In The News
CARDINAL GEORGE PELL: Keeping a cool head amid warming hysteria (Op/ed, Sunday Telegraph (Australia)2/18/07)
Sunday February 18, 2007
Global-warming doomsayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in central Queensland, then here in Sydney.
January also was unusually cool.
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters, as some zealots have been presenting extreme scenarios to frighten us.
They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight-storey building, and the Amazon Basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and Greenland melts.
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
Friday February 16, 2007
Today's climate roundup includes articles about scientists standing up for climate realism.
1) Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
From Crain's Cleveland publication on February 13, 2007:
The Ohio TV meteorologists, Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Mark Nolan and John Loufman, mocked the UN's global warming alarmism. "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Johnson said. "I’m not sure which is more arrogant — to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said. "Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, ‘about 95%’ share his skepticism about global warming," the paper reported.
Despite Rhetoric, TRI Rule Good for Public Health and the Environment
Thursday February 15, 2007
At the hearing, Senate Democrats characterized the new TRI rule as weakening the public’s right to know, eliminating disclosure requirements, and allowing facilities to hide the amounts of chemicals they may use. Yesterday, three Senate Democrats introduced legislation (S.595) to overturn the TRI rule. A similar measure was also introduced by House Democrats (HR.1055).
FACT: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups such as manufacturing, mining, utilities, hazardous waste management facilities, chemical distributors, petroleum bulk plants, and solvent recovery services.
Despite Rhetoric, TRI Rule Good for Public Health and the Environment
EPA IS RIGHT TO REWARD FACILITIES FOR IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Thursday February 15, 2007
At the hearing, Senate Democrats characterized the new TRI rule as weakening the public’s right to know, eliminating disclosure requirements, and allowing facilities to hide the amounts of chemicals they may use. Yesterday, three Senate Democrats introduced legislation (S.595) to overturn the TRI rule. A similar measure was also introduced by House Democrats (HR.1055).
FACT: The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups such as manufacturing, mining, utilities, hazardous waste management facilities, chemical distributors, petroleum bulk plants, and solvent recovery services.
EPA announced the final TRI burden reduction rule in December 2006 that expands eligibility to use Form A instead of the more detailed Form R for some smaller facilities’ annual reporting. The final TRI rule:
*Allows facilities to report using the new Form A that emit non-persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) in quantities of up to 2,000 lbs., as long as the total waste management by recycling or disposal does not exceed 5,000 lbs.
*Allows facilities to report using the new Form A that emit PBTs only if they report zero total releases, on or off-site, and the total waste management by recycling or disposal does not to exceed 500 lbs.
*Eases regulatory burden on smaller facilities. The new Form A is easier to fill out, includes more chemicals on one form, and requests ranges of chemical amounts for smaller facilities.
Good for Small Business:
Tom Sullivan, Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Association testified at the February 6 hearing, "[S]mall businesses are disproportionately impacted by regulation. The overall regulatory burden in the United States exceeds $1.1 trillion. For firms employing fewer than 20 employees, the most recent estimate of their regulatory burden is $7,647 per year per employee." [Link to SBA commissioned report: http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf ]
An SBA Office of Advocacy contracted report released in 2004 revealed that businesses incur costs of $300 million annually for compliance with the TRI program.
The new TRI rule attempts to relieve some of those costs on smaller reporting facilities and retain the integrity and public accessibility to information in the TRI program.
Based on studies commissioned by the SBA Office of Advocacy, the increased reporting threshold in the new TRI rule involves very little change in the potential risk associated with releases that are being reported on the more detailed TRI Form Rs. In fact, these studies report that for 99% of all the nation’s 3,142 counties, the changes in reported risk are not significant. [Link to entire SBA work on TRI: http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/tri06.html]
Good for the Environment:
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson testified at the February 6 hearing, "As successful as the program has been, we have been challenged by the fact that, at a national level, reductions in TRI releases have plateaued. So we have asked ourselves: How do we encourage zero releases and better waste management practices?"
The new TRI rule does not exempt any facility from reporting its releases, nor does it remove any chemicals from the TRI. Under the new Form A, covered facilities provide a report to the public that total releases from a facility are in a range from zero to 2,000 pounds. Facilities that have any emissions or discharges of highly toxic materials (PBTs) still cannot use Form A in annual reporting.
Most importantly, however, the new TRI rule provides incentives for facilities to improve environmental performance through reducing emissions, reducing or eliminating releases, and managing remaining wastes using preferred methods such as recycling and treatment. It only makes sense to reward facilities that have worked to lower their emissions and releases to zero and enhanced their waste management with more efficient reporting and less burdensome reporting costs.
Some Senate Democrats have argued that the new TRI rule keeps necessary information from first responders. However, first responders rely on chemical inventory data that is required under Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The new TRI rule does not affect chemical inventory data.
Final Thought:
As one member of the Committee succinctly stated at the February 6 hearing, "They [the Democrat Majority] want to debate whether the EPA should require that respondents file Form A in lieu of Form R to the TRI program. I mean, are you kidding? We are focusing on the wrong things."
Perhaps it couldn’t have been better said.
Watch Chris Horner's Recent Appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Thursday February 15, 2007
Video of Senator Inhofe's Opening Statement from Yesterday's Hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership Report
Wednesday February 14, 2007
Senator lashes firms ' global warming stand
BP America, PG&E Corp. chiefs are called climate change ' profiteers. '
By David Whitney - Bee Washington Bureau
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The chiefs of two major West Coast energy companies -- BP America, which provides much of the Alaska oil that is refined on the West Coast, and PG&E Corp., parent of California ' s largest utility -- were accused of being global warming "profiteers" Tuesday because they are backing legislation to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
The accusation was delivered at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing by the panel ' s senior Republican, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who disputes widespread scientific consensus that emissions from the burning of oil and coal are causing the planet to warm.
"Some companies are coming together in an attempt to profit from government intervention where they have failed in the marketplace," Inhofe said. "They are climate profiteers. These companies will gain market share against their competitors while the economy flattens and jobs are sent to China ."
Inhofe ' s comments came at the second in a series of hearings that California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the panel ' s Democratic chairwoman, is holding on global warming in advance of writing legislation to, as she has put it, "save the planet."
The intensifying political rhetoric is a clear indication that the coalition of business and environmental groups that BP and PG&E are part of is rapidly building pressure on Congress to enact legislation.
Others members of the coalition, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, include Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"You ' ve moved this whole issue into the big leagues now, and you ' ve gotten our attention," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said of the coalition.
PG&E chief Peter Darbee and Stephen A. Elbert, vice president of BP America, were among the coalition leaders invited by Boxer to testify at Tuesday ' s hearing.
Darbee outlined the coalition ' s plea that Congress enact strict emission caps and establish a program authorizing industries to buy and sell emissions credits as a way of lowering the total volume of carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere.
Elbert said energy efficiency already has proved to be a money maker at BP, saying that the company had saved about $1.6 billion from energy investments since 1998 as part of its internal efforts to cut emissions.
But Fred Smith, president of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the "cap and trade" policies promoted by the coalition are self-serving.
"The corporations we see baying for a cap and trade program are out to enrich themselves without thought for the poor," Smith said.
"For these people, environmentalism is the opiate of the masses, keeping them quiet by making them think that what ' s bad for them is good for the planet."
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., said companies like PG&E Corp. and BP will gain as prices soar for consumers.
"Make no mistake," he said. "Some companies will do just fine."
But Darbee argued that the outcome of the global warming debate will have no impact on PG&E ' s corporate profits, which are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Asked at the hearing why he has traveled to Washington three times in the last month to argue for global warming legislation, Darbee replied: "Because it is the right thing to do."
David Keene
February 14, 2007
Inhofe Calls Cap & Trade Mandates ‘The Largest Tax Increase in U.S. History’
Wednesday February 14, 2007
“Cap and trade proposals would be the largest single tax increase in the history of America,” Senator Inhofe said. “While certain large companies may benefit from these schemes, the American people would be greatly harmed, particularly the middle class, the working poor and low income families,” Senator Inhofe said.
“According to a Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates study, the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy at least $300 billion dollars annually, ten times President Clinton’s 1993 record tax increase which cost $32 billion dollars,” Inhofe said. [Note: According to FactCheck.org, President Clinton’s 1993 tax increase (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) amounted to $32 billion. The Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates study estimated Kyoto would cost $300 billion annually and would cost 2.4 million U.S. jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2 percent.]
EPA MAKES THE RIGHT CALL ON PERCHLORATE
Tuesday February 13, 2007
FACT: Perchlorate is not only an industrial product vital to our national defense industry and space exploration, but also a naturally occurring substance. It has been found in places where there is absolutely no possible connection nexus to the Department of Defense or NASA. It has also been found in our nation’s food supply. So it is critical that EPA fully understand how much exposure comes from drinking water and how much comes from natural and other sources before we set out creating an unfunded mandate on our local drinking water systems requiring them to spend scarce water resources chasing after a chemical over which mother nature has significant control.
EPA MAKES THE RIGHT CALL ON PERCHLORATE
Tuesday February 13, 2007
Last week the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing, Oversight of Recent EPA Decisions, in which one Senate Democrat made the assertion that the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to list perchlorate on its second Unregulated Contaminated Monitoring Rule (UCMR) was an "environmental rollback." Dr. Gina Solomon, who testified at the hearing, echoed the sentiment that EPA’s decision has put the health of America’s at risk.
FACT: Perchlorate is not only an industrial product vital to our national defense industry and space exploration, but also a naturally occurring substance. It has been found in places where there is absolutely no possible connection nexus to the Department of Defense or NASA. It has also been found in our nation’s food supply. So it is critical that EPA fully understand how much exposure comes from drinking water and how much comes from natural and other sources before we set out creating an unfunded mandate on our local drinking water systems requiring them to spend scarce water resources chasing after a chemical over which mother nature has significant control.
To regulate an unregulated contaminant like perchlorate, EPA must find that:
*The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
*The contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern, and
*In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in a very conservative assessment, it recommended a safe level that is based upon a precursor to the adverse health effect which may occur at 24.5 ppb drinking water equivalent. The NAS chose this level to protect even the most sensitive members of our population from any effect of perchlorate. In order to determine if perchlorate is "known to occur" and "with a frequency and at levels of public health concern", EPA put perchlorate on the UCMR1 and gathered data from 3,722 drinking water systems. Only 4 percent found perchlorate and at an average concentration of 9.95 ppb, well below NAS’s health effects level of 24.5ppb.
EPA must now determine the relative contribution of perchlorate from other sources to determine if a drinking water standard will present "a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction."
CDC researchers however found perchlorate in trace amounts in all of the over 2,000 participants in its recent study. The 2,000 participants are representative sample of the nation. If perchlorate is only in 4 percent of the drinking water systems, yet in all 2,000 of these participants, it clearly is coming from somewhere other than drinking water.
As Dr. Solomon noted in her testimony:
"Research has also shown that perchlorate can concentrate in crops such as wheat, lettuce, alfalfa, and cucumbers...new data have shown perchlorate contamination to be widespread in store-bought fruit, vegetables, cow’s milk, beer and wine.
When asked at the hearing about the allegation not to list perchlorate on the UCMR2 was a rollback, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson replied:"If we had listed it, then we would have begun monitoring. That monitoring data would not have concluded until the year 2010. And I did not want to send any signal that we were going to wait until after 2010 to evaluate the science and make a decision as to whether a health advisory in MCL was appropriate."
Further, the American Water Works Association, whose membership includes the nation’s smallest drinking water utilities, stated in its comments on EPA’s proposal to include perchlorate on UCMR2
"With the UCMR2 monitoring being completed in 2010, this data would be too late for any potential perchlorate drinking water regulation that would likely be proposed in the next few years."
Listing perchlorate on the UCMR2 would have only served to delay the decision on whether or not to regulate perchlorate –clearly not the "rollback" some try to claim.
Inhofe Praises Czech President’s Courage in Confronting Global Warming Alarmism
Monday February 12, 2007
"President Klaus is to be commended for his courage in speaking not only the truth about the science behind global warming fears, but the reality of the politicization of the UN," Inhofe said.
"President Klaus’s reported comments questioning the fears of catastrophic man-made global warming are inline with a growing chorus of scientists, peer reviewed literature and government leaders who are finally realizing the true motivations behind climate scares. The scientific and political momentum is clearly shifting away from climate alarmists to climate realists," Inhofe said.
"The chorus of voices speaking out against the alarmist claims of man-made global warming comes as Europe and the rest of the world acknowledge the failure of the cap and trade approach of Kyoto. Perhaps now the alarmists will finally take note of the accomplishments of the Bush Administration in reducing U.S. emissions," Inhofe said. [Note: International Energy Agency records show that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent. (Link )
