In Case You Missed It… The Wall Street Journal Commentary Kyoto? Mamma Mia!
By ANTONIO MARTINO October 7, 2005; Page A16 Mr. Martino is Italy’s defense minister. ROME -- The devastating hurricanes that hit the U.S. recently offered “eco-doomsayers” -- who like to blame human activities, preferably of the industrial kind, for all sorts of natural disasters -- yet another chance to lash out at the Bush administration. America’s “failure” to ratify the Kyoto Protocol -- regularly held responsible for extreme weather conditions around the globe -- was quickly found guilty of the destruction brought about by Katrina and Rita. As usual, the eco-doomsayers care very little for the small fact that their sweeping accusations have absolutely no basis in modern science. First of all, it is not true that President George W. Bush is alone in opposing the Kyoto agreements that his predecessor Bill Clinton signed. … Second, there is no scientifically sound link between rising global temperatures and an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Nor are the events of the recent weeks unprecedented: As Max Mayfield, Director of the National Hurricane Center, pointed out, a comparable series of hurricanes of similar intensity has already been observed in 1915. Third, and most important, while a scientific consensus about the true nature of climate change is still lacking, we know for certain that the impact of Kyoto on the average global temperature will be negligible at best. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts that without the ratification of Kyoto, the average global temperature will rise about one degree Celsius by 2050. The same panel predicts that after the implementation of Kyoto, the temperature will still rise 0.94 degrees. In other words, the benefits from Kyoto amount to about 0.06 degrees in half a century. Remarkably, this is even the most optimistic estimate: S. Fred Singer -- the climatologist who developed the method for measuring the ozone layer -- reckons that it may be as small as 0.02 degrees. This is a difference so minuscule that our available instruments wouldn’t even be able to notice it! … Those countries, such as Italy, that for decades steered clear of building new power plants and gave up on nuclear power -- the cleanest, safest and cheapest energy source available today -- will need to face up to a harsh reality: Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol will punish even the existing energy-producing capacity by capping emissions. The cost of energy in Italy, already higher than the European average, let alone that in the U.S., will go up even more. Given the country’s lack of competitiveness, that can only be described as a self-inflicted wound. Perhaps the problems of our times are manmade, after all. But rather than being caused by those “neocons” in Washington, they stem from the noble intentions of environmentalists so bent on “saving nature” that in the process they wage an unremitting war against mankind and its endeavors. Click here for the full text of the op-ed (subscription required).

Fact of the Day: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 “Emergency State” Declaring a “global warming emergency state,” actress/songwriter/Democrat political activist Barbra Streisand recently outperformed her fellow global warming alarmist all-stars, including the likes of one-hit wonders Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., during a Primetime Live performance on ABC (as reviewed by The Drudge Report Sunday). Interviewed by Diane Sawyer as part of the promotional tour for her new album, Streisand recklessly perpetuates rhetoric not seen since the movie The Day after Tomorrow. Streisand, perhaps not realizing that Europeans leaders, including Britain’s Tony Blair, are dismissing the approach of the Kyoto Protocol, concluded, “I mean, for the United States not to be part of the Kyoto Treaty is unforgivable.” Fact: Long before President Bush took office, the U.S. Senate, with a 95-0 vote in 1997, advised the Clinton-Gore Administration against signing into an agreement that would a) not include developing nations such as China and India, and b) hurt the U.S. economy. Despite this overwhelming response against such an approach, the Clinton-Gore Administration defied the Senate and signed the Kyoto Protocol. Recognizing its political blunder, the former administration never sent the Protocol to the Senate for ratification. It was not the Bush-Cheney Administration that first rejected the Kyoto Protocol – it was, in reality the Clinton-Gore Administration. That rejection is now extending well beyond American shores. Kyoto Support Eroding Support for the Kyoto Accords, even among Europe’s one-time greatest supporters, is waning. Last month at Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative Conference in New York, Prime Minister Tony Blair made a stunning statement that initially went unreported by the press. Blair, as the London Telegraph reported Sunday, made a “U-turn” on Kyoto. The Telegraph reports, “Mr. Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will ‘never be resolved.’ Regarding future Kyoto like plans Blair stated, ‘To be honest, I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.” Europe’s Failure to Meet Its Kyoto Targets Prime Minister Blair’s “U-turn” comes as Europe struggles to meet the limits imposed by Kyoto. Robert Samuelson in a Washington Post op-ed on June 29th wrote: “Considering Europeans’ contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you’d expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto’s base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency.” Samuelson itemized those increases: France, a 6.9 percent increase; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; and Spain, a 46.9 percent increase over 1990 levels. The failure of EU nations to meet targets under Kyoto further demonstrates the lack of will or ability by those claiming to be the biggest supporters of reducing greenhouse gasses. Catherine Pearce, global climate change spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth, is correct to ask: “If Britain and the rest of Europe cannot get it right, then how can anyone expect the US or developing countries to?” (John Vidal, “Europe fails to cut greenhouse gas emissions,” The Guardian, 6/18/2005) Hockey Stick Science: How the Foundation of Climate Alarmism Crumbled One week ago, Canada’s National Post printed an op-ed by Dr. David R. Legates titled “Where’s the data?: Holding science to prospectus standards would stop climate researchers from launching misrepresentations like the ‘Hockey Stick’”. Dr. Legates specifically discussed the flaws of the now discredited Mann “hockey stick” graph, which purports to show a tie between anthropogenic emissions and global warming: Ø “The Hockey Stick stands in stark contrast to a long-held view, amply supported by work of other researchers, that the last 1,000 years were characterized by a warm beginning (the Medieval Warm Period), a rapid cooling around A.D. 1500 (the Little Ice Age), and a latter-day recovery from this cooler period. The Hockey Stick became entwined with energy policy when the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] replaced this traditional view and featured the Hockey Stick prominently in its 2001 assessment of climate science -- in a section written by Mann himself. It surprises many to learn that the IPCC assessment often is written by scientists who dominate the debate about specific issues.” Ø “Clearly such scientists have axes to grind and, in Mann's case, he used the IPCC as a forum to promote his own research. Other IPCC authors admonished Mann to include other, less Hockey Stick-like representations in his assessment. They were ignored in the final report, however, and, owing to the influence that the IPCC reports carry, the Hockey Stick became a public icon, enthusiastically promoted by supporters of the hypothesis of greenhouse warming.” Ø “Nature took the extremely unusual step of requiring Mann and co-authors to provide a new archive of data and a new verbal description of their methodology. But even with this revised release, key aspects of the Hockey Stick remain impossible to replicate -- and replication is a hallmark of scientific inquiry. Mann continues to refuse requests for full disclosure, telling The Wall Street Journal that to do so would amount to ‘giving in to intimidation.’” Ø “Moreover, since Mann was the author of the section of the IPCC that touted his own research before others had the opportunity to critically re-examine his work, serious questions must be raised about conflicts of interest within the IPCC and how it came to promote speculative findings that had not been independently evaluated and which since have been shown to be flawed.” Dr. Legates clearly shows the flaws of the Mann graph, which was heavily relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Third Assessment and by climate alarmists around the world attempting to show that anthropogenic emissions are causing global warming. Recent works written or co-authored by Dr. David R. Legates: Ø Chapter 12–Climate and Water: Precipitation, Evapotranspiration, and Hydroclimatological Aspects. Water for Texas, Texas A&M University Press, 149–152. Ø Mathematical Models and Quantitative Methods. Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, 442–457. Ø Comment on the AMS statement on climate change research. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84(11):1474. Ø The CERES-Rice Model-Based Estimates of Potential Monsoon Season Rainfed Rice Productivity in Bangladesh. The Professional Geograper, 55(2):259-273. Recent works written or co-authored by Barbra Streisand: Ø Guilty Pleasures (album, with Barry Gibb) Ø Love Like Ours (album) Ø Duets (album) Ø Emotion (album)

Hurricane Blame Game Shameless Finger-Pointing Based on Underwhelming Evidence and a Manufactured Political “Consensus” “Global-warming opportunists and their media allies could not even wait for authorities to clear the bloated corpses from the water. They are no better than the loudmouths who seized upon the Asian tsunami in December.” (Editorial, “Exploiting Katrina,” The Washington Times, September 11, 2005) The leader of Australia’s leftist Green Party, Germany’s environment minister (a member of Germany’s Green Party), a European Commission spokeswoman, media critic and self-proclaimed climate expert Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Al Gore, the Boston Globe and other global warming alarmists have all either suggested or stated outright that global warming is to blame for Hurricane Katrina. There may not be any billboards pointing the partisan finger at President Bush quite yet, but alarmist charges continue to flood the media – mindful that the next election cycle is fully one year away. Like clockwork, alarmists, touting two highly disputed studies, are wasting no time blaming President Bush for a natural phenomenon. Fact: The science linking global warming to hurricanes is underwhelming. The science linking global warming to Katrina is non-existent. Yet, despite the continued lack of science, global warming alarmists still use the devastation in the Gulf States caused by Hurricane Katrina to promote their selfish cause by attacking President Bush. “Insufficient Evidence” and “…The Lack of Reliable Long-term Data.” Undoubtedly, even the few alarmists who at least attempt to justify their declaration with scientific facts will concede the scientific evidence is underwhelming. Amanda Gardner in Forbes Magazine writes about the most recent study published in Science Magazine: “The study… is perhaps one of the strongest scientific statements yet on a connection between hurricane activity and global warming.” Yet even the “strongest” study is thoroughly disputed in the scientific community. BBC News science reporter Helen Briggs explains the consensus of scientists remain unconvinced stating: “But most scientists believe there is currently insufficient evidence to make such a claim [link between global warming and increased intensity in hurricanes], partly because of the lack of reliable long-term data.” “… [A] Warmer World Should Have Fewer, Not More, Hurricanes.” Oregon’s state climatologist and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, George Taylor, has another take with regard to the number of hurricanes. Taylor writes in his recent article, “Hurricanes and Global Warming: Is There a Link?”, that “… there is no reason to expect increases in hurricanes due to greenhouse warming. Climate models, for all their problems, are unanimous in at least one respect: they predict that most of the future warming will be in high latitudes, in the polar regions. This will reduce the north-south temperature gradient and make poleward transfer of heat less vigorous -- a task in which tropical storms play a major role. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, hurricanes.” http://www.techcentralstation.com/091404D.html (Taylor: “Figure 1, obtained from data provided by the National Hurricane Center, shows hurricane strikes (landfalls) by decade in the U.S. since 1900. The 1940s were rather busy, the 70s the quietest, and the 1990s pretty close to the long-term average. A simple linear fit suggests a decrease over time.”) Taylor also quotes from hurricane prediction pioneer Bill Gray of Colorado State University: “Various groups and individuals have suggested that the recent large upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity (since 1995) may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). There is no reasonable scientific way that such an interpretation of this recent upward shift in Atlantic hurricane activity can be made.”

Fact of the Day: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 The Myths and Facts of the Mercury Regulation Health Effects Senator Leahy (9/12): “Do we allow this new rule to allow toxic mercury? So everyone understands what we are talking about, this does not just make the skies darker. This is a substance so harmful that it causes birth defects, IQ loss, and mental retardation. Do we continue to let it poison children and pregnant women, while costing taxpayers billions in health care costs?” Fact: Eating fish rich in Omega-3 fatty acids is beneficial to human health, especially to pregnant women and their unborn children. No woman in the United States who has tested for mercury exposure has levels known to be unsafe. While a small percentage are testing above the ultra-conservative level that incorporates a ten-fold ‘fudge factor’ or ‘safety factor,’ not a single woman has tested anywhere near the level that is considered unsafe or ‘dangerous’ -- that is, the lowest level where an observed effect was detected in even one study. Furthermore, according to government studies, 80% of the fish consumed by Americans originates overseas. Since mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants make up less than 1% of the worldwide total, even a complete elimination of those emissions would have no measurable impact on the amount of mercury found in most fish. SOURCE: 04/20/2005 - DPC Mercury “Hearing” EPA Inspector General’s Report Senator Leahy (9/12): “Should we allow this rule to move forward, the Bush administration's own inspector general says it does not comply with EPA Executive order requirements. Their own inspector general says it does not comply. The Government Accountability Office has said there are major shortcomings in the economic analysis. Or should we uphold the bipartisan work of Republicans and Democrats alike that produced the Clean Air Act, thus protecting the health of pregnant women and children?” Fact: The report released … by the EPA Office of Inspector General [IG] is another example of how [Clinton-appointee] Nikki Tinsley has politicized the office. The report titled Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes Rules for Coal-Fired Electric Utilities was conducted by employees without sufficient technical, scientific, or regulatory experience to properly evaluate the regulatory-setting process -and it shows in the poor quality of the report. For example, that the report asserts that the mercury Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) number was not based on the top twelve percent of performing plants, but on the co-benefits level achieved from installing other pollution control equipment -- and that it set a performance standard instead of a technology standard. That is not how the law is constructed. Not a single plant in the database upon which this standard is being set uses mercury specific technology. Controls at the best twelve percent of plants achieve mercury reductions as a “co-benefit” of controlling other sources. So achieving a “co-benefit” level at the best plants is what the law requires. In addition, the report asserts that some federal advisory committee members advising EPA on setting the mercury standard considered the job unfinished. But this advisory group met for almost two years and had more than a dozen meetings and many dozens of sub-group meetings. Few clean air advisory groups in history have ever met so frequently or produced so much work for EPA to consider. What the IG fails to report is that most members of the FACA process believed that the issue was discussed thoroughly and it was not until after the conclusion that a minority of members wanted to reopen the process – a fact she would have discovered if she had polled the members, which she did not. Clearly, this politicized office is not fit to evaluate the quality of policies developed by regulators in the Office of Air and Radiation, who unlike the IG’s office, have the necessary training and expertise in the rule-making process SOURCE: 02/03/2005 - INHOFE CRITICIZES EPA IG’S REPORT ON MERCURY EMISSIONS Mercury Reductions and Court Delays Senator Leahy (9/12): “This rule is going to allow more mercury into our environment than even the current law. If we leave the current law alone, there would be less mercury in our environment. Instead, the rule gives more pollution for longer than the Clean Air Act allows. Fact: Until implementation of the Clean Air Mercury Rule earlier this year, there was no law or regulation on the books controlling mercury emissions from power plants. The Administration’s rule is the first-ever regulation. The Clean Air Act is already marred by extensive litigation, and the Democrat approach only serves as a further invitation to lawyers and prolonged litigation. The magazine Economist warns the Democrat Party “is in danger of becoming associated with ‘command and control’ legislation that is hard to enforce and subject to time-wasting litigation.” Opponents apparently prefer to put more money in the pockets of trial lawyers and attempt to sue their way to cleaner air. Recently, however, this strategy has begun to unravel. Three court decisions within the last month, one even by a Clinton-appointed judge, have upheld key portions of the Bush Administration’s clean air reforms and rejected challenges associated with the 1999 Clinton New Source Review (NSR) enforcement initiative. Failing litigation aside, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself is having difficulty in meeting its own obligations under the current Clean Air Act structure. According to the GAO’s new report, Clean Air Act: EPA Has Completed Most of the Actions Required by the 1990 Amendments, but Many Were Completed Late: · “EPA had completed 404 of the 452 actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments 1990.” “Of the 338 requirements that had statutory deadlines prior to April 2005, EPA completed 256 late: - many (162) 2 years or less after the required date, but others (94) more than 2 years after their deadlines.” (source: GAO highlights document) GAO also notes that, “Consequently, improvements in air quality associated with some of these requirements may have been delayed.” Greg Easterbrook with the Brookings Institute noting the success of cap-and –trade programs writes in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, “In practice, cap-and-trade systems have proved faster, cheaper and less vulnerable to legal stalling tactics than the ‘command and control’ premise of most of the Clean Air Act.” SOURCE: 06/28/2005 - Out With the Hot Air and In With the Clean, 03/07/2005 – Cap-and-Trade vs. “Command and Control” Controlling Mercury Emissions Senator Leahy (9/12): “Now they have revoked an earlier EPA finding that is necessary and appropriate to require these power plants apply technology to reduce mercury emissions. By revoking the earlier EPA finding and deciding instead to coddle the biggest mercury polluters, the administration is saying it is no longer necessary or appropriate to adequately control mercury emissions. It is an audacious disregard for the health of the American people.” Fact: A report by the Energy Information Administration provides compelling proof that mercury control technologies are not commercially available and that a 90 percent standard by 2008 is highly impractical, unrealistic, and excessively costly. In the 60-plus-page report, titled Analysis of Mercury Control Strategies, EIA notes the significant uncertainty associated with mercury removal. “At this time,” EIA wrote, “there is significant uncertainty about the degree to which mercury can be removed from some coals,” and “it could be several years before these technologies are fully commercialized.” What of the “achievable” 90 percent reduction by 2008? Not quite: “Whether current ACI [activated carbon injection] systems for coal plants would meet the analysis request requirement for a ‘commercially demonstrated technology’ for deployment in the 2008 timeframe, particularly if 90-percent removal is required, is unclear.” When asked if mercury removal technology is currently commercially available to achieve a guaranteed, long-term 90 percent reduction on all coal types, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) responded, “No, not across the board or at the high removal levels needed on a day-to-day basis to ensure compliance with a 90% limit. Test results available to EPRI from its own projects and those cofunded by the Department of Energy over the past 1-2 years have shown that some mercury removal processes have achieved 90% mercury reductions at some plants during tests ranging from a few days up to one month. However, in numerous other cases, plants have not been able to achieve more than 60-75% mercury capture.” (Source: EPRI) Is a 90 percent, command-and-control standard by 2008 “not every expensive”? Seems it is expensive: in 2010, electricity and natural gas prices would be 22 percent 26 percent higher, respectively. And resource costs could reach $358 billion, or nearly 7 times the cost of implementing Clear Skies, which would reduce mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides for $52 billion. Source: 02/02/2005 - Mercury Mystery Revealed