Climate change contrarian: How green hysteria will hit the US

ClimateChangeCorp.com ^ | Jon Entine

[Delacon]

If the ‘progressives’ get their way on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it will be ordinary Americans who suffer, says John Entine

Let’s call it the black box syndrome: making revolutionary changes or new products without any real handle on what has actually been created or the potential impact. No-one really knew what the risks were when the wizards of Wall Street launched the inscrutable credit products that led to the current financial bubble that is now imploding, rocking the world economy.

Now we have something akin to that bubble building in the environmental arena, in the inflated rhetoric on global warming rising inexorably from the environmental-political complex. Global warming is a fact. The great questions are not whether the environment is gradually warming but whether it will persist and if so what can or should be done about it – and at what costs.

Alarmists-by-anecdote invoke Katrina, melting ice caps and death-by-heatstroke as signs of the end of the world as we know it. “It has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter,” Al Gore said last year in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But the inconvenient truth is that we have just emerged from two of the calmest storm seasons on record and one of the coldest winters in decades. Of course, one year or even ten does not constitute a long-term trend, which is why the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deploys the words “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in 900 pages.

Uncertainty aside, politics offers up the rhetoric of catastrophe and solutions. With the cognoscenti lambasting the US as the world’s leading miscreant in the global warming arena, Republican presidential candidate John McCain says he would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65 per cent by 2050, while the two Democrat contenders, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, embrace 80 per cent, in line with the demands of European activists.

Here’s the environmental black box: considering the uncertainties voiced by the IPCC, should we embark on an immediate, drastic, and massively expensive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? Are such goals even achievable, or might some of the most extreme efforts at reduction create a crisis of a different kind?

To address these thorny issues, let us focus on the US. One recent projection from the liberal Clean Fuels Institute at City University in New York estimates it would cost, conservatively, $6 trillion over the next 20 years to flatten greenhouse gases emissions in the US and tens of trillions more to meet the “progressive” targets over 40 years.

Compare those costs against the worst-case scenario of the credit meltdown. That might cost the financial system $1 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund – enough to raise legitimate worries about a worldwide depression. But those potential losses are only the tiniest fraction of the economic repercussions that would result from actually meeting the expected 2050 global warming targets.

Number crunching

Steven Hayward, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, and an expert on environmental economics, is one of the few people who have actually crunched the numbers. In his recent annual “Index of Leading Environmental Indicators”, Hayward raises some “inconvenient truths”, as he likes to say, including putting in context the knee-jerk European belief that the US a slacker in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The US starts from a higher base because of the longer transportation distances and larger homes (twice the size of the average European dwelling), but when these differences are normalised, American GHG emissions are in line with those of most European nations.

Because of accelerating conservation efforts, the US was the only industrialised country in which greenhouse gas emissions fell during the most recent year data is available, 2006. The 1.5 per cent reduction marked the first time emissions have ever fallen in a non-recessionary year. It also has the best record of restraining greenhouse gas emissions over the past eight years. While Kyoto-protocol participants increased 21.1 per cent, US emissions increased only 6.6 per cent.

But the most provocative part of Hayward’s report is when he takes the abstract costs to reduce GHG emissions and translates them into real life. How would Mom and Pop be affected if the “progressives” achieve their goal of an 80 per cent reduction? As Hayward notes, on average each person in the US generates almost 20 tonnes of CO₂ from fossil fuel usage. To give some idea of how radical an 80 per cent reduction would be, consider that Botswana, Haiti, and Somalia operate at that level today. It would entail turning back the per capita emissions output to 1875, when wood burning was a primary heat source.

What would such a reduction mean to the average homeowner? Each American home today produces over 11 tonnes of emissions per year. To meet the 2050 target Hayward figures each household could emit 1.5 tonnes of CO₂. That’s more than the average family emits using just one appliance – their hot water heater. Forget such “luxuries” as a refrigerator, freezer, washer and dryer, let alone a flat-screen TV.

The transportation sector would get creamed. That SUV or visiting the relatives in California? Forget it. Today’s consumption of jet fuel alone accounts for two-thirds of the 2050 target. Hayward notes that the last time the transportation infrastructure operated at the target consumption level was during the 1920s, when commercial air travel was negligible and there were 26 million cars and trucks – compared with more than 246 million today. Hayward says: “If the entire auto industry today matched the performance of today’s Toyota Prius, CO₂ emissions would be … 40 per cent higher than the 2050 emissions target.”

GDP drop

What would be the overall impact on the economy of meeting the radical reduction targets? In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency released its analysis of the proposed Lieberman-Warner Environmental Security Act, which is designed to reduce emissions by 70 per cent by 2050. It projects that GDP could drop 2.7 per cent, which would be far worse than the current financial crisis, but that’s at a minimum. It projected GDP could very well fall a catastrophic 10.1 per cent – setting back the standard of living in the US and the world by decades.

The respected strategists Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University, in their well-received report on seven aggressive “stabilisation wedge” energy strategies, argued that it would take enormous, and politically unacceptable, sacrifices to just hold CO₂ emissions steady. In short, the 2050 targets are both absurd and irresponsible.

Without radical breakthroughs in geo-engineering through, say, injecting high altitude sulphate particles in the atmosphere, we are going to have to focus our limited economic resources on adaptation. That could mean everything from trying to develop GM crops that use less water to designing waterfront systems that protect against rising waters, structures pioneered years ago by the Dutch, rather than setting pie-in-the-sky GHG reduction targets.

“It’s crying wolf,” says Hayward on the projections of catastrophic climate change and the calls for a dramatic overhaul of society to address these projections. “Even if they are right, they are squandering their moral authority. If you’re looking for technological solutions instead of exaggeration, sadly you won’t find it in most discussions about climate change.”

Let’s hope the air continues to leak out of the climate change hysteria bubble, and the quicker the better.


Jon Entine is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC and senior counsellor for sustainability at Cincinnati-based Northlich.
runjonrun@earthlink.com
www.jonentine.com

[Delacon]

ping

[Gene Eric]

will has

[Izzy Dunne]

Without radical breakthroughs in geo-engineering through, say, injecting high altitude sulphate particles in the atmosphere,

Somebody help me, I'm starting to get nervous...

[period end of story]

GDP drop

We consume to much. We must be punished for our success. We must submit to the man-made global warming alarmists.

Submit you fools!

[mollynme]

Wonder what the unintended consequences of that would be?

[Izzy Dunne]

trying to develop GM crops that use less water

I don't know what GM crops are (and why is THAT, Mr. explain-it-all?), but I don't see what using less water has to do with reducing CO2. Plants respire CO2 and produce O2, a less-watered plant would do less of both, I would think. (I am not a botanist).

[Izzy Dunne]

My point exactly; I do NOT want to find out.

[Izzy Dunne]

Today’s consumption of jet fuel alone accounts for two-thirds of the 2050 target.

In other words, if we grounded every jet in the world for the whole year, we would be only two thirds of the way toward the target.

[Morgan in Denver]

If the ban on DDT and now our creation of bio-fuels are an indication, the unintended consequences will raise prices, lower supply and kill people. Just what the Democrats are intent on doing to us all.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

Even the Campbell's Soup can labels are green...geesh...

[goldstategop]

Its not going to happen. No politician is going to vote to raise prices and put his constituents out of work. An 80 percent carbons emissions cutback would do exactly that and that's why its pie in the sky fantasy.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[vaudine]

"Global warming is a fact".......NOT!

VAUDINE"

[abclily]

This whole discussion of man moderating climate change is insane. Changes in the activity of the sun control climate changes on the planets. When environmentalists explain how they are going to control the sun (and some are insane enough to think they can), then man can talk rationally about trying to moderate climate change.

[CRBDeuce]

Global warming is a fact.

Global warming is hysterical unproven fiction with a cult priest....there, now it makes sense!

[Thommas]

No politician is going to vote to raise prices and put his constituents out of work.

Every Democrat politician does this already. The Dem politico enacts such legislation, then blames the Pubbies for the consequences. The constituents suck it all down as gospel when the Dem speaking points say that Industry restrictions, minimum wage increases, taxing the rich, and subsidizing reckless behavior is for the electorate's own good.

When the consequences of social engineering run foul, the Dems just blame evil corporate America.

[Izzy Dunne]

This whole discussion of man moderating climate change is insane.

Agreed.

But how did we get here?

It seems to be an outgrowth of the valid concerns of some of us about clean air, clean water, clean soil.

We DO affect our environment; smog DOES exist; rivers DO become undrinkable.

And it's because of OUR (human) action.

And those are things we can reverse.

But it's a large leap from "Oh, dang; we've polluted this river" to "We've killed the planet. We've got to return to 1900s-style living! (Except some of us can't, so we'll trade credits so you can live in 1800s style, while we live in 2000s style and it'll all average out)."

It requires a whole lot of self-doubt, and even self-hate, I think.

[CyberAnt]

I hope everyone is already aware of the “green” machine in the light bulb industry.

The new “squirly” looking light bulbs are FULL OF MERCURY.

It was the dems who yelled and screamed about getting rid of the mercury years ago .. now it’s back and with a vengence. If you break one of these lightbulbs - YOU MUST EVACUATE YOUR HOME AND CALL HAZ-MAT TO CLEAN UP THE MESS.

No joke!! I work in a nursing home for Alzheimer’s residents - and I can’t imagine what would happen if one of these “green” libhtbulbs happened to get broken. We have removed them from our facility.

This is just one example of the hyperventilating GREENS about our energy INDEPENDENCE! Hmmmm ..?? In the Congress - all 3 of our presidential candidates VOTED AGAINST ANY DRILLING FOR OUR OWN OIL.

We’re screwed! as usual.

And .. with the way downstream elections are going - the Congress is going to be full of PROGRESSIVES - who will GREEN us to death.

[Lijahsbubbe]

And I don’t think there is any way to stop the green train.

It’s going full speed ahead and will continue to pick up speed, mainly because alot of greedy people want to make money off of it.

It’s such a big industry already.

[mc5cents]

These global warming mongers seem to think that man has something to do with the climate on this earth. What vanity! What unadulterated horse poop!! Who do they think they are? God?

Jump on the space shuttle and take a good look at the planet from up there. See anything. Do you see yourself running to the store in your Chev. Suburban? Nope. Man is but a speck of dust on this earth and to think that we can affect or control the climate is insane.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Charlton Heston reads from Jurassic Park.

[RayChuang88]

Here's the issue: we need to have major financial incentives to get to a post-petroleum world.

Imagine massive tax breaks for encouraging alternative energy, and just as massive tax breaks to develop technology to make diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene from oil-laden algae and cellulosic processing of plant material. That could within 20 years result in people driving electric cars with the range of 248 miles, commercial trucks and railroads running on B80 to B90 biodiesel fuel, and airliners running on kerosene-based jet fuel made with 80-90% biofuel source.

[CyberAnt]

There’s only ONE WAY to stop the train.

STOP BUYING GREEN. The non-green stuff is cheaper.

I refuse to use the new lightbulbs in my home. It’s summer, and I don’t use a lot of lightbulbs anyway. I don’t have air conditioning .. and not having the lights on in every room (when nobody is in the room) is just another way I keep my little apartment cooler.

I have a nice car which I cannot afford to replace with a GREEN car - but I have chosen to leave 15 minutes earlier for work - thereby allowing me to drive a little slower - and stretching my gas.

AND .. SPEAKING OF GAS .. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO STRETCH YOUR GAS - FILL YOUR TANK EARLY IN THE MORNING. I HEARD OR READ THAT - SO I THOUGHT I’D GIVE IT A TRY. I FILLED UP MY TANK A WEEK AGO - AND I STILL HAVE ALMOST A HALF A TANK LEFT. I suppose slowing down didn’t hurt either but I doubt it had much effect - since I was still driving the same distance to work and back every day.

[Lijahsbubbe]

I don’t buy green and I’ve never been a waster. (wasted maybe ;))

I do think that it will be hard to avoid it soon though. Even people who don’t believe in it are jumping on the gravy train.

I am in the design business and the green movement is in full swing.

[Lijahsbubbe]

P.S. The gas in the morning thing is true. Something about the temp and the density.

Also, to save on gas, drive behing semis (drafting). You’ll probably get a few dings in your hood but you’ll save gas.

And remove junk from the trunk (vehicle that is)

[CyberAnt]

Yeah, the overloaded trunk is not good.

[Don W]

The “more gas in the morning” thing is demonstrably false. The tank fuel is pumped from is 4 feet underground, where the temperature barely changes from winter to summer, let alone night to day. The only thing that changes temperature is the above ground pump assembly.

Think about it, the pumps are tested every year or so for accuracy. Do you think it matters whether the inspector arrives in the morning or afternoon?

I’d say that yes, your slowing down is the sole reason your mileage has increased. Air resistance increases as the square of a speed increase. That means it takes 4 times the energy to travel twice as fast. That is where your increased range came from, not some mythical increased fuel density from a non-existant 20 degree temperature change.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. you can buy your gas in the evening if you want .. but a 1/2 tank increase cannot be due solely to a 5 miles per hour reduction in speed .. not possible.

Also .. I have been experiencing a 1/3 tank increase for some time - using the morning fill-up - vs. the evening fill up - PRIOR TO DECREASING MY SPEED.

Funny .. all your reasoning falls flat when you have all the FACTS.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

There has been a real paucity of this type of analysis showing what would really happen to our lives if such CO2 reductions were achieved. Instead, all we get is pabulum about how easy it is to be “green.” Innumerate and nearly illiterate reporters and journalists have convinced people that a little recycling, a couple of compact fluorescent bulbs and driving a Prius is all they have to do to solve the climate “crisis.” As the author points out, it really means reverting to a preindustrial society where we are all subsistence farmers, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, suffering from crop failures and doomed to travel no further than 50 miles from your birthplace during your entire life. Welcome to tyranny.

[StACase]

"Global warming is a fact".......NOT!

Exactly my thoughts.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

Watermelons:

GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

No politician is going to vote to raise prices and put his constituents out of work.

They almost did just that in Maryland this year.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon

Global warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

[Still Thinking]

How green hysteria will hit the US

"will hit"?? You mean it's going to get WORSE?

[Rurudyne]

Since no one commented on this aspect of the story yet I thought I would.

"But the inconvenient truth is that we have just emerged from two of the calmest storm seasons on record and one of the coldest winters in decades. Of course, one year or even ten does not constitute a long-term trend, which is why the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deploys the words “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in 900 pages."

Ok, if the AGW nutters at the UN's IPCC are allowing that there could be "or even ten" colder years that means they do understand that the climate is controlled by solar output (contrary to other proclamations they may make), they do recognize that we may be already at the beginning of a Dalton Minimum time period, and they are already adjusting their rhetoric so even a genuine climate disaster caused by global cooling will not derail their train of exaggerations, deceptions and — dare I say it — hot air.

I just wanted to point that out. Thanks.

[kempo]

Al Gore is going to try a punish America for not electing him President and get rich at the same time. What a guy.

[SunkenCiv]

If the 'progressives' get their way on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it will be ordinary Americans who suffer, says John Entine

Thanks Rurudyne for the ping.

[FreedomPoster]

Bingo. There you have it. Anyone with any knowledge of what’s behind our energy systems already knew this. For almost everyone else, it’s a surprise.

[I got the rope]

Yes...I suspect the econuts are gearing up for their newest rabbit trail...the dreaded CO2 acidification of the world’s oceans.

[Rocky]

they are already adjusting their rhetoric so even a genuine climate disaster caused by global cooling will not derail their train of exaggerations, deceptions and — dare I say it — hot air.

Yup. They are determined not to let any new scientific information derail their political program. The debate is settled, so don't point out any inconvenient truths, such as global cooling. (Global cooling is the new global warming.)

[SteamShovel]

When the consequences of social engineering run foul, the Dems just blame evil corporate America.

Rat Modus Operandi

[SteamShovel]

if the AGW nutters at the UN's IPCC are allowing that there could be "or even ten" colder years that means they do understand that the climate is controlled by solar output

This is missed (purposely I am sure) by the press.

They are admitting that nature is stronger than ANYTHING man can do And.... if so, the AGW premise is BS.

[Richard Kimball]

I always get aggravated when people say greenies want to take us back to the 1880s. That’s partially true, but they also want to outlaw fireplaces.

[TigersEye]

It is amazing. Whenever a local record for a high temperature is broken it’s proof of Glowbull Warming. But eight years of global cooling, major increases in Antarctic ice pack, significant ocean cooling and a coincidence with decreased solar output can all be dismissed as anomalies that don’t prove any trends at all.

[TigersEye]

Global Warming? Global Cooling? It doesn’t matter. The point is that whichever way the climate is trending we must empty our wallets and fight to make the climate go the other way. It’s penance for the sin of making a living using natural resources.

[Amendment10]

Now we have something akin to that bubble building in the environmental arena, in the inflated rhetoric on global warming rising inexorably from the environmental-political complex. Global warming is a fact. (emphasized by Amendment10) The great questions are not whether the environment is gradually warming but whether it will persist and if so what can or should be done about it – and at what costs.

Given that the oceans cover about 66-70% of the earth's surface, its no surprise that ocean temperatures are regarded as a major indicator of global warming activity. So the slight decrease in ocean temperatures indicated by the Argo System oceanic temperature probes over the past several years reflects on the politically correct foundation of AGW alarmism, in my opinion.

Argo System ocean temperature probes
Argo System web site

[FBD]

bookmark

[Mad Dawgg]

"This whole discussion of man moderating climate change is insane. Changes in the activity of the sun control climate changes on the planets. When environmentalists explain how they are going to control the sun (and some are insane enough to think they can), then man can talk rationally about trying to moderate climate change."

Man made climate change is easy to believe if you go along with the theory that the human population of earth is bursting at the seams. Then when you actually run the numbers on how much of the Earth we humans live on and how much is actually uninhabited, it becomes harder and harder to justify any such claims.

It puts it all into perspective when you realize that if you took the entire human population of the earth and stood them in a military formation (an orderly grouping of people with each person occupying a space roughly 1 square yard) that they would take up an area equal to LESS that than land mass of Rhode Island. IN fact you could put almost 10 Billion people in a land mass that size in such a grouping.

Its not hard to extrapolate from such an example that the only reason people see the Earth as bursting at the seems is because these folks who make such profound statements tend to live in big cities where is does seem the world is overcrowded.