The Week That Was July 24, 2010
Quote of the Week
“The best protection we have against offshore accidents is to end our dependence on oil.” –
Frances Beineke, President of Natural Resources Defense Council and member of the special presidential commission on the Gulf Oil Spill, (NRDC blog, 5/4/10) [H/T Institute for Energy Research]
This Week
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
In what appears to be a significant change of events, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he is dropping cap and tax for now because he does not have enough votes to pass the legislation. Even an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal expressed relief that the nation has been spared of this destructive energy tax that would accomplish nothing for climate change. Is it that Senator Reid actually recognizes he does not have the votes? Is it that he is in a tight race to keep his Senate seat? Or is it something more devious?
Given the propensity of the leaders of the 111th Congress to develop thousands of pages of legislation behind closed doors and quickly dump it onto an unsuspecting public, one must be suspicious. Further, corporations and special interest groups have spent millions of dollars on mobilizing one of the greatest lobbing efforts ever. Some, such as Duke Energy and Exelon, have promised their shareholders that they would get Billions of US dollars in profits from this lobbing “investment.” The massive volumes of money that would change hands with cap and tax have attracted many organizations that demand special government “favors.” They will not be pleased.
As mentioned in TWTW last week, some commentators have suggested that after the election a lamb duck Congress will pass some version of cap and tax. The Wall Street Journal suggests that it may be a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would require utilities to obtain mandatory percentages of their total electricity from renewable generating sources such as solar and wind. Until practical electricity storage is commercially available at a reasonable cost, solar and wind generated electricity is sub-prime energy. Even with government subsidies, the subprime energy market will eventually implode as did the sub-prime mortgage market that was driven by government dictates. An implosion of the sub-prime energy market may have greater destructive economic consequences. (Please see “Son of Cap and Tax” under Articles.)
*******************************
Number of the Week: is $2.1 Trillion $2,100,000,000.00. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, that is the rough estimate by Chamberlain Economics of the value of carbon allowances that will be distributed free under the Kerry-Lieberman cap and tax bill. As our founding fathers recognized, power attracts the ambitious – and so does huge amounts of money.
*******************************
The Climategate non-inquiry appears to have unintended consequences. Some traditional allies of the orthodoxy, including New Scientist, are questioning the lack of candor in the inquiries. Comments by hockey stick buster, Steve McIntyre, on CRU’s lack of quality control of temperature data may be of interest to many, including those litigating against the EPA endangerment finding. (Please see below under “ClimateGate”)
*******************************
The peer reviewed paper which is part of the basis for Roy Spencer’s new book The Great Global Warming Blunder, reviewed in TWTW July 3 and 10, has been challenged. As all too typical today, the Journal of Climate did not bother informing Spencer so that he could review the challenge and respond. According to Spencer, had the Journal done so he could have corrected some errors and misrepresentations. Spencer points out the challenge offers some new insights, but the major “issues” were corrected in a later paper that is in press. (Please see “Can Climate Feedbacks be Diagnosed from Satellite Data?”)
*******************************
Joe D’Aleo has discovered that NASAGISS is playing games with historic data yet again – call it Creative Enhancement. (Please see his article under “Challenging the Orthodoxy.”) Also, Anthony Watts has discovered missing data in NOAA’s latest heat advisory. More stunning is the sudden cold snap that froze to death thousands of head of cattle in central Brazil. (Please see articles under “Heat Wave.”)
*******************************
The BP Oil Spill has been capped, at least for now, but the true cost to the oil industry in general and the nation as a whole is yet to be determined. No doubt, many in the US government would like to use it as an excuse to stop all offshore drilling. The House Energy and Commerce Committee headed by Rep. Waxman passed legislation that will do exactly that. (Please see “Blowout Prevention Act”) To their credit, four major oil companies are forming a disaster-response system to quickly shutoff deep water blow-outs in the Gulf of Mexico. It is unknown if this would be sufficient address the new Waxman anti-drilling bill. Given the antienergy attitude in Washington (except for subprime energy), some may suggest that the Department of Justice investigates the disasterresponse system as unlawful collusion under the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
*******************************
BOOK OF THE WEEK
Coming climate crisis? By Claire L. Parkinson Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham MD. 2010. 412 pp.
Reviewed by S. Fred Singer
This is an unusual book. Parkinson is a distinguished climatologist with a specialty of polar sea ice and a strong interest in the history and philosophy of science. She clearly believes that humans are responsible for past warming and that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to further warming in the 21st century, yet she is one of the few AGW supporters who is respectful of contrary opinions. It is interesting that the Foreword, written by Lonnie Thompson, while praising her book, faults her for ascribing “nearly equivalent validity to the contributions of climate skeptics or contrarians.” But Parkinson is unapologetic and explains her position well throughout the book.
Her main theme is to argue effectively against the current craze for “geoengineering.” I share her view that many of the schemes suggested lack proper evaluation and are likely to cause more harm than good. However, I also doubt the necessity for carrying out large-scale modifications of the global environment since I do not believe that the human emission of greenhouse gases is causing significant climate changes.
Full disclosure: About 40 years ago, I was quite intrigued by the idea of largescale modifications of the earth’s environment and included it in discussions in a symposium which I organized for the AAAS, entitled “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution.” After publishing a book on this symposium, I worked with the National Research Council on producing a report on geoengineering, which described the various schemes that were then under consideration. Since this was long before there was any widespread discussion of greenhouse warming, our report dealt with different topics.
The Parkinson book has some very attractive features. A well-written Introduction presents an overview of the Earth System and a descriptive outline of the book itself. Part I describes very well the history of climate change since the earth was created 4.6 billion years ago. There’s also a nice summary of abrupt climate changes.
After this discussion of natural changes, there’s a short history of past human impacts and a chapter on the future, with the intriguing title “Why Some People are So Concerned While Others Aren’t.” While I don’t agree with everything the author says, I do feel she has given adequate space to skeptics like Patrick Michaels and Roy Spencer. She also gives much space to Bjorn Lomborg, who seems to accept the scientific conclusions of the IPCC, but as an economist/statistician does not accept any of their recommendations for action.
And on this point, I agree most emphatically.