Articles On Environment

[♦ nivek ♦]

What is endangered: Climate or freedom?

Reason

by Ronald Bailey

 

"[Czech Republic president Vaclav] Klaus noted that ideological

environmentalism appeals to the same sort of people who have always

been attracted to collectivist ideas. He warned that environmentalism

at its worst is just the latest dogma to claim that a looming 'crisis'

requires people to sacrifice their prosperity and their freedoms for

the greater good. ... But assume that man-made global warming is a

genuine crisis. That it is a real gigantic open access commons

problem. Wouldn't that require some kind of governmental action to

coordinate a solution to the problem? I have recently come out in

favor of using a carbon tax as a way to spur the technological

innovation toward a low-carbon energy economy (and incidentally as a

way to also reduce taxes on labor and capital). This was not a popular

position at the conference. Why not?" (03/05/08)

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125323.html

[♦ nivek ♦]

Climate change deniers converge

AlterNet

by The Progress Report

 

"Unfortunately for the Heartland Institute -- which has been heavily

supported by ExxonMobil and right-wing foundations -- the success in

drawing mainstream coverage to its sham scientific conference has only

emphasized the fact that global warming deniers resemble a Flat Earth

Society meeting. The only product of the convention was a self-

published report -- the 'work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of

them not scientists' -- 'arguing that recent climate change stems from

natural causes.'"

 

[editor's note: Interesting counterpoint to Reason's

coverage of the conference. For some reason, the author doesn't find

the involvement of the US government, BP, Morgan Stanley, Credit

Suisse and a bunch of LEFT-wing foundations a credibility problem for

another conference covered in the article. Apparently only ExxonMobil

and the "right" have political agendas - TLK] (03/05/08)

 

http://www.alternet.org/environment/78792/

[Evan]

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

17:00 16 May 2007

NewScientist.com news service

Michael Le Page

 

Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

 

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

 

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

[♦ nivek ♦]

Southern Baptist leaders in climate change U-turn

The Press Association [uK]

 

"Ultra-conservative Southern Baptist leaders have performed a shock U-

turn, saying their denomination had been 'too timid' on environmental

issues and had a biblical duty to stop global warming. The statement,

signed by the president of the Southern Baptist Convention among

others, shows a growing urgency about climate change even within

groups that once dismissed claims of an overheating planet as a

liberal ruse. The conservative denomination has 16.3 million members

and is the largest Protestant group in the US. The signatories of A

Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change

acknowledged that not all Christians accepted the science behind

global warming. ... But the leaders said that current evidence of

global warming was 'substantial' and that the threat was too grave to

wait for perfect knowledge about whether, or how much, people

contributed to the trend." (03/10/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/25n37f

[♦ nivek ♦]

How to tell greenwashing from real corporate responsibility

AlterNet

by Javier Sierra

 

"We all know that the environment has become fashionable. The

environmental movement -- despite what its detractors might say -- is

going through one of its most vibrant periods. Seventy percent of

Americans declare themselves environmentalists. ... This national

consensus has become a powerful magnet for Corporate America, which in

recent years has tried to establish an environmental harmony with

consumers by offering products and services that allegedly respect the

air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we cultivate. But all

too often, this harmony becomes corrupted by a green veil with which

apparent altruistic intentions hide the fact that, after all, both

environmentalism and money share the same color. This marketing trick

is known as 'greenwashing.'" (03/07/08)

 

http://www.alternet.org/environment/78501/

[♦ nivek ♦]

LewRockwell.com

 

 

It’s About Freedom, Not Climatology

 

by Floy Lilley

 

 

When Vaclav Klaus, who has just won reelection as President of the Czech Republic, states that he has comparative advantage over other speakers on the issue of Climate Change, he is trenchantly correct. Klaus lived under the last large central planning scheme – communism. He rejects the offer to live under the even more draconian central plan of our time – climate alarmism and environmentalism.

 

Klaus explained his déjà vu vantage point to over five hundred participants at the2008 International Conference on Climate Changeassembled at Times Square New York City on March 2–4. Stressing his personally acquired wisdom, Klaus said, "Future dangers will not come from the same source [communism]. The ideology will be different. Its essence [environmentalism and climate alarmism] will, nevertheless, be identical – the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea a reality."

 

"What I see in Europe and the U.S.," Klaus cautioned, "is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of a cynical approach of those who are themselves sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project."

 

Klaus focused on facts that showed that decreases in CO2 emissions in the EU have come about because manufacturing radically disappeared when the communist economy collapsed. Future decreases appear to rely on miracles or the deliberate pushing of the EU countries back into the Dark Ages. Carbon dioxide decreases are not normal for growing and prospering civilizations, given current technology. Most of those assembled would not consider such decreases to be either needed or desirable.

 

Klaus brought to our attention that the thinking of the climate alarmist is the same as Hayek’s portrayal of central planners in The Fatal Conceit. He boldly challenged the large assembly, "We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. [Freedom] should be the main message of our conference."

 

The aim and objective of this stimulating gathering was to collapse the fake "consensus" on human-induced catastrophic global warming. Achieving this is a necessary step toward turning climate alarmism into climate realism. The step was taken. "Consensus" collapsed. Over one hundred scientists were provocative proof of the absence of "consensus" that has been touted by alarmists.

 

These scientists presented, exchanged and debated research showing global warming to be mostly natural, definitely moderate and realistically unstoppable. They held no consensus in their approaches or their results. Enter the dawn of climate realism.

 

The New York Times on Tuesday, March 4, ran an article by Andrew C. Revkin titled "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming." Written as a criticism, Revkin wrote that "the group…displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate." That was the very point of the conference.

 

No "consensus" can be touted when, in fact, so many scientists do indeed dispute what data are meaningful and causative of the highly complex dynamics of climate change. Several, like Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist, displayed data showing the sun to be the more likely driver of temperature variations, as compared to carbon dioxide radiative forcings.

 

Howard Hayden, physics professor, concluded that astronomical phenomena cause about seventy-five percent of the fluctuations in Earth’s temperature. The combined effects of all greenhouse gases, changes in surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about three degrees Celsius of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials. Hayden provided a repeatable sound bite when asked about computer models that are the basis for alarmist views. He simply said, "Garbage in; gospel out."

 

Dr. William M. Gray, meteorological researcher for more than forty years, contributed that the deep oceans, not carbon dioxide, are driving climate. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent up-tick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

 

Dr. Vincent Gray, knows water vapor to be the principle greenhouse gas as others do. However, Gray emphasizes that climate models fail to reflect the fact that water vapor is extremely variable. Gray’s work finds that the global warming claim fails on two fundamental facts: 1.) No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made. 2.) The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected." Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Gray’s call for such a review ends with these harsh words, "The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realize that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization and the thinking behind it is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens."

 

Dr Roy Spencer, NASA senior scientist, produced recent evidence for reduced climate sensitivity. Background "noise" in climate systems creates temperature variations that are not random. This "noise" exceeds all of the warming that has been thought to have been made by humans. Climate models don’t handle clouds and convection in the tropics well. Precipitation systems interactively regulate the climate system. Computer models predicting climate change are necessarily flawed. Spencer releases his new book March 27, 2008: Climate Confusion – How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.

 

Dr. Robert Balling, professor of climatology, questioned what the increase in global temperature does and does not tell us. Water vapor and non-solar control seem dominant. The theory, measurements, and understanding of the greenhouse effect are advancing rapidly, and drastically changing the original predictions from only a few decades ago. Measured warming has been nowhere near the earlier predictions, and the mathematical models are being constantly revised. Both Balling and Dr. Ross McKitrick highlighted failings in data collection. Many temperature stations have been discontinued. Technology for recording temperatures has changed. Urban heat-island effects continue. Data adjustments made by alarmists appear biased.

 

Dennis T. Avery, and co-author S. Fred Singer, wrote Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 YearsThey presented their findings and stressed, "Most of our modern warming occurred before 1940, before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C – with no warming at all in the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory can’t explain these realities, but the 1,500-year cycle does." The cycle is solar induced. Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth’s climate.

 

So, no consensuses surfaced.

 

None need exist when the subjects are scientific.

 

Hypotheses and theories should continue to be tested.

 

By different skeptical approaches each scientist at this gathering proved he was courageous. Why courageous? Because, to be a climate change skeptic is political-funding suicide. Few feel they can step forward before they retire. Many, even when gathered together and taking courage from the presence of so many others, felt they had to step away from being in group pictures. Those are choices. They are respected.

 

Debunking the false "consensus" position of climate alarmists didn’t end with the mere conclusion of the conference. Several synchronous efforts include:A Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. It was endorsed by scientists and researchers. The document stated clearly that "Global warming" is not a global crisis. This tangible product with many signatories declared among other points: That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate; the furtherance of the nascent International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) publication of a current and future Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report (NIPCC) a new journal on climate science; making video presentations from the conference online; making audio CDs of either a session or the complete conference available; enlistment of interested parties into a speakers bureau; and a 2009 London conference being planned.

 

This agenda is aggressive, necessary, and appreciated. Hopefully there will be many others who step up, especially in response to Vaclav Klaus’ plea that we recognize that the issue has never been global climate cooling or global climate warming. It has always and ever been about political power and control of earth’s population.

 

For over seventeen years I have witnessed at United Nations international gatherings so much ego, money and meeting time being poured into this global central plan to ration energy – to control carbon dioxide by controlling people. To control people by controlling carbon dioxide. To brand the stuff of life – carbon – a deadly pollutant. Political, activist and business careers, especially legal careers, now depend upon creating this new bureaucratic global layer of rules and regulations. The new-age rulers want the wealth and power that will accrue to them as they impose their centralized, consummate plans upon us.

 

The Czech Republic’s President stands firm, honoring the lives and liberties of his citizenry against this particular brand of fresh oppression. Would that these United States had such a courageous leader.

 

March 11, 2008

 

Floy Lilley [send her mail] is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.

 

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

 

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Floy Lilley

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/mailto:fl...y@bellsouth.net

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...mp;title=It’s About Freedom, Not Climatology&topic=political_opinion

Vaclav Klaus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Klaus

2008 International Conference on Climate Change

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

The Fatal Conceit

http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors...69/lewrockwell/

consensus

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21911

Consensus" collapsed

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22901

one hundred scientists

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceSchedule.pdf

Dr. Willie Soon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

showing the sun

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/frcpanelhandout.pdf

greenhouse gases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Dr. William M. Gray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

Dr. Vincent Gray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?opti...55&Itemid=1

Dr Roy Spencer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

recent evidence for reduced climate sensitivity

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm

Climate Confusion – How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pa...06/lewrockwell/

Dr. Robert Balling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling

failings in data collection.

http://www.takenbystorm.info/index.html?0.5457337933138876

Dennis T. Avery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_T._Avery

S. Fred Singer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-W...45/lewrockwell/

presented their findings

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22892

Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth’s climate.

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exe...w.cgi/273/12240

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId...FTOKEN=70582755

ICSC

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId...FTOKEN=70582755

(NIPCC)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId...FTOKEN=70582755

send her mail

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/mailto:fl...y@bellsouth.net

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy2.html

 

 

 

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

 

[♦ nivek ♦]

March 7, 2008

Rush for biofuels threatens starvation on a global scale

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle3500954.ece

 

By 2030 the world population will have increased to such an extent that a 50 per cent increase in food production will be needed, it is claimed

Lewis Smith and Francis Elliott

 

 

The rush towards biofuels is theatening world food production and the lives of billions of people, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser said yesterday.

 

Professor John Beddington put himself at odds with ministers who have committed Britain to large increases in the use of biofuels over the coming decades. In his first important public speech since he was appointed, he described the potential impacts of food shortages as the “elephant in the room” and a problem which rivalled that of climate change.

 

“It’s very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food,” he told a conference on sustainability in London yesterday.

 

 

“The supply of food really isn’t keeping up.”

 

By 2030, he said, the world population would have increased to such an extent that a 50 per cent increase in food production would be needed. By 2080 it would need to double. But the rush to biofuels – allegedly environmentally friendly – meant that increasing amount of arable land had been given over to fuel rather than food.

 

The world’s population is forecast to increase from the six billion at the start of the millennium to nine billion by 2050. Already biofuels have contributed to the rapid rise in international wheat prices and Professor Beddington cautioned that it was likely to be only a matter of time before shoppers in the United Kingdom faced big price rises because of the soaring cost of feeding livestock.

 

His comments come just a month after the Government welcomed a European Commission target requiring 10 per cent of all fuel sold in British service stations to be derived from plants within 12 years. Already biofuels attract a 20p per litre reduction in duty to encourage their uptake. Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, recently announced additional funding for biofuel research and farmers can claim subsidies to grow crops for energy.

 

Last year President Bush called for a massive increase in the use of ethanol in America over the next decade. The US now devotes more acreage to growing corn than at any time since 1944. Farmers planted 90.5 million acres in 2007, 15 per cent more than a year before. If White House efforts to double ethanol production this year are achieved, and in due course 40 per cent of that corn ends up in petrol tanks, the world will face a harder and costlier time feeding itself.

 

A spokesman for Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, insisted that the Government was well aware of the possible negative effects of biofuels. “We take this issue very seriously and we are not prepared to go beyond current target levels for biofuels until we are satisfied it can be done sustainably.”

 

Professor Beddington said that the prospect of food shortages over the next 20 years was so acute that politicians, scientists and farmers must begin to tackle it immediately.

 

“Climate change is a real issue and is rightly being dealt with by major global investment,” he said afterwards. “However, I am concerned there is another major issue along a similar time-scale, an elephant in the room – that of food and energy security. This is giving me and many of my scientific colleagues much concern.”

 

 

Population levels are growing so fast already that an extra six million people are born every month. Growing enough food for everyone was further challenged, he said, because of climate change, which was likely to lead to a shortage of water.

 

Scientists say that intense dry spells will become more frequent over the next century. The supply of water will be put under further pressure because of the increased number of people who need it, not only to drink but to keep their crops alive. The production of a tonne of wheat, for example, requires 50 tonnes of water.

 

Because it was almost impossible to control the population increase in the short term, Professor Beddington told the conference, other measures would need to be taken. “Agriculture has been doing pretty well against the population size but things are changing now and they are changing quite dramatically,” he said.

 

“Don’t we need to do something about food? Demand has grown enormously, particularly in China and India, where much of the driving force is increased demand. By 2030 energy demand is going to be up by 50 per cent and demand for food is going to be up by 50 per cent.”

 

 

The increase in demand has been reflected by the rapid rise in the prices of basic commodities, including wheat, over the past two years.

 

Biofuels have been put forward as a means of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions pumped out by fossil fuels but recent studies have questioned their impact when all factors, such as the use of fertilisers on the crops, are taken into account. Critics have been angered by the loss of tropical rainforests, which have been cleared to allow farmers to grow biofuel crops.

 

Deforestation has been calculated to account for about 18 per cent of world greenhouse gas emissions and Professor Beddington said that to destroy rainforests in order to grow biofuel crops was “insane”. He added: “Some of the biofuels are hopeless, in the sense that the idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid.” He said that human ingenuity was extraordinary and he was confident that food production could be boosted, including by growing genetically modified crops.

 

Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Programme, told the European Parliament in Brussels yesterday: “The shift to biofuels production has diverted lands out of the food chain. Food prices such as palm oil in Africa are now set at fuel prices. It may be a bonanza for farmers – I hope it is true – but in the short term, the world’s poorest are hit hard.”

[Evan]

A few sites to visit to get different perspectives on Global Warming

 

Skeptics of global warming

http://www.climate-skeptic.com

http://www.skepticism.net/global_warming

 

In-between website

http://www.globalwarming.org

 

Global Warming Activists

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com

 

Edit: Fixed grammer

[♦ nivek ♦]

[♦ nivek ♦]

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._Poised_

to_hit_New_Oil_Gusher_080317.html

 

The U.S. Is Poised to Hit a New Oil Gusher

 

Oil drillers have their eye on a vast oil field in and around North Dakota, which promises a steady flow of

domestic crude for years.

 

By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

March 17, 2008

 

A new black gold rush is under way, this time in North Dakota. The potential payoff is huge -- up to 100 billion barrels of oil. That’s twice the size of Alaska’s reserves and potentially enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for two decades.

 

Until now, the obstacles to production seemed overwhelming. The crude oil is locked away in rocks that are buried miles underground in the Bakken Play, a field that stretches into Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada.

 

But times have changed. High oil prices and new technology make it worth the effort. Computer analysis and remote sensing systems, plus smart drills that can probe horizontally or snake left and right, vastly improve the odds of locating new pools and putting them into production. And though oil is unlikely to remain priced at current stratospheric levels, prices won’t drop to much lower levels, which happened several times since the 1970s, and cause new exploration to dry up. Even if prices fell by half, many barrels of oil could still be produced -- profitably -- from the region.

 

An official government survey of the Bakken region's oil treasure trove is due out next month. The report is expected to play it very conservatively, because it will confine estimates to the amount of oil that likely can be produced profitably based on last year’s oil prices. It will also not take into account any further technological advances that might make it even easier to extract more oil.

 

"The Bakken is much like the enormous natural gas field that sat for many years under and around Dallas until people figured out the geology and how to drill it out economically," says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation.

 

There's at least a smell of the "Old West" as petroleum companies rush to stake their claims in the Bakken Play. Marathon Oil recently acquired about 200,000 acres in the area and will drill about 300 oil wells within five years. Brigham Exploration and Crescent Point Energy Trust are also interested in some of the action. EOG Resources alone figures it can produce 80 million barrels of oil from its Bakken field.

 

Figure on at least five years before the oil starts flowing in large volumes. A lot of work will need to be done first. In addition to installing drilling gear, firms must build supporting infrastructure, including roads, pipelines as well as new water, sewage and sanitation systems to meet the needs of workers and other area residents.

 

Note that the Bakken Play region is not an environmentally sensitive area similar to Alaskan tundra that has stymied much oil field development because of concerns about damage to the fragile environment. Still, some environmental protests are sure to emerge and may gum up development for a while, but they’re unlikely to stop oil production from the Bakken fields.

[♦ nivek ♦]

EPA signals caution on global warming

Associated Press

 

"The government made clear on Thursday it will not be rushed into

deciding whether to regulate emissions linked to global warming, as

the Supreme Court directed nearly a year ago. Such action 'could

affect many (emission) sources beyond just cars and trucks' and needs

to be examined broadly as to other impacts, the head of the

Environmental Protection Agency wrote lawmakers. Stephen Johnson said

he has decided to begin the process by seeking public comment on the

implications of regulating carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas,

on other agency rules that cover everything from power plants and

factories to schools and small businesses. That process could take

months and led some of his critics to suggest he was shunting the

sensitive issue to the next administration." (03/27/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/2mznq4

[♦ nivek ♦]

Evangelicals like it hot

The Weekly Standard

by Mark D. Tooley

 

"Supposedly global warming is the wedge issue that will peel

evangelicals away from their conservative voting habits and their

ostensible preoccupation with sexual mores. So when the president of

the conservative-led 16 million member Southern Baptist Convention

signed a Global Warming statement, headlines blazed, and the

evangelical left cheered. But the church's president has since

attempted to clarify. And the head of the denomination's official

public policy arm is publicly opposing congressional legislation

mandating increased carbon caps." (03/28/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/26e5bp

[♦ nivek ♦]

Peak oil? Consider it solved

Salon

by Joseph Romm

 

"For more than a decade, a fierce debate about peak oil has been

raging between those who think a peak in global oil production is at

hand and those who think the world is not close to running out of oil.

The debate is moot for two reasons. First, the growing threat of

global warming requires deep reductions in national and global oil

consumption starting now, peak or no peak. Second, relying on

unconventional oil like tar sands and liquid coal to make up a supply

shortage, as the oilmen say we must, would be climate catastrophe.

More supply is not the answer to either our oil or our climate problem

-- reducing consumption of oil is. And right now we have two feasible

solutions: greatly increase our vehicle fuel economy and find

alternative fuel sources that are abundant, low-carbon and

affordable." (03/28/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/3xkc6m

[♦ nivek ♦]

Gore unveils $300 million climate ads

Guardian [uK]

 

"Al Gore, elevated to almost prophetic status for his campaign against

global warming, on Sunday night unveiled a new $300m advertising blitz

intended to force a debate on climate change during the presidential

elections. The Nobel laureate, who appeared with his wife, Tipper, on

the CBS program 60 Minutes to roll out the effort, is to donate a

share of his personal fortune to the campaign. The couple told 60

Minutes that they would donate his Nobel prize money as well as a

matching sum in addition to their profits from the book and the movie

of An Inconvenient Truth. The movie brought the issue of global

warming home to millions of Americans, as well as winning Gore an

Oscar. In this latest campaign, Gore said he hopes to persuade

Americans that protecting the planet transcends the usual political

divisions." (03/31/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/2r84ac

[♦ nivek ♦]

Global smearing

Heartland Institute

by Steven Milloy

 

"By any standard, atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer is a

remarkably accomplished scientist. But his outspoken questioning of

global warming alarmism has just earned him one of the most outrageous

mainstream media smear pieces I've ever seen. ABC News reporter Dan

Harris interviewed Dr. Singer for more than an hour at the recent

International Climate Conference. From that interview, Harris produced

a 3-minute TV broadcast and website article that was about as fair and

objective towards Dr. Singer as I might expect Greenpeace to

be." (03/27/08)

 

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23024

[♦ nivek ♦]

Australia launches carbon sequestration project

CNN

 

"Australia has begun pumping carbon dioxide underground to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, using a technology that locks dangerous

gases deep in the Earth. Officials opened a plant in southern Victoria

state on Wednesday that they said would capture and compress 110,231

tons of carbon dioxide from industry emissions and then inject it

6,500 feet underground into a depleted natural gas reservoir. The

research and demonstration project has been developed with federal and

state government support. Australia is one of only a handful of places

that uses the technology, known as geosequestration, and

environmentalists immediately criticized the project as a token

gesture that distracts from the bigger goal of getting industry to

slash emissions." (04/02/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/2wcyhv

[♦ nivek ♦]

CO2 reductions overly optimistic

Mother Jones

by Julia Whitty

 

"Reducing global emissions of carbon dioxide over the coming century

will be more challenging than society has been led to believe. This

according to an important commentary, called 'Dangerous Assumptions,'

appearing in the journal Nature, and summarized in a press release

from the National Science Foundation. The authors, from the University

of Colorado at Boulder, the National Center for Atmospheric Research

(NCAR) in Boulder, and McGill University in Montreal, write that the

technological challenges of reducing CO2 emissions have been

significantly underestimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), which won the Nobel in for its Climate Change 2007

reports." (04/03/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/2nsgbf

[♦ nivek ♦]

More pressing issues than global warming

Hawaii Reporter

by Jack Dini

 

"'As often happens -- especially these days with Web-based media --

contentious issues such as global warming become politicized to the

point that the discourse trivializes to an alarming extent. Indeed,

all one seems to hear about climate change are essentially useless

debates between believers and skeptics, along with unrealistic and

grotesquely draconian proposals that would force us back into the

Stone Age in an effort to mitigate carbon dioxide production,' says

Michael Shaw." (04/07/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/47g3cm

 

-----

 

An inconvenient announcement

Center For Individual Freedom

by staff

 

"On the same week in which the European Union (EU) admitted that its

carbon cap-and-trade system is failing miserably, Al Gore shamelessly

equated his latest global warming project with fighting Nazism in

World War II, the Civil Rights Movement and the moon landing. Talk

about 'inconvenient truths' for the man behind the discredited film

'An Inconvenient Truth.'" (04/03/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/3lhd28

 

-----

 

A maverick climate policy

Competitive Enterprise Institute

by William Yeatman

 

"Republican nominee for president John McCain recently returned from a

whirlwind tour of Europe meant to promote his global statesmanship. In

Europe, he met with leaders such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy

and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and even published

opinion pieces in major French and English newspapers that outlined

his global vision. Central to that vision is global

warming." (03/31/08)

 

http://cei.org/articles/maverick-climate-policy

[♦ nivek ♦]

New Zealand: Climate "may hurt beer-making"

Arizona Republic

 

"The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate

change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew,

especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday. Jim Salinger, a

climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and

Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline

in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and

Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer. 'It will mean

either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go

up,' Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling's

convention. Similar effects could be expected worldwide, but Salinger

spoke only of the effects on Australia and New Zealand. He said

climate change could cause a drop in beer production within 30 years

as dry areas become drier." [editor's note: They've tried everything

else to promote "GW terror" ... maybe this will work! - SAT]

(04/09/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/5cnnje

[♦ nivek ♦]

CA: Power bills to bankroll climate institute

Inside Bay Area

 

“Are you willing to pay 12 to 30 cents more a month on your utility bill for an institute coordinating energy and climate change technology research across the state? Actually, you don’t have a choice. The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday unanimously approved the $600 million California Institute for Climate Solutions, which will be paid for by money from ratepayers’ monthly electric bills, to the tune of $60 million a year. The institute aims to speed up research into cutting greenhouse gas emissions, such as auto exhaust, that contribute to pollution. This work is already under way at laboratories as well as universities such as University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford.” (04/11/08)

 

http://origin.insidebayarea.com/ci_8888871

[♦ nivek ♦]

The peril of global cooling

Ideas

by David Friedman

 

“I recently heard a talk in which the speaker mentioned that during a period of mildly falling global temperatures in the middle of the twentieth century a number of people, including at least one prominent scientist, speculated that the earth was about to go into another ice age and argued that something should be done to warm it. The speaker took it for granted that they were wrong, but I’m not so sure. The pattern of warming and cooling associated with ice ages and interglacials is complicated and not very well understood. We are currently in an interglacial, have been in one for a fair while, and it would not be surprising if it ended — five thousand years from now, one thousand years from now, or starting next Friday.” (04/10/08)

 

http://tinyurl.com/6nhykt

[♦ nivek ♦]

Hot air in Bangkok

Cato Institute

by Indur Goklany

 

“After five days of contentious discussions in Bangkok, governments from nearly 200 countries last week agreed to an agenda for further talks to forge a new United Nations global warming agreement. One sticking point has been developing nations’ insistence that industrialized countries should take the first steps in reducing emissions and should help finance reductions in developing countries. But this represents a serious misreading of the underlying economic situation.” (04/10/08)

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9328

[♦ nivek ♦]

Bush floats new climate proposal

MSNBC

 

"The White House has told a group of House GOP conservatives it may be

forced to support a limited cap on greenhouse gases and avoid a 'train

wreck' of regulations involving climate change, sources familiar with

the meeting said Monday. A range of options presented at a meeting

last week between senior White House officials and a group of

Republican lawmakers was aimed at gauging the reaction to a possible

shift of Bush administration policy on climate change." (04/14/08)

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24116110/

[♦ nivek ♦]

UK: PM, bank bosses discuss crisis

BBC News [uK]

 

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown is preparing to meet leading City figures

in Downing Street amid rising concerns over global economic crisis. He

is expected to discuss the credit crunch and its effect on the UK. The

meeting, with figures including heads of major lending banks, comes a

day after Mr Brown insisted keeping the economy on track was his 'sole

focus.'" (04/14/08)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7347330.stm

[♦ nivek ♦]

Will Bush flip-flop on global warming?

Competitive Enterprise Institute

by Richard Morrison

 

"News reports this week have indicated that the Bush administration

may change its long-standing opposition to mandated restrictions on

greenhouse gas emissions and endorse global warming legislation to

establish a federal cap on carbon dioxide. The following is a

statement in response by Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global

Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: 'It would

destroy President Bush's legacy now to adopt Al Gore's global warming

policies after pursuing much more effective policies for seven

years.'" (04/14/08)

 

http://cei.org/node/20580