Here's a letter from a scientist in Australia, David Bellamy. He is a global warming skeptic, and guess what? He can't get work anymore, because nobody wants to listen to someone who doesn't believe in this man-made global warming hoax. But here is a little bit of what he has to say:
When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.
According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming, I've not been allowed to make a television program ...
People such as former American vice-president Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming, which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you've got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that CO2 has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more; it's anti-science ...
Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there's nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if the federal government decides to charge fees for air-polluting animals.
Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which they contend is a possible consequence of an Environmental Protection Agency report after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases amount to air pollution. Livestock emit methane, a key greenhouse gas tied to global warming.
"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the fees. Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
EPA officials insisted Friday that the lengthy, highly technical report, which mostly focuses on other sources of air pollution, does not include a proposal to tax livestock.
But the American Farm Bureau Federation said, based on federal agriculture department figures, it would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.
The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."
Sparks said Wednesday he's worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.
"We'll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don't have the health standards we have," Sparks said.
The farm groups say the fee would apply to farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions.
EPA officials said the agency has not taken a position on any of the matters discussed in its response to the Supreme Court ruling. And John Millett, a spokesman for EPA's air and radiation division, said there has been an oversimplification of the EPA's document "to the point of distortion."
"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.
The EPA briefly mentions “raising livestock” in its report on ways to regulate greehnouse gases under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Paul Schlegel, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it determined the possible fees that could be imposed by using Agriculture Department statistics on the amount of greenhouse gases that come from livestock and applied it to the EPA’s permitting rules.
Farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the EPA report, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week. Many call it a "cow tax" and say the EPA proposed it.
"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.
Click for related content Read more news from across the U.S.
"It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
"We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share," he said.
U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn't believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.
"Who comes up with this kind of stuff?" said Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation's beef division. "It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms. This would certainly put them out of business."
Fierobear, I'm on your side, however, what will really count is not the freezeup but the spring thaw. I'm waiting to see if the spring thaw produces more net ice area.
Fierobear, I'm on your side, however, what will really count is not the freezeup but the spring thaw. I'm waiting to see if the spring thaw produces more net ice area.
Here comes the bullshit and excuses. "Oh, NO, cooling doesn't mean anything. The REAL warming will start in 2015!!!"
Do they actually think people will BELIEVE this crap?
2008 will be coolest year of the decade Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists
Oh, of course not!
This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."
Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure. "You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, its not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long, we are used to warm years," he said, "Even in the 80s [this year] would have felt like a warm year."
And 2008 would have been a scorcher in Charles Dickens's time - without human-induced warming there would have been a one in a hundred chance of getting a year this hot. "For Dickens this would have been an extremely warm year," he said. On the flip side, in the current climate there is a roughly one in 10chance of having a year this cool.
The Met Office predicted at the beginning of the year that 2008 would be cooler than recent years because of a La Niña event - characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It is the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle. The Met Office had forecast an annual global average of 14.37C.
Allen was presenting the data on this year's global average temperature at the Appleton Space Conference at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot yesterday. The 14.3C figure is based on data from January to October. When the Met Office makes its formal announcement next week they will incorporate data from November. "[The figure] will differ from it, but it won't differ massively," said Stott, "We would expect the number to go up rather than down because the early parts of the year were still under the La Niña conditions."
Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the tenth hottest year on record. The hottest was 1998 - which included a very strong El Niño event - followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002. The data are a combination of measurements from satellites, ground weather stations and buoys which are compiled jointly by the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
In March, a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.
Yeah, yeah, it will REALLY start happening in 2015!!!
Fierobear, I'm on your side, however, what will really count is not the freezeup but the spring thaw. I'm waiting to see if the spring thaw produces more net ice area.
"The finding in this data is that there is no clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or [an earlier] start of the late winter/early spring melt despite the well below average areal sea ice coverage. "
=============================
There are charts and data at that link.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-06-2008).]
Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the tenth hottest year on record. The hottest was 1998 - which included a very strong El Niño event - followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002. The data are a combination of measurements from satellites, ground weather stations and buoys which are compiled jointly by the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Didn't they already admit that the hottest years were not in the 90s but in the 20s after NASA said ooooops?
Do these people ever bother with real data and facts?
Sorry Fierobear, the link didnt' take me to what you wanted me to see. My point however, is that the measurement used by the global warming advocates is the summer figure. You get that in August. So you have to be sure the pic you are getting is the summer figure. The one you showed above looked like it is the fall pic.
Sorry Fierobear, the link didnt' take me to what you wanted me to see. My point however, is that the measurement used by the global warming advocates is the summer figure. You get that in August. So you have to be sure the pic you are getting is the summer figure. The one you showed above looked like it is the fall pic.
Didn't they already admit that the hottest years were not in the 90s but in the 20s after NASA said ooooops?
Do these people ever bother with real data and facts?
Yes, they did. This news source is still quoting the old bullshit! These f***ers are so dishonest in their pushing of the warming religion, they conveniently forget to post the updated NASA data that shows most of the hottest years were nowhere near the last decade.
Oh, and here's another gaffe from the above article. In their zeal to tell us how warm it is (really isn't), the talk about how warm 2008 would be compared to "Charles Dickens' time". Too bad he lived during the "little ice age". Yeah, just about anything would be warmer, wouldn't it?
From the above article: "And 2008 would have been a scorcher in Charles Dickens's time - without human-induced warming there would have been a one in a hundred chance of getting a year this hot. "For Dickens this would have been an extremely warm year," he said. On the flip side, in the current climate there is a roughly one in 10chance of having a year this cool."
Sorry Fierobear, the link didnt' take me to what you wanted me to see. My point however, is that the measurement used by the global warming advocates is the summer figure. You get that in August. So you have to be sure the pic you are getting is the summer figure. The one you showed above looked like it is the fall pic.
Arn
I know some where in this thread is a side by side of sea ice from last summer and this summer and there is more now.
And here it is.
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 12-06-2008).]
THE MAIL brings an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank, the conference will host an international lineup of climate scientists and researchers who will focus on four broad areas: climatology, paleoclimatology, the impact of climate change, and climate-change politics and economics.
But if last year's gathering is any indication, the conference is likely to cover the climate-change waterfront. There were dozens of presentations in 2008, including: "Strengths and Weaknesses of Climate Models," "Ecological and Demographic Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears," and "The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change."
Just another forum, then, sounding the usual alarums on the looming threat from global warming?
Actually, no. The scientists and scholars Heartland is assembling are not members of the gloom-and-doom chorus. They dispute the frantic claims that global warming is an onrushing catastrophe; many are skeptical of the notion that human activity has a significant effect on the planet's climate, or that such an effect can be reliably measured or predicted. Some point out that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been falling since then. Indeed, several argue that a period of global cooling is on the way. Nearly all would argue that climate is always changing, and that no one really knows whether current computer models can reliably account for the myriad of factors that cause that natural variability.
On this they would all agree: Science is not settled by majority vote, especially in a field as young as climate science.
Skepticism and inquiry go to the essence of scientific progress. It is always legitimate to challenge the existing "consensus" with new data or an alternative hypothesis. Those who insist that dissent be silenced or even punished are not the allies of science, but something closer to religious fanatics.
Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, far too many people have been all too ready to play the Grand Inquisitor. For example, The Weather Channel's senior climatologist, Heidi Cullen, has recommended that meteorologists be denied professional certification if they voice doubts about global-warming alarmism. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wants oil-company executives tried for "crimes against humanity if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically" about global warming. Al Gore frequently derides those who dispute his climate dogma as fools who should be ignored. "Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don't believe we landed on the moon," Gore's spokeswoman told The Politico a few days ago.
But as the list of confirmed speakers for Heartland's climate-change conference makes clear, it is Gore whose eyes are shut to reality. Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982. They may not stand with the majority in debates over climate science, but - Gore's dismissal notwithstanding - they are far from alone.
In fact, what prompted The Politico to solicit Gore's comment was its decision to report on the mounting dissent from global-warming orthodoxy. "Scientists urge caution on global warming," the story was headlined; it opened by noting "a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation."
Coverage of such skepticism is increasing. The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Michael Scott reported last week that meteorologists at each of Cleveland's TV stations dissent from the alarmists' scenario. In the Canadian province of Alberta, the Edmonton Journal found, 68 percent of climate scientists and engineers do not believe "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
Expect to see more of this. The debate goes on, as it should.
Here is an article about an interesting new scientific paper on a theory that the oceans, and not greenhouse gasses, may be responsible for the recent warming:
The interesting (to say the least) work was conducted Gilbert Compo and Prashant Sardeshmukh of the Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (these guys must have oversized business cards) and the work was supported financially by the NOAA Climate Program Office. The first sentence of the abstract reads “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.” This sentence certainly captured our interest at World Climate Report – anyone suggesting that some warming may have been caused by something other than the buildup of greenhouse gases will always get a second look.
...
Stating “global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined” is an interesting way to report that the entire global warming – greenhouse gas buildup link (largely unchallenged) may be a quite a bit off. Time will tell, but don’t look for a lot of press coverage coming from the Poland meeting of this interesting research challenging the gospel of global warming.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-09-2008).]
I though people admitted there was warming only that its not caused by man made green house gasses. Kinda why the word anthropogenic is in the title. Warming that had stop years ago...
Wait, so now you admit there's warming? Welp, there goes the past 2 pages....
When did I ever say there wasn't warming? Temperatures have gone up since the end of the little ice age, in the 1800s. The question is why. Anthropogenic forcing could not have started the warming trend in the 1800s. Certainly not CO2. Temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years. Anyway, the paper I'm quoting talks about the warming. I'm just quoting what is there. The interesting part of this is a scientific paper questioning whether GHGs are forcing temperatures.
I though people admitted there was warming only that its not caused by man made green house gasses. Kinda why the word anthropogenic is in the title. Warming that had stop years ago...
Another interesting article, on that subject, is projected warming that looks at the numbers with or without the 1998 El Nino temperature spike:
According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big “El Niño,” which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. El Niño years are usually followed by one or two relatively cold years, as occurred in 1999 and 2000. The cooling is, not surprisingly, called La Niña. No one knows what really causes these cycles but they have been going on sporadically for millennia.
Wait a minute. Starting an argument about global warming in 1998 is a bit unfair. After all, that’s starting off with a very hot temperature, followed by two relatively cool years.
Fine. Take those years out of the record and there’s still no statistically significant warming since 1997. When a scientist tells you that some trend is not “significant,” he or she is saying that it cannot mathematically be distinguished from no trend whatsoever.
More important, as shown in our Figure 1, there’s not going to be any significant trend for some time.
Assume, magically, that temperatures begin to warm in 2009 at the rate they were warming before the mid-90s, and that they continue to warm at that rate.
We show two alternatives. One includes the El Niño/La Niña cycle of 1998-2000. Assuming that the old rate of warming reappears in 2009 and continues, the warming since 1998 does not become statistically significant until 2021.
Our other alternative simply removes the El Niño/La Niña cycle and starts in 1997. Under that assumption, warming doesn’t become significant until 2020.
Whatever the assumption, even if the earth resumes warming at the pre-1998 rate, we will have nearly a quarter-century without a significant warming trend.
Figure 1. Top: Observed temperature, 1998-2008 (blue circles), plus a constant rate of warming beginning in 2009 at the rate established from 1977 through 1997 (0.17°C/decade) (red circles). Warming since 1998 does not become statistically significant until 2021.
Bottom: Same as above, but the observed temperatures beginning in 1997 through 2008 (filled blue circles), and ignoring the El Niño/La Niña swing in 1998-2000 (open blue circles). The constant rate of warming is assumed to begin in 2009 (filled red circles). In this case, warming does not become significant until 2020.
The bottom line is that the U.N.’s own climate models have failed, barely a year after they were made public. They have demonstrated a remarkable inability to even “predict” the present! Can 10,000 people in Poznan somehow ignore this?
They shouldn’t. Instead they should be thankful. The lack of recent and future warming almost certainly means that the ultimate warming of this century is going to be quite modest. Instead, they should keep in mind that expensive policies to fight a modest climate change will only worsen the unprecedented cold snap affecting the global economy.
===================
"Poznan" is climate conference happening now in Poland that's supposed to put together a new Kyoto agreement that's even more restrictive. Yup, nothing like pushing a solution to a non-existent problem.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-09-2008).]
• Global temperatures have declined (Figure 1a)—extending the current run of time with a statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure 1b), with some people arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years (Figure 1c).
Figure 1. Monthly global temperature anomalies (ºC) as measured at the surface (filled circles) and in the lower atmosphere by satellites (open circles). Top (a), Last three years, January 2006-October 2008; Middle (b) Last eight years, January 2001-October 2008; Bottom (c), last 12 years, January 1997-October 2008. (sources: Hadley Center; University of Alabama-Huntsville).
• The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the past (e.g. Knutson et al., 2008; Vecchi et al., 2008).
• The alarmist notion that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been silenced by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes (e.g., van de Wal et al., 2008; Joughin et al., 2008).
Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years! Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego? Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick Brrrr... Turkey's snowiest winter continues. Brrrr... Record Cold & Snow Blankets Acropolis in Greece (Video) Brrrr... Longest Ever Cold Spell Kills Cattle & Rice in Vietnam Brrrr... Most Snow Cover Over North America Since 1966 Brrrr... Australia Suffers Through Coldest Summer in 50 Years Brrrr... Record Snowfall Slams Ohio River Valley Brrrr... New Data Gives Global Warming the Cold Shoulder Brrrr... Global Cooling Causes Armed Clashes in Canada Brrrr... Snake Oil Salesman Admits to Ca$hing In on Global Warming Hysteria Brrrr... New Research Claims Earth Sliding Into an Ice Age Brrrr... Blizzard Blasts South Dakota-- 4 Feet of Snow Reported An Inconvenient Debate... Czech Pres. Challenges Gore On Warming Brrrr... Record Snow Blankets Spokane, Washington In June! Brrrr... Peru Declares Emergency-- Record Cold Kills 61 Children & 5,000 Alpacas Brrrr... Arctic Sea Ice Levels Are Up By 1,000,000 Square Kilometers Brrrr... Denver Breaks 118 Year-Old Cold Record-- Arctic Ice Refuses to Melt
I've seen that ad and it is disturbing. I used to build coal fired power stations and do you know what "dirty coal" is? it si 97.5% efficient, versus your car which is about 33% efficient. Clean coal attempts to get to about 99% efficiency in energy conversion and uses advanced scrubber technology to remove particulates before they enter the atmosphere.
I've seen that ad and it is disturbing. I used to build coal fired power stations and do you know what "dirty coal" is? it si 97.5% efficient, versus your car which is about 33% efficient. Clean coal attempts to get to about 99% efficiency in energy conversion and uses advanced scrubber technology to remove particulates before they enter the atmosphere.
Didn't see that in the ad.
Say what?
Even the best electric generators aren't more than 90% efficient. You'd be lucky to get 45% overall efficiency from any power plant.
Oh, geez, Ryan. Those articles are about conditions over the last 10 years, as temps have been FLAT. I never said there wasn't warming during the 20th centrury.
Well, California is insisting on throwing away it's industrial and business future on this bullshit. And you know what happens next...where California goes, other states blindly follow.
SACRAMENTO—California air regulators meet Thursday to consider the nation's most sweeping plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one that will transform how people travel, utilities generate power and businesses use electricity.
California's plan also relies on creating the broadest market yet in carbon-credit trading in a bid to give the state's worst polluters cheaper ways to cut the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases they produce.
The restrictions being considered this week by the California Air Resources Board represent the first time the state has committed to a plan to implement a landmark 2006 law that has made it a global leader in combating climate change. Advocates hope the framework will become a model for the U.S. and other countries.
"It is a major milestone in California's effort to deal with global climate change," Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols told The Associated Press. "We will be adopting a plan that will serve as a template not only for California but other states and the national government."
If adopted, the plan will set clear strategies for how the country's most populous state plans to cut emissions at a time many governments around the world are struggling with a financial crisis that threatens to undermine efforts to fight climate change.
California's commitment coincides with the final days of a United Nations conference in Poland during which negotiators are working on an international global warming treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. delegation sent by President George Bush reiterated its long-held opposition to targeted reductions.
But President-elect Barack Obama has struck a different tone.
Last month, Obama delivered a video message to a climate conference in Beverly Hills and pledged to reclaim a leading role for the United States in U.N. negotiations next year. He wants to establish California's targets to reduce emissions for the entire country.
The 2006 law, called the Global Warming Solutions Act but commonly referred to as AB32, mandates that California cut emissions by a third—or to 1990 levels—by 2020.
The strategy chosen by air regulators will create 31 new regulations affecting all facets of life, from what fuels Californians put in their vehicles to what kind of air conditioners businesses put in their buildings.
The average Californian, for example, can expect to pay to have their car tires inflated during oil changes and should expect to pay higher power bills as utilities try to increase their use of renewable energy.
They also could see more fuel efficient cars at dealerships, better public transportation, housing near schools and businesses, and utility rebates to equip their homes to be more energy efficient.
New fees and reporting requirements will accompany the emission rules.
Finding the right ways to implement California's target has not been without controversy.
Republicans, small businesses and major industries that will be forced to change their operations beginning in 2012 say jobs could be lost, companies might leave the state and energy prices will skyrocket.
"Transforming the California economy into one that runs on clean technologies falls flat if it means scores of businesses will be closing their doors and more and more people are sent to the unemployment lines," said John Kabateck, executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business.
The air board's background work has been criticized in reviews by California's nonpartisan legislative analyst and independent scientists, with both groups saying the costs to the state could be greater than projected.
"AB32 is presented as a riskless 'free lunch' for Californians," Matthew E. Kahn, a professor of economics at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote to the board. "I would like to believe this claim but ... there are too many uncertainties and open microeconomic questions for me to believe this."
Republican state lawmaker Roger Niello of Fair Oaks requested the board perform a more thorough economic analysis and postpone its vote on the global warming plan.
"It's unfair to the citizens of our state to pursue all these measures when success is really dependent on a lot more other jurisdictions," Niello told The Associated Press.
An air board analysis published in September projected California's economy would grow at a faster rate under the emissions cut than if it did nothing. It also estimated 100,000 more jobs would be created and the average California household would save $400 a year by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and living in more energy-efficient homes.
Nichols said her board had done a thorough job of assessing the plan. She said she was optimistic the country would be out of recession by the time California's industries, commercial businesses and individuals must begin complying with emission regulations in 2012.
Once all the measures are in force, the air board projects the cost to the state at $25 billion in 2020, but said they will be more than offset by the savings—which it estimates at $40 billion that year.
The state's global warming plan touches virtually every sector of the economy, primarily by changing the fuels that California uses to power its vehicles and generate electricity. It also encourages forest preservation and plans to capture methane gas at landfills. Supporters of the law also hope it will make California a leader in green technology, attracting investments and jobs.
Winston Hickox, a former secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency, said California's green technology companies are eyeing billions of dollars in new investment to help the state meets its goals.
"California is a laboratory where the most promising and profitable solutions to global warming are being pioneered," said Derek Walker, a climate specialist at the group Environmental Defense who attended the U.N. climate change conference in Poland.
The plan being considered this week by the Air Resources Board will create the framework for implementing specific aspects of the law in the years ahead. Most of the reductions in California's emissions will come from more detailed regulations that will be written over the next few years, including rules governing a cap-and-trade program that launches in 2012 to help the largest polluters achieve emission cuts.
A cap-and-trade program is a key feature of California's strategy to help power plants, oil and gas refiners, manufacturers and other major polluters gradually lower carbon emissions. The idea is to allow businesses that cannot cut their emissions because of cost or technical hurdles to buy credits from companies that have achieved cleaner emissions.
But allowing businesses to buy their way out of the problem is another contentious part of the plan. Representatives of California's poor communities say the polluting power plants, refineries and factories in their neighborhoods could write a check rather than cut emissions.
"We believe that trading schemes don't work and they crowd out things that could, that trading stifles innovation," said Angela Johnson-Meszaros, a member of an environmental justice committee that reviewed the plan.
WASHINGTON – The government is starting a different kind of most-wanted list — for environmental fugitives accused of assaulting nature.
These fugitives allegedly smuggled chemicals that eat away the Earth's protective ozone layer, dumped hazardous waste into oceans and rivers and trafficked in polluting cars.
And now the government wants help in tracking them down.
In its own version of the FBI most-wanted list, and the first to focus on environmental crimes, the Environmental Protection Agency is unveiling a roster of 23 fugitives, complete with mug shots and descriptions of the charges on its Web site at http://www.epa.gov/fugitives.
A top EPA enforcement official said the people on the list represent the "brazen universe of people that are evading the law." Many face years in prison and some charges could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
"They are charged with environmental crimes and they should be brought before the criminal justice system and have their day in court," said Pete Rosenberg, a director in the agency's criminal enforcement division.
On display will be John Karayannides, who allegedly helped orchestrate the dumping of 487 tons of wheat tainted with diesel fuel into the South China Sea in 1998. Karayannides is believed to have fled to Athens, Greece.
Also at large are the father and son team of Carlos and Allesandro Giordano, who were arrested in 2003 as the owners of Autodelta USA, a company that was illegally importing and selling Alfa Romeos that did not meet U.S. emission or safety standards. The two men are believed to be hiding out in Italy.
Raul Chavez-Beltran, another fugitive on the list, ran an environmental cleanup company in El Paso, Texas, that is accused of transporting hazardous waste from factories along the Mexican border and improperly disposing and storing it in the U.S. In one case, he allegedly stockpiled mercury-laced soil from an environmental spill in a warehouse.
The launch of the most-wanted list comes as EPA's criminal enforcement has ebbed. In fiscal 2008, the EPA opened 319 criminal enforcement cases, down from 425 in fiscal 2004. And criminal prosecutors charged only 176 defendants with environmental crimes, the fewest in five years.
EPA officials defend the agency's record, saying the agency has focused on bigger cases with larger environmental benefits.
But Walter D. James III, an environmental attorney based in Grapevine, Texas, says the EPA is critically understaffed to investigate environmental crimes. While the budget for the division has increased by $11 million since 2000, there are still only 185 criminal investigators. Congress authorized the EPA to hire 200 investigators in 1990.
James said that while the list could prompt the public to turn people in, he questioned whether it would deter others from committing environmental crimes.
"It's like telling John Gotti he is a bad man," James said. "Is that going to matter to John Gotti?"
Some of those I can understand but, "Also at large are the father and son team of Carlos and Allesandro Giordano, who were arrested in 2003 as the owners of Autodelta USA, a company that was illegally importing and selling Alfa Romeos that did not meet U.S. emission or safety standards. The two men are believed to be hiding out in Italy." is that really so grievous a crime compared to dumping toxic waste?
And here it is.
