A greenhouse gases trading system funded with the support of then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, which is likely to play a major role in his $650 million cap-and-trade initiative, lists five present or former top-ranking U.N. officials on its advisory board who've had enormous influence over climate change matters -- including one who received $1 million from a convicted South Korean lobbyist.
The most controversial figure of the five, Maurice Strong, was one of former Secretary General Kofi Annan's key aides at the U.N. for years until the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal forced him to leave. Since then Strong has lived mostly in China. Calls to the exchange for comment about Strong's role, and that of other U.N. figures, were not returned.
The Climate Exchange, which began operations in 2003, provides trading in carbon emissions and their offsets, along with those of other greenhouse gases, is among a group of companies and institutions that voluntarily participate in the program. It bills itself as the only voluntary, legally binding exchange of its kind in North America. Among its member companies are Ford, DuPont and United Technologies as well as a number of electric utilities; other participants include the City of Chicago and Miami-Dade County.
In the latest budget submitted to Congress last month, President Obama proposed backing cap and trade as the nation's primary response to reduce global warming; a bill with that aim has also been submitted in the House of Representatives. Under the cap and trade plan a fixed number of carbon producing "permissions" would be made available to manufacturing and other industries each year; the totals would be reduced over time, forcing down the overall total of carbon dioxide emissions.
To meet their targets, companies would either have to cut production of the offending carbon-based gases or buy "offsets," or credits from companies that do not reach their allowed levels or actively create projects that reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Offsets also include planting trees and other activities that remove carbon from the atmosphere. However it is used, the scheme is guaranteed to boost the cost of fossil and other gas producing forms of energy in the U.S., as well as the costs of every economic sector that relies on that energy.
The likelihood of cap and trade or a similar scheme being enacted got a significant boost last week, when the Environmental Protection Agency officially announced that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare via global warming, a prelude to official regulation of the emissions.
The Chicago Climate Exchange is the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economics professor who has worked for the both the Chicago Mercantile Association and the Chicago Board of Trade. Known as "Mr. Derivative," for his work in creating interest rate futures markets, Sandor first proposed the creation of the climate exchange in 2000, just before the signing of the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas reduction.
Initial funding of almost $1 million which was crucial to the exchange's launch came in 2000 and 2001 from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, whose board of directors, which approved the funding, included Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator.
Comment: Obama...who is pushing so hard for carbon credits? Who is using his administration's power?
Paula DiPerna, the Joyce Foundation's president at the time funding was approved, became the Climate Exchange's vice president by the time the foundation gave a second, and larger, tranche of money to the budding venture. Barack Obama, by that time an Illinois state legislator, was still on the foundation board.
Along with Maurice Strong, the other current or former U.N. officials on the climate exchange's 18-member advisory board are: Elizabeth Dowdeswell, former head of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP); Rajenra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Michael Jammit Cutajar, former executive director of the U.N. Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC); and Thomas Lovejoy, former science adviser to UNEP and currently senior adviser to the president of the U.N. Foundation, which was originally founded with a $1 billion gift from CNN founder Ted Turner. The foundation calls itself "an advocate for the U.N. and a platform for connecting people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems."
Comment: So, let me get this straight...the head of the IPCC, who are telling us to do something about global warming, is involved in SELLING carbon credits? So much for being unbiased
On one level Strong's involvement in the exchange is not surprising. He has been a player in virtually all the U.N.'s environmental initiatives over the past four decades. His work includes organizing the 1972 U.N. conference on the environment in Stockholm, which was a launch pad for the worldwide environmental movement, as well as the 1992 Earth Summit and the Kyoto Accords.
The New York Times once called Strong, a native Canadian, "The Custodian of the Planet." In 1972 Strong also became the first head of the United Nations Environmental Program. In 1997, he helped Annan launch a program of internal reform of the U.N., and subsequently served as Annan's special envoy to North Korea.
Strong left the U.N. under a cloud in 2005, after an investigation into the corruption ravaged Oil-for-Food Program revealed that he had received nearly $1 million in cash from Tongsun Park, a South Korean businessman who was later convicted of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials who ran the program. Strong claimed that the money was an investment by Park in a company owned by Strong's son. He admitted personally taking other money from Park but claimed it was for an "office rental." After the revelations Strong resigned his last U.N. post as Annan's North Korea envoy and moved to China.
Contacted to comment on his involvement in the exchange, Strong originally agreed to accept a list of questions from FOX News. However, after receiving the e-mail, he failed to respond. Among the questions: What was his role on the advisory board? Because President Obama was involved in the early funding of the exchange, did he meet with members of the exchange? Is Strong involved in setting up a similar exchange in China?
The Climate Exchange's 18-member advisory board is made up of leaders in business, science and academia. According to interviews with members who cooperated more than Strong did, membership is an unpaid position and the advisory board rarely meets. It was originally used to advise the company on "procedures and standards," such as calculating carbon emissions and setting prices, when the company was being formed, according to one participant. Today most of the advisory board's work is done over the phone on an as-needed basis, according to a board member.
Also on the board of advisors is another Canadian and close associate of Strong's: Elizabeth Dowdeswell, another former head of the United Nation's Environmental Program who is remembered for leading the organization into the deepest crisis in its history during her five-year tenure from 1993 to 1998.
In 1997, the State Department charged that the UNEP under Dowdeswell's tenure suffered "from a lack of focus, strategic vision and influence." It also charged that the organization had been "marginalized to a perilous extent." As a result of the crisis of confidence in her leadership both the US and Britain threatened to withhold funding from the organization.
Dowdeswell, a former school teacher and home economist, was also attacked by environmentalists, financial donors, governments and her own staff for inept management that left the agency "irrelevant," according to critics.
In response to the firestorm of criticism Dowdeswell announced that she wouldn't seek a second term in the UNEP position.
Her record shows that she has often followed in Strong's footsteps. She spent much of her early career as a Canadian bureaucrat in the environmental field dominated by Strong. Her public career began as Saskatchewan's deputy minister for youth and culture and later Canada's deputy assistant minister of Environment. From there she followed Strong to the United Nation's Environment Program as executive director, a post that Strong had created and previously held. She was involved with him in organizing the Rio Summit.
Dowdeswell was also sent a list of questions about her involvement with the Chicago Climate Exchange. She has not responded.
Another member of the advisory board is Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, who has headed the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since May 2002. The panel was co-recipient, with Al Gore, of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for bringing global warming to the top of the world's agenda.
The panel's reports over a 10 year period tracked scientific studies and in 2007 concluded that the weight of scientific evidence now showed not only that global warming was occurring, but that it was a man-made phenomenon and that its consequences were immediate and dire. The reports have become the basis for all the proposals to bring about drastic reductions in man-made greenhouse gases, starting immediately.
But the panel's conclusions did not come without major controversy.
The IPCC reports, compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world, were meant to provide definitive up-to-date answers to questions about global warming based on current scientific data. Yet when the reports were issued, a number of scientists who had contributed to them challenged the conclusions.
They charged that Pachauri, who is an economist and industrial engineer and not a climate scientist, had written the final draft of the report in collaboration with other political figures before it was released, adding errors and unsubstantiated conclusions. The critics also charged that he had over-stepped the mandate of the IPCC by advocating policy, something the panel was supposed to avoid.
In January 2005 Chrisopher Landsea, a leading hurricane expert with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration resigned from work on the IPCC report, saying that it was "both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." He said that the panel had deliberately linked recent hurricane severity with global warming when no scientific link had been established.
Pachauri is enthusiastic about his involvement with the Chicago exchange. "I believe the exchange has an extremely important role in view of President Obama's inclusion of cap and trade in the new budget. I see it emerging as the principal market in the U.S. and beyond when cap and trade becomes a reality," he said in response to questions submitted by FOX News.
He said he joined the exchange board in December 2006 at the invitation of the exchange's founder, Richard Sandor. He said the advisory board is "designed to consist of thought leaders in the environmental, business, public policy and academic fields from India and all around the world."
He also said that he has no financial interest in the exchange or any other role except to provide advice. However, he was hopeful that the exchange would become a powerful force in the global marketplace.
Malta native Michael Jammit Cutajar was a former Assistant Secretary General of the UN and the former executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) until his retirement from the UN in early 2002. The UNFCCC is supposed to keep the Kyoto Accords process moving forward by setting up meeting between member states. It is currently organizing a major summit on climate change in Copenhagen later this year, where a successor to the Kyoto Accords is expected to be drafted and signed.
Currently Malta's Ambassador on Climate Change, Cutajar most recently chaired a U.N. forum on climate change in Bonn where unsuccessful negotiations took place to update the greenhouse gas emission cuts promised by participants at Kyoto. He too was sent a list of questions by FOX NEWS and has not responded.
The fifth former UN official on the board is Thomas Lovejoy, who says he was also recruited by Sandor after giving a talk about the need for a carbon exchange "years ago" at the University of Oklahoma. Lovejoy said he served as science advisor to UNEP while Dowdeswell was in charge.
He is also chief biodiversity advisor to the World Bank and senior adviser to the president of the United Nations Foundation. He is noted for developing "debt-for-nature swaps," under which environmental groups purchase troubled foreign debt at low prices. They then convert the discounted debt into local currency to purchase environmentally sensitive tracts of land. Critics of the scheme argue that the plan deprives poor nations of a chance to extract raw materials that are critical to their economic growth.
Lovejoy says he has not had the same depth of involvement in the exchange as many others on the board because his scientific specialty is forests and the exchange is just beginning to look into reforestation as part of the cap and trade process.
He says his involvement is voluntary, unpaid and that there are few meetings. "We are called as needed," he said.
"I just wanted to see if it works," he said in a phone interview.
Now they're saying that greenhouse gas is increasing the size of the ozone hole. So someone tell me, where they right or wrong that CFCs caused the ozone hole?
I heard a guy on FOX say the hole was causing the eastern chunk of Antartic to coll and that it will stop cooling when the hole is gone in a few years and that western chunk is melting because of warning. He didn't mention active volcanoes under the ice or anything like that.
They have lied so much about global warming I don't believe any of it any more. And that a shame because I will probably miss a truth.
I heard a guy on FOX say the hole was causing the eastern chunk of Antartic to coll and that it will stop cooling when the hole is gone in a few years and that western chunk is melting because of warning. He didn't mention active volcanoes under the ice or anything like that.
These scientists are so wrong, so often, I can't believe anyone listens to them any more.
quote
They have lied so much about global warming I don't believe any of it any more. And that a shame because I will probably miss a truth.
The big travelling magic show, the big slight of hand, how much will we end up paying to see it? What will we (civilization) lose by not calling them on it? They have convinced many it is for the greater good. At all costs this is what needs to be done, we must do it now what ever the cost.
Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. It was the other way about. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gore’s film had relied had made clear.
Ms. Kreider says it is true that “greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice signals have a complicated relationship but they do fit.” This does not address Gore’s error at all. The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration.
The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head.” This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10).
Ms. Kreider refers readers to a “more complete description” available at a website maintained by, among others, two of the three authors of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph that falsely attempted to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period. The National Academy of Sciences in the US had found that graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” – i.e., the graph was useless.
**Hint UK schools have to run a disclaimer that the science in the movie is junk before showing it to kids.
There is a major volunteer effort underway by Anthony Watts to document every temperature station in the U.S. It's appalling how many "official" temperature stations are located in places that don't meet the basic standards for such stations.
We all know that NBC and MSNBC were campaigning openly for Barack Obama; the evidence is irrefutable. However, what many may not know is that GE’s Jeffrey Immelt may stand to profit from the support through the cap and trade bill being pushed through Congress. General Electric owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC news corporations and are in turn ran by Jeff Zucker, who has essentially turned the news agencies into hate TV:
According to Rick Santelli, who many has accredited for starting the tea parties, has made the bombshell assertion that he was enrolled in a “re-education” camp because CNBC was told to lay off the criticism of Obama. If there is any truth to this allegation, then it would be a major breach of journalistic ethics and it should come as no surprise that Forbes has labeled Immelt as one of the worst CEO’s in US history.
What does this have to do with cap and trade and wind turbines? Watch Bill O’Reilly in his Talking Points Memo to get a better understanding of this potential bombshell:
I thought only republicans were able to do such corrupt things? Obama promised us change and not being bought off by special interest?
And he's good as his word. He has brought us change and is not whatsoever bought off by special interest, unless you count making money off of climate change, hiring lobbyists to his administration, making deals with corporations to make them lots of money for supporting his policies and generally be as bad or worse than anything any previoius president has ever done, including Bush, Clinton, and Carter.
But he'll look you straight in the teleprompter and tell you he's honest and most people will believe him.
It was a squirrel, a labor group and an environmental group along with California's tough environmental regulations, which helped kill a hybrid solar power plant project for a Mojave Desert city.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. The City of Victorville prides itself on being a green city. They recently bought a number of hybrid vehicles for their city fleet. And they are located in the Mojave Desert which receives large amounts of sunshine every year.
When California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), signed legislation that requires a portion of additional electric power generation to be sustainable, the City proposed a hybrid solar electric power plant. The plant would combine a solar thermal powered system along with a natural gas fired system.
After much fanfare at the start, the project began to run into problems during the permitting phase. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) imposes a strict review process. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the state agency that conducts the environmental review.
The first problem was the squirrel, or more specifically, the Mohave ground squirrel, which is considered to be threatened. While the squirrel has never been found at the project site, nor was there any evidence it had ever lived there, it could decide sometime in the future to live there. As a result, the California Department of Fish and Game decided that the squirrel required a mitigation ratio of 3:1. This means that 3 acres of the desert needs to be purchased and set aside for the squirrel for every acre of project site. This increased costs dramatically since there were few parcels available for set aside.
Next was the labor union group called CURE, which is an acronym for California Unions for Reliable Energy. CURE is supported by various construction unions. It has a history of fighting new projects in California unless the applicant agrees to use union labor for the project.
In February 2008, the Sacramento Bee editorialized:
Labor unions are an even larger abuser of CEQA. In recent years, labor groups have used environmental lawsuits, or the threat of such suits, to stop or slow down power plant construction, hospital expansions and housing developments. The unions' lawyers always seem to disappear once a developer has signed an agreement to hire only union labor...
For several years, a group called California Unions for Reliable Energy has used CEQA to slow or block power plants, including a geothermal plant in Imperial County. As it happens, CURE employs a law firm founded by Tom Adams, the current president of the California League of Conservation Voters.
CURE petitioned the CEC to become an intervenor in the review process and it was granted. CURE then began to request a lengthy data request of 152 items about the project. For example, they inquired "whether the City would implement a noxious weed preventive program"
When the CEC finally ruled against the various objections that CURE raised, the labor group then filed suit against the local air quality district in Superior Court which eventually ruled against CURE.
Then the Natural Resources Defense Council gets involved. The City tried to purchase pollution credits from the Los Angeles air basin for the natural gas portion of the plant since there were not enough local credits for purchase. But the NRDC filed suit against the purchase and prevailed. The NRDC bills itself at "The Earth's Best Defense".
The delays and burdensome requirements were costly to the City. For a while they tried to sell the project, but there were no buyers. Finally, the City ran into cash flow problems and could not pay General Electric for the steam turbines for the plant. Right now, GE is seeking to find ways to recover its costs. A couple of weeks ago, GE terminated its contract with the City and demanded immediate payment. According to the Daily Press in Victorville:
Those terms allow GE to keep Victorville's $50 million deposit on the equipment, plus either demand a $108 million termination fee or take control of the Victorville 2 power plant.
The City has few options at this point, but the price tag GE demands could force the City into bankruptcy.
It is possible that the project could still be built if GE decides take control over it, but the stiff environmental conditions would still have to be met.
In addition to these woes, the City is under investigation by a grand jury for financial dealings and S&P has downgraded several City bonds to junk status.
This story about going green in California may be repeated elsewhere in the state under the burdensome California requirements. While Gov. Schwarzenegger restates his commitment to going green, the reality is that the State's regulatory climate discourages green energy.
The unions and the environmental groups purportedly support green projects, but they in fact, often oppose them for environmental reasons. And Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) recently expressed opposition to solar panels in the Mojave Desert which is ideally suited for solar power in the state.
The green energy projects were supposed to create jobs for California workers according to Schwarzenegger. However, while there were jobs created for this project, many of those jobs went to lawyers.
Without these green projects, California may eventually face more blackouts. If it happens, the blame will fall squarely on the green lobby which advocates out of both sides of their collective mouths. They say they want green energy, but they will not support green energy.
The Main Stream Media are also complicit since they have been silent about the Victorville fiasco and similar projects. The only news coverage is in the local newspaper and in trade journals.
It was a squirrel, a labor group and an environmental group along with California's tough environmental regulations, which helped kill a hybrid solar power plant project for a Mojave Desert city.
How come I never hear about "Imminate Domain" in THESE instances?! It's always the little old lady getting kicked out of her house to make way for a sports center, but never about kicking a squirrel to the curb in the desert, for free, cheap, or clean electricity!
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 05-01-2009).]
How come I never hear about "Imminate Domain" in THESE instances?! It's always the little old lady getting kicked out of her house to make way for a sports center, but never about kicking a squirrel to the curb in the desert, for free, cheap, or clean electricity!
That just shows you how full of s*** our government, and the people running it, are. Not to mention screwed up priorities, conflicting interests, acting without logic, reason, sound science, and so on. Put liberals in charge, and it gets worse in a big hurry.
Gee...that's funny...they complain about oil companies funding climate "deniers"...but I guess it's OK for them to push warming when they are benefitting, financially?
Global Warming: At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren't rising but Gore's bank account is.
When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.
Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.
Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.
Last Friday, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and- trade legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn asked Gore about Kleiner-Perkins, noting that at last count they "have invested about a billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."
Blackburn then asked the $100 million question: "Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" Gore gave the stock answer that "the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge."
Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "subprime carbon assets" such as tar sands and shale oil.
He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.
As Stephen Milloy, author of "Green Hell," points out, Goldman Sachs is lobbying for climate change legislation and is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap and trade would be traded.
Others hope to cash in along with Gore. On Earth Day 2007, the various NBC networks gave 75 hours of free air time to Gore to hype climate change. NBC is owned by General Electric, perhaps the largest maker of wind turbines and other green technology in the world. It, too, stands to benefit financially from cap and trade, as Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly has noted, connecting dots others won't.
Gore's altruism is phony. According to a March 6 Bloomberg report, Gore invested $35 million of his own money not in green nonprofits, but with the very profitable Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to green investments and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.
As reported on Green Hell Blog, Capricorn was founded by the billionaire former president of eBay Inc., Jeffrey Skoll, who also happens to be an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
Gore has not taken a vow of poverty even as he advocates legislation that will push millions into it. He has said greed and corporate profits are behind the studies disproving his alarmism. Maybe it's his desire for profits that's behind his manipulation of the truth.
Want to know how much warming those carbon offsets and carbon taxes will save? You might want to check it out, before you buy carbon offsets, or your legislators spend TRILLIONS...
We are always hearing about ways that you can “save the planet” from the perils of global warming—from riding your bicycle to work, to supporting the latest national greenhouse gas restriction limitations, and everything in between.
In virtually each and every case, advocates of these measures provide you with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) that will be saved by the particular action.
And if you want to figure this out for yourself, the web is full of CO2 calculators (just google “CO2 calculator”) which allow you to calculate your carbon footprint and how much it can be reduced by taking various conservations steps—all with an eye towards reducing global warming.
However, in absolutely zero of these cases are you told, or can you calculate, how much impact you are going to have on the actual climate itself. After all, CO2 emissions are not climate—they are gases. Climate is temperature and precipitation and storms and winds, etc. If the goal of the actions is to prevent global warming, then you shouldn’t really care a hoot about the amount of CO2 emissions that you are reducing, but instead, you want to know how much of the planet you are saving. How much anthropogenic climate change is being prevented by unplugging your cell phone charger, from biking to the park, or from slashing national carbon dioxide emissions?
Why do none of the CO2 calculators give you that most valuable piece of information? Why don’t the politicians, the EPA, and/or greenhouse gas reduction advocates tell you the bottom line?
How much global warming are we avoiding?
Embarrassingly for them, this information is readily available.
After all, what do you think climate models do? Simply, they take greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and project the future climate—thus providing precisely the answer we are looking for. You tweak the scenarios to account for your emission savings, run the models, and you get your answer.
Since climate model projections of the future climate are what are being used to attempt to scare us into action, climate models should very well be used to tell us how much of the scary future we are going to avoid by taking the suggested/legislated/regulated actions.
So where are the answers?
OK, so full-fledged climate models are very expensive tools—they are extremely complex computer programs that take weeks to run on the world’s fastest supercomputers. So, consequently, they don’t lend themselves to web calculators.
But, you would think that in considering our national energy plan, or EPA’s plan to regulate CO2, that this would be of enough import to deserve a couple of climate model runs to determine the final result. Otherwise, how can the members of Congress fairly assess what it is they are considering doing? Again, if the goal is to change the future course of climate to avoid the potential negative consequences of global warming, then to what degree is the plan that they are proposing going to be successful? Can it deliver the desired results? The American public deserves to know.
In lieu of full-out climate models, there are some “pocket” climate models that run on your desktop computer in a matter of seconds and which are designed to emulate the large-scale output from the complex general circulation models. One of best of these “pocket” models is the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, or MAGICC. Various versions of MAGICC have been used for years to simulate climate model output for a fraction of the cost. In fact, the latest version of MAGICC was developed under a grant from the EPA. Just like a full climate model, MAGICC takes in greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and outputs such quantities as the projected global average temperature. Just the thing we are looking for. It would only take a bit of technical savvy to configure the web-based CO2 calculators so that they interfaced with MAGICC and produced a global temperature savings based upon the emissions savings. Yet not one has seemed fit to do so. If you are interested in attempting to do so yourself, MAGICC is available here.
As a last resort, for those of us who don’t have general circulation models, supercomputers, or even much technical savvy of our own, it is still possible, in a rough, back-of-the-envelope sort of way, to come up with a simple conversion from CO2 emissions to global temperatures. This way, what our politicians and favorite global warming alarmists won’t tell us, we can figure out for ourselves.
Here’s how.
We need to go from emissions of greenhouse gases, to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, to global temperatures.
We’ll determine how much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million (ppm), then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.
So first things first. Figure 1 shows the total global emissions of CO2 (in units of million metric tons, mmt) each year from 1958-2006 as well as the annual change in atmospheric CO2 content (in ppm) during the same period. Notice that CO2 emissions are rising, as is the annual change in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. (top) Annual global total carbon dioxide emissions (mmt), 1958-2006; (bottom) Year-to-year change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm), 1959-2006. (Data source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
]If we divide the annual emissions by the annual concentration change, we get Figure 2—the amount of emissions required to raise the atmospheric concentration by 1 ppm. Notice that there is no trend at all through the data in Figure 2. This means that the average amount of CO2 emissions required to change the atmospheric concentration by a unit amount has stayed constant over time. This average value in Figure 2 is 15,678mmtCO2/ppm.
Figure 2. Annual CO2 emissions responsible for a 1 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Figure 1a divided by Figure 1b), 1959-2006. The blue horizontal line is the 1959-2006 average, the red horizontal line is the average excluding the volcano-influenced years of 1964, 1982, and 1992.
You may wonder about the two large spikes in Figure 2—indicating that in those years, the emissions did not result in much of change in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It turns out that the spikes, in 1964 and 1992 (and a smaller one in 1982), are the result of large volcanic eruptions. The eruptions cooled the earth by blocking solar radiation and making it more diffuse, which has the duel effect of increasing the CO2 uptake by oceans and increasing the CO2 uptake by photosynthesis—both effects serving to offset the effect of the added emissions and resulting in little change in the atmospheric concentrations. As the volcanic effects attenuated in the following year, the CO2 concentrations then responded to emissions as expected.
Since volcanic eruptions are more the exception than the norm, we should remove them from our analysis. In doing so, the average amount of CO2 emissions that lead to an atmospheric increase of 1 ppm drops from 15,678 (the blue line in Figure 2), to 14,138mmtCO2 (red line in Figure 2).
Now, we need to know how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature a degree Celsius. This is a bit trickier, because this value is generally not thought to be constant, but instead to decrease with increasing concentrations. But, for our purposes, we can consider it to be constant and still be in the ballpark. But what is that value?
We can try to determine it from observations.
Over the past 150 years or so, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased about 100 ppm, from ~280ppm to ~380ppm, and global temperatures have risen about 0.8ºC over the same time. Dividing the concentration change by the temperature change (100ppm/0.8ºC) produces the answer that it takes 125ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Now, it is possible that some of the observed temperature rise has occurred as a result of changes other than CO2 (say, solar, for instance). But it is also possible that the full effect of the temperature change resulting from the CO2 changes has not yet been manifest. So, rather than nit-pick here, we’ll call those two things a wash and go with 125ppm/ºC as a reasonable value as determined from observations.
We can also try to determine it from models.
Climate models run with only CO2 increases produce about 1.8C of warming at the time of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. A doubling is usually taken to be a change of about 280ppm. So, we have 280ppm divided by 1.8ºC equals 156ppm/ºC. But, the warming is not fully realized by the time of doubling, and the models go on to produce a total warming of about 3ºC for the same 280ppm rise. This gives us, 280ppm divided by 3ºC which equals 93ppm/ºC. The degree to which the models have things exactly right is highly debatable, but close to the middle of all of this is that 125ppm/ºC number again—the same that we get from observations.
So both observations and models give us a similar number, within a range of loose assumptions.
Now we have what we need. It takes ~14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~1 ppm and it takes ~125 ppm to raise the global temperature ~1ºC. So multiplying ~14,138mmt/pmm by ~125ppm/ºC gives us ~1,767,250mmt/ºC.
That’s our magic number—1,767,250.
Write that number down on a piece of paper and put it in your wallet or post it on your computer.
This is a handy-dandy and powerful piece of information to have, because now, whenever you are presented with an emissions savings that some action to save the planet from global warming is supposed to produce, you can actually see how much of a difference it will really make. Just take the emissions savings (in units of mmt of CO2) and divide it by 1,767,250.
Just for fun, let’s see what we get when we apply this to a few save-the-world suggestions.
According to NativeEnergy.com (in association with Al Gore’s ClimateCrisis.net), if you stopped driving your average mid-sized car for a year, you’d save about 5.5 metric tons (or 0.0000055 million metric tons, mmt) of CO2 emissions per year. Divide 0.0000055mmtCO2 by 1,767,250 mmt/ºC and you get a number too small to display on my 8-digit calculator (OK, Excel tells me the answer is 0.00000000000311ºC). And, if you send in $84, NativeEnergy will invest in wind and methane power to offset that amount in case you actually don’t want to give up your car for the year. We’ll let you decide if you think that is worth it.
How about something bigger like not only giving up your mid-sized car, but also your SUV and everything else your typical household does that results in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Again, according to NativeEnvergy.com, that would save about 24 metric tons of CO2 (or 0.000024 mmt) per year. Dividing this emissions savings by our handy-dandy converter yields 0.0000000000136ºC/yr. If you lack the fortitude to actually make these sacrifices to prevent one hundred billionth of a degree of warming, for $364 each year, NativeEnergy.com will offset your guilt.
And finally, looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt, so 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.
This is the type of information that we should be provide with. And, as we have seen here, it is not that difficult to come by.
The fact that we aren’t routinely presented with this data, leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is purposefully being withheld. None of the climate do-gooders want to you know that what they are suggesting/demanding will do no good at all (at least as far as global warming is concerned).
So, if you really want to, dust off your bicycle, change out an incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent, or support legislation that will raise your energy bill. Just realize that you will be doing so for reasons other than saving the planet. It is a shame that you have to hear that from us, rather than directly from the folks urging you on (under false pretenses).
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-05-2009).]
WASHINGTON – Key lawmakers agreed Tuesday on a strategy for replacing gas-guzzling cars with more fuel-efficient models, but much tougher negotiations lie ahead on a bill that would, for the first time, limit emissions linked to global warming.
President Barack Obama summoned three dozen House Democrats to the White House to build consensus around climate and energy legislation that is under increasing criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.
The administration has endorsed the bill broadly, saying it would advance key parts of the president's domestic agenda, namely slowing global warming and transitioning to a clean energy economy.
But the details have largely been left to the House Energy committee, which is still working on the final language and has postponed a vote due to cost concerns raised by the panel's moderate Democrats.
Committee members emerged from the meeting Tuesday claiming a modest victory. They said they agreed to embrace a "cash for clunkers" plan that would provide $3500 or $4500 to people who replace old, low-efficiency cars with new, more fuel-efficient models.
But they acknowledged that tougher matters remain, and that some of the resistance was coming from Democrats from coal- and oil-producing states that could struggle to meet the bill's mandates for pollution reductions and renewable electricity generation.
"Our committee is attempting to develop a consensus," committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told reporters after the White House meeting. All but two of the committee's 36 Democrats attended. "Many of the issues split us along a regional basis. But we're talking to each other."
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who pushed for the "cash for clunkers" provision, said its inclusion in the bill does not guarantee he will support the legislation in its entirety.
"I want to be supportive and am doing my utmost to ensure we have a bill that I can support and that all democrats can support," said Dingell, who was replaced by Waxman as committee chairman this year. "However, I cannot commit to a yes vote until these other pieces are finalized."
Chief among the loose ends is a "cap and trade" proposal that would set a ceiling and put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies could either purchase or receive their allowance for free, and then buy or sell portions of their allotment to meet emissions limits.
Obama's budget expects to raise $650 billion by auctioning off all the allowances to companies that release heat-trapping gases, with the bulk of the money going back to families to help with higher energy prices.
Democrats from coal and industrial states are pushing Waxman and his co-sponsor, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to distribute at least some of those permits for free to ease costs.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama believes consumers and communities "should be compensated if during the transition period there are any additional costs associated with reducing carbon emissions."
Gibbs also said Obama wants "predictability and certainty in the market" to encourage investments in "clean energy innovation."
As the Democrats met with Obama, House Republicans gathered at the Capitol for an energy summit to criticize the Waxman-Markey bill, which they said would create a national energy tax and hurt middle-class families and small businesses. Similar meetings are being planned this month in Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and California before Republicans roll out their own plans to curb fossil fuel use and clean up the environment.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said Tuesday that Republicans will look for commonsense solutions to lower energy costs, increase energy supply and create jobs. But he also acknowledged that part of their mission was to stop the "profoundly bad idea" of cap and trade.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of seven House members, including two energy committee Republicans, unveiled their own legislation Tuesday.
The American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act — an update of a bill introduced last year — would pay for the transition to cleaner energy sources using royalties from expanded oil and gas production offshore and on other federal lands.
At a news conference introducing the bill, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said progress on the Waxman-Markey bill — which would limit greenhouse gases by putting a price on heat-trapping pollution — was "essentially stalled."
Waxman said he wants the committee to conclude a climate bill by Memorial Day so it can move to its other big priority: tackling Obama's proposal to revamp the nation's health care system.
Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) today exposed a “smoking gun” White House memo to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The memo warns that regulation of small CO2 emitters will have “serious economic consequences” for businesses and the overall economy.
Barrasso produced the memo while questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee budget hearing. “I received a memo this morning, that’s marked ‘Deliberative: Attorney-Client Privilege’. In this memo Counsel for the White House repeatedly, repeatedly suggests a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political and not scientific”, Barrasso said.
The EPA has failed to release the memo and has ignored the advice. The nine-page White House memo undermines the EPA’s reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health. “This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business. This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America,” Barrasso said.
Quoting from the memo to the EPA, Barrasso said that, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.” The memo is an amalgamation of findings from government agencies’ sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA. “This smoking gun memo is in stark contrast to the official position presented by the Administration and the EPA Administrator,” Barrasso said.
Despite the findings in the memo, the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act. According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPA’s April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The memo - marked as “Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege” - doesn’t have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed to news agencies that it was prepared by Obama administration staff.
BACKGROUND
The White House brief questions the link between the EPA’s scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA’s political summary. Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that “scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified.”
The White House memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are “not well determined” and “not well understood.” It warns about the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is “no demonstrated direct health effects,” and the scientific data on which the agency relies are “almost exclusively from non-EPA sources.” The memo contends that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.
Who needs facts when you can make money. Right out of the Gore play book. Use"science" to come up with a political stance then push it through as hard as possible and declare it settled. Then when real science proves you wrong just ignore it so you can have the power and make coin.
I guess going Green now means how much Green (cash) you can bilk people out of. As I always say: we are a nation of idiots and we get the government we deserve. If people do not want to think for themselves they are doomed.
I guess going Green now means how much Green (cash) you can bilk people out of. As I always say: we are a nation of idiots and we get the government we deserve. If people do not want to think for themselves they are doomed.
You voted, didn't you? Your guys lost, I presume. Are you still part of this nation? NO? YES? We Americans voted to change direction, bro. The train is leaving the station............ I'm holding a seat for you.
Please don't throw your trash out the window while the train is moving.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 05-13-2009).]
You voted, didn't you? Your guys lost, I presume. Are you still part of this nation? NO? YES? We Americans voted to change direction, bro. The train is leaving the station............ I'm holding a seat for you.
Please don't throw your trash out the window while the train is moving.
All indications are that what the lefties want to do to "fight global warming" will cause MASSIVE hurt to our economy, while making NO measurable gains in climate. So just what is it that you think you won, besides an election? Is that all there is to you, Neptune? Bragging rights? Saying "ha ha, righties, we won you lost, in yo' face, nah nah nah nah nah nah!" Is that it? Is that all you really have? Is that all you really care about? Is that all you really wanted?
Cap and trade will TRASH this countries manufacturing base, economy, increase the price of fuel, heat, electricity and ALL goods. Everything. All for NO measurable gain against alleged warming.
All indications are that what the lefties want to do to "fight global warming" will cause MASSIVE hurt to our economy, while making NO measurable gains in climate. So just what is it that you think you won, besides an election? Is that all there is to you, Neptune? Bragging rights? Saying "ha ha, righties, we won you lost, in yo' face, nah nah nah nah nah nah!" Is that it? Is that all you really have? Is that all you really care about? Is that all you really wanted?
Cap and trade will TRASH this countries manufacturing base, economy, increase the price of fuel, heat, electricity and ALL goods. Everything. All for NO measurable gain against alleged warming.
Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Aww. So sad. Choo Choo! bye bye.
Dishonest Neptune!
By the way "We Americans voted to change direction, bro." is a dishonest statement. Obama didn't swindle every one into voting for him. He also didn't win by a land slide. Obama only got 53% of the vote. Not that facts like that ever got in your way before.
Irrespective of WHAT is causing it, there was a report on the North Pole icecap tonight on Sky, saying the ice there will be totally gone during the summer months within 5 years. Just assuming that to be true (and I am NOT saying it is, or that I neccessarily believe it )...what effects do you think it will have on everyday life, if any?. The Polar ice cap is so small now, I doubt it will cause a noticeable rise in sea level, but is the 'cooling 'effect of the ice cap disappearing going to affect the weather etc? WAS it big enough to make a difference if/when it is gone? And, one thing i don't seem to have noticed...is the same thing happening to the south pole? Never studied it much, so I guess I might be badly informed Nick A report on Antarctic icecap growing, whilst the Arctic one shrinks http://www.csmonitor.com/20...110/p14s01-sten.html
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 05-13-2009).]
The Arctic ice cap now is the largest its been in years. The Antarctic cap is growing in the east and shrinking in the west were under sea volcanoes are heating up the water.
Hmmm... the report says the Arctic ice cap is shrinking rapidly, and is at its smallest for thousands of years But as usual, my scepticism over 'Media reports' is growing faster than the Antactic ice cap Nick
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 05-13-2009).]
Hmmm... the report says the Arctic ice cap is shrinking rapidly, and is at its smallest for thousands of years But as usual, my scepticism over 'Media reports' is growing faster than the Antactic ice cap Nick
They say that but the facts are different. It was bigger this year then last and last year they said it would be gone. With consistently lowering mean temperatures expect it to get even bigger next year. There was a recent report that the reason it shrank so much a few years ago was because of of a deep sea current carrying warmer temps further north then normal. Lots of media uses outdated data sets based on pre-correction NASA information.
Now it is warming up so the ice will be melting some. There is a site that lets you compare ice from year to the next. That's the origin to that image. I forget what it is.
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 05-14-2009).]
Hmmm... the report says the Arctic ice cap is shrinking rapidly, and is at its smallest for thousands of years But as usual, my scepticism over 'Media reports' is growing faster than the Antactic ice cap Nick
That's incorrect. Arctic ice is back up to "normal", at least when measured by satellite and which records only go back to 1979. There aren't any records of ice extent going back "thousands of years".
With respect, I don't think it is neccessary to have 'written and photographed' evidence as in Human recordings, because Geology can be used to provide the evidence 'encapsulated' in core samples. That doesn't mean I believe we ever get the correct information, or that the 'evidence' isn't manipulated anyway. Just assuming that the evidence IS correct, and that the Polar ice cap IS melting. That ice must weigh millions, if not billions of tons.As it melts, the weight becomes distributed all over the oceans and seas etc as it turns to water, and returns to a uniform level over the whole surface of the World. And if the Antarctic ice cap IS growing, it is getting heavier, whilst the Arctic cap is getting lighter. Would that have sufficient effect on the axis of the planet, and therefore completely upset the 'balance' of the planet? You probably will have noticed I have not contributed anything to this thread up till now, and that is because I know very little about the subject. But using common sense, and with a little knowledge of physics and a bit more logic, it leads me to think that it migh have an effect. I leave it to you people who have obviously studied and investigated this to a very much deeper degree than I, to offer some information in answer to my enquiry
With respect, I don't think it is neccessary to have 'written and photographed' evidence as in Human recordings, because Geology can be used to provide the evidence 'encapsulated' in core samples. That doesn't mean I believe we ever get the correct information, or that the 'evidence' isn't manipulated anyway. Just assuming that the evidence IS correct, and that the Polar ice cap IS melting. That ice must weigh millions, if not billions of tons.As it melts, the weight becomes distributed all over the oceans and seas etc as it turns to water, and returns to a uniform level over the whole surface of the World. And if the Antarctic ice cap IS growing, it is getting heavier, whilst the Arctic cap is getting lighter. Would that have sufficient effect on the axis of the planet, and therefore completely upset the 'balance' of the planet? Nick
No, because the ice in question is *floating*, and has no difference in mass from the water it will become when it melts. Land-based ice, such as in Greenland or on the Antarctic continent, would cause sea levels to rise. However, there isn't a net loss of land based ice happening, and sea level rise can be traced back for hundreds of years *and* has recently begun to slow, not increase as the warmists have claimed. When I can get back on my other computer, I'll dig up the references.
Oh, and geology and ice cores cannot help us with arctic sea ice levels over 1000s, 100s or 10s of years. That only works with land-based ice. All we have are anecdotal - eyewitness - accounts of arctic ice, those are spotty, and are nowhere near as accurate or extensive as satellite measurements.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 05-14-2009).]
You voted, didn't you? Your guys lost, I presume. Are you still part of this nation? NO? YES? We Americans voted to change direction, bro. The train is leaving the station............ I'm holding a seat for you.
Please don't throw your trash out the window while the train is moving.
When bush won twice did you get on the train? And when you guy loses the next election will you stay on the train? In the last 60 years how many dems presidents have served two terms? Hint,yYou can count them on the finger you pic your nose with.
But as usual, my scepticism over 'Media reports' is growing faster than the Antactic ice cap 
