A climate change primer for Bush's smokestack cabinet

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

A Climate Change Primer For Bush's Smokestack Cabinet BY DAVID CASE ENVIRONMENT | 01.23.01

Fair use for educational purposes only!

The world's leading scientists now agree that burning fossil fuels could induce dire changes in the climate during this century. Yet the prospects for stanching the problem look grimmer than ever under incoming president George W. Bush.

Like a gullible customer in a used car lot, Bush has bought into the proselytizing of the special interests who profit from the nation's fossil fuel addiction. He would be better off looking across the Atlantic Ocean, to the example of America's arch-allies in the United Kingdom, who are taking climate change seriously and are actually doing something about it.

During the presidential debates, candidate Bush gazed into the camera and parroted the propaganda of the oil industry: that the climate science is uncertain, and that we shouldn't spend money addressing a hypothetical problem.

Since winning the presidency, things have only gotten worse. Bush has nominated a cabinet of like-minded people, for whom "seeing green" would have more to do with assuring the flow of dollars to the petroleum and auto industries than with safeguarding their grandchildren's environmental future.

His commerce secretary - like Bush himself - is an oilman. America's vast wilderness soaks up carbon, but interior secretary Gale Norton is a patron of the James Watt "chop-em-down and pave-em" school of forest management.

And Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card and his energy secretary Spencer Abraham have a history of fighting against automobile fuel efficiency measures that would help allay climate change and save Americans money at the gas pump.

Nor is there much hope that the administration's environmental arm will show leadership. Environmental Protection Agency administrator-designate Christine Todd Whitman revealed in an interview with the New York Times that she doesn't even have a rudimentary knowledge of the science of climate change (she confused it with ozone layer depletion).

Before he travels overseas as president, there's something Bush should know that his smokestack cabinet is unlikely to tell him: he now heads the world's biggest spoiled brat of climate change.

Anyone familiar with the Kyoto climate change treaty knows that it has always been a sweetheart deal for the United States. American lawmakers grouse that the treaty doesn't require cuts from the developing world.

But industrialized countries are overwhelmingly responsible that have filled the atmosphere with excess carbon over the past century and a half, and we're the ones most likely to come up with the technology to fix the mess.

Bush should also know that among industrialized countries, the U.S. is by far the biggest climate culprit. Europeans produce less than half the carbon pollution per capita that Americans do. They drive smaller cars and fewer miles. They commute on trains. Their houses aren't as balmy in the winter or as cool in the summer.

Many don't have clothes dryers, not to mention the panoply of kitchen appliances Americans depend on.They tend to turn lights off when they don't need them. Yet the treaty requires Europeans to reduce their emissions by 8 percent by 2010; the U.S. would only have to cut 7 percent. So the U.S. would still be, by far, the biggest climate culprit.

Remarkably, Europeans are committing themselves to action. The United Kingdom, for one, has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by a full 20 percent below 1990 levels, well beyond what the Kyoto treaty calls for.

Industry leaders explain that the country is eager to become a world leader on efficiency. Other countries are following suit.

The new administration should take a closer look. After all, the do-nothing approach favored by many of Bush's campaign donors from the hydrocarbon industry may leave us ill-prepared for the future, the same way that the auto industry got caught with its pants down during the energy crunch of the 1970s.

Have the Brits gone mad? No. Like most Europeans, British leaders listen to scientists rather than the petroleum industry. Scientists are telling them that climate change could be humanity's Waterloo. Moreover, they figure that reducing carbon emissions - which mainly means cutting down on fossil-fuel consumption - makes good sense even if climate change weren't a threat. After all, why not reduce dependence on imports from OPEC, particularly if you can save money in the process?

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott calls Britain's program "gain, not pain." And the Pew Center on Global Climate Change has concluded that it will likely achieve its goals.

How will United Kingdom perform this miracle? For starters, the country has already made great strides toward reducing carbon output. In the early 1990s, the government enacted tougher environmental laws and energy liberalization policies that are smarter and much more consumer-oriented than California's.

This fostered real competition and brought about a large reduction in the country's emissions, while decreasing utility bills by as much as 40 percent.

More recently, the U.K. has begun requiring utilities to help customers increase their home energy efficiency. Aided by a public-private venture called the Energy Savings Trust, utilities must achieve efficiency targets, for example by helping customers purchase energy efficient furnaces, insulate their houses or install low-energy lighting.

These programs help taxpayers save money on their utility bills, they return a positive investment for the country, and they help the UK meet its Kyoto target.

Publicly, George W. Bush might be tempted to decry this type of government expenditure, but as an oilman he no doubt knows that the American petroleum industry is subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars per year.

The U.K. is also mandating alternative energy production. By 2010, utilities will need to increase the country's renewable energy supply from 2 percent to 10 percent. Like the U.S., the U.K. has enormous potential to harness wind energy, and BP, its biggest petroleum firm, owns the world's largest solar company.

Such clean energy is still more expensive than fossil fuels, but this modest goal will hardly break the bank: the government estimates that it will add a mere $1 per month to the average utility bill. (Other European countries have an even more aggressive and successful renewables programs; see related article on Germany's success with wind power).

Renewable energy is one area where there is at least a glimmer of hope in the new administration. To be sure, Bush's energy policy focuses heavily on fossil fuels, and includes destructive measures like opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploitation.

But in Texas, thanks to the lobbying of environmentalists and Bush's friend and benefactor Sam Wiley, a wealthy entrepreneur who owns Green Mountain Power, Governor Bush signed a bill akin to the U.K. law, setting minimum requirements for alternative energy in Texas.

As a champion of tax reform, the incoming president might want to study what is perhaps the most important British policy for curbing carbon emissions: a 20 percent "climate change levy" on businesses, to be phased in starting April 2001.

This is the type of innovative tax that smart economists have been demanding for decades: nearly all the revenues from the climate change levy will be used to offset labor taxes.

The new levy raises the cost of bad behavior (carbon pollution) while at the same time reducing the cost of good behavior (employment). It's not a new tax: government revenue is projected to stay the same. Unlike a labor tax - which can only be reduced by firing people - companies can easily reduce their tax burden by turning off lights, photocopiers and computers.

And about 10 percent of the total revenues from the climate change levy will go to help companies needing capital for efficiency improvements. In this time of economic downturn, the new president would do well to remember that the remarkable boom of the Clinton years was fueled by increases in worker efficiency: the country did more for less.

Why couldn't we achieve the same in the Bush era by increasing energy efficiency? Europe's economy promises to be more efficient thanks to its forward-looking climate change policy.

Based on Bush's emerging brain trust, however, we wouldn't advise Americans to hold their breath.

David Case is the executive editor of TomPaine.com, where this article first appeared. We strongly urge you to check-out their website.

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/2001/01/climate/ Copyright © 1998-2001 Infocrat Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

-- Swissrose (cellier@azstarnet.com), February 03, 2001

Answers

This sort of emotional binge contributes nothing of value to a legitimate debate about whether there is any real evidence of significant climate change and, if so, whether human presence has made any significant contribution. Projections of future warming are based on severely flawed computer models. If weather can be predicted even a year ahead with any accuracy, shouldn't the Weather Bureau be taken to task for not warning the West Coast about impending reductions in precipitation that are contributing substantially to the current power crisis? Does anyone recall the dire predictions for the Florida hurricane season last year? Kind of a fizzle wasn't it? But they are having a severe drought aren't they? Oh, and how about the severe cold in many parts of the world? Was that predicted?

-- Warren Ketler (wrkttl@earthlink.net), February 03, 2001.

Warren, The scientists agree because they have been measuring the temperature, and have watched it rise, alongside the carbon increase, and can very un-complicatedly see where the lines are heading.

-- Gregg (gplsa@netcenter.net), February 03, 2001.

Why aren't the oceans heating up? Scientist have many years of data from the oceans and there is no evidence that the oceans are warming. And this business about Bush being an oil man would someone tell me what oil field he has brought in.

-- David Williams (DAVIDWILL@prodigy.net), February 03, 2001.

Gregg, My statements still stand. I know neither the scientists to whom you refer, nor your sources of information. But, The sientists do not agree. Among those who do not are S. Fred Singer, Roger Pielke, Sr., James Hansen, Richard Lindzen, Gordon Prather, John Cristy and Patrick J. Michaels, to name a few. All have published extensively on the subject, but you won't find their views in the newspapers. There is no simple relationship between carbon dioxide increase and any warming. For example water vapor is another "greenhouse gas" that is also increasing. Even measuring the temperature is no easy matter. As David Williams noted in his post, the oceans aren't heating up. Neither is the atmosphere to any extent as satellite data indicate. Surface temperatures may well be influenced upward by land use changes. In short, according to S. Fred Singer, "the climate has shown no noticeable warming in the last 20 years". This is reinforced by data from weather balloons and core samples from tree rings, ice cores and ocean sediments from various parts of the world. To top it off, the climate models can't reproduce the temperature changes experienced in the last few decades. They estimate higher temperatures than have actually been measured.

-- Warren Ketler (wrkttl@earthlink.net), February 03, 2001.

Even if global warming is not a reality (and I believe the vast predominance of scientists who agree that it is and that the main disagreement is how fast and how much), the source of fossil fuels is finite.

"Even the necessarily conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) in its World Energy Outlook, 1998 concurred for the first time that global output could top out between 2009 and 2012 and decline rapidly thereafter. Indeed, the IEA projects a nearly 20% shortfall of supply relative to demand by 2020 that will have to be made up of from "unidentified unconventional" sources (i.e., known oil-sands deposits have already been taken into account). Other studies show that by 2040 total oil output from all sources may fall to less than half of today's 25-26 billion barrels of oil per year." [Dr. William E. Rees, professor at the University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning, in Vancouver].

Conserving fossil fuels and developing alternative energy technologies would seem an obvious imperative to me, even if no one wants to believe the evidence that global warming is real and that it is caused substantially by CO2 emissions. Clearly, neither conservation nor alternative energy are on Bush's agenda.

-- vicki (smithfox@mind.net), February 04, 2001.



That's all well and good coming from a professional student with a PhD but I want to hear that from someone who acually brings an oil field in. Oil companys have not hit one major oil field in years. And the reason is that computer simulators and satellite pictures have replaced the methods used by the old masters at finding oil. Another reason is that we do not have the personnel nor the capital to drill. And all this talk about renewable energy, why doesn't someone talk about the Stirling engine which is used in third world nations to generate power.

-- David Williams (DAVIDWILL@prodigy.net), February 05, 2001.

Science is not a matter of voting, it is systematic investigaton of an observation to provide accurate evidence of the validity of a hypothesis. The hypothesis that the earth is warming, the warming is significant, and if so, it derives from human activity is far from demonstrated (it could be part of a weather cycle, sun spots or something as yet unidentified). The myth making media never fails to tout 2,500 or so scientists as working on the UN report. Of those, only about 100 would survive close scrutiny as being qualified to speak about the climate. However, you see little or nothing about the 17,00 scientists who have signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol

The supply of fossil fuels and their conservation is an entirely different subject and also not free of controversy. Everything is finite, with the possible exception of some mathematical concepts and the universe. The idea that criticxl resources are on the verge of exhaustion are not new. Paul Erlich at Stanford has made a career of scary predictions of resource shortages, all wrong. Then there was the Club of Rome in the 70's warning the earth would be out oil, gas, copper, zinc, gold and tin by now along with experiencing massive pollution, famine and pestilence. Not to be outdone, Jimmy Carter jumped in with the infamous "Global 2000 Report". Despite major obstacles to exploration and resource development, such predictions have been spectacularly wrong!

Conservation and development of alternative energy technologies should be encouraged but not force fed. Central planning is no more effective in guiding technology than the economy. There are probably a few folks in California right now having second thoughts about the virtues of electric cars!

-- Warren Ketler (wrkttl@earthlink.net), February 06, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ