A Blast From the Past: Global Cooling

I just finished rereading, "The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age" written by the Impact Team and published in 1977.  The members of the impact team are given, but after an Internet search of three names and not a single useful hit.  The book captures exaggerated concerns of global cooling by a fear mongering media.  They quote a few papers and discuss the extreme outcomes, suggesting that these are the likely.  They conclude that we are headed for a new ice age with catastrophic consequences for civilization: war, famine and pestilence.  A typical passage reads,

America and the rest of the Northern Hemisphere are returning to normal weather. After fifty years of unprecedentedly temperate climate, the world is returning to the more radical shifts and the cooler climate that characterized the previous eight hundred years. Many climatologists believe that since the sixties the world has been slipping toward a new ice age. The only questions in their minds are: What kind of ice age will it be, little or great? How soon will it happen?

Temperatures would only have to drop by 2.8 degrees F to plunge the world into a new ice age.  The authors provide a small list of consequences of a little ice age.

India would have a major drought every four years, and 30-50 million metric tons would be required from the world's grain reserves to prevent the death of 150 million Indians.

China would have starvation conditions every five years and need 50 million metric tons of grain for its people.

Canada would lose 50 percent of its food production, and reduce exports by 75 percent. 

The consequences of a great ice age, apparently equally likely to occur would be much greater and little or great, our descent could happen rapidly. 

The causes of global cooling are natural as well as man-made, dust from pollution blocking the warming energy of the sun.  Intriguingly, the authors mention carbon dioxide emissions as a warming mechanism that does not sufficiently offset cooling, setting up the concern of some scientists that man-made global warming may kill millions, not global cooling.

Many hot-earth men believe that global temperatures will rise by at least 3.8 degrees F by 2020, given that the volume of carbon dioxide is doubled in the next fifty years. If this happened, ships could well sail the entire Arctic Circle, and the melting of the polar ice caps could cause the sea level to rise by two hundred to four hundred feet. London and New York would vanish. So would Rome, Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, Marseille, and hundreds of other cities. Trees would grow in Alaska and Siberia; cattle would be raised on what was once tundra.

Their conclusions sound familiar.  Temperatures have warmed, but we are not underwater yet.  We are not even close to losing a major city. 

Given the more probable event, global cooling, the authors conclude,

Under coming conditions, clearly the rich countries of the world (in other words, the tiny minority) will have to make do with less food.  With the exception of the U.S., they will run a food balance-of-payments deficit that will put a big dent in their economies and cause some degree of social disruption. 

For the poor countries of the world, the implications are more ominous.  Many will starve.  This future will place an almost unbearable moral and political burden on the U.S. and its people.  We must face up to the following "unthinkable questions":

1.  How much food will we keep for ourselves?  In other words...

2.  How much are we willing to reduce our standard of living to feed others?  For example, would we all be willing to stop using our air conditioners if the energy so released would feed another 400,000 people?  Or would we rather stay cool and let them starve?

3.  Are we going to give away our food or sell it?

Who gets how much, and why?

The authors disdain for the market system is clear.  Our accumulation of wealth through markets created the problem.  We consume too much.  It does not fairly treat price as a rationing mechanism.  If food becomes scarcer, it's price would rise and we would buy less.  If food costs more and cooling reduces wealth, we will use less air conditioning (a bad example in a cooling world) and less heating as well. 

Yesterdays misreading of climate change has implications for us today.  I fear that some advocates of the theory of global warming hurt the science supporting their position by focusing on low probability extreme events to rally support for political action to curtail carbon emissions.  If ice caps don't melt, wiping out cities, devastating agriculture, and causing energy wars, science is likely to be blamed.  
Read more!

India and Global Warming

Effective worldwide carbon reduction will require the participation of populous developing nations like China, India, Indonesia and Brazil.  These countries may not want to sacrifice current economic growth for future growth.  Economists like to think at the margin.  Claiming that current growth should not be sacrificed to fight global warming implicitly assumes that the marginal cost of lower growth caused by carbon reduction outweighs the marginal benefits of lower environmental costs in the future.  There are several ways for marginal costs to exceed marginal benefits.  One is to claim that Western climate science exaggerates the costs of carbon emissions.  This is exactly Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister's claim (Lamont, James, Joshua Chaffin, and Fiona Harvey, "India widens climate rift with west," Financial Times, July 23, 2009).  They write

Jairam Ramesh...accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

“We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said.

“Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.”

Mr Ramesh was also clear that India would not take on targets to cut its emissions, even though developed countries are asking only for curbs in the growth of emissions, rather than absolute cuts.

Read more!

Economists as Experts: Would an Expert Exaggerate?

(HT A. Watts of Watt's Up With That)  Would an economist in his or her role as a scientific expert exaggerate costs of non-action or the benefits of action to drum up support for a favored policy?  Nobel laureate, Thomas Schelling, condones exaggeration but does not do so himself in an interview with Conor Clarke of the Atlantic, titled, "An Interview With Thomas Schelling, Part Two."  Schelling describes his thoughts about global warming and its policy implications beginning with who benefits from limiting carbon emissions.

Well I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren't yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don't know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

Given that most beneficiaries are not yet born and will not be Americans, how do you get American's to support policy to limit carbon emissions?

It's a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious. I think there's a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale -- even though methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long -- it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release, which will warm things up more, which will release more. And that will create a huge multiplier effect, and it could become very serious.

Schelling comes clean and explains why he believes that developing countries should not reduce or limit carbon emissions.

If I were to come clean to the American public I would say that, except for a very low probability of a very bad result -- which is the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which would put Washington DC under water -- we are probably going to outgrow any vulnerability we have to climate change. And in case we'll be able to afford to buy food or import it is necessary. You know, very little of the US economy is susceptible to climate. All of agriculture is less than 3% of our gross product. Forestry may be endangered. Fisheries may be endangered. But recreation might actually benefit!

So if we can double our GDP in the next 70 or 80 years, even if we lose some of our GDP from climate change -- even if we lose 10% of our GDP from climate change -- we're still ahead so much that the effect of climate change wouldn't be noticed. But it would be pretty disastrous in a lot of the less developed parts of the world. And that's why I think it's crucially important not to demand anything of China, India and so forth that will significantly impede their economic progress.

Read more!

The Nanny State and Light Bulbs

Liz Sidoti, an AP reporter writing for the Washington Post in "White House announces new lighting standards," dated June 29,2009 reports that,

Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

"I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses," the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

Does anything escape the notice of this president?  He opened our garage doors and learned we were buying the wrong kinds of cars and mandated that we drive cars that on average get 35 miles per gallon, saving us $520 per year.  He opened our mail and learned that we are not smart enough to shop for the best terms for credit cards and, with Congress, ordered that banks alter terms and conditions to favor consumers.  Unfortunately, the banks will cut credit to customers with weaker credit histories, but this is OK because President Obama said that many Americans are irresponsible with their debt.  Now he peeks through the windows of our homes and sees that we are using the wrong kind of bulbs and mandates that we use cost saving bulbs. 

Mr. President, I am smart enough to buy my own car, shop for credit cards and pick light bulbs.  Leave me alone!
Replace this text with...
Read more!

Cap-and-Trade Advocates Who Oppose Waxman-Markey

I have selected three articles that point to a rift between environmental groups and the Obama administration over the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. The writers do not oppose cap-and-trade legislation in general, but his version of it. Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones gives a good summary of the debate within and between environmental groups about the Waxman-Markey legislation in "The War Over Waxman-Markey," dated June 22, 2009.

A long-awaited vote on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, expected this week or early next month, has environmentalists teetering at the edge of existential crisis. Some believe the bill is so deeply flawed it might actually make matters worse...

The split encompasses more than predictable ideological divides. Debate over the relative merits of a carbon tax versus this bill's cap-and-trade model has mostly given way to concerns about whether the legislation, sponsored by representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), lines the pockets of polluters with little to show for it. The most it would cut carbon emissions by 2020 is 17 percent below 1990 levels, nowhere near the 25 to 40 percent reduction sought by scientists and international climate negotiators. The Sierra Club has withheld its endorsement in hopes of improving the bill before a final vote—it wants to prevent polluters from receiving tradable emissions permits for free, preserve the EPA’s authority to independently regulate carbon, and better fund energy efficiency and clean energy—but Fahn and other environmentalists are skeptical that lawmakers will listen. “From my perspective,” he says, “the prospects of strengthening it to where we’d want to support the ultimate version are growing slim.”

Greenpeace's USA Deputy Campaigns Director, Carroll Muffett issued the following statement in "Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey," dated June 25, 2009.

"Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

“With many others in the environmental, faith and consumer rights communities, Greenpeace has expressed tremendous concern about the role of offsets in this legislation. Unless strictly controlled, the abuse of offsets could prevent real emission reductions for more than a decade. The decision to move authority over offsets from EPA to the Department of Agriculture further reduces the likelihood that such controls will be maintained and increases the likelihood they will undermine real reductions.

Clive Cook, writing for the Financial Times in "Obama is choosing to be weak," dated June 28, 2009 states that,

The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

It proposes safety valves that will ease the cap if it threatens to have a noticeable effect on energy prices. It relies heavily on offsets – theoretical carbon reductions bought from other countries or other industries – so that big US emitters will not need to try so hard. It gives emission permits away, and tells utilities to rebate the windfall to consumers, so their electricity bills do not go up. It creates a vastly complicated apparatus, a playground for special interests and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences – and the bottom line for all that is business as usual.

Read more!

Stavins On Cap-and-Trade

Greg Mankiw linked without comment to an excellent article by Robert Stavins titled "The Wonderful Politics of Cap-and-Trade: A Closer Look at Waxman-Markey," and published May 27, 2009. He defends cap-and-trade as a method to reduce pollution in general and its specific application to reducing carbon emissions through the Waxman-Markey bill. I do not know if he would support the bill in its final form. Stavins makes several points about the efficiency of cap-and-trade that he (and I) believe are not well understood. Perhaps the most important point to remember is that a cap-and-trade system efficiently reduces emissions regardless of the allocation of initial permits.

Generally speaking, the choice between auctioning and freely allocating allowances does not influence firms’ production and emission reduction decisions. Firms face the same emissions cost regardless of the allocation method. When using an allowance, whether it was received for free or purchased, a firm loses the opportunity to sell that allowance, and thereby recognizes this “opportunity cost” in deciding whether to use the allowance. Consequently, the allocation choice will not influence a cap’s overall costs.

Stavins believes that

...the political process of states, districts, sectors, firms, and interest groups fighting for their share of the pie (free allowance allocations) serves as the mechanism whereby a political constituency in support of the system is developed, but without detrimental effects to the system’s environmental or economic performance. That’s the good news, and it should never be forgotten.

I believe that he is largely correct in stressing that the political allocation does not affect cap-and-trade's environmental impact, but I disagree that it is a health process. Stavins implicitly assumes that the bill is necessary and that building a constituency for it is a political necessity. Politicians can bribe carbon emitting special interest groups with allowances if they support the bill or extort support from them with the threat of higher taxes if they don't. Bjorn Lomborg refers to the alliance of politicians and pocket lining businessmen as the "climate industrial complex."

I will illustrate the point with an example. Representative G. W. Green has two carbon emitting producers in his district, Coal Inc. and Dairy Farms. Each will suffer net losses of $100 if the bill passes. Green informs them that the first to announce their support of his vote for the bill will receive allowances valued at $120 paid for by taxes on the other emitter. Dairy Farms caves first, and earns a net profit of $20. Coal Inc. stands on principles and pays the cost of $220. Its not difficult to envision bills passing that are bad for the country but are vociferously supported by special interests who have been paid off. Let me emphasize that Stavins carefully explains how the allowances were allocated as of the publication date and that consumers were the primary beneficiary. My normative value is that $1 of allowances allocated to a consumer is of no more value to society than $1 of allowances allocated to any other group. I suspect that I am of the minority position yet again.

Finally, Stavins lists his concerns of which I mention two. He seems to prefer an auction to free distribution of allowances.

First, auction revenue may be used in ways that reduce the costs of the existing tax system or fund other socially beneficial policies. Free allocations to the private sector forego such opportunities. Below I will estimate the actual share of allowance value that accrues to the private sector.

I agree that auction revenue might be wisely used, but that there is a high probability that it will not.

Stavins and I share a concern about the impact of cap-and-trade on the competitiveness of the United States in international markets. He is optimistic about potential solutions; I am not. He writes,

The only real solution to the competitiveness issue is to bring non-participating countries within an international climate regime in meaningful ways. (On this, please see the work of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.)

As a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming theories and particularly catastrophic predictions of death and destruction, I recommend that those interested in global warming and possible solutions read Stavin's original article and the links in his quotes. Given the assumption that global warming is largely a man-made problem, he gives good analysis of possible solutions.
Read more!

Carbon Subsidies?

I do not know if the use of carbon based fuels is causing anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but my readers know that I am skeptical of the doomsday conclusions of many AGW adherents.  Some scientists believe that the earth will grow cooler based on the relationship between solar cycles and weather, and that the cooler climate will adversely impact agriculture, decreasing the supply of some crops and by extension, forcing up prices ("Canada and USA agricultural weather issues and changes in our solar cycles," Watts Up With That, June 15, 2009). 

If the earth is growing cooler, and cooler is bad, and using carbon based fuels combats global cooling, is it time to subsidize their use because they produce a positive externality?Replace this text with...
Read more!

Is Sarkozy Getting Cold Feet Over Global Warming?

HT Drudge)  I don't know what to make out of the story by Financial Times writer, Ben Hall, ("Sarkozy in climate row over reshuffle,") that French President Sarkozy plans to appoint a climate-change sceptic to an important ministry.  It may mean that French leaders, like Australian, are growing cautious about imposing carbon taxes that at best impose an intergenerational transfer that harms current voters to benefit future voters, and at worst, imposes a tax with no future benefits.  It may mean nothing more than Sarkozy likes Allegre.  Key elements of the story read,

President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire to appoint an outspoken climate-change sceptic to a new French super-ministry of industry and innovation has drawn strong protests from party colleagues and environmentalists.

Claude Allègre argues that global warming is not necessarily caused by human activity. Putting him in charge of scientific research would be tantamount to "giving the finger to scientists", said Nicolas Hulot, France's best-known environmental activist...

Alain Juppé, the former centre-right prime minister, said the appointment would send a "terribly bad signal" ahead of international negotiations to secure a successor to the Kyoto treaty on cuts to carbon emissions.

One critic said that associating Mr Allègre with the government's ambitious environmental policy was like putting "organic farming alongside Chernobyl".

Mr Allègre hit back at his critics and their "lies and distortions" about his record and beliefs. The climate was certainly changing, he said, but not all the reasons for it were known. "As a scientist and citizen, I, unlike others, do not want environmentalism to accentuate the crisis or make the least well-off suffer more," he said.

Read more!

What's in a Name?

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.  Maybe a rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but would it sell?  From John Broder of the New York Times in "Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus," we learn that,

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives...

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Broder discusses and then links to a New York Times editorial dated March 23, 2009 titled, "Environmental Word Games."  Not surprisingly, Republicans use the same tactics.  The article reads,

Whenever the Republicans find themselves in trouble on environmental issues, the call goes out for Frank Luntz, a respected party strategist. Back in 1995, Mr. Luntz urged the party to soften its language when it became clear that the Gingrich revolution had gone too far in its attacks on environmental law. Mr. Luntz is now making the same point. In a memorandum recently described by The Times's Jennifer 8. Lee, he warns that after two years of regulatory rollbacks, environmental issues have become ''the single biggest vulnerability for the Republicans and especially for George Bush.''

Mr. Luntz's remedy is not to change the policy, but to dress it up with warm and fuzzy words. As in 1995, he says that the problem is one of communication, and that what must be done is to start using comforting words like ''balance,'' ''common sense,'' ''safer,'' ''cleaner'' and ''healthier.''

Broder uses Drexel University professor, Robert Brulle as a foil to take a stab at politicians, an easy and popular endeavor that I recommend. 

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Neither Broder nor Brulle mentioned that politicians often exaggerate their side of an argument.  Read anything on climate by world climate change leader Al Gore, or this article (HT Drudge) describing House Minority Leader John Boehner's claim on the cost of cap-and-trade.  Apparently exaggeration is leadership.  
Read more!

The EPA and the Carbon Tax

Los Angeles Times reporter, Jim Tankersley, writing in "Obama administration declares greenhouse gases a threat to public health," on April 17, 2009 reports that the Obama administration has declared green house gasses a threat to public health.  A two-year old Supreme Court ruling gives the EPA the right to regulate carbon emissions. 

The Obama administration today declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health, marking a major step -- both practically and symbolically -- toward federal limits on the carbon dioxide emissions scientists blame for global warming.

The move by the Environmental Protection Agency was prompted by a 2-year-old Supreme Court decision. It paves the way for the White House to regulate emissions from vehicles and effectively force the U.S. auto fleet to be cleaner and more efficient -- a plan the administration is expected to put in place soon.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said today.

Carbon will probably be regulated through a cap-and-trade system, a tax that will be paid by carbon users.  Knowing that the tax will be impressive, the administration would like the Congress to share the heat by passing new environmental legislation.  Now I will take a cheap shot at all who site every record high temperature as evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  The announcement setting the stage for carbon regulation came as a late spring snow storm dumped up to 24 inches of snow on Boulder, Colorado (Steven Goddard posting for Watts Up With That?), and another storm dusted Los Vegas.

A poll in Rasmussen Reports ("Energy Update: Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming," explains why the Obama administration would like to share the responsibility with Congress (Another HT to Watts Up With That?).

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.

I wonder why a smaller percentage of the population now blames humans for AGW.  Is it that they have read more science and find AGW less likely, or a like touch of cognitive dissonance?  Most people say that they care about the environment and most do not like to pay taxes.  Do some now believe that natural climatic variation is driving warmer temperatures because they want to feel good about themselves?
Read more!

The Cost of Cap-and-Trade

The Obama administration plans to establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Economists generally consider a cap-and-trade system[1] or a Pigovian tax[2] to be the best methods to correct market failures caused by externalities[3]. Both methods purposefully increase the cost carbon dioxide producing goods and services. Commitment to carbon dioxide emissions seems to come at a time when many climate scientists are expressing skepticism about the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, and about the anthropogenic contribution to climate change.
Tom Lobianco, writing for the Washington Post in “Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion,” reports that,
President Obama's climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House's initial estimate of the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation, according to Senate staffers who were briefed by the White House.
At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president's cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration's early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015.
Paul Fuhr reports for the examiner.com in “More than 700 scientists discredit man-made global warming fears,” that
According to a new report, the 700-plus scientists are “now more than 13 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.” Many of the scientists are “affiliated with prestigious institutions” including NASA, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Defense Department, Princeton University, as well as countless others.
Skeptical scientific voices are enjoying more and more company in past weeks, especially in light of a recent article published in The Australian that says Japanese scientists are largely rejecting man-made global warming claims. Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, said this month that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century 'is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.'"
According to a report published by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, "the result showed 90 percent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”
I am not a climate scientist, but I do know something of the collection and reporting of data. Linking of climate change to carbon dioxide emissions is extraordinarily difficult. The only forecast of which I am familiar, discussed in “A Prediction Market for Global Warming,” finds that a forecast of no climate change more predictive over long periods than the .03 degree Celsius benchmark set by the IPCC. Meanwhile, at Hubdub, Armstrong leads Gore 64 to 36%.
[1] A cap-and-trade system would establish a permissible level of carbon dioxide to be emitted per year. The permissible level of emission would be below current levels. The government would sell the permits to polluters. To maintain production, polluting firms would be forced to adopted or create technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or curtail production. The government could continue to reduce emissions by attaching a periodic reduction of emissions to permits, or by buying back permits.
[2] A Pigovian tax, named after Cecil Pigou, would attach a per unit tax on fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Greg Mankiw is a leading supporter of a carbon dioxide based Pigovian tax (See “The Pigou Club Manifesto”).
[3] An externality is the byproduct or spillover of the production, sale or consumption of a good or service that affects a third party who did not a participant in its production, sale or consumption.

Read more!

Bah Humbug

(HT Drudge Report)

From Australia

SCIENTISTS have warned that Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste and urged people to get energy efficient festive bulbs.

I wonder what other parts of my spending offends these scientists.

Dr. Glenn Platt, said the nation's electricity came from "centralised carbon intensive, coal-based power stations" which were responsible for emitting over one third of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

The hot air put out by Dr. Platt exceeds greenhouse emissions from Christmas lights.

Read more!