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

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

EU remains off track to meet Kyoto targets

LEIGH PHILLIPS


EU Observer


6/19/08


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

June 17, 2008




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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


June 06, 2008


Associated Press


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


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


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


Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.


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




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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.



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

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

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

After Verbal Fire, Senate Effectively Kills Climate Change Bill


By David M. HERSZENHORN


New York Times


June 7, 2008


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


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


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


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


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


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


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





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


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



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



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



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


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


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


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



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



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


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

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

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

Climate bill meets disappointing end

Editorial


Dallas Morning News


June 8, 2008


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


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


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


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


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


For both parties, this was a missed opportunity.


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


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


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


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


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

Are Wall Street Carbon Credit Traders So 'Invested' That They Are Blocking Exploitation of Known U.S. Oil Reserves in Montana??

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sitting_on_an_oil_mi_113005.htm

MONTANA GOVERNOR IS SITTING ON AN OIL MINE


By John Crudele


New York Post


May 29, 2008


-- HELENA, Mont. - Here's some very good news about oil that the manipulators on Wall Street don't want you to know: there could be as much as 40 billion barrels of crude lying untouched in eastern Montana.


That's billion with a "b" - as in a ball-breaking amount for those speculators who are purposely pushing oil higher for their own selfish reasons.


Who says? Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer does, adding that his state - with fewer than 1 million residents - would be thrilled to bail the US out of its current energy predicament.


While on a visit to Wyoming and Montana, I popped in on Schweitzer, the Democratic governor, who was more than happy to answer my questions about the rumors of huge oil deposits in the so-called Bakken area of his state.


Right now, the US Geological Service estimates that there are 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken region, which also reaches into North Dakota.


"They are always conservative," said Schweitzer, who greeted me in his office dressed in jeans, a white shirt and a string tie. "There will be more. It'll probably be more like 40 billion."

It's so much, in fact, that a discovery like that - or even hints of such a find - could ruin speculators' chances of getting the price of oil much higher than it already is.






In fact, just the knowledge of such big oil deposits - together with a drop off in fuel use because of the recession and the inevitable development of alternative energy sources - might cause gasoline prices to fall substantially in the future.

As it is today, Americans are being cheated on the price of oil. I've been writing about this for the past couple of years and now even a do-nothing Congress is getting concerned, although its ire is misplaced.


Wall Street speculators, aided by cheap money from the Federal Reserve and an ill-informed press, have kidnapped oil in much the same way that the Hunt brothers cornered the silver market in the 1970s.

The only difference is that the Hunt escapades didn't come close to ruining the country's economy. Congress is blaming the oil companies, which certainly are benefiting from the surge in oil prices. President Bush did his part by groveling to the Saudis for more oil - and was offered a token increase, but was essentially turned down.


But maybe if we start digging in Montana, we just might get our national dignity back - and even save our economy.

"We've been drilling out there for 70 years," said Schweitzer of the Bakken area. "People there like new oil production. In fact, the city of Sydney [the county seat] wants to build a refinery. Where else in America do you have a community that says, 'we want to build a refinery in our backyard?' "

Schweitzer, an agronomist with an advanced degree in soil science, has a picture on his office wall of his grandfather operating a one-man refinery.

If you let him - and I did - Schweitzer will explain how oil deposits come to be formed over millions of years. He also explains how the Bakken contains so-called oil shale, which means that the crude needs to be flushed out of tight rock formations.

With improved technology today and higher prices, this recovery method is now very feasible.
"And the nice thing," Schweitzer said, "is it's one drill hole per section." For you city slickers, a "section" is a huge 640 acres.

By comparison, Saudi Arabia has the largest known oil reserves at 260 billion barrels.

john.crudele@nypost.com