The Week that Was, February 28 from SEPP

Written by S. Fred Singer


February 29, 2009
by S. Fred Singer

Less than a month into the job, Lisa Jackson, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has already pledged to reverse or review three Bush administration directives, the NYT reports. This sea change would not have been possible, of course, without White House backing.

Indeed, it was President Obama who announced the first big change in Bush policy. This was a decision to reconsider (and almost certainly approve) California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, which the Bush administration had denied. Ms. Jackson moved quickly to carry out that directive, meanwhile forecasting further policy shifts. In a memo to her employees last month, she indicated that it was only a matter of time before she complied with the Supreme Court's nearly two-year-old decision ordering the EPA. to address the effects of greenhouse gases from vehicles and regulate them if necessary.

Then, last week, Ms. Jackson said she would reconsider a Bush administration declaration that the law did not allow it to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from new coal power plants. Just as obeying the Supreme Court decision could lead to the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide from vehicles, this latest decision could lead to the first greenhouse gas limits on utilities. These major changes in regulatory policy could affect more than half the greenhouse gas emissions emitted in this country.

The NYT editorial pointed out that "no single agency, EPA. included, can hope to address climate change in all its complexity. Congress will eventually have to take command of the issue."

EPA announced that Jackson would grant a petition from the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council to re-consider a memo from her Bush Administration predecessor Stephen Johnson that stated that federal officials could not consider greenhouse gas emissions when deciding whether to permit new coal-fired power plants.

Jackson also told the New York Times in an interview published Wednesday that she has directed EPA staff to prepare the paperwork for a finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and safety and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Press reports suggest that she will make the endangerment finding by early April. As Marlo Lewis and Chris Horner (CEI) noted in their official comments submitted to EPA last fall, regulating carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act would be a regulatory nightmare that would cause an economic train wreck.

At the end of the week, Greenwire reported that EPA has sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review a draft rule that would create a mandatory registry of greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush Administration failed to finalize a rule before it left office that would have improved and expanded the current voluntary registry. See Marlo Lewis, Globalwarming.org, 19 February 2009

<LINK> and <LINK


Paul Krugman in NYT


"The budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances. After years of denial and delay by its predecessor, the Obama administration is signaling that it's ready to

take on climate change. Budget looks very, very good"

"So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery two big ifs, to be sure getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn't be at all difficult."

SEPP Comments:

1. Sale of emission allowances constitutes just another regressive (energy) tax on the poorest of the poor 2. The projected revenues of $645 billion form nearly 40% of the projected deficit of $1.75 trillion in a budget of nearly $3.6 trillion.

3. Finally, in testimony to Congress (Sept 2008), Peter Orszag, currently Obama's budget director, estimated that revenue from a cap-and-trade scheme could reach 112 billion dollars by 2012. Hmm

According to Orszag, who at the time was director of the Congressional Budget Office, the program -- which would force companies to buy permits if they exceed pollution emission limits -- could generate between 50 and 300 billion dollars a year by 2020. The New York Times also reported that the projected revenues would subsidize research and development of alternative energy sources.

Great for lobbyists and Green entrepreneurs but no great help to the poor!


SEPP Science Editorial #8-09 (2/28/09)

Why don't we see any Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming (AGW) in the Climate record?

After all, CO2 is a GH gas whose level is increasing because of fossil-fuel burning. So where is AGW?

Using a number of lines of evidence, we suggest that there has been little if any warming after 1940 that can be assigned to the anthropogenic increase in GH gases. Nor is there any significant AGW pre-1940. We have used proxy data such as ice-core bore holes, tree rings, corals, etc. as well as instrumented data from the surface and satellites and have tried to explain the reported SST increases as an artifact of the observational method.

Much of the confusion has come about from drawing straight-line trends through data sets that showed clear evidence of sudden ‘jumps' that had nothing to do with GH gases. Other statistical problems involved selective use of data and inappropriate ‘data-smoothing' procedures.

Our conclusion is that because of negative feedbacks the Climate Sensitivity is quite small, well below 0.5 degC for doubling of CO2 - in line with the conclusions of several other investigations.


1. Inhofe Comments on Obama's State of the Union Address

2. US Climate Czar: CO2 regulation ruling to come soon

3. War over climate heats up even as climate itself cools down

4. Greens see the light on nuclear power

5. Japanese Commission challenges UN: Global Warming not man-made

6. Copenhagen Protocol will not succeed unless China and India sign up

7. In Global Warming we trust

8. The importance of Carbon Dioxide to your health



Politics in the Guise of Pure
Science -- by <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/john_tierney/index.html?inline=nyt-per>JOHN TIERNEY



Steve Hayward A long but important essay All the Leaves are Brown



Center for Biological Diversity Declares Legal War on Global Warming U.S. Economy,

Self-Governance [by Marlo Lewis] The CBD, the

folks who successfully petitioned and sued the Fish & Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), announced last week the opening of a new Climate Law Institute (CLI) that will "use existing laws and work to establish new state and federal laws that will eliminate energy generation by the burning of fossil fuels particularly coal and oil shale.." CBD says it has dedicated an "initial $17 million" to the project.


Huffington Post (Feb 24, 2009): Gore Should Apologize for Spreading Climate Hysteria Did you ever in your wildest dreams imagine seeing an article at this liberal website that not only refuted the anthropogenic global warming myth, but also asked Nobel Laureate Al Gore to apologize for the climate hysteria he's caused?


For the Huffington Post to publish this piece anywhere within its confines is remarkable. It also shows you how incredibly bogus and transparent the whole Al Gore Traveling Road Show truly is. One cannot imagine a more damning indictment of the shallow and misstated science that Gore has used to con America and the world than what you will find in this Huffington Post criticism. Recent polls show that the global climate change juggernaut has stalled and the wheels are beginning to fall off .... When the cap-and-trade results begins hitting the average Joe on the street in his wallet - via higher gasoline, heating oil and electric prices - all Hell might break loose and the politicians who promoted C&T just might be held accountable for promoting one of history's greatest scams.


From Steve Milloy and Tom Borelli (February 25, 2009):

Last night President Obama renewed his commitment to regulate carbon dioxide emissions:

"But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change... So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."

Let's keep in mind that the goal of cap-and-trade is to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels such as coal, natural gas and gasoline by making the cost of driving and heating/cooling our homes higher. Raising energy prices during a severe recession makes as much sense as providing up to $ 2 billion for ACORN - the community activist group - in the so called "stimulus bill."

Obama's vision can only be made reality if corporate America supports this initiative and that's why we are focusing our attention on the CEOs that are partnering with the president and environmental activists to lobby for this regulatory scheme.

To solidify corporate support Obama nominated GE CEO Jeff Immelt and Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens to his economic advisory panel. Both CEOs are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership - a coalition of corporations and environmental activists that are lobbying for a federal cap-and-trade law. With Immelt, Obama gets access to GE's NBC media network that can promote his green agenda through its programming, news and business coverage.

Just this week part of CNBC's popular "Squawk Box" was broadcasted from an Energy Summit sponsored by the Center for American Progress - a think tank run by John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. At the conference, CNBC delivered Obama's green message by interviewing T. Boone Pickens, Harry Reid and Bill Clinton.


We are doing our part to expose the corporate role in advancing cap-and-trade. This is a huge undertaking and we need all the moral and financial support we can muster. Support the Free Enterprise Project <http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/>


Australia: The Lavoisier Society has released Thank God for Carbon, the latest booklet by Ray Evans.

See: <http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php>http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php

This is a critical year in the battle for Carbon Sense. All over the world the Warmists are becoming desperate as skepticism grows and voters are diverted to real problems like jobs and financial security.


Also in Australia, a new political party has been formed to represent climate sceptics. Called "The Climate Sceptics"


the party has a nice cartoon of "Skeppy" the sceptical kangaroo and a no-nonsense message:

"Anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming (AGW) alarmism is the biggest con, fraud, hoax, swindle, deception and mass hysteria in the history of modern civilization, because climate changes naturally. The Climate Sceptics support all practical measures to prevent environmental degradation. We support the development of cleaner and more efficient sources of energy.

Unfortunately governmental taxes to stop climate change are a colossal diversion of funds from core obligations, and Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) will do absolutely nothing for the Murray-Darling basin, the Great Barrier Reef, or land degradation - just as it will do absolutely nothing to stop climate change. The Climate Sceptics are here to demand rational debate and responsible leadership. We reject the extremist views that now threaten what Australians have sacrificed to achieve in living standards, rights and freedoms."


Canada: The reason the oil sands optical illusion exists is the government of Alberta has never signed off on any of the reclamation over the past 30 years of mining. How can a Company reclaim if the government (held to ransom by irresponsible environmental lobby groups) has the power to make them redo it on a political agenda? As it stands now after 30 years of mining, there has been about 30% reclamation by Syncrude. The total mined so far amounts to a gob-smacking 0.047% of the Province. Ultimately, it could cover 0.1% of Alberta. However, with reclamation, industry would clean up the largest natural oil spill in North America to great economic benefit to Canada. Moreover, the CO2 emissions are approximately 4% of Canada's 2% of global. 2% = 0.04 x 0.02 x 0.02 = 0.000016% of global emissions. That is not much. It is de minimis in legal terms (Google it). I got my numbers from the Pembina Institute.


New Zealand: CO2 and Health:


Excerpt: The majority of us will experience breathing problems at some time in our lives and will find relief when given enhanced levels of carbon dioxide. Present levels (380 ppm) are only slightly recovered from the lowest level during our evolution. Nature has evolved plants to function best at approximately 1,500 ppm. Since plants and animals evolved together, it's reasonable to expect that we also evolved to function best at some higher level. Now scientific studies and medical practice leave no doubt that this is so.


Say what? Arctic could lose the WINTER sea ice suggests Obama's Science Advisor John Holdren! -

At the 18:54 mark at the CBC "Climate Wars"
podcast <http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3>here

[MP3], John Holdren says this:

...if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well.

And if you lost that sea ice year round, it's going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.


The Science & Environmental Policy Project was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer on the premise that sound, credible science must form the basis for health and environmental decisions that affect millions of people and cost tens of billions of dollars every year. Bob Ryan (left), then President of the American Meteorological Society and popular Washington D.C. weather forecaster, with Professor Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, at the SEPP/George Mason University Conference "Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process." A non-profit, 501(c)3 educational group, its mission was to clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions.

You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials