Telegraph.co.uk


By Laura Clout


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/01/2008


The energy-saving light bulbs that will be made compulsory in homes in a few years can trigger migraines, campaigners have claimed. The Migraine Action Association (MAA) said some of its members alleged the fluorescent bulbs had led to attacks of the powerful headaches. Some energy-saving bulbs may trigger headaches.


By 2011, Britain will be the first European country to phase out traditional bulbs as part of a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The MAA is calling on the Government to avoid a complete ban on old-style bulbs, by providing an opt-out for people with health problems. Last year it was claimed that the "green" bulbs can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit.


There have also been complaints from people with lupus, a chronic immune disease that causes pain and extreme tiredness. Low energy light bulbs use only a quarter of the energy consumed by traditional versions and are estimated to save 2,000 times their weight in greenhouse gases. They are often five times more expensive but the greater efficiency means they can pay for themselves within months. Several versions use a technology similar to fluorescent strip lights and some migraine sufferers say they produce a flickering effect that triggers their condition.


Karen Manning, from the MAA, said: "When the Government announced that traditional light bulbs would be phased out, we were inundated with over 200 calls and emails from members who said the flickering had caused migraines."This is a debilitating condition which can often leave people bed-ridden for days."The bulbs do not necessarily affect every sufferer, but we are talking about up to six million people in the UK who suffer migraines - so this is a serious concern.


"We would ask the Government to avoid banning them completely and leave some opportunity for conventional bulbs to be purchased."The Lighting Association, which represents manufacturers, denied that modern designs produced a flicker.A spokesman said: "A small number of cases have been reported by people who suffer from reactions to certain types of linear fluorescent lamps. These were almost certainly triggered by old technology."

Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp


Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study


By Zoe Corbyn


RSC Chemistry World


21 September 2007


Growing and burning many biofuels may actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions, a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has shown.1 The findings come in the wake of a recent OECD report, which warned nations not to rush headlong into growing energy crops because they cause food shortages and damage biodiversity.



Crutzen and colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought - wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming. The work appears in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and is currently subject to open review.



'The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuel are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,' Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World. 'What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.'



"What we are saying is that growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse"
- Keith Smith


Crutzen, famous for his work on nitrogen oxides and the ozone layer, declined to comment before the paper is officially published. But the paper suggests that microbes convert much more of the nitrogen in fertiliser to N2O than previously thought - 3 to 5 per cent or twice the widely accepted figure of 2 per cent used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



For rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for about 80 per cent of the biofuel production in Europe, the relative warming due to N2O emissions is estimated at 1 to 1.7 times larger than the quasi-cooling effect due to saved fossil CO2 emissions. For corn bioethanol, dominant in the US, the figure is 0.9 to 1.5. Only cane sugar bioethanol - with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9 - looks like a viable alternative to conventional fuels.



Some previous estimates had suggested that biofuels could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40 per cent.2



Global picture



The IPCC's N2O conversion factor is derived using data from plant experiments. But Crutzen takes a different approach, using atmospheric measurements and ice core data to calculate the total amount of N2O in the atmosphere. He then subtracts the level of N2O in pre-industrial times - before fertilizers were available - to take account of N2O from natural processes such as leguminous plants growing in forests, lightning, and burn offs.



Assuming the rest of the N2O is attributable to newly-fixed nitrogen from fertilizer use, and knowing the amount of fertilizer applied globally, he can calculate the contribution of fertilizers to N2O levels.



The results may well trigger a rethink by the IPCC, says Smith. 'Should we go along the road of adding up the experimental evidence for each of the processes or are we better off using the global numbers?'



Critical reception



But other experts are critical of Crutzen's approach. Simon Donner, a nitrogen researcher based at Princeton University, US, says the method is elegant but there is little evidence to show the N2O yield from fertilized plants is really as high as 3-5 per cent. Crutzen's basic assumption, that pre-industrial N2O emissions are the same as natural N2O emissions, is 'probably wrong', says Donner.



One reason he gives is that farmers plant crops in places that have nitrogen rich soils anyway. 'It is possible we are indirectly increasing the "natural" source of N2O by drawing down the soil nitrogen in the world's agricultural regions,' he explains.



Others dispute the values chosen by Crutzen to calculate his budget. Stefan Rauh, an agricultural scientist at the Instituteof Agricultural Economics and Farm Management in Munich, Germany, says some of the rates for converting crops into biofuel should be higher. 'If you use the other factors you get a little net climate cooling,' he said.



Meanwhile, a report prepared by the OECD for a recent Round Table on Sustainable Development questions the benefits of first generation biofuels and concludes that governments should scrap mandatory targets.



Richard Doornbosch, the report's author, says both the report and Crutzen's work highlights the importance of establishing correct full life-cycle assessments for biofuels. 'Without them, government policies can't distinguish between one biofuel and another - risking making problems worse,' said Doornbosch.

Flawed policies encourage damaging biofuels, says Royal Society

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/14010802.asp


Flawed policies encourage damaging biofuels, says Royal Society


14 January 2008


Richard Van Noorden


RSC Chemistry World



Simplistic policies are encouraging biofuels that don't cut greenhouse gases, the UK's Royal Society has warned in a new report.



Not all biofuels are equally good at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, so rewarding the best should be a priority, explained John Pickett, who chaired the study. Yet current transport policies - such as the EU biofuels directive and the UK's renewable transport fuel obligation (RTFO) - only demand more transport fuel from renewable resources. 'Indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions,' said Pickett.



Instead, the report - Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges - favours policies that promote fuels with the lowest emissions by, for example, including greenhouse gas reduction incentives and certifying fuels for their emissions savings.



The recommendations came on the same day that EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas admitted that the EU had not forseen the social and environmental problems caused by its own biofuels targets - such as rising food prices and deforestation. 'We have to have criteria for sustainability,' he said.



But that could be easier said than done, the Royal Society says. 'How we develop these "sustainability criteria" in itself requires research,' commented report co-author Dianna Bowles, who works on novel agricultural products at the University of York.



Hard choices



Jeremy Woods, at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, said that ethanol from UK-sourced wheat, for example, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by anything from 10 to 80 per cent. The vast uncertainty simply reflected different agricultural practices and crop yields.



And it is not just agricultural processing that needs to be considered: effects on deforestation; food shortages; local climate; soil quality; distribution costs; the trade impacts of biofuel imports; and other unexpected variables could all affect the merits of any one biofuel process.



In other words, said Pickett, biofuel policy-makers are walking a thin line between making overly complex regulations, too costly and slow to research and implement - or being too simple, and so encouraging the wrong biofuels. Focusing on greenhouse gas reductions would be a good target to start with, but 'we must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change,' he said.



International concern



The UK's RTFO, whose first incarnation comes into force in April 2008, requires that 5 per cent of UK fuel comes from a renewable source by 2010. It is developing a carbon reporting and sustainability certification scheme. 'The RTFO is a reasonable start,' said Pickett. 'But unless certification is applied to the production of all biofuels, and is a system used by all countries, we will merely displace rather than remedy the potentially negative effects of these fuels.'

[OSTENSIBLY PRIVATE CERTIFICATION SCHEMES CAN PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISGUISED TRADE PROTECTIONISM]**


See: "Discerning The Forests From the Trees: How Governments Use Ostensibly Private and Voluntary Standards to Avoid WTO Culpability"

http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints%20KOGAN%20-%20Discerning%20the%20Forest%20from%20the%20Trees.pdf


Meanwhile, an OECD official has warned that even governments aware of the weaknesses of their biofuel policies - for example, the trade barriers that have been set up by Europe and the US - might now find it hard to backtrack on them. Speaking at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit in Paris, Leok Boonekamp, a division head in the OECD's Agro-food Trade and Markets Division, said, 'I'm not very optimistic that because we say that the policies are bad and wasteful that governments will go away and do something else.'

US Enviros Aim to Halt Coal Use and Risk US Economic & Energy Security: Launch Court Actions Pushing US to Adopt Flawed EU Policy on Carbon Emissions

Coal Power Goes on Trial Across U.S. Activists Sue to Slow Boom; Industry Says Americans Want the Electricity


updated 4:26 p.m. ET, Mon., Jan. 14, 2008


BILLINGS, Mont. - In federal and state courtrooms across the country, environmental groups are putting coal-fueled power plants on trial in a bid to slow the industry's biggest construction boom in decades.



At least four dozen coal plants are being contested in 29 states, according to a recent Associated Press tally. The targeted utilities include giants like Peabody Energy and American Electric Power down to small rural cooperatives.



From lawsuits and administrative appeals against the companies, to lobbying pressure on federal and state regulators, the coordinated offensive against coal is emerging as a pivotal front in the debate over global warming.



"Our goal is to oppose these projects at each and every stage, from zoning and air and water permits, to their mining permits and new coal railroads," said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club attorney who directs the group's national coal campaign. "They know they don't have an answer to global warming, so they're fighting for their life."



Industry representatives say the environmentalists' actions threaten to undermine the country's fragile power grid, setting the stage for a future of high-priced electricity and uncontrollable blackouts.



"These projects won't be denied, but they can be delayed by those who oppose any new energy projects," said Vic Svec, vice president of the mining and power company Peabody Energy.
While observers say forecasts of power grid doom are exaggerated, the importance of coal — one of the country's cheapest and most abundant fuels — is undeniable.



Coal plants provide just over 50 percent of the nation's electricity. They also are the largest domestic source of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, emitting 2 billion tons annually, about a third of the country's total.



The score so far Environmental groups cite 59 canceled, delayed or blocked plants as evidence they are turning back the "coal rush." That stacks up against 22 new plants now under construction in 14 states — the most in more than two decades.



Mining companies, utilities and coal-state politicians promote coal in the name of national security, as an alternative to foreign fuels. With hundreds of years of reserves still in the ground, they're also pushing coal-to-diesel plants as a way to sharply increase domestic production.



The outcome of the fight over coal could determine the nation's greenhouse gas emissions for years to come, said Gregory Nemet, assistant professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin.



"It's pretty much irreversible," Nemet said. "Once a coal plant is built, it will last 50 years or so."



But in opposing coal projects across the board, environmentalists risk hobbling more advanced coal plants that could rein in at least some of those emissions, Nemet said. He added that rising demand for electricity means more power "has to come from somewhere."



"There's too much pressure — in terms of energy independence and the inexpensiveness of that resource — to not use that coal," Nemet said.



One of the latest challenges to a utility came in the heart of coal country — Montana, which boasts the largest coal reserves in the nation.




On Friday, a state panel refused to rescind an air-quality permit it had granted for a plant proposed for the Great Falls area by Southern Montana Electric, despite concerns about the plant's carbon dioxide emissions. The 250-megawatt plant is projected to emit the equivalent of 2.8 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, as much as a half-million vehicles.



The Montana Environmental Information Center, which had asked the panel to review the permit, vowed to appeal the ruling.



Nilles said the Sierra Club spent about $1 million on such efforts in 2007 and hopes to ratchet that figure up to $10 million this year.



Meanwhile, coal interests are pouring even more into a promotional campaign launched by the industry group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. It spent $15 million last year and expects to more than double that to $35 million in 2008, said the group's director, Joe Lucas.



Funding for the group comes from coal mining and utility companies such as Peabody and railroads that depend on coal shipments for a large share of their revenues.



Peabody's Svec acknowledged a rush to build new plants, but denied the goal was to beat any of at least seven bills pending before Congress to restrict carbon dioxide emissions — a charge leveled by some environmentalists.



Rather, he said, the construction boom is driven by projections that the country will fall into a power deficit within the next decade if new plants are not built. [A LARGELY TRUE STATEMENT]



Industry attorney Jeffrey Holmstead said that could lead to a future of rolling blackouts as the economy expands and electricity consumption increases. Holmstead was in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's air program during the first five years of the current Bush administration.



The power deficit cited by industry officials is based on projections from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. NERC vice president David Nevius said his group is "neutral" on what kind of plants should be built to meet rising demand.



"We're not saying the lights will go out. We're just saying additional resources are needed," Nevius said. "We don't say coal over gas over wind over solar."



600-plus plants nowUtilities currently burn more than 1 billion tons of coal annually in more than 600 plants. Over the next two decades, the Bush administration projects coal's share of electricity generation will increase to almost 60 percent.



That projection held steady in recent months even as courts and regulators turned back, delayed or asked for changes to plants in at least nine states.



Other projects in Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Florida and several other states have been abandoned or shelved.



Some were canceled over global warming concerns. Utilities backed off others after their price tags climbed over $1 billion due to rising costs for materials and skilled labor.



Environmental opposition to coal plants was galvanized by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that said carbon dioxide is a pollutant open to regulation.



The case, Massachusetts vs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, involved vehicle emissions. But environmentalists aim to use the decision as a fulcrum to leverage regulators to take a harder line on greenhouse gases in several emerging power plant disputes. The result could serve as an early barometer of the reach of the Supreme Court ruling.



More tests of the two sides' arguments are certain. Industry groups say at least 15 coal-fired power projects are nearing the end of the approval process and could soon start construction.