Hazard & Correlation-Based (Precautionary Principle-Based) Global Warming is a Falling Doctrine

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Global-warming-is-a-falling-doctrine-8759793-81328022.html

Global Warming is a Falling Doctrine

By: Cal Thomas

Examiner

January 14, 2010

PORSTEWART, NORTHERN IRELAND - A familiar philosophical question goes like this: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[See Of Great Expectations and Climate Change Chicanery: Even Charles Dickens Has Been Outdone!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security (Jan. 27, 2009) at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2009/01/of-great-expectations-and-climate.html ].

Here's another: If a doctrine falls, will enough believers admit they were wrong and withdraw support for policies associated with it?

The "doctrine" of global warming, now euphemistically called "climate change," suffered a severe blow last week as much of Europe was buried in record amounts of snow and subfreezing temperatures.

"Experts" who believe in global warming, uh climate change, went on television where they bravely tried to make a distinction between weather, which they said was about what happens today, and climate, which is long term. Most of it fell on deaf -- and cold -- ears as growing numbers disbelieve the "experts," relying more on their own "lying eyes."

Writing Sunday in London's Daily Mail, columnist David Rose analyzed recent scientific data amassed by eminent climate scientists. Rose says that far from a warming planet, "the bitter weather afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years."

Rose cites data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, which found that, "Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 percent, since 2007."

This, he says, challenges "some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as their claim that the North Pole will be free of ice by the summer of 2013."

During last month's climate summit in Copenhagen, more than 150 scientists with backgrounds in climate science wrote an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a global warming believer.

The letter begins, "climate change science is in a period of 'negative discovery' - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly the science is not settled."

The scientists challenge 10 of the main claims of the global warming-climate change true believers and write, "... there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes.

"Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena."

That seems more than reasonable, but politicians in Europe and America want to rush through additional restrictions on how we live in order to seize more power. This is the major reason for their panic attack.

As new scientific evidence adds to the body of information, history and common sense, the power grab by the politicians is in peril. The hurry-up offense, to employ a football term, is being used to rush through legislation before the defense can devise an effective response. But the defense is now on the offense, and the offense is being forced to poorly play defense.

Should we do nothing about our consumption of petroleum? No, we should use this window of opportunity to decrease our reliance on petroleum; not because of "climate change," but to deprive the oil-producing nations of money too many of them use to underwrite terrorism.

This should satisfy both the global warming disciples and deniers and make America and Europe less dependent on nations that wish to destroy our liberty. But threats to liberty are not limited to some oil-producing nations; they can also be found in the British Parliament and in the American Congress.

The falling doctrines now make so much noise that only those without hearing fail to notice.

Examiner columnist Cal Thomas is nationally syndicated by Tribune Media, Inc.

Bravo! China Played the Copenhagen Climate Change Concerto With the Finesse of a Maestro

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

By Mark Lynas

Guardian.co.uk

22 December 2009

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate.

This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Obama's EPA Suppresses Scientist's Carbon Data & Promotes Chicken Little Endangerment Finding to Ensure Passage of Waxman-Markey Climate Change Act

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CEI-releases-global-warming-study-censored-by-Obamas-EPA--49181632.html

CEI releases global warming study censored by Obama's EPA

By Kevin Mooney


Commentary Staff Writer


DC Examiner


6/26/09

Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released today as Congress prepares to vote on global warming legislation.

Internal email messages show the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed the report and silenced the author because the scientific evidence did not square with the Obama administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide, CEI claims. The EPA has become overly reliant upon outdated information from the United Nations and has ignored major new scientific developments, the censored study concludes.

[http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf
"CEI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated with in EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons. CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the doc ket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years...]. [http://www.blogger.com/www.cei.org ]

“While we hoped that the EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency, since she took office,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report.


[http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under the CAA [Clean Air Act], National Center for Environmental Economics [NCEE], Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency].

[EXCERPT: “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA an d others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclu sions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these groups that may be blamed for this error.

We do not maintain that we or anyone else have all the answers needed to take action now. Some of the conclusions reached in these comments may well be shown to be incorrect by future research. Our conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations that we currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TED that we believe they support our increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups.

As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject. We believe that this review should start immediately and be a continuing effort as long as there is a serious possibility that EPA may be called upon to implement regulations designed to reduce global warming. The science has and undoubtedly will to change and EPA must have the capability of keeping abreast of these changes if it is to successfully discharge its responsibilities. The Draft TSD suggests to us that we do not yet have that capability or that we have not used what we have…”].

Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature.

Going forward, CEI has called upon the EPA to independently analyze the science and to become more transparent in its own reporting.

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

[See House Approves

Climate Change Bill, UPI (6/26/09)

at: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/26/House-approves-climate-change-bill/UPI-90601246060315 ; Greg Hitt and Stephen Power, House Passes Climate

Bill, Wall Street Journal (6/27/09) at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124610499176664899.html].

Of Great Expectations and Climate Change Chicanery: Even Charles Dickens Has Been Outdone!

In the novel Great Expectations, written in 1860 by Charles Dickens, there is an underlying theme of disillusionment, but it is not a melancholy book. The main character, named Pip, has many "great expectations" in his life, but over the course of time these illusions are slowly shattered." (http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=67927)

"Great Expectations is a novel by Charles Dickens first serialised in All the Year Round from 1 December 1860 to August 1861. It is regarded as one of his greatest and most sophisticated novels, and is one of his most enduringly popular, having been adapted for stage and screen over 250 times. Great Expectations is written in a semi-autobiographical style, and is the story of the orphan Pip, writing his life from his early days of childhood until adulthood. The story can also be considered semi-autobiographical of Dickens, like much of his work, drawing on his experiences of life and people. The action of the story takes place from Christmas Eve, 1812, when the protagonist is about seven years old, to the winter of 1840." See: Great Expectations, Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Expectations.

The novel Great Expectations also raises many thought-provoking philosophical issues which are uncannily relevant for purposes of evaluating the global climate change debate. In particular, isn't it remarkable how European national governments have disingenuously portrayed the human and environmental (described as 'existential') threat posed by global warming and/or climate change, two scientifically distinct terms that have been conflated intentionally by environmental zealots and government bureaucrats the world over? [See, e.g.: Global Warming or Climate Change? It's ALL Relative If We Ignore Science, Reframe Issues, Redefine Words, Adjust Grammar and Use Symbols and Imagery!, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-or-climate-change-its.html ].

We ask the Obama Administration directly - are you, too, raising unrealistic planetary threat scenarios, public fears of environmental catastrophe and 'great expectations' of your own that something can actually be done about what the President has referred to in his inaugural speech as 'the specter of a warming planet'? [See Obama: US will 'roll back the specter of a warming planet', AFP (Jan. 20, 2009), at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iGbumOehd1mBE5Su-zpzXS0utiQQ ].We suggest that the administration carefully review the literal and metaphorical themes conveyed within Charles Dickens' literary masterpiece with an eye towards seeing how they apply to what is actually an onward march towards global regulatory governance over the economic lives of all Americans.

• Good versus evil. Dickens most common theme, complicated by the moral ambiguity of many characters and situations. The poses and false appearances many people erect cause us to wonder who is good and who is evil.
  
  

• Guilt. Related to the good and evil theme is that of guilt. Who is guilty and of what? Does everyone have some guilt?
  

• What is the value of education? Does it improve people or only corrupt them? What exactly is education, anyway?
  

• The danger of wealth and social position to corrupt. Are they corrupt in themselves and thus to be avoided?
  
  

• City vs. country. One of the oldest thematic traditions in literature is the conflict between city and country. Usually, the city is the scene of corruption, confusion, and problems, while the country hosts innocence and resolution.
  
  

• The real vs. a facade. Many characters have or erect facades--false fronts or appearances--to hide their real selves. Why? Who are they? Are the facades beneficial or harmful?
  

• The power of imagination to control behavior,

• Imprisonment as a metaphor. Several characters are imprisoned--in real prisons, in exile, in self chosen prisons, in psychological prisons.
  

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

[A CLOSE LOOK AT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CAREFULLY CHOSEN WORDS, "The United States will 'roll back the specter of a warming planet'...", STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS AWARE OF THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE SCIENCE SURROUNDING GLOBAL WARMING/ CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROBLEM, LET ALONE ITS POTENTIAL CAUSES and/or CORRELATIONS. THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY HE WOULD INSTRUCT THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO REVIEW CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR AAHNOLD SCHWARNZEGGER'S LONG-SITTING REQUEST FOR THE GRANT OF A STATE WAIVER FROM EPA POLLUTION CONTROL RULES. IT IS PREFERABLE TO ALLOW THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE 17 OTHER STATES LOOKING TO ADOPT ITS CARBON 'CAP & TRADE' RULES TO MAKE THE POLITICAL MISTAKE OF OVER-REGULATING THEIR RESIDENTS, THAN TO HAVE WASHINGTON BE CALLED TO BLAME.]

[A SHORT TRIP TO THE DICTIONARY REVEALS HOW THE WORD “SPECTER” IS DEFINED, and how it relates to the notion of GREAT EXPECTATIONS:

Etymology:
French spectre, from Latin spectrum appearance, specter, from specere to look, look at — more at spy
Date:
1605
1 : a visible disembodied spirit : ghost 2 : something that haunts or perturbs the mind : phantasm

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

spec·ter
play_w2("S0617600")

(spktr)
n.
1. A ghostly apparition; a phantom.
2. A haunting or disturbing image or prospect

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

Phantasm:

Etymology:
Middle English fantasme, from Anglo-French fantosme, fantasme, from Latin phantasma, from Greek, from phantazein to present to the mind — more at fancy

Date:
13th century

1: a product of fantasy: as a: delusive appearance : illusion b: ghost , specter c: a figment of the imagination 2: a mental representation of a real object.

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28861757

Expect 1,000-year Climate Impacts, Experts Say - [NOAA] Study: Stopping emissions won't prevent decreased rainfall, higher seas

MSNBC.com/AP

January 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - Even if the world can cap carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming, expect to see droughts and sea level rise that span centuries, not just decades, according to a new study sponsored by the U.S. government.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," lead author Susan Solomon told reporters.

Instead, the team concluded, warming tied to higher CO2 "is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop."

"Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable" said Solomon, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. All the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse, Solomon said. [????]

Waiting could compound problems

[WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? NEITHER WE NOR OUR FAMILIES, OR OUR FAMILIES' FAMILIES' FAMILIES' FAMILIES, WILL BE AROUND TO OBSERVE THESE SO-CALLED 'COMPOUND PROBLEMS'! THIS RAISES THE QUINTESSENTIAL PHILOSOPHICAL RIDDLE: "IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST AND NO ONE IS AROUND TO HEAR IT, DOES IT MAKE A SOUND???" ALTERNATIVELY, PRESIDENT OBAMA & SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THE VERSION OF THIS QUESTION POSED BY THE LATE POLITICALLY INCORRECT COMEDIAN GEORGE CARLIN: "IF A MAN SPEAKS IN THE FOREST AND THERE IS NO WOMAN TO HEAR IT, IS HE STILL WRONG?"]

[IT WOULD APPEAR, BASED ON HIS CAREFUL SELECTION OF THE WORDS 'SPECTER OF A WARMING PLANET', THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA, HIMSELF, IS AWARE OF THIS PHILOSOPHICAL RIDDLE CONSTRUCTED BY 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHER BISHOP BERKELEY. HE "PROMOTED A THEORY...CALLED 'IMMATERIALISM' LATER REFERRED TO AS 'SUBJECTIVE IDEALISM'. HIS DICTUM WAS "Esse est percipi" - "To be is to be perceived". HE TALKED OF OBJECTS CEASING TO EXIST ONCE THERE WAS NOBODY AROUND TO PERCEIVE THEM." See: "If a Tree Falls in a Forest", Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest ].

Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added that "the real concern is that the longer we wait to do something, the higher the level of irreversible climate change to which we'll have to adapt." Meehl was not part of Solomon's research team.

[TO REPEAT OUR MAIN POINT, "WE HUMANS LIVING ON THE PLANET DURING MOST OF THE NEXT MILLENNIUM", WILL NOT HAVE TO ADAPT 1,000 YEARS HENCE TO ANYTHING. TO SUGGEST THIS IS ABSURD!! THIS FANTASTIC STATEMENT POSITS A FALSE POSITIVE, WITH THE INTENTION, AND IN THE HOPE, OF SPURRING PEOPLE TO ACT ON THAT OVER WHICH THEY ULTIMATELY HAVE NO CONTROL. AND WHAT IS WORSE, THE MEDIA IS PROLIFERATING THIS CHICANERY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SCIENTIFIC, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & LEGAL FACTS FOR THEMSELVES!! SO MUCH FOR THE PROFESSIONALISM OF JOURNALISTS WHOM, BY THEIR ACTS OF ACQUIESCENCE OR WORSE, INACTIONS, ARE ACTUALLY COMPLICIT IN THE PERPETRATION OF THIS FRAUD UPON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!].

The findings were announced as President Barack Obama ordered reviews that could lead to automobiles that emit less CO2 and get higher mileage.

Climate change has been driven by gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from solar radiation and raise the planet's temperature — the "greenhouse effect." Carbon dioxide has been the most important of those gases because it remains in the air for hundreds of years. While other gases are responsible for nearly half of the warming, they degrade more rapidly, Solomon said.

Before the industrial revolution the air contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. That has risen to 385 ppm today, and politicians and scientists have debated at what level it could be stabilized.

The peer-reviewed study concludes that if CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s U.S. Dust Bowl in zones including the U.S. southwest, southern Europe, Africa, eastern South America and western Australia.

The study, which relied on computer models and historical temperatures, was published in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Warming and the seas

Warmer climate also is causing expansion of the ocean and that factor alone is likely to lock in a 1.3 to 3.2 foot sea level rise by the year 3000 if CO2 peaks at 600 ppm, and double that if it peaks at 1,000 ppm, the researchers calculated.

"Additional contributions to sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets are too uncertain to quantify in the same way," Solomon said in a statement. "They could be even larger but we just don’t have the same level of knowledge about those terms. We presented the minimum sea level rise that we can expect from well-understood physics, and we were surprised that it was so large."

Solomon noted that while global warming has been slowed by the oceans, which absorb carbon, that positive effect will wane over time and eventually oceans will actually warm the planet by giving off their accumulated heat to the air.

Alan Robock, of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University, agreed with the report's assessment.

"It's not like air pollution where if we turn off a smokestack, in a few days the air is clear," said Robock, who was not part of Solomon's research team. "It means we have to try even harder to reduce emissions," he said.

[DEAR PROFESSOR ROBOCK, HOW MUCH IN PRIVATE FOUNDATION AND GOVERNMENT GRANT MONIES DO YOU EXPECT TO OBTAIN AS THE RESULT OF YOUR SOLICITOUS REMARKS??]

Solomon's report "is quite important, not alarmist, [???] and very important for the current debates on climate policy," added Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona.

[CORRECT. THIS DECEPTIVE & DISHONEST DISCUSSION RAISES FALSE FEARS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ARMAGEDDON THAT WILL INCITE PUBLIC FEAR AND TRIGGER PUBLIC DEMANDS FOR GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD TO ENACT LOCAL, NATIONAL, REGIONAL & GLOBAL REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES TO MITIGATE THEIR INDIVIDUAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH MITIGATION EFFORTS WILL NOT LIKELY HAVE AN IMPACT FOR 1,000 YEARS HENCE!! FOR THIS REASON ALONE, WE CAN SEE WHY GRANT-SEEKING SCIENTISTS, PUBLICITY-SEEKING POLITICIANS AND PROTECTIONIST-MINDED PUBLIC COMPANIES FIND BELIEVE THIS REPORT CAN MAKE AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE CURRENT DEBATES ON CLIMATE POLICY?]

'Quite conservative' figures

[NO DOUBT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CAST THE IMPRESSION TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE CLIMATE SCENARIO IS FAR WORSE THAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK OF!!]

While scientists have been aware of the long-term aspects of climate change, the new report highlights and provides more specifics on them, said Kevin Treberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"This aspect is one that is poorly appreciated by policymakers and the general public and it is real," said Trenberth, who was not part of the research group.

"The temperature changes and the sea level changes are, if anything underestimated and quite conservative, especially for sea level," he said.

While he agreed that the rainfall changes mentioned in the paper are under way, Trenberth disagreed with some details of that part of the report.

"Even so, there would be changes in snow (to rain), snow pack and water resources, and irreversible consequences even if not quite the way the authors describe," he said. "The policy relevance is clear: We need to act sooner ... because by the time the public and policymakers really realize the changes are here it is far too late to do anything about it. In fact, as the authors point out, it is already too late for some effects."

[IT IS PURE FOLLY, LET ALONE, AN ABJECT PUBLIC FRAUD, AND AN EXERCISE IN CREATING 'GREAT EXPECTATIONS', FOR THESE PERSONS, AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, TO REPRESENT THAT THEY CAN DO ANYTHING MEANINGFUL TO STOP WHAT ARE LARGELY NATURAL CYCLES AFFECTED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES TO A SCIENTIFICALLY UNCERTAIN EXTENT].

Geoengineering to remove CO2 from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. "Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative," Solomon stated.

Co-authors of the paper were Gian-Kaspar Plattner and Reto Knutti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Pierre Friedlingstein of the National Institute for Scientific Research, Gif sur Yvette, France.

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-emissions26-2009jan26,0,3460961.story

Obama Clearing Way for California Emissions Waiver

By Ken Bensinger and Jim Tankersley

Los Angeles Times

January 26, 2009

Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles -- President Obama will direct the EPA today to reconsider a Bush-era decision that stopped California and more than a dozen other states from setting their own stricter limits on auto emissions, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Should the agency allow a waiver from federal rules, states could require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks far above current limits. It also would fulfill a long-held goal of environmentalists, as well as one of Obama's campaign promises.

A waiver would be another dramatic rebuke of Bush administration policies, as well as a swift statement that the new president intends to put his own stamp on environmental issues.

"This should prompt cheers from California to Maine," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, who praised Obama as "a man of his word" for the decision.

Tim Carmichael, senior policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, hailed the decision as a vital step for the administration and the world in the fight against global warming.

Passenger vehicles are estimated to emit 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

"I think Obama got a clear message that this is a priority not only for California state protection but also for planetary protection," Carmichael said.

A waiver would be a bitter defeat for the auto industry, which had for years hotly contested the implementation of the California rules and had applauded the Bush administration decision in December 2007 to deny a state waiver for California.

A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said Sunday that the industry group did not have a comment on the matter. Mike Moran, a spokesman for Ford Motor Co., said the company would not release a statement until Obama made a formal announcement.

At least 17 other states have adopted or are considering California's rules, and a waiver also would allow them to regulate tailpipe emissions. Altogether, those states, which include New York and Florida, represent about 40% of the population, according to auto industry estimates.

That has provoked considerable anxiety among carmakers. They could be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007.

The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Bush's waiver denial provoked California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sue the federal government. Separately, Congress launched an investigation on the decision-making process at the Environmental Protection Agency, which must grant California the waiver before the state may regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Last week, Schwarzenegger sent a letter to President Obama asking that the agency reconsider the matter. "Your administration has a unique opportunity to . . . move America toward global leadership on addressing climate change," the letter said.

Also last week, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of California's Air Resources Board, asked the EPA to open a "reconsideration process" in a letter she sent to Lisa Jackson, that agency's new administrator.

In December, Nichols indicated that the state board had been in close contact with Obama's transition team to help plan a way to pass the waiver and adopt specific rules on rolling out the regulation.

Earlier this month, Jackson pledged to reconsider the request -- and hinted that she supported granting it -- during a Senate hearing into her nomination.

After Obama turns the matter over to the EPA, the agency is expected to take several months to reach a final decision on whether to reverse the Bush denial.

News of Obama's expected statement won quick praise from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who said it was "more than welcome news."

As chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, she said, she plans to work with the EPA to move a waiver through quickly.

"An immediate EPA review of the waiver decision shows respect for California" and the other states, Boxer said, while they wait for the "green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles."

In 2002, California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles, but couldn't enforce it, as a series of lawsuits filed by the auto industry held it up.

Last year, judges handed down several rulings that would allow the rule's adoption, but an EPA waiver was still required.

The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 mpg by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 mpg.

To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000.

The Bush administration had been charged with developing final rules for the new federal mileage requirements, but elected to pass that task on to Obama, citing the auto industry's deep economic woes. Those rules must be published by April, and it is expected that the administration will make an announcement on them as soon as today.

In taking up the tailpipe emissions issue after less than a week in office, Obama is sending a signal about the importance his administration places on environmental matters, environmentalists said.

There had been some expectation among them that Obama would instruct the EPA to grant the California waiver immediately, using the existing regulations.

But by sending the matter back to Jackson, Obama also indicates that he is aware of the auto industry's difficulties and willing to develop rules that would accommodate some of its immediate concerns.

Last month, the Bush administration agreed to give General Motors Corp. and Chrysler $17.4 billion in emergency loans.

The two automakers, which suffered the worst sales declines in a quarter-century last year, have until Feb. 17 to submit restructuring plans to the federal government, which will evaluate those plans by the end of March.

In addition to technological concerns, automakers worry that having the California rules in place would create regulatory chaos, with two separate rules on the books. They have argued that if government is going to regulate carbon emissions, as is the case in Europe, there should be one national rule.

That's a position echoed by environmentalists, who believe that California's regulations would open the door for serious discussion for a new countrywide standard.

"It's not going to happen overnight," said Spencer Quong, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "This is a huge notice that the administration is going to deliver on its promise to clean up the environment and fight global warming."

[ONCE AGAIN, WE WONDER HOW ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS CAN MAKE SUCH A FALSE CLAIM WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION'S OWN GOVERNMENT AGENCY HAS JUST REPORTED THAT, "WARMING TIED TO CO2 IS LARGELY IRREVERSIBLE FOR 1000 YEARS"!!]

EURObama's Ideal-ist Climate Change Policy, Like Europe's, is NOT 'Real' Change, But More of the Same!!

http://euobserver.com/9/26731?print=1


Europeans worry but do little about climate change



RENATA GOLDIROVA



EU Observer



September 12, 2008 - Today @ 09:14 CET


EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - An overwhelming majority of Europeans - 62 percent - consider climate change the second most serious problem facing the world today, a fresh EU poll has shown. However, they have little appetite for turning green when it comes to their lifestyle.



[THIS IS NOT CHANGE, BUT MORE OF THE SAME!]


"There is a clear gap between what citizens say and what citizens are doing about fighting climate change," EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said on Thursday (11 September), while presenting the survey.



Arctic ice: Europeans worry about global warming but do little beyond sorting waste for recycling.

Although 61 percent of Europeans say they are taking some kind of action against climate change, it is limited to minor personal or financial effort such as separating waste for recycling and reducing consumption of energy, water or throw-away products.

Mr Dimas cited two main reasons for the inactivity - a lack of information about the causes and consequences of climate change and a lack of decisiveness on the side of public and private sectors.

[ISN'T THE 'EU INSPIRED, IDEALIST U.S. BLUE PARTY GUILTY OF MORE OF 'THE SAME'??]

Four in ten Europeans feel poorly informed about the subject, with the commissioner describing the level as "disappointing." They also expect governments, companies and industries to lead by example and change their behaviour.

In total, some 60 percent of people believe global warming is not an unstoppable phenomenon and can be changed.

Cypriots most concerned; Czechs least

The survey was carried out in all 27 EU states as well as in Croatia, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in the Turkish Cypriot community. In total, it involved 30,170 people and cost €240,000.

Only the issue of poverty (68%) scores higher than climate change (62%) in citizens' minds as to which is the most serious global problem.

"It seems that European citizens are very interested about what's happening in the world, maybe they are little less selfish than we might have imagined if they give these problems such a high level of importance," said Italian Socialist Guido Sacconi, the chair of the European Parliament temporary committee on climate change.

Broken down by countries, Cypriots (96%), Greeks (90%) and Slovenians (80%) have shown the greatest concern about global warming. Citizens of the Czech Republic (45%), Portugal (47%) and Italy (47%) are on the bottom of the same chart.

In the Czech Republic, the most visible critic of the climate change discourse is the country's own president, Vaclav Klaus. He has repeatedly questioned the general belief that climate change is man-made and the value of the tools used to combat it.

"A few years ago, more people thought that it [global warming] was not caused by human activity, now almost everybody and the majority of scientists believe it is anthropogenic," commissioner Dimas told journalists, adding: "even [US] President Bush has come to accept it."

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

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG53SH

Two New Ads: 'Real Change' and 'Still'

By Sam Graham-Felsen -

Sep 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am EDT

Today, the Obama campaign released two new 30-second TV ads, Real Change, which details what "change" is to Senator Obama and Still which details why John McCain would just be another out of touch president offering more of the same.

Watch Real Change...

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

http://www.realchange.com/en-ca/index.aspx

http://www.realchange.com/en-ca/fichenouvelle.aspx?infoid=279&catid=13

June 5, 2008 FIRST TRANSATLANTIC GREEN PLATFORM

Only a comprehensive approach encompassing public policy, financing of R&D and innovation, and market adoption from major large corporations will lead to a green revolution. The Transatlantic Green Platform is committed to foster such an approach by generating concrete business deals, investments, partnerships and specific policy proposals between around 200 key European and US Green Tech players.

The first Transatlantic Green Platform: for connecting US and European key players provided a unique opportunity to explore some of the new mega trends in Green Tech and to create a high-level forum of innovative companies, experts, investors and policy makers.

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

http://labaulewic.org/programme/special_green_platform.asp

http://labaulewic.org/documents/Programme/GreenPlatform/GreenPlatform-Program.pdf

US - Europe, a Strategic Alliance for Green Technologies

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California


We lead the nation in information technology, in nanotechnology, in medical technology, in biotechnology. We generate one of every four U.S. patents. We attract almost half of all U.S. venture capital. According to The Economist magazine, California is also home to three of the top six universities in the world. In addition to all of this, California is the seventh largest economy in the world.

I do not mention these things simply to boast. I mention them because when California does something, it has consequences. And here is what we are doing. California is mobilizing — technologically, financially and politically — to fight global climate change. Now, we are not alone. While California is leading in the U.S., we are building on the work of the European countries who have led the way up to now. England has already met its Kyoto goals. Germany has pioneered solar. The EU has led with its trading system.

[THE GOVERNATOR SHOULD CHECK HIS FACTS WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. THIS ONLY PROVES THE POINT ABOVE: IT ISN'T CHANGE, BUT MORE OF THE SAME!]

But California, because of its unique position, is on the cutting edge of what is to come. What we’re doing is changing the dynamic, preparing the way and encouraging the future.

[DEAR GOVERNOR, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACILITATING MARKETS and CREATING MARKETS. WHICH HAS CALIFORNIA EMBARKED ON??]

The aerospace industry built the modern economy of Southern California. The computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley. And now green, clean technology — along with biotech — will take California to the next level. Right now, in California, the brightest scientists from around the world and the smartest venture capitalists are racing to find new energy technologies. It’s a race fueled by billions of dollars. Last year alone, California received more than $1.1 billion in clean tech investment. This amount is expected to grow 20-30% a year for a decade. More venture capital is being invested in clean tech than in telecommunications. I have been in the labs and research parks. I have talked to the scientists and venture capitalists.

[THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE - LED BY THE MARKETS, & NOT BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT!]

My question today is this: are the nations of the world ready to change? I believe California will do great things, amazing things. But we need the world to do great things, too”.

United Nations speech

[OUR QUESTION FOR THE GOVERNATOR IS: IS THIS 'REAL' CHANGE or MORE OF THE SAME??]

José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission

The vision was set out last year with leadership from the European political community. It was consolidated by European leadership at the Bali Conference. Now we will show how a modern economy can be designed to meet the challenge. This is [GREEN-CENTRIC] sustainable development in action. Today’s package adds up to a detailed roadmap to bring about the political vision [IDEALISM] agreed last year. To bring about a 20% cut in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and be ready to step up to 30% with an international agreement. To reach 20% of energy use through renewables by 2020.

[WE STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION CHECK WITH HIS SUBORDINATES CONCERNING THE ABILITY TO DELIVER ON THESE IDEALS & PROMISES.]

The package includes:

An updated Emissions Trading System to create a borderless ETS to drive cuts in greenhouse
gas emissions from big industrial emitters. Specific, binding national targets so that member
States know exactly what they have to do outside the ETS, in sectors like transport, buildings,
agriculture and waste. A new approach to actively promote renewable targets, again including binding national targets. New rules to stimulate carbon capture and storage, tomorrow’s technology to cut emissions. New state aid rules. Part of our mandate was the 10% target for biofuels, so that transport plays a part in emissions cuts. I want to be clear that in putting forward proposals on biofuels, we have also fully respected the other side of the mandate, the need for environmental sustainability. So the proposal creates the most comprehensive and sustainable system anywhere in the world for the certification of biofuels — and for domestic and imported biofuels alike. We will also continue to promote the rapid development of second generation biofuels.

The key principles

The package of measures proposed today is the most far-reaching legislative proposals to be made by the European Commission for many years. How did we set about shaping this complex package? We spent a lot of time exploring options in great detail. But we always held firm to five key principles. But we must not forget the huge economic opportunity represented by Europe’s transition into a low-emissions economy.

Europe’s leadership also means showing how the technology is there, how we will need an
effective and competitive industrial sector up to the challenge. There are real opportunities
there: the renewables sector alone will bring one million jobs by 2020. I am sure that once again, European industry will show its ability to innovate and adapt. Europe can be the first economy for the low-carbon age: we must seize this chance”.

European Parliament speech

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 .]